Anyone who travels frequently understands the benefits of NEXUS membership. I have been a member since August 2012 and it is only a slight exaggeration to say that I remember a life before NEXUS.
At airports, NEXUS members avoid long line-ups and save time using automated self-serve kiosks at eight designated Canadian international airports. The wait-times are much less than they are for non-NEXUS passengers. As well, NEXUS members are expedited through Canadian Air Transport Security Authority airport security screening lanes. This is the case even on domestic flights.
Those crossing the US-Canada border by land enjoy a quick and simplified entry process using dedicated lanes. Wait-times are generally a fraction of what they are for non-NEXUS members. It is not uncommon for the NEXUS lane(s) to be empty while the non-NEXUS lanes have wait-times exceeding one hour.
If you’ve never heard of NEXUS, you should read more about it on the CBSA website here.
Considering all the benefits which membership in NEXUS provides, it is understandable why people whose NEXUS membership applications are rejected often seek recourse, as do people who lose their NEXUS.
First Level Recourse Statistics
In 2011-12 (excluding Q4), there were 614 First Level Recourse appeals of NEXUS membership rejections. The cases were broken down as follows:
- Customs – 253
- Criminal – 158
- Immigration – 85
- Program Violations – 27
- Other – 91
Of the 614 cases, 118 were overturned. This 19% success rate represented a slight decline from the 2011 success rate of 22%.
Second Level Recourse Statistics
In 2011-12 (excluding Q4), there were 44 Second Level Recourse appeals of NEXUS membership rejections.Read more ›
Have you submitted an immigration application, gotten a negative response, and cannot figure out why?Read more ›
Many individuals think that either a visa officer, a Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) officer or an Immigration and Refugee Board member is biased against them.
This is not an argument to make lightly.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that in order for an individual to demonstrate that a government decision maker is biased, then:
the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. [T]hat test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically — and having thought the matter through — conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.
As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has also noted that:
Regardless of the precise words used to describe the test, the object of the different formulations is to emphasize that the threshold for a finding of real or perceived bias is high. It is a finding that must be carefully considered since it calls into question an element of judicial integrity. Indeed an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias calls into question not simply the personal integrity of the judge, but the integrity of the entire administration of justice. Where reasonable grounds to make such an allegation arise, counsel must be free to fearlessly raise such allegations. Yet, this is a serious step that should not be undertaken lightly.
As the Supreme Court of Canada stated, an accusation of bias is not something that should be undertaken lightly, and in the overwhelming majority of cases the Federal Court of Canada has dismissed such accusations. The most common accusation that individuals often make is that an individual is biased because of their race.Read more ›