diff --git "a/data/processed/enf.json" "b/data/processed/enf.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/data/processed/enf.json" @@ -0,0 +1,39134 @@ +[ + { + "id": "enf-1-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. What this chapter is about\nThis chapter:\n details the particular inadmissibility provisions of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act (IRPA or the Act) (Division 4 of Part 1); and\n provides functional direction and guidance in applying the inadmissibility provisi ons\nby giving an analysis of each allegation’s case elements, examples of\nrecommended evidence and, in some cases, a summary of jurisprudence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Program objectives\nThe objectives of the Canadian immigration legislation relative to the inadmissibility\nprovisions are:\n to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of\nCanadian society;\n to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights\nand by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are crim inals or\nsecurity risks; and\n to ensure that decisions taken under the Act are consistent with the Canadian\nCharter of Rights and Freedoms, including its principles of equality and freedom\nfrom discrimination and of the equality of English and French as the official\nlanguages of Canada.\nIn dealings with persons who may be inadmissible to Canada, officers control the\nadmission and/or allow for the presence of persons in Canada by referencing the\nvarious inadmissibility provisions of the IRPA.\nPart 1, Division 4 of the Act makes distinctions based on categories of inadmissibility\nrelated to:\n criminality;\n organized criminality;\n security;\n human or international rights violations;\n health;\n financial reasons;\n misrepresentation;\n non-compliance;\n inadmissible family members.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. The Act and Regulations\nFor information about See\nA permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for\n engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to\nCanada’s interests\nA34(1)(a)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 4\n engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government A34(1)(b)\n engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government,\ninstitution or process as they are understood in Canada\nA34(1)(b.1)\n engaging in terrorism A34(1)(c)\n being a danger to the security of Canada A34(1)(d)\n engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety\nof persons in Canada\nA34(1)(e)\n being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to\nbelieve engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph\n(a), (b). (b.1) or (c)\nA34(1)(f)\nA permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating\nhuman or international rights for\n committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in\nsections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act\nA35(1)(a)\n being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the\nopinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or\ngross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against\nhumanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against\nHumanity and War Crimes Act\nA35(1)(b)\n being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry into or stay in\nCanada is restricted pursuant to a decision, resolution or measure of an\ninternational organization of states or association of states, of which Canada\nis a member, that imposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 1 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that organization\nor association\nA35(1)(c)\nA permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious\ncriminality for\n having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament\npunishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years, or of\nan offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of\nmore than six months has been imposed\nA36(1)(a)\n having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in\nCanada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable\nby a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years\nA36(1)(b)\n committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it\nwas committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence\nunder an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment\nof at least ten years\nA36(1)(c)\nA foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for\n having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament\npunishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of\nParliament not arising out of a single occurrence\nA36(2)(a)\n having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in\nCanada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament,\nor of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in\nCanada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament\nA36(2)(b)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 5\n committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it\nwas committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an\nindictable offence under an Act of Parliament\nA36(2)(c)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 2 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament\nprescribed by regulations\nA36(2)(d)\nA permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of\norganized criminality for\n being a member of an organization that is believed on reasonable grounds to\nbe or to have been engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal\nactivity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in\nfurtherance of the commission of an offence punishable under an Act of\nParliament by way of indictment, or in furtherance of the commission of an\noffence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute such\nan offence, or engaging in activity that is part of such a pattern\nA37(1)(a)\n engaging, in the context of transnational crime, in activities such as people\nsmuggling, trafficking in persons or money laundering\nA37(1)(b)\nA foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition\n is likely to be a danger to public health\n is likely to be a danger to public safety\n might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or\nsocial services\nA38(1)(a)\nA38(1)(b)\nA38(1)(c)\nA foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be\nunable or unwilling to support themselves or any other person who is dependent\non them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care\nand support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made\nA39\nA permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation\n for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating\nto a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the\nadministration of the Act\nA40(1)(a)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 3 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be\ninadmissible for misrepresentation\nA40(1)(b)\n on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow the claim for refugee\nprotection by the permanent resident or the foreign national\nA40(1)(c)\n on ceasing to be a citizen under paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, in\nthe circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of that Act\nA40(1)(d)\nA person is inadmissible for failing to comply with the Act\n in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which\ncontravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision the Act\nA41(a)\n in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with A27(2) or\nA28\nA41(b)\nA foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of\nan inadmissible family member if\n their accompanying family member or, in prescribed circumstances, their\nnon-accompanying family member is inadmissible\nA42(a)\n they are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person A42(b)\n The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the A42.1(1)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 6\nmatters referred to in section 34, paragraphs 35(1)(b) and (c) and subsection\n37(1) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national if they\nsatisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\n The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in section 34, paragraphs 35(1)(b) and (c) and subsection 37(1)\ndo not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a foreign national if the Minister\nis satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2)\n In determining whether to make a declaration, the Minister may only take into", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 4 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "account national security and public safety considerations, but, in his or her\nanalysis, is not limited to considering the danger that the foreign national\npresents to the public or the security of Canada.\nA42.1(3)\nCBSA has the policy responsibility with respect to security [A34].\nA34(1)(a)\n34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds\nfor\n(a) engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to\nCanada’s interests;\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may on application by a foreign national , declare that the\nmatters referred to in A34(1)(a) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A34(1)(a) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\nin or outside Canada\nhave or are or will engage(d)(ing) in an act of espionage\nthat is against Canada or\nthat is contrary to Canada’s interests\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A34(1)(a), Section 7.1, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\n“espionage” is the practice of spying; that is, the gathering of information in a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 5 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "surreptitious manner; secretly seeking out information usually from a hostile country to\nbenefit one’s own country.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 7\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing; A101(1):\nA claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA34(1)(b)\n34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds\nfor\n(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government.\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A34(1)(b) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A34(1)(b) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\nin or outside Canada\nhave or are or will engage(d)(ing) in or instigate(d)(ing) the subversion by force of any\ngovernment", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 6 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A34(1)(b),Section 7.2, below.\nA34(1)(b.1)\n34.(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for\n(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or\nprocess as they are understood in Canada.\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A34(1)(b.1) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the\nforeign national if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A34(1)(b.1) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\nin or outside Canada\nhave or are or will engage(d)(ing) in an act of subversion\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 8\nagainst a democratic government or democratic institution or democratic process\nas understood in Canada\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A34(1)(b.1), Section 7.3 below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\n“subversion” is accomplishing change by illicit means or for improper purposes related\nto an organization; overturning or overthrowing by force.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 7 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "“democratic” is relating to government by the people, especially where the people hold\nthe supreme political power.\n“subversion” has to be against “democratic government, institutions or processes as\nthey are understood in Canada.”\nSubversion need not be by force under this section.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing .\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA34(1)(c)\n34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds\nfor\n(c) engaging in terrorism.\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A34(1)(c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A34(1)(c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\nin or outside Canada", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 8 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "have or are or will engage(d)(ing) in terrorism\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 9\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A34(1)(c), Section 7.4, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\n“terrorism” relates to activities directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts\nof violence against persons or property for the purposes of achieving a political\nobjective; an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any\nother person not taking an active part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when\nthe purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to\ncompel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any\nact. (See jurisprudence relating to \"Baroud\" and “Suresh” in Appendix A).\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing .\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nJurisprudence:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 9 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "See applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA34(1)(d)\n34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds\nfor\n(d) being a danger to the security of Canada.\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A34(1)(d) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A34(1)(d) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\nin or outside Canada\nhas been or is or will be a danger to the security of Canada\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A34(1)(d), Section 7.5, below.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 10\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing;.\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 10 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA34(1)(e)\n34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds\nfor\n(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of\npersons in Canada.\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A34(1)(e) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A34(1)(e) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\nin or outside Canada\nhave or are or will engage(d)(ing) in acts of violence that would or might endanger the\nlives or safety of persons in Canada\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A34(1)(e), Section 7.6, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a\nreasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on credible\nevidence.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 11 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "proof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 11\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA34(1)(f)\n34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds\nfor\n(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe\nengages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or\n(c).\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A34(1)(f) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A34(1)(f) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\nin or outside Canada\nwere or are or will be a member of an organization\nthat there are reasonable grounds to believe\nengages or has engaged or will engage in acts of:\nespionage; or\nsubversion; or\nsubversion by force; or\nterrorism", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 12 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "see A34(1)(a), 34(1)(b), 34(1)(b.1) and 34(1)(c).\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A34(1)(f), Section 7.7, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\n“espionage” is the practice of spying; that is, the gathering of information in a\nsurreptitious manner; secretly seeking out information usually from a hostile country to\nbenefit one’s own.\n“subversion” is accomplishing change by illicit means or for improper purposes related\nto an organization; overturning or overthrowing.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 12\n“democratic” is relating to government by the people, especially where the people hold\nthe supreme political power.\n“terrorism” relates to activities directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts\nof violence against persons or property for the purposes of achieving a political\nobjective; an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any\nother person not taking an active part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, wh en\nthe purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to\ncompel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any\nact.(See jurisprudence relating to \"Baroud\" and “Suresh” in Appendix A.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 13 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "a removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing .\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, excep t for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nThe CBSA has the policy responsibility with respect to human and international\nrights violations [A35].\nA35(1)(a)\n35. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of\nviolating human or international rights for\n(a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections\n4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.\nException\nNone.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\noutside Canada\nhave committed an act that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4-7 of the\nCrimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A35(1)(a), Section 7.8, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 14 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "a removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing .\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 13\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nS.6(1) of Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act:\nEvery person who, either before or after the coming into force of this section, commits,\nconspires or attempts to commit, is an accessory after the fact in relation to, or counsels\nin relation to, outside Canada (a) genocide, (b) a crime against humanity, or (c) a war\ncrime, is guilty of an indictable offence.\n\"crime against humanity\" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,\nimprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or\nomission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and\nthat, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity\naccording to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of\nits being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the\ncommunity of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at\nthe time and in the place of its commission.\n\"genocide\" means an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in\npart, an identifiable group of persons, as such, that, at the time and in the place of its\ncommission, constitutes genocide according to customary international law or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 15 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general\nprinciples of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a\ncontravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.\n\"war crime\" means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the\ntime and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary\ninternational law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether\nor not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its\ncommission.\nSee also, chapter ENF 18, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA35(1)(b)\n35. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of\nviolating human or international rights for\n(b) being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion\nof the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights\nviolations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of\nsubsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A35(1)(b) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A35(1)(b) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 16 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 14\npermanent resident or foreign national\noutside Canada\nwas or is a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that in the opinion of\nthe Minister engages or has engaged in terrorism or systematic human rights violations\nor gross human rights violations or genocide, or a war crime or a crime against\nhumanity within the meaning of A6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War\nCrimes Act.\nFor more information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A35(1)(b), Section 7.9, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\nGovernments or regimes that, in the opinion of the Minister of PSEP, are or were\nengaged in systematic or gross human rights violations or war crimes or crimes against\nhumanity are listed in ENF 18, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.\n“terrorism” relates to activities directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts\nof violence against persons or property for the purposes of achieving a political\nobjective; an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any\nother person not taking an active part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when\nthe purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to\ncompel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any\nact. (See jurisprudence relating to \"Baroud\" and “Suresh” in Appendix A).\nThere is no rebuttable presumption for those positions listed in the Regulations. All", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 17 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "other senior government positions carry a rebuttable presumption such that the\napplicant is deemed inadmissible unless they can satisfy the Minister of PSEP that their\npresence is not detrimental to national interest.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing.\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nA64(1): No appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) by a foreign\nnational or their sponsor or by a permanent resident if the foreign national or permanent\nresident has been found to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or\ninternational rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.\nS.6(3) to (5) of Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act:\n\"crime against humanity\" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,\nimprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or\nomission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and\nthat, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity\naccording to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of\nits being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 18 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p19", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at\nthe time and in the place of its commission.\n\"genocide\" means an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in\npart, an identifiable group of persons, as such, that, at the time and in the place of its\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 15\ncommission, constitutes genocide according to customary international law or\nconventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general\nprinciples of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a\ncontravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.\n\"war crime\" means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the\ntime and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary\ninternational law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether\nor not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its\ncommission.\nSee also, manual chapter ENF 18, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA35(1)(c)\n35. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of\nviolating human or international rights for\n(c) being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry into or stay in Canada\nis restricted pursuant to a decision, resolution or measure of an international\norganization of states or association of states, of which Canada is a member, that\nimposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to\nimpose sanctions in concert with that organization or association.\nException", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 19 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p20", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A35(1)(c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interes t.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A35(1)(c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\nforeign national\nentry into or stay in Canada is restricted pursuant to a decision or resolution or measure\nof an international organization or an association of states,\nof which Canada is a member,\nthat imposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has imposed or has agreed\nto impose sanctions in concert with that organization or association\nFor more information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A35(1)(c), Section 7.10, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 16\nFor more information on countries against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to\nimpose sanctions and for a listing and website information, see ENF 2, Appendix C,\nEvaluating Inadmissibility.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nCIC has the policy responsibility with respect to criminality [A36]\nA36(1)(a)\n36. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious\ncriminality for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 20 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p21", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament\npunishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence\nunder an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months\nhas been imposed.\nException\nThe exception only applies to persons who have been granted a record suspension that\nhas not ceased to have effect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act or where\nthere has been a final determination of acquittal [A36(3)(b)].\nInadmissibility may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the\nContraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act [A36(3)(e)].\nNote: The Regulations are currently being amended to reflect the repeal of the Young\nOffenders Act and the coming into force of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.\nCase elements:\nconvicted\npermanent resident or foreign national\nin Canada\noffence under an Act of Parliament\npunishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years or for which a term\nof imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A36(1)(a), Section 7.11, below.\nNotes\nA36(3)(a): An offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment\nis deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily.\nReferral of a report to the Immigration Division; Removal Order - See R228(1)(a):\nFor the purposes of A44(2), if a report in respect of a foreign national does not include\nany grounds of inadmissibility other than those set out in the circumstances described\nunder R228(1) (Note: includes A36(1)(a)), then the Minister’s delegate shall not refer\nthe report to the Immigration Division;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 21 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "and if the Minister’s delegate makes a removal order against the foreign national, the\nremoval order shall be a deportation order.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 17\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA36(1)(b)\n36. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious\ncriminality for\n(b) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada,\nwould constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term\nof imprisonment of at least 10 years.\nException\nPersons who, after the prescribed period, have satisfied the Minister of C&I of their\nrehabilitation; or, persons who are members of a prescribed class that is deemed to\nhave been rehabilitated or have been granted a record suspension that has not ceased\nto have effect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act or where there has been\na final determination of acquittal are excepted (A36(3)(b),(c)).\nInadmissibility may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the\nContraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act (A36(3)(e)).\nNote: The Regulations are currently being amended to reflect the repeal of the Young\nOffenders Act and the coming into force of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.\nCase elements:\nconvicted\npermanent resident or foreign national\noutside Canada\nan offence\nif committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament\npunishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years\nreasonable grounds\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(b), Section 7.12, below.\nNotes\nA36(3)(a): An offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 22 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p23", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily.\nSections A36(1)(b) and (c) and A36(2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility if,\nafter the prescribed period, they have satisfied the Minister of C&I that the persons are\nrehabilitated. The Minister of C&I has delegated to others the authority to find persons\nto be rehabilitated pursuant to the Instruments of Delegation. Please refer to the\nDesignation of Officers and Delegation of Authority documents in IL3 for more details.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA36(1)(c)\n36. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious\ncriminality for\n(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was\ncommitted and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act\nof Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 18\nException\nPersons who, after the prescribed period, have satisfied the Minister of C&I of their\nrehabilitation; or, who are members of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been\nrehabilitated or have been granted a record suspension that has not ceased to have\neffect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act or where there has been a final\ndetermination of acquittal are excepted (A36(3)(b),(c)).\nInadmissibility may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the\nContraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act (A36(3)(e)).\nNote: The Regulations are currently being amended to reflect the repeal of the Young\nOffenders Act and the coming into force of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities (if permanent resident) or reasonable grounds (if foreign", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 23 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p24", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "national)\npermanent resident or foreign national\noutside Canada\ncommitted an act\nan offence in the place where it was committed\nif committed in Canada would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament\npunishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years\nFor information about recommended evidence, how to obtain it, and determining\nequivalency, see Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(c),\nSection 7.13, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\nA36(3)(d): A determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act\ndescribed in A36(1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities.\nA36(3)(a): An offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment\nis deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibilit y hearing.\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, vio lating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 24 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p25", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Paragraphs A36(1)(b) and (c) and A36(2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility if,\nafter the prescribed period, the persons have satisfied the Minister of C&I that they are\nrehabilitated. The Minister of C&I has delegated to others the authority to find persons\nto be rehabilitated pursuant to the Instruments of Delegation. Please refer to the\nDesignation of Officers and Delegation of Authority documents in IL3 for more details.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 19\nA36(2)(a)\n36. (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for\n(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament\npunishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not\narising out of a single occurrence.\nException\nThe exception only applies to persons who have been granted a record suspension that\nhas not ceased to have effect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act or where\nthere has been a final determination of acquittal (A36(3)(b)).\nInadmissibility may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the\nContraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act (A36(3)(e)).\nNote: The Regulations are currently being amended to reflect the repeal of the Young\nOffenders Act and the coming into force of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.\nCase elements:\nconvicted\nforeign national\nin Canada\nunder an Act of Parliament\none offence punishable by way of indictment or two offences not arising out of a single\noccurrence.\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A36(2)(a), Section 7.14, below.\nNotes\nA36(3)(a): An offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 25 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p26", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summ arily.\nAlthough, if a person is convicted summarily of a hybrid offence, the conviction may be\nclassified as a summary conviction.\nReferral of a report to the Immigration Division; Removal Order - See R228(1)(a):\nFor the purposes of A44(2), if a report in respect of a foreign national does not include\nany grounds of inadmissibility other than those set out in the circumstances described\nunder R228(1) (Note: includes A36(2)(a)), then the Minister’s delegate shall not refer\nthe report to the Immigration Division;\nand if the Minister’s delegate makes a removal order against the foreign national, the\nremoval order shall be a deportation order.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA36(2)(b)\n36. (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for\n(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada,\nwould constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not\narising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute\noffences under an Act of Parliament.\nException\nPersons who, after the prescribed period, have satisfied the Minister of C&I of their\nrehabilitation; or, who are members of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 20\nrehabilitated or have been granted a record suspension that has not ceased to have\neffect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act or where there has been a final\ndetermination of acquittal are excepted (A36(3)(b)).\nInadmissibility may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the\nContraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act (A36(3)(e).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 26 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p27", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Note: The Regulations are currently being amended to reflect the repeal of the Young\nOffenders Act and the coming into force of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.\nCase elements:\nConvicted\nforeign national\noutside Canada\noffence(s)\nif committed in Canada would constitute offence(s) under an Act of Parliament\none indictable or any two not arising out of a single occurrence\nreasonable grounds\nFor information about recommended evidence, how to obtain it and determining\nequivalency, see Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)( b),\nSection 7.15, below.\nNotes\nA36(3)(a): An offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment\nis deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA36(2)(c)\n36. (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for\n(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was\ncommitted and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence\nunder an Act of Parliament.\nException\nPersons who, after the prescribed period, have satisfied the Minister of C&I of their\nrehabilitation; or, who are members of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been\nrehabilitated or have been granted a record suspension that has not ceased to have\neffect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act or where there has been a final\ndetermination of acquittal are excepted (A36(3)(b)).\nInadmissibility may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the\nContraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act (A36(3)(e)).\nNote: The Regulations are currently being amended to reflect the repeal of the Young\nOffenders Act and the coming into force of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 27 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p28", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Case elements:\nreasonable grounds\nforeign national\noutside Canada\ncommitted an act\nan offence in the place where it was committed\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 21\nif committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of\nParliament\nFor information about recommended evidence, how to obtain it and determining\nequivalency, see Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)( c),\nSection 7.16, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\nA36(3)(a): An offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment\nis deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing .\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nSections A36(1)(b) and (c) and A36(2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility if,\nafter the prescribed period, the persons have satisfied the Minister of C&I that they are", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 28 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p29", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "rehabilitated. The Minister of C&I has delegated to others the authority to find persons\nto be rehabilitated pursuant to the Instruments of Delegation. Please refer to the\nDesignation of Officers and Delegation of Authority documents in IL 3 for more details.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA36(2)(d)\n36. (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for\n(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed\nby regulations.\nException\nThe exception only applies to persons who have been granted a record suspension that\nhas not ceased to have effect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act or where\nthere has been a final determination of acquittal (A36(3)(b)).\nInadmissibility may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the\nContraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act (A36(3)(e)).\nNote: The Regulations are currently being amended to reflect the repeal of the Young\nOffenders Act and the coming into force of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\nforeign national\nentering Canada\noffence under an Act of Parliament\nprescribed by regulations\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A36(2)(d), Section 7.17, below.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 22\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\nA36(3)(a): An offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 29 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p30", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily.\nR19: Transborder Crime:\nFor the purposes of paragraph A36(2)(d), indictable offences under the following Acts of\nParliament are prescribed:\nthe Criminal Code;\nthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;\nthe Firearms Act;\nthe Customs Act; and\nthe Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nCBSA has the policy responsibility with respect to organized crime [A37].\nA37(1)(a)\n37. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of\norganized criminality for\n(a) being a member of an organization that is believed on reasonable grounds to be or\nto have been engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and\norganized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of\nan offence punishable under an Act of Parliament by way of indictment, or in\nfurtherance of the commission of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in\nCanada, would constitute such an offence, or engaging in activity that is part of such a\npattern.\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A37(1)(a) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A37(1)(a) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA37(1)(a) does not apply in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national if their", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 30 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p31", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "involvement with organized criminal activity is only that they entered Canada with the\nassistance of a person involved in organized criminal activity [A37(2)].\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\nin or outside Canada\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 23\nwas or is\na member of\nan organization that is believed\non reasonable grounds\nto be or to have been\nengaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity\nplanned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the\ncommission of\nan offence or\npattern of offences\npunishable under an Act of Parliament by way of indictment or an equivalent (if\ncommitted outside Canada)\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A37(1)(a), Section 7.18, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive\nproof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing .\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nJurisprudence:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 31 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p32", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "See applicable subsection in Appendix A\nA37(1)(b)\n37. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of\norganized criminality for\n(b) engaging, in the context of transnational crime, in activities such as people\nsmuggling, trafficking in persons or money laundering.\nException\nA42.1(1): The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the\nmatters referred to in A37(1)(b) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign\nnational if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nA42.1(2): The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that the matters\nreferred to in A37(1)(b) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national\nif the Minister is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.\nCase elements:\nreasonable grounds\npermanent resident or foreign national\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 24\nin or outside Canada\nengaged or is engaging or will engage\nin activities such as (Note: this list is not to be considered exhaustive)\npeople smuggling or trafficking in persons or money laundering\nin the context of transnational crime\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A37(1)(b), Section 7.19, below.\nNotes\n“reasonable grounds” means more than mere suspicion but less than the civil test of\nbalance of probabilities. It is a much lower threshold than the criminal standard of\n“beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on\ncredible evidence.\n“transnational crime” is crime that extends or operates across national boundaries.\nA80: If an A77(1) certificate is determined to be reasonable under A80, it is conclusive", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 32 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p33", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "proof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmis sible; it is\na removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the\nnecessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing .\nA101(1): A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) if:\n(f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating\nhuman or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except fo r\npersons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of A35(1)(c).\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nCIC has the policy responsibility with respect to inadmissibility on health grounds [A38].\nA38(1)\n38. (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition\n(a) is likely to be a danger to public health;\n(b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or\n(c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social\nservices.\nException\nNone for A38(1)(a) and (b).\nA38(1)(c) does not apply to a foreign national who:\nhas been determined to be a member of the family class and to be the spouse,\ncommon- law partner or child of a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations;\nhas applied for a permanent resident visa as a Convention refugee or a person in\nsimilar circumstances.\nis a “protected person” (within the meaning of subsection A95(2)); or,\nis, where prescribed by the regulations, the spouse, common-law partner, child or other\nfamily member of a foreign national referred to in any of the aforementioned (A38(2)).\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\nforeign national\nto be a danger to public health (because of health related reasons)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 25", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 33 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-3-p34", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "might be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A38(1)(a), Section 7.20, below.\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals,\nunless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a\nclaim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nR29: For the purposes of A16(2)(b), a medical examination may include any or all of the\nfollowing: a physical examination, a mental examination, a review of past medical\nhistory, laboratory tests, diagnostic tests and a medical assessment of records\nrespecting a person.\nThis allegation requires a medical examination to be done; and the results assessed by\nan officer who is responsible for the application of R27 through R34.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A\nCIC has the policy responsibility with respect to inadmissibility for financial\nreasons [A39].\nA39", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 34 of 34)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-39-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 39", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or\nunwilling to support themselves or any other person who is dependent on them, and\nhave not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other\nthan those that involve social assistance, have been made.\nPlease refer to Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority documents in IL 3 for\nmore details.\nException\nR133(4) stipulates that R133(1)(j) (which requires a “minimum necessary income”) does\nnot apply if the sponsor is sponsoring only one or more or the following persons:\ntheir spouse or common-law partner, unless they have a dependent child who is a\nspouse or common-law partner or has dependent children; and\na child of the sponsor or of their spouse or common-law partner, if the child is less than\n22 years of age, is not a spouse or common-law partner and has no dependent\nchildren.\nA foreign national who is a member of the refugee class, and meets the applicable\nrequirements of Part 8, Division 1 (Refugee Class), is exempted from the applicat ion of\nA39 (R139(3)).\nProtected persons within the meaning of A95(2) are exempted from the application of\nA39 (R21).\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\nforeign national\nare or will\nbe unable or unwilling\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 26\nto support themselves or dependants have not satisfied an officer that adequate\narrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance,\nhave been made.\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A39, Section 7.21, below.\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 39 (A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or) (part 1 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-39-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 39", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "unless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a\nclaim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nA39 applies to persons who presently, or who may in the future, become indigent. The\nallegation will also apply to those persons who refuse to support themselves or any\nother person who is dependent upon them. It is designed to exclude persons intending\nto live or who are living on social assistance and to prevent the abuse of Canada’s\nsocial services systems.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nCIC has the policy responsibility with respect to misrepresentation [A40].\nA40(1)(a)\n40. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation\n(a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a\nrelevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act.\nException\nProtected persons within the meaning of A95(2), other than those whose status has\nbeen vacated; and persons who have made refugee claims in Canada and whose claim\nis still being determined (R22).\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\npermanent resident or foreign national\ndirectly or indirectly\nmisrepresented or withheld\nmaterial facts relating to a relevant matter that\ninduces or could induce\nan error in the administration of this Act", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 39 (A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or) (part 2 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-39-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 39", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A40(1)(a), Section 7.22, below.\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals,\nunless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a\nclaim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 27\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nA40(2)(a): The permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible\nfor misrepresentation for a period of two years following, in the case of a determination\noutside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection A40(1) or, in\nthe case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced.\nA64(3): Sponsor’s right to appeal:\nNo appeal may be made under A63(1) in respect of a decision that was based on a\nfinding of inadmissibility on the ground of misrepresentation, unless the foreign national\nin question is the sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner or child.\nThis is due to the greater humanitarian and compassionate factors that apply in such\ncases.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA40(1)(b)\n40. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation\n(b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be\ninadmissible for misrepresentation.\nException", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 39 (A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or) (part 3 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-39-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 39", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "This allegation may not be used unless the Minister of C&I is satisfied that the facts of\nthe case justify the inadmissibility (A40(2)(b)).\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\npermanent resident or foreign national\nbeing or having been\nsponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A40(1)(b), Section 7.23, below.\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribun als,\nunless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a\nclaim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nA40(2)(a): The permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible\nfor misrepresentation for a period of two years following, in the case of a determination\noutside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection A40(1) or, in\nthe case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced.\nA64(3): Sponsor’s right to appeal:\nNo appeal may be made under A63(1) in respect of a decision that was based on a\nfinding of inadmissibility on the ground of misrepresentation, unless the foreign national\nin question is the sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner or child.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 28", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 39 (A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or) (part 4 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-39-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 39", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "This is due to the greater humanitarian and compassionate factors that apply in such\ncases.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA40(1)(c)\n40. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation\n(c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow the claim for refugee protect ion\nby the permanent resident or the foreign national.\nException\nNone\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\npermanent resident or foreign national\nfinal determination\nto vacate refugee protection claim\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A40(1)(c), Section 7.24, below.\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals,\nunless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a\nclaim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nPersons who are deemed inadmissible under the Act for misrepresentation, based on a\ndecision by the Immigration and Refugee Board to vacate refugee status, will also be\nissued a removal order by the Minister’s delegate without the need to re-establish the\ngrounds of misrepresentation at an inadmissibility hearing (R228(1)(b)).\nReferral of a report to the Immigration Division; Removal Order – (R228(1)(b)):", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 39 (A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or) (part 5 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-39-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 39", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For the purposes of subsection A44(2) of the Act, if a report in respect of a foreign\nnational does not include any grounds of inadmissibility other than those set out in the\ncircumstances described under R228(1) (Note: includes paragraph A40(1)(c)), then the\nMinister’s delegate shall not refer the report to the Immigration Division; and if the\nMinister’s delegate makes a removal order against the foreign national, the Minister’s\ndelegate shall make the removal order a deportation order.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA40(1)(d)\n40. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation\n(d) on ceasing to be a citizen under paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, in the\ncircumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of that Act.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 29\nException\nProtected persons within the meaning of subsection A95(2), other than those whose\nstatus has been vacated; and persons who have made refugee claims in Canada and\nwhose claim is still being determined (R22).\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\npermanent resident or foreign national\nno longer a citizen under paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act\nin the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of that Act\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A41(1)(d), Section 7.25, below.\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals,\nunless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 39 (A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or) (part 6 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-39-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 39", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "claim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nA40(2): The permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for\nmisrepresentation for a period of two years following, in the case of a determination\noutside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection A40(1) or, in\nthe case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced.\nParagraph 10(1)(a) and subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act read as follows:\n10(1): Subject to section 18 but notwithstanding any other section of this Act, where the\nGovernor in Council, on a report from the Minister, is satisfied that any person has\nobtained, retained, renounced or resumed citizenship under this Act by false\nrepresentation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances,\n(a) the person ceases to be a citizen,\nas of such date as may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council with respect\nthereto.\n10(2): A person shall be deemed to have obtained citizenship by false representation or\nfraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances if the person was lawfully\nadmitted to Canada for permanent residence by false representation or fraud or by\nknowingly concealing material circumstances and, because of that admission, the\nperson subsequently obtained citizenship.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nCIC has the policy responsibility with respect to non-compliance [A41].\nA41(a)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 39 (A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or) (part 7 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-41-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 41", + "marginal_note": "A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "41. A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act\n(a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes,\ndirectly or indirectly, a provision of this Act.\nException\nNone.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 30\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\nforeign national\nact or omission\ndirectly or indirectly\ncontravenes a provision in the Act\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A41(a), Section 7.26, below.\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals,\nunless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a\nclaim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nReferral of a report to the Immigration Division; Removal Order - See R228(1)(c):\nFor the purposes of A44(2), and subject to R228(3), if a report in respect of a foreign\nnational does not include any grounds of inadmissibility other than those set out in the\ncircumstances described under R228(1) (Note: includes only specific A41 allegations) ,\nthen the Minister’s delegate shall not refer the report to the Immigration Division; and\nprovided the allegation is specified under R228(1)(c) and if the Minister’s delegate\nmakes a removal order against the foreign national, then the removal order made by the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 41 (A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-41-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 41", + "marginal_note": "A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Minister’s delegate shall be as indicated after each of the following:\n(i) for failing to appear for further examination or an admissibility hearing under Part 1\nof the Act, an exclusion order.\n(ii) for failing to obtain the authorization of an officer required by A52(1), a deportation\norder.\n(iii) for failing to establish that they hold the visa or other document as required under\nA20, an exclusion order.\n(iv) for failing to leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay as\nrequired by subsection A29(2), an exclusion order.\n(v) for failing to comply with A29(2) to comply with any condition set out in R184, an\nexclusion order.\nR228(3): If a claim for refugee protection is referred to the Refugee Protection Division\n(RPD), a departure order is the applicable removal order in the circumstances set out in\nany of subparagraphs R228(1)(c)(i) and (iii) to (v).\nRelevant Provisions of the Act:\nA11(1): A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or\nfor any other document required by the regulations.\nA16(1): A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to\nthem for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant\nevidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.\nA16(1.1) A person who makes an application must, on request of an officer, appear for\nan examination.\nNote: The power to compel for an examination under subsection 16(1.1) of IRPA may be used\noverseas, inland and at ports of entry.\nA16(2)(b): The foreign national must submit to a medical examination on request.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 31\nA16(2.1) A foreign national who makes an application must, on request of an officer,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 41 (A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-41-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 41", + "marginal_note": "A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "appear for an interview for the purpose of an investigation conducted by the Canadian\nSecurity Intelligence Service under section 15 of the Canadian Security Intelligence\nService Act for the purpose of providing advice or information to the Minister under\nsection 14 of that Act and must answer truthfully all questions put to them during the\ninterview.\nNote: The power to compel for a CSIS interview under subsection 16(2.1) can only be used\nfor inland and port of entry applications.\nA18(1): Every person seeking to enter Canada must appear for an examination to\ndetermine whether that person has a right to enter Canada or is or may become\nauthorized to enter and remain in Canada.\nA20(1)(a): Every foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in A19, who\nseeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish, to become a permanent resident,\nthat they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations and have come\nto Canada in order to establish permanent residence.\nA20(1)(b): Every foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in A19, who\nseeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish, to become a temporary resident,\nthat they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations and will leave\nCanada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.\nA29(2): A temporary resident must comply with any conditions imposed under the\nregulations and with any requirements under this Act, must leave Canada by the end of\nthe period authorized for their stay and may re- enter Canada only if their authorization\nprovides for re-entry.\nA30(1): A foreign national may not work or study in Canada unless authorized to do so\nunder this Act.\nA44(3): An officer or the Immigration Division may impose any conditions, including the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 41 (A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-41-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 41", + "marginal_note": "A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "payment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee for compliance with the conditions\nthat the officer or the Division considers necessary on a permanent resident or a foreign\nnational who is the subject of a report, an admissibility hearing or, being in Canada, a\nremoval order.\nA52(1): If a removal order has been enforced, a foreign national shall not return to\nCanada unless authorized by an officer or in other prescribed circumstances.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA41(b)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 41 (A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-41-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 41", + "marginal_note": "A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "41. A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act\n(b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection 27(2)\nor section 28.\nException\nNone.\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\npermanent resident\nthrough failing to comply with\nsubsection A27(2) or section A28 of this Act\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A41(b), Section 7.27, below.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 32\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals,\nunless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a\nclaim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nThe residency obligation in the Act is based on a period of physical presence in Canada\nwith provisions for prolonged absences from Canada (three years out of every five -year\nperiod for any reason). In certain circumstances, permanent residents including\naccompanying family members, are allowed even longer absences when they are\nemployed abroad. Humanitarian and compassionate considerations, including the best\ninterests of a child, will be taken into account in all residency obligation status\ndeterminations and, when justified, will overcome any breach of those obligations that\nmay have occurred prior to the determination (A28(2)(c)).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 41 (A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-41-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 41", + "marginal_note": "A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "R228(2): For the purposes of subsection A44(2), if the Minister’s delegate makes a\nremoval order against a permanent resident who fails to comply with the residency\nobligation under A28, the order shall be a departure order.\nRelevant Provisions of the Act:\nA44(3): An officer or the Immigration Division may impose any conditions, including the\npayment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee for compliance with the conditions\nthat the officer or the Division considers necessary on a permanent resident or a foreign\nnational who is the subject of a report, an admissibility hearing or, being in Canada, a\nremoval order.\nA27(2): A permanent resident must comply with any conditions imposed under the\nregulations.\nA28(1): A permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to\nevery five- year period.\nA28(2): The following provisions govern the residency obligation under subsection\nA28(1):\n(a) a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five -\nyear period if, on each of a total or at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are:\n(i) physically present in Canada,\n(ii) outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or\ncommon-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent,\n(iii) outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the\npublic service of Canada or of a province\n(iv) outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or\ncommon-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on\na full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the public service of Canada or of a\nprovince, or\n(v) referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance\n(b) it is sufficient for a permanent resident to demonstrate at examination:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 41 (A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-41-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 41", + "marginal_note": "A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will be\nable to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately\nafter they became a permanent resident;\n(ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have\nmet the residency obligation in respect of the five- year period immediately before\nthe examination; and\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 33\n(c) a determination by an officer that humanitarian and compassionate considerations\nrelating to a permanent resident, taking into account the best interests of a child directly\naffected by the determination, justify the retention of permanent resident status\novercomes any breach of the residency obligation prior to the determination.\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nCIC has the policy responsibility with respect to inadmissible family members\n[A42].\nA42(a)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 41 (A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-42-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 42", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "42. A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an\ninadmissible family member if\n(a) their accompanying family member or, in prescribed circumstances, their non -\naccompanying family member is inadmissible.\nException\nA protected person within the meaning of subsection A95(2).\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\nforeign national (other than a protected person)\nentering Canada\ntheir accompanying family member or non-accompanying family member (in prescribed\ncircumstances) is inadmissible\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A42(a), Section 7.28, below.\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals,\nunless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a\nclaim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nUnder the provisions of A42, foreign nationals may be found inadmissible if their\naccompanying family member or, in circumstances prescribed by Regulations , a family\nmember who does not accompany them is inadmissible. Further, they may be found to\nbe inadmissible themselves if they accompany an inadmissible family member.\nThe person concerned must be “of the family” or “a family member”; in the absence of\nthis, the allegation is unsupportable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 42 (A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-42-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 42", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Referral of a report to the Immigration Division; Removal Order - See R228(1)(d):\nFor the purposes of subsection A44(2), and subject to R228(3), if a report in respect of\na foreign national does not include any grounds of inadmissibility other than those set\nout in the circumstances described under R228(1) (Note: includes section A42), then\nthe Minister’s delegate shall not refer the report to the Immigration Division;\nand\nif the Minister’s delegate makes a removal order against the foreign national, the\nMinister’s delegate shall make the same removal order as was made in respect of the\ninadmissible family member.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 34\nR228(3): If a claim for refugee protection is referred to the Refugee Protection Division\n(RPD), a departure order is the applicable removal order in the circumstances set out in\nany of subparagraphs R228(1)(c)(i) and (iii) to (v).\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.\nA42(b)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 42 (A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-42-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 42", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "42. A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an\ninadmissible family member if\n(b) they are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person.\nException\nA protected person within the meaning of subsection A95(2).\nCase elements:\nbalance of probabilities\nforeign national (other than a protected person)\nentering Canada\nthey are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person\nFor information about recommended evidence and how to obtain it, see Obtaining\nevidence for A42(b), Section 7.29, below.\nNotes\n“balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals,\nunless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the\nfacts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of\nproof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a\nclaim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or\noutweighs opposing evidence. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used\nin criminal proceedings.\nUnder the provisions of section A42, foreign nationals may be found inadmissible if their\naccompanying family member or, in circumstances prescribed by the Regulations, a\nfamily member who does not accompany them is inadmissible. Further, the person\nconcerned may be found to be inadmissible themselves if they accompany an\ninadmissible family member.\nThe person concerned must be “of the family” or “a family member”; in the absence of\nthis, the allegation is unsupportable.\nReferral of a report to the Immigration Division; Removal Order - See R228(1)(d):", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 42 (A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-42-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 42", + "marginal_note": "A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For the purposes of subsection A44(2), and subject to R228(3), if a report in respect of\na foreign national does not include any grounds of inadmissibility other than those set\nout in the circumstances described under R228(1) (Note: includes section A42), then\nthe Minister’s delegate shall not refer the report to the Immigration Division;\nand\nif the Minister’s delegate makes a removal order against the foreign national, the\nMinister’s delegate shall make the same removal order as was made in respect of the\ninadmissible family member.\nR228(3): If a claim for refugee protection is referred to the Refugee Protection Division\n(RPD), a departure order is the applicable removal order in the circumstances set out in\nany of subparagraphs R228(1)(c)(i) and (iii) to (v).\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 35\nJurisprudence:\nSee applicable subsection in Appendix A.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 42 (A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Instruments and delegations\nThe Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority documents for the various\nadmissibility sections of the Act have been described in more detail in ENF2/OP18.\nPlease refer to the Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority documents in IL3\nfor more details.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Departmental policy\nDivision 4 of Part 1 of the IRPA contains the core provisions relating to inadmissibility;\nthat is to say, most provisions relating to inadmissibility are contained in the Act.\nThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (C&I) is responsible for the administration\nof IRPA, with the exception of the areas for which the Minister of Public Safety and\nEmergency Preparedness (PSEP) has responsibility as described below.\nThe Minister of PSEP is responsible for the administration of the IRPA as it relates to:\n the examination at ports of entry;\n the enforcement of the Act, including arrest, detention and removal;\n Designation under A20.1(1)\n the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of the Act and\ninadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human\nor international rights; or\n declarations under A42.1(1) and A42.1(2).\nSection A43 authorizes the making of regulations to provide for matters relating to\ninadmissibility and to define circumstances in which a class of permanent residents or\nforeign nationals is exempted from any of the inadmissibility provisions.\nThe use of regulations allows the government to introduce a greater degree of\ntransparency. In most cases, persons not covered by the regulations may still be\nconsidered described or eligible for a specific relief provision after an assessment of the\nindividual evidence. In this way, the regulations and schedules are not exhaustive but\nwill address the most straightforward cases.\nThe purpose of regulations is to more objectively define criteria for specified allegations.\nThe aim is to increase the objective factor and reduce the subjective factor in the\ndecision-making process through greater codification in the regulations where possible.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 5 (Departmental policy) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "With improved definition, greater transparency is introduced and outcomes or decisions\nbecome more predictable for some cases.\nReliance on regulations and schedules provides maximum flexibility and retains the\ngovernment’s capacity to respond quickly to environmental or policy shifts.\nThe Act groups regulation-making authority with the sections of the Act to which the\nregulations will be applicable. This makes it clearer, when reading the Act, where\nregulatory authority comes from, as well as its scope, limits and application.\nThe Act requires the Ministers to table any proposed regulations respecting\nexaminations, rights and obligations of permanent and temporary residents, loss of\nstatus and removal, detention and release, refugee eligibility, the pre-removal risk\nassessment, transportation companies and information-sharing before each House of\nParliament for referral to the appropriate Committee of that House. This will allow the\nStanding Committees to provide input into regulations and will strengthen citizens’\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 36\ncapacity to play an active role in shaping regulations through an open and transparent\nregulatory process.\n(See also Chapter ENF 2, Evaluating Inadmissibility.)\nFor information on writing and reviewing A44 reports, please refer to ENF 5 and ENF 6.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 5 (Departmental policy) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(a)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1. Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(a)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A34(1)(a) by collecting:\n police or intelligence reports;\n statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.1 (Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(a))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2. Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(b)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A34(1)(b) by collecting:\n police or intelligence reports;\n statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.2 (Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(b))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(b.1)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3. Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(b.1)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A34(1)(b.1) by collecting:\n police or intelligence reports;\n statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.3 (Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(b.1))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4. Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(c)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A34(1)(c) by collecting:\n police or intelligence reports;\n statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.4 (Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(c))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(d)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5. Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(d)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A34(1)(d) by collecting:\n police or intelligence reports;\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 37\n statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.5 (Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(d))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(e)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6. Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(e)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A34(1)(e) by collecting:\n police or intelligence reports;\n statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer;\n weapon(s) or documentation that may be in the person’s possession that indicate\nplanned violence;\n available public writings that establish the propensity for violent acts by the\nindividual (e.g., newspaper articles about individuals such as hijackers or terrorists);\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.6 (Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(e))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(f)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7. Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(f)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A34(1)(f) by collecting:\n police or intelligence reports;\n statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.7 (Obtaining evidence for A34(1)(f))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.8", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A35(1)(a)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.8. Obtaining evidence for A35(1)(a)\nIn all paragraph A35(1)(a) human or international rights violation cases, officers are\nadvised to contact their Regional War Crimes Unit or the Modern War Crimes Unit,\nNational Security Division, CBSA, NHQ, for assistance with case file preparation.\nExperience has shown that there is considerable effort required before these types of\ncases may go forward.\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A35(1)(a) by collecting:\n statutory declaration including documentary evidence, testimony from witnesses, or\nan admission by the person him/herself establishing that the person concerned has\ncommitted an act that constitutes a war crime or a crime against humanity as\ndefined in the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;\n evidence that the act committed is a contravention of international law or convention\nby securing the text of the applicable international law or convention;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.8 (Obtaining evidence for A35(1)(a))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.9", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A35(1)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.9. Obtaining evidence for A35(1)(b)\nIn all paragraph A35(1)(b) human or international rights violation cases, officers are\nadvised to contact their Regional War Crimes Unit or the Modern War Crimes Unit,\nNational Security Division, CBSA, NHQ, for assistance with case file preparation.\nExperience has shown that there is considerable effort required before these c ases may\ngo forward.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 38\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A35(1)(b) by collecting:\n statutory declaration including documentary evidence, testimony from witnesses, or\nan admission by the person him/herself establishing that they held one of the\nnamed positions set out in R16;\n documentary evidence, testimony from witnesses, or an admission by the person\nhim/herself establishing that the person was able, by virtue of the position they held\nin the regime (see ENF 18, Appendix E), to exert significant influence on that\nregime’s exercise of its powers even if the person concerned did not hold one of the\npositions listed in R16 but nonetheless held a senior position in the listed regime;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, schol arly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.9 (Obtaining evidence for A35(1)(b))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A35(1)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.10. Obtaining evidence for A35(1)(c)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A35(1)(c) by collecting:\n proof that the person concerned is a citizen of a country against which Canada has\nimposed or has agreed to impose sanctions;\n proof of the international organization of states of association of states valid\ndecision, resolution or measure (see also ENF 2, Evaluating Inadmissibility);\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles; scholarly\njournals; expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.10 (Obtaining evidence for A35(1)(c))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.11", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A36(1)(a)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.11. Obtaining evidence for A36(1)(a)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A36(1)(a) by collecting:\n proof of conviction: This is preferable and should be introduced into evidence at an\nadmissibility hearing so that it forms part of the record, even if the person\nconcerned concedes the allegation. Such proof consists of a certified copy of the\nConviction Certificate or the Warrant of Committal. A certified copy of the court\ninformation containing the accusations against the person concerned and indicating\na conviction may also be used;\n text of the Canadian statute to prove that the offence is punishable by a term of\nimprisonment of at least ten years or proof that a term of imprisonment of more than\nsix months was imposed, whichever is applicable;\n statutory declaration – evidence of statements made to an officer;\n statutory declaration including documentary evidence, testimony from witnesses, or\nan admission by the person him/herself establishing that the person concerned has\nbeen convicted of an offence in Canada. If a person is not contesting a criminality\nallegation, then the person's admission of such criminality, which may take the form\nof a statutory declaration, can also constitute sufficient evidence. In-Canada\nconvictions may be confirmed through the Canadian Police Information Centre\n(CPIC). See ENF 13, CPIC and Interpol Procedures for CIC.\nNote: Testimony and/or declarations of the person concerned or witnesses: This method of\nestablishing inadmissibility, when used in the absence of documentary evidence, is the least\ndesirable as the person concerned may be unable to recite the details of the conviction.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.11 (Obtaining evidence for A36(1)(a))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-12-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.12", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.12. Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(b)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A36(1)(b) by collecting:\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 39\n proof of conviction: This is preferable and should be introduced into evidence at the\nadmissibility hearing even if the person concerned concedes the allegation. Such\nproof includes conviction certificates, warrants of committal, appropriately noted\ninformation or indictment (bill of indictment), or a telexed, e-mailed or telephoned\nstatement from the appropriate foreign authorities confirming that the relevant\nrecords indicate a conviction. If confirmation of conviction is received by telephone,\nthe receiving officer should complete a statutory declaration attesting to that fact;\n factual background that led to the conviction(s). This evidence may be obtained\nfrom the courts, the police authorities in the foreign country, or the person\nconcerned;\n statutory declaration - evidence of statements made to an officer;\n statutory declaration including documentary evidence, testimony from witnesses, or\nan admission by the person him/herself establishing that the person concerned has\nbeen convicted of an offence outside Canada. If a person is not contesting a\ncriminality allegation, then the person's admission of such criminality which may\ntake the form of a statutory declaration can also constitute sufficient evidence.\nConvictions in the United States of America may be confirmed through the\nCanadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). See AD 13, CPIC and Interpol\nProcedures for CIC;\nNote: Testimony and/or declarations of the person concerned or witnesses: This method of\nestablishing inadmissibility, when used in the absence of documentary evidence, is the least", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.12 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(b)) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-12-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.12", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "desirable as the person concerned may be unable to recite the details of the conviction.\n the text of the foreign offence and the text of the equivalent Canadian offence. This\nevidence is required to establish equivalence. With respect to the foreign offence, a\nphotocopy of the relevant provision of the foreign law is sufficient. This may be\nobtained from law libraries, embassies, or consulates. The texts must be introduced\ninto evidence at the admissibility hearing so that they will form part of the official\nrecord. It is recognized that not all countries codify their criminal laws in a text of\nstatutes as is done in Canada. In such cases, officers should use their best efforts\nto obtain a legal description of the foreign offence. Such descriptions may be\nobtained from foreign jurisprudence in law libraries or from embassies or\nconsulates. In the absence of such a description, evidence of the facts that led to\nthe conviction may be sufficient to support a finding that the person is described;\n in preparation for the admissibility hearing, evidence should be obtained showing\nthat the person concerned has not satisfied the Minister of C&I that they have\nrehabilitated themselves. Although the person concerned has the onus of proving\nthat the Minister of C&I has approved of their rehabilitation, the officer should\nnevertheless confirm whether such approval has been issued in order to ascertain\nwhether the referral for a hearing should be withdrawn or to counter possible\ntestimony by the person him/herself that rehabilitation approval was issued;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.12 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(b)) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-12-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.12", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Equivalency can be determined three ways:\n by comparison of the precise wording in each statute both through documents and,\nif available, through the evidence of an expert or experts in the foreign law with a\nview to determining the essential ingredients of the respective offences;\n by examining the evidence adduced before the member of the Immigration Division,\nboth oral and documentary, to ascertain whether or not that evidence was sufficient\nto establish that the essential ingredients of the offence in Canada had been proven\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 40\nin the foreign proceedings, whether precisely described in the initiating documents\nor in the statutory provisions in the same words or not; or\n by a combination of the two.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.12 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(b)) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-13-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.13", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.13. Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(c)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A36(1)(c) by collecting:\n statutory declaration - evidence of statements made to an officer;\n statutory declaration including documentary evidence, testimony from witnesses, or\nan admission by the person him/herself establishing that the person concerned has\ncommitted an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was\ncommitted. If a person is not contesting a criminality allegation, then the person's\nadmission of such criminality, which may take the form of a statutory declaration,\ncan also constitute sufficient evidence;\nNote: Testimony and/or declarations of the person concerned or witnesses: This method of\nestablishing inadmissibility, when used in the absence of documentary evidence, is the least\ndesirable as the person concerned may be unable to recite the details of the offence.\n evidence that constitutes “a balance of probabilities” that the person concerned\ncommitted a prohibited act outside Canada. Evidence may consist of security or\npolice reports, court records, newspaper clippings, or statutory declarations from\nforeign authorities that demonstrate that an offence has been committed; that an\narrest warrant is outstanding; that charges are pending; and/or that the person has\nbeen indicted;\n the text of the foreign legislation and the text of the Canadian legislation to establish\nequivalence and to prove that the offence is punishable under an Act of Parliament\nby way of indictment for a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years.\nWith respect to the foreign offence, a photocopy of the relevant provision of the\nforeign law is sufficient. This may be obtained from law libraries, embassies, or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.13 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(c)) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-13-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.13", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "consulates. The texts must be introduced into evidence at the admissibility hearing\nso that they will form part of the official record. It is recognized that not all countries\ncodify their criminal laws in a text of statutes as is done in Canada. In such cases,\nofficers should use their best efforts to obtain a legal description of the foreign\noffence. Such descriptions may be obtained from foreign jurisprudence in law\nlibraries or from embassies or consulates. In the absence of such a description,\nevidence of the facts that led to the conviction may be sufficient to support a finding\nthat the person is described;\n in preparation for the admissibility hearing, evidence should be obtained showing\nthat the person concerned has not satisfied the Minister of C&I that they have\nrehabilitated themselves. Although the person concerned has the onus of proving\nthat the Minister of C&I has approved of their rehabilitation, the officer should\nnevertheless confirm whether such approval has been issued in order to ascertain\nwhether the referral for a hearing should be withdrawn or to counter possible\ntestimony by the person him/herself that rehabilitation approval was issued;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).\nEquivalency can be determined three ways:\n by comparison of the precise wording in each statute both through documents and,\nif available, through the evidence of an expert or experts in the foreign law with a\nview to determining the essential ingredients of the respective offences;\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 41", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.13 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(c)) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-13-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.13", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " by examining the evidence adduced before the member of the Immigration Division,\nboth oral and documentary, to ascertain whether or not that evidence was sufficient\nto establish that the essential ingredients of the offence in Canada had been proven\nin the foreign proceedings, whether precisely described in the initiating documents\nor in the statutory provisions in the same words or not; or\n by a combination of the two.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.13 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(1)(c)) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-14-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.14", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A36(2)(a)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.14. Obtaining evidence for A36(2)(a)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A36(2)(a) by collecting:\n proof of conviction: This is preferable and should be introduced into evidence so\nthat it forms part of the record even if the person concerned concedes the\nallegation. Such proof consists of a certified copy of the conviction certificate or the\nwarrant of committal. A certified copy of the court information containing the\naccusations against the person concerned and indicating a conviction may also be\nused;\n text of the Canadian statute setting out the indictable offence or summary\nconvictions of which the person concerned has been convicted;\n statutory declaration - evidence of statements made to an officer;\n statutory declaration including documentary evidence, testimony from witnesses, or\nan admission by the person him/herself establishing that the person concerned has\nbeen convicted of an offence or offences in Canada. If a person is not contesting a\ncriminality allegation, then the person's admission of such criminality which may\ntake the form of a statutory declaration can also constitute sufficient evidence. In-\nCanada convictions may be confirmed through the Canadian Police Information\nCentre (CPIC). See AD 13 CPIC and Interpol Procedures for CIC;\nNote: Testimony and/or declarations of the person concerned or witnesses: This method of\nestablishing inadmissibility, when used in the absence of documentary evidence, is the least\ndesirable as the person concerned may be unable to recite the details of the conviction.\n evidence that the convictions did not arise from the same occurrence (if applicable).\nThis evidence can usually be found in court or police documents setting out the\nfactual background of the offence, such as the court information or the police", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.14 (Obtaining evidence for A36(2)(a)) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-14-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.14", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A36(2)(a)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "reports;\n evidence, where relevant, that the person concerned is not a Canadian citizen or a\npermanent resident. To establish that the person concerned is not a Canadian\ncitizen, an admission by the person directly or documented through a statutory\ndeclaration is considered sufficient evidence. A letter from CPC Sydney stating that\nthere is no record that the person concerned is a citizen of Canada is also sufficient.\nTo establish that the person concerned is not a permanent resident of Canada, an\nadmission by the person directly or documented through a statutory declaration is\nconsidered sufficient evidence. A Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, document\nindicating no confirmation of permanent residence is also sufficient.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.14 (Obtaining evidence for A36(2)(a)) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-15-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.15", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.15. Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(b)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A36(2)(b) by collecting:\n proof of conviction: This is preferable and should be introduced into evidence at the\nadmissibility hearing even if the person concerned concedes the allegation. Such\nproof includes conviction certificates, warrants of committal, appropriately noted\ninformation or indictment (bill of indictment), or a telexed, e-mailed or telephoned\nstatement from the appropriate foreign authorities confirming that the relevant\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 42\nrecords indicate a conviction. If confirmation of conviction is received by telephone,\nthe receiving officer should complete a statutory declaration attesting to that fact;\n factual background that led to the conviction(s). This evidence may be obtai ned\nfrom the courts, the police authorities in the foreign country, or the person\nconcerned;\n statutory declaration - evidence of statements made to an officer;\n statutory declaration including documentary evidence, testimony from witnesses, or\nan admission by the person him/herself establishing that the person concerned has\nbeen convicted of an offence or offences outside Canada. If a person is not\ncontesting a criminality allegation, then the person's admission of such criminality\nwhich may take the form of a statutory declaration can also constitute sufficient\nevidence. Convictions in the United States of America may be confirmed through\nthe Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). See AD 13, CPIC and Interpol\nProcedures for CIC;\nNote: Testimony and/or declarations of the person concerned or witnesses: This method of\nestablishing inadmissibility, when used in the absence of documentary evidence, is the least", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.15 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(b)) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-15-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.15", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "desirable as the person concerned may be unable to recite the details of the conviction.\n the text of the foreign legislation and the text of the Canadian legislation to establish\nequivalence. With respect to the foreign offence, a photocopy of the relevant\nprovision of the foreign law is sufficient. This may be obtained from law libraries,\nembassies, or consulates. The texts must be introduced into evidence at the\nadmissibility hearing so that they will form part of the official record. It is recognized\nthat not all countries codify their criminal laws in a text of statutes as is done in\nCanada. In such cases, officers should use their best efforts to obtain a legal\ndescription of the foreign offence. Such descriptions may be obtained from foreign\njurisprudence in law libraries or from embassies or consulates. In the absence of\nsuch a description, evidence of the facts that led to the conviction may be sufficient\nto support a finding that the person is described;\n evidence that the convictions did not arise from the same occurrence (if applicable).\nThis evidence can usually be found in court or police documents setting out the\nfactual background of the offence, such as the court information or the police\nreports;\n evidence, where relevant, that the person concerned is not a Canadian citizen or a\npermanent resident. To establish that the person concerned is not a Canadian\ncitizen, an admission by the person directly or documented through a statutory\ndeclaration is considered sufficient evidence. A letter from CPC Sydney stating that\nthere is no record that the person concerned is a citizen of Canada is also sufficien t.\nTo establish that the person concerned is not a permanent resident of Canada, an", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.15 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(b)) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-15-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.15", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "admission by the person directly or documented through a statutory declaration is\nconsidered sufficient evidence. A Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, document\nindicating no confirmation of permanent residence is also sufficient;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).\nEquivalency can be determined three ways:\n by comparison of the precise wording in each statute both through documents and,\nif available, through the evidence of an expert or experts in the foreign law with a\nview to determining the essential ingredients of the respective offences;\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 43\n by examining the evidence adduced before the member of the Immigration Division,\nboth oral and documentary, to ascertain whether or not that evidence was sufficient\nto establish that the essential ingredients of the offence in Canada had been proven\nin the foreign proceedings, whether precisely described in the initiating documents\nor in the statutory provisions in the same words or not; or\n by a combination of the two.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.15 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(b)) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-16-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.16", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.16. Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(c)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A36(2)(c) by collecting:\n statutory declaration - evidence of statements made to an officer;\n statutory declaration including documentary evidence, testimony from witnesses, or\nan admission by the person him/herself establishing that the person concerned has\ncommitted an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was\ncommitted. If a person is not contesting a criminality allegation, then the person's\nadmission of such criminality which may take the form of a statutory declaration can\nalso constitute sufficient evidence;\nNote: Testimony and/or declarations of the person concerned or witnesses: This method of\nestablishing inadmissibility, when used in the absence of documentary evidence, is the least\ndesirable as the person concerned may be unable to recite the details of the offence.\n evidence that constitutes “reasonable grounds” that the person concerned\ncommitted prohibited act(s) outside Canada. Evidence may consist of security or\npolice reports, court records, newspaper clippings, or statutory declarations from\nforeign authorities that demonstrate that an offence has been committed, and that\nan arrest warrant is outstanding, that charges are pending and/or that the person\nhas been indicted;\n the text of the foreign legislation and the text of the Canadian legislation to establish\nequivalence. With respect to the foreign offence, a photocopy of the relevant\nprovision of the foreign law is sufficient. This may be obtained from law libraries,\nembassies, or consulates. The texts must be introduced into evidence at the\nadmissibility hearing so that they will form part of the official record. It is recognized", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.16 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(c)) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-16-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.16", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "that not all countries codify their criminal laws in a text of statutes as is done in\nCanada. In such cases, officers should use their best efforts to obtain a legal\ndescription of the foreign offence. Such descriptions may be obtained from foreign\njurisprudence in law libraries or from embassies or consulates. In the absence of\nsuch a description, evidence of the facts that led to the conviction may be sufficient\nto support a finding that the person is described;\n in preparation for the admissibility hearing, evidence should be obtained showing\nthat the person concerned has not satisfied the Minister of C&I that they have\nrehabilitated themselves. Although the person concerned has the onus of proving\nthat the Minister of C&I has approved of their rehabilitation, the officer should\nnevertheless confirm whether such approval has been issued in order to ascertain\nwhether the referral for a hearing should be withdrawn or to counter possible\ntestimony by the person him/herself that rehabilitation approval was issued;\n evidence, where relevant, that the person concerned is not a Canadian citizen or a\npermanent resident. To establish that the person concerned is not a Canadian\ncitizen, an admission by the person directly or documented through a statutory\ndeclaration is considered sufficient evidence. A letter from CPC Sydney stating that\nthere is no record that the person concerned is a citizen of Canada is also sufficient.\nTo establish that the person concerned is not a permanent resident of Canada, an\nadmission by the person directly or documented through a statutory declaration is\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 44\nconsidered sufficient evidence. A Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, document\nindicating no confirmation of permanent residence is also sufficient;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.16 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(c)) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-16-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.16", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion).\nEquivalency can be determined three ways:\n by comparison of the precise wording in each statute both through documents and,\nif available, through the evidence of an expert or experts in the foreign law with a\nview to determining the essential ingredients of the respective offences;\n by examining the evidence adduced before the member of the Immigration Division,\nboth oral and documentary, to ascertain whether or not that evidence was su fficient\nto establish that the essential ingredients of the offence in Canada had been proven\nin the foreign proceedings, whether precisely described in the initiating documents\nor in the statutory provisions in the same words or not; or\n by a combination of the two.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.16 (Obtaining evidence and determining equivalency for A36(2)(c)) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A36(2)(d)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.17. Obtaining evidence for A36(2)(d)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A36(2)(d) by collecting:\n statutory declaration, including evidence, indicating that the person concerned did\ncommit, upon entering Canada, a prescribed offence. For example, a statutory\ndeclaration signed by the person concerned admitting having committed a\nprescribed offence or signed by an officer (be that a CBSA officer or a Police\nofficer)—confirming, that the person did commit, upon entering Canada, a\nprescribed offence;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion);\n the text of the Act of Parliament that was violated;\n proof that the act is one prescribed by the Regulations;\n evidence, where relevant, that the person concerned is not a Canadian citizen or a\npermanent resident. To establish that the person concerned is not a Canadian\ncitizen, an admission by the person directly or documented through a statutory\ndeclaration is considered sufficient evidence. A letter from CPC Sydney stating that\nthere is no record that the person concerned is a citizen of Canada is also sufficient.\nTo establish that the person concerned is not a permanent resident of Canada, an\nadmission by the person directly or documented through a statutory declaration is\nconsidered sufficient evidence. A Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, document\nindicating no confirmation of permanent residence is also sufficient.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.17 (Obtaining evidence for A36(2)(d))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.18", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A37(1)(a)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.18. Obtaining evidence for A37(1)(a)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A37(1)(a) by collecting:\n police or intelligence reports;\n statutory declaration and/or confirming testimony of credible witnesses;\n proof that the organization is involved in criminal activity;\n text of the applicable Canadian offence that may be punishable by way of\nindictment;\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 45\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion);\nWhere the evidence (establishing that the person concerned may be described in\nA37(1)(a)) consists of reliable, confidential, unreleasable documents, no action is to be\ntaken until a confidential report is prepared on the case and submitted to the Director\nGeneral Intelligence Directorate, National Security Division, CBSA, NHQ, in accordance\nwith IC 1. The Director General will review the case and provide guidance on how to\nproceed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.18 (Obtaining evidence for A37(1)(a))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-19", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.19", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A37(1)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.19. Obtaining evidence for A37(1)(b)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A37(1)(b) by collecting:\n police or intelligence reports;\n statutory declaration and/or confirming testimony of credible witnesses;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion);", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.19 (Obtaining evidence for A37(1)(b))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-20", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.20", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A38(1)(a)(b)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.20. Obtaining evidence for A38(1)(a)(b)(c)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A38(1)(a), (b) and (c) by collecting:\n a medical certificate signed by an officer who is responsible for the application of\nsections R27 through R34;\n copies of any records reviewed by the officer who assessed the person’s health\ncondition are not necessary but would be desirable. It is important that the\nassessing officer’s statement of opinion accurately and correctly identifies the\nperson concerned. Factors that are to be considered by an officer who assesses a\nperson’s health condition are described in the Regulations;\n other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly\njournals, expert evidence (i.e., evidence from a person who is a specialist in a\nsubject and who may present an “expert” opinion);\n evidence, where relevant, that the person concerned is not a Canadian citizen or a\npermanent resident. To establish that the person concerned is not a Canadian\ncitizen, an admission by the person directly or documented through a statutory\ndeclaration is considered sufficient evidence. A letter from CPC Sydney stating that\nthere is no record that the person concerned is a citizen of Canada is also sufficient.\nTo establish that the person concerned is not a permanent resident of Canada, an\nadmission by the person directly or documented through a statutor y declaration is\nconsidered sufficient evidence. A Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, document\nindicating no confirmation of permanent residence is also sufficient.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.20 (Obtaining evidence for A38(1)(a)(b)(c))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-21", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.21", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A39", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.21. Obtaining evidence for A39\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A39 by collecting:\n statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer\nincluding evidence of the person’s current financial situation; the likelihood that they\nwill have access to funds; and what arrangements, if any, have been made for their\ncare and support. This evidence may consist of bank statements, bank books,\nletters from employers, pay cheque stubs and testimony from friends or relatives;\n documentary evidence of an individual’s dependence on social assistance or failure\nto provide for him/herself and/or any dependants. This evidence may consist of\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 46\nletters from the social services authorities (indicating that the individual is in receipt\nof social assistance), benefit payment cheque stubs, cancelled receipts, etc.;\n where relevant, the hearings officer must be prepared to establish that the person\nconcerned is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. To establish that the\nperson concerned is not a Canadian citizen, an admission by the person directly or\ndocumented through a statutory declaration is considered sufficient evidence. A\nletter from CPC Sydney stating that there is no record that the person concerned is\na citizen of Canada is also sufficient. To establish that the person concerned is not\na permanent resident of Canada, an admission by the person directly or\ndocumented through a statutory declaration is considered sufficient evidence. A\nQuery Response Centre (QRC), CIC, document indicating no confirmation of\npermanent residence is also sufficient.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.21 (Obtaining evidence for A39)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.22", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(a)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.22. Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(a)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A40(1)(a) by collecting:\n proof of the misrepresentation (misrepresentation may also be referred to as “false\npretences”). This may include a false document, forensic laboratory evidence\ncertifying that a document is false, etc.;\n testimony from expert witnesses or an admission in the form of a statutory\ndeclaration from the person concerned or witnesses;\n proof that the fact misrepresented was material to the decision rendered or being\ncontemplated; this is usually done in submissions, by reference to the relevant\nprovisions of the Act and Regulations. What must be shown is that the\nmisrepresentation was material to the question of determining admissibility, status\nor removal. A statutory declaration completed by the officer addressing the issue(s)\nmay be considered as evidence;\n proof of the correct information and, if available, proof that the person concerned\nwas subjectively aware of the incorrectness of the misrepresented fact.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.22 (Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(a))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-23", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.23", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.23. Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(b)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A40(1)(b) by collecting:\n proof of the correct information and, if available, proof that the person concerned\nwas subjectively aware of the incorrectness of the misrepresented fact;\n proof of the misrepresentation (misrepresentation may also be referred to as “false\npretences”). This may include a false document, forensic laboratory evidence\ncertifying that a document is false;\n testimony from witnesses or an admission in the form of a statutory declaration from\nthe person concerned or witnesses;\n proof that the fact misrepresented was material to the decision rendered or being\ncontemplated; this is usually done in submissions, by reference to the relevant\nprovisions of the Act and Regulations. What must be shown is that the\nmisrepresentation was material to the question of determining admissibility, status\nor removal. A statutory declaration completed by the officer addressing this issue\nmay be considered as evidence;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.23 (Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(b))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-24", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.24", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(c)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.24. Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(c)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A40(1)(c) by collecting:\n proof, from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), that there has been a final\ndetermination to vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection; and\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 47\n proof, from the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), that there has been no appeal filed\n(pursuant to A110(1)) and that the period of time within which an appeal may be\nfiled, has elapsed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.24 (Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(c))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-25", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.25", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(d)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.25. Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(d)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A40(1)(d) by collecting:\n proof, in the form of a copy of the decision issued by the Governor-in-Council, that\nthe person concerned ceased to be a citizen for reasons outlined in paragraph\n10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act;\n text of paragraph 10(1)(a) and subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act;\n evidence that establishes that the person concerned is no longer a Canadian\ncitizen. To establish that a person is not a Canadian citizen, an admission by the\nperson directly or documentation in the form of a statutory declaration is considered\nsufficient evidence. A letter from CPC Sydney, stating that there is no record that\nthe person is a citizen of Canada, is also sufficient.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.25 (Obtaining evidence for A40(1)(d))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-26", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.26", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A41(a)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.26. Obtaining evidence for A41(a)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A41(a) by collecting:\n the direct testimony of the person concerned, evidenced by a statutory declaration\nsigned by the person concerned. Other evidence may include a statutory\ndeclaration from an officer (or officers) detailing statements made by the person\nconcerned (or others) to an officer. [Statutory declarations from other credible\nwitnesses may also be used as evidence.] All evidence must attest to the fact that\nthe person concerned did not comply with a provision of the Act and that the person\nconcerned did so, either directly or indirectly, through an act or omission, or both;\n proof that may also include certified copies of documents available from the Query\nResponse Centre (QRC), CIC, such as a “Temporary Resident Record” or a “Work\nPermit.” Further proof may include any relevant documentation that the person may\nhave presented, produced or may have otherwise been found to be in possession\nof; or documentation that others might have in their possession.\n evidence, where relevant, that the person concerned is not a Canadian citizen or a\npermanent resident. To establish that the person concerned is not a Canadian\ncitizen, an admission by the person directly or documented through a statutory\ndeclaration is considered sufficient evidence. A letter from CPC Sydney stating that\nthere is no record that the person concerned is a citizen of Canada is also sufficient.\nTo establish that the person concerned is not a permanent resident of Canada, an\nadmission by the person directly or documented through a statutory declaration is\nconsidered sufficient evidence. A Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, document\nindicating no confirmation of permanent residence is also sufficient.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.26 (Obtaining evidence for A41(a))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-27", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.27", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A41(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.27. Obtaining evidence for A41(b)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A41(b) by collecting:\n the direct testimony of the person concerned, evidenced by a statutory declaration\nsigned by the person concerned. Other evidence may include a statutory\ndeclaration from an officer (or officers) detailing statements made by the person\nconcerned (or others) to an officer. Statutory declarations from other credible\nwitnesses may also be used as evidence;\n proof that may also include certified copies of documents available from the Query\nResponse Centre (QRC), CIC, provincial health authorities or established business,\nall to evidence that, despite conditions having been lawfully imposed, the person\nconcerned did not comply with those conditions. Examples may include, inter alia,\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 48\nnon-compliance with medical surveillance requirements or business entrepreneurial\nrequirements;\n proof that may include any relevant documentation that the person may have\npresented, produced or may have otherwise been found to be in possession of; or\ndocumentation that others may/might have in their possession;\n documentation to support the allegation of non-compliance with the residency\nobligation may include, inter alia, the original or a certified true copy of the person’s\napplication for a permanent resident card; employment verification letters\nconcerning the person; copies of any residential mortgage documents, bank\nrecords or other such information pertaining to the person concerned; any landlord\nrental agreements and/or rental receipt copies; passports, travel papers, travel\ndocuments of any kind; driver’s license and/or photo-identity card information and\nany records pertaining to each; certified true copies of the person’s income tax\nreturns or notices of assessment within the meaning of the Income Tax Act.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.27 (Obtaining evidence for A41(b))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-28", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.28", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A42(a)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.28. Obtaining evidence for A42(a)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A42(a) by collecting:\n the direct testimony of the person concerned, evidenced by a statutory declaration\nsigned by the person concerned. Other evidence may include a statutory\ndeclaration from an officer (or officers) detailing statements made by the person\nconcerned (or others) to an officer. Statutory declarations from other credible\nwitnesses may also be used as evidence;\n proof that a family member is inadmissible: this may include certified copies of\ndocuments available from the Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, such as a copy\nof a “removal order” issued to a family member. Further proof may include any\nrelevant documentation that the person concerned may have presented, produced\nor may have otherwise been found to be in possession of; or documentation that\nothers may have in their possession that pertains to an inadmissible family member;\n copies of any visa refusal letter that may have been issued to a family member. A\ncopy of an “Allowed to Leave”, “Direction to Return” or “Rejection Order” issued to\nan inadmissible family member may also be used as evidence;\n evidence, where relevant, that the person concerned is not a Canadian citizen or a\npermanent resident. To establish that the person concerned is not a Canadian\ncitizen, an admission by the person directly or documented through a statutory\ndeclaration is considered sufficient evidence. A letter from CPC Sydney stating that\nthere is no record that the person concerned is a citizen of Canada is also sufficient.\nTo establish that the person concerned is not a permanent resident of Canada, an\nadmission by the person directly or documented through a statutory declaration is\nconsidered sufficient evidence. A Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, document\nindicating no confirmation of permanent residence is also sufficient.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.28 (Obtaining evidence for A42(a))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-29-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.29", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A42(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.29. Obtaining evidence for A42(b)\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A42(b) by collecting:\n the direct testimony of the person concerned, evidenced by a statutory declaration\nsigned by the person concerned. Other evidence may include a statutory\ndeclaration from an officer (or officers) detailing statements made by the person\nconcerned (or others) to an officer. Statutory declarations from other credible\nwitnesses may also be used as evidence;\n evidence that the person concerned is a family member and that the person whom\nthey are accompanying is inadmissible. Proof of family relationship may take the\nform of birth certificate copies or other relevant documentation/correspondence;\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 49\n evidence that the inadmissible family member whom they are accompanying is in\nfact inadmissible. This evidence may take the form of, inter alia, a visa refusal letter;\na copy of the original “Removal Order” or “Allowed to Leave”, “Direction to Return”\nor “Rejection Order” that was issued to the inadmissible family member;\n evidence, where relevant, that the person concerned is not a Canadian citizen or a\npermanent resident. To establish that the person concerned is not a Canadian\ncitizen, an admission by the person directly or documented through a statutory\ndeclaration is considered sufficient evidence. A letter from CPC Sydney stating that\nthere is no record that the person concerned is a citizen of Canada is also sufficient.\nTo establish that the person concerned is not a permanent resident of Canada, an\nadmission by the person directly or documented through a statutory declaration is\nconsidered sufficient evidence. A Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, document\nindicating no confirmation of permanent residence is also sufficient.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.29 (Obtaining evidence for A42(b)) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-29-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.29", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A42(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 50\nAppendix A Some notable inadmissibility jurisprudence\nDepartment of Justice Regional Office or Departmental Legal Services counsel will be\nable to assist hearings officers regarding the provision of applicable and updated\njurisprudence.\nA34(1)(a), (b), (b.1), (c), (d), (e) and (f)\nJurisprudence\nBaroud, Re (1995), 98 F.T.R. 99 (Fed. T.D.)\n “Terrorism” must receive an unrestrictive interpretation in order to prevent the arrival\nof persons considered to be a danger to Canadian society.\nCanada (Attorney General) v. Jolly, [1975] F.C. 216, 54 D.L.R. (3d) 277, 7 N.R. 271\n(Fed.C.A.)\n The question is not will the applicant engage in espionage or subversion or\nterrorism, but whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person\nwill so behave. Even if evidence is given negating this fact, it is only necessary for\nthe Minister to show the existence of reasonable grounds for believing the fact. It is\nnot necessary for the Minister to go further in establishing the subversive character\nof the persons subject to the proceeding.\nKashmiri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 37 C.R.R. (2d)\n264, 116 F.T.R. 316 (Fed. T.D.)\n If found inadmissible on security grounds, the onus to satisfy the Minister that their\npresence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest lies on the\napplicant.\nQu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 5 Imm. L.R. (3d) 129\n(Fed. T.D.)\n “Subversion” and “espionage” are defined and addressed.\nSuresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 5 Imm. L.R. (3d) 1,\n183 D.L.R. (4th) 629, 18 Admin. L.R. (3d) 159, 252 N.R. 1 (Fed. C.A.), [2002] S.C.C. 1\n Denying entry to Convention refugees on security grounds is a violation of s. 7 of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.29 (Obtaining evidence for A42(b)) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-29-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.29", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A42(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "the Charter, BUT is saved by s. 1.\n Denying entry to Convention refugees on security grounds is not a violation of the\nConvention Against Torture, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the\nConvention Relating to the Status of Refugees.\n It is permissible for a state to rid itself of those who pose a security risk without\nbeing in breach of its international obligations.\nYamani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (March 14, 2000), Doc.\nIMM-1919-98 (Fed. T.D.)\n The term “subversion” was found to violate s. 7 of the Charter by being too vague\nconstitutionally but the judge then found that s. 1 of the Charter could be used to\nsave the provision so that, in the final analysis, this term was found to be\nconstitutional.\nYamani v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1995), 31 Imm. L.R. (2d) 191, 129 D.L.R. (4 th)\n226, 32 C.R.R. (2d) 295, 103 F.T.R. 105, [1996] 1 F.C. 174 (Fed. T.D.)\n The Court declined to hear the argument that s. 19(1)(g) [now s.34(1)(e)] violates\ns. 15 of the Charter.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 51\nA35(1)(a), (b) and (c)\nJurisprudence\nAdam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 137 F.T.R. 68 (Fed.\nT.D.)\n The Federal Court held in the case of Adam (F.C.T.D., IMM-3380-96, August 29,\n1997; upheld on appeal by F.C.A., A-19-98, January 11, 2001) that there is no\nrebuttable presumption for those who held one of the government positions listed [in\nthe Regulations], meaning that if a person is found to have occupied the position\nmentioned, that fact in itself will result in inadmissibility even if there is nothing to\nshow that the person actually exercised influence on the regime in question.\n In matters where ministerial discretion may be exercised, reasons may be required\nwhere the decision on its face seems perverse.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.29 (Obtaining evidence for A42(b)) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-29-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.29", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A42(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Esse v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (January 16, 1998), Doc.\nIMM-4523-96 (Fed. T.D.)\n The purpose of A35(1)(b) is to ensure that Canada does not become a haven for\npersons who have engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights\nviolations, war crimes or crimes against humanity.\n Persons holding specific positions within a government are deemed to be senior\nmembers of or senior officials in the service of a government for that purpose. To\nobtain a Minister’s acceptance, one would have to demonstrate that,\nnotwithstanding their position, there was no complicity in the objectionable acts of\nthat government.\nHussein v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 41 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n42 (Can. Imm. & Ref. Bd. (App.Div.))\nRudolph v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 73 C.C.C. (3d)\n442, 91 D.L.R. (4th) 686 (Fed. C.A.)\n Double criminality—paragraph 19(1)(j) of the Immigration Act, 1976, in conjunction\nwith subsection 7(3.6) of the Criminal Code, mandates the notional transfer to\nCanadian soil of the actus reus only and not of the entire surrounding\ncircumstances so as to permit a plea of obedience to de facto foreign state\nauthority. The fact that the German government ordered or condoned the\napplicant’s conduct during WWII is no defence to a charge of doing the same thing\nin Canada.\nA36(1)(a), (b) and (c)\nJurisprudence\nBarnett v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 33 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1,\n109 F.T.R. 154 (Fed. T.D.)\n Where another country, whose legal system is based on similar foundation and\nvalues as our own, has enacted legislation which reflects goals and objectives\nanalogous to those encompassed within our own system, then that law should be", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.29 (Obtaining evidence for A42(b)) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-7-29-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 7.29", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining evidence for A42(b)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "accorded respect and recognized for purposes of Canadian immigration law.\n The question is not whether Canada has identical legislation in place but whether\nthe underlying rationale of the foreign legislation is consistent with some\nfundamental principle of justice esteemed within our society.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 52\n A foreign pardon granted under a legal system that reflects goals and objectives\nanalogous to those encompassed within our own should be followed for the\npurpose of Canadian immigration law.\nCanada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Fenner (December 11, 1981),\nDoc. V81-6126 (Imm. App. Bd.)\n A foreign legal procedure that is not equivalent to an absolute or conditional\ndischarge will not be treated as such in Canada. The conviction remains for the\npurpose of A36(1).\nDayan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1987), 78 N.R. 134 (Fed.\nC.A.)\n Test for equivalency.\n Reliance on the concept of offences as malum in se to prove equivalency with the\nprovisions of the Canadian Criminal Code is a device that should be resorted to\nonly when, for a very good reason, proof of foreign law has been difficult to make,\nand then only when the foreign law is that of a non-common law country.\nHalm v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995), 27 C.R.R. (2d) 23,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 7.29 (Obtaining evidence for A42(b)) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-91-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 91", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 106", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "91 F.T.R. 106\n Equivalency is not met in the case where the Canadian statute is struck down for\nunconstitutionality.\n Equivalency is not required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is\nrequired is that the adjudicator determine that the applicant is a person with respect\nto whom there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that they have been convicted\noutside of Canada of an equivalent offence.\nHill v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1987), 1 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 73\nN.R. 315 (Fed. C.A.)\n Onus lies on [hearings officers] to present evidence of foreign law and necessary\ndefinitions.\nKiani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 96 F.T.R. 241, 31\nImm. L.R. (2d) 269\n Foreign police reports, oral admissions, and other circumstantial evidence may be\nenough to prove that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was\nconvicted of a serious offence abroad.\nLavi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (April 24, 1985), Doc. T-83-\n9929 (Imm. App. Bd.)\n Although the Minister establishes equivalency with a section of the Criminal Code,\nthe Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is not restricted to the provisions\nselected, but is able to explore various other provisions of Canadian law.\nLegault v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1997), 42 Imm. L.R. (2d) 192, 133 F.T.R. 320\n(note), 219 N.R. 376 (Fed. C.A.); leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (1998), 227 N.R.\n(note) (S.C.C.)\n “Reasonable grounds” are enough to show that the applicant falls within A36(1)( b)\nand (c). In this case, a warrant and indictment were sufficient.\nLei v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1994), 74 F.T.R. 67\n If the Canadian statute is narrower than the foreign equivalent, the adjudicator must", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 91 (F.T.R. 106) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-91-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 91", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 106", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "be presented with additional evidence surrounding the circumstances to establish\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 53\nthat the person would have been convicted if the same offence were committed in\nCanada.\nLeung v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (May 3, 2000), Doc. A-283-\n98 (Fed. C.A.)\n It is not incumbent on the visa officer to question the reasonableness of the\nMinister’s decision.\nLui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 39 Imm. L.R. (2d) 60,\n134 F.T.R. 308 (Fed. T.D.)\n The following test must be used when determining equivalency (for convictions or\npardons) between Canadian and foreign law:\n the laws and legal system of the foreign jurisdiction must be similar to those of\nCanada;\n the foreign law in question must be similar in (a) aim or purpose; (b) content;\nand (c) effect, but not necessarily identical to the Canadian law.\nMasasi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 40 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n133, 138 F.T.R. 121 (Fed. T.D.)\n When establishing equivalency between foreign and Canadian offences, it is\nnecessary to establish the essential elements of the offences AND to actually\nexamine them in order to determine whether they were equivalent or not.\nMohammad v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 2 F.C. 363,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 91 (F.T.R. 106) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-55-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 55", + "marginal_note": "D.L.R. (4th) 321, 21 F.T.R. 240 (note) (Fed. C.A.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "55 D.L.R. (4th) 321, 21 F.T.R. 240 (note) (Fed. C.A.)\n It is not a precondition that the Minister shall have considered the question of\nrehabilitation. The fact that a person described in A36 does not possess proof of\nsatisfaction of the Minister is sufficient evidence for inadmissibility.\n The immigration officer is not required to give the person concerned an opportunity\nto answer allegations contained in that report.\n There are no problems of institutional independence because the adjudication\ndivision and the [hearings] officers are separate divisions that do not provide or take\nadvice to/from the other.\nR. v. Wardley (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 345 (Ont. C.A.)\n If the person is charged with an indictable offence and pleads guilty to an included\noffence, then the plea constitutes a plea of guilty to the indictable offence and the\nmaximum sentence for the conviction of the indictable offence governs with respect\nto penalty.\nRobertson v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1979] 1 F.C. 197, 43\nC.C.C. (2d) 354, 91 D.L.R. (3d) 93 (Fed. C.A.)\n The person can be deported under A36 only if the maximum punishment is 10\nyears’ imprisonment at the date of the deportation order. If it was 10 years (or more)\nbut has since been reduced, then the person cannot be deported under A36.\nSaini v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 184 D.L.R. (4th) 568\n(Fed. T.D.)\n An officer cannot ignore a valid pardon given in another country with a similar\njustice system.\nSingleton v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (November 7, 1983),\nDoc. A-813-83 (Fed. C.A.)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 54\n Lack of a certificate of the applicant’s conviction leaves something to be desired in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 55 (D.L.R. (4th) 321, 21 F.T.R. 240 (note) (Fed. C.A.)) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-55-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 55", + "marginal_note": "D.L.R. (4th) 321, 21 F.T.R. 240 (note) (Fed. C.A.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "the particularity of the evidence, however, it will not automatically result in the\napplicant’s entry into Canada.\nSmith v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 44 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n154, [1998] 3 F.C. 144, 152 F.T.R. 242 (Fed. T.D.)\n A valid deportation or exclusion order may not be enforced after a record\nsuspension has been granted for the offence in question: the conviction has been\nrevoked under the Criminal Records Act or there has been a final determination of\nan acquittal.\nSteward v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 84 N.R. 236\n(Fed. C.A.).\n Equivalency can be determined in three ways:\n by comparison of the precise wording in each statute both through documents\nand, if available, through the evidence of an expert or experts in the foreign law\nwith a view to determining the essential ingredients of the respective offences;\n by examining the evidence adduced before the adjudicator, both oral and\ndocumentary, to ascertain whether or not that evidence was sufficient to\nestablish that the essential ingredients of the offence in Canada had been\nproven in the foreign proceedings, whether precisely described in the initiating\ndocuments or in the statutory provisions in the same words or not; or\n by a combination of the two.\nTaei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1993), 19 Imm. L.R. (2d) 187,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 55 (D.L.R. (4th) 321, 21 F.T.R. 240 (note) (Fed. C.A.)) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-64-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 64", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 311 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "64 F.T.R. 311 (Fed. T.D.)\n A Convention refugee that is later accused of committing an act described in A36(1)\nmay not be granted permanent resident status until the criminal charges are\ndisposed of.\nTaubler v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1981] 1 F.C. 620 (Fed.\nC.A.)\n In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it was presumed that the equivalent\nforeign law involved the element of mens rea and that a conviction indicates that a\nfinding of guilty intent was made.\nTei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 48 Imm. L.R. (2d) 120,\n161 F.T.R. 51 (Fed. T.D.)\n An applicant who falls under A36(1) and is denied entry into Canada may challenge\nthe Minister’s decision not to grant rehabilitation but they may not challenge the\nofficer’s decision.\nA36(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d)\nJurisprudence\nAlouache v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 31 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n68, 102 F.T.R. 1 (Fed. T.D.); affirmed (1996), 197 N.R. 305 (Fed. C.A.); reconsideration\nrefused (June 26, 1996), Doc. A-681-95 (Fed. C.A.)\n The term “occurrence” is synonymous with the terms “event” and “incident” and not\nsynonymous with “a course of events.”\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 55\nLavi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (April 24, 1985), Doc. T-83-\n9929 (Imm. App. Bd.)\n Although the Minister establishes equivalency with a section of the Criminal Code,\nthe Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is not restricted to the provisions\nselected, but is able to explore various other provisions of Canadian law.\nLei v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1994), 74 F.T.R. 67\n If the Canadian statute is narrower than the foreign equivalent, the adjudicator must\nbe presented with additional evidence surrounding the circumstances to establish", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 64 (F.T.R. 311 (Fed. T.D.)) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-64-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 64", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 311 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "that the person would have been convicted if the same offence were committed in\nCanada.\nLi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 34 Imm. L.R. (2d) 109,\n[1997] 1 F.C. 235, 37 C.R.R. (2d) 360, 138 D.L.R. (4th) 275, 200 N.R. 307, 119 F.T.R.\n130 (note) (Fed. C.A.)\n If the Canadian statute is narrower than the foreign equivalent, the adjudicator must\nbe presented with additional evidence surrounding the circumstances to establish\nthat the person would have been convicted if the same offence were committed in\nCanada.\nLibby v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 50 D.L.R. (4 th) 573\n(Fed. C.A.)\n Two offences that do not happen concurrently yet have their source in the same\nevent are considered to arise out of a single occurrence.\nLui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 39 Imm. L.R. (2d) 60,\n134 F.T.R. 308 (Fed. T.D.)\n The following test must be used when determining equivalency (for convictions or\npardons) between Canadian and foreign law:\n the laws and legal system of the foreign jurisdiction must be similar to those of\nCanada;\n the foreign law in question must be similar in (a) aim or purpose; (b) content;\nand (c) effect, but not necessarily identical to the Canadian law.\nR. v. Wardley (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 345 (Ont. C.A.)\n If the person is charged with an indictable offence and pleads guilty to an included\noffence, then the plea constitutes a plea of guilty to the indictable offence and the\nmaximum sentence for the conviction of the indictable offence governs with respect\nto penalty.\nSaini v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 184 D.L.R. (4th) 568\n(Fed. T.D.)\n An officer cannot ignore a valid pardon given in another country with a similar\njustice system.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 64 (F.T.R. 311 (Fed. T.D.)) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-64-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 64", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 311 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Singleton v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (November 7, 1983),\nDoc. A-813-83 (Fed. C.A.)\n Lack of a certificate of the applicant’s conviction leaves something to be desired in\nthe particularity of the evidence, however, it will not automatically result in the\napplicant’s entry into Canada.\nSteward v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 84 N.R. 236\n(Fed. C.A.)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 56\n Equivalency can be determined in three ways:\n by comparison of the precise wording in each statute both through documents\nand, if available, through the evidence of an expert or experts in the foreign law\nwith a view to determining the essential ingredients of the respective offences;\n by examining the evidence adduced before the adjudicator, both oral and\ndocumentary, to ascertain whether or not that evidence was sufficient to\nestablish that the essential ingredients of the offence in Canada had been\nproven in the foreign proceedings, whether precisely described in the initiating\ndocuments or in the statutory provisions in the same words or not; or\n by a combination of the two.\nTaubler v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1981] 1 F.C. 620 (Fed.\nC.A.)\n In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it was presumed that the equivalent\nforeign law involved the element of mens rea and that a conviction indicates that a\nfinding of guilty intent was made.\nTei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 48 Imm. L.R. (2d) 120,\n161 F.T.R. 51 (Fed. T.D.)\n An applicant who falls under A36(1) and is denied entry into Canada may challenge\nthe Minister’s decision not to grant rehabilitation but they may not challenge the\nofficer’s decision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 64 (F.T.R. 311 (Fed. T.D.)) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-64-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 64", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 311 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "W. (Y.Y.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (February 22, 2000), Doc.\nIMM-4464- 98 (Fed. T.D.)\n Inadmissibility under A36 may not be based on an offence committed while the\nperson would qualify under the Canadian Young Offenders Act regardless of the\nforeign law.\nA37(1)(a) and (b)\nJurisprudence\nMCI v. Thanaratnam, [2005] FCA 122\n Confirmed that “being a member” is not required to be described of A37(1)( a)\ninadmissibility. Decision-makers have a duty to consider evidence of a person’s\ninvolvement in gang-related events in order to establish if a person was “engaging\nin activity that is part of such a pattern.”\nChiau v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 141 F.T.R. 81, [1998]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 64 (F.T.R. 311 (Fed. T.D.)) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "F.C. 642 (Fed. T.D.), [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 71", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 F.C. 642 (Fed. T.D.), [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 71\n The immigration officer is under no obligation to provide the person concerned with\na summary of any confidential information relied upon by the visa officer.\nYuen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 48 Imm. L.R. (2d) 24,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 2 (F.C. 642 (Fed. T.D.), [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 71)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-63", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 63", + "marginal_note": "C.R.R. (2d) 333, 162 F.T.R. 282 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "63 C.R.R. (2d) 333, 162 F.T.R. 282 (Fed. T.D.)\n A37 does not violate s.2(d) of the Charter. That right does not extend beyond the\nboundaries of Canada to protect the right of a foreign national to be a member of a\nforeign criminal organization.\nMoreno v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1994), 1 F.C. 298 (FCA);\nand Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1992), 2 F.C. 306\n(FCA)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 57\n Jurisprudence regarding “membership” and “organization.”\nA38(1)(a), (b) and (c)\nJurisprudence\nAhir v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1983), 49 N.R. 185, 2 D.L.R.\n(4th) 163 (Fed. C.A.)\nAjanee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 33 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n165, 110 F.T.R. 172 (Fed. T.D.)\nAnvari v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission) (1988), 10 C.H.R.R.\nD/5816, 152 N.R. 241 (Human Rights Trib.); varied (1993), 14 C.H.R.R. D/292 (Human\nRights Review Trib.); reversed (1993), 19 Imm. L.R. (2d) 192 (Fed. C.A.)\nBadwal v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 9 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n85, 64 D.L.R. (4th) 561 (Fed. C.A.)\nBola v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990), 11 Imm. L.R. (2d) 14,\n107 N.R. 311 (Fed. C.A.)\nCabaldon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 42 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n12, 140 F.T.R. 296 (Fed. T.D.)\nCanada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Sihota (1989), 8 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1\n(Fed. C.A.)\nChoi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 29 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 63 (C.R.R. (2d) 333, 162 F.T.R. 282 (Fed. T.D.))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-98", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 98", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 308", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "98 F.T.R. 308\nDeol v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1\n(Fed. C.A.)\nFei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 131 F.T.R. 81, 39 Imm.\nL.R. (2d) 266, [1998] 1 F.C. 274 (Fed. T.D.))\nFung v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1986), 18 Admin. L.R. 260,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 98 (F.T.R. 308)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 118 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 F.T.R. 118 (Fed. T.D.)\nHiramen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1986), 65 N.R. 67 (Fed.\nC.A.)\nIsmaili v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 29 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1,\n100 F.T.R. 139 (Fed. T.D.)\nJiwanpuri v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990), 10 Imm. L.R.\n(2d) 241, 109 N.R. 293 (Fed. C.A.)\nKaila v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 42 Imm. L.R. (2d) 316\n(Imm. & Ref. Bd. (App. Div.))\nKing v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 115 F.T.R. 306 (Fed.\nT.D.)\nLau v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 43 Imm. L.R. (2d) 8,\n146 F.T.R. 116 (Fed. T.D.)\nLaw v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 140 F.T.R. 307 (Fed.\nT.D.)\nLitt v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 253\n(Fed. T.D.)\nLudwig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 33 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n213, 111 F.T.R. 271 (Fed. T.D.)\nMangat v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (February 25, 1985), Doc.\nT-153-85 (Fed. T.D.)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 58\nMohamed v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1986] 3 F.C. 90, 68\nN.R. 220 (Fed. C.A.)\nNg v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 106 F.T.R. 140 (Fed.\nT.D.)\nPattar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 8 Imm. L.R. (2d) 79,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 4 (F.T.R. 118 (Fed. T.D.))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-98", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 98", + "marginal_note": "N.R. 98 (Fed. C.A.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "98 N.R. 98 (Fed. C.A.)\nPoste v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 140 F.T.R. 126, 42\nImm. L.R. (2d) 84, 5 Admin. L.R. (3d) 69 (Fed. T.D.)\nRabang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (November 29, 1999), Doc.\nIMM-4576- 98 (Fed. T.D.)\nRudrakumar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 38 Imm. L.R.\n(2d) 82 (Imm. & Ref. Bd. (App. Div.))\nSabater v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 31 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n59, 102 F.T.R. 268 (Fed. T.D.)\nSall v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 9 Imm. L.R. (2d) 179,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 98 (N.R. 98 (Fed. C.A.))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-29-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 29", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 176 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "29 F.T.R. 176 (Fed. T.D.)\nSeyoum v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990), 134 N.R. 233\n(Fed. C.A.)\nShan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 153 F.T.R. 238 (Fed.\nT.D.)\nShanker v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (June 25, 1987), Doc. A-\n535-86 (Fed. C.A.)\nSooknanan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 142 F.T.R. 155\n(Fed. T.D.)\nTam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 35 Imm. L.R. (2d) 201\n(Fed. T.D.)\nTan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 40 Imm. L.R. (2d) 113\n(Imm. & Ref. Bd. (App. Div.))\nThangarajan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 1 Imm. L.R. (3d) 118,\n[1999] 4 F.C. 167, 242 N.R. 183, 176 D.L.R. (4th) 125 (Fed. C.A.)\nTong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 45 Imm. L.R. (2d) 27,\n153 F.T.R. 115 (Fed. T.D.)\nTong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (October 31, 1997), Doc.\nIMM-2565-96 (Fed. T.D.)\nTsang v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (April 1, 1981), Doc. T80-\n9437 (Imm. App. Bd.)\nUppal v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1987), 2 imm. L.R. (2d)\n143, 78 N.R. 152 (Fed. C.A.)\nWong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 34 Imm. L.R. (2d) 18\n(Fed. T.D.)\nWong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 42 Imm. L.R. (2d) 17,\n141 F.T.R. 62 (Fed. T.D.); additional reasons at (1998), 43 Imm. L.R. (2d) 24, 145\nF.T.R. 119 (Fed. T.D.)\nWong v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 42 F.T.R. 209, [1991] 2\nF.C. 186; affirmed (1992), 146 N.R. 319 (Fed. C.A.)\nYogeswaran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 1 Imm. L.R.\n(3d) 177, 247 N.R. 221 (Fed. C.A.)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 59\nA39", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 29 (F.T.R. 176 (Fed. T.D.)) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-29-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 29", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 176 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Jurisprudence\nKhakoo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 103 F.T.R. 284\n(Fed. T.D.)\n The existence of the undertaking of support must be considered proof of support\nand not proof of the sponsor’s history of providing support.\nNicolau v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 74 F.T.R. 38\n Regardless of the applicant’s willingness to work, if they are unable to work in\nCanada, there must be proof of adequate arrangements for support.\nOrantes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1990), 34 F.T.R. 184\n Cabinet cannot exempt anyone from any provision of the Act itself; this can only be\ndone by regulation, if permitted. This is necessary to preserve the rule of law.\nXu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (April 13, 2000), Doc. IMM-\n6396-98 (Fed. T.D.)\n The existence of the undertaking of support must be considered proof of support\nand not proof of an ability of the sponsor to fulfill the undertaking.\nA40(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d)\nJurisprudence\nBellido v. MCI. [2005] FC 452\nCanada (Attorney General) v. Chanoine (1987), 4 Imm. L.R. (2d) 136, 15 F.T.R. 143\n(Fed. T.D.).\n A permanent resident has been defined as a person who has been granted landing\nand who has not ceased to be a permanent resident pursuant to A46.\n This case should be read in conjunction with Canada (Minister of Employment and\nImmigration) v. Selby, [1981] 1 F.C. 273, 110 D.L.R. (3d) 126 (Fed. C.A.).\nCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nemsila (1996), 35 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n56, [1997] 1 F.C. 260, 118 F.T.R. 310 (Fed. T.D.), affirmed (1997), 38 Imm. L.R. (2d)\n242, 3 Admin. L.R. (3d) 83, 214 N.R. 383 (Fed. C.A.)\n Due to the fact that the applicant’s entry into Canada was based upon deception", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 29 (F.T.R. 176 (Fed. T.D.)) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-29-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 29", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 176 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "and misrepresentation, they were not lawfully admitted to Canada and therefore\ncould not have gained “landing” within the meaning of the Act. Due to the fact the\nrespondent was never landed, he was held to never have acquired Canadian\ndomicile.\nCanada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Gudino (1981), [1982] 2 F.C. 40,\n124 D.L.R. (3d) 748, 38 N.R. 361 (Fed. C.A.)\n An applicant who obtains a visa under material circumstances that change (e.g.,\nloss of employer as sponsor) must report the change in circumstances to an\nImmigration officer.\nCanada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Mercier (September 16, 1980),\nDoc. 79-1243 (Imm. App. Bd.)\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 60\n A visa is no more than a stamp on a piece of paper issued outside Canada which\nmay give the holder a colour of right to come into Canada, but no more. Immigration\nstatus is acquired at the port-of-entry. A change in marital status (from single to\nmarried) is a material fact that must be disclosed.\nCoombs v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1982] 1 F.C. 113 (Fed.\nC.A.)\n The question “Are you a resident of Canada?” does not necessarily mean\n“permanent resident”.\nD’Souza v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1983] 1 F.C. 343 (Fed.\nC.A.)\n An applicant need not be aware of a misrepresentation made on his behalf by\nanother in order to qualify under A40.\nDevrim v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (April 24, 1979), Doc. 78-\n6192 (Imm. App. Bd.)\n A40(1)(a) imposes an obligation of absolute liability and thus the defence of due\ndiligence is not available.\nJaber v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 3 Imm. L.R. (3d) 30,\n[2000] 1 F.C. 603, 250 N.R. 235, 180 D.L.R. (4th) 683 (Fed. C.A.)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 29 (F.T.R. 176 (Fed. T.D.)) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-1-29-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-1", + "act_short": "ENF 1", + "act_name": "ENF 1 — Inadmissibility", + "section": "ENF 1 s. 29", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 176 (Fed. T.D.)", + "part": "Inadmissibility", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " A person who obtains permanent residency via misrepresentation may appeal to\nthe Appeal Division of the IRB according to A63.\nKhamsei v. Canada (Minister of Manpower & Immigration), [1981] 1 F.C. 222 (Fed.\nC.A.)\n Whether a misrepresentation was of a material fact is a question of fact. There does\nnot need to be direct evidence that a visa would not have been granted had there\nbeen no misrepresentation.\n An adjudicator will decide whether failure to disclose results in misrepresentation.\nMedel v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) 10 Imm. L.R. (2d) 274,\n[1990] 2 F.C. 345, 113 N.R. 1 (Fed. C.A.)\n The applicant must subjectively know that they are withholding information.\nMohammed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 3 F.C. 299, 130\nF.T.R. 294 (Fed. T.D.)\n The Court rejected the argument that in order for there to be “misrepresentation”\nthere must be an act of concealment. One can misrepresent as easily and\neffectively by silence as one can by actively stating a lie.\n The Court rejected the argument that a misrepresentation must be knowingly or\nwillfully made.\nMoore v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (December 6, 1978), Doc.\n78-3016 (Imm. App. Bd.)\n The Board held that mens rea is not an element of A27(2)(g), at least insofar as the\ndisclosure of the existence of dependants is concerned.\nENF 1 Inadmissibility\n2013-09-04 61\nA42(a) and (b)\nJurisprudence\nSaini v. Canada (Minister of Manpower & Immigration) (1978), 22 N.R. 22, 86 D.L.R.\n(3d) 492 (Fed. C.A.)\n The Court, with the consent of counsel for the Crown, set aside a deportation order\nagainst the wife of the applicant because she was not herself the subject of an A44\nreport.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2013-09-04", + "current_to": "2013-09-04", + "citation": "ENF 1, s. 29 (F.T.R. 176 (Fed. T.D.)) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-12-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following an application for non -", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4 Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following an application for non -\ndisclosure ............................................................................................................................................. 33\n13 Detention reviews ............................................................................................................................... 33\n13.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 33\n13.2 Authority to detain a person under IRPA ..................................................................................... 34\n13.3 Detention review – timeline for permanent residents and foreign nationals ................................ 34\n13.4 Detention review – timeline for designated foreign nationals (DFN) ............................................ 34\n13.5 Mechanism of detention reviews and grounds for continued detention ....................................... 35\n13.6 Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be continued (R248) ................ 38\n13.7 Making a recommendation on continued detention ..................................................................... 40\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 4\n13.8 Detention after an admissibility hearing has been concluded ...................................................... 41\n14 Applications related to admissibility hearings and to detention reviews ............................................. 41\n14.1 General guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 41", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 12.4 (Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following an application for non -) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-12-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following an application for non -", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.2 Application for postponement ....................................................................................................... 41\n14.3 Request for adjournment .............................................................................................................. 41\n14.4 Change of venue .......................................................................................................................... 43\n14.5 Application for proceeding in-camera (in private) ........................................................................ 43\n14.6 Application for proceeding in public ............................................................................................. 44\n14.7 Applications applicable only to admissibility hearings.................................................................. 44\n14.8 Applications applicable only to detention reviews ........................................................................ 44\n15 A36(1)(a) – Paper-based admissibility hearings ................................................................................ 45\n15.1 Application pursuant to Rule 38 of ID Rules for paper-based hearings ....................................... 45\n16 Post-admissibility hearing procedures ................................................................................................ 45\n16.1 Carrying out a decision of the Immigration Division ..................................................................... 45\n16.2 Applications for judicial review ..................................................................................................... 46\n16.3 Prosecutions of serious violations of IRPA .................................................................................. 46", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 12.4 (Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following an application for non -) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-12-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following an application for non -", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 46\n18 Feedback ............................................................................................................................................ 46\nAppendix A List of Cases / Rules of Evidence ........................................................................................ 48\nAppendix B Additional Guidance and Jurisprudence .............................................................................. 53\nAppendix C Manager’s approval to appear ............................................................................................. 56\nAppendix D Application Pursuant to Rule 38 .......................................................................................... 57\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 5\nUpdates to chapter\nListing by date:\n2015-04-29\nSubstantive revisions were made to improve the flow of the manual and to reflect current legislation and\nprocedures throughout this manual chapter, including the following:\n A new subsection 9.5 was added to clarify procedures related to persons concerned who are\nreferred by a Port of Entry for an admissibility hearing.\n Added the numbers of the listed forms and a column titled “Purpose” to clearly define the purpose\nfor each form. The same amendments (form titles and numbers) were applied throughout the\nmanual.\n Section 6 was amended to clarify background information on the nature of proceedings before the\nImmigration Division.\n Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 were amended to streamline the language and to clarify procedures\nrelated to Admissibility Hearings.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 12.4 (Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following an application for non -) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-12-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following an application for non -", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Section 12 was updated to reflect 2008 changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\nregarding procedures related to applications for non-disclosure of information.\n Section 13 was updated to streamline and clarify procedures related to Detention Reviews.\n Updated section 14 to clarify instructions and procedures related to admissibility he arings and\ndetention reviews.\n Section 15 was added to include procedures for paper based hearings for section A36(1)( a).\n2006-02-16\nENF 3 – Section 13.3, an explanatory paragraph was added as well as a link to IP 10, section 9.\n2005-11-29\nENF 3 - Minor amendments were made to reflect the split between Citizenship and Immigration Canada\n(CIC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Clarification was provided as to whom the\nhearings officer represents at an admissibility hearing and/or detention review before the Immigration\nDivision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).\n2003-09-04\nMinor changes/clarifications were made to chapter ENF 3.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 6", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 12.4 (Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following an application for non -) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter provides functional direction and guidance to hearings officers when acting as counsel for\nthe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP) at admissibility hearings and\ndetention reviews before the Immigration Division (ID) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).\nThis chapter highlights various provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and\nRegulations that may apply, to hearings officer’s when preparing and presenting cases before the ID.\nIt also provides assistance to hearings officers by identifying procedural and evidentiary requirements.\nNote: References to IRPA appear in the text with an \"A\" prefix followed by the section number.\nReferences to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) appear with a \"R\" prefix\nfollowed by the section number.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe security of Canadian society and the protection of the health and safety of Canadians are two very\nimportant objectives of IRPA.\nHearings officers support the objectives of IRPA by\n promoting international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying\naccess to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks; and\n ensuring that decisions taken under the IRPA are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights\nand Freedoms (Charter).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and Regulations\nThe following table outlines provisions which may be useful in making determinations.\nFor more information about Refer to Notes\nForeign national A2(1)\nCanadian citizen R2 Citizenship Act, section 3(1)\nPermanent resident A2(1)\nResidency obligation A28(1) and (2)\nTemporary resident A22(1) and (2),\nA29\nStatus document A31\nPermanent resident card R53 to R60\nRefugee protection A95\nSecurity grounds A34\nPublic health and safety A3(1)(h)\nHuman or international rights\nviolations\nA35\nSerious criminality A36(1)\nCriminality A36(2)\nOrganized criminality A37(1)\nHealth grounds A38(1)\nFinancial reasons A39\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 7\nMisrepresentation A40\nNon-compliance with Act A41\nFamily member R1(3)\nInadmissible family member A42\nExamination A18\nPermanent resident - Loss of status A46\nReasonable grounds See ENF 2, Evaluating inadmissibility, section\n3.1\nReasonable grounds to believe See ENF 2, Evaluating inadmissibility, section\n3.11\nDetention and release A54 - A60\nPlace of detention See ENF 20, Detention, section 11\nRight to appeal A63", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Objectives and application", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 Objectives and application\nFor information about Refer to this section of the Act\nThe objectives with respect to immigration A3(1)\nThe objectives with respect to refugees A3(2)\nHow the Act is to be construed and applied A3(3)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3.1 (Objectives and application)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "Inadmissibility", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.2 Inadmissibility\nPart I, Division 4 of IRPA contains the core provisions relating to inadmissibility and identifies the facts\nthat constitute inadmissibility under the Act, making distinctions based on categories of inadmissibility as\noutlined in the following table:\nCategories of inadmissibility\nFor information about Refer to this section of the Act\nSecurity grounds A34\nHuman or international rights violations A35\nSerious criminality A36\nOrganized criminality A37\nHealth grounds A38\nFinancial reasons A39\nMisrepresentation A40\nNon-compliance with Act A41\nInadmissible family member A42", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3.2 (Inadmissibility)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3.3", + "marginal_note": "Report of inadmissibility", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.3 Report of inadmissibility\nPart I, Division 5 of IRPA refers to the report of inadmissibility under section A44(1), the making of a\nremoval order by the Minister's delegate, or a referral to the ID for an admissibility hearing; the loss of\nstatus and the enforcement of removal orders.\nFor more information about Please refer to this chapter\nInadmissibility grounds ENF 1, Inadmissibility\nHow an officer decides if an applicant is inadmissible to\nCanada\nENF 2, Evaluating inadmissibility\nReports on inadmissibility ENF 5, Writing Section A44(1) Reports\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 8\nMinister's Delegate decisions and administrative removals ENF 6, Review of Reports under\nA44(1)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3.3 (Report of inadmissibility)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3.4", + "marginal_note": "Referral to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.4 Referral to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing\nA44(2) and R228 determine the cases in which, after a report under A44(1) has been written, the\nMinister’s delegate has jurisdiction to make a removal order, and in which cases the report may be\nreferred to the ID for an admissibility hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3.4 (Referral to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3.5", + "marginal_note": "Decisions by the Immigration Division", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.5 Decisions by the Immigration Division\nA45 identifies the various decisions that the ID may come to at the conclusion of an admissibility hearing.\nR229(1) identifies the applicable removal orders made by the ID for the purposes of paragraph A45( d).\nFurther information about detention and release is referenced in the following tables.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3.5 (Decisions by the Immigration Division)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3.6", + "marginal_note": "Detention and release", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.6 Detention and release\nFor more information about Please see the\nAct\nLegal grounds for arrest and detention of foreign nationals or permanent residents A55\nThe release by an officer or by the Immigration Division A56\nThe review of detention and conditions of release and the detention as a last resort of\na minor child\nA57-A60\nFor more information about Please see chapter ENF\n20, Detention\nThe authority to arrest and detain a person, including the various situations\nfor detention and appropriate sections related to detention\nSection 3.1\nRegulatory factors and conditions Section 3.2\nCBSA policy governing the treatment of persons detained and grounds for\ndetention\nSection 5\nNote: For more information on arrests, see chapter ENF 7, Investigations and arrests.\nThe factors to be taken into consideration when assessing the detention or the release of a person who is\na danger to the public, whose identity has not been established, or is unlikely to appear for examination,\nan admissibility hearing, removal from Canada, or at a proceeding that could lead to the making of a\nremoval order, are set out in R245 to R248.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3.6 (Detention and release)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3.7", + "marginal_note": "Removal, removal orders, stays and enforcement of removal orders", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.7 Removal, removal orders, stays and enforcement of removal orders\nPart 1, Division 5 of IRPA refers to loss of status and removal.\nPart 13 of the Regulations refers to removals.\nDivision 1- The different types of removal orders (R223 - R227)\nFor more information about Please see Regulations\nDeparture order R224\nExclusion order R225\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 9\nDeportation order R226\nRemoval order effective against a family member R227(2)\nDivision 2 - The specified removal orders under specific circumstances (R228 - R229)\nFor more information about Please see\nRegulations\nRemoval orders to be made by the Minister's delegate R228\nFor the purposes of Section A44(2) in respect of a foreign national R228(1)\nFor the purposes of Section A44(2) in respect of permanent residents R228(2)\nIf a claim for refugee protection is referred to the Refugee Protection Division R228(3)\nRemoval orders to be made by the Immigration Division for the purposes of\nparagraph A45(d)\nR229\nDivision 3: Stays of removal orders (R230 – 233)\nFor more information about Please see Regulations\nConsiderations, cancellations and exceptions R230\nJudicial review R231\nPre-removal risk assessment R232\nHumanitarian and compassionate considerations R233\nDivision 4: Enforcement of removal orders (R235 – 243)\nFor more information about Please see Regulations\nRemoval order—not void R235\nProviding copies of the removal order to the person concerned R236\nModality of enforcement R237\nVoluntary compliance R238\nRemoval by PSEP Minister R239\nWhen removal order is enforced in Canada or by an officer outside of Canada R240\nCountry of removal R241\nMutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act R242\nPayment of removal costs R243", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3.7 (Removal, removal orders, stays and enforcement of removal orders)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3.8", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.8 Forms\nThe forms required are shown in the following table:\nForm title Form number Purpose\nNotice of Rights Conferred by the\nVienna Convention and to the\nRight to be Represented by\nCounsel at an Admissibility\nHearing\nIMM 0689B To inform persons who have been\narrested/detained or subject of an admissibility\nhearing of their rights to counsel and the right to\nnotify their government representative.\nRequest for Admissibility\nHearing/Detention Review\nPursuant to the Immigration\nDivision Rules\nBSF 524 To request an admissibility hearing pursuant to\nsubsection A44(2), or following an arrest under\nA55, or to request a detention review to be held\nunder A57 or A57.1.\nNotice of Admissibility Hearing BSF 525 To inform persons who are subject to an\nadmissibility hearing that a report prepared by an\nofficer was referred to the Immigration Division for\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 10\nan Admissibility Hearing under A44(2).\nNotice of Admissibility Hearing to\nFamily Members\nBSF 540 To inform family members of persons who are\nsubject to an admissibility hearing that the report is\nalso a report prepared against family members of\nthe foreign national and that the family members\nare themselves subject to an admissibility hearing.\nGeneric Document IMM 1442B\n(Warehouse\nitem)\nA generic form used for printing of all secure\ndocuments (e.g., work permit, study permit)\nNotice to Appear for a Proceeding\nUnder Subsection 44(2)\nBSF 504 To advise persons that a proceeding under A44(2)\nis to be held to determine if the person shall be\nauthorized to enter or remain in Canada, or if a\nremoval order should be issued against them.\nReferral Under Subsection 44(2)\nof the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act for an Admissibility\nHearing\nBSF 506 For the Minister’s Delegate to refer an A44(1)\nreport to the Immigration Division for an\nadmissibility hearing.\nMinister’s Opinion Regarding the\nForeign National’s Identity\nBSF 510 For the Minister’s Delegate to advise the\nImmigration Division that the identity of a detained\nforeign national has not been, but may be\nestablished.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3.8 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Instruments and delegations\nPlease refer to the Immigration Legislation Manual (IL 3) for specific delegations of authority. IL 3 refers to\nthe Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority document, which sets out the class of per sons\ndesignated by the Minister to carry out any purposes of the Act and specifies the powers and duties of the\nofficers so designated.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 General\nThe ID conducts admissibility hearings for individuals believed to be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to\nsections 33-42 of IRPA. The ID also conducts detention reviews for most persons who are detained under\nIRPA.\nA member of the ID of the IRB presides over admissibility hearings and detent ion reviews. ID members\nare appointed under the Public Service Employment Act.\nMembers of the ID are impartial decision-makers who must consider the evidence presented at a hearing\nby the Minister’s counsel and by the person concerned before making a decision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.1 (General)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Administrative tribunal", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Administrative tribunal\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 11\nThe ID is an administrative tribunal and hearings before the ID are quasi-judicial and adversarial. The\nprinciples of natural justice and procedural fairness apply to all proceedings before the ID.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.2 (Administrative tribunal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Nature of the proceedings before the Immigration Division", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.3 Nature of the proceedings before the Immigration Division\nThe courts have determined that immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, in that the purpose of the\nadmissibility hearing is not to determine whether the person concerned is guilty or innocent, but rather to\ndetermine the person’s status in Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.3 (Nature of the proceedings before the Immigration Division)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.4", + "marginal_note": "Compellability of person concerned", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.4 Compellability of person concerned\nThe testimony of the person concerned is often the principal source of evidence available to the Minister\nof PSEP in admissibility hearings and detention reviews. The courts have held that persons concerned\nare compellable witnesses because they are protected against self-incrimination by the Canada Evidence\nAct [for example, Chana v. Canada (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) or, for an example of a\ndecision in the customs context, see Martineau v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)]. This means\nthat testimony given by the person concerned at a proceeding before the ID cannot be used in criminal\nproceedings.\nParagraph 11(c) of the Charter stipulates that individuals who are accused of an offence cannot be forced\nto testify at their own trial. However, paragraph 11(c) of the Charter does not apply because the person\nconcerned is not a “person charged with an offence”. [Bowen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration;\nAlmrei (Re) (paragraphs 68 and 74)].\nA person at an admissibility hearing who refuses to take an oath, make a solemn declaration or\naffirmation, or answer a question, commits an offence and may be prosecuted under A127( c).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.4 (Compellability of person concerned)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Rules of evidence", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.5 Rules of evidence\nThe rules governing the admissibility and presentation of evidence before the ID are less restrictive than\nin judicial proceedings. Unlike courts, tribunals are not bound by legal or technical rules of evidence\n[A173(c)], nor are they bound by the rule of best evidence. Members of the ID may, in particular, accept\nand consider hearsay evidence. [Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Dan-Ash; Canada\n(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nkunzimana; Bruzzese v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety\nand Emergency Preparedness), paragraph 50].\nID members may receive and base decisions on any evidence they consider credible or trustworthy\n[A173(d)].\nFor additional information on Rules of Evidence, refer to Appendix A, Section 2.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.5 (Rules of evidence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Disclosure of information", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.6 Disclosure of information\nAt an admissibility hearing and/or a detention review hearings officers have an obligation to present all\nthe relevant evidence to the member of the ID, the person concerned or, if applicable, to the counsel of\nthe person concerned. Hearings officers should be particularly vigilant when disclosing evidence in cases\nwhere the person concerned is not represented by legal counsel.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.6 (Disclosure of information)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.7", + "marginal_note": "Public versus private hearings", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.7 Public versus private hearings\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 12\nIn accordance with A166(a), hearings before the ID must be held in public.\nHowever, subject to A166(d) proceedings concerning refugee protection claimants must be held in\nprivate. This includes admissibility hearings, detention reviews, pre-hearing conferences and all other\napplications heard by the ID. The ID may make an exception to the rules. On request by a party to the\nproceeding or on its own initiative, the ID may,\n in the case of a person claiming refugee protection, order that a hearing be held in public;\n in other cases, order that a hearing be held in private or make any other order to ensure the\nconfidentiality of the proceedings (A166) as follows:\no When the member of the ID notes that there are observers present, the member\ndetermines if it is appropriate to allow these observers to remain or if they should be\nasked to leave.\no Pursuant to A166(e) representatives or agents of the United Nations High Commissioner\nfor Refugees (UNHCR) are entitled to observe proceedings concerning protected\npersons and persons who have made a claim for refugee protection.\no Pursuant to A166(f) representatives or agents of the UNHCR may not observe\nproceedings that deal with information or other evidence that is protected under A86 or\nfor which an application for non-disclosure has been made under A86 and the application\nwas not rejected.\n“Refugee protection claimant” means\n a refugee protection claimant whose eligibility has not yet been determined; or\n a refugee protection claimant whose claim has been determined to be eligible; or\n a refugee protection claimant whose claim has been decided by the Refugee Protection", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.7 (Public versus private hearings) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.7", + "marginal_note": "Public versus private hearings", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Division (RPD), but who has not exhausted all appeals of the decision;\nbut does not mean\n a refugee protection claimant whose claim has been determined to be ineligible; or\n a refugee protection claimant whose claim has been rejected by the court of last resort.\nAccording to the interpretation of the Court in Gervasoni v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration) (paragraph 13), the objectives of the Act pertaining to public hearings are met “if interested\nmembers of the public are not unreasonably restricted from attending the [hearing].”\nFor more information on applications to hold a proceeding in private, see section 14.5 below.\nHearings before the ID may be held in person or by means of a teleconferencing or a videoconferencing\ndevice [A164].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.7 (Public versus private hearings) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.8", + "marginal_note": "Rights of the person concerned", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.8 Rights of the person concerned\nThe principle of natural justice and procedural fairness requires that the person concerned should fully\nunderstand the nature and purpose of the proceeding. Acting as a safeguard for individuals in their\ninteraction with the state, the principle of natural justice and procedural fairness stipulates that whenever\na person’s “rights, privileges, or interests” are at stake, there is a duty to act in a fair manner.\nID members must comply with the principle of natural justice and procedural fairness, which means that\npersons concerned have\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 13\n the right to adequate notice of a hearing;\n the right to disclosure (to know the case that has to be meet);\n the right to know the possible consequences of the hearing;\n the right to be heard (to make submissions); and\n the right to an impartial decision-maker.\nIRPA and its Regulations are also bound by the Charter and are required to respect the rights afforded\ntherein. These rights include, but are not limited to\n The right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in\naccordance with the principles of fundamental justice [section 7 of the Charter].\n The right on arrest or detention [section 10 of the Charter]:\no to be informed promptly of the reasons for the arrest or detention;\no to be informed without delay of the right to retain and instruct counsel; and\no to have the validity of a detention determined and to be released from detention if the\ndetention is not lawful.\n The right to the assistance of an interpreter: in all proceedings in which the person concerned is a\nparty or a witness before a court or tribunal, and does not understand or speak the langu age in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.8 (Rights of the person concerned) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-6-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 6.8", + "marginal_note": "Rights of the person concerned", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "which such proceedings are being conducted or if the person concerned is deaf [section 14 of the\nCharter; ID Rules, Rule 17].\n The right to be represented: The person concerned has the right to obtain the services of, and to\nbe represented by legal or other counsel for all proceedings before the ID. Although IRPA does\nnot specifically provide for it, the right to be represented implies that the person concerned shall\nbe informed of this right and shall be given a reasonable opportunity to obtain couns el or the\nservices of a representative at their own expense, if so desired [A167].\n The person concerned does not have to be represented by counsel: The person may choose a\nfriend, or a representative of an organisation or association with an interest in th e welfare of the\nperson concerned, so long as no consideration is given for representing or advising the person\nconcerned.\nNote: Officers should refer to A91 for guidance on who may represent or provide advice for\nconsideration.\n The right to a hearing held in the official language of choice [Immigration Division Rules, Rules\n3(g), 8(d) and 16].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 6.8 (Rights of the person concerned) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Role of the Hearings Officer", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7 Role of the Hearings Officer\nHearings officers represent the position of the Minister of PSEP in admissibility hearings and detention\nreviews before a member of the ID. In this capacity, hearings officers\n are firm advocates of the Minister's position at the admissibility hearing;.\n should always be aware that they are speaking and acting on behalf of the Minister of PSEP, and\nthat the positions and actions taken should reflect CBSA departmental policy;\n should always be professional and respect decorum, as well as maintain professionalism in their\ntelephone manner, written correspondence, conduct at hearings and all interactions with the\npublic;\n should exhibit professionalism by adequately preparing for cases; and\n should treat all parties present at hearings with dignity and respect. This includes ID members,\npersons of concern, counsel, witnesses, interpreters, and observers.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 14\nClaimants are more likely to be cooperative if they are not frightened and confused. Refugee hearings are\nusually non-adversarial. When the Minister intervenes, it changes the dynamics and the hearing becomes\nadversarial.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 7 (Role of the Hearings Officer)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1 General\nAdmissibility proceedings are held pursuant to subsection A44(2) to determine the merits of allegations of\ninadmissibility under IRPA and to take applicable removal measures, if appropriate.\nPursuant to subsection A44(1), an officer who is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign\nnational who is seeking entry to Canada, or who is in Canada, is inadmissible may prepare a report\nsetting out the relevant facts and transmit the report to a Minister’s Delegate (MD). Th e report is the legal\ndocument that gives the MD the authority to issue a removal order or to refer the matter for an\nadmissibility hearing, as prescribed by R228 and R229.\nAn MD who is of the opinion that the A44(1) report is well founded may refer the report to the ID for an\nadmissibility hearing in the following instances:\n in the case of a foreign national who may be inadmissible to Canada on one or more grounds for\nwhich the Minister has no jurisdiction to issue a removal order (refer to R229);\n in the case of a permanent resident, except for a report solely based on non-compliance of\npermanent resident obligations under A28.\nThe A44(1) report must be referred to the ID of the IRB for an admissibility hearing in the following\ninstances:\n in the case of a minor child who is not accompanied by a parent or adult legally responsible for\nthe child [R228(4)(a)]; and,\n in the case of a person who is unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings and is not\naccompanied by a parent or adult legally responsible for the person [R228(4)(b)].\nThe MD must complete and send the following forms, along with the file and supporting documentary\nevidence, to the Hearings and Detention Unit of the Enforcement and Intelligence Division in the\nrespective Region:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.1 (General) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Referal Under Subsection 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for an\nAdmissibility Hearing (BSF 506);\n Request for Admissibility Hearing/Detention Review Pursuant to the Immigration Division Rules\n(BSF 524); and\nNote: The Regional Hearings and Detention Section forwards copies of both forms to the ID and retains\ncopies on file. For detention cases, the MD must send a copy of the 44(1) report, forms BSF506 and BSF\n524 directly to the Immigration Division and the Regional Hearings Office without delay. The documentary\nevidence should also be sent to the Regional Hearings Office as soon as possible\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 15\nFor more information on preparing and writing A44(1) reports, refer to ENF 5, Writing 44(1) Reports.\nFor more information on administrative removal orders refer to ENF 6, Administrative removal orders.\nFor more information on inadmissibility pursuant to A35 refer to ENF 18, War Crimes and Crimes Against\nHumanity.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.1 (General) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Port of entry referral for an admissibility hearing", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2 Port of entry referral for an admissibility hearing\nThe Minister’s delegate, after reviewing a report pursuant to A44(1), may determine that the report is well\nfounded and refer it to the Immigration Division of the IRB for an admissibility hearing, which concludes\nthe examination pursuant to R37.\nHowever, if the person concerned was referred to an admissibility hearing and the referral is withdrawn,\nthe examination is not concluded and the case must be returned to the POE for determination.\nNote: Refer to ENF 4: Port of Entry Examination, section 5.6, for additional information on end of\nexamination.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.2 (Port of entry referral for an admissibility hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Burden of proof", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3 Burden of proof\nThe burden of proof is the obligation to prove or disprove a fact. Pursuant to section A45( d) the burden of\nproof to establish admissibility depends on whether or not a person has lawful status in Can ada.\n9.3.1 Foreign nationals who have lawful status in Canada, including\npermanent residents\nFor cases involving persons who have lawful status in Canada, including permanent residents, the\nburden of proof rests with the Minister of PSEP to establish that the person is inadmissible.\nDuring an admissibility hearing, hearings officers must be prepared to offer evidence to support the\nallegation(s) of inadmissibility and rebut any statements that are made by the foreign national or the\npermanent resident.\n9.3.2 Foreign nationals who do not have lawful status in Canada\nFor foreign nationals who do not have lawful status in Canada, the burden of proof rests with the foreign\nnational to prove that they are not inadmissible to Canada. This applies to the following persons:\n persons seeking to enter Canada; and\n persons who are in Canada without legal authorization.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.3 (Burden of proof)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Standard of proof", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4 Standard of proof\nSince immigration proceedings are civil in nature, the general standard of proof is the one applicable to\ncivil matters: balance of probabilities. Consequently, the Minister of PSEP does not have to prove the\nexistence of facts beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal standard of proof), but rather has to demonstrate\nthat the Minister’s version of the facts is more probable than the version of the person concerned This\nmeans that the evidence presented must show that the facts as alleged are more probable than not.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 16\nSection 33 of IRPA provides that for allegations of inadmissibility listed under sections A34 to A37,\nevidence must be evaluated according to a lesser standard of proof, which is “reasonable grounds to\nbelieve” that the facts have occurred, are occurring or may occur. In Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of\nCitizenship and Immigration), the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the ruling of the Federal Court of\nAppeal that the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard requires something more than mere suspicion,\nbut less than the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the “balance of probabilities” [ Sivakumar\nv. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration, p. 445) and Chiau v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship\nand Immigration) (paragraph 60)]. The reasonable grounds will exist where there is an objective basis for\nthe belief which is based on compelling and credible information [Sabour v. Canada (Minister of\nCitizenship and Immigration)].\nThe following table summarizes the standard of proof for sections A34 to A42:\nStandard of proof\nReasonable grounds to believe Balance of probabilities\n Security (A34)\n Violation of human or international\nrights (A35)\n Criminality (A36), except for\nA36(1)(c) for permanent residents\n Organized crime (A37)\n Act or omission committed outside Canada, for\npermanent residents [A36(1)(c)]\n Health reasons (A38)\n Financial reasons (A39 )\n Misrepresentation (A40)\n Non-compliance with the Act (A41)\n Inadmissible family member (A42)\nWhere the standard of proof applicable to a specific inadmissibility is reasonable grounds, the burden of\nproof may be established as follows:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.4 (Standard of proof)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Where the burden of proof rests with the Minister of PSEP", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Where the burden of proof rests with the Minister of PSEP\nThe Minister of PSEP must prove that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” in the existence of facts\nthat constitute inadmissibility. If the Minister of PSEP is unable to meet this burden, t he ID member shall\ndetermine that the person concerned is not inadmissible, even if the person does not produce evidence to\nthe contrary.\nOn the other hand, if the Minister of PSEP meets the burden of proof, it is up to the person concerned to\nrefute the Minister’s evidence, in other words, to prove that these facts do not exist.\nThe member of the ID does not have to be satisfied that the Minister’s version is more probable than the\nversion of the person concerned, but simply that according to the evidence as a whole, there are\nreasonable grounds to believe in the existence of the facts that constitute the inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (Where the burden of proof rests with the Minister of PSEP)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Where the burden of proof rests with the person concerned", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Where the burden of proof rests with the person concerned\nWhen the burden of proof rests with the person concerned, the Minister of PSEP does not have to\nestablish that there are reasonable grounds to believe in the existence of facts that constitute\ninadmissibility. Rather, it is up to the person concerned to prove that the facts constituting inadmissibility\ndo not exist.\nSince the Minister of PSEP is the party who initiates the admissibility hearing process, the Minister must\nnonetheless present evidence first, producing the facts that constitute the basis for inadmissibility.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 17", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Where the burden of proof rests with the person concerned)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.5", + "marginal_note": "Rules of evidence", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.5 Rules of evidence\nAlthough members of the ID are not bound by the strict rules of evidence that apply to judicial\nproceedings, hearings officers should be aware of the following:\n the admissibility of evidence;\n the relevance of evidence;\n the weight of evidence; and\n the different types of evidence, including documentary evidence and testimony (includes\ntestimony given by expert witnesses) [see R. v. Mohan and R. v. Sekhon (paragraphs 43 and 47).\nExpert witnesses can only give evidence with respect to the subject at issue].\nFor additional information about rules of evidence, refer to Appendix A.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.5 (Rules of evidence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.6", + "marginal_note": "Inadmissibility", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.6 Inadmissibility\nNotes:\n For guidance on obtaining evidence for all inadmissibility provisions refer to ENF 1 –\nInadmissibility.\n For essential case elements for all inadmissibility provisions, refer to ENF 2 – Evaluating\nInadmissibility.\n For essential case elements for inadmissibility under A35, refer to ENF 18 – War Crimes and\nCrimes Against Humanity.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.6 (Inadmissibility)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.7 Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions\nThe following provisions of IRPA raise the issue of equivalency with respect to serious criminality and\ncriminality:\n36(1)(b) - Serious criminality\nForeign conviction for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act\nof Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.\n36(1)(c) – Serious criminality\nCommitted an act outside Canada that is an offence where it was committed and that, if committed in\nCanada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of\nimprisonment of at least 10 years.[Edmond v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]\n36(2)(b) - Criminality\nForeign conviction for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence\nunder an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in\nCanada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament.\n36(2)(c) – Criminality\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 18\nCommitted an act outside Canada that is an offence where it was committed and that, if committed in\nCanada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament.\nAs part of the inadmissibility determination, it is necessary to determine if a conviction or offence\ncommitted outside of Canada has an equivalent in Canadian law.\nThe Federal Court provides the following guidance for equivalencing “the fundamental test of\nequivalence is: would the acts committed abroad and punished there have been punishable\nhere?” [Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (paragraph 13)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.7 (Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "In Hill v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Court described the following three ways\nof establishing equivalency between a foreign and a domestic offence:\n compare the elements of the Canadian and foreign statutes to determine if both have the same\nessential elements to substantiate the respective offences (the elements generally include mental\nand physical components);\n examine the evidence adduced before the member, both oral and documentary, to ascertain\nwhether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the essential ingredients of the offence in\nCanada had been proven in the foreign proceedings; or\n by a combination of paragraphs 1 and 2.\nSee also Park v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (paragraph 14) and Patel v. Canada (Citizenship\nand Immigration) (paragraph 4).\nWhen preparing a case that involves a conviction/offence in a foreign jurisdiction that may be equivalent\nto a criminal conviction/offence in Canada, hearings officers should follow these steps:\nStep 1 Identify the foreign conviction or act.\nStep 2 Evidence for a criminal equation must address the following three areas:\n the best proof of the conviction available;\n the wording of the foreign statute;\n the details of what was actually done.\nStep 3 Identify the potential Canadian equivalent.\nStep 4 Break down each offence (Canadian and foreign) into its basic elements.\nStep 5 Compare each foreign element to its Canadian equivalent and determine if it is equal, broader or\nnarrower.\nStep 6 For those foreign elements that are broader, examine the details of the offence to determine if\nthis aspect of the actual act committed satisfies the Canadian element.\nStep 7 Come to an overall conclusion as to whether the foreign offence is equivalent to the Canadian\noffence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.7 (Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-7-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Step 8 If the two offences are equivalent, taking into account the penalty for the Canadian offence,\ndecide which allegation under A36 is appropriate.\nIf the officer who issued the A44(1) report has not already done so, hearings officers must quickly\ndetermine if the text of the foreign statute is available and make a request for translation. The foreign law\nmust be proven during the admissibility hearing by producing all the extracts relevant to the offence,\nwhich will be entered as an exhibit. The relevant extracts should, as a rule, include the sections that\ndefine the terms used in describing the offence.\nIn the examination of equivalence, a determination is made as to whether each of the essential elements\nof the foreign offence is present in the Canadian equivalent.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 19\n If each of the elements exists in both statutes (Canadian and foreign), the offences are\nequivalent. It is not necessary for the wording of the two laws to be identical. For example, the\nterm “knowingly” may be equivalent to “knowing”, and the term “whoever” may be equivalent to\n“any person”.\n If the foreign enactment is more restrictive than the Canadian enactment, both offences are\nequivalent, since the Canadian statute covers all the situations contemplated in the foreign\nstatute.\n If the foreign enactment is broader than the Canadian statute, or if the text includes situations that\ndo not lead to a criminal offence in Canada, there is no textual equivalence. It is then necessary\nto examine the circumstances of the offence to determine if there is an equivalence nonetheless.\nWhen this situation arises, evidence should be submitted regarding the facts that were proven in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.7 (Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-7-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "the criminal trial held outside Canada; or, in cases where there is no conviction, evidence may\nconsist of police reports to show that an offence was committed.If every essential element of the\nCanadian offence can be established, there is an equivalence.\nThe hearings officer should identify for the benefit of the ID which constituting element(s) of the Canadian\noffence is (are) not found in the text of the foreign offence. The hearings officer should then identify each\nelement of the evidence (whether these elements are exhibits or part of a testimony) entered into the\nrecord to establish that the Canadian constituting elements are facts that were established at the foreign\ntrial.\nExample: An equivalence between the foreign offence of possession of instruments used to commit a\ncriminal offence, and the Canadian offence of possession of break-in instruments [Canadian Criminal\nCode, Section 351(1)].\nThe Canadian offence is more restrictive since the instruments described under the Canadian offence\nhave to be suitable for committing breaking and entering, while the instruments described in the foreign\noffence can be suitable for the purpose of committing any offence (including but not limited to breaking\nand entering).\nIf the textual equivalence is not perfect it is necessary to introduce additional evidence showing that the\ninstruments found in possession of the person concerned when the offence was committed were, in fact,\ninstruments that can be used for breaking and entering, for example a hammer, counterfeit keys, etc.\nIn this case, the evidence that the offence is equivalent to a crime committed in Canada could consist of\nthe following:\n introduction of the relevant sections of the foreign statute; and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.7 (Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-7-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " testimony of the person concerned describing the instruments found in their possession ; or\n extracts of the transcript of the foreign trial showing the nature of the instruments; or\n copy of the foreign indictment which contains a description of the instruments found; or\n documentary evidence providing a description of the instruments.\nIn most admissibility hearings dealing with equivalence, the hearings officer will generally have to produce\nthe following documents as exhibits, when available:\n evidence of the conviction, such as a certificate of conviction, a police report or a statutory\ndeclaration outlining a telephone conversation with a police officer, court reporter, court records\nclerk, or any document originating from the authorities of the country where the conviction was\nhanded down;\n the legal description of the foreign offence; that is, the text of the statutory provision under which\nthe person was convicted; and\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 20\n evidence (obtained from the charge or indictment or a similar document) of the particulars of the\noffence [Brannson v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (para. 4)]. In some\ncases, the certificate of conviction may contain sufficient information for the certificate to be used\ninstead of the indictment.\nFor additional information on documentary evidence, refer to ENF 2 Evaluating inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.7 (Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "Criminal inadmissibility for an act or omission outside Canada that", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.8 Criminal inadmissibility for an act or omission outside Canada that\nwould constitute a criminal offence in Canada [A36(1)(c)]\nIn the case of an act or omission, that would constitute a criminal offence in Can ada, it is sufficient to\nprove that the act or omission was committed outside Canada, and that the act or omission would\nconstitute an offence in Canada. It is not necessary to prove the following facts:\n that the person concerned was convicted of the offence outside Canada;\n that charges or an indictment were laid;\n that the wording of the foreign statute is equivalent to the wording of the Canadian legislation.\nThe IRPA does not prevent the same facts from being the subject of two different allegations in the same\nreport [A44(1)]. If this is the case, the member presiding the admissibility hearing is responsible for\ndetermining whether the facts constitute either of the inadmissibility grounds alleged in the report.\nWhen dealing with cases that involve equivalencing:\n the A44(1) report should refer to as many Canadian equivalents as is reasonably necessary;\n if officers have doubt as to the possible Canadian equivalent, the A44(1) report may include two\nallegations: one relating to an equivalence [A36(1)(b) or A36(2)(b)] and one relating to an act or\nomission [A36(1)(c) or A36(2)(c)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.8 (Criminal inadmissibility for an act or omission outside Canada that)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.9", + "marginal_note": "Foreign pardons", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.9 Foreign pardons\nPlease refer to ENF 14, Criminal Rehabilitation. The effect of a foreign pardon does not automatically\nrender the person admissible to Canada.\nThe following factors must be taken into account:\n If the country's legal system is based on similar foundations and values as Canada’s, the foreign\nlegislation must be examined to determine whether the effect of the pardon is to erase a\nconviction or merely recognize that rehabilitation has taken place.\n In the latter case, the applicant is inadmissible and an application for rehabilitation should\nproceed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.9 (Foreign pardons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9.10", + "marginal_note": "Family inadmissibility 42(1)", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.10 Family inadmissibility 42(1)\nAccording to Section A42(1), a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of an inadmissible family\nmember in the following two instances:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9.10 (Family inadmissibility 42(1))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "The principal applicant is inadmissible because of the inadmissibility of a family member", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. The principal applicant is inadmissible because of the inadmissibility of a family member\nA42(1)(a), namely\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 21\n a foreign national who is accompanied by a family member who is inadmissible;\nExample: A father who is accompanied by a dependent son who is inadmissible.\nor\n a foreign national whose non-accompanying family member is otherwise inadmissible when the\nconditions in R23 are met:\n1. a foreign national is a temporary resident or has made an application for temporary\nresident status, an application for a permanent resident visa or applied to remain in\nCanada as a temporary resident or permanent resident (for the concept of applying to\nremain in Canada as a permanent resident, see R66 and R68); and\n2. the non-accompanying family member is\n1. the spouse of the foreign national, except where the relationship between the\nspouse and foreign national has broken down in law or in fact;\n2. the common-law partner of the foreign national;\n3. a dependent child of the foreign national and either the foreign national or an\naccompanying family member of the foreign national has custody of that child or\nis empowered to act on behalf of that child by virtue of a court order or written\nagreement or by operation of law; or\n4. a dependent child of a dependent child of the foreign national and the foreign\nnational, a dependent child of the foreign national or any other accompanying\nfamily member of the foreign national has custody of that child or is empowered\nto act on behalf of that child by virtue of a court order or written agreement or by\noperation of law.\nExample: A father, who is in Canada, applies to remain in Canada as a permanent resident and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (The principal applicant is inadmissible because of the inadmissibility of a family member) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "The principal applicant is inadmissible because of the inadmissibility of a family member", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "his dependent son, who is abroad, is inadmissible on any of the grounds described in A34 to A41.\nException: Section A42(2)(a) stipulates that a foreign national referred to in subsection (1) who\nis a temporary resident or who has made an application for temporary resident status or a n\napplication to remain in Canada as temporary resident, is only inadmissible on grounds of an\ninadmissible family member if their accompanying or non accompanying family member is\ninadmissible pursuant to A34, A35 and/or A37.\nExample: A father, who is in Canada, applies to remain in Canada as a temporary resident and\nhis dependent son, who is abroad, is inadmissible pursuant to A34, A35 and/or A37).\nThe Immigration Division (ID) cannot assume jurisdiction for an A44(1) report regarding a foreign\nnational if the only grounds for inadmissibility are those set out in Section A42 [R228(1)( d)]\nincluding A42(2)(a)[R228(1)(e)]. In fact, R228(1)(d) and R228(1)(e) provide that the Minister’s\ndelegate not refer the A44(1) report in cases of inadmissibility on the grounds of family\ninadmissibility under Section A42. Under R228(1)(d) the Minister Delegate makes the same type\nof order against the foreign national as was made against the inadmissible family member, except\nif the family member is inadmissible under A34, A35 and/or A37. According to R228(1)(e), the\nMinister’s Delegate issues a deportation order against the foreign national if the accompanying or\nnon accompanying family member is inadmissible pursuant to A34, A35 and/or A37. This means\nthat, even when the decision regarding the inadmissibility of a family member is within the\njurisdiction of the ID, the Minister’s delegate has the authority to make a removal order against", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (The principal applicant is inadmissible because of the inadmissibility of a family member) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "The principal applicant is inadmissible because of the inadmissibility of a family member", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "the principal applicant referred to in Section A42(1)(a) or A42(2)(a). In this case however, the\nMinister’s delegate must wait until the ID has made a removal order against the family member\nbefore making one against the foreign national.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 22\nExample: A father and his son apply to be admitted as temporary residents. The son is inadmissible on\ngrounds of organized criminality and the officer prepares an A44(1) report based on an A37(1)( a)\nallegation. The officer prepares a separate A44(1) report regarding the father on grounds of family\ninadmissibility under A42(1)(a). The Minister’s delegate refers the son’s report for an admissibility hearing.\nAt the end of the hearing, the ID decides that the son is inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality\nand makes a deportation order under R229(1)(e). Once the removal order has been made against the\nson, the Minister’s delegate can issue the same type of deportation order against the father [R228(1)( e)]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (The principal applicant is inadmissible because of the inadmissibility of a family member) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Inadmissibility of a family member on grounds of inadmissibility of the principal applicant", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Inadmissibility of a family member on grounds of inadmissibility of the principal applicant\n[A42(1)(b)], namely\na foreign national who is a member of an inadmissible person’s family and who is accompanying the\ninadmissible person to Canada.\nException: Section A42(2)(b) stipulates that a foreign national referred to in subsection (1) who is a\ntemporary resident or who has made an application for temporary resident status or an application to\nremain in Canada as temporary resident, is inadmissible only if they are an accompanying family member\nof a person who is inadmissible under section A34, A35, and/or A37.\nExample: A dependent son who is accompanying his inadmissible father who made an application for a\npermanent resident visa. The son is inadmissible on the ground of an inadmissible family member if his\nfather is inadmissible on any of the grounds enumerated at A34 to A41.\nExample: A dependent son who is accompanying his inadmissible father are seeking temporary resident\nstatus. The son is only inadmissible on the grounds of an inadmissible family member if his father is\ninadmissible pursuant to A34. A35 and/or A37.\nIf the inadmissibility of the principal applicant comes under the Minister’s jurisdiction, the officer must\nprepare two separate reports, one regarding the principal applicant’s inadmissibility and the other\nregarding the family member for family inadmissibility under A42(1)(b). If the Minister then decides to\nmake a removal order against the principal applicant and his son, the Minister must do so by maki ng two\nseparate removal orders.\nIf, on the other hand, the principal applicant’s inadmissibility comes under the jurisdiction of the ID, the\nA44(1) report regarding the foreign national is sufficient and a separate report does not have to be", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Inadmissibility of a family member on grounds of inadmissibility of the principal applicant) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Inadmissibility of a family member on grounds of inadmissibility of the principal applicant", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "prepared for family members. R227(1) provides that the report prepared regarding the foreign national\nalso applies to accompanying family members.\nAccording to R227(2) the removal order made by the ID against the principal applicant also covers family\nmembers, if the conditions in R227(2)(a) and (b) are met, namely\n an officer informed the family member(s) subject to the A44(1) report that they are the subject of\nan admissibility hearing, and of their right to make submissions and the right to be represented\n(by counsel) at the admissibility hearing at their own expense; and\n the family members are subject to a decision of the ID that they are inadmissible under section 42\nof the Act on grounds of the inadmissibility of the foreign national.\nAt the admissibility hearing, the fact that the condition in R227(2)(a) was met will be proven by producing\nthe “Notice of Admissibility Hearing to Family Members” form (BSF 540).\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 23\nTo meet the condition in R227(2)(b), it is sufficient to show that the family member meets the definition of\n“family member” in R1(3). If these two conditions are met, family members will automatically be covered\nby the removal order made against the principal applicant.\nR1(3) provides that the foreign national’s “family members” are\n the spouse or common-law partner of the person;\n a dependent child of the person or of the person’s spouse or common -law partner; and\n a dependent child of a dependent child referred to in paragraph (b)\nThe terms “common-law partner” and “dependent child” are defined in R1(1) and R2 respectively.\nExample: A father and his dependent 18-year-old son apply for admission as permanent residents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Inadmissibility of a family member on grounds of inadmissibility of the principal applicant) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Inadmissibility of a family member on grounds of inadmissibility of the principal applicant", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The father is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality under A36(1)( b). The officer prepares a\nsingle A44(1) report regarding the father, which also serves as a report with respect to the son. The\nofficer issues a “Notice of Admissibility Hearing to Family Members” form ( BSF 540), to the son. The MD\nrefers the report for an admissibility hearing. At the end of the hearing, the ID decides that t he father is\ninadmissible under A36(1)(b) and makes a deportation order against the father. This deportation order will\nalso automatically include the son if\n he was issued a BSF 540 form; and\n the son is a family member within the meaning of the Regulations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Inadmissibility of a family member on grounds of inadmissibility of the principal applicant) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Minister’s obligation to disclose all documents and information (ID", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1 Minister’s obligation to disclose all documents and information (ID\nRule 3)\nWhen requesting an admissibility hearing, hearings officers have an obligation to provide all relevant\nevidence that is in their possession to the ID and to the person concerned, or counsel if applicable (for a\nlist of documents refer to Immigration Division Rules, Rule 3).\nHearings officers must disclose to the person concerned or counsel if applicable and to the ID the\nfollowing documents at least five (5) days before the hearing:\n “Request for Admissibility Hearing” form (BSF 524);\n “Notice of Admissibility Hearing” form (BSF 525); and\n “Notice of Rights Conferred by the Vienna Convention and to the Right to be Represented by\nCounsel at an Admissibility Hearing” form (IMM 0689B), if applicable; and\n a “Referral under subsection A44(2) of the IRPA for an admissibility hearing” form (BSF 506); and\n a copy of the A44(1) report that sets out the allegations; and\n all other documentary evidence or information that will be used to support the Minister’s position.\nIn the case of a forty-eight hour or a seven-day detention review and an admissibility hearing that are held\nat the same time, all documents must be disclosed as soon as possible. In all other cases documents\nmust be disclosed within 5 days before the hearing. [Immigration Division Rules, Rule 26].\n Note: All documents must comply with the requirements set out in the Immigration Division Rules\n24 and 25 with respect to language and format.\n Note: If the person concerned has retained counsel, the hearings officer will ensure that copies of\nthe relevant notices and documents are sent to counsel [Rule 28(3)].\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 24\nThe hearings officer should also make sure that, in compliance with the requirements of R227, family\nmembers who are accompanying a foreign national, and who are the subject of a report pursuant to\nA44(1) have been duly informed of the hearing to be held concerning them by forwarding a completed\ncopy of the “Notice of Admissibility Hearing to Family Members” form (BSF 540) to all parties.\nThe hearings officer should confirm that all information intended for the ID was sent to the registry office.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 10.1 (Minister’s obligation to disclose all documents and information (ID)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Additional allegations/amendments of the report", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2 Additional allegations/amendments of the report\nWhen receiving a case file for preparation, the hearings officer’s first duty is to determine if the case\nmeets the technical, legal and factual requirements for presenting it to a member of the ID. Depending on\nthe type of case, the hearings officer should verify the A44(1) report for correct date, authorizations and\nsignatures, and ensure that the allegations are correctly stated.\nAny errors or omissions in the report should be corrected. If it is necessary to return the file to the\noriginating office for action, it may be necessary to make an application to the ID to request a\npostponement of the admissibility hearing [Immigration Division Rules, Rule 43]. This is necessary only if\nthe error or omission in the A44(1) report or evidence cannot be rectified prior to the hearing date and\nwould seriously impact the presentation of the case by the hearings officer.\nThe hearings officer must make sure that each of the essential components of the inadmissibility alleged\nin the report is supported by evidence, whether the evidence is documentary, or based on testimony of\nthe person concerned, or testimony from other witnesses.\nIf the evidence is insufficient, the hearings officer may\n complete the file by adding additional evidence, if available;\n return the report to the MD to change the allegations of the report;\n return the report to the MD for adding additional grounds of inadmissibility; or\n withdraw the application to hold the admissibility hearing.\nIf time permits, the hearings officer should make sure that the person concerned and the ID have been\nnotified of changes made to the A44(1) report prior to the hearing. If time does not permit giving advance\nnotice of the changes made to the A44(1) report, the hearings officer must make a preliminary statement\nat the hearing regarding the changes. If this is the case, the member of the ID may confirm that the\nperson concerned understands the nature of the changes. If necessary, the member may grant an\nadjournment, to give the person concerned time to prepare.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 10.2 (Additional allegations/amendments of the report)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "Including foreign national’s family members", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.3 Including foreign national’s family members\nWhen preparing a case, the hearings officer may discover that family members, who did not enter\nCanada at the same time as the person concerned are present in Canada and may decide that these\nfamily members should be included in the removal order. If this is the case, the hearings officer should\nprepare and serve a “Notice of Admissibility Hearing to Family Members” form (BSF 540) to all family\nmembers.\nThe hearings officer should assemble the required information and evidence to be introduced at the\nhearing to demonstrate that family members fall under the definition of “family member” pursuant to\nR1(3). Hearings officers should be aware that only foreign nationals who fall within the definition of R1(3)\nmay be included in the removal order made against the principal applicant. This does not include family\nmembers who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 25\nFor more information about family inadmissibility refer to section 9.10 above.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 10.3 (Including foreign national’s family members)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-10-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 10.4", + "marginal_note": "Witnesses", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.4 Witnesses\nIf the hearings officer decides to call witnesses (other than the person concerned) to testify on behalf of\nthe Minister of PSEP, the hearings officer must inform the person concerned or the person’s cou nsel, if\napplicable, and the ID in writing, as prescribed by Rule 32 of the Immigration Division Rules. In this\nregard, the admission of expert evidence depends on the following criteria: (i) relevance (ii) necessity in\nassisting the trier of fact (iii) the absence of any exclusionary rule, and (iv) a properly qualified expert [ R.\nv. Mohan, (paragraph 17) and R. v. Sekhon, (paragraph 43)].\nPersonal information concerning witnesses and their testimony may consist of information that requires\nnon-disclosure protection. In which case the hearings officer should make an application for non -\ndisclosure.\nFor information on application for non-disclosure, refer to section 11, below.\nIf there are reasons to doubt that a witness will appear as requested, and if time p ermits, the hearings\nofficer may make an application in writing to the ID to request a summons [ Immigration Division Rules,\nRule 33].\n10. 5 Questioning witnesses\nIt is recommended that hearings officers prepare a strategy on questioning witnesses prior to the\ninadmissibility hearing, based on the case at hand and on the facts hearings officers want to prove.\nHearings officers should consider a variety of potential questioning avenues. Considering and anticipating\npotential responses beforehand may help hearings officers to maintain control of the examination and\nensure that important facts are captured.\nA list of the general areas to cover may be useful and preferable to a list of questions to be followed\nrigidly. Hearings officers should be careful about asking questions for which the answer is not known;\nfishing expeditions can have unexpected results.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 10.4 (Witnesses)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-10-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Attending a pre-hearing conference", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.6 Attending a pre-hearing conference\nThe ID may require the parties to participate in a pre-hearing conference to discuss issues, review\ndisclosure of information and the procedures to be followed in the case at hand. [Immigration Division\nRules, Rule 20(1)].\nRule 20(3) of the Immigration Division Rules provides that the ID must state orally or make a written\nrecord of any decisions or agreements made at the conference. It is important that all decisions or\nagreements made at the conference are clearly outlined in the hearings officer’s notes, as the parties at\nthe hearing will be bound by them.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 10.6 (Attending a pre-hearing conference)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Admissibility hearing opening format", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1 Admissibility hearing opening format\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 26\nAlthough the precise structure of admissibility hearings may vary from one member of the ID to another,\nthe hearings officer can expect that the following will be the general format at the opening of the\nhearing:\n The member of the ID makes an opening statement, indicating the legal basis for the hearing, the\nplace of the hearing, the date of the hearing and the jurisdiction. The member will then ask the\nparties and their counsel to identify themselves. The member of the ID will also note the presence\nof any observers present. The member will exclude members of the public, if the admissibility\nhearing concerns a refugee protection claimant or if the hearing is determined to be held “in\ncamera.”\n Next, the member of the ID confirms that the person concerned understands and communicates\nin the official language in which the admissibility hearing is being held. If an interpreter is\nnecessary, the member ensures that there is effective communication between the interpreter\nand the person concerned.\n If the person concerned is not represented by counsel, the member of the ID will confirm that the\nperson concerned was made aware of his or her right to counsel.\n In the case of an admissibility hearing with respect to a foreign national, the member of the ID\nmay ask if family members will be affected by a removal order in accordance with R227(2). If\nfamily members are affected, the hearings officer should submit the “Notice of Admissibility\nHearing to Family Members” form (BSF 540) that was provided to the family members prior to the\nhearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.1 (Admissibility hearing opening format)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion of witnesses", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2 Exclusion of witnesses\nThe member asks counsel and the hearings officer if there are any witnesses who will testify at the\nhearing present in the room. If so, the member will ask the witnesses to leave the room. Such a re quest\napplies to all the witnesses present in the room, except for the person concerned and the expert\nwitnesses. The person concerned has the right to attend the admissibility hearing that concerns them.\nHearings officers may wish for expert witnesses to hear all evidence presented since their testimony must\nbe based on the evidence that has been presented during the hearing.\nThe member may also remind everyone that witnesses must refrain from discussing the contents of their\ntestimony outside the hearing room [Immigration Division Rules, Rule 36].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.2 (Exclusion of witnesses)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.3", + "marginal_note": "Evidence: Reading and filing the report, or notice", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.3 Evidence: Reading and filing the report, or notice\nThe member of the ID accepts documents provided by both parties and enters them as exhibits to the\nhearing.\nThe member may ask for the originals of the A44(1) report and the “Referral under subsection 44(2) of\nthe IRPA for an admissibility hearing” form (BSF 506).\nThe hearings officer must present documentary evidence and ask for it to be entered as an exhibit to\nsubstantiate the allegations contained in the A44(1) report. The hearings officer can examine or question\nthe person concerned and/or witnesses on this evidence.\nThe evidence may cover one or more allegations. After presenting the A44(1) report, the hearings officer\nasks that the report be filed as an exhibit. The member of the ID will then explain the following to the\nperson concerned:\n the reason for the admissibility hearing;\n the allegations;\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 27\n possible consequences; and\n procedures to be followed during the admissibility hearing.\nIf applicable, the hearings officer calls the person concerned as a witness and may call other witnesses\nas required to support the allegations outlined in the A44(1) report.\nThe person concerned (or counsel representing the person concerned) will be given the opportunity to\npresent evidence to refute the allegations contained in the A44(1) report and to cross -examine all\nwitnesses.\nThe hearings officer is given the opportunity to cross-examine on the evidence presented by the person\nconcerned (or by counsel representing the person concerned).\nIf evidence that has not been previously provided to all parties arises during cross -examination, the\nopposing party will be given an opportunity to examine this evidence and respond accordingly.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.3 (Evidence: Reading and filing the report, or notice)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Evidence on the identity, citizenship and status of the person", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.4 Evidence on the identity, citizenship and status of the person\nconcerned\nAfter the person concerned has been sworn in, the person’s identity and citizenship must be clearly\nestablished. The hearings officer may develop the evidence by asking questions such as the following:\n What is your correct name in full?\n Have you ever used any other name?\n What is your date of birth?\n Where were you born?\n Of what country are you a citizen?\n Are you a Canadian citizen?\n Are you a permanent resident of Canada?\n Do you have a passport?\n Do you have other identity documents?\n What is your permanent address?\nQuestions should be aimed at determining whether the person concerned is\n an applicant for permanent residence with or without a valid visa;\n an individual seeking to come to Canada as a returning resident, with or without a permanent\nresident card or a facilitation visa;\n an applicant for a temporary resident permit (TRP) with or without a visa.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.4 (Evidence on the identity, citizenship and status of the person)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.5", + "marginal_note": "Evidence for inclusion of family members", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.5 Evidence for inclusion of family members\nTo include a family member in the removal order issued against the person concerned, hearings officers\nmust first prove the identity, citizenship and status of the family member. A42 provides that only foreign\nnationals can be inadmissible on grounds of an inadmissible family member; therefore, the hearings\nofficer must clearly establish that the family member is a foreign national.\nThe hearings officer must also prove that the conditions set forth in R227(2)(a) and (b) are satisfied as\nfollows:\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 28\nR227(2)(a)\nHearings officers should provide proof that family members were informed that they are subject to an\nadmissibility hearing pursuant to R227(2)(a) via a copy of the “Notice of Admissibility Hearing to Family\nMembers” form (BSF 540) that was previously provided to family members.\nR227(2)(b)\nConditions set out in R227(2)(b) are satisfied if the evidence shows that\n individuals fall within the definition of “family member” pursuant to R1(3);\n the family member(s) is (are) accompanying the inadmissible foreign national.\nAfter the hearings officer has presented the evidence, affected family members are given an opportunity\nto establish the reasons for why they should not be included in the removal order of the person\nconcerned.\nFamily members can only avoid being included in the removal order of the person concerned if they have\nproof that refutes the evidence submitted by the hearings officer and demonstrate that they do not meet\nthe definition of “family member” pursuant to R1(3).\nIf the ID comes to the conclusion that the foreign national is inadmissible, and that the conditions set forth\nin R227(2)(a) and (b) were met, then a removal order made by the ID against the person concerned will\nautomatically be effective against family members.\nSee section 9.10 above, for information about family inadmissibility.\nSee ENF 2 for information on evidence regarding inadmissible family members.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.5 (Evidence for inclusion of family members)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.6", + "marginal_note": "Examining and cross-examining witnesses", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.6 Examining and cross-examining witnesses\nExamining and cross-examining witnesses can be difficult. The following general guidelines may be\nuseful:\n Depending on the case, questioning should be subtle rather than obvious, in order to obtain as\nmuch information as possible.\n The order and type of questions should be adapted, and varied depending on the answers that\nthe person concerned has given to preceding questions. Also, depending on the answers of the\nperson concerned, it may be necessary to modify the plan for questioning witnesses and for\nintroducing evidence.\n Leading questions are those which suggest an answer. They can be a useful method of cross-\nexamination, particularly where the facts are not in dispute or when a witness is proving to be\nuncooperative.\n When it is the intention of the hearings officer to call into question the credibility of a witness,\nprocedural fairness dictates that cross examination is required. (Browne v. Dunn; R. v. Lyttle).\n It is useful to take notes of the key aspects of the testimony given by witnesses throughout the\nadmissibility hearing in order to prepare and deliver submissions to the member of the ID.\n All parties to the proceedings may ask to see the notes that witnesses use to assist with their\ntestimony, and may demand that these notes be introduced as an exhibit.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 29\nIf a cross-examination raises new information, it may be useful and/or necessary to ask a witness\nadditional questions after the cross-examination has been closed. Throughout the admissibility hearing,\nthe parties may raise objections and respond to the objections raised by the other party.\nAll testimony is given under oath (by swearing on a holy book) or by affirmation (a solemn promise to tell\nthe truth).\nThe Federal Court of Canada in Ioanmidis v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) ruled that\nan adverse inference should not be drawn simply because a party/litigant does not testify, even if a\nreasonable explanation is not provided. However, where a witness at a hearing refuses to give evidence,\nthe member is entitled to draw a negative inference from that refusal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.6 (Examining and cross-examining witnesses)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.7", + "marginal_note": "Submissions on the allegations", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.7 Submissions on the allegations\nAfter the hearings officer and the person concerned have introduced all evidence, the member of the ID\ngives both parties an opportunity to make submissions on the allegations. The presentation of evidence\nshould be clear, concise and delivered in logical order. The submission stage is not the time to introduce\nnew facts. Hearings officers should also ensure that any statements and conclusions made in their\nsubmission are supported by evidence entered into the record.\nFor example, in the case of a person seeking admission to Canada, the hearings officer may indicate in\nhis or her submissions that the person concerned\n has no right to enter Canada since the person is neither a Canadian citizen nor a permanent\nresident of Canada; and\n has not discharged the burden of proof and has therefore failed to establish admissibility.\nIn the case of a foreign national who is in Canada, the hearings officer should point out that the person\nconcerned has no right to remain in Canada given that they are neither a Canadian citizen nor a\npermanent resident of Canada. The hearings officer may present a summary of the evidence that would\nlead a reasonable and cautious person to conclude that there is a factual basis to the allegation(s)\ncontained in the A44(1) report.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.7 (Submissions on the allegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.8", + "marginal_note": "The admissibility decision", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.8 The admissibility decision\nFollowing submissions, the member of the ID renders a decision as to whether or not the person\nconcerned is inadmissible to Canada. The decision determines if the allegations contained in the report\nare well founded and whether the evidence introduced into the record revealed additional grounds of\ninadmissibility. The member shall then render one of the decisions listed in A45 as follows:\n If the ID finds that the person concerned is in fact a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident, or a\nregistered Indian under the Indian Act, the ID will recognize the person’s right to enter Canada\n[A45(a)].\n If the ID finds that the person concerned is not inadmissible, and is satisfied that the person\nmeets the requirements of the Act, the ID will grant the person concerned temporary or\npermanent resident status [A45(b)], as the case may be.\n If the ID finds that the person concerned is not inadmissible, but that the evidence does not show\nthat the person concerned meets all of the requirements of the Act, then the ID shall authorize the\nperson concerned to enter Canada for further examination, with or without conditions [A45( c)].\n If the ID finds that the allegation is well founded, the ID shall make the applicable removal order,\nwhich may require additional evidence [A45(d)].\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 30\nThe ID must give the reasons for its decision orally or in writing. The ID will provide the written reasons\nupon request from one of the parties, which must be received by the Division within 10 days from the\nnotification of the decision [Immigration Division Rules, Rule 7(4)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.8 (The admissibility decision)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Submissions on a removal order", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.9 Submissions on a removal order\nWhere, at the conclusion of an admissibility hearing, the member of the ID is of the opinion that the\nperson concerned is inadmissible on one or more grounds, the member shall make the applicable\nremoval order [A45(d)].\n Section R229(1) lists the type of removal order to be made by the ID according to applicable\ninadmissibility.\n R229(2) lists grounds of inadmissibility for which the ID must make a departure order when the\nperson concerned is a refugee protection claimant [R229(1)(f), (g), (j),(m) and (n)]. To ensure that\nthe correct removal order is issued, the hearings officer should state whether the eligibility of the\nclaim has been determined, and if the claim has been determined to be ineligible, produce copies\nof all relevant forms.\n When an application for refugee protection is presented before or during the admissibility h earing,\nthe hearings officer must proceed as if the eligibility determination has already been made.\n R229(3) lists circumstances in which the ID shall make a deportation order against a person\ninstead of the prescribed removal order pursuant to R229(1). The circumstances listed in R229(3)\nare the following:\n1. the person was previously subject to a removal order and the person is inadmissible on\nthe same grounds as in that order;\n2. the person has failed to comply with any condition or obligation imposed under th e Act or\nthe Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, unless the failure is the basis for the removal\norder; or\n3. the person has been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament\npunishable by way of indictment or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not\narising out of a single occurrence, unless the conviction or convictions are the grounds\nfor the removal order.\nHearings officers will be provided with the opportunity to make arguments on the application of 229(3)\nwhere applicable and adduce all relevant evidence to support the application of the provision. Where\nevidence supports the application, the hearings officer should recommend the issuance of a deportation\norder.\nNote: For more information on specified removal orders, see ENF 10, Removals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.9 (Submissions on a removal order)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.10", + "marginal_note": "Cases involving refugee protection claimant", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.10 Cases involving refugee protection claimant\nIf the person concerned claims refugee protection during an admissibility hearing, the case must be\nreferred to a Minister's delegate for determination of eligibility.\nThe person concerned will be issued a Determination of Eligibility form (IMM 1442B), which will provide\nreasons, if the claim is ineligible.\nWhere an application for refugee protection is presented before or during the proceedings, the hearings\nofficer must proceed as if the person is eligible to make a claim for refugee protection. This means that\nthe admissibility hearing must be held in private from the moment the application for refugee protection is\npresented. If it is later determined that the claim for refugee protection was not eligible, the continuation of\nan adjourned admissibility hearing and subsequent hearings shall be held in public.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 31", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.10 (Cases involving refugee protection claimant)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.11", + "marginal_note": "Claim to Canadian citizenship", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.11 Claim to Canadian citizenship\nAn admissibility hearing is not adjourned simply because a person concerned claims to be a Canadian\ncitizen. To provide proof of Canadian citizenship, a genuine passport or a citizenship certificate is\nrequired. It is the responsibility of the member of the ID to determine if the evidence produced by the\nperson concerned is sufficient to support the claim that they are Canadian citizen.\nThe hearings officer may challenge the claim to citizenship during the hearing, if the hearings officer is in\npossession of evidence to support the challenge. The hearings officer may ask the member of the ID to\nrender a decision and continue the admissibility hearing according to established procedure. The\nhearings officer may request an adjournment in order to obtain the evidence required to refute the claim\nto Canadian citizenship, if the necessary evidence is not readily available.\nIf the admissibility hearing is adjourned, the person concerned must provide proof that he or she has\nmade an application for a citizenship certificate within the specified time frame. If an application for a\ncitizenship certificate has not been filed within the specified period, or if the hearings officer is informed by\nthe Registrar of Canadian Citizenship (RCC) that a citizenship certificate will not be issued, the hearings\nofficer will request the ID to resume the admissibility hearing.\nIf the RCC confirms that the person concerned is indeed a Canadian citizen or issues a certificate of\ncitizenship, the hearings officer will forward the documents to the ID and the admissibility hearing will be\nterminated immediately.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.11 (Claim to Canadian citizenship)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-11-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 11.12", + "marginal_note": "Cases involving detainees", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.12 Cases involving detainees\nAdmissibility hearings concerning persons who are detained may coincide with the date scheduled for a\ndetention review. Although the admissibility hearing may be adjourned, the detention review must take\nplace within the time frames prescribed by section A57.\nIf the admissibility hearing takes place, the member of the ID will proceed first with the admissibility\nhearing. Since the admissibility hearing and the detention review are two separate proceedings, the\nmember may ask for separate disclosure of documents.\nFor more information, see section 13, Detention reviews.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 11.12 (Cases involving detainees)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1 General\nSection A86 provides that the Minister (hearings officer as the Minister’s delegate) may, prior to or during\nan admissibility hearing, a detention review or an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD),\nmake an application for non-disclosure of information or other evidence, if the hearings officer is of the\nopinion that this information falls within the following definition: “security or criminal intelligence\ninformation and information that is obtained in confidence from a source in Canada, the government of a\nforeign state, an international organization of states or an institution of such a government or international\norganization.” (A76)\nNote: For information on how to proceed with a non-disclosure application, hearings officers should refer\nto ENF 31: Applications for non-disclosure at IRB hearings.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 32", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 12.1 (General)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-12-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Application for non-disclosure presented prior to an admissibility", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2 Application for non-disclosure presented prior to an admissibility\nhearing or a detention review\nIf a decision is made to proceed with an application for non-disclosure of information, the hearings officer\nshould notify counsel of record, or in the absence of counsel, the person concern as prescribed by ID\nRules 38(5) .A copy of the application must also be provided to the ID, including proof that the person\nconcerned or their counsel was notified of the application.\nInformation provided in the application, if any, should be limited so as not to disclose information that\nshould be protected. A83 and A85.1 to A85.5 govern the procedures regarding application for non -\ndisclosure.\nThe ID registrar will schedule a date for an ex parte in camera hearing as expeditiously as possible. The\nmember of the ID will conduct a hearing in private (in camera) and in the absence of the person\nconcerned and the person’s counsel to hear the application for non-disclosure of information. Subsection\nA83(1)(b), requires that the ID appoint a special advocate upon request of the person concerned. The\nrole of the special advocate is to represent the interests of the person concerned at the hearing of the s.\n86 application for non-disclosure.\nNote: A list of special advocates is available on the Department of Justice website.\nNote: All individuals participating in the non-disclosure hearing must have the required security\nclearance.\nOnce the member of the ID completes examination of the information and other evidence, the member\nmust determine which elements of information or evidence may be considered in his or her decision as\noutlined in the following table.\nInformation or evidence that may be considered by the ID at a non-disclosure hearing\nTypes of\ninformation or\nevidence", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 12.2 (Application for non-disclosure presented prior to an admissibility) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-12-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Application for non-disclosure presented prior to an admissibility", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Applicability to decision\nRelevant facts\nthat may not be\ndisclosed\nThe member takes these facts into account when making his or her decision (at the\nconclusion of the admissibility hearing or detention review), but does not include\nthem in the summary that is prepared for the person concerned.\nRelevant facts\nthat may be\ndisclosed\nThe member may take these facts into account when making a decision, and include\nthem in the summary, if the hearings officer agrees that the facts may be\ndisclosed. If the hearings officer does not agree with the contents of the summary,\nthe hearings officer can withdraw the information under dispute, or the application\naltogether, and a decision on the case will be rendered without the information under\ndispute.\nIrrelevant\nevidence\nSuch evidence is not considered in the decision.\nThe person concerned will be provided with a summary of information and other evidence that allows the\nperson to be reasonably informed of the case being made by the Minister. The summary does not include\ninformation that would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person if disclosed\n[A83(1)(e)].\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 33", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 12.2 (Application for non-disclosure presented prior to an admissibility) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "Application for non-disclosure presented during an admissibility", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3 Application for non-disclosure presented during an admissibility\nhearing or a detention review\nIf, during the course of an admissibility hearing or a detention review it becomes apparent that evidence\nor other information to be presented falls under the definition of A76, the hearings officer may make an\napplication for non-disclosure at that time. If necessary, the member of the ID may suspend the hearing to\nallow the hearings officer to prepare a written application.\nAt the time an application for non-disclosure is presented, the member of the ID must exclude the person\nconcerned and the person’s counsel from the hearing room. The ID member may adjourn the\nadmissibility hearing or detention review at the request of the hearings officer or on the member’s own\ninitiative and schedule a date for the hearing of the Minister’s application for non-disclosure.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 12.3 (Application for non-disclosure presented during an admissibility)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4 Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following\nan application for non-disclosure\nAfter a decision on the information in question is made, the ID will proceed with the admissibility hearing.\nNote: Detention reviews will proceed without the information under review or without the respo ndent, as\nthe case may be.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing into the application for disclosure of information, the member of the ID\nprepares a summary of the evidence including only information that, in the opinion of the member, if\ndisclosed, would not be injurious to the national security of Canada or to the safety of any person.\nThe summary of the disclosure proceedings is provided to the hearings officer and the person concerned\nor counsel, as the case may be.\nDuring the admissibility hearing, the hearings officers must not disclose information that is subject to the\nnon-disclosure order. However, hearings officers may disclose facts that are part of the summary that has\nbeen provided to the person concerned.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 12.4 (Conduct of the admissibility hearing or detention review following)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1 General\nA detention review is a proceeding that takes place before a member of the ID during which the\ncircumstances of detention are examined to determine\n whether the detention is lawful; and if it is\n whether detention be continued.\nAt these proceedings, the Minister of PSEP is represented by a hearings officer. A detention review\n is not as structured as an admissibility hearing;\n may be held on its own or in conjunction with an admissibility hearing;\n evidence may or may not be presented, usually only oral submissions are made;\n detained persons have the right to be represented by counsel.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 34\nGenerally, each party (the hearings officer and the person concerned) presents facts and arguments.\nParties are not required to prove the facts and arguments, unless information prov ided is challenged by\nthe other party. If the information is challenged, evidence to support the facts and arguments may be\nintroduced. Evidence may consist of documents or other material evidence, testimony of the person\nconcerned, or affidavits. Evidence presented at detention reviews is governed by the same evidentiary\nrules as are admissibility hearings.\nThe member of the ID should be aware of the alleged reasons for detention from the information\ncontained in the Request for Admissibility Hearing/Detention Review Pursuant to the Immigration Division\nRules form (BSF 524). The ID member may require that the hearings officer present the reasons for\ndetention and hearings officers should be prepared to do so.\nFollowing the hearings officer’s opening statement, the ID member provides an overview of the purpose\nof the detention review and the jurisdiction conferred upon the member by IRPA and its Regulations. The\nmember will ask the hearings officer to submit the facts, arguments, and a recommendation regard ing the\ncontinuation of the detention or the release of the person concerned, as the case may be.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.1 (General)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "Authority to detain a person under IRPA", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.2 Authority to detain a person under IRPA\nFor detailed information on the authority to detain a person under IRPA, refer to ENF 20 : Detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.2 (Authority to detain a person under IRPA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "Detention review – timeline for permanent residents and foreign", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.3 Detention review – timeline for permanent residents and foreign\nnationals\nThe frequency of detention reviews is prescribed in A57 as follows:\n A57(1) provides that the ID must review the reasons for continued detention within 48 hours\nafter the permanent resident or foreign national was detained.\n A57(2) provides that the ID must review the reasons for continued detention at least once during\nthe 7 days following the initial review;\n A57(2) also provides that the ID must review the reasons for continued detention at least once\nduring each 30-day period following each previous review.\nThe permanent resident or foreign national will be present at each detention review, either in person or by\nway of video or teleconference.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.3 (Detention review – timeline for permanent residents and foreign)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Detention review – timeline for designated foreign nationals (DFN)", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.4 Detention review – timeline for designated foreign nationals (DFN)\nPursuant to subsection A20.1(1), the Minister of PSEP has the authority to order the arrival in Canada of\na group of persons to be designated as an “irregular arrival”. A foreign national who is part of a group\nwhose arrival in Canada is designated by the Minister as an “irregular arrival” automatically becomes a\n“designated foreign national” (DFN) unless he or she holds the documents required for entry, and on\nexamination the officer is satisfied that the person is not inadmissible to Canada [A20.1(2)]. For additional\ninformation, hearings officers should refer to the Designated Irregular Arrivals Toolkit on Atlas.\nDFNs are subject to mandatory arrest and detention and a revised detention review timeline. Upon\ndesignation, the CBSA must arrest and detain all DFNs who were 16 years of age or older at the time of\nthe arrival, where the designated irregular arrival occurred on or after June 28, 2012.\nThe following modified detention timeline applies to all DFNs who are 16 years or older:\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 35\n A57.1(1) provides that the ID must review the reasons for continued detention within 14 days\nafter a DFN was detained.\nNote: Subsection A57.1(1) requires the ID to schedule the initial detention review within 14 days,\nmeaning the ID may schedule the detention review at anytime from the day the DFN was\ndetained to day 14 of detention.\n Pursuant to A57.1(2), subsequent detention reviews must take place after the expiry of 6\nmonths following the conclusion of the previous review.\nNote: This means that the ID may schedule the next detention review following the expiry of 6\nmonths after the previous review, but not prior to the expiry of 6 months.\nThe designated foreign national will be present at each detention review, either in person or by way of\nvideo - or teleconference.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.4 (Detention review – timeline for designated foreign nationals (DFN))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.5", + "marginal_note": "Mechanism of detention reviews and grounds for continued", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.5 Mechanism of detention reviews and grounds for continued\ndetention\nDetention reviews are a two-step process:\n1. The member of the ID must release a person from detention, unless the member is satisfied that\none of the reasons described in A58 exists, taking into account the prescribed factors (R244 -247)\nas appropriate.\n2. If the member determines that one or more grounds for detention exists, the member considers\nthe factors in R248 to determine if detention should be continued.\nIn Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Thanabalasingham (paragraph 24), the Federal\nCourt of Appeal noted that detention reviews are not technically de novo hearings but that the ID must\ncome to a fresh conclusion whether detention should continue. The ID member must give clear and\ncompelling reasons to depart from prior decisions to detain.\nIt is the role of hearings officers to present evidence to support one or more of the reasons for detention.\nIn doing so, hearings officers should be guided by the factors set out in R245 to R247 depending on the\nreason for detention.\nFor additional information on reasons for detention, refer to ENF 20 Detention.\nNote: It is not required that continued detention be sought on the same ground(s) as the original reason\nfor arrest and detention. Hearings officers may argue for continued detention under section 58 on\ngrounds that may or may not have existed at the time of initial arrest and detention.\nIn Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Ismail, the FC assessed the\nrelationship between the grounds for arresting and detaining an individual under IRPA, and the grounds\nthat permit continued detention of that individual by the Immigration Division of the IRB.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.5 (Mechanism of detention reviews and grounds for continued) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.5", + "marginal_note": "Mechanism of detention reviews and grounds for continued", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The court determined that “[T]o interpret paragraph 58(1)(c) of IRPA so as to permit the detention of an\nindividual in order to allow the Minister to take necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that\nthe individual is inadmissible on grounds of security, when that suspicion only arises after the person has\nentered Canada, accords with the priority that the legislation ascribes to security.” The following question\nwas certified:\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 36\n“Is paragraph 58(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act only available as a ground for\ncontinued detention, where it follows a detention under subsection 55(3) of the IRPA?” (paragraph 68)\nIt is the hearing officer’s role to make recommendations, in favour of or against continued detention to the\nmember of the ID keeping in mind that the member will verify, consider and weigh each of the factors se t\nout in the Regulations.\nIf, for example, the hearings officer seeks detention because the person concerned is alleged to be a\ndanger to the public, the hearings officer will have to provide evidence to demonstrate that the facts of the\ncase fall within the factors listed in R246.\nThe list of factors set out in each of R245, R246, and R247 is not exhaustive and other factors may be\nconsidered by the member of the ID when rendering a decision. Thus the credibility of the person\nconcerned and statements of the person concerned that they will or will not comply with the laws\ngoverning immigration and refugee protection or any directive issued by the CBSA may be considered in\nthe assessment of the grounds for detention.\nNote: In the case of DFNs who were 16 years or older on the day of their arrival that is subject of the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.5 (Mechanism of detention reviews and grounds for continued) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.5", + "marginal_note": "Mechanism of detention reviews and grounds for continued", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "designation in question, the member of the ID must consider only the prescribed factors related to the\nrelevant reason for detention and may not consider any other factors at the 14 day detention review\n[A58(1.1)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.5 (Mechanism of detention reviews and grounds for continued) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Flight Risk (R245)", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Flight Risk (R245)\nFor the purposes of paragraph 244(a), the factors to be considered in determining if a person is unlikely\nto appear for examination, an admissibility hearing, removal from Canada or at a proceeding that could\nlead to the making of a removal order by the Minister under subsection 44(2) of the Act are prescribed in\nsection R245.\nIn addition to the factors set out in R245, hearings officers may consider the following when preparing a\nsubmission to indicate that the person concerned is not likely to appear:\n use of pseudonym(s)/alias(es) to avoid detection or to evade compliance with IRPA and its\nRegulations;\n frequent changes of address in Canada;\n previously eluded examination or did not appear as requested;\n has not satisfied previous conditions attached or the conditions to a bond imposed by a criminal\ncourt, the CBSA or the IRB;\n attempted to escape or to hide; and\n a warrant was issued against the person concerned.\nIn cases where hearings officers perceive a risk that the person concerned will not appear unless\nconditions are imposed, hearings officers should consider a guarantee or a cash deposit with conditions\nof release [A44(3)].\nNote: In the case of DFNs who were 16 years or older on the day of their arrival that is subject of the\ndesignation in question, at the 14 day detention review the member of the ID must consider only the\nprescribed factors related to R245 for detention and may not consider any other factors.\nThe member of the ID will consider and weigh all available evidence when deciding if continued detention\nis warranted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (Flight Risk (R245))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Danger to the public (R246)", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Danger to the public (R246)\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 37\nFor the purposes of paragraph 244(b), the factors to be considered in determining if a person is a danger\nto the public are prescribed in section R246.\nSome factors may require additional arguments to demonstrate that a specific fact disclosed before the ID\nshould be considered as a factor in favour of detention. For example, the details of a foreign conviction for\na sexual offence [R246(f)(i)] should be examined carefully to determine the equivalent in Canadian law.\nThe hearings officer should disclose all available details to satisfy the member of the ID that the offence is\ndescribed in R246(f)(i).\nThe circumstances surrounding the commission of an offence may assist the member of the ID in\ndetermining the weight of a factor compared to another. For instance, the fact that the victim of the\noffence is a minor child may be considered as more serious than if the victim is an older person. An\noffence committed with the use of a prohibited weapon may also be considered to have more weight than\nan offence committed with another weapon, depending on the specific circumstances of each case.\nNote: Each factor is in itself sufficient to find that a person is a danger to the public. [Bruzzese v Canada\n(Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (paragraphs 47 and 87)].\nHearings officers should submit the following documents, if applicable and available, to the ID to support\nan argument that an individual remains a danger to the public:\n the criminal record of the person concerned, and documents establishing a criminal conviction in\nor outside Canada;\n the indictment;\n evidence of the medical condition of the person concerned;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Danger to the public (R246)) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Danger to the public (R246)", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " police reports documenting association of the person concerned with known criminals or a\ncriminal organization;\n classified reports relating to security or criminal activity of the person concerned, and a record of\nphysical violence, if applicable; and\n correctional services report on the person’s behaviour in detention.\nIn addition, hearings officers may consider the age of a conviction and the circumstance under which an\noffence was committed. The fact that the person concerned was convicted and has served the applicable\nsentence is not in itself an indication that the person concerned is a danger to the public. A strong\nindication that the person concerned is a danger to the public may consist of evidence that the offence\ninvolved violence or weapons and that the person concerned is likel y to re-offend.\nIn some instances danger to the public may dissipate because of the length of time a person has spent in\ndetention or because the evidence in support of a detention order is no longer valid. [Canada (Minister of\nCitizenship and Immigration) v. Sittampalam (paragraph 25)], Therefore, hearings officers must establish\nthat the danger is current.\nThe member of the ID will consider and weigh all available evidence when deciding if detention should be\ncontinued.\nNote: See ENF 28, Ministerial Opinions on Danger to the Public and to the Security of Canada, for\nadditional information on assessing danger to the public.\nNote: In the case of DFNs who were 16 years or older on the day of their arrival that is subject of the\ndesignation in question, at the 14 day detention review the member of the ID must consider only the\nprescribed factors related to R246 for detention and may not consider any other factors.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Danger to the public (R246)) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Identity (R247)", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Identity (R247)\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 38\nFor the purposes of paragraph 244(c), the factors to be considered in determining whether a person is a\nforeign national whose identity has not been established are prescribed in section R247.\nIn cases where the identity of the person concerned has not been established, the hearings officer must\nshow that every effort to establish the identity of the person concerned was made.\nIf applicable, the hearings officer must demonstrate how the person concerned ha s not reasonably\ncooperated for the purpose of establishing his or her identity [A58(1)(d); ID Rules, Rule 247].\nNote: In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Bains (paragraph 4), the Federal Court\nclarified that it is not up to the member of the ID to determine what is acceptable as proof of identity, but\nmerely whether the Minister made reasonable efforts to identify the person concerned. [see also Canada\n(Citizenship and Immigration) v. B046]In the case of DFNs who were 16 years or older on the day of their\narrival that is subject of the designation in question, at the 14 day detention review the member of the ID\nmust consider only the prescribed factors related to R247 for detention and may not consider any other\nfactors.\n The factors set out in R245, R246 and R247 are not exhaustive. Additional factors may be\nconsidered by the member of the ID when assessing the evidence.\n In Bruzzese v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), the FC\nconfirmed that additional factors may be considered with respect to factors set out in R245 and\nR246].\nThe member of the ID will consider and weigh all available evidence when deciding if detention should be\ncontinued (R248).\n Hearings officers should ensure that the case file contains a signed and dated “Minister’s Opinion\nRegarding the Foreign National’s Identity” (BSF 510) form.\nNote: In the case of DFNs who were 16 years or older on the day of their arrival that is subject of the\ndesignation in question, in reviewing detention on identity, the member of the ID must consider only if the\nMinister is of the opinion that the identity of the foreign national has not been established. The ID is not\npermitted to consider the foreign national’s level of cooperation or other prescribed factors [ A58(e)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3 (Identity (R247))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.6", + "marginal_note": "Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.6 Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be\ncontinued (R248)\nIn addition to the factors referred to above, members of the ID must take into consideration the factors set\nout in R248, also known as the ‘Sahin factors’ when determining if detention should be continued.\nIn Sahin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court determined that in certain\ncases indefinite detention violates Section 7 of the Charter. Bektas Sahin, the person concerned had\nbeen detained for more than 14 months at the time the Federal Court rendered its decision. The Court\nprovided a list of considerations that should be taken into account by members of the ID when making\ndecisions on whether an individual should remain in detention. These considerations have been codified\nin R248.\nAlso refer to Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), which endorsed Sahin.\nIf the hearings officer recommends continued detention, the hearings officer should submit all available\nevidence to the ID in support of continued detention.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 39\nNote: With the exception of 14 day detention reviews for DFNs, members are not limited to the\nconsiderations set out in the IRPR when deciding if continued detention of the person concerned is\nwarranted.\nThe factors set out in R248 are as follows:\n Reasons for detention R248(a)\nFor example, there may be a stronger case for continued detention on the grounds that the\nperson concerned is a danger to the public, if the hearings officer has actual evidence that the\nperson concerned has committed an offence, rather than if the hearings officer presents solely\nhearsay evidence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.6 (Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.6", + "marginal_note": "Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Length of time in detention R248(b) and length of time detention will likely continue\nR248(c)\nIn Sahin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court determined that,\nin certain cases, indefinite detention violated Section 7 of the Charter.\nOne of the significant tests set out by the Federal Court related to the period of time that had\npassed before a decision was rendered as to whether the person in question was authorized to\nremain in Canada.\nIn Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Li (para. 81),the FCA stated that “the basis\nof the estimation of anticipated future length of detention should be the pro ceedings as they exist\nat the time of each monthly review and not on an anticipation of available processes but not yet\nunderway.”\nThe risk a person poses to the public does not decrease or disappear with a prolonged stay in\ndetention. Hearings officers may present evidence to show that although the person concerned\nhas served a sentence for a violent crime they could still be considered a danger to the public.\n Any unexplained delays or unexplained lack of diligence by the person concerned or by\nthe CBSA R248(d)\nIf the person concerned or the Minister of PSEP has caused any unexplained delays or if either of\nthem has not been as diligent as is reasonably possible, it should weigh against the offending\nparty.\nFor example, in a subsequent court decision, Kidane v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration) (paragraphs 8 and 9), the Federal Court upheld the member’s decision to detain the\nperson concerned, ruling that the member had adequately applied the four -part test set out in\nSahin, and that prolonged detention of the person concerned did not violate his rights as he was", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.6 (Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.6", + "marginal_note": "Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "largely himself responsible for the procedural delays that caused the continuation of his detention.\nIn Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kamail (paragraphs 34 and 37), the\nFederal Court applied the four-part test set out in Sahin and concluded that the test “clearly\nfavours keeping the respondent in detention”. The member committed an error in law when he\ndecided the case in the respondent’s favour on the basis that detention was indefinite when he\nrecognized that the respondent’s lack of cooperation must count against the respondent and not\nthe Minister.\n The existence of alternatives to detention R248(e)\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 40\nWhen assessing continued detention of a person concerned, members of the ID consider the\navailability, effectiveness and appropriateness of alternatives to detention, including but not\nlimited to outright release, a bond or guarantee, periodic reporting, confinement to a particular\nlocation or geographic area, the requirement to report changes to contact information or a form of\ndetention that is less restrictive to the individual, etc.\nIn Sahin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court noted that the\ntest that deserves significant weight is the length of time anticipated until a final decision, one way\nor the other, on whether the person concerned may remain in Canada, or must leave Canada, is\nrendered.\nNote: If the hearings officer recommends continued detention, the hearings officer shoul d submit\nall available evidence to the ID in support of continued detention. With the exception of 14 -day\ndetention reviews for DFNs, members are not limited to the considerations set out in the IRPR", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.6 (Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-6-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.6", + "marginal_note": "Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "when deciding if continued detention of a person concerned is warranted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.6 (Factors to be considered when determining if detention should be) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.7", + "marginal_note": "Making a recommendation on continued detention", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.7 Making a recommendation on continued detention\nHearings officers make recommendations for continued detention based on the facts of each particular\ncase. If recommending to continue detention, hearings officers must be prepared to pr ovide evidence to\nsupport the argument that the person should remain in detention.\nScenarios\nSituation – taking into consideration the\nfactors set out in R248 (except for detention\nreviews involving DFNs):\nHearings officers should consider the following:\nThe hearings officer is of the opinion that\ndetention should continue.\nTo continue detention\nThe hearings officer comes to the conclusion\nthat the person concerned should be released\nwith a bond/guarantee and/or conditions as an\nalternative to detention\nThe hearings officer should consider if a deposit or\nguarantee or a combination would be appropriate in the\ncircumstance and make the recommendation\naccordingly.\nThe hearings officer should consider the financial\nsituation of the person concerned and/or prospective\nguarantor(s), when setting the amount for the bond.\nThe hearings officer may provide submissions on the\nnature and the size of the bond and/or conditions that\nshould be imposed.\nThe hearings officer concludes that there is no\nneed and/or justification to continue detention.\nThe hearings officer should indicate that the Minister\nhas no objection to the release of the person\nconcerned, or alternatively recommend release with a\ndeposit/guarantee and/or conditions.\nNote: If the hearings officer does not agree with the decision of the ID at a detention review, the hearings\nofficer may seek advice from the Regional Justice Liaison Officer (JLO). The JLO will in turn consult with\nthe Department of Justice and CBSA Litigation Management on whether to move forward with a stay of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.7 (Making a recommendation on continued detention) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.7", + "marginal_note": "Making a recommendation on continued detention", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "release and an application for leave to seek judicial review. Please refer to ENF 9 for further information\non judicial review.\nWhen recommending release with conditions, the hearings officer should be satisfied that the guarantor is\nin a position to exercise control over the movements of the person released, and that the person\nconcerned will report for immigration proceedings as required.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 41\nThe hearings officer should also assess the reliability of the guarantor. For example, a proposed\nguarantor who has defaulted on a previous bond and remains in default, is no longer eligible to be a\nguarantor.\nNote: For additional information on deposits and guarantees, please refer to ENF 8, Deposits and\nGuarantees.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.7 (Making a recommendation on continued detention) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13.8", + "marginal_note": "Detention after an admissibility hearing has been concluded", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.8 Detention after an admissibility hearing has been concluded\nIn cases where at an admissibility hearing the member of the ID makes a removal order against a person\nconcerned, the hearings officer should - when detention or continued detention is justified - ask the\nmember of the ID to order the detention of the person concerned [A58].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13.8 (Detention after an admissibility hearing has been concluded)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-14-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 14.1", + "marginal_note": "General guidelines", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.1 General guidelines\nAt any time during an admissibility hearing or a detention review, the person concerned and/or the\nhearings officer may present any application (e.g., request to adjourn, application for p ostponement,\napplication to change venue) All applications must be made pursuant to the format prescribed by the ID\nRules, beginning with Rule 38.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 14.1 (General guidelines)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-14-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 14.2", + "marginal_note": "Application for postponement", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.2 Application for postponement\nIf the hearings officer receives a request for postponement of an admissibi lity hearing from the person\nconcerned or from counsel, the hearings officer must advise the person concerned or counsel that the\nrequest must be made to the ID [Immigration Division Rules, Rule 43(1)]. The Minister of PSEP does not\naccept applications on behalf of the ID.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 14.2 (Application for postponement)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-14-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 14.3", + "marginal_note": "Request for adjournment", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.3 Request for adjournment\nParties to the admissibility hearing may make an application for adjournment as outlined in sections 38 to\n43 of the ID Rules.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 14.3 (Request for adjournment)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Mandatory adjournments", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Mandatory adjournments\nThe member of the ID must grant a request for adjournment in the following circumstances:\n To allow a minor child or a person who is unabl to understand the nature of the proceedings to be\nrepresented by a parent or a guardian. If the member of the ID is of the opinion that the person is\nnot adequately represented, the member may designate a representative [A167(2); Immigration\nDivision Rules, rules 18 and 19].\n Where the services of an interpreter are required to permit the presence of an interpreter at the\nadmissibility hearing [Immigration Division Rules, rule 17].\n When the person concerned claims Canadian citizenship, and had it not been for this claim a\nremoval order would have been issued; and\n When a hearings officer requests that a dependent family member be included in the removal\norder issued to the person concerned, and the member of the ID is not convinced that the family\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 42\nmember was notified accordingly, using the “Notice of Admissibility Hearing to Family Members”\nform (BSF 540).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (Mandatory adjournments)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Discretionary adjournments", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Discretionary adjournments\nIn cases that do not involve one or more of the mandatory circumstances, member s of the ID have\ndiscretion to grant adjournments in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural\njustice [Prassad v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)], or under the general powers\nconferred on the member as a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act.\nThe principles of natural justice and procedural fairness require that the member of the ID considers an\nadjournment request by hearing submissions from both parties and by balancing their interests. Members\nmust also take into consideration if an adjournment will have a negative effect on the efficiency and\nexpediency of the process.\nHearings officers must adequately support the recommendations against or in favour of adjourning an\nadmissibility hearing by submitting valid reasons and by making reference to the relevant case law.\nBased on the SCC decision in Prassad v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), members of\nthe ID should consider the following factors when deciding whether an adjournment should b e granted\n(paragraphs 35 and 36):\n The number of adjournments granted previously;\n The length of time for which an adjournment is requested; and\n The timeliness of pursuing other remedies before asking for an adjournment; and\n In certain circumstances, sympathy for the concerned person’s circumstances.\nWhen applying for an adjournment, hearings officers should address all the applicable factors\n[Immigration Division Rules, Rule 43].\nAdjournments may also be granted at the discretion of the member of the ID or under the general powers\nconferred on the member as a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act. Both parties may make\narguments in favour of an adjournment. A member of the ID may grant an adjournment for the following\nreasons, among other grounds:\n to allow the person concerned to retain counsel (A167);\n for either party to obtain additional evidence or to summon witnesses;\n to allow relevant documents to be introduced (i.e. evidence of a conviction outside Canada);\n to have the person concerned medically examined or to secure additional medical evidence;\n to replace an incompetent interpreter or counsel;\n to consult with the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship; and\n to allow a member of the ID to prepare the decision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Discretionary adjournments)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments to obtain counsel", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Adjournments to obtain counsel\nOver the years it has often been argued before the courts that refusal to grant an adjournment for the\npurpose of obtaining counsel of choice was tantamount to depriving a person of the right to retain and\ninstruct counsel. To this end, the hearings officer can argue that the right to counsel simply means that\nthe person concerned must be given the opportunity to retain and instruct counsel of choice amongst\nthose who are ready and available to proceed on the date fixed by the member of the ID.\nThe person concerned must be given sufficient time to find counsel. However, hearings officers must\nobject to long adjournments when they are of the opinion that the subject of the admissibility hearing has\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 43\nhad reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel who is willing and able to handle the case. In such cases,\nthe hearings officer will argue that the person should take the necessary action to find other counsel. If\ncounsel is never available or does not appear when required, the hearings officer should request that a\nperemptory resumption date be set.\nThe hearings officer should argue that the Charter does not grant an unrestricted right to counsel of\nchoice. Clients have the right to be represented by counsel, but by counsel who is reasonably available to\nappear before the tribunal. Counsel is also obliged by a code of ethics not to take on cases where they\nare not reasonably available to appear on behalf of clients because of previous commitments.\nIf counsel makes continuous requests for adjournment, hearings officers may oppose these requests and\nprovide reasons for why the request for adjournment is not justified.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3 (Adjournments to obtain counsel) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments to obtain counsel", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "In exceptional circumstances, the hearings officer may notify the office manager, to consider whether a\nformal complaint to the provincial bar association or law society may be warranted. The Traveller\nOperations Unit in the Border Operations Directorate, Operations Branch, CBSA - National Headquarters\nshould be informed via CBSA-ASFC_OPS_IEO-OEI of all such formal complaints.\nNote: Refer to Appendix B for additional information on adjournments and jurisprudence.\nHearings officers should base their submissions on the factors that are applicable to the particular case at\nhand.\nHearings officers should review the file to determine if the person concerned has in the past asked for an\nadjournment for similar reasons (e.g., to obtain counsel). Before arguing for or against a proposed\nadjournment, hearings officers should take into account the stage the admissibility hearing has reached\nand the anticipated length of the adjournment requested.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3 (Adjournments to obtain counsel) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-14-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 14.4", + "marginal_note": "Change of venue", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.4 Change of venue\nRequests for a change of venue must be made to the ID [Immigration Division Rules, Rule 42].\nWhen deciding if the application for a change of venue should be allowed, the member of the ID must\nconsider the following factors:\n whether a change of location would allow the hearing to be full and proper;\n whether a change of location would likely delay or slow the hearing;\n how a change of location would affect the operation of the ID;\n how a change of location would affect the parties; and\n whether a change of location would endanger public safety.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 14.4 (Change of venue)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-14-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 14.5", + "marginal_note": "Application for proceeding in-camera (in private)", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.5 Application for proceeding in-camera (in private)\nIf the member of the ID is satisfied that\n there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of the person concerned will be\nendangered, if the proceeding is held in public;\n there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the proceeding such that the need to prevent\ndisclosure outweighs the social interest that the proceeding be conducted in publ ic; or\n matters involving public security will be disclosed;\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 44\nthe member may on application on the member’s own initiative, conduct a proceeding in -camera (in\nprivate) or take any other measure to ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings (A166( b)(I, ii, iii);\nImmigration Division Rules, Rule 45; Pacific Press Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Employment and\nImmigration).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 14.5 (Application for proceeding in-camera (in private))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-14-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Application for proceeding in public", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.6 Application for proceeding in public\nOn application or on its own initiative, the ID may conduct a proceeding in public, or take any other\nmeasure that it considers necessary to ensure appropriate access to the proceeding if, after having\nconsidered all available alternate measures and the factors set out previously, the member of the ID is\nsatisfied that it is appropriate to do so [A166(c) and (d)]. If the member of the ID is of the view that there is\na serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of the person concerned would be endangered by\nconducting the hearing in public [Pacific Press Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)],\nthe hearing should be held in private.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 14.6 (Application for proceeding in public)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-14-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 14.7", + "marginal_note": "Applications applicable only to admissibility hearings", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.7 Applications applicable only to admissibility hearings\nWithdrawing notices\nAfter reviewing the file, the hearings officer may come to the conclusion that the A44(1) report is\nunfounded, or that additional facts indicate that the person concerned is admissible or the report should\nbe otherwise withdrawn. In circumstances in which it is evident that an admissibility hearing is\nunwarranted, the hearings officer should discuss the matter with the Minister’s delegate who signed the\nreport. The hearings officer will make the final decision on whether or not to proceed with the admissibility\nhearing pursuant to Rule 5 of the Immigration Division Rules. The hearings officer should include a note\nin the file, listing the reasons that led to the final decision.\nThe following procedures should be followed when withdrawing a request for an admissibility hearing\n(Immigration Division Rules, Rule 5):\n where no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceeding, the hearings officer must\nnotify the ID orally at a proceeding, or in writing. If notifying in writing, the hearings officer must\nprovide a copy of the notification to the person concerned or counsel if applicable;\n where evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, the hearings officer must make a written\napplication to the ID to withdraw the request for an admissibility hearing in accordance with Rule\n38 of the Immigration Division Rules.\nPursuant to Rule 5 of the Immigration Division Rules, the withdrawal of a request for an admissibility\nhearing may be considered an abuse of process, if it would likely have a negative effect on the integrity of\nthe ID. There is no abuse of process if no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceeding s at\nthe time the request for withdrawal is made [Immigration Division Rules, Rule 5].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 14.7 (Applications applicable only to admissibility hearings)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-14-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 14.8", + "marginal_note": "Applications applicable only to detention reviews", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.8 Applications applicable only to detention reviews\nApplication for an early hearing\nRule 9 of the Immigration Division Rules provides that the person concerned and/or the Minister of PSEP\nmay make an application for an early detention review. This provision only applies to 7 -day or 30-day\ndetention reviews. The application for early review must be made in writing and the party initiating the\napplication must justify the request by presenting new facts relating to the reasons for detention.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 45\nWhen determining if the application of the person concerned should be contested or not, the hearings\nofficer should consider if the new facts alleged by the person concerned were av ailable at the time of the\nprevious detention review. If the information was available or could have been reasonably obtained at the\ntime of the previous detention review, the hearings officer has solid grounds to contest the application.\nIf the facts alleged are new and may influence the decision to release the person concerned, the\napplication may lead the ID to grant the application for early review, unless hearings officers have\nsufficient evidence that may convince the member of the ID that detention s hould be continued.\nConversely, there may be instances where hearings officers may apply for an early detention review to\nrecommend release; if for example, the identity of the individual has been established or the person\nconcerned received a positive PRRA decision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 14.8 (Applications applicable only to detention reviews)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "A36(1)(a) – Paper-based admissibility hearings", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15 A36(1)(a) – Paper-based admissibility hearings\nUnless otherwise instructed by a manager, hearings officers will participate via paper-based submissions\nin admissibility hearings before the ID when the admissibility hearing involves A36(1)( a) inadmissibility of\nPermanent Residents.\nHearings officers will continue to appear in person in the following exceptional circumstances:\n Jurisdictional arguments;\n Constitutional challenges are being argued and the issue has not previously been addressed by\nthe higher court, which would enable the hearings officer to make written submissions; or\n The person concerned is detained in immigration hold and the ID is holding the admissibility\nhearing and the detention review on the same day.\nNote: For the above-noted exceptional cases, hearings officers will require approval from a CBSA\nhearings manager to appear in person at admissibility hearings.\nHearings managers will complete the template for approval (Appendix C of this manual) and justify the\nexceptional circumstances for each case involving A36(1)(a) allegations for which the hearings officer\nwishes to appear in person at the hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 15 (A36(1)(a) – Paper-based admissibility hearings)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-15-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 15.1", + "marginal_note": "Application pursuant to Rule 38 of ID Rules for paper-based", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.1 Application pursuant to Rule 38 of ID Rules for paper-based\nhearings\nPursuant to ID Rule 38, hearings officers must make an application to the ID requesting to release the\nMinister of PSEP from any obligation to appear or present evidence in person.\nRefer to Appendix D of this manual for a copy of the application.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 15.1 (Application pursuant to Rule 38 of ID Rules for paper-based)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-16-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 16.1", + "marginal_note": "Carrying out a decision of the Immigration Division", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.1 Carrying out a decision of the Immigration Division\nWhen the admissibility hearing is concluded, the hearings officer has three specific areas of responsibility\nto ensure that the member's decision is carried out:\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 46\n if the member of the ID issued a removal order against the person concerned, the hearings officer\nmust give the case file to the removal unit for action;\n if the member of the ID ordered the detention of the person concerned, the hearings officer must\ntake the appropriate action and annotate the file accordingly;\n if the member of the ID ordered the release of the person concerned on a performance bond, the\nhearings officer may have to assess the financial capacity of the person who assumes the\nresponsibility for the bond as well as the guarantor’s ability to comply.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 16.1 (Carrying out a decision of the Immigration Division)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-16-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 16.2", + "marginal_note": "Applications for judicial review", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.2 Applications for judicial review\nWhere hearings officers are of the opinion that there are, or may be, grounds to seek judicial review,\nhearings officers will consult with their manager .If the manager concurs, the hearings officer will within\nfive business days of the decision, order, act or omission by the ID member, send a report to the Regional\nJustice Liaison Officer (JLO). If the JLO is not available, the hearings officer may send the report directly\nto CIC or CBSA litigation management at National Headquarters as follows:\nCIC - Litigation Management Unit (BCL) CBSA – Litigation Management Unit (LMU)\nA36 A34\nA35\nA37\nThe report is to be transmitted by facsimile or by electronic means. It is imperative that a copy of the\nwritten reasons, when received, is forwarded as expeditiously as possible. This will allow sufficient time\nfor review and the necessary consultations. This will also allow BCL or LMU to give appropriate\ninstructions to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and to give the DOJ time to prepare applications to seek\nleave for judicial review.\nSee ENF 9, Judicial Review, for more information.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 16.2 (Applications for judicial review)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-16-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 16.3", + "marginal_note": "Prosecutions of serious violations of IRPA", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.3 Prosecutions of serious violations of IRPA\nIt is the CBSA’s policy to refer cases involving serious violations of the Act to the Royal Canadian\nMounted Police (RCMP) or the Criminal Investigations Section of the CBSA, where appropriate, for\nfurther investigation and prosecution. The hearings manager or chief, as the case may be, decides if a\ncase should be referred to the RCMP following a debrief from the officer on the reasons why this case\nshould be brought to the attention of the RCMP in accordance with the guidelines s et out in IRPA (e.g.,\nan offence under A118).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 16.3 (Prosecutions of serious violations of IRPA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 17", + "marginal_note": "Reporting", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17 Reporting\nHearings officers must enter all relevant information into the Field Operations Support System (FOSS) or\nthe Global Case Management System (GCMS) and the National Case Management System (NCMS) to\nkeep the case information current.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 17 (Reporting)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-18-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 18", + "marginal_note": "Feedback", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18 Feedback\nResults of admissibility hearings or detention review proceedings should be provided to the officers who\nprepared and reviewed the original report, or who arrested and detained the permanent resident or the\nforeign national under the provisions of IRPA.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 47\nHearings officers should provide feedback to those involved in specific cases for training purposes, and to\nadvise officers of the effectiveness of their work.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 48\nAppendix A List of Cases / Rules of Evidence\nReferences\nCanadian courts\n Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division (FCTD)\n Federal Court of Canada, Appeal Division (Federal Court of Appeal) (FCA)\n Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)\nList of cases cited throughout this manual chapter\n Almrei (Re), 2009 FC 3.\n Bowen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1984] 2 F.C. 507.\n Brannson v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] F.C.J. No. 247.\n Bruzzese v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2014 FC 230.\n Browne v. Dunn, (1893) 6 R. 67 (H.L.).\n Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. B046, 2011 FC 877\n Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Dan-Ash, [1988] F.C.J. No. 571.\n Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Ismail, 2014 FC 390.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Bains, 1999 FCJ No. 11.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Fox, 2009 FC 987.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kamail, 2002 FCT 381.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Li, 2009 FCA 85.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nkunzimana, 2005 FC 29.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 18 (Feedback) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-18-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 18", + "marginal_note": "Feedback", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Sittampalam, 2004 FC 1756.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Thanabalasingham, 2004 FCA 4.\n Chana v. Canada (Minister of Manpower and Immigration), [1977] 2 F.C. 496.\n Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9.\n Chiau v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 297.\n Chhokar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), F.C.J. No. 173.\n Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 16.\n Edmond v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ), [2012] FC 674\n Gervasoni v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] 3 F.C. 189.\n Green v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1983 F.C.J. No. 142.\n Hill v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1987] F.C.J. No. 47.\n Ioannidis v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1983] 1 F. C. 369.\n Jiminez-Perez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1983 1 F.C. 163.\n Kamail v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 381.\n Kidane v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 F.C.J. No. 990.\n Koutsouveli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 F.C.J. No.133.\n Li. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 1 F.C. 235.\n Louhisdon v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Canada), 1978 2 FC 589.\n Martineau v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue – M.N.R.), 2004 SCC 81.\n Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Widmont, 1984 2 F.C. 274.\n Mugasera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40.\n Murray v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1979 1 F.C. 518.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 18 (Feedback) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-18-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 18", + "marginal_note": "Feedback", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Pacific Press Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1991] 2 F.C. 327.\n Park v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 782.\n Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 470.\n Poshteh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 3 F.C.R. 511.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 49\n Prassad v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1989 1 S.C.R. 560.\n R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9.\n R. v. Sekhon, 2014 SCC 15, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 272.\n Sabour v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1615.\n Sahin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] 1 F.C. 214.\n Sivakumar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 433.\nRules of evidence\nAdministrative tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of evidence that are found in judicial proceedings\nA173(c). However, they must observe the principles of fundamental justice.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 18 (Feedback) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "The admissibility of evidence", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. The admissibility of evidence\nIn judicial proceedings, strict rules govern the admissibility of evidence. The two basic rules are\n the best evidence rule, which requires that the evidence presented be the best evidence available\n(this means that secondary evidence should not be introduced unless primary evidence is\nunavailable);\n the rule against hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is testimony given by a witness, offered as\nproof of the truth of the matters contained in the testimony, which is not the personal knowledge\nof the witness but rather the mere repetition of what the witness heard others say. Such evidenc e\nis very weak, since the real author of the statement put in evidence is not available for cross -\nexamination and therefore the credibility of the statement and its author cannot be tested.\nAt an admissibility hearing, any evidence considered by the member of the Immigration Division (ID) to be\nrelevant, credible, and trustworthy in the circumstances of the case is admissible. In the examination of\nthe evidence presented, the member of the ID will determine its weight or value, taking into consideration\nall relevant information. Hearings officers are to follow the best evidence rule. Generally, members of the\nID will accept hearsay evidence, but they will attach very little significance to it if contradictory evidence is\noffered by the other party.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (The admissibility of evidence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "The relevance of evidence", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. The relevance of evidence\nThe member of the ID will normally consider relevant any evidence that reasonably tends to prove the\nfact in dispute, that is:\n evidence which places a fact in a context which tends to show its relevance;\n evidence relating to credibility; and\n evidence that proves a precondition for the presentation of a fact (e.g., evidence that a statement\nwas made freely and voluntarily).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (The relevance of evidence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The weight of evidence", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. The weight of evidence\nThe weight of evidence is its probative value, or importance, and the extent to which it establishes a fact\nbefore the tribunal. The stronger the inference that can be derived from the evidence, the higher the\nprobative value. A number of pieces of evidence, each of low probative value, may be more significant\nwhen considered in the overall context of the admissibility hearing than a single piece of evidence that\nseemingly has very high probative value.\nAdmissibility of evidence and probative value are two different matters. A document of low probative\nvalue may still be admissible into evidence if it is relevant.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 50\nSecondary or hearsay evidence may not have the same weight when better evidence is available. For\nexample, if the hearings officer uses a statutory declaration made by an officer who is reasonably\navailable to testify, the hearings officer is depriving the other party of the opportunity to cross -examine\nand the hearings officer detracts from the quality of the evidence.\nAs a general rule, the hearings officer should attempt to secure the best evidence whenever possible.\nWhen this is not possible, would be prohibitively expensive or would cause major administrative\ndifficulties, the hearings officer may ask the member of the ID to accept secondary evidence.\nWhen making a decision to rely on primary or secondary evidence, the hearings officer should take into\naccount factors such as the importance of other aspects of the case, and the need to avoid lengthy\ndetention while waiting for stronger evidence. The hearings officer should also keep in mind that t he\nweaker the evidence in relation to evidence presented by the opposing party, the greater the possibility\nthat the member of the ID will admit the person concerned to Canada.\nThe main points to consider when assessing available evidence are as follows:\n Is this evidence relevant?\n What facts are established or can be deduced from this evidence?\n What is its weight?\nTypes of evidence", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3 (The weight of evidence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Direct evidence", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Direct evidence\nDirect evidence is a means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question without the\nintervention of the proof of any other fact. This includes testimony by witnesses who saw the act being\ndone or heard the words spoken to prove a fact that is at issue.\nDirect evidence may also consist of documents or objects introduced through the oral t estimony of\nwitnesses.\nThe hearings officer should always introduce documents or objects into evidence by first establishing a\nlink between the document or the object and the witness, and second, by establishing the relevance of\nthe document or object to the fact the hearings officer wishes to prove.\nFor example, if the hearings officer wishes to introduce a passport or other documents claimed to belong\nto the subject of the admissibility hearing, the hearings officer should ask the witness to identify the\ndocument(s) for the member of the ID. If the witness is unable or refuses to identify the document, the\nhearings officer may need to call the officer who seized the document(s) as a witness to establish the link\nbetween the document(s) and the subject of the admissibility hearing.\nAfter establishing the link, the hearings officer may then ask questions to establish the relevance of the\ndocument in relation to the facts the hearings officer intends to prove.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (Direct evidence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Circumstantial evidence", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Circumstantial evidence\nCircumstantial evidence is evidence not based on actual personal, direct knowledge or observation of the\nfacts at issue. It is indirect evidence, the sum of which can lead a member of the ID to conclude that a fact\nwhich could not be established by direct evidence, has been established by inference.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 51\nFor example, circumstantial evidence may consist of evidence relating to motive, opportunity, intent,\ncharacter or previous activities. Such circumstances taken individually may not carry enough weight to\npersuade the member of the ID of an allegation; however, when argued in combination, they may be\nsufficient to tip the balance of probabilities.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Circumstantial evidence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Presumption", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Presumption\nSince in many cases it is almost impossible to prove certain facts, the rules of evidence provide that\ncertain facts may be presumed to be true. Two types of presumption may apply:\n deductions of fact that are deductions or conclusions that can be drawn from the circumstantial\nevidence submitted; and\n presumptions under the Act.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3 (Presumption)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Judicial notice", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Judicial notice\nJudicial notice is the recognition by a judicial tribunal that a fact is true, without its having to be proven, on\nthe basis that this fact is known to the tribunal.\nMembers of the ID may take judicial notice of facts generally known to everyone. For example, a member\nof the ID may take judicial notice of any fact relating to the member’s profession, such as the duties of a\nmember of the ID, the IRPA and its Regulations. Members of the ID may not take judicial notice of a fact\nknown as a result of purely personal knowledge.\nDocumentary evidence and testimony", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 4 (Judicial notice)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Documentary evidence", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Documentary evidence\nHearings officers will often use documents to establish allegations. If used appropriately, presenting\ndocuments in evidence can speed up the process. Generally speaking, a member of the ID may accept\ndocumentary evidence if it is admissible (relevant, credible and trustworthy), subject to its probative value.\nOfficial documents (e.g., passports and certified court documents) generally have more weight than\nunofficial documents (e.g. letters and uncertified copies of documents).\nOriginal documents usually have more weight than copies, unless the copy is a duplicate copy (a signed\ncopy of the original) or a certified true copy produced or issued by a competent authority. The best\nevidence rule dictates that the hearings officer should submit the original of a document. If this is not\npossible, secondary evidence becomes the best evidence. Hearings officers should verify that the\ndocuments they wish to introduce at an admissibility hearing refer to the person con cerned.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (Documentary evidence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Statutory declarations", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Statutory declarations\nHearings officers may introduce statutory declarations into evidence. A member of the ID must accept\nstatutory declarations at an admissibility hearing because they are equivalent to testimony under oath\n[Canada Evidence Act, s. 14(2)]. However, a statutory declaration may be of less probative value than the\noral testimony of the author because the credibility of the author of the statutory declaration cannot be\ntested by cross-examination.\nHearings officers may use a statutory declaration when the declarant's testimony could not likely be\ntested on cross-examination (for example, the declaration of a person concerning a recorded fact such as\nthe date of admission to Canada).\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 52", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Statutory declarations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Testimony", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Testimony\nThe best form of testimony is that given by a witness relating facts of which the witness has personal\nknowledge. Positive evidence (e.g., facts that the witness actually observed or knows) carries more\nweight than negative evidence (that which was not seen or is unknown). Direct evidence is preferable to\ncircumstantial evidence, and opinion evidence has value only if an expert gives it. Hearsay evidence,\nwhile admissible (if relevant), carries little or no weight.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 53\nAppendix B Additional Guidance and Jurisprudence", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3 (Testimony)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments to seek a temporary resident permit", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 Adjournments to seek a temporary resident permit\nThe person concerned or that person's counsel may request an adjournment to seek a temporary\nresident permit (TRP). The hearings officer should oppose such adjournment requests unless satisfied\nthat the person concerned deserves such a permit, or the hearings officer has received notification that\nthe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness wishes to review the case. Thus, in assessing\nwhether in the opinion of the hearings officer the person deserves a TRP, the case file should be\nreviewed carefully to see whether any previous reviews have been conducted.\nIn Prassad v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Supreme Court upheld the\nadjudicator’s (now member of the Immigration Division’s) refusal to adjourn because the person\nconcerned had from June 6, 1984 until November 21, 1984, the date when the hearing was scheduled to\nproceed, to make the application, but a letter was not sent to the Minister's office until November 16,\n1984. The judge notes in his reasons:\n\"The logic of the appellant's submission would thus require that the [member of the Immigration Division]\nadjourn the [admissibility hearing] whenever the result of that [hearing] has the potential to inhibit the\nsubject of that [hearing] from pursuing an alternative remedy. This would amount to reading into the\nlegislation an automatic stay. [I]t is untenable to hinder the [Immigration Division] process under the\nImmigration Act, 1976 by laying down such an inflexible rule for the conduct of an [a dmissibility hearing] \"\n(paragraph 24)\nSee also:\n Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Widmont.\n Louhisdon v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration).\n Murray v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 1 (Adjournments to seek a temporary resident permit)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments for humanitarian considerations", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Adjournments for humanitarian considerations\nThe person concerned or that person's counsel may request an adjournment to examine humanitarian\nconsiderations:\nJiminez-Perez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration); Green v. Canada (Minister of\nEmployment and Immigration); Koutsouveli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration);\nChhokar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration).\nIn Green v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Federal Court of Appeal noted that\nthe Jiminez-Perez case did not require that the adjudicator (now member of the Immigration Division) who\nreceives an application pursuant to Section A115(2) (now A25(1)) during an inquiry (now admissibility\nhearing) adjourn immediately until the Minister or his delegate renders a deci sion on the application. The\nmember of the Immigration Division is required to proceed with the hearing as expeditiously as is possible\nunder the circumstances of each individual case. Likewise the power of the member of the Immigration\nDivision to adjourn is restricted to adjournments \"for the purpose of ensuring a full and proper\nadmissibility hearing.\"\nSee also:\n Chhokar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 54\n In Koutsouveli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (paragraph 13), the Federal\nCourt, Trial Division, noted that an application for an exemption submitted under section A115(2)\n[now A25(1)] in no way permits the hearing under A27 (now A44) to be stayed.\nIn Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Fox, the Federal Court noted that the Immigration\nDivision did not have any discretion to consider humanitarian and compassionate factors at the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Adjournments for humanitarian considerations) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments for humanitarian considerations", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "admissibility hearing (paragraph 42). The Immigration Division’s “decision to grant the adjournment was\ndriven by its desire to allow the respondent to remain with his family and to benefit from his day parole”\n(paragraph 41).\nIn this case, the member granted the respondent a 13-month adjournment of his admissibility hearing for\na section A36(1)(a) allegation of IRPA.\n [39] Once a section 44 Report is referred to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing,\npursuant to subsection 162(2) and paragraph 173(b) of the IRPA, the admissibility hearing must\nbe heard as quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of procedural fairness and\nnatural justice permit and without delay. The Tribunal’s function at the admissibility hearing is\nexclusively to find facts. If the member finds the person is a person described in paragraph\n36(1)(a) of the IRPA, then pursuant to paragraph 45(d) of the IRPA and paragraph 229(1)(c) of\nthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, the Tribunal must issue a\ndeportation order against the person.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 2 (Adjournments for humanitarian considerations) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments for additional evidence or arguments", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 Adjournments for additional evidence or arguments\nThe hearings officer, the person concerned, or counsel may request an adjournment to obtain additional\nevidence or to prepare a legal or constitutional argument or submission.\nUnder Section 57 of the Federal Court Act, clients or their counsel must give the Attorney General of\nCanada and each of the ten provinces ten days' notice of their intention to raise a constitutional question.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 3 (Adjournments for additional evidence or arguments)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments for a change of venue", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Adjournments for a change of venue\nThe member of the ID may grant an adjournment to allow for a change of venue, if the member decides\nthat such a change is necessary for holding a full and proper admissibility hearing. The member of the ID\nwill hear from both parties before making a decision. For further information see the Immigration Division\nRules, rule 42.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 4 (Adjournments for a change of venue)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments in an admissibility hearing pending a ministerial relief", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5 Adjournments in an admissibility hearing pending a ministerial relief\napplication\nA person concerned who is inadmissible under A34(1) A35(1) and A37(1), except a person who has\ncommitted or was complicit in human rights violations as described in A35(1), can submit a requ est for\nrelief to the Minister. An applicant bears the onus of satisfying the Minister that his/her presence in\nCanada would not be contrary to the national interest [A42.1(1)].\nIn Poshteh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (paragraph 10), dated April 8, 2005, the\nFederal Court of Appeal ruled that there is no temporal aspect to A34(2), and by implication, to A35(2), to\nA37(2) [now A42.1(1)]. Thus, the person concerned can apply for ministerial relief, at any time, even after\na finding of inadmissibility.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 55\nFollowing the legislative change to consolidate ministerial relief into one section of IRPA, namely\nsubsection 42.1(1), Poshteh remains relevant.\nThe hearings officer should oppose applications for adjournment of an admissibility hearing b ased on a\npending ministerial relief application.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 56\nAppendix C Manager’s approval to appear\nFoss ID:\nID file number:\nMANAGER’S APPROVAL\nMANAGER’S APPROVAL for Hearings Officer to appear in person at A36(1)( a) admissibility hearing due\nto exceptional circumstances\nRequested by _________________________, Hearings Officer/Hearings Advisor.\nHearings Officer recommendation to Manager to appear in person in exceptional circumstances for\nA36(1)(a) admissibility hearing scheduled on __________________________ _ based on the following\nexception(s):\n ☐ Jurisdictional arguments", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 5 (Adjournments in an admissibility hearing pending a ministerial relief) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments in an admissibility hearing pending a ministerial relief", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " ☐ Constitutional challenges are being argued and the issue has not previously been addressed\nby the higher court enabling the Minister to make written submissions.\n ☐ The PC is detained on immigration hold and the ID combines the admissibility hearing and the\ndetention review on the same day.\nJustification:\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\n Manager approves ☐\n Manager does not approve ☐\nJustification:\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________________\nManager name ____________________________ Date _______________________________\nSignature________________________________\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 57\nAppendix D Application Pursuant to Rule 38\nFoss ID:\nID file number:\nIMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD\nIMMIGRATION DIVISION\nBETWEEN:\nThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration\nApplicant\nand\nName of Person concerned\nRespondent\nAPPLICATION", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 5 (Adjournments in an admissibility hearing pending a ministerial relief) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments in an admissibility hearing pending a ministerial relief", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Pursuant to Rule 38 of IRPA Immigration Division Rules\nIn the matter of an Admissibility Hearing pursuant to s. 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act (“Act”) between Name of Person Concerned and the Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration, the Minister brings an Application, pursuant to s. 38 of the Immigration Division\nRules, between the Minister (“Applicant”) and Name of Person Concerned (“Respondent”)\nTAKE NOTICE that the Applicant applies for an ORDER by the Division to release the App licant from any\nobligation to appear or present evidence in person including any obligation under rules 42(3), 43(3) and\n48 of the Immigration Division Rules. The Applicant wishes to participate in the hearing by the following\nwritten submissions only.\nFURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the grounds for this motion are as follows:\n1. It is the Applicant’s position that the required elements for serious criminality are as follows and\nthe inadmissibility allegation is established based solely on the evidence disclosed her ein.\no Is the person a Permanent Resident?\no Have they acquired Canadian Citizenship?\no Were they convicted of an offence in Canada under an Act of Parliament punishable by a\nmaximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years or for which a term of imprisonment\nof more than six months has been imposed.\n2. It is the Applicant’s position that the physical presence of the Minister is not required since our\nwritten submissions below will be identical to those we would make orally at the admissibility\nhearing.\nOVERVIEW\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 58\n3. Pursuant to s. 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the \"Act\"), the Immigration", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 5 (Adjournments in an admissibility hearing pending a ministerial relief) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-5-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Adjournments in an admissibility hearing pending a ministerial relief", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Division (ID) has jurisdiction to hear an admissibility hearing of a s.44 report referred to their\ndivision.\n4. The CBSA referred a section A44(2) report to the Immigration Division on ______________ (date\nof report) as it relates to the Respondent.\n5. It is the position of the Applicant that the Respondent is inadmissible to Canada pursuant to\nsection A36(1)(a) of the Act\n6. Pursuant to Rule 26 of the Immigration Division Rules, attached are the Applicant’s disclosure\ndocuments for the hearing, consisting of the following:\no [List evidence attached:]\no Page 1 Proof of identity\no Page 2 Proof person concerned is not a Canadian Citizen\no Page 3 Record of landing/confirmation of permanent residence\no Page # Certificate of conviction issued by the Provincial Court\n Page #. Copy of relevant section of the Criminal Code of Canada (including\ncover page of CCC and publication date)\nFACTS", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 5 (Adjournments in an admissibility hearing pending a ministerial relief) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "On _________________ (date of landing), the Respondent became a permanent resident of", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8. On _________________ (date of landing), the Respondent became a permanent resident of\nCanada. The Respondent is not a Canadian Citizen. (Refer to Applicant’s exhibit page)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 8 (On _________________ (date of landing), the Respondent became a permanent resident of)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "The Respondent was found/pled guilty of ________________________ (name offence) and was", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9. The Respondent was found/pled guilty of ________________________ (name offence) and was\nconvicted on _______________________ (date of conviction). The Respondent received a\nsentence of ___________________________ (sentence received). (Refer to Applicant’s exhibit\npage)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 9 (The Respondent was found/pled guilty of ________________________ (name offence) and was)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "The Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) is an Act of Parliament. An offence under section", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10. The Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) is an Act of Parliament. An offence under section\n_________________________ (name section) of the CCC is punishable by a maximum term of\nimprisonment of at least 10 years. (or ADD if receive a sentence of more than six months of an\noffence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has\nbeen imposed) The Applicant submits the evidence shows that the Respondent received a\nconviction of more than six months, namely ___________________ (sentence received). (Refer\nto Applicant’s exhibit page)\n11. We submit that all elements of A36(1) have been met: the Respondent is not a Canadian Citizen\nbut is a Permanent Resident who has been convicted of an offence under an Act of Parliament,\nnamely the CCC, punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years. ( OR ADD\nfor which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed).\nAPPROPRIATE STANDARD OF PROOF\n12. Pursuant to section A33 of the Act, the Applicant submits that the appr opriate standard of proof is\nreasonable grounds to believe.\nDECISION SOUGHT", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 10 (The Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) is an Act of Parliament. An offence under section)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "The Applicant requests that the Member find the Respondent described on grounds of serious", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13. The Applicant requests that the Member find the Respondent described on grounds of serious\ncriminality pursuant to section 36(1)(a) of the Act.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13 (The Applicant requests that the Member find the Respondent described on grounds of serious)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 14", + "marginal_note": "Should the Board conclude that the Respondent is described, the Applicant requests that the", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14. Should the Board conclude that the Respondent is described, the Applicant requests that the\nMember issue a deportation order pursuant to section 229(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Regulations and provide a copy of the order to the Minister by facsimile.\n15. However, if the Member determines that the report against the Respondent is not well founded,\nthe Minister respectfully requests the decision and reasons along with a CD of the proceedings\nbe sent to the Minister as soon as possible.\nENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Review Proceedings\n2015-04-29 59\nEXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 14 (Should the Board conclude that the Respondent is described, the Applicant requests that the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-3-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-3", + "act_short": "ENF 3", + "act_name": "ENF 3 — Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "section": "ENF 3 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "The Applicant respectfully requests notification of any postponement requests regarding", + "part": "Admissibility hearings and detention review proceedings", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13. The Applicant respectfully requests notification of any postponement requests regarding\njurisdiction or constitutional challenges. The Applicant is cognizant that there may be applications\nby counsel or the person concerned for postponement relating to acquiring counsel or translators\netc.; the Minister would not oppose these types of postponements any longer than eight (8)\nweeks. The Applicant would however oppose any postponement requests outside the jurisdiction\nof the Immigration Division such as appeals to reduce criminal sentencing etc. [Fox v. Canada\n(Citizenship and Immigration) 2009 FCA 346]\n14. The Applicant further maintains the right to appear in person or respond in writing to issues that\nmay arise relating to the validity of the report.\nAll of which is respectfully submitted this ________ (day) day of________________ (month), _________\n(year).\nName of Hearings Officer’s address of regional office\nPhone: (area code) number\nFAX: (area code) number\nc.c.\nPerson Concerned\nCounsel of record if applicable", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-04-29", + "current_to": "2015-04-29", + "citation": "ENF 3, s. 13 (The Applicant respectfully requests notification of any postponement requests regarding)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf03-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "25 Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information\nCentre (CPIC) ........................................................................................................................................ 120\n25.1 POE procedures for completing the Authorization to Return to Canada (ARC) application ..... 120\n25.2 Completing an ARC application in GCMS ................................................................................. 121\n25.3 Amending an ARC decision in GCMS ....................................................................................... 121\n25.4 Effect of ARC decisions on the PDP database .......................................................................... 122\n25.5 Remedial action at POEs ........................................................................................................... 122\n26 Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act (FMIOA) ...................................................... 123\n27 FOSS/GCMS enforcement flag amendments .................................................................................. 123\n27.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 123\n27.2 Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 124\n27.3 Procedures for amending an enforcement flag ......................................................................... 124\n27.4 Enforcement flags on Canadian citizens and persons registered under the Indian Act ............ 124\nAppendix A Memorandum of Understanding between IRCC and the CBSA ........................................ 125", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25 (Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information) (part 1 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Appendix B Quarantine Operations Centres ......................................................................................... 125\nPublic Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) ......................................................................................... 125\nAppendix C Record of Direct Backs for Refugee Claimants at the Land Border .................................. 125\nAppendix D Temporary resident permit (TRP) annual compliance review and checklist ..................... 127\n7\nUpdates to the manual\nListing by date\n2024-02-28\n 4 Instruments and delegations – included wording about training.\n Appendix D Temporary resident permit (TRP) annual compliance review and checklist\n– included annual TRP compliance review.\n2023-07-05\n Section 15.5 – made the items mandatory to be included in GCMS remarks.\n Section 15.5 – inserted plain language descriptions of mandatory elements.\n Section 15.5 – added guidance on equating foreign criminal charges.\n Section 15.5 – added the requirement for the name of any approving authority or\nthe name of any officer entering remarks on behalf of another officer to be\ndocumented in the remarks.\n Section 15.5 – TRP narrative example added\n2022-05-18\n Entire document reviewed to: fix grammatical errors, fix broken links, add acronyms\nand links, update form numbers and replace some terminology.\n Updated all sections according to the more recent policies and guidelines such as\nPDI, OB and SBB.\n Section 5 - added information on the PIK.\n Section 7 - merged sections 7.9 & 7.10 and sections 7.2 & 7.7\n Section 8 – removed former 8.2 and created section 8.9 on electronic devices and\n8.10 travel documents issued to non-citizens.\n Section 9 - removed previous section 9.6.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25 (Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information) (part 2 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Section 12 - removed previous section 12.5, 12.11 et 12.12, and added section\n12.10 on medical surveillance.\n Section 13 - added information on NDC and Edison, section 13.9 on PG visa, 13.37\non collection of biometrics, removed previous sections 13.28 to 13.32 and updated\n13.12 to include eTA-X.\n Section 17 – 17.2 was removed and added to 7.8.\n Section 21 - created a new section on Media cases.\n Section 25 - removed previous sections 25.1 to 25.3.\n Section 27 - remove previous sections 27.4 and 27.5.\n2020-09-23\n Section 3 – Clarified wording around obligations\n Section 3 – Added Section R41(d)\n Section 3 – Updated Section R183 to include R183(1)(d)\n Section 3.1 – Changed IMM1262 to BSF821\n8\n Section 4.1 – Clarified Section A55(3) to include inadmissibilities under sections A34,\n35, 36, and 37\n Section 8.7 – Added Certificate of Indian Status and Secure Certificate of Indian\nStatus as examples of identity documents\n Section 10 – Clarified wording around “right to enter and remain in Canada”\n Section 10.1 – Added wording around the Temporary Confirmation of Registration\nDocument, and updated address\n Section 11.10 – Clarified wording around GCMS\n Section 13 – Clarified wording around foreign nationals\n Section 13.14 – Clarified wording around BSO MD\n Section 13.20 – Added new COVID-19 conditions under R183(1)(d)\n Section 13.24 – Added use of Visitor Records in cases of work permit exemption for\nclergy under R186(l)\n Section 13.25 – Clarified BSO cancellation authorities concerning temporary\nresidents\n Section 13.27 – Clarified to whom people should be addressing their cheques when\npaying deposits or posting guarantees\n Section 15.3 – Clarified wording and added missing links", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25 (Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information) (part 3 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Section 15.4 – Added Indigenous cultural considerations as factor to consider\n Section 15.6 – Emphasized wording for clarity\n Section 15.9 – Designated authority to issue a TRP expanded for clarification\n Section 16.2- Updated the text to refer to the right manual\n Section 22.10 – Added further example of training for DART officers\n Section 25.1- Updated the text to refer to the right manual\n Section 25.2- Updated the text to refer to the right manual\n Appendix D: Updated the TRP checklist\n Entire document reviewed to replace “registered Indian” with “people registered\nunder the Indian Act”\n Entire document reviewed to fix grammatical errors\n Entire document reviewed to fix broken links\n2019-08-15\n Section 8.8 – Additional information has been added on how to conduct GCMS checks\n2019-02-01\n Section 10 – Updates to port of entry processing of people who are registered under\nthe Indian Act\n Section 10.1 – Change made to federal contact information from INAC to Indigenous\nServices Canada (ISC); clarification of determination of registered Indian status\n Section 10.2 – Clarification of the procedure for establishing registered Indian status\nwithout documents\n Section 10.3 – Clarification of port of entry processing of American Indians\n2016-12-23\n Section 4 on Instruments of Delegation expanded for clarification\n Section 4.2 on Delegation of Officers amended persons to officers\n Section 10.1 on Determining Registered Indian status updated for clarification\n Section 11.4 on investigating permanent residents for inadmissibility amended\n9\n Section 12.1 on Permanent resident visas wording updated for clarification\n Section 12.6 on Confirmation of Permanent Residence form [IMM 5292B]updates and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25 (Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information) (part 4 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "procedures Section of completing the Confirmation of Permanent Residence\ndocument\n Section 13.14 on eTA validity and cancellation amended\n Sections 13.3 and 13.4 on re-entry into Canada on original visa amended\n Section 28 on Open Skies Treaty deleted\n Entire document updated CIC to IRCC\n Entire document updated to reflect changes for FOSS to GCMS where appropriate\n A number of l links updated to become functional throughout document\n Request to make hyperlinks in the table of contents visible (blue)\n2016-03-18\n Sections 12.12 and 12.13 on entrepreneurs have been deleted, as conditions are no\nlonger imposed at ports of entry.\n2016-02-10\n Sections 3 and 4.1 – added subsections 16(1.1) and 16(2.1) of IRPA on the\nrequirement of the person concerned to appear before an officer for an examination\nand for an interview, respectively.\n Section 9.3 – updated to include document validity dates.\n Section 9.7 – formerly Emergency passports, updated for clarity.\n Section 12.3 – updated to include new information on merging client identification\nnumbers.\n Section 13.2 – updated to include Puerto Rico as part of the United States and a link\nto the TWOV/CTP Standard Operating Procedures found on Atlas.\n Section 13.3 – updated to include Puerto Rico as part of the United States.\n Section 13.11 – updated to include TRPs.\n Section 13.18 – updated for clarity.\n Section 13.19 – updated to include the U.S. SENTRI card.\n Section 13.24 – updated for clarity.\n Section 13.32 – updated for clarity.\n Section 13.37 – updated for clarity.\n Section 15.3 – new procedures.\n Section 15.7 – new procedures.\n Section 25.4 – information on recovering removal costs.\n Appendix B – updated addresses.\n Appendix D – deleted and replaced with link to TWOV/CTP Standard Operating", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25 (Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information) (part 5 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Procedures in section 13.2.\n Appendix E – renamed Appendix D and updated with new procedures for reporting\nand consulting.\n2015-08-01\n Section 7.5 – addition of Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) to part of the basic\nquestioning during primary examination.\n Section 8.9 – addition of eTA to part of the basic questioning during secondary\nexamination.\n10\n Section 11.5 – update concerning the documents with which Canadian permanent\nresidents must travel in order to return to Canada by air mode.\n Section 13.12, section 13.13 and section 13.14 – added to reference the eTA\nregulations, exemptions, and validity.\n Appendix D – updated to include reference to the eTA requirement.\nUpdates to the manual prior to 2015\n11\nAcronyms used throughout this manual\nAcronyms Definitions\nAME Alternate means of examination\nAPI Advanced Passenger Information\nARC Authorization to Return to Canada\nBOC Border Operations Centre\nBSO Border Services Officer\nBSOMD BSO Minister’s Delegate\nCAQ Québec Acceptance Certificate\nCBSA Canada Border Services Agency\nCCA Customs Controlled Areas\nCDRP Commercial Drivers Registration Program\nCDT Control and Defensive Tactics\nCIC Citizenship and Immigration Canada\nCID Criminal Investigations Division\nCIS Certificate of Indian Status\nCoPR Confirmation of Permanent Residence\nCPC-S Citizenship Case Processing Centre in Sydney\nCPIC Canadian Police Information Centre\nCPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation\nCSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Service\nCSQ Québec Selection Certificate\nCTP China Transit Program\nD&D Designation and Delegation\nDART Disembarkation and Roving Team\nDHS Department of Homeland Security\nDLI Designated Learning Institution\nDOB Date of birth\nDOS U.S. State Department\nEDISON TD Electronic Documentation and Information System on Investigation", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25 (Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information) (part 6 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Networks with information on Travel Documents\nEDL Enhanced Driver’s License\nEIC Enhanced Identification Card\nEMT Emergency Medical Technician\nESDC Employment and Social Development Canada\nESS Employee Self-Service\neTA Electronic Travel Authorization\neTA-X Electronic Travel Authorization Expansion\nETC Enhanced Tribal Card\nFAST Free and Secure Trade\nFMIOA Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act\nFN Foreign National\nFOSS Field Operations Support System\nFRT Flexible Response Team\nGAC Global Affairs Canada\nGBV Gender-Based Violence\nGCMS Global Case Management System\nIAD Immigration Appeal Division\nIATA International Air Transport Association\n12\nICAO International Civil Aviation Organization\nICES Integrated Customs Enforcement System\nICET Immigration and Customs Enforcement Team\nICS Integrated Customs System\nID Immigration Division or Identifier\nIDA Improperly Documented Arrival\nIFHP Interim Federal Health Program\nIME Immigration Medical Examination\nINAC Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada\nIPIL Integrated Primary Inspection Line\nIRB Immigration and Refugee Board\nIRCA Initial Refugee Claimant Assessment\nIRCC Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada\nIRPA Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\nIRPR Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations\nISC Indigenous Services Canada\nLMIA Labor Market Impact Assessment\nLO Liaison Officer\nMD Minister’s Delegate\nMHB Migration Health Branch\nMLACMA Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act\nMOU Memorandum of Understanding\nMRZ Machine Readable Zone\nNCB Non-Computer Based Entry\nNCIC National Crime Information Centre\nNDC National Document Centre\nNGO Non-governmental organization\nNHQ National Headquarters\nNI-TRP National Interest TRP\nNIV Non-immigrant visa\nOB Operational Bulletin\nOIC Order in Council", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25 (Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information) (part 7 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "OSC Operations Support Centre\nPAXIS Passenger Information System\nPDI Program Delivery Instructions\nPDP Previously Deported Person\nPHAC Public Health Agency of Canada\nPHLU Public Health Liaison Unit\nPIK Primary Inspection Kiosk\nPIL Primary Inspection Line\nPNR Passenger Name Record\nPOB Place of birth\nPOE Port of Entry\nPP Protected Person\nPR Permanent Resident\nRCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police\nRPD Refugee Protection Division\nSARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome\nSAWP Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program\nSBB Shift Briefing Bulletin\nSCIS Secure Certificate of Indian Status\n13\nSENTRI Secure Electronic Network for Travellers Rapid Inspection\nSFV Systematic Fingerprint Verification\nSIN Social Insurance Number\nSMU Statement of Mutual Understanding\nSP Study Permit\nSRT Single Reporting Tool\nSSI Support System for Intelligence\nTCRD Temporary Confirmation of Registration Document\nTELO Time, Employment, Lookout, Other\nTEPS Travellers Entry Processing System\nTRP Temporary Resident Permit\nTRV Temporary Resident Visa\nTT Targeting Travellers\nTTP Trusted Traveller Program\nTWOV Transit Without Visa Program\nU.S. United States\nUCI Unique Client Identifier\nUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees\nUSINS United States Immigration and Naturalization Service\nUSLPR United States Lawful Permanent Resident\nVR Visitor record\nVTIP Victims of Trafficking in Persons\nWP Work Permit\nWRC Warrant Response Centre\nXDC Office of Protocol\n14", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25 (Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police Information) (part 8 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this manual is about", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this manual is about\nThis manual describes how a Border Services Officer (BSO) conducts primary and secondary\nimmigration examinations of:\n Canadian citizens;\n persons registered under the Indian Act;\n permanent residents (PR);\n foreign nationals (FNs) (including permanent residence applicants, temporary\nresident permit (TRP) holders and protected persons).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 1 (What this manual is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe objectives of the Act for conducting primary and secondary immigration examinations\nare the following:\n facilitate the entry of persons who have the right to enter Canada;\n facilitate the entry of FNs into Canada for purposes such as trade and commerce,\ntourism, international understanding, and cultural, educational, and scientific\nactivities;\n protect the health and safety of Canadians and maintain the security of Canadian\nsociety;\n promote international justice and security by denying access to Canadian territory to\nthose who are criminals or security risks; and\n offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race,\nreligion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, as\nwell as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual punishment.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and its Regulations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and its Regulations\nThe authority for a BSO to conduct an examination comes from a variety of sources,\nincluding the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Regulations (IRPR) and the Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority\ndocuments.\nStatutory requirements relating to persons seeking entry into Canada\nThe IRPA and IRPR provide for a number of different provisions that impose certain\nobligations on prescribed classes of persons seeking entry and provide BSOs with a number\nof different authorities and options when conducting examinations.\nRelevant\nprovisions\nRequirement Explanation\nA10.01 Provide\nbiometrics\nA person who makes a claim, application or request\nmust follow the procedures set out in the regulations\nfor the collection and verification of biometric\ninformation\n15\nA11(1) Apply for visa A foreign national (FN) must, before entering\nCanada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other\ndocument required by the Regulations.\nA11(1.01) Apply for eTA A FN must, before entering Canada, apply by means\nof an electronic system for an electronic travel\nauthorization.\nA15(1) Submit to an\nexamination\nAn officer is authorized to proceed with an\nexamination if a person makes an application to enter\nCanada.\nA16(1) Tell the truth and\nproduce required\ndocumentation\nA person who makes an application to enter Canada\nmust answer truthfully all questions put to them for\nthe purpose of the examination and must produce a\nvisa and all relevant evidence and documents\nreasonably required by an officer.\nA16(1.1) Appear for an\nexamination\nA person who makes an application must, on request\nof an officer, appear for an examination.\nA16(2) Fingerprints,\nphotographs and\na medical\nexamination", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (The Act and its Regulations) (part 1 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and its Regulations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A FN must produce photographic and fingerprint\nevidence if required to establish identity or\ncompliance with the Act and, on request, must\nsubmit to a medical examination.\nA16(2.1) Appear for an\ninterview\nconducted by the\nCanadian\nSecurity\nIntelligence\nService (CSIS)\nand answer all\nquestions\ntruthfully\nA FN who makes an application must, on request by\nan officer, appear for an interview for the purpose of\nan investigation conducted by CSIS under section 15\nof the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act for\nthe purpose of providing advice or information to the\nMinister under section 14 of that Act. They must\nanswer truthfully all questions put to them during the\ninterview.\nA16(3) Evidence relating\nto identity\nAn officer may require or obtain from a PR or a FN\nwho is arrested, detained, subject to an examination\nor subject to a removal order, any evidence —\nphotographic, fingerprint or otherwise — that may be\nused to establish their identity or compliance with\nthis Act.\nA18(1) Appear for an\nexamination\nA person who seeks to enter Canada must appear for\nan examination to determine whether they have a\nright to enter Canada or may be authorized to enter\nand remain in Canada.\nA18(2) Transit\npassengers\nA person who seeks to leave an area at an airport\nthat is reserved for passengers who are in transit or\nwho are waiting to depart Canada must appear for an\nexamination. Other examples could include when a\nflight is cancelled due to the weather or persons\ndenied at US pre-clearance.\nA20(1)(a) To become a\npermanent\nresident\nA FN who seeks to become a PR must establish that\nthey hold the visa or other document required under\nthe Regulations and have come to Canada to\nestablish permanent residence.\n16\nA20(1)(b) Entry of\ntemporary\nresidents", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (The Act and its Regulations) (part 2 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and its Regulations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A FN who seeks to become a temporary resident\nmust establish that they hold the visa or other\ndocument required under the Regulations and will\nleave Canada by the end of the period authorized for\ntheir stay.\nA20(2) Provincial\nselection criteria\nA FN who seeks to become a PR and intends to reside\nin a province that has sole responsibility for the\nselection of FNs under a federal-provincial agreement\npursuant to A9(1) must also establish that they hold\na document issued by the province, indicating that\nthe competent authority of the province is of the\nopinion that the FN complies with the province’s\nselection criteria.\nA28(1) Residency\nobligation\nA PR must comply with the residency obligation in\nA28 with respect to every five-year period.\nA29(2) Obligations of\ntemporary\nresidents\nA temporary resident must comply with any\nconditions imposed under the Regulations and with\nany requirements under the Act and must leave\nCanada by the end of the period authorized for their\nstay.\nA30(1) Work and study A FN may not work or study in Canada unless\nauthorized to do so under the Act.\nR6, R7, R8\nand R9\nPermanent and\ntemporary\nresident visas,\nwork and study\npermits\nA FN must obtain these documents prior to entering\nCanada.\nR12.001 Request or\napplication at\nport of entry\nA person may only make a request or application at a\nport of entry that provides collection services for\nbiometric information.\nR12.1 Collection of\nbiometric\ninformation\nClaims, applications and requests requiring the\ncollection of biometric information.\nR12.5 Verification of\nbiometric\ninformation\nWhen seeking to enter Canada and when directed,\nthe person shall provide their biometric information\nfor verification.\nR27(1) and\nR27(2)\nAppear for\nexamination\nA FN must appear without delay before an officer at a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (The Act and its Regulations) (part 3 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and its Regulations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "POE for an examination or, if entering at a place\nother than a POE, must appear without delay for\nexamination at the nearest POE.\nR28 Making an\napplication\nA person who seeks to enter Canada is deemed to be\nmaking an application pursuant to A15(1) and must\ntherefore submit to an examination.\nR30 Submit to\nmedical\nexamination\nA FN who seeks to enter Canada for more than six\nmonths and who has resided or stayed in certain\ncountries in excess of six months is required to\nsubmit to a medical examination and must hold a\nmedical certificate stating that they are not\ninadmissible on health grounds.\nR37 End of\nexamination\nSee section 5.6 of this manual for details.\n17\nR40 Direction to\nleave\nExcept in the case of protected persons within the\nmeaning of A95(2) and in the case of refugee\nprotection claimants, an officer who is unable to\nexamine a person who is seeking to enter Canada at\na POE will, in writing, direct the person to leave\nCanada.\nR41 Direct back An officer may temporarily direct back a FN who is\nseeking to enter Canada from the United States if:\n the examination cannot be completed;\n the Minister’s delegate (MD) is not available to\nreview the report;\n the admissibility hearing cannot be held by the\nImmigration Division (ID);\n the FN is prohibited from entering Canada by\nan order or regulation made by the Governor\nin Council under the Emergencies Act or the\nQuarantine Act.\nR42 Withdrawing an\napplication\nAn officer who examines a FN who is seeking to enter\nCanada and who has indicated that they want to\nwithdraw their application to enter Canada will allow\nthe FN to withdraw their application and leave\nCanada, unless a report is being or has been\nprepared under 44(1) of the Act.\nR43 Mandatory\nconditions in\ncases requiring\nfurther\nexamination", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (The Act and its Regulations) (part 4 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and its Regulations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A FN who has been authorized to enter Canada under\nA23 must comply with the following conditions:\n report in person for the completion of the\nexamination or the admissibility hearing;\n not engage in any work in Canada;\n not study in Canada; and\n report in person at a POE if they withdraw\ntheir application to enter Canada.\n comply with all requirements imposed on\nthem by an order or regulation made under\nthe Emergencies Act or the Quarantine Act.\nR45 Deposits or\nguarantees\nAn officer can require of a person or a group of\npersons seeking to enter Canada the payment of a\ndeposit or the posting of guarantee, or both, to\nguarantee compliance with any conditions imposed.\nR50 Documents:\napplicants for\npermanent\nresidence\nA FN seeking to become a PR requires a PR visa as\nwell as a passport, travel document or other\ndocument prescribed by the Regulations. For detailed\nrequirements, see R50(1), (2) and (3).\nR51 Obligations of\napplicants for\npermanent\nresidence\nA FN in possession of a PR visa who seeks at a POE to\nbecome a PR must inform the officer if:\n they have become or ceased to be a spouse,\ncommon-law partner or conjugal partner after\nthe visa was issued; or\n18\n material facts relevant to the issuance of the\nvisa have changed or were not divulged when\nthe visa was issued.\nThe FN must also establish that they and their family\nmembers, whether accompanying or not, meet the\nrequirements of the Act and Regulations.\nR52 Documents:\ntemporary\nresidents\nA FN who seeks to become a temporary resident\nmust hold one of the following documents, which\nmust be valid for the period authorized for their stay:\na passport, a travel document or another document\nprescribed by the Regulations. For detailed\nrequirements and exceptions, see R52(1) and\nR52(2).\nR183 and\nR185\nGeneral and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (The Act and its Regulations) (part 5 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and its Regulations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "specific\nconditions on\ntemporary\nresidents\nA temporary resident must comply with conditions of\ntheir entry, including the requirement to leave by the\nend of the period authorized for their stay and not to\nwork or study unless authorized by the Act or\nRegulations and comply with all requirements\nimposed on them by an order or regulation made\nunder the Emergencies Act or the Quarantine Act.\nR184 Conditions on\ncrew members\nA FN who enters Canada as a crew member or in\norder to become a crew member is required to join\nthe means of transportation within the period\nimposed or, if no period is imposed, within 48 hours\nafter they enter Canada. A crew member must leave\nCanada within 72 hours after ceasing to be a crew\nmember.\nR196 Authorization to\nwork\nA FN must not work in Canada unless authorized by a\nwork permit (WP) or the Regulations.\nR212 Authorization to\nstudy\nA FN may not study in Canada unless authorized by a\nstudy permit (SP) or the Regulations.\nR243 Requirement to\npay removal\ncosts\nA FN is not allowed to return to Canada if they were\nremoved from Canada at the expense of Her Majesty\nand the debt incurred from removal is outstanding.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (The Act and its Regulations) (part 6 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 Forms\nThese are some of the forms used during a POE examination\nForm title Form number\nMedical Surveillance Undertaking IMM 0535B\nVisitor Record IMM 1097B\nAuthorization to Return to Canada Pursuant to Section 52(1) of the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act\nIMM 1203B\nDirection to Leave Canada BSF503\nDirection to Return to the United States BSF505\nNotice of Seizure of Travel and/or Identity Document(s) BSF698\nNotice to appear for a proceeding under subsection 44(2) BSF504\nReferral Under Subsection 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act for an Admissibility Hearing\nBSF506\n19\nAcknowledgement of Conditions – The Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act\nBSF821\nAllowed to Leave Canada IMM 1282B\nDeclaration IMM 1392B\nConfirmation by Transporter Regarding Passenger(s) Carried BSF453\nNotice to Transporter BSF502\nVoluntary Departure - Confirmation IMM 5021E\nTemporary Resident Permit IMM 1263B\nSubsection A44(1) Highlights Port of Entry Cases BSF516\nPort of Entry (POE)/Secondary Examination Record IMM 5059B\nEntry For Further Examination or Admissibility Hearing BSF536\nSupplementary Identification Form IMM 5455B\nAuthority to Release Personal Information to a Designated Individual IMM 5475E\nUse of a Representative IMM 5476E\nRecord of Direct Backs for Refugee Claimants at the Land Border Appendix C\nCustoms Referral Form (Airport) E311\nIn-Person Processing – Air Mode BSF423\nSecondary Referral - Border BSF235\nReport to Warehouse (Border: Commercial Drivers) Y28", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3.1 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Instruments and delegations\nThe instruments explain who has been designated to act as an officer and who has been\ndelegated the authority to do anything that may be done by the Minister, under the Act or\nRegulations, depending on their position/level. There are two IRPA Designation and\nDelegation Instruments. One is made by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada\n(IRCC) and the other by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). In each instrument,\nIRCC and the CBSA designate and delegate authorities to their own officers, as well as to\nofficers in other departments. Therefore, it is important to read both documents to know all\nauthorities linked to a position under IRPA.\nAny person in a prescribed position and making decisions under a designated or delegated\nauthority must successfully complete all official prerequisite CBSA training required for\nthose positions before exercising their designated or delegated authority.\nThese instruments can be found in manual IL 3, Designation of Officers and Delegation of\nAuthority.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4.1", + "marginal_note": "Powers and authorities of an officer", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.1 Powers and authorities of an officer\nThe following sections provide authority for an officer relating to the examination of persons\nseeking to enter Canada:\nPowers of an officer under IRPA and IRPR Relevant\nprovisions\nAuthority to conduct an examination where a person makes an application.\nR28 specifies that every person who seeks to enter Canada is making an\napplication and is, therefore, subject to an examination.\nA15(1)\n20\nAuthority to:\n board and inspect any means of transportation bringing persons to\nCanada;\n examine any person carried by that means of transportation and\nany record or document respecting that person;\n seize and remove any record or document to obtain copies or\nextracts; and\n hold the means of transportation until the inspection and\nexamination are completed.\nThis section provides authority for officers to commence an examination\nprior to the passenger’s arrival at the Primary Inspection Line (PIL).\nA15(3)\nAuthority to require a person being examined to produce a visa and all\nrelevant evidence that the officer reasonably requires, including, in the\ncase of FNs, photographic and fingerprint evidence.\nAuthority to request that the FN undergo a medical examination.\nA16(1) and\n(2)\nAuthority to require that a person who makes an application appear for an\nexamination.\nA16(1.1)\nAuthority to require that a FN who makes an application appear for an\ninterview conducted by CSIS.\nA16(2.1)\nAuthority to require or obtain from a PR or FN who is arrested, detained,\nsubject to an examination or subject to a removal order, any evidence —\nphotographic, fingerprint or otherwise — that may be used to establish\ntheir identity or compliance with this Act.\nA16(3)\nAuthority to authorize a person to enter Canada for the purpose of further", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4.1 (Powers and authorities of an officer) (part 1 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4.1", + "marginal_note": "Powers and authorities of an officer", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "examination or an admissibility hearing at a later time or date.\nA23\nAuthority to issue a TRP, if justified by the circumstances, to a foreign\nnational who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of the\nAct, and to cancel the TRP at any time.\nA24\nAuthority to prepare a report on PRs and FNs who are believed to be\ninadmissible.\nA44(1)\nAuthority to impose conditions, including the payment of a deposit or the\nposting of a guarantee for compliance with any conditions considered\nnecessary, on a PR or FN who is the subject of a report.\nA44(3)\nAuthority to authorize a FN against whom a removal order has been\nenforced to return to Canada.\nA52(1)\nAuthority to issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of a PR or FN who\nthe officer has reasonable grounds to believe is inadmissible and:\n is a danger to the public or\n is unlikely to appear for\n examination,\n an admissibility hearing or\n removal from Canada or\n a proceeding that could lead to the making of a removal\norder by the Minister under A44(2)\nA55(1)\n21\nAuthority to arrest and detain, without a warrant, a foreign national, other\nthan a protected person:\n who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe is inadmissible\nand is a danger to the public or is unlikely to appear for\nexamination, an admissibility hearing, removal from Canada, or at\na proceeding that could lead to the making of a removal order by\nthe Minister under A44(2); or\n if the officer is not satisfied with the identity of the FN in the course\nof any procedure under the Act.\nA55(2)\nAuthority to detain a PR or FN on entry to Canada if the officer considers it\nnecessary to do so in order to:\n complete an examination or\n has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is inadmissible\nunder A34, 35, 36, or 37.\nA55(3)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4.1 (Powers and authorities of an officer) (part 2 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4.1", + "marginal_note": "Powers and authorities of an officer", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Authority to order the release from detention of a PR or a FN before the\nfirst detention review by the ID if the officer is of the opinion that the\nreasons for the detention no longer exist. This section also allows the\nofficer to impose any conditions, including the payment of a deposit or the\nposting of a guarantee for compliance with the conditions, that the officer\nconsiders necessary.\nA56\nAuthority to conduct eligibility determinations for refugee claimants and to\nrefer eligible claims to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).\nA100(1)\nAuthority of officers to have the authority and powers of peace officers for\nthe purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act, including provisions\nwith respect to the arrest, detention and removal of a person from\nCanada.\nA138(1)\nAuthority to search any person seeking to come into Canada, including\ntheir luggage, personal effects, and means of transportation, if the officer\nbelieves on reasonable grounds that the person has not revealed their\nidentity or has hidden documents relevant to their admissibility or has\ncommitted, or possesses documents that may be used in the commission\nof an offence referred to in A117, A118 or A122.\nA139\nAuthority to seize and hold any means of transportation, document, or\nother thing that the officer believes on reasonable grounds was\nfraudulently or improperly obtained or used or that the seizure is\nnecessary to prevent its fraudulent or improper use or to carry out the\npurposes of the Act.\nA140\nAuthority to impose, vary or cancel conditions on any person who is\nobliged to submit to a medical examination.\nR32\nAuthority to conduct alternate means of examination. R38\nAuthority to direct a person who cannot be examined to leave Canada, in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4.1 (Powers and authorities of an officer) (part 3 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4.1", + "marginal_note": "Powers and authorities of an officer", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "writing, unless this person is a protected person or a refugee claimant.\nR40\nAuthority to direct a FN to return to the United States temporarily. R41\nAuthority to allow or to refuse to allow a FN to withdraw their application\nto enter Canada and leave Canada.\nR42\nAuthority to impose conditions on persons authorized to enter Canada for\nfurther examination under A23.\nR43\n22\nAuthority to require the payment of a deposit or the posting of a\nguarantee.\nR45\nAuthority to impose conditions, including the period of time that a\ntemporary resident may remain in Canada.\nR183\nAuthority to impose, vary or cancel specific conditions on a temporary\nresident.\nR185\nAuthority to issue a work permit if eligibility is met. R200\nAuthority to issue a work permit on the basis of Canadian interests. R205\nAuthority to issue a work permit on the basis the FN can not support\nthemselves without working.\nR206\nAuthority to issue a study permit if eligibility is met. R216\nAuthority to require a transporter to provide a written report with respect\nto a stowaway.\nR262\nAuthority to require a transporter to provide copies of a passenger’s ticket,\nitinerary and information about travel and identity documents.\nR264\nAuthority to require a transporter to assemble all members of the crew\naboard a vessel.\nR266\nAuthority to require a transporter to provide a written report respecting a\nFN who has ceased to be a member of the crew.\nR268\nPowers of officer under the Criminal Code Relevant\nprovisions\nAuthority within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or\nthe Excise Act, 2001 or a person having the powers of such an\nofficer to perform any duty in the administration of any of those\nActs.\nSection CC2\nAuthority and powers of a peace officer, including those set out in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4.1 (Powers and authorities of an officer) (part 4 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4-1-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4.1", + "marginal_note": "Powers and authorities of an officer", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "sections 487 to 492.2 of the Criminal Code to enforce IRPA.\nSection CC2\nJustification, when acting on reasonable grounds, in doing what is\nauthorized or required in the administration or enforcement of\nProgram Legislation, and in using as much force as necessary for\nthat purpose.\nSection CC25\nJustification to use as much force as is reasonably necessary to\nprevent the commission of an offence (or to prevent anything\nbeing done that on reasonable grounds to believe were it done\nwould be an offence) for which, if it were committed, the person\nwho committed it might be arrested without warrant, and would\nbe likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or\nproperty of anyone.\nSection CC27\nAuthority to arrest without warrant a person who has committed,\nis committing or is about to commit a criminal offence.\nSubsection CC495(1)\nLimitations on when an officer will arrest a person without warrant\nwho has committed, is committing or is about to commit a criminal\noffence.\nSubsection CC495(2)\nAuthority to issue an appearance notice in lieu of arrest if the\noffence is listed in section CC553.\nSection CC497\nAuthority to release from custody a person arrested, without\nwarrant, for an offence other than one described in section CC496.\nSubsection CC498(1)\n23\nPowers of officer under the Customs Act Relevant provisions\nIn conjunction with section 2 of the Criminal Code, where the\ndefinition of “peace officer” includes the term officer described at\nCA2. The term “Officer” is defined for the purposes of the\nCustoms Act as a person employed in the administration or\nenforcement of this Act, the Customs Tariff or the Special Import\nMeasures Act and includes any member of the Royal Canadian\nMounted Police (RCMP).\nSection CA2", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4.1 (Powers and authorities of an officer) (part 5 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4-1-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4.1", + "marginal_note": "Powers and authorities of an officer", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Lists the particular sections of the Customs Act that, if violated,\nare punishable by either indictment or summary conviction;\nofficers, therefore, may arrest for contraventions of those\nsections listed.\nSection CA160\nAuthorizes designated officers, when at a customs office and\nperforming their normal duties, to make an arrest for a criminal\noffence under any other Act of Parliament.\nSubsection CA163.5(1)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4.1 (Powers and authorities of an officer) (part 6 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4.2", + "marginal_note": "Designation of officers", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.2 Designation of officers\nA6(1) authorizes the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and\nthe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to designate officers or classes of\nofficers to carry out any purpose or provision of the Act. A designation is made, in most\ncases, where the word “officer” is referred to in the Act or Regulations with respect to a\npower, duty, requirement, or authority.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4.2 (Designation of officers)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4.3", + "marginal_note": "Ministerial delegations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.3 Ministerial delegations\nA6(2) authorizes the Minister of IRCC and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness to delegate powers to other persons. A delegation is made, in most cases,\nwhere the word “minister” is referred to in the Act or Regulations with respect to a power,\nduty, requirement, or authority. Certain ministerial powers, referred to in A6(3), may not be\ndelegated.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4.3 (Ministerial delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4.4", + "marginal_note": "Designations of Ports of Entry (POE)s", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.4 Designations of Ports of Entry (POE)s\nThe Minister has authority under R26 to designate a place as a POE. The purpose in\ndesignating a POE is to ensure that persons seeking to enter Canada are aware of where\nthey are required to report for examination.\nSee a list of POEs with detailed information, including the types of services and hours of\noperation.\n24", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4.4 (Designations of Ports of Entry (POE)s)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5.1", + "marginal_note": "Examinations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.1 Examinations\nA15(1) authorizes an officer to examine any person making an application in accordance\nwith the Act. This manual deals only with the examination of persons seeking to enter\nCanada.\nR28 stipulates that a person makes an application by:\n submitting an application in writing;\n seeking to enter Canada;\n seeking to transit through Canada in airports as provided for by R35; or\n making a claim for refugee protection.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5.1 (Examinations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5.2", + "marginal_note": "Persons to be examined", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.2 Persons to be examined\nA18(1) provides that every person who seeks to enter Canada, whether they intend to or\nnot, must appear for an examination.\nA18(2) provides that this also applies to persons who, without leaving Canada, seek to\nleave an area at an airport that is reserved for passengers who are in transit or who are\nwaiting to depart Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5.2 (Persons to be examined)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5.3", + "marginal_note": "Primary and secondary examinations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.3 Primary and secondary examinations\nEvery person seeking to enter Canada must appear for an examination to determine\nwhether they have a right to enter Canada or may become authorized to enter and remain\nin Canada. The examination process at a POE may include a primary and a secondary\nexamination. Primary examinations are completed by a BSO at the PIL. In some airports,\ntravellers will use a Primary Inspection Kiosk (PIK) to verify their travel documents, confirm\ntheir identity and complete an on-screen declaration. In some remote ports, an RCMP officer\nmay complete the primary examination. Immigration Secondary examinations are\nconducted by a BSO at Immigration Secondary following a referral from a BSO at the PIL or\nfrom the PIK. This manual refers to both primary and secondary examinations at a POE.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5.3 (Primary and secondary examinations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5.4", + "marginal_note": "Ministerial Instructions", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.4 Ministerial Instructions\nA15(4) provides that an officer will conduct an examination in accordance with any\ninstructions that the Minister of IRCC or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness may give. The authority for the Ministers to give instructions to officers can be\nused to ensure consistency in the application of the Act with respect to examinations.\nMinisterial instructions are not regulations (see A93) but are nevertheless binding on\nofficers.\n25", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5.4 (Ministerial Instructions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5.5", + "marginal_note": "Duties and conduct of the Border Services Officer (BSO)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.5 Duties and conduct of the Border Services Officer (BSO)\nA BSO must deal with each person being examined in a courteous, professional and efficient\nmanner. If it is determined that the person has a right of entry under A19, the BSO must\nnot delay their entry into Canada.\nA FN who is determined:\n to be admissible, should be authorized into Canada as a temporary resident\nwith minimal delay; and\n to be inadmissible, should be counselled accordingly and the BSO should\nconsider all options afforded by the IRPA and IRPR prior to making a decision.\nA BSO should carefully examine all the facts before making a decision and, where\nappropriate, explain the reasons for that decision to the traveller.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5.5 (Duties and conduct of the Border Services Officer (BSO))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5.6", + "marginal_note": "End of examination", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.6 End of examination\nR37 provides that the examination of a person seeking to enter or transit through Canada is\nnot final until one of the following outcomes takes place:\nOutcome Explanation\nA final determination is made that\nthe person has a right to enter\nCanada or is authorized to enter\nCanada and the person leaves the\nport of entry.\nThe Regulations provide that an examination is not\nfinal until the person has left the controlled area of\nthe POE or, if no controlled area exists, has left the\nPOE.\nFor example, an examination may be continued if,\nduring a Customs Secondary examination, evidence\narises that indicates the person may be\ninadmissible to Canada. If the person’s passport\nhas been stamped or even if the person has been\ngranted PR status, these decisions are not final and\nmay be revisited as long as the person has not left\nthe controlled area of the POE.\nA person in transit departs from\nCanada.\nCertain passengers in transit through Canada are\nnot required to appear for examination if they\nremain in a controlled area pending their onward\nflight out of Canada. They are, nevertheless,\nsubject to examination. If they seek to leave, for\nany reason, the area at an airport that is reserved\nfor passengers who are in transit or who are\nwaiting to depart Canada, they must report for\nexamination [A18(2)].\nThe person is allowed to leave\nCanada, and their departure is\nconfirmed.\nA BSO may determine a person to be inadmissible\nand allow them to leave Canada pursuant to R42 if\nno report referred to in A44(1) is prepared or\ntransmitted. The examination concludes once their\ndeparture is verified. If, for any reason, the person\ndoes not depart, the examination resumes.\n26\nEntry is authorized by the Minister\nand the person leaves the port of\nentry.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5.6 (End of examination) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5.6", + "marginal_note": "End of examination", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The Minister’s delegate, in reviewing a report\npursuant to A44(1), continues the examination of\nthe person seeking entry. If the Minister’s delegate\ndetermines the report is not founded, the person\nwill be allowed to enter Canada, and the\nexamination will conclude when the person leaves\nthe POE.\nA removal order is issued by the\nMinister and the person leaves the\nport of entry.\nThe Minister’s delegate, after reviewing a report\npursuant to A44(2), may issue a removal order.\nThe examination ends when the person leaves the\nPOE.\nThe Minister refers the case to the\nID for an admissibility hearing and\nthe person leaves the port of entry.\nThe Minister’s delegate, after reviewing a report\npursuant to A44(2), may determine that the report\nis well founded and refer it to the ID of the\nImmigration and Refugee Board (IRB) for an\nadmissibility hearing. The examination ends when\nthe person leaves the POE.\nFor refugee claims made at a POE,\nthe examination ends when the\nlater of the following occurs:\n the officer determines that\ntheir claim is ineligible under\nA101 or the Refugee\nProtection Division (RPD)\naccepts or rejects their claim\nunder A107, or\n a decision in respect of the\nperson is made under\nA44(2) and the person\nleaves the POE.\nThe point at which examination ends is different\nwhere the person is a refugee claimant as the\napplication exists up until the claim has been\ndecided.\nR37(2) provides delegated officers the authority to\nexamine a refugee claimant until a decision is made\nin regards to the claim.\nFor more details, please consult section 11.6 of ENF\n5, Writing 44(1) Reports.\nA23 allows an officer to authorize a person to enter Canada for the purpose of further\nexamination or an admissibility hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5.6 (End of examination) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5.6", + "marginal_note": "End of examination", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For more information on pre-removal risk assessments, see IRCC’s Program Delivery\nInstructions.\nFor more information on removals, see ENF 10, Removals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5.6 (End of examination) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Definitions\nBorder services officer\n(BSO)\nA person designated as an officer by the Minister,\nemployed by the CBSA [A6(1)] [R2]\nCanadian citizen (CC) A citizen referred to in subsection 3(1) of the Citizenship\nAct\nCommon-law partner In relation to a person, an individual who is cohabiting with\nthe person in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited\nfor a period of at least one year [R1(1)]\n27\nConvention refugee A person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of\npersecution based on race, religion, nationality,\nmembership in a particular social group or political opinion,\n(a) is outside of their country of nationality and is unable\nor, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themselves of\nthe protection of that country; or\n(b) does not have a country of nationality, is outside the\ncountry of their former habitual residence and is unable or,\nby reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country\n[A96]\nForeign national A person who is not a Canadian citizen or a PR; includes a\nstateless person [A2(1)]\nGCMS Global Case Management System: IRCC/CBSA client\nimmigration database\nOfficer A person designated as an officer by the Minister under\nA6(1) [R2]\nPermanent resident (PR) A person who has acquired permanent residence status and\nhas not subsequently lost that status under A46 [A2(1)]\nProtected person (PP) A person on whom refugee protection is conferred and\nwhose claim or application has not subsequently been\ndeemed to be rejected because of cessation or vacation\nproceedings [A95(2)]\nSterile transit area An area in an airport where in-transit passengers, in-transit\npre-clearance passengers or goods that are in transit or\npre-controlled are physically separated from other\npassengers and goods [R2]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 6 (Definitions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Primary Inspection Line (PIL) examinations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7 Primary Inspection Line (PIL) examinations\nThe examination process usually commences upon the arrival of a person at a POE. This\nmay be a land border, an airport, a marine harbour or any other place designated as a POE.\nBSOs at the PIL are delegated the authority to conduct the initial immigration examination\nof persons seeking entry into Canada. BSOs at the PIL administer legislation and programs\nby providing a wide range of inspection, examination and enforcement activities on beha lf of\nmany government departments and agencies.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7 (Primary Inspection Line (PIL) examinations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Memorandum of Understanding with Immigration, Refugees and", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Memorandum of Understanding with Immigration, Refugees and\nCitizenship Canada (IRCC)\nOn December 12, 2003, the CBSA was created, and immigration enforcement and\nintelligence responsibilities under IRPA were transferred to this new agency from IRCC.\nThe purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to define, in general terms, the\nbasis for cooperation between IRCC and the CBSA regarding:\n the delivery of the immigration program;\n information sharing; and\n the provision of various services.\n28\nFor more information on the roles and responsibilities of the CBSA and IRCC, see the full\ntext of the MOU.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.1 (Memorandum of Understanding with Immigration, Refugees and)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Immigration secondary referral list", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Immigration secondary referral list\nParagraph 59 of part 2, chapter 1 of The People Processing Manual provides the\nImmigration Secondary Referral List which contains the categories of persons who are\nmandatory referrals for an Immigration examination, such as:\n inadmissible persons under sections 34 to 42 of the IRPA;\n persons whose citizenship or status is doubtful;\n FNs refusing to answer questions;\n FNs refused entry into another country;\n persons whose documents, such as passport, seems doubtful;\n immigration Lookouts;\n Canadian citizens in possession of an emergency passport issued abroad;\n PRs of Canada who have had extended absences from Canada;\n FNs intending to stay longer than six (6) months;\n FNs seeking medical treatment or appear ill;\n Foreign workers and students on first entry.\nBSOs at the PIL may also refer anyone else who they believe should be examined in mor e\ndetail.\nExamples of types of referrals that should be sent to Immigration Secondary include cases\nwhere the BSO at the PIL:\n has doubts about the person’s identity;\n suspects the FN may have a criminal record;\n believes the FN may require documentation such as a WP or SP;\n has concerns about the length of time the FN is requesting to stay in Canada in light\nof their actual travel plans.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.2 (Immigration secondary referral list)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Liaison with officers at the PIL", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3 Liaison with officers at the PIL\nBSOs at the PIL are encouraged to inquire about the results of their referrals to Immigration\nSecondary. BSOs at Immigration Secondary do not operate under the same time constraints\nas BSOs at the PIL and have more time to conduct immigration examinations effectively.\nBSOs at Immigration Secondary should, whenever possible, provide feedback on the results\nof referrals. Liaising between officers is a key element in developing and maintaining an\neffective and positive working relationship with officers who conduct the primary portion of\nthe examination process. In addition, discussing cases allows BSOs at Immigration\nSecondary to give guidance to BSOs at the PIL regarding immigration requirements. This\nincreases the quality of referrals from the PIL. BSOs working at the PIL are encouraged to\nwrite in referral notes in IPIL when referring someone to secondary. See OBO-2019-030 for\nmore details.\n29", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.3 (Liaison with officers at the PIL)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Responsibilities of primary examining officers", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4 Responsibilities of primary examining officers\nBSOs conducting primary examinations are responsible for:\n confirming the identity of the person and verifying that the biometric photograph\nmatches in PIL, when applicable;\n questioning persons and reviewing documentation to determine whether persons\nhave a right to enter Canada (Canadians, PRs and persons registered under the\nIndian Act) or are FNs who may be authorized to enter Canada as temporary\nresidents;\n determining whether or not persons seeking entry into Canada are doing so as new\nor returning PRs;\n authorizing persons to enter Canada and stamping passports when required. As per\nthe CBSA Stamp Policy, which came into effect on April 2, 2012, BSOs are not\nexpected to notate stamps in passports at the PIL except in the following\ncircumstances:\no Officers will notate the stamp at the PIL (as per the CBSA Operational Bulletin\nPRG-2018-40) when authorizing entry under the\n Parents and Grandparents Extended Stay Temporary Resident Visa\n(Super Visa), and\n Authorized Period of Extended Stay;\no Officers may place a stamp in the holder’s passport on subsequent entry of\npersons with a valid and subsisting status document.\n If a stamp is placed in the passport, the officer will notate the initial\nexpiry according to the status document.\n If a stamp is not placed in the passport, the officer will remind the\nperson of the initial expiry date;\n referring persons for a more detailed Immigration Secondary examination when\nappropriate, in accordance with the Immigration Secondary referral list; and\n authorizing FNs to leave Canada or directing them to return to the U.S. at ports\nwhere there are no BSOs present at the Immigration Secondary.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.4 (Responsibilities of primary examining officers)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Primary examination questions", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5 Primary examination questions\nPrimary examination questions are designed to elicit essential information about citizenship,\nresidency, intention, employment, length of stay and identity as quickly as possible.\nNormally, the examining BSO at the PIL begins by asking one or more of the six primary\nquestions below. Under most circumstances, a BSO at the PIL does not need to ask all\nquestions of all travellers.\nIssue Question Rationale\nIdentity What is your\nname?\nIf the BSO has any reason to doubt the person’s\nidentity, they will ask for the person’s name. A\ncomparison can then be made with the person’s\ndocuments to determine if the name given is the same\nas the name in the document.\nCitizenship What is your\ncitizenship?\nBy asking this question, the BSO can identify a person\nwho may enter Canada by right. It is rare that a\nperson who has a right to enter Canada be referred to\nImmigration Secondary.\n30\nIf the person is not Canadian, this question enables\nthe BSO to determine whether a passport, a visa or an\nelectronic Travel Authorization (eTA) is required to\nenter Canada. If the person has a machine-readable\npassport, the BSO does not necessarily have to ask\nabout citizenship. A passport reader, however, is no\nsubstitute for a good verbal examination.\nResidency Where do you\nreside?\nThis question helps the BSO to determine, should the\nperson answer they have status in Canada, what their\nobligations and conditions are. If the person is a PR,\nthe BSO may ask the supplementary question “How\nlong have you been away?” The BSO at the PIL must\nrefer for Immigration Secondary examination all PRs\nwho may not comply with the residency obligation of\nA28, which requires PRs to reside in Canada for at\nleast 730 days out of every five-year period to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.5 (Primary examination questions) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Primary examination questions", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "maintain their status. The possible loss of PR status\nunder A46 can be further explored at a secondary\nexamination.\nIntention What is the\npurpose of your\ntrip to Canada?\nOnce the BSO determines that the traveller is a FN,\nthey must establish why the FN is coming to Canada.\nBy asking this question, they can identify the need for\na referral to Immigration Secondary for control\npurposes (for example, to become a PR, to work, or to\nstudy).\nEmployment Do you intend to\ntake or seek\nemployment while\nin Canada?\nIf the BSO has not yet determined whether the person\nis coming to Canada to work, this question ensures\nthat employment opportunities for Canadians are\nprotected and that the person will comply with\nrelevant employment regulations.\nLength of\nstay\nHow long do you\nintend to stay in\nCanada?\nBSOs may allow a FN to enter Canada for a stay of up\nto six months and should stamp the passport of a\nperson who is otherwise admissible. A FN who is\nintending to remain in Canada for longer than six\nmonths should be referred for a Immigration\nSecondary examination.\nThe BSO at the PIL may ask additional questions as warranted but usually does not conduct\nin-depth examinations. This would create line-ups and delays for the travelling public. A\nBSO at the PIL who doubts the bona fides of a person or believes that a detailed\nexamination may be in order should refer the person to an Immigration Secondary\nexamination.\nMost travellers seeking entry at an international airport will use a Primary Inspection Kiosk\n(PIK) instead of being seen by a BSO at the PIL. Travellers in possession of an ePassport\nwill have the photo stored in their passport’s chip compared to their photo taken at the PIK\nto authenticate their identity. If the traveller does not have an ePassport or the system was", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.5 (Primary examination questions) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Primary examination questions", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "unable to validate their identity, the podium officer will verify their identity by comparing\nthe photograph in the passport with that of the traveller in front of them. Also, travellers\nwho have previously had their biometrics enrolled will be asked to verify their identity via\nfingerprint verification at PIK.\n31", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.5 (Primary examination questions) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Criminality", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6 Criminality\nBSOs at the PIL shall not ask a FN about criminality during a PIL examination. Questions\nabout criminality are better suited for Immigration Secondary, where BSOs have more time\nto conduct a full examination and to question a person in a more private setting.\nConsequently, when a BSO at the PIL suspects, through questioning, lookouts and IPIL, or\nother indicators, that a FN may have a criminal record, the FN should be referred to an\nImmigration Secondary examination. All BSOs at Immigration Secondary should take care\nto ensure privacy by not questioning a person about criminality in the presence of\naccompanying family members or other travellers.\nNational Crime Information Center (NCIC) queries cannot be conducted as a matter of\ncourse and should never be done as a matter of routine. However, travellers can be queried\nin NCIC if officers have reasonable suspicion indicating criminal activity. If the reasonable\nsuspicion (or reasonable grounds to suspect) standard has been met, name-based checks in\nNCIC for an investigative purpose or for criminal history are authorized on persons\noriginating from or associated with the United States of America or any of its territ ories.\nBSOs must have completed the mandatory training, M1126-P in the ESS self-service portal\nprior to doing any NCIC query. Refer to OBO-2020-080 on authorized usage by CBSA of the\nNCIC.\nBSOs may refer to the NCIC Quick Reference Guide on Atlas for instructions on how to\nquery NCIC.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.6 (Criminality)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Referral of FNs with medical conditions", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7 Referral of FNs with medical conditions\nA38 states that FNs are inadmissible to Canada on health grounds if a medical officer has\nconcluded that the applicant’s health condition:\n is likely to be a danger to public health;\n is likely to be a danger to public safety; or\n might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social\nservices.\nReferral for an Immigration Secondary examination is mandatory when a foreign national:\n is seeking to enter Canada in order to undergo medical treatment; or\n is obviously ill.\nIt is not possible, given the time constraints of the primary examination process, to assess\nthe health status of every FN seeking authorization to enter Canada. BSOs at the PIL should\nadopt a practical approach based partly on visual risk assessment and partly on common\nsense and experience.\nBSOs should not be consciously looking for medical problems as part of their examination\nbut should refer for further examination those whom a reasonable person woul d judge to be\nill. Examples could include FNs who:\n act abnormally;\n32\n have incoherent speech;\n are on a stretcher or are accompanied by medical personnel (e.g., nurse, personal\nphysician, etc.);\n exhibit obvious signs of illness.\nCertain viruses can lead to widespread epidemics/outbreaks in a specific country and could\neven lead to a global pandemic such as COVID-19 did. In the past, Ebola, Severe Acute\nRespiratory Syndrome (SARS) and H1N1 swine flu have threatened the global populations.\nIn response to these epidemics, CBSA and Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) work\ntogether to screen travellers who might be infected. BSOs at the PIL are to notify PHAC\nimmediately if they believe a person is showing signs of infection. A PHAC quarantine officer", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.7 (Referral of FNs with medical conditions) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Referral of FNs with medical conditions", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "will assess the person, either over the phone or in person depending on your work location,\nand render an opinion. Each POE should have protocols in place for these types of situation.\nBSOs can access a health specialist through the new PHAC Notification Line:\n1-833-615-2384 and email phac.cns-snc.aspc@canada.ca.\nOn occasion, a FN who is critically ill or injured will be transported to a hospital in Canada\nvia an ambulance. Due to the seriousness of the foreign national’s condition, the BSO may\nfeel that conducting a full primary or secondary examination is not advisable at that time.\nThe BSO should not unduly delay a person who needs urgent medical treatment.\nInformation should be obtained from the emergency medical technician (EMT) as to which\nhospital the FN is being transported to and the FN’s passport should be seized so that the\nBSO can conduct an examination when the FN is release from the hospital.\nFor more information on medical inadmissibility, see section 17 below or visit IRCC’s PDI on\nthe matter.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.7 (Referral of FNs with medical conditions) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.8", + "marginal_note": "CBSA referral forms", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.8 CBSA referral forms\nThere are various forms that a BSO at the PIL uses to refer a person to the Customs or\nImmigration Secondary examination areas.\nCBSA referral forms\nForm Use Explanation\nE311 Primarily\nairports\nThe E311 form is completed by passengers on airplanes\ndestined to Canada and by some bus and train passengers. A\npassenger presents the E311 form to the BSO at the primary\ninspection booth, and the BSO verifies the information and\ncodes the form. This form is being phased out and replaced\nwith BSF423.\nBSF423 Airports The BSF423 is completed by a BSO when a passenger is\nunable to use the PIK.\nPIK\nreceipt\nAirports with\nPIK\nPrimary Inspection Kiosks (PIK) allow travellers to verify their\ntravel documents, confirm their identity and complete an on-\nscreen declaration. Once completed, the PIK will print a receipt\nfor the traveller to present to a BSO.\n33\nBSF235\n(E67)\nLand border\ncrossings and\nferry sites\nThe BSF235 form is completed by a BSO at the PIL at land\nborders.\nY28 Land border\ncrossings and\nferry sites\nThe Y28 form is completed by a BSO at the PIL for commercial\ndrivers.\nThese forms facilitate the control and streaming of passengers, provide data for Statistics\nCanada and are used to refer passengers to Customs and/or Immigration Secondary.\nNote: The PIK receipt, E311 and BSF423 forms are not only a referral form but also a\ndeclaration card. While travellers use PIK, complete an E311 or have a BSF423 completed\nby a BSO in air mode, the BSF235 (E67) at land and marine modes is only issued if the\ntraveller or vehicle is referred to a secondary examination.\nThe forms carry a code by which the BSO at the PIL gives the reason for referral to a\nsecondary examination.\nThe immigration portion of the BSF235 (E67) is coded with four letters: T, E, L, and O.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.8 (CBSA referral forms) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7.8", + "marginal_note": "CBSA referral forms", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "When using the BSF235 (E67), the BSO at the PIL will circle the appropriate letter to\nindicate the reason for referral.\nTELO coding on the BSF235 (E67)\nLetter Meaning Explanation\nT Time The person intends to stay in Canada for an extended or unusual\nperiod of time.\nE Employment The person has indicated an intention to seek employment in\nCanada.\nL Lookout The person may be the subject of a “watch for” as being of\ninterest to CBSA’s BSOs in Immigration Secondary.\nO Other This includes any other reason not covered above. In this case,\nthe PIL officer will typically write a few words on the BSF235 (E67)\nto guide the secondary examination. Officers should be cautious\nwhen recording any information on the BSF235 (E67), as the\nperson who is being referred may be able to read the form.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7.8 (CBSA referral forms) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Immigration Secondary examinations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 Immigration Secondary examinations\nAn Immigration Secondary examination is usually initiated by a referral from a BSO at the\nPIL. It can also result from a referral from a BSO, such as a Disembarkation and Roving\nTeam (DART) member who has boarded and inspected an airplane, bus, train or ship before\nany of the passengers have presented themselves at the PIL. An Immigration Secondary\nexamination is usually conducted by a BSO in the Immigration Secondary area but may be\nconducted by a BSO at Customs Secondary if no BSO at Immigration Secondary is available\nat the POE. An Immigration Secondary examination may also be conducted by telephone or\nother electronic means if the person is in a remote location, where no BSO is available.\n34", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.1 (Immigration Secondary examinations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Responsibilities of examining BSOs at Immigration Secondary", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 Responsibilities of examining BSOs at Immigration Secondary\nBSOs conducting Immigration Secondary examinations are responsible for facilitating the\nentry of Canadians, persons registered under the Indian Act, and PRs as well as bona fide\nFNs and identifying inadmissible persons.\nResponsibilities of such officers include:\n examining persons seeking entry to Canada to determine admissibility;\n facilitating the entry of Canadians, PRs and persons registered under the Indian Act;\n confirming identity and biometrics verification;\n collecting biometrics when FNs makes a claim, application or request;\n authorizing FNs to enter Canada as temporary or PRs and issuing documents where\nappropriate;\n receiving refugee claims and determining eligibility to make such claims;\n reporting persons who are inadmissible;\n reviewing inadmissibility reports;\n issuing removal orders, where appropriate, to inadmissible persons;\n referring cases to the Immigration Division, where appropriate, for an admissibility\nhearing;\n authorizing inadmissible persons to enter Canada on a TRP;\n denying entry to inadmissible persons, arranging for their removal and confirming\ntheir departure;\n allowing persons who have indicated that they want to withdraw their application to\nenter Canada to do so and leave Canada; and\n arresting and/or detaining persons if applicable grounds exist.\nAll BSOs working at Immigration Secondary are responsible for “closing the loop” in IPIL as\nper OBO-2019-029.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.2 (Responsibilities of examining BSOs at Immigration Secondary)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Right to counsel at POE examinations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3 Right to counsel at POE examinations\nFor the purpose of routine information-gathering to establish admissibility during an\nImmigration Secondary examination, a person is not entitled to counsel unless arrested or\ndetained. A person who is arrested or detained must be informed without delay of their right\nto counsel and granted the opportunity to retain and instruct counsel.\nThe Supreme Court of Canada has held that an Immigration Secondary examination at a\nPOE does not constitute a detention within the meaning of paragraph 10(b) of the Canadian\nCharter of Rights and Freedoms [Dehghani v. Canada (Minister of Employment and\nImmigration), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1053]. The Court determined that the principles of\nfundamental justice do not include the right to counsel for routine information-gathering,\nsuch as is gathered at POE examination interviews.\nThis Court decision clarifies that the Charter only gives the right to counsel to those who are\narrested or detained. Generally, CBSA’s policy is not to permit counsel at an examination if\ndetention has not occurred. However, if a BSO is dealing with a FN/PR who does have legal\nrepresentation with them, even though the FN/PR is not entitled to have legal\nrepresentation present, the BSO should allow the legal representative to remain present as\nlong as they do not interfere with the examination process. If the legal representative does\n35\ninterfere, the BSO or Minister’s delegate (MD) can ask the legal representative to leave, as\nthere is no legal obligation to allow them to be present.\nThe right to counsel depends on what transpires after the FN/PR is first subject to\nexamination. For example,\n if a FN/PR is being examined, and the examination does not go beyond what is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.3 (Right to counsel at POE examinations) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Right to counsel at POE examinations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "required to establish admissibility, the person is not entitled to legal counsel;\n if the examination becomes very lengthy and exhaustive but not beyond what is\nrequired to establish admissibility, the FN/PR is not entitled to legal counsel. The\nBSO may, however, consider allowing the person to acquire legal counsel;\n if the FN is not restrained in any way but advised to come back the next day for\nfurther examination as outlined in A23, then they are not considered detained, and\nthere is no right to counsel;\n if a person is being held for a lengthy period of time and is subject to questioning by\nother agencies, such as the RCMP or CSIS, then this may constitute detention, and\nthe FN should be notified of their right to counsel;\n if restraining devices are used, or the person is placed in a holding cell, even\ntemporarily, then an officer must inform the person of the reason for the detention\nand of their right to counsel; and\n if the person is arrested for a criminal offence, they must be informed of the reason\nfor the arrest and of their right to counsel.\nAt any time an officer arrests and/or detains a FN or PR they must advise them of their right\nto counsel. The right to counsel is triggered with a physical restriction, such as being placed\nin a restraint or a holding cell, or mentally, when informed of the arrest and or detention .\nFor more information on the right to counsel during POE examination, refer to ENF 6,\nReview of reports under A44(2).\nFor more information on IRPA arrest and detention, including right to counsel, refer to\nimmigration manuals ENF 7, Immigration Investigations and IRPA s. 55 Arrests/Detention\nand ENF 20, Detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.3 (Right to counsel at POE examinations) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Use of interpreters", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4 Use of interpreters\nBSOs regularly encounter hundreds of different languages and dialects. Often the person\nseeking entry to Canada does not speak French, English or any other language familiar to\nthe BSO. In such cases, the BSO may be able to authorize entry on the basis of\ndocumentation in the possession of the traveller. In appropriate circumstances, the BSO can\nask accompanying friends or family members to assist in translation. At times, a BSO may\nalso solicit help from staff or other persons who are familiar with the langua ge. This is a\npragmatic practice that allows a BSO to facilitate the entry of travellers in cases where an\nofficial interpreter is not readily available.\nA BSO who is using a non-accredited interpreter to conduct a basic examination should\nsuspend the examination if it becomes apparent that the person may be inadmissible or\nmore intrusive questions need to be asked. The examination can be continued once an IRB’s\naccredited and security-cleared interpreter is available. This is important for the following\nreasons:\n36\n When making a decision on admissibility, the BSO needs a reliable and trustworthy\ninterpreter in order to be sure that information provided by the client is accurately\ntranslated. Inaccurate translation could result in a decision based on misinformation,\nwhich is detrimental to the person. This would constitute a breach of natural justice.\n Information obtained at examination is often used as evidence in admissibility\nhearings and, less frequently, in criminal prosecutions. If a competent interpreter is\nnot used, the evidence can be discredited or rendered inadmissible.\n All immigration decisions relating to admissibility are subject to judicial review by the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.4 (Use of interpreters) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Use of interpreters", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Federal Court. The Federal Court reviews the fairness of the process leading to the\ndecision and will strike down any decision based on evidence obtained through an\ninterpreter whose competency is in doubt.\n It is to the benefit of both the person and the CBSA that a competent interpreter be\nused in examinations that may lead to a person being found to be inadmissible to\nCanada.\nFurther information on the use of interpreters can be found on IRCC Connexion, Interviews\nand interpreters page.\nGuidelines for the use of telephone interpretation\nTelephone interpretation is a viable alternative to in-person interpretation and should be\nconsidered in order to process refugee claimants, establish identity and purpose of travel,\nissue a removal order, deny entry and detain and/or arrest a FN. BSOs should allow for a\ndegree of discretion when deciding to provide interpretation services in other situations not\nincluded in this list.\nThe following guidelines outline procedures for the use of telephone interpretation when the\nservice is available and appropriate. The BSO should do the following:\n Determine if interpretation services are required. If the person speaks an official\nlanguage of Canada, the BSO asks them if they would be comfortable conducting the\ninterview in that language or if they would like an interpreter. The BSO records this\nin their officer notes. The BSO reiterates throughout the interview that if the person\nshould require an interpreter at any point, the BSO will pursue this request.\n Secure an interpreter by accessing the IRB list of accredited interpreters.\n Follow port procedures in terms of completing interpreters’ contracts, worksheets\nand obtaining required payment information.\n Ensure that the interpreter is alone.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.4 (Use of interpreters) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Use of interpreters", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Ensure that the interpreter and the person concerned are not known to each other\nand that there is no conflict of interest.\n Whenever operationally feasible, provide refugee claimants the option of being\ninterviewed by an officer of the same sex or gender identity with the assistance of\ninterpreters of the same sex or gender identity when cultural sensitivities or signs of\ngender related persecution exist.\n Ask the question “Do you and the interpreter understand one another?” to begin the\ndialogue and to ensure that the person and interpreter understand each other.\n Use, when necessary, a series of introductory warm-up questions to observe the\nperson’s ability to respond quickly and easily to the questions and to satisfy the BSO\nthat the interpreter is fluent in both languages.\n Ask the person directly whether they are able to clearly understand the interpreter\nand record this question and the person’s response in their officer notes.\n37\n Advise the person and the interpreter to let the BSO know if, at any point in the\nexamination, either the person or the interpreter does not understand or is having\ndifficulties.\n Remain vigilant throughout the examination to ascertain if the person is able to\nunderstand the interpretation and communicate effectively.\n Read back the information provided by the person through the interpreter in order to\nconfirm that it accurately captures the person’s responses.\n When processing a refugee claimant, record the name of the telephone interpreter\non the Generic Application Form for Canada [IMM 0008E], the Schedule A –\nBackground/Declaration form [IMM 5669E], and the Interpreter Declaration form\n[IMM 1265B] and note that the interpretation was provided over the phone along", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.4 (Use of interpreters) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Use of interpreters", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "with the start and end time of the interview as well as any breaks in interpretation\nservices.\n Make a note if more than one interpreter was used with the corresponding names\nand start and end times.\n In the case of unaccompanied minors, contact the relevant child protection office and\nmake every attempt to obtain interpretation services in the interim.\n Make attempts to find another interpreter in cases where it is evident that the person\nis unable to communicate through the current interpreter.\n If no interpretation services are available, note on file all attempts that were made to\nsecure these services. This is especially important in cases of detention.\nSituations where it would be inappropriate to conduct a telephone interview include but are\nnot limited to:\n Certain cases where travellers are physically and/or mentally challenged.\n When guidelines for the interpreters are not met, such as\no when the interpreter does not have access to a landline or is unable to work\nin a private space; or\no when telephone line quality or equipment quality makes hearing all parties\nvery difficult.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.4 (Use of interpreters) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Confidentiality", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5 Confidentiality\nFast-flow counters where BSOs conduct Immigration Secondary examinations are designed\nto deal with cases expeditiously but offer limited privacy. A BSO should take care to\nconsider the sensitive nature of information that may arise during an examination and,\nwhere appropriate, should secure a private setting for the continuation of an examination.\nSuch cases might involve personal medical information or issues of criminality.\nInformation obtained in the course of a secondary examination is confidential. The Privacy\nAct requires that personal information concerning clients be released only to the client or\nthe client’s designated representative.\nSubsection 8(2) of the Privacy Act contains exceptions to this requirement. For example,\npursuant to paragraph 8(2)(f) of the Privacy Act, IRCC has entered into a Statement of\nMutual Understanding (SMU) with the United States Immigration and Naturalization\nService (USINS), now the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the U.S. State\nDepartment (DOS), which permits the exchange of information on persons who are\ninadmissible or whom there are reasonable grounds to believe may be inadmissible or\n38\nsubject to removal. This agreement also allows for the sharing of information between t he\nCBSA and the DHS and DOS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.5 (Confidentiality)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Pre-questioning procedures", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.6 Pre-questioning procedures\nBefore questioning a traveller, a BSO at Customs or Immigration Secondary should:\n review the referral information from the PIL, such as that found on the BSF235\n(E67), E311 or BSF423 forms or the PIK receipt, to identify the reason for the\nreferral;\n obtain the person’s relevant identity documents, such as a passport, travel\ndocument, citizenship card, Certificate of Indian Status/Secure Certificate of Indian\nStatus card, Permanent Resident Card or birth certificate;\n view the airline ticket of anyone travelling by air;\n determine whether the person is in possession of any immigration documents that\nmay assist in quickly establishing the reason the person is seeking entry into\nCanada; and\n open the PIL referral and verify if the person is flagged and what for.\nSee section 13.36 of this manual for information on processing biometrically enrolled FNs at\nPrimary.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.6 (Pre-questioning procedures)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.7", + "marginal_note": "Global Case Management System (GCMS) checks", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.7 Global Case Management System (GCMS) checks\nUsing the information on the identity document presented by the person, a BSO at\nImmigration Secondary completes an integrated search in the GCMS. It is a departmental\npolicy that a GCMS check be completed for every person referred for an Immigration\nSecondary examination. During secondary examination, it is mandatory that the BSO\nconduct system queries based on the traveller’s name and date of birth, and not on a\nunique client or application/document number. This will ensure that potential derogatory\ninformation will be identified. Officers must also remain vigilant in identifying close name\nmatches that may be related to the traveller.\nWhere small POEs do not have access to GCMS, they must call another POE in their district\nto get them to run the checks.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.7 (Global Case Management System (GCMS) checks)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.8", + "marginal_note": "Basic questioning", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.8 Basic questioning\nBasic questioning by BSOs at immigration secondary should cover the following areas, as\nappropriate:\nIssue Question Explanation\nIdentity What is your name? This will enable the BSO to identify the\nperson. The name should be verified\nagainst the referral card, identity\ndocuments and airline ticket.\nCitizenship What is your country of\ncitizenship?\nThe BSO should ask this of each\nperson being examined to ensure that\nthe person’s stated citizenship matches\nthe identity document they present.\n39\nThis response will help the BSO\ndetermine passport, visa or eTA\nrequirements. If satisfied that the\nperson is a Canadian citizen, the BSO\nwill allow the person to enter Canada\nwithout further questioning.\nOfficers should show sensitivity with\nthis question as Indigenous Peoples,\nincluding persons registered under the\nIndian Act may not abide by colonial\nviews of citizenship. If the BSO is\npresented with a Certificate of Indian\nStatus (CIS), a Secure Certificate of\nIndian Status (SCIS) or an original\nTemporary Confirmation of\nRegistration Document (TCRD) issued\nby Indigenous Services Canada (ISC),\nthe officer shall allow the person entry\nby right under A19(1).\nResidency Where do you reside? Establishing whether a person is a PR\nmay enable the BSO to authorize entry\ninto Canada with minimal further\ndelay. This question will also help the\nBSO to determine visa, requirements\nand to verify whether the person can\nreturn to the country of residence if it\nis different from the country of\ncitizenship. For example, if the person\nclaims to be a resident of the United\nStates but has a passport of another\ncountry, the BSO may want to see\ntheir US Permanent Resident Card\nbefore authorizing entry into Canada.\nIntentions What is the purpose of your trip?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.8 (Basic questioning) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.8", + "marginal_note": "Basic questioning", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "How long do you intend to stay\nin Canada? Where in Canada are\nyou planning to go? Do you\nintend to look for work in\nCanada? Do you intend to study\nin Canada? Where will you be\nstaying while in Canada (hotel or\nfriend’s place)?\nIf the person is not someone who may\nenter Canada by right, the BSO should\nestablish the person��s intention in\nseeking entry. Questions such as these\nmay assist in this determination.\nFunds\navailable\nDo you have a return ticket?\nShow it to me please. What\nsources of funds do you have\naccess to while in Canada?\nQuestions such as these are\nappropriate for determining if a FN\npossesses the financial means to carry\nout their intended travel plan and to\ndepart at the end of their authorized\ntime. The BSO should be satisfied that\nthe FN will not take unauthorized\nemployment or have to rely on social\nassistance while in Canada. Additional\n40\nquestioning may be required if a FN\ncannot establish how they will support\nthemselves while in Canada. If they\nindicate that a friend or relative will\nsupport them, it may be advisable to\ncontact the support person to verify\nthis information.\nPersonal\nhistory\nWhat is your occupation? Are\nyou currently employed in your\ncountry? Do you intend to visit\nanyone in Canada? Do you have\nany family or friends in Canada?\nIf the BSO is concerned that a FN may\nnot leave Canada at the end of the\nauthorized time, further questioning\nmay be necessary to establish ties to\nthe foreign national’s homeland. In\nthese cases, questions concerning the\nforeign national’s family both abroad\nand in Canada may be appropriate,\nincluding questions concerning marital\nstatus.\nBackground Do you or have you had any\nhealth problems? Have you ever\nbeen arrested, charged or\nconvicted of a crime or an\noffence? Have you ever been", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.8 (Basic questioning) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-8-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.8", + "marginal_note": "Basic questioning", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "refused entry to or removed\nfrom Canada?\nThe person’s past may be relevant to\nadmissibility. Questions such as these\nmay be appropriate for determining\nwhether the person is inadmissible due\nto ill health, criminality or previous\nnon-compliance with immigration\nrequirements.\nSee manual ENF 2, Evaluating Inadmissibility, for more information on determining\nadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.8 (Basic questioning) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Verifying electronic/digital devices", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.9 Verifying electronic/digital devices\nAs per the policy guidance, BSOs are responsible for:\n completing the Examination of Digital Device online training course (S7188-P) in\norder to conduct digital device examinations;\n obtaining approval from their Superintendent/Chief prior to conducting a digital\nexamination;\n taking steps to disable network connectivity;\n remaining sensitive to the potential private nature of data stored on digital devices;\nand\n making timely and comprehensive notes explaining their rationale whenever a\ntraveller's digital device is examined, including what indicators are present and what\ncontravention those indicators are pointing towards.\nFor more information on CBSA’s Policy on Port Of Entry Examinations Of Travellers’ Digital\nDevices, consult CBSA’s Enforcement Manual, part 4, chapter 16. Also, OBO-2021-037,\nOBO-2021-023, OBO-2019-055 and 2020-HQ-AC-10-30 are good references.\n41", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.9 (Verifying electronic/digital devices)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8.10", + "marginal_note": "Travel Documents Issued by Canada for Non-Citizens", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.10 Travel Documents Issued by Canada for Non-Citizens\nThere are two types of travel documents issued by the government of Canada to protected\npersons and PRs of Canada. These are:\n Canada Travel Document (pale blue passport type) – issued to refugees to whom\nCanada has conferred protected person status. Can be used to travel internationality\nexcept to the country against which they claimed protection from.\n Certificate of Identity (grey passport type)– issued to PRs of Canada who are not yet\nCanadian citizens and are either stateless or can’t get a travel document for an\nunknown reason.\nTo see examples of these documents, refer to Part 10 of the Guide for Transporters on the\nCBSA’s website.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8.10 (Travel Documents Issued by Canada for Non-Citizens)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "The right to enter Canada", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1 The right to enter Canada\nA Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act has a right to enter and remain\nin Canada pursuant to A19(1).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 9.1 (The right to enter Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Examination of Canadian citizens", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2 Examination of Canadian citizens\nA15(1) provides for an officer to proceed with an examination if a person makes an\napplication to the officer in accordance with the Act.\nR28(b) provides that a person seeking to enter Canada is making an application.\nAdditionally, A18(1) requires every person seeking to enter Canada to appear for an\nexamination to determine whether they have the right to enter Canada or may be\nauthorized to enter and remain in Canada. This includes Canadian citizens.\nA BSO at Immigration Secondary will normally examine a Canadian citizen only when the\nBSO at the PIL doubts the person’s citizenship. A BSO at Immigration Secondary should\nexamine Canadian citizens as expeditiously as possible. Once the officer establishes that a\nperson is a Canadian citizen, the examination should end, and the person should be allowed\nto enter Canada without further delay. It is not appropriate for BSOs at Immigration\nSecondary to elicit further personal information from a Canadian citizen.\nHowever, Canadian citizens may be asked to willingly provide additional information if it will\nassist a BSO in determining the admissibility of an accompanying foreign national.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 9.2 (Examination of Canadian citizens)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-9-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Determining Canadian citizenship", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3 Determining Canadian citizenship\nBSOs at POEs have the discretion to authorize the entry of Canadian citizens, even in the\nabsence of documentation. For more details, see section 9.4 of this manual.\n42\nThe following documents are acceptable proof of Canadian citizenship:\n Canadian passport (regular, diplomatic, special or temporary);\n Emergency Travel Document for a Single Journey Only document (a BSO at the PIL\nwill automatically refer for an Immigration secondary examination a person in\npossession of a this document. Once the person’s identity has been verified, the BSO\nat Immigration Secondary retains the document and forwards it to:\nPassport Program Integrity Branch\nAttention: Intelligence Division, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship\nCanada", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 9.3 (Determining Canadian citizenship)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-70", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 70", + "marginal_note": "Crémazie, 3rd floor", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "70 Crémazie, 3rd floor\nGatineau, Quebec, J8Y 3P2\n Enhanced Driver’s License (EDL) and/or the Enhanced Identification Card (EIC).\nThe following documents are good indicators of Canadian citizenship however must be\nsupported by other Canadian government issued photo-identification.\n Certificate of Canadian Citizenship (Issued on or after February 1, 2012: 8.5 x 11\npaper format or the wallet-sized card issued before February 1, 2012);\n A Canadian provincial/territorial birth certificate;\n Certificate of Naturalization issued before January 1, 1947;\n Certificate of Registration of Birth Abroad issued between January 1, 1947, and\nFebruary 14, 1977, inclusively; and\n Certificate of Retention of Canadian Citizenship issued between January 1, 1947 and\nFebruary 14, 1977, inclusively.\nSee if you may be a citizen is a useful link in determining if someone may be a Canadian\ncitizen.\nTo see examples of these documents, refer to Part 10 of the Guide for Transporters on the\nCBSA’s website and the Government of Canada’s public website concerning travel\ndocuments.\nMore information on documents can be found in ENF 32, Passports and Travel Documents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 70 (Crémazie, 3rd floor)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Establishing citizenship without documents", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4 Establishing citizenship without documents\nCanadian citizens returning to Canada by air usually have to provide proof of identity and\ncitizenship to get on the flight. Canadian citizens arriving at land borders, however, will\nfrequently be without satisfactory documentary proof of Canadian citizenship. In these\ncases, the BSO should question the person until the BSO is satisfied with the person’s claim\nof Canadian citizenship. Once the BSO is satisfied that the person is a Canadian citizen, the\nperson must be allowed to enter Canada without further delay.\n43", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 9.4 (Establishing citizenship without documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-9-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 9.5", + "marginal_note": "Citizenship record searches", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.5 Citizenship record searches\nBSOs at Immigration Secondary may request a search of citizenship records by emailing the\nCitizenship Case Processing Centre in Sydney (CPC-S), Nova Scotia, at CPC-SYDNEY-\nSEARCHENQ@cic.gc.ca.\nThe official response will be provided via email. Where a record letter is required, BSOs at\nImmigration Secondary must follow up the email request by submitting a completed\nApplication for a Search of Citizenship Records form [CIT 0058E]. A written response will be\nforwarded by facsimile as well as by regular mail.\nNote: Citizenship searches will only reveal if a person has obtained Canadian citizenship\nthrough naturalization. The Sydney CPC does not keep records of persons who are Canadian\ncitizens by birth. Proof of citizenship by birth can be established by a search of provincial\nbirth certificates or baptismal records.\nAfter a person has received Canadian citizenship, the information is entered into GCMS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 9.5 (Citizenship record searches)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-9-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 9.6", + "marginal_note": "Canadian Travel Documents", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.6 Canadian Travel Documents\nThe Canadian passport comes in four categories: regular, special, diplomatic and temporary.\nFor Canadian citizens who are abroad and in need of a Canadian travel document to return\nto Canada, Consular Services can issue another type of travel document in urgent cases.\nThis is:\n The Emergency Travel Document for a Single Journey Only - may be issued at a\nCanadian visa office abroad to facilitate the return of a Canadian citizen. It may also\nbe issued as a one-trip document for travel from a Canadian visa office abroad\nwithout passport services to another office with full passport services in another\ncountry.\nThe Emergency Travel Document for a Single Journey Only is a single page document\nprinted on 8.5 x 11 security paper serially numbered.\nBSOs at the PIL are required to refer holders of this document for an Immigration\nSecondary examination. The Passport Office requires the surrender of an emergency\npassport immediately on the holder’s arrival in Canada or at the destination for which the\npassport was issued. BSOs at Immigration Secondary recover the emergency passport and\npromptly forward it to:\nPassport Program Integrity Branch\nAttn: Intelligence Division\nImmigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 9.6 (Canadian Travel Documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-70", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 70", + "marginal_note": "Crémazie, 3rd Floor", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "70 Crémazie, 3rd Floor\nGatineau, Quebec J8Y 3P2\nA space is provided on the back of the document for a signature indicating that the\ndocument has been received.\n44\nIn circumstances where the traveller has not reached their final destination upon arrival at a\nPOE and will be boarding a domestic flight, the BSO may use discretion to provide the\ntraveller with a photocopy of the emergency travel document to present to the airline for\nidentification validation when boarding. The BSO may also issue their contact information\n(e.g., a business card) for the traveller to provide to the airline should verification be\nrequired.\nTo see examples of these documents, refer to Part 10 of the Guide for Transporters on the\nCBSA’s website.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 70 (Crémazie, 3rd Floor)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "Examining people who are registered under the Indian Act at", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10 Examining people who are registered under the Indian Act at\nPOEs\nA19(1) provides that every person registered under the Indian Act (Canadian legislation),\nwhether or not that person is a Canadian citizen, has the right to enter and remain in\nCanada.\nSection 6 of the Indian Act specifies (subject to provisions in section 7) persons entitled to\nbe registered under the Indian Act. Under the terms of the Indian Act, Indian status in\nCanada—and inclusion in the Indian register maintained by Indigenous Services\nCanada (ISC)—is not determined on the basis of Canadian citizenship but rather on the\ndegree of descent from ancestors who were registered or entitled to be registered as\nIndians. As a result, it is possible for a FN to be recognized as registered under the Indian\nAct and have the right to enter and remain in Canada under A19(1).\nA15(1) provides the authority for an officer to proceed with an examination where a person\nmakes an application to the officer. R28(b) provides that a person seeking to enter Canada\nis making an application. Additionally, A18(1) requires every person seeking to enter\nCanada to appear for an examination to determine if they have the right to enter Canada or\nis or may become authorized to enter and remain in Canada. This includes people who are\nregistered under the Indian Act. If a BSO at PIL is not satisfied that the person is registered,\nthe officer can make a referral to Immigration Secondary. Once the officer establishes that a\nperson is registered under the Indian Act, the immigration examination should end, and the\nperson must be allowed to enter Canada without further delay.\nIf a FN is a person registered under the Indian Act, they are authorized to work and study in\nCanada without a permit, per R186(x) and R188(d). See PRG-2018-72 for details.\nNote: When examining people who are registered under the Indian Act, officers should be\naware of People Processing Manual, part 1, chapter 4, paragraphs 21 to 28, Articles of\nReligious, Spiritual and Cultural Significance.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 10 (Examining people who are registered under the Indian Act at)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Determining status of registration under the Indian Act", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1 Determining status of registration under the Indian Act\nBSOs at POEs have the discretion to authorize the entry of persons registered under the\nIndian Act, even in the absence of documentation. Acceptable documents establishing one’s\nstatus as registered under the terms of the Indian Act include the Certificate of Indian\nStatus (CIS) and the Secure Certificate of Indian Status cards (SCIS). Both are commonly\nreferred to as the status card and are produced by ISC. The paper-laminate CIS card is\nissued in partnership with First Nations in 500 communities across Canada through ISC’s\n45\nIndian Registration Administrator Program. An original Temporary Confirmation of\nRegistration Document (TCRD) issued by ISC may also be used as proof of Indian\nstatus.The SCIS is an identity card with enhanced security features. Some but not all SCIS\nfeature a machine readable zone (MRZ).\nSubject to an application process, the CIS and SCIS cards are issued to adults, children and\ndependent adults listed in the Indian Register. The Indian Register, which is maintained by\nISC, is the official record identifying people who are registered under the Indian Act. Bands\nalso have the option of determining their own membership.\nIf BSOs require verification of a person being registered under the Indian Act, or if officers\nhave reason to doubt the authenticity of a card being presented, they may contact the\nsupervisor of Registration Services at:\nSecure Certificate of Indian Status Application Centre\nM006-15 Eddy Street\nGatineau, QC K1A 0H4\nFax: 1-819-994-2622\nHours of operation: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)\nToll-free telephone: 1-800-567-9604\nEmail: InfoPubs@aadnc-aandc.gc.ca", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 10.1 (Determining status of registration under the Indian Act)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Establishing status of registration under the Indian Act without", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2 Establishing status of registration under the Indian Act without\ndocuments\nPeople who are registered under the Indian Act and who are seeking entry to Canada may\nnot be in possession of documentary proof of their status. In such cases, the BSO should\nquestion the person until they are satisfied with the person’s status. The officer’s decision\non ascertaining identity and status is based on all the evidence presented at that time,\nincluding verbal statements and documentation. Once the BSO is satisfied that the person is\nregistered under the Indian Act, the person must be allowed into Canada without further\ndelay. Border processing of people who are not registered under the Indian Act is discussed\nin the following paragraph.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 10.2 (Establishing status of registration under the Indian Act without)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "American Indians1 who are not registered in Canada", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.3 American Indians1 who are not registered in Canada\nThe authorization of entry to Canada is governed solely by IRPA and IRPR. Travellers who\ndo not meet criteria for a right of entry under A19 are treated as FNs and must meet\nadmissibility and documentary requirements, such as visas and eTAs, to be allowed to enter\nCanada.\nFor example, Native Americans (also could be identified by the U.S. legal term “American\nIndians”) who may have cultural or family connections to First Nations in Canada, but who", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 10.3 (American Indians1 who are not registered in Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "American Indian is the legal term; Native American is the preferred term in the U.S.", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 American Indian is the legal term; Native American is the preferred term in the U.S.\n46\nare not Canadian citizens, PRs of Canada or registered under the Indian Act, do not have\nright of entry under A19.\nMany First Nations people from Canada and the U.S. assert a right to mobility across the\nCanada–U.S. border, which in their view, is recognized in Article III of the Jay Treaty of\n1794, an international agreement between the U.S. and Great Britain. The courts in Canada,\nhowever, have found that the Jay Treaty was abrogated by the War of 1812, and it is not a\ntreaty conferring rights to Indigenous peoples under Canada’s laws.\nAs a result, Native Americans coming to work or study in Canada who are not registered\nunder the Indian Act require a WP or SP. Some travellers in these circumstances may object\nto being processed as FNs to enter Canada. BSOs should deal tactfully with cases of this\nnature while still upholding the requirements of the IRPA.\nCanada’s immigration laws regarding the entry of North American Indigenous peoples differ\nfrom those of the U.S. Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, a right of entry to\nthe U.S. for the purposes of employment and residence is recognized for “American Indians\nborn in Canada”. This right is conditional, however, on a person being able to demonstrate\nthat, under the terms of the law, they “possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the\nAmerican Indian race”.\nIn the case of First Nations people from Canada, the U.S. provides an indication that it\naccepts the CIS and SCIS card, issued to people who are registered under the Indian Act by\nISC, as evidence of meeting the prescribed “blood quantum” criteria. In some cases,\nhowever, more evidence is required.\nIndications from concerned U.S. government departments are that the proof of meeting the\nblood quantum requirement is sufficient to establish both a right of entry and a right to\nwork and reside permanently in the U.S. without obtaining PR status, more commonly\nknown in the U.S. as a “green card.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 1 (American Indian is the legal term; Native American is the preferred term in the U.S.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-10-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 10.4", + "marginal_note": "Haudenosaunee passport", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.4 Haudenosaunee passport\nFor information on travellers seeking to enter Canada with the Haudenosaunee passport,\nplease consult operational bulletin OPS-2011-03.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 10.4 (Haudenosaunee passport)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Examining Permanent Residents (PRs) at POEs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11 Examining Permanent Residents (PRs) at POEs\nA2(1) defines a permanent resident as a person who:\n has acquired PR status; and\n has not subsequently lost that status under A46.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11 (Examining Permanent Residents (PRs) at POEs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Rights of PRs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1 Rights of PRs\nA27(1) provides that a permanent resident has the right to enter and remain in Canada\nsubject to the provisions of the Act.\n47\nA19(2) requires a BSO to allow a permanent resident to enter Canada if satisfied following\nan examination on their entry that they have that status.\nPRs who are under enforcement proceedings keep their PR status and retain the right to\nenter Canada until a final determination of their loss of status has been made.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.1 (Rights of PRs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Verifying PR status", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2 Verifying PR status\nThe Permanent Resident Card is the best evidence of PR status in Canada.\nThe following documents may be satisfactory indicators of permanent residence:\n the original Record of Landing (such as IMM 1000);\n a certified true copy of a Record of Landing document issued by IRCC National\nHeadquarters (NHQ);\n a letter issued by IRCC NHQ verifying permanent residence;\n a passport duly stamped showing the date on which permanent residence was\ngranted if the person was granted PR status before 1973;\n a Confirmation of Permanent Residence form [IMM 5292B or IMM 5688]; and\n a permanent resident travel document (visa counterfoil).\nCBSA’s website lists acceptable travel and identity documents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.2 (Verifying PR status)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.3", + "marginal_note": "Establishing PR status without documents", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.3 Establishing PR status without documents\nBSOs at POEs have the discretion to authorize the entry of PRs, even in the absence of\ndocumentation. If documentary evidence is not available, the BSO at Immigration\nSecondary must establish the person’s PR status by questioning the person and checking\nthe person’s status in GCMS. The status of persons who became PRs before 1973 has to be\nverified by contacting the Operations Support Centre at IRCC’s National Headquarters at\nOSC-CSO@cic.gc.ca. However, the burden of proof lies on the person who is claiming to be\na PR at a POE. An adjournment for further examination can be done under A23 to allow the\nperson to get their documents and return to the POE to show the BSO.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.3 (Establishing PR status without documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Investigating PRs for inadmissibility", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.4 Investigating PRs for inadmissibility\nWhen a PR appears at a POE for examination, the BSO must determine whether the person\nis a PR. The person is considered a FN until the BSO is satisfied that the person is a PR. The\nburden of proof lies on the person at a POE examination.\nBSOs must remain cognizant of the fact that A19(2) gives permanent residents of Canada the\nright to enter Canada at a POE once it is established that a person is a PR, regardless of non-\ncompliance with the residency obligation in A28 or the presence of other inadmissibility grounds.\nMeaning, should a BSO write up an A44(1) report for non-compliance and the superintendent\nissue a departure order that is not in force, the person still has the right to enter Canada until a\nfinal determination has been made regarding their loss of PR status and the removal order\nbecomes in force.\n48\nBSOs can not refuse entry to a PR. However, once a person has lost their PR status under A46,\nthey are considered a FN and may be inadmissible if they do not meet the requirements of the\nAct. For example, when a final determination has been made outside of Canada that the PR has\nfailed to comply with the residency obligations, or when a removal order comes into force and all\ntheir rights to appeal have passed.\nHowever, as per A27(1), this right to enter and remain in Canada is subject to the provisions of\nthe Act, and does not preclude the CBSA from ensuring that PRs are in compliance with IRPA and\nthus admissible to Canada. During the process of determining that a person is a PR, BSOs will\nsometimes become aware of evidence of inadmissibility. The BSO should explain to the person\nthat while it has been established that they have a right to enter Canada, there is some reason", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.4 (Investigating PRs for inadmissibility) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Investigating PRs for inadmissibility", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "to believe they could be the subject of a report under IRPA which could lead to the issuance of a\nremoval order.\nOfficers should always remain aware of the principles of procedural fairness in these proceedings.\nThe PR must be given a fair opportunity to know the case to be met; to provide evidence in order\nto correct or contradict any concerns related to admissibility; and to have the evidence fully and\nfairly considered by the decision-maker.\nIn cases where:\n PR status is established; and\n the BSO believes on a balance of probabilities that the person is in non-compliance with\nIRPA for failure to comply with residency obligation (A41(b), A28) or for\nmisrepresentation (A40); or\n the BSO has reasonable ground to believe that the person is inadmissible to Canada for\nany other reasons outlined at A34, A35, A36(1) or A37,\nthe BSO at Immigration Secondary may report the person (pursuant to A44(1)) if there is\nsufficient evidence to support an inadmissibility allegation. In the absence of sufficient evidence\nto support the writing of an inadmissibility report, the BSO may enter any available information\ninto an Info Alert in GCMS without delay (date of entry, last country of embarkation, current\naddress in Canada, etc.) and forward notification of the same to a CBSA inland office in Canada\nto determine whether an investigation is warranted.\nFor more information on assessing inadmissibility, refer to ENF 1, Inadmissibility and ENF 2,\nEvaluating inadmissibility.\nFor more information on procedures for dealing with clients who fail to meet the residency\nobligation, refer to ENF 23, Loss of Permanent Resident Status.\nQuestioning Permanent Residents Regarding Cessation (A108) and Vacation (A109):", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.4 (Investigating PRs for inadmissibility) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Investigating PRs for inadmissibility", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "In cases where the PR was granted Convention Refugee or Protected Person status prior to\nbecoming a PR, and the BSO has suspicions that the individual has:\n voluntarily reavailed themself of the protection of their country of nationality;\n voluntarily reacquired their nationality;\n49\n acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of that new\nnationality;\n has voluntarily become re-established in the country that they left or remained\noutside of and in respect of which they claimed refugee protection in Canada; or\n has obtained protected status directly or indirectly via misrepresentation or\nwithholding of material facts relating to a relevant matter;\nthe BSO may ask questions of a PR where the officer suspects, on a balance of probabilities, the\nexistence of a potential inadmissibility under A40(1)(c) or A40.1(1) or A40.1(2) in relation to the\ncessation (A108) and/or vacation (A109) of refugee protection.\nThe BSO, for example, may ask questions about:\n whether the person has travelled to the country of persecution;\n why they returned;\n for what length of time they were there.\nThe BSO may also make photocopies of documentation presented at the time of examination.\nThe BSO must have reasonable grounds to believe that the documents that are photocopied are\nrelevant to a potential inadmissibility under A40(1)(c) or A40.1(1) or A40.1(2) and that the\nphotocopies would be reasonably required should the CBSA file an application under A108 or\nA109 with the IRB.\nAny information gathered should be forwarded to the appropriate Hearings Office via the\nBSF729E form. For more information, see IRCC’s Program Delivery Instructions (PDI) on the\nsubject.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.4 (Investigating PRs for inadmissibility) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.5", + "marginal_note": "Permanent Resident Card", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.5 Permanent Resident Card\nThe PR card is the status document referred to in A31(1) that indicates that the holder is a\nPR of Canada. A person who holds a PR card is presumed to have PR status unless a BSO at\nImmigration Secondary determines otherwise. The PR card, or, alternatively, the A31(3)\ntravel document issued by one of Canada’s visa offices, is the prescribed document for PRs\nwhen boarding a commercial transporter bound for Canada.\nCanadian PRs need to show their card when travelling to Canada in order to prove their PR\nstatus. PRs who do not have a PR card or who are not carrying their PR card when travelling\noutside the country will need to obtain a PR travel document (counterfoil) before returning\nto Canada by air mode in order to comply with eTA requirements.\nFor more information on the PR card, refer to ENF 27, Permanent Resident Card.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.5 (Permanent Resident Card)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.6", + "marginal_note": "Prescribed document", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.6 Prescribed document\nA148(1)(a) prohibits commercial transporters from carrying to Canada a person who does\nnot hold a prescribed document. R259 makes the PR card a prescribed document for the\npurpose of A148. Valid PR cards and A31(3) travel documents are prescribed documents for\nestablishing PR status. Consequently, the PR card or the A31(3) travel document is the\nprescribed document for PRs for the purposes of boarding a commercial transporter (e.g.,\naircraft, train or ship) bound for Canada.\n50", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.6 (Prescribed document)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.7", + "marginal_note": "Permanent resident cards with one-year validity date", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.7 Permanent resident cards with one-year validity date\nR54(2) provides that a PR card will be issued with a validity of one year instead of five years\nas per R54(1) if the PR:\n is subject to a process set out in A46(1)(b) until there has been a final\ndetermination;\n is the subject of a report prepared under A44(1) that is being considered by the\nMinister;\n is the subject of a removal order made by the Minister pursuant to A44(2) and the\nperiod for filing an appeal from the decision has not expired or, if an appeal is filed,\nthere has been no final determination of the appeal; or\n is the subject of a report under A44(1) that has been referred by the Minister to the\nImmigration Division (ID) under A44(2) and the period for filing an appeal from the\ndecision of the ID has not expired or, if an appeal is filed, there has been no final\ndetermination of the appeal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.7 (Permanent resident cards with one-year validity date)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.8", + "marginal_note": "Travel document", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.8 Travel document\nA31(3) states the following:\nA PR outside Canada who is not in possession of a status document indicating PR status\nshall, following an examination, be issued a travel document if a visa officer at a visa office\nis satisfied that:\n(a) they comply with the residency obligation under A28;\n(b) an officer has made the determination referred to in A28(2)(c); or\n(c) they were physically present in Canada at least once within the 365 days before\nthe examination and they have made an appeal under A63(4) that has not been\nfinally determined or the period of making such an appeal has not yet expired.\nThe purpose of the travel document is to facilitate the return of all PRs to Canada. This\nincludes those who may have lost their PR card while outside of Canada as well as those\nwho are appealing a decision made outside Canada that they failed to meet the residency\nobligation under A28.\nThe travel document will take the same form as a temporary resident visa counterfoil that is\nplaced in a passport or travel document. It is usually valid for one entry to Canada simply to\nfacilitate the PR’s return, but it may be issued for multiple entries.\nIf the travel document was issued for a single entry, the BSO is to strikethrough the\ncounterfoil upon entry to Canada by drawing a line from the top left of the counterfoil to the\nbottom right. The BSO at Immigration Secondary would counsel the PR that they may apply\nfor a PR card from within Canada. If the travel document was issued for multiple entries, it\nshould be treated like a multiple-entry temporary resident visa.\n51", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.8 (Travel document)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Coding on the travel document", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.9 Coding on the travel document\nPRs who have demonstrated that they have complied with the residency obligation listed in\nA28 will be issued counterfoils bearing the coding “R”.\n In cases where PRs have not met the residency requirement, but humanitarian and\ncompassionate considerations grounds exist to support the retention of their status\npursuant to A28(2)(c), a counterfoil bearing the coding “RC” will be issued.\n In cases where the document has been issued pursuant to A31(3)(c) where an\nappeal of a loss of status determination is filed or the time period for filing an appeal\nhas not expired, and the person has been physically present in Canada at least once\nin the past 365 days, the counterfoil will bear the coding “RX”.\n In cases where the PR does not meet the residency obligation and no humanitarian\nand compassionate grounds exist, but the Immigration Appeal Division has ordered\nthe PR to appear in person at the hearing, a counterfoil bearing the coding “RA” will\nbe issued.\nCounterfoils bearing the “RX” code or the “RA” code will be mandatory referrals to\nImmigration Secondary for BSOs at the PIL.\nIf a person with a counterfoil bearing the “RX” or “RA” coding is returning to Canada to\nattend an appeal of a decision made outside of Canada regarding loss of status or an appeal\nhas yet to be filed and the period for filing has not expired, the BSO at Immigration\nSecondary should authorize entry without delay if satisfied that no final determination has\nbeen made with respect to the person’s loss of PR status. The BSO at Immigration\nSecondary should update GCMS with the person’s date of entry into Canada and current\naddress.\nThe principal difference between a travel document and a one-year PR card is the period of\nvalidity. The travel document is used to return to Canada, while the PR card remains valid\nuntil the outcome of an appeal is decided or until the period for making an appeal expires.\nSince the PR is already pending a determination by the Immigration Appeal Division, the\nBSO should not prepare an A44(1) report for the same inadmissible grounds at the POE.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.9 (Coding on the travel document)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.10", + "marginal_note": "Persons appealing the loss of PR status", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.10 Persons appealing the loss of PR status\nBSOs at Immigration Secondary who encounter a person in possession of a PR card issued\nwith a one-year validity should check GCMS to determine whether there is a final\ndetermination that the person has lost their status under A46. If the person is returning to\nCanada to attend the appeal of a decision made outside Canada regarding the loss of status\nor an appeal has yet to be filed, and if the period for filing has not expired and that person\nis in possession of a travel document, the BSO must acknowledge their right of entry\nwithout delay if satisfied that no final determination has been made with respect to the\nperson’s loss of status.\nThe BSO should update GCMS with the person’s date of entry into Canada, current address\nin Canada and contact information.\nUpon a final determination of loss of PR status, a person becomes a foreign national. Should\nthey return to Canada, they must be assessed to determine if they meet the requirements\n52\nof the Act and Regulations for entry as a temporary resident, even if they still possess a PR\ncard . For more information, refer to ENF 23, Loss of Permanent Resident Status.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.10 (Persons appealing the loss of PR status)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.11", + "marginal_note": "PRs holding other travel documents", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.11 PRs holding other travel documents\nPRs may also travel to Canada with a Canadian Travel Document (pale blue passport-type),\na Canadian Certificate of Identity or a Single Journey Travel Document. Where a PR travels\non one of these documents in air mode, the PR must be in possession of a PR card or PR\ntravel document (counterfoil).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.11 (PRs holding other travel documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.12", + "marginal_note": "Residency obligation for PRs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.12 Residency obligation for PRs\nA28(1) states that a PR must comply with the residency obligation with respect to every\nfive-year period. A28(2) stipulates that a PR complies with this obligation if, on each of a\ntotal of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are:\n physically present in Canada;\n outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse or common-law partner or,\nin the case of a child, their parent;\n outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or by the\npublic service of Canada or of a province;\n outside Canada accompanying a PR spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of\na child, their parent, who is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or\nby the public service of Canada or of a province; or\n able to meet other conditions for compliance that are set out in the Regulations.\nWhen BSOs are assessing the residency obligation, the period considered is limited to the\nfive years immediately preceding the examination. If a person has been a PR for less than\nfive years, they must be able to comply with the residency obligation for the five-year\nperiod immediately after becoming a PR.\nFor more specifications on how to apply A28(2), refer to R61.\nFor more information on loss of PR status, see ENF 23, Loss of Permanent Resident Status.\nSince November 2014, regulatory amendments came into force giving the decision to\nvoluntarily renounce PR status the force of law. For more information, refer to IRCC’s\nProgram Delivery Instructions and Operational Bulletin PRG-2014-066.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.12 (Residency obligation for PRs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.13", + "marginal_note": "Issuing removal orders for failure to comply with PR obligations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.13 Issuing removal orders for failure to comply with PR obligations\nThe decision that a PR has lost their status may be made outside Canada by a visa officer,\nwhereas, at a POE, if following an examination of a PR, an officer concludes that a PR has\nfailed to comply with the residency obligation under A28, the officer may prepare a report\nfor inadmissibility under A41(b), taking into account prescribed considerations set in the\nIRPA. A28(2)(c) specifically requires officers and the MD to take into account humanitarian\nand compassionate considerations, including the best interests of a child directly affected by\nthe determination, when assessing whether such considerations overcome any breach of the\nresidency obligation prior to the determination. Officers must articulate consideration of\nthese prescribed factors in the decision to write a report under A44(1) and/or their\n53\nrecommendation to the MD. These considerations must be written in the Examination’s\nNotes tab without delay by both the BSO and the MD. If the report is well founded, and\ninsufficient humanitarian grounds exist, the MD will issue a departure order pursuant to\nR228(2).\nThe PR has the right to appeal the decision made outside Canada or at the POE to the\nImmigration Appeal Division, pursuant to A63. PRs who have been issued a removal order\nmaintain their right of entry until the appeal period has elapsed; therefore, BSOs should\nallow entry into Canada until a final determination of status is made.\nFor more information, see the following manuals:\n ENF 2, Evaluating Inadmissibility\n ENF 5, Writing 44(1) Reports\n ENF 23, Loss of permanent resident status\n ENF 6, Review of reports under A44(1)\n ENF 19, Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration\nand Refugee Board (IRB)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.13 (Issuing removal orders for failure to comply with PR obligations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.14", + "marginal_note": "Other inadmissibility allegations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.14 Other inadmissibility allegations\nIf a BSO believes a PR is inadmissible for reasons other than failure to comply with the\nresidency obligation (A28), they are still required to allow the person to come into Canada.\nIf the PR does not wish to answer any further questions, the BSO at Immigration Secondary\nshould attempt to obtain sufficient information (including current address, phone number,\nand employment location) to enable follow-up action from an inland office.\nSee ENF 2, Evaluating Inadmissibility, for more information on determining inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.14 (Other inadmissibility allegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.15", + "marginal_note": "Arrest and detention of PRs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.15 Arrest and detention of PRs\nIf an immigration arrest warrant was issued against a PR pursuant to A55(1), the BSO must\nexecute the warrant and arrest the PR. The BSO may then release the PR from detention if\nreasons for detention no longer exist as per A56.\nIn certain circumstances, PRs may also be detained under A55(3), if a BSO believes it\nnecessary to complete the examination or they have reasonable grounds to suspect is\ninadmissible on grounds of security (A34), violating human or international rights (A35),\nserious criminality (A36(1)), criminality (A36(2)) or organized criminality (A37).\nFor more information on arrest and detention procedures, refer to ENF 7, Immigration\nInvestigations and IRPA s. 55 Arrest/Detention and ENF 20, Detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.15 (Arrest and detention of PRs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-11-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 11.16", + "marginal_note": "Seizing PR visas and permanent resident cards", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.16 Seizing PR visas and permanent resident cards\nA140(1) authorizes an officer to seize and hold a document or other thing if the officer\nbelieves on reasonable grounds that:\n it was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used;\n54\n the seizure is necessary to prevent its fraudulent use or improper use; or\n the seizure is necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act.\nEven if the BSO prepares an A44(1) report against the PR, unless provisions of A140(1) are\nmet, the PR card should be kept by the holder, who will retain their PR status until a final\ndecision is made respecting their loss of status. Pending this decision, A31 requires that a\nPR be provided with a status document. R53(1) provides that the status document is the PR\ncard.\nBSOs may seize these documents if they have reason to believe that the documents were\nfraudulently issued or obtained or if they are trying to prevent improper or fraudulent use of\nthese documents. For example, if there is a final determination that the person has lost\ntheir PR status or renounced their status, the BSO may seize and retain the documents in\norder to prevent their improper use, such as using it to travel to Canada instead of\nobtaining a TRV or eTA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 11.16 (Seizing PR visas and permanent resident cards)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Permanent resident visas and Confirmation of Permanent", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1 Permanent resident visas and Confirmation of Permanent\nResidence (CoPR) documents\nUnder R70(1), permanent residence applicants are issued a PR visa when a visa officer was\nsatisfied that, at the time of issuance, the FN named in the document was not inadmissible\nand met the selection criteria and requirements of the Act and Regulations. This visa and\nCoPR document [IMM 5688] are to be presented at the POE for processing in order to\nbecome a PR.\nIn December 2011, the use of a counterfoil was eliminated for countries that are visa-\nexempt. The CoPR is now evidence that a visa officer was satisfied.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.1 (Permanent resident visas and Confirmation of Permanent)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Examination of FNs with PR visas/CoPR", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2 Examination of FNs with PR visas/CoPR\nWhen an applicant in possession of a CoPR/PR visa applies to become a PR at a POE, the\nrole of the BSO at Immigration Secondary is to:\n verify the applicant’s identity;\n confirm that the information on the CoPR/PR visa is correct;\n establish that the applicant complies with all requirements of the Act and Regulations\nand is not inadmissible;\n confirm that the applicant’s marital, common-law, or family status has not changed\nsince the issuance of the CoPR/PR visa;\n confirm that the applicant and their family members (whether accompanying or not)\nstill meet the requirements of the class of PRs under which the CoPR/PR visa was\nissued;\n impose and explain any appropriate conditions; and\n welcome the new PR to Canada and provide information about programs and\nservices available to facilitate integration into Canadian society.\n55\nThe Regulations require that a FN in possession of a CoPR/PR visa and who is seeking to\nbecome a PR:\n Inform the officer at examination if their marital status has changed since the\nCoPR/PR visa was issued, as required by R51(a)(i); and\n of any other facts relevant to the issuance of the CoPR/PR visa that have changed\nsince the visa was issued, or that the FN failed to disclose at the time the CoPR/PR\nvisa was issued, as required by R51(a)(ii).\n Establish that they and their family members, accompanying or not, meet the\nrequirements of the Act and Regulations, as required at R51(b).\nThe applicant must be able to show upon landing that their dependents meet the medical\nand criminal criteria. The BSO should check GCMS for any notes added by the visa office to\nensure they were not aware of any changes in the application. Applicants are asked to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.2 (Examination of FNs with PR visas/CoPR) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Examination of FNs with PR visas/CoPR", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "inform the visa office immediately of any change in the composition of their family. If they\nhave not done so, prior to their CoPR/PR visa issuance, a new application will be required\nfor all family members.\nIf the BSO at Immigration Secondary establishes that the FN failed to notify of the changes\nto their marital status or did not declare a dependent before or after the issuance of the\nCoPR/PR visa, the BSO may prepare a report under A44(1) with the specific regulation\nstated above that they did non comply with. The MD, if they find the report well founded,\nwill defer the case for inquiry at the ID under R229(1)(n).\nFor more information on report writing, refer to ENF 5, Writing 44(1) Reports.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.2 (Examination of FNs with PR visas/CoPR) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "GCMS check", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3 GCMS check\nBSOs at Immigration Secondary conduct an integrated name search in GCMS for every FN\nin possession of a CoPR who is seeking to establish permanent residence in Canada. A name\nsearch may reveal that the person has multiple FOSS client identification numbers (IDs) or\nGCMS Unique Client Identifiers (UCIs), in which case the BSO should create a household to\nassociate the UCIs/IDs together by following the step-by-step on Wiki.\nFOSS ID or GCMS UCI numbers under which warrants were issued or sponsorship files must\nbe maintained as the primary identification.\nBSOs ensure that there is no information recorded in GCMS that would alter the decision to\ngrant permanent residence.\nFor example, there may be an outstanding warrant for the applicant’s arrest, or the\napplicant may have been previously deported from Canada. BSOs at Immigration Secondary\nshould carefully review any adverse information to determine whether the applicant satisfies\nall the requirements of the Act and Regulations. In some cases, it may be useful for the\nexamining BSO to contact the officer who issued the CoPR/PR visa to confirm whether this\ninformation would have altered the favorable decision. In some cases, the BSO may need to\ndefer the examination, pursuant to A23, in order to obtain more information before deciding\nwhether to grant PR status.\n56", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.3 (GCMS check)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Documents required by FNs seeking PR status", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4 Documents required by FNs seeking PR status\n R50(1) specifies the type of passport, travel or identity document that an applicant\nmust have in their possession to be given PR status. This document is necessary to\nverify the identity of the person seeking permanent residence.\n R50(2) provides that a protected person who has been issued a PR visa may become\na PR when it is not possible for them to obtain a passport, identity document, or\ntravel document.\n R6 specifies that applicants who are citizens of certain countries must have a PR visa\n(coded IM).\n Confirmation of Permanent Residence document (IMM 5688);\n Proof of settlement funds for those in the Federal Skilled Worker Program and the\nFederal Skilled Trades Program; and\n A Certificat de Sélection du Québec/ Quebec Selection Certificate (CSQ) for those\nwanting to reside in the province of Québec.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.4 (Documents required by FNs seeking PR status)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.5 Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]\nSuccessful permanent residence applicants are issued the Confirmation of Permanent\nResidence document [IMM 5688] from a Canadian consulate or visa office. The Confirmation\nof Permanent Residence (CoPR) is evidence that an officer was satisfied at the time of\nissuance, that the FN named in the document was not inadmissible and otherwise met the\nrequirements of the Act and its associated regulations.\nThe CoPR is printed in two copies on regular 8 1/2 x 14 white paper and one copy contains\na photo of the holder.\nThe CoPR by itself is not a prescribed document as per R259 to board a means of\ntransportation to Canada. CoPR holders will be issued a visa counterfoil [IMM 1346] bearing\nthe coding “IM” in order to facilitate their boarding for those needing a TRV to travel to\nCanada. For visa-exempt FNs, an IMM 5785 e-Foil (electronic facilitation counterfoil) coded\nIM will be issued.\nWhen a FN arrives at a POE to become a PR and is in possession of a CoPR, the BSO at\nImmigration Secondary should adhere to the following procedures :\n examine the passport and any other identity documents provided;\n use the applicant’s passport and other identity documents to confirm that each name\nis correctly spelled and that the family and first names are clearly identified;\n verify the date of birth with the identity documents provided by the applicant (the\nday and month are sometimes transposed due to different international systems for\ndisplaying the date);\n for CoPRs where a clerical error has been identified, BSOs must correct the\nIMM 5688E form to ensure it is consistent with the biographical data in the passport\nor travel document. The corrections must be made on both copies of the CoPR by", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.5 (Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "placing an asterisk beside the data error and noting the correction in the remarks\nsection of the form. Any corrections made must also be reflected in GCMS.\n57\n check the information on sex and marital status, particularly when dealing with\ncommon-law relationships and accompanying family members;\n verify their biometrics for those not verified at PIK;\n confirm that the applicant intends to establish permanent residence in Canada;\n confirm that the applicant is not inadmissible under A39;\no Persons who do not need to provide proof of funds are those who:\n have been sponsored;\n have been issued visas as government-assisted refugees;\n applied under the Canadian Experience Class; or\n are authorized to work in Canada and have a valid job offer, even if\nthey applied under the Federal Skilled Worker Program or the Federal\nSkilled Trades Program.\no Those who need to provide proof of funds to meet the minimum requirements\nare those who:\n applied under the Federal Skilled Worker Program and\n applied under the Federal Skilled Trades Program\no For those immigrating to the province of Quebec, the capacity for financial\nself-sufficiency is lower.\n assess that the applicant and family members are not inadmissible for any other\nIRPA inadmissibility; and\n collect biometrics only from select resettled refugees when BIO-CDA is printed in\nthe remarks section\no Refer to Shift briefing bulletins 2019-HQ-AC-06-04 and 2021-HQ-AC-03-31\nfor more information.\nThe examining BSO should then:\n Complete the following fields on both copies of the CoPR using a black pen:\no Became PR at: The officer must write the location of where PR status is granted\n(either a POE or an inland IRCC office).\no Became PR on: The officer must write the date that PR status is granted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.5 (Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "o Flight no.: BSO must write which flight the client arrived on or if it was at a land\nborder.\no Conditions: Have the client write their initials beside any imposed conditions.\no Have you ever been charged/convicted of a crime or offence; refused\nadmission to Canada or required to leave Canada?: The client must write\n“yes” or “no” as well as their initials. If the client is a minor, the answer should\nbe “N/A”.\no Dependent(s) information: The client must write “yes” or “no” as well as their\ninitials. If the answer is yes, the dependent’s information must be added only if\nthey have been included in the application and they have been examined.\no Signature: Have the client sign and date.\no Officer signature: BSO must sign with a complete signature, not just initials or\nbadge number. Add the date.\n Complete and confirm the CoPR in GCMS following one of the instructions on the\nCBSA Wiki:\no Become PR with Conditions\no Become PR without Conditions\n Update the client’s complete address in Canada in GCMS, including the postal code.\n58\n If an address is already indicated on the CoPR, the officer must check with the client\nto ensure that it is still accurate and that the client will be able to receive\ncorrespondence at that address.\n If they have no address, advise the client that they have 180 days to provide IRCC\nwith their address as per R58(1). BSOs should provide them the IMM 5456B Address\nNotification – Permanent Resident Card form and inform the client to send it to IRCC\nvia one of the methods mentioned on the form or the client may update their\naddress in Canada by accessing the online Change my Address tool.\n Stamp the travel or identity document as per the stamping policy.\n Counsel the client that they will receive their PR card in approximately two – three", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.5 (Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-5-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "months and that if they have not received it within four months they should contact\nthe IRCC Call Centre at 1-888-242-2100.\n Give the new PR the second copy and keep the copy with the photograph.\n Once the CoPR has been completed and confirmed in GCMS, the BSO will counsel the\nPR as to their rights and obligations under IRPA and IRPR. See section 12.14 of this\nmanual for more information.\nPersons who wish to have their PR card issued in a name that is different from what appears\non the CoPR or passport must submit a formal request to the OSC, using the Guide for this\npurpose [IMM 5218E] and the IMM 1436 form Request to Amend Valid Temporary Resident\nDocuments or Information Contained in the Confirmation of Permanent Residence.\nApplicants should not apply for an amendment to reflect the new name of an adopted child.\nWhen an application for Canadian citizenship is submitted, IRCC will be able to issue the\ncitizenship certificate with the new name, provided they have appropriate supporting\ndocuments.\nPhotographs\nThere are specific requirements for the PR photograph:\n The background must be white (use screens provided with camera to take\nphotographs).\n There must not be any objects in the background.\n The photograph should show the full front view of the person with the head and\nshoulders centred in the photograph.\n There must be no staples, stamps, pen marks, holes or tape on the photograph.\n Eyeglasses in photos are acceptable if they are a normal feature of a person’s\nappearance, as long as the glasses do not hide the eyes.\n Head coverings on photographs, other than those worn for religious reasons, are not\nacceptable.\n Torn photos are not acceptable.\nSignatures\n Children 14 years of age and over must sign their own form.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.5 (Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-5-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " A parent or legal guardian must sign for children under the age of 14, using their\nown name and not the child’s name.\n The signature must match the name on the form except in the case of a child under\nthe age of 14 whose parent or legal guardian has signed on their behalf.\n59\n If the person is illiterate or cannot make a mark (e.g. an X) for a physical reason, a\nthumbprint should be placed on the form.\nFor further details on how to properly process a CoPR, see IRCC’s Operational Bulletin 545.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.5 (Confirmation of Permanent Residence document [IMM 5688]) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.6", + "marginal_note": "Changes in marital and family status", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.6 Changes in marital and family status\nR51 requires a FN who has been issued a PR visa/CoPR to advise an officer if their marital\nstatus has changed since the visa/CoPR was issued.\nA report under A44(1) for A41(a) for R51 is not necessary, if the non-declaration of a\nmarriage or common-law relationship to the visa officer does not affect the grant of\npermanent residence to the person in the following cases:\n In the case of refugees and protected persons, a BSO should grant PR status to\nthese classes of persons and provide counselling regarding the sponsorship of a\nspouse or common-law partner.\n A FN who marries their sponsor after the visa/CoPR is issued but before the grant of\npermanent residence. This change in circumstance is not material to admissibility.\nThe BSO should assume the truthfulness of voluntary statements relating to marital status\nand proceed as though the person seeking to become a PR were married, whether or not\nthere is documentary proof of the marital status. The BSO should usually defer the\nexamination pursuant to A23 in order to consult the visa office and obtain more information\nand evidence about the person’s marital status. In some cases, the BSO may ask the visa\nofficer to interview a non-accompanying spouse or common-law partner outside Canada to\ndetermine if they meet the requirements of the Act and Regulations and can be issued a PR\nvisa/CoPR.\nThe procedure for authorizing PR status to the person seeking to become a PR and the\nspouse will vary from case to case, depending on the applicant’s and the spouse’s particular\ncircumstances. The BSO should provide a full case summary to accompany the file, so that\nthe receiving inland IRCC office can follow up appropriately.\nThe BSO should bear in mind that the applicants’ and their family members’ medical\nexamination, security check and travel document may need to be updated while the spouse\nor common-law partner is being examined and before permanent residence can be granted.\nIf, after the investigation, there is sufficient evidence to proceed with enforcement action, a\nBSO may write the appropriate A44(1) report against the person seeking to become a PR as\nwell as an accompanying spouse or common-law partner.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.6 (Changes in marital and family status)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.7", + "marginal_note": "Common-law partners", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.7 Common-law partners\nR1(1) states the following:\ncommon-law partner means, in relation to a person, an individual who is\ncohabiting with the person in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a\nperiod of at least one year.\n60\nR1(2) states the following:\n“…, an individual who has been in a conjugal relationship with a person for at least\none year but is unable to cohabit with the person, due to persecution or any form of\npenal control, shall be considered a common-law partner of the person.”\nTact and diplomacy should be exercised when conducting an interview about pers onal\nrelationships as questions could be embarrassing to both BSO and client.\nEvery person seeking to become a PR should be asked if their marital or common-law status\nhas changed to include either a spouse or common-law partner.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.7 (Common-law partners)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.8", + "marginal_note": "Dependent children with common-law partners", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.8 Dependent children with common-law partners\nWhen verifying the marital status or common-law partnership status of dependent children\nduring an examination, the situation may arise whereby a dependent child is unmarried, but\nmay have a common-law partner. If so, as in the case of a married dependent child, the\nchild is no longer a dependent according to the established definition (R2). Children under\n22 years of age in married and common-law relationships are no longer dependent children.\nA dependent who is single, divorced or widowed, whose marriage has been annulled or who\nis no longer in a common-law relationship at the time of the initial receipt of the application\nis considered to meet the definition of a dependent child and must continue to meet the\ndefinition of a dependent child for the duration of processing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.8 (Dependent children with common-law partners)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for dealing with children whose marital or family status", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.9 Procedure for dealing with children whose marital or family status\nhas changed\nA BSO at Immigration Secondary who determines that the marital status of a dependent\nchild has changed should do the following:\n Determine whether, despite the change in marital or common-law status, the person\nis still considered a dependant:\no 22 years of age or older;\no have depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since\nbefore the age of 22; and\no be unable to support themselves financially due to a physical or mental\ncondition. It is the financial dependency that must have been ongoing since\nbefore the age of 22. It is not necessary for the physical or mental condition\nto have existed before the age of 22.\n If so, the BSO should grant PR status.\n If not, and the consequence of a change in marital status or common-law\npartnership status cannot be readily determined, the BSO should defer the\nexamination pursuant to A23.\n Create an Examination in GCMS and add corresponding details in it’s Notes tab\nwithout delay and update the person’s complete address and telephone number on\ntheir GCMS Client record.\n Send an email to the visa office that issued the PR visa/CoPR explaining the case\ndetails, including the visa office B file number, GCMS identification number and case\ninformation.\n61", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.9 (Procedure for dealing with children whose marital or family status)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.10", + "marginal_note": "Medical surveillance", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.10 Medical surveillance\nInactive pulmonary tuberculosis is the only medical condition for which medical surveillance\nis currently required. Code S2.02 refers to inactive pulmonary tuberculosis and code S2.02U\nrefers to complex inactive pulmonary tuberculosis and/or other complex, non-infectious\ntuberculosis.\nApplicants who have been issued a Confirmation of Permanent Residence (CoPR)\n[IMM 5688] have already had their immigration medical examination (IME) abroad. If\nfollow-up medical surveillance is required, this condition will appear on the CoPR and is\nimposed by the visa officer who completes a Medical Surveillance Undertaking form\n[IMM 0535B] in GCMS.\nIt is no longer required for the BSO to complete and fax this form to the Public Health\nLiaison Unit at IRCC. Once the BSO changes the CoPR status in GCMS to “confirmed”, the\ninformation is automatically sent to the Public Health Liaison Unit. It is important that the\nPR’s Canadian residential address and phone number or at minimum, their email address,\nbe in GCMS so that Public Health can contact them. The officer shall counsel the applicant\nconcerning the conditions imposed and the need to contact the Public Health Liaison Unit by\nemail (IRCC.MHBSurveillance-SurveillanceDGMS.IRCC@cic.gc.ca) with an address as soon\nas one has been established, if applicable. It is no longer necessary for the applicant to\ncontact Public Health as indicated on older versions of the IMM 0535B. If the applicant has\nany questions, they can contact IRCC’s Public Health Liaison Unit directly at the\naforementioned email address. Also, there is a new public webpage on medical surveillance\nfor applicants which they can go to.\nFor more information on medical surveillance see OP 15 Medical Surveillance and\nNotifications, the Wiki for GCMS step-by-step or contact the Public Health Liaison Unit\ndirectly.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.10 (Medical surveillance)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.11", + "marginal_note": "Family members arriving before the principal applicant", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.11 Family members arriving before the principal applicant\nOccasionally, a BSO at Immigration Secondary will encounter a family member (coded DEP\non the CoPR) that arrives to be granted PR status before the principal applicant (coded PA\non the CoPR). R51(b) requires a PR visa/CoPR holder to establish that they and their family\nmembers, whether accompanying or not, meet the requirements of the Act and Regulations.\nFor a family member to meet these requirements, it is usually incumbent on the principal\napplicant being admissible at the POE.\nA BSO encountering this situation should obtain the following information from the\ndependent:\n why the dependent is preceding the principal applicant (e.g., to seek accommodation\nor employment, lack of a seat on the aircraft carrying the principal applicant);\n when the principal applicant is due to arrive; and\n the person’s means of support.\nThe BSO should complete the verification process but should not grant PR status to the\ndependent. If the person has a valid PR visa/CoPR and the BSO is satisfied that the principal\n62\napplicant intends to come to Canada, the BSO may wish to defer the examination pursuant\nto A23 in order to wait until the principal applicant arrives so they may be examined.\nThe BSO should enter the information into the Notes tab of the application in GCMS without\ndelay, which indicates that the granting of permanent residence has been deferred pending\nthe arrival of the principal applicant.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.11 (Family members arriving before the principal applicant)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.12", + "marginal_note": "Arrival of the principal applicant prior to family members", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.12 Arrival of the principal applicant prior to family members\nA principal applicant may have decided to proceed to Canada in order to commence\nemployment or to confirm that adequate settlement arrangements, such as accommodation\nand educational facilities exist prior to the arrival of their dependents. A BSO at Immigration\nSecondary must confirm that the dependents meet the requirements of the Act and its\nRegulations before granting PR status to the principal applicant. In most instances, the BSO\ncan assume that persons listed as dependents on the principal applicant’s CoPR meet the\nrequirements of the Act and Regulations and can grant PR status to the principal applicant.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.12 (Arrival of the principal applicant prior to family members)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.13", + "marginal_note": "Expired or cancelled PR visa / CoPR", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.13 Expired or cancelled PR visa / CoPR\nA person who presents an expired or cancelled PR visa and/or CoPR cannot be authorized to\nenter Canada as a PR. The person may be reportable under A41 and R6 for non-compliance\nwith the Regulations because a FN may not enter Canada to remain on a permanent basis\nwithout first obtaining a PR visa/CoPR.\nIf the examination of a holder of a valid PR visa/CoPR is deferred pursuant to A23, the\nperson may be granted permanent residence at a later date after the expiration of their\nvisa/CoPR provided they initially appeared for examination and presented their PR\nvisa/CoPR within its period of validity.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.13 (Expired or cancelled PR visa / CoPR)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-12-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 12.14", + "marginal_note": "Counselling new PRs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.14 Counselling new PRs\nThe BSO at Immigration Secondary should counsel each new PR on the following matters:\n the conditions of PR status that have been imposed and how to comply with the\nconditions;\n the residency obligation;\n the procedure for obtaining a PR card;\n the procedure for obtaining a social insurance number via Service Canada; and\n the procedure for applying for provincial health coverage.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 12.14 (Counselling new PRs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Examination of FNs at POEs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13 Examination of FNs at POEs\nFNs may be authorized to enter Canada. A22(1) provides that:\nA FN becomes a temporary resident if an officer is satisfied that the FN has applied\nfor that status, has met the obligations set out in A20(1)(b), is not inadmissible and\nis not the subject of a declaration made under 22.1(1).\n63\nTemporary residents include: visitors, students, workers, and temporary resident permit\nholders.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13 (Examination of FNs at POEs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "Visa requirements for temporary residents", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1 Visa requirements for temporary residents\nA Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) is a counterfoil document issued by a visa officer that is\nplaced in a person’s passport. Every citizen from a TRV required country who is approved\nfor travel to Canada will be issued a TRV (IMM1346B). See section 13.2 below for\nexemptions to this requirement.\nA TRV indicates that the FN has been pre-screened by a visa officer and that this officer was\nsatisfied that the visa holder met the requirements for entry into Canada at the time of the\nissuance of the visa. Holding a TRV does not guarantee that the FN will be authorized entry\ninto Canada.\nA11(1) requires FNs to apply for a visa before entering Canada. R7 also provides that a FN\nmay not enter Canada to remain on a temporary basis without first obtaining a TRV.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.1 (Visa requirements for temporary residents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "Exemptions from a visa requirement", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.2 Exemptions from a visa requirement\nR7(2) exempts certain FNs from the requirement to obtain a visa. These include:\n FNs who hold a TRP issued under A24(1);\n FNs who are authorized under the Act or its Regulations to re-enter Canada to\nremain in Canada;\n a citizen of Romania who is seeking to enter Canada by air and who obtained an eTA\nbefore December 1, 2017; and\n FNs exempt under R190.\nSee R190 for a complete list of temporary resident visa exemptions for FNs. This section\nincludes:\n visa-exemptions by nationality [R190(1)];\n other document holders who are exempt from the temporary resident visa\nrequirement [R190(2)];\n special categories of persons who are temporary resident visa exempt [R190(3)];\n persons entering Canada who are or to become crew members of a means of\ntransportation other than a vessel [R190(3)(a)(i)];\n FNs in transit for refuelling destined to or originating from the US [R190(3)(b)];\n FN on a flight that makes an unscheduled stop in Canada due to an emergency or\nother unforeseen circumstances [R190(3)(b.1)];\n members of the Transit Without Visa Program (TWOV) and the China Transit\nProgram (CTP) [R190(3)(c)] (for more information, refer to the Transit Without\nVisa/China Transit Program Standard Operating Procedures on Atlas);\n members of armed forces coming to carry out official duties under of the Visiting\nForces Act [R190(3)(d)] and in possession of travel or military orders;\n persons seeking re-entry into Canada, after visiting only the U.S. or St. Pierre and\nMiquelon, within the authorized period of stay granted upon initial entry into Canada\nor extension to this period [R190(3)(f)] (see section 13.3 below);\n temporary residents seeking re-entry to Canada from the U.S. or St. Pierre and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.2 (Exemptions from a visa requirement) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "Exemptions from a visa requirement", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Miquelon, after applying to renew their status, remain under their original status\n64\nuntil a decision is made and they are notified [R183(5)]. These people are\nconsidered to have maintained status;\n persons conducting inspections on flight operation procedures or cabin safety on\ncommercial air carriers [R190(3)(g)]. Note : This visa exemption does not apply to\nIn Flight Security Officers (IFSO), also known as air marshals. They are not to be\nconsidered as members of a crew; or\n Persons participating as an accredited representative or adviser to an aviation\naccident or incident investigation conducted under the Canadian Transportation\nAccident Investigation and Safety Board Act, and have valid documentation to that\neffect [R190(3)(h)].\nNote: Under the Regulations, the definition of the United States includes Puerto Rico.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.2 (Exemptions from a visa requirement) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "Re-entry into Canada without a visa", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.3 Re-entry into Canada without a visa\nFNs who require a temporary resident visa and who seek to re-enter Canada must be in\npossession of a multiple-entry TRV unless:\n since leaving Canada after being authorized to enter as a temporary resident, they\nhave only visited the U.S. or St. Pierre and Miquelon, and are returning to Canada\nbefore the end of the period initially authorized by a BSO for their stay or any\nextension to it.[R190(3)(f)];\n they have only visited the U.S. or St. Pierre and Miquelon and they are in possession\nof a valid visitor record (VR), WP, SP, or a TRP (authorizing re-entry) and are\nreturning within the initial period authorized by a BSO, [R190(3)(f)];\n they are seeking entry on maintained status. A temporary resident with maintained\nstatus that leaves Canada is exempt from obtaining a temporary resident visa\npursuant to R190(3)(f) if they are returning from a visit solely to the United States\nor St. Pierre and Miquelon. Their status as a temporary resident is extended until a\ndecision is made and they are notified in accordance with R183(5). They are not\nauthorized to work or study in Canada as they did not remain in Canada as per\nR186(u) and R189 until their application for a renewal on their WP or SP has been\napproved. To emphasize these conditions, BSOs may consider documenting these\nFNs on a VR. For guidelines on when to issue a VR see section 13.24 below.\nNote: Under the Regulations, the definition of the United States includes Puerto Rico.\nThese FNs must comply with all other entry requirements. If they visit any country other\nthan those stated above, they are not visa-exempt under R190(3)(f).\nFurthermore, visa-required FNs may attempt to use the provision in 190(3)(f) to bypass the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.3 (Re-entry into Canada without a visa) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "Re-entry into Canada without a visa", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "appropriate procedures for extending their TR status in Canada (e.g. to avoid obtaining a\nnew visa). Officers are reminded that if they do not place a new stamp with a specified\nvalidity date the FN automatically receives a 6 months authorized period of stay as per\nR183(2) on every entry. Therefore, officers should consider limiting the authorization to the\ninitial entry validity date by writing that date under a new stamp. However, an officer can\nauthorize the FN into Canada for a 6 month period if they believe the FN is admissible and\nwill comply with the conditions of their entry.\nRegarding work, study, visitor and TRP applications, it should be noted that the CBSA does\nnot have the authority to renew or extend these permits at the POE, but will assess such\n65\nrequests as a completely new application, as well as the individual’s admissibility to\nCanada. Individuals seeking entry to Canada at a POE who currently have a valid TR status\nmay be admitted to Canada on the basis of their existing permit and instructed to apply to\nIRCC in Canada for an extension or renewal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.3 (Re-entry into Canada without a visa) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Examples of situations applying R190(3)(f)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.4 Examples of situations applying R190(3)(f)\n A FN in possession of a TRV valid for one year, who is subsequently issued a four-\nyear SP at a POE, may leave and return to Canada after the expiry of the visa as\nlong as they have only visited the U.S. or St. Pierre and Miquelon and the SP is still\nvalid.\n A FN in possession of a single-entry TRV may leave and return to Canada without the\nissuance of a new or multiple-entry visa as long as they return to Canada within the\ninitial period (or any extensions) authorized and have only visited the U.S. or St.\nPierre and Miquelon.\n Pursuant to R190(3)(f) a FN who is from a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) required\ncountry, who has been admitted to Canada as a temporary resident and is re-\nentering Canada from the U.S. or St. Pierre and Miquelon, before the expiry of the\nperiod initially authorized for their stay, is exempt from the requirement to obtain a\nTRV. R198(1) allows a person who is exempt from the requirement to obtain a TRV\nto apply for a WP at the POE. Taken together R190(3)(f) and R198(1) allow for a FN\nto apply for the first or subsequent WP at a POE as long as the FN has been initially\nauthorized to enter Canada as a temporary resident and returns to Canada from the\nU.S. or St. Pierre and Miquelon by the end of the period initially authorized for their\nstay and any extension to it.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.4 (Examples of situations applying R190(3)(f))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.5", + "marginal_note": "Foreign representatives posted to Canada", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.5 Foreign representatives posted to Canada\nWhether from a visa-exempt country or visa-required one, foreign representatives and their\nfamily members seeking entry into Canada to be accredited (i.e., to take up posting) are\nrequired to apply for a TRV based on instructions devised by IRCC in consultation with\nGlobal Affairs Canada’s Office of Protocol (XDC); related applications are processed based\non operational guidance, in consultation with XDC.\nForeign representatives and their family members who subsequently enter Canada and\nreceive/maintain a valid diplomatic acceptance, a consular acceptance, or an official\nacceptance issued by the Chief of Protocol of Canada are regarded as properly accredited\nand exempt from obtaining a TRV or an eTA as per R190(2)(a) and R7.1(3)(c).\nIf a BSO has concerns regarding incoming and properly accredited foreign representatives\nand family members they should contact IRCC’s Case Management Branch at:\nIRCC.CMBImmigrationCaseAdvice-ConseilCasImmigrationDGRC.IRCC@cic.gc.ca and in cc\nadd xdc-ircc@international.gc.ca.\nFor urgent cases, the BSO may contact the IRCC Liaison Unit at the Office of Protocol at\n613-992-0889. The IRCC Liaison Unit is available for urgent cases during regular business\nhours, Monday to Friday. For after-hours service, contact the Operations Officer at 613-944-\n1294.On the first arrival in Canada of a foreign representative or family member whose\npassport bears a D-1 or O-1 visa counterfoil or a single entry counterfoil-less visa, the BSO\nat the PIL should stamp the passport giving them status in Canada for six months. During\nthe six-month period, the official’s embassy or consulate will forward their passport to the\n66\nDiplomatic Corps Services Division, Office of Protocol, Global Affairs Canada. The Office of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.5 (Foreign representatives posted to Canada) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.5", + "marginal_note": "Foreign representatives posted to Canada", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Protocol will issue a diplomatic (D), consular (C), official (J) or international (I) acceptance,\nwhich indicates that the person is accredited to Canada and entitled to remain in Canada for\nthe duration of their official status.\nDependent children of diplomats, consular officers, representatives or officials who are\nunder 19 years of age and considered to be “members of the family forming part of the\nhousehold” will be issued acceptances. Children over 19 years of age will be issued\nacceptances only if they are registered as full-time students at a Canadian Designated\nLearning Institution (DLI). After 25 years of age, family members are no longer eligible to\nreceive official acceptances, and must change their official status under Foreign Missions\nand International Organizations Act (FMIOA) to a non-official temporary resident status\nunder IRPA.\nFor more information, see procedures related to diplomatic and official visas.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.5 (Foreign representatives posted to Canada) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.6", + "marginal_note": "Affirmations for visas", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.6 Affirmations for visas\nAn Affirmation for Visa form [IMM 1281B] is to be used as a document in lieu of a passport\ninvolving nationals of countries not recognized by Canada. When a person presents an\nIMM 1281B form, a BSO at Immigration Secondary must apply the port stamp in the lower\nright corner of the visa (partly on the visa, partly on the page).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.6 (Affirmations for visas)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.7", + "marginal_note": "U.S. government officials", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.7 U.S. government officials\nThe following official U.S. government personnel assigned to temporary postings in Canada\nare not issued diplomatic or official acceptances in Canada:\n Department of Homeland Security officers;\n U.S. Customs officers;\n International Joint Commission employees; and\n Inspectors with the Federal Grain Inspection Service of the United States\nDepartment of Agriculture and other U.S. government officials in possession of\nofficial U.S. government passports and assigned to temporary postings in Canada .\nU.S. government personnel arriving in Canada for the first time will be issued a fee exempt\nWP, on presentation of a “letter of introduction” from the appropriate agency, identifying the\nassignment, its location and the number of years the employee will be assigned in Canada.\nFor more information on the documentation of U.S. government employees, refer to United\nStates government personnel on IRCC’s Connexion page, which deals with temporary\nforeign workers applications at POEs.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.7 (U.S. government officials)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.8", + "marginal_note": "Courtesy visas", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.8 Courtesy visas\nVisa officers may issue courtesy visas to persons who, although not entitled to diplomatic\nprivileges and immunities, warrant a visa to facilitate their entry because of their position or\nbecause their reason for coming to Canada is considered sufficiently important.\n67\nCourtesy visas may be issued to:\n persons of diplomatic rank coming to Canada for tourism purposes;\n members of the International Air Transport Association (IATA);\n members of a trade mission visiting Canada; and\n well-known visiting professors coming to Canada to attend conferences.\nCourtesy visas may be issued in any type of passport to FNs who require visas or who are\nnormally visa-exempt. The visa should draw a BSO’s attention to the fact that the individual\nis considered by the IRCC visa office to warrant particularly expeditious and courteous\ntreatment at the POE. Such FNs are subject to normal documentation requirements and are\nnot exempt from regular examination procedures.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.8 (Courtesy visas)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.9", + "marginal_note": "Parents and Grandparents Extended Stay Temporary Resident", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.9 Parents and Grandparents Extended Stay Temporary Resident\nVisa (Super Visa)\nEligible parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens and PRs may be issued a multiple-\nentry TRV coded PG-1 for up to 10 years or for visa-exempt FNs, a letter of introduction will\nbe issued for five (5) years or until passport expiry. The status period of such eligible\npersons will be for two (2) years on each entry to Canada. These travellers can be admitted\nat the PIL however, should they be referred to Immigration Secondary, BSOs should verify\nthat the super visa holder or the holder of a super visa letter of introduction has valid\nmedical insurance, continues to meet the requirements of the super visa and is not\ninadmissible.\nThe BSO will then stamp the super visa holder’s passport, but no handwritten date is\nrequired. Should the BSO authorize a period of stay of less than 2 years, a VR should be\nissued to the client with clear notes indicating the reason why the period of stay was\nshortened.\nSome travellers with a PG-1 TRV may also be subject to medical surveillance.\nBSOs should follow the same procedure for TRs as for PRs. Refer to section 12.10 of this\nmanual for detailed procedures.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.9 (Parents and Grandparents Extended Stay Temporary Resident)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.10", + "marginal_note": "Expired temporary resident visas", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.10 Expired temporary resident visas\nA person seeking to enter Canada with an expired temporary resident visa is inadmissible\nand should be reported pursuant to A41(a) for A20(1)(b).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.10 (Expired temporary resident visas)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.11", + "marginal_note": "Notification to visa office if a visa holder is refused entry", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.11 Notification to visa office if a visa holder is refused entry\nA BSO at Immigration Secondary who is of the opinion a FN who holds a TRV or a TRP is\ninadmissible should send full details of the refusal by email to the issuing visa office. This\nallows the visa office to review the decision to issue the visa and to deal with future\nrepresentations that the person may make to the visa office.\n68\nThe BSO must put the phrase: “As requested: ENF 4” in the subject line and include the\nfollowing information in the following order:\n(a) the name and nationality of the subject of the A44(1) report; or a person allowed\nto withdraw their application;\n(b) the person’s date and place of birth;\n(c) the visa or permit number, date and office of issue;\n(d) the date and POE where the person sought to enter Canada;\n(e) the reason for refusal, using the code letter for the reason for refusal:\nA: seeking permanent residence,\nB: claims Convention refugee status,\nC: intends to seek or take employment,\nD: intends to follow a course of study,\nE: has insufficient funds to maintain themselves and their family members,\nF: medical inadmissibility,\nG: criminal inadmissibility,\nH: expired temporary resident’s visa, or\nI: other;\n(f) the name and file number of the office responsible for follow-up enforcement\naction, if the office differs from the POE; and\n(g) the visa office file number (some visa offices include the number on the visa).\nThe BSO should not provide any other details in the email report. This procedure allows the\nBSO to transmit the report as an unclassified message.\nIf the reason for refusal was code “I” (other), the officer should send a report by mail to the\nissuing visa office giving further details of the reason for the refusal.\nThis reporting system gives IRCC visa offices immediate feedback on their decisions for\nissuing temporary resident visas (TRVs) and assists in monitoring the effectiveness of the\nTRV program.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.11 (Notification to visa office if a visa holder is refused entry)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-12-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.12", + "marginal_note": "Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) and eTA Expansion (eTA-X)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.12 Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) and eTA Expansion (eTA-X)\nAn eTA is an entry requirement for visa-exempt FNs travelling to or transiting through\nCanada by air. U.S citizens and U.S. lawful permanent residents (USLPR) are some of the\nexempted populations from this requirement. An eTA is a paperless document electronically\nlinked to a traveller’s passport that must be obtained prior to travelling to or through\nCanada by air.\nR7.1(1) requires all FNs from visa-exempt countries to obtain an eTA before entering\nCanada.\n69\nR7.01 defines which citizens, from visa-required countries, are eligible for an eTA when\ntravelling to Canada by air under the eTA-X program. The eligibility criteria are:\n Have held a Canadian TRV in the preceding 10 years; or\n Currently hold a valid U.S. non-immigrant visa (NIV).\nAn eTA issued pursuant to the eTA expansion provisions of the IRPR has the same legal\nauthority, except that the eligibility criteria differs.\nBSOs should be aware that the TRV exemption for \"contiguous territory\", R190(3)(f) may\napply to eTA–X clients who were authorized entry at an air POE and subsequently departed\nCanada for a visit solely to the US or St-Pierre and Miquelon and then returned to Canada\nvia any mode within the period initially authorized for their visit.\n13.13 eTA exemptions\nR7.1(3) states that select individuals are exempt from the eTA requirement, including:\n Queen Elizabeth II and members of the Royal Family;\n holders of valid TRVs;\n citizens of the United States or a person who has been lawfully admitted to the US\nfor permanent residence (USLPR);\n accredited diplomats, consular and officials in Canada;\n select civil aviation personnel (flight crew, flight safety advisors, accident\ninvestigators);", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.12 (Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) and eTA Expansion (eTA-X)) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-12-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.12", + "marginal_note": "Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) and eTA Expansion (eTA-X)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " French citizens who are residents of St. Pierre and Miquelon arriving from St. Pierre\nand Miquelon;\n foreign military personnel carrying out duties under the Visiting Forces Act;\n FNs seeking re-entry directly from the US or Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon with prior\nstatus in Canada;\n FNs holding a valid U.S. document travelling to and from the U.S. who are\npassengers on a flight stopping in Canada for the sole purpose of refuelling;\n FNs transiting Canada under the TWOV or the CTP;\n FNs onboard flights diverted to Canada for medical, mechanical, or other emergency\nreasons.\n13.14 eTA validity and cancellation\nAn eTA will be valid for up to five years or until the passport expires, whichever comes first.\nA visitor may travel to Canada repeatedly without having to apply for another eTA, so long\nas their original eTA remains valid.\nUnlike a TRV, BSOs at the POE may cancel an eTA and eTA-X when the holder may become\nineligible to possess one. The CBSA’s OB PRG-2017-41 describes when a BSO may cancel\nan eTA and eTA-X if at least one of the following conditions are met:\n they are the subject of a declaration made under A22.1(1);\n they were issued a TRP under A24(1);\n they are the subject of a report prepared under A44(1);\n they are the subject of a removal order made under A44(2) or A45(d);\n70\n they withdrew their application to enter Canada under R42(1);\n they were refused a temporary resident visa because they did not meet the\nrequirement set out in R179(b);\n they were refused a WP because they did not meet the requirement set out in\nR200(1)(b);\n they were refused a SP because they did not meet the requirement set out in\nR216(1)(b); or\n in the case of a FN referred to in R7.01(1), it is established that, on the day on which", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.12 (Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) and eTA Expansion (eTA-X)) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-12-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.12", + "marginal_note": "Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) and eTA Expansion (eTA-X)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "they made their application for an eTA-X, they did not meet either of the conditions\nset out in R7.01(2)(a) and (b).\nPlease refer to the Wiki page for step-by-step instructions on how to cancel an eTA in GCMS\nas well as the comments to be inserted in the eTA cancellation Correspondence tab.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.12 (Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) and eTA Expansion (eTA-X)) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.15", + "marginal_note": "Document requirements for FNs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.15 Document requirements for FNs\nR52(1) provides that a FN seeking to become a temporary resident of Canada must possess\na valid passport, identity or travel document. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure\nadequate identification of the FN and to guarantee that person’s re-entry either into the\ncountry that issued the passport, identity or travel document or into another country.\nR52(1) provides a list of acceptable passports or travel documents for FNs seeking to enter\nCanada as temporary residents.\nVisa officers should ensure that a travel document is acceptable for travel to Canada before\nissuing a visa. A CBSA officer can normally assume that a document containing an authentic\nvisa is acceptable for travel to Canada, unless there is some reason to question its\nacceptability.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.15 (Document requirements for FNs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.16", + "marginal_note": "Passport and travel document exceptions", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.16 Passport and travel document exceptions\nR52(2) provides a list of persons who are exempt from the requirement to have a passport\nor travel document to enter Canada as temporary residents:\n U.S. citizens;\n Permanent residents of the U.S. seeking to enter Canada from the United States or\nSt. Pierre and Miquelon. Note that U.S. Permanent Resident Cards are only\nacceptable upon presentation on contiguous territory and not valid for international\nflights from outside Canada unless accompanied by a valid and subsisting passport\nor travel document;\n Residents of Greenland seeking to enter Canada from Greenland;\n Citizens of France residing in St. Pierre and Miquelon seeking to enter Canada from\nSt. Pierre and Miquelon;\n Military personnel seeking to enter Canada under the Visiting Forces Act;\n Persons seeking to enter as or in order to become air crew members and who hold\nan airline flight crew licence or crew member certificate issued in accordance with\nInternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) specifications; and\n Persons seeking to enter Canada as crew members who hold a seafarer’s identity\ndocument and are crew members of the vessel that carries them to Canada.\n71", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.16 (Passport and travel document exceptions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.17", + "marginal_note": "Examining passports", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.17 Examining passports\nThe purpose of examining a passport is to verify information that has been provided by the\nholder or that appears on any immigration document issued to the person. A BSO should\nexamine each passport to confirm the following:\n the name of the holder;\n the date of birth of the holder;\n other data such as the person’s physical description, place of birth, marital status\nand profession;\n the country of citizenship;\n the photograph of the holder;\n the date of expiry; and\n visa pages (to determine previous trips to Canada or other recent trips or visa\nrefusal stamps, typically found on the last page that may be relevant to the overall\nexamination of the person).\nCBSA’s National Document Centre (NDC) contributes to helping prevent the movement of\nunlawful people across the border through the detection and analysis of document and\nidentity fraud at POEs through collaboration with national and international partners on the\nintegrity of their travel and identity documents and issuance processes. The NDC acts as a\ncenter of expertise for the CBSA and IRCC in the analysis of travel and identity document\nfraud. On their page on Atlas, you can find Document alerts, Document bulletins and\nDocument communiqués.\nBSOs also have access to EDISON TD, a database which allows users to compare doubtful\nor unknown travel documents with high definition images of authentic ones. Most often, the\ndocuments shown are specimens, that is, documents provided by the issuing authority for\ncomparative analysis purposes.\nFor more information, please consult section 13 of ENF 32, Passports and Travel\nDocuments.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.17 (Examining passports)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.18", + "marginal_note": "Valid visas in expired passports", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.18 Valid visas in expired passports\nVisa officers will not put a visa in an expired document and will not issue a visa for a period\nsurpassing the expiry date of the passport or travel document. Occasionally, documents\ncontaining valid visas are cancelled or replaced. If a valid visa inside an expired document is\npresented at the POE along with a valid passport or travel document, the visa is considered\nvalid.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.18 (Valid visas in expired passports)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-19", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.19", + "marginal_note": "Evidence of U.S. citizenship", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.19 Evidence of U.S. citizenship\nThe following documents may be satisfactory evidence of U.S. citizenship:\n U.S. passports, U.S. passport cards, and Certificates of Citizenship and Naturalization\nare considered prima facie evidence and are acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship.\n A U.S. birth certificate, when accompanied by another document bearing a picture of\nthe holder, is considered an indicator and may be an acceptable proof of U.S.\ncitizenship.\n72\nA U.S. military identification card, although a good supporting document, is not prima facie\nevidence of U.S. citizenship. The U.S. military accepts recruits who are not U.S. citizens.\nSometimes, a verbal declaration may be sufficient to satisfy a BSO that a person is a U.S.\ncitizen. For example, driver’s licenses, health cards, U.S. Voter’s Registration card, school\nrecords, credit cards are not prima facie evidence of citizenship, but they are often used\nalong with a verbal declaration to satisfy the BSO of U.S. citizenship. In other\ncircumstances, the BSO may require better documentary evidence for persons claiming to\nbe U.S. citizens. BSOs should also familiarize themselves with the Enhanced Drivers\nLicence/Enhanced Identification Cards as well as the trusted traveller cards, such as FAST,\nNEXUS, CANPASS and the U.S. SENTRI card.\nIndigenous identity documents which are recognized by the Government of the United\nStates may assist the examining officer in reaching a determination of the person’s US\ncitizenship and country of residence. These documents are the US Enhanced Tribal Card\n(ETC) and I-872 American Indian Card.\nTo assist the travel industry, airlines and travel agents have been supplied with the\nfollowing information:\n a U.S. passport constitutes the best form of identification for U.S. citizens travelling\nto Canada; and\n U.S. citizens may travel to Canada without passports if they have other means of\nestablishing their citizenship, such as a U.S. birth certificate or naturalization papers.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.19 (Evidence of U.S. citizenship)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-20", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.20", + "marginal_note": "Conditions imposed on temporary residents", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.20 Conditions imposed on temporary residents\nR183(1) provides for the following general conditions that are automatically imposed on all\ntemporary residents:\n to leave Canada by the end of their authorized period of stay;\n to not work, unless they have been issued a WP or are exempt from the requirement\nto obtain a WP pursuant to R186 and/or R187;\n to not study, unless they have been issued a SP or are exempt from the requirement\nto obtain a SP pursuant to R188 and/or R189; and\n to comply with all requirements imposed by an order or regulation made under the\nEmergencies Act or the Quarantine Act.\nA BSO does not need to document these conditions for every person authorized to enter\nCanada as a temporary resident as they are automatically imposed. However, if the BSO\nbelieves that a document is necessary as a control measure or as an aid in counselling the\nperson regarding the conditions of their entry, they may generate a VR and explain in the\nNotes tab, without delay, why a VR was issued.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.20 (Conditions imposed on temporary residents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-21", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.21", + "marginal_note": "Duration of temporary resident status", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.21 Duration of temporary resident status\nR183(2) states that the period authorized for the stay of a temporary resident is six months\nor any other period that an officer imposes based on the following criteria:\n the temporary resident’s means of support in Canada;\n73\n the period for which the temporary resident applies to stay; and\n the expiry of the temporary resident’s passport or other travel document.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.21 (Duration of temporary resident status)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.22", + "marginal_note": "Six-month entry", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.22 Six-month entry\nIn most cases, a BSO should routinely authorize entry for a period of six months to a FN\nrequesting entry as a temporary resident, even when the person requests entry for a very\nbrief period. Six months is adequate for most purposes of travel and preclude the need for\nthe person to request an extension.\nThe BSO should also stamp the foreign national’s passport or travel document, inscribe a\ndate of expiry based on a calculation of six months from the date of entry and initial the\nnotation. Please refer to the CBSA Stamp Policy for more information on annotating a travel\ndocument. The BSO should counsel the FN on the need to comply with general obligations\nfor the visit and of any extension, should one become necessary.\nIn instances where the principal applicant of the family is traveling with their family\nmembers, BSOs should generally authorize entry to all members of the family for the same\nlength of time as indicated on the WP or SP of the principal applicant.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.22 (Six-month entry)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-23", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.23", + "marginal_note": "Entry for more or less than six months", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.23 Entry for more or less than six months\nBased on the information presented during an examination, a BSO at Immigration\nSecondary may decide to limit a temporary resident’s stay to less than six months despite\nthe length of time requested by the foreign national. If requested by the applicant and the\nBSO is satisfied that the FN is a temporary resident, is able to support themselves and\naccompanying family members financially, and is not inadmissible for reasons of health o r\nsecurity, the granting of entry for more than six months may be considered.\nIn no case should the BSO impose a period of time for a temporary resident’s stay greater\nthan the validity of the foreign national’s passport or travel document. This will not be\napplicable to U.S. citizens and other FNs exempted under R52(2) from the requirement to\nbe in possession of a passport or travel document.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.23 (Entry for more or less than six months)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-24-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.24", + "marginal_note": "When to document a temporary resident on a Visitor Record (VR)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.24 When to document a temporary resident on a Visitor Record (VR)\nA BSO at Immigration Secondary who limits a temporary resident’s stay to a period of less\nthan six months has in essence decided that there is a need to exercise an element of\ncontrol over the foreign national’s length of stay; therefore, a VR form IMM 1097B (for\nmanual completion if GCMS is down) or IMM 1442 (in GCMS) is to be issued in order to\ndocument this decision. The BSO should record the reasons why a period of less than six\nmonths is being imposed in the Notes tab of the GCMS application, without delay.\nSimilarly, the BSO should issue a VR when authorizing a period of stay greater than six\nmonths and indicate in the Notes tab in the GCMS application without delay why the greater\nperiod of time is being granted.\nA BSO at Immigration Secondary should document a FN on a VR if, in the BSO’s opinion, a\nFN should be documented for control purposes regardless of the length of stay. This could\ninclude:\n74\n a seafarer who is signing off or seeking entry to join a crew;\n a FN entering for medical treatment;\n a person extradited to Canada who is being allowed forward as a temporary resident;\n any temporary resident on whom other conditions pursuant to R185 are being\nimposed;\n foreign workers entering Canada to perform after-sales service and intending to\nremain in Canada for longer than two days, except workers performing continuing\nafter-sales service whose entry has already been documented on a VR, the validity of\nwhich covers the period for which the person is seeking entry; or\n military personnel and their accompanying family members entering Canada under\nthe Visiting Forces Act; and\n FNs entering as clergy under R186(l).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.24 (When to document a temporary resident on a Visitor Record (VR)) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-24-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.24", + "marginal_note": "When to document a temporary resident on a Visitor Record (VR)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "In certain situations, BSOs should issue a VR to the FN who is WP exempt so that they can\nbenefit from certain privileges, such as obtaining a Social Insurance Number. These\nsituations include:\n Public Policy: Short-term work permit exemption for certain high-skilled work;\n Public Policy: 120-day work permit exemption for researchers; or\n Missionaries (e.g.: Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) coming to Canada for more\nthan a six month period. Case type 13 in the GCMS application must be used when\nissuing a VR so that they may apply for and obtain provincial health coverage.\nCreating or adding to an existing client record in GCMS with corresponding Notes will assist\nother BSOs in the event a person applies for an extension or if enforcement action is\nrequired.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.24 (When to document a temporary resident on a Visitor Record (VR)) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-25", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.25", + "marginal_note": "Issuing VRs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.25 Issuing VRs\nVRs should be processed and issued in GCMS. If GCMS is not operational, a BSO at\nImmigration Secondary can complete the VR form [IMM 1097B] manually and enter the\ninformation in GCMS as soon as the system is available. For detailed information on\ncompleting and coding the IMM 1097B form manually, see the coding manual.\nThere are no cost-recovery fees for documenting temporary residents on a VR.\nA BSO who issues a VR, no matter the reason, should enter remarks in the Notes tab of the\napplication, without delay.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.25 (Issuing VRs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-26", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.26", + "marginal_note": "Imposing, varying or cancelling conditions on temporary", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.26 Imposing, varying or cancelling conditions on temporary\nresidents\nR185 authorizes a BSO at Immigration Secondary to impose, vary or cancel the following\nconditions individually concerning a temporary resident:\n the period authorized for their stay;\n the work in which they are permitted to engage or prohibited from engaging,\nincluding\no the type of work;\no the employer;\n75\no the location of work; and\no the times and periods of work;\n in the case of a member of a crew, the period within which they must join the means\nof transportation;\n the studies in which they are permitted to engage or prohibited from engaging,\nincluding\no the type of studies or course;\no the location of the studies; and\no the times and periods of the studies;\n the area within which they are permitted or prohibited to travel in Canada; and\n the times and places to which they must report:\no for medical examination, surveillance or treatment; or\no the presentation of evidence of compliance with applicable conditions.\nAll of these conditions should be imposed in writing by providing the FN with a VR, ST, WP\nor TRP. When conditions of entry are imposed on a manually completed form, it is not\nnecessary to state on the form the conditions precisely as they are worded in the\nRegulations. An attempt to reflect the substance and spirit of the conditions in the\nRegulations and, whenever possible, the wording of R183 and R185 should be used. When a\nBSO at Immigration Secondary completes a form in GCMS, they may select the appropriate\nconditions from the list on the screen.\nThe BSO should not use conditions as a means of discouraging a FN from coming into\nCanada. The reasons for imposing conditions on a temporary resident are to ensure that the\nperson complies with the period and purpose for which they sought entry into Canada and\nto make the temporary resident aware of the need for formal authorization before extending\nthat period or varying the purposes of the visit.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.26 (Imposing, varying or cancelling conditions on temporary)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-27", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.27", + "marginal_note": "Situations where specific conditions may be considered", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.27 Situations where specific conditions may be considered\nSituations where specific conditions may be considered include the following:\n For a FN seeking entry to join a crew of a vehicle already in Canada, a BSO at\nImmigration Secondary should impose a condition that would require them to join\nthe means of transportation within a maximum period of time of 48 hours [R184].\n R185(d) authorizes a BSO to impose a condition that limits the area within which a\ntemporary resident may travel in Canada. For example, the BSO might want to use\nthe condition to limit the travel of a person in transit through Canada to another\ncountry (perhaps limiting the person to the airport and surrounding area), or the\ntravel of a person coming to Canada to stand trial or to be a witness in legal\nproceedings.\n R185(e) authorizes the BSO to impose a condition on a temporary resident who\notherwise complies with the Act and Regulations, but who has a medical condition of\npublic health significance in Canada. The condition should name the time and place\nwhere the temporary resident must report for medical observation and treatment\nwhile in Canada. For more information on medical surveillance, please refer to\nsection 12.10 above and manual OP15, Medical Procedures.\n If the BSO imposes conditions on a temporary resident concerning attendance at a\nschool, work, or medical examination, surveillance or treatment, the BSO should, as\na control measure, also impose a condition requiring the person to present evidence\nof compliance with the conditions imposed [as authorized by R185(e)(ii)].\n76", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.27 (Situations where specific conditions may be considered)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-28", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.28", + "marginal_note": "Deposits and Guarantees", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.28 Deposits and Guarantees\nR45(1) authorizes a BSO at Immigration Secondary to require, with respect to a person or\ngroup of persons seeking to enter Canada, the payment of a deposit or the posting of a\nguarantee, or both, to the Minister to guarantee compliance with the conditions imposed on\nthe person or group.\nThe payment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee is a control measure in cases where\nthe BSO believes that a temporary resident or group of temporary residents may not\ncomply with one or more conditions being imposed. The deposit or guarantee should specify\nan amount adequate to guarantee compliance and therefore alleviate doubt regarding a\ntemporary resident’s intentions in Canada.\nFor more information on situations that may warrant a deposit or a guarantee, or how to\nproceed, refer to ENF 8, Deposits and Guarantees.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.28 (Deposits and Guarantees)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-29", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.29", + "marginal_note": "Counselling temporary residents", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.29 Counselling temporary residents\nA BSO should attempt to answer any questions a temporary resident has concerning their\nstatus. When a BSO at Immigration Secondary counsels a temporary resident, they may\nwish to cover the following points:\n the expiry date of the visit;\n any conditions imposed;\n procedures for applying for an extension;\n cost-recovery requirements should the person seek an extension to their status; and\n information about the cancellation of conditions imposed and a refund if the person\nhas paid a deposit or posted a guarantee (see ENF 8, Deposits and Guarantees).\nThe sections to follow provide more detailed procedures for the examination of specific\nclasses of persons seeking to enter Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.29 (Counselling temporary residents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-30", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.30", + "marginal_note": "Recovering missing, abducted and exploited children", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.30 Recovering missing, abducted and exploited children\nSee ENF 21, Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children, for more information on\npolicies and procedures relating to examining children seeking to enter Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.30 (Recovering missing, abducted and exploited children)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-31", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.31", + "marginal_note": "Examining foreign students", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.31 Examining foreign students\nAll FNs require written authorization obtained from an IRCC visa office in order to come\nstudy in Canada. Certain exemptions apply when it comes to needing a SP. See OP 12,\nStudents, for specifics.\nCertain FN are eligible to apply for a SP at the POE as per R214. With few exemptions, all\nQuebec-bound study permit applicants must submit a Certificat d’acceptation du Québec\n(CAQ) or a confirmation letter from the Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de\nl’Intégration (MIFI) when applying for a study permit. The CAQ is issued for a maximum of\n49 months. Persons exempted from this requirement can be found on the MIFI’s web site.\n77\nQuebec’s Regulation respecting the selection of foreign nationals states at paragraph 49(g)\nthat those mentioned at R214 are excluded from the requirement of obtaining a CAQ for a\nperiod of not more than six (6) weeks from their arrival to Canada. Should they not yet\nhave a CAQ but meet all other eligibility criteria to apply for a SP at the POE, the BSO may\nissue a SP for a maximum of six (6) weeks and charge the fees. BSOs should also explain\nthe situation in the permit’s Notes tab without delay. When the FN mentioned at R214\nreceives their CAQ, they will have to apply for and pay the fees for a new SP.\nFor more information on this exemption, please refer to section 2.2 Programme des\nétudiants étrangers of the Guide des procédures d’immigration of the MIFI (available only in\nFrench).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.31 (Examining foreign students)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-32", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.32", + "marginal_note": "Maritime procedures", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.32 Maritime procedures\nSee ENF 17, Maritime Procedures, for information on the examination of persons seeking\nentry as crew members or wanting to become a member of a crew.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.32 (Maritime procedures)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-33-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.33", + "marginal_note": "Examining foreign workers", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.33 Examining foreign workers\nRemarks on VRs allowing people to work in Canada\nService Canada is asking that visible remarks be entered on VRs when a VR is issued to a\nperson who is exempt of the need for a WP. Service Canada needs to know that the person\nis allowed to work in Canada and is exempt from the need for a WP so a social insurance\nnumber may be issued. BSOs at Immigration Secondary should clearly enter in the User\nRemarks section of the VR that the temporary resident is exempt from the need to obtain a\nWP under either: R186, the 120-day WP exemption for researchers in a publicly funded\nCanadian degree-granting institution (or its affiliated research institution) or the 15- or 30-\nday WP exemption for certain high-skilled workers.For more information on these last two,\nsee section 13.24 above and OB PRG-2017-26, New Work Permit Exemptions for High-\nSkilled Short-term Work and for Research.\nSeasonal agricultural workers\nThere are two streams of agricultural workers:\n the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) stream open to citizens of Mexico\nand other participating Caribbean countries; and\n the agricultural stream (non-SAWP).\nLike all other temporary foreign workers, seasonal agricultural workers in both streams\nrequire social insurance numbers (SIN) while working in Canada. As of April 1, 2003, all\nsocial insurance cards issued to temporary residents have expiry dates on them, coinciding\nwith the end of the validity period of the WP.\nIt is important that the expiry date matches the last date of the validity of the temporary\nresident’s WP.\n78\nTemporary residents who require a social insurance card may find the application form on\nthe Service Canada website.\nSAWP work permits should always:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.33 (Examining foreign workers) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-33-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.33", + "marginal_note": "Examining foreign workers", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " have an expiry date of December 15th of the current calendar year no matter the\nduration of employment indicated on the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMAI).\nThe only exception to limiting the WP to a date other then December 15 th would be if\nthe FN’s travel document expires before December 15th;\n 98 as the Case Type in GCMS; and\n have the following User Remarks already added by the issuing office: “Approved\nMEX/CCSAWP employer only. Valid to work in ALL PROVINCES. Period of cumulative\nwork not to exceed employment duration specified in the LMIA to a maximum of 8\nmonths – R185(b)(iv)”.\nFor more information on the SAWP, visit - Hire a temporary worker through the Seasonal\nAgricultural Worker Program - Overview - Canada.ca\nFor more information on the non-SAWP stream, visit Hire a temporary foreign worker\nthrough the Agricultural Stream: Overview – Canada.ca\nRole of countries sending seasonal workers\nAgencies from sending countries must make sure of the following: at least 48 hours in\nadvance, accurate departure lists of workers are sent directly to the CBSA airport office in\nCanada to ensure that the WPs are prepared (printed) before the arrival of each flight.\n Note: IRCC and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) require that\nBSOs cancel the pre-printed WPs if the worker did not arrive on the scheduled date\nnor the following day. This ensures that employer compliance conditions are not\nimposed on an employer erroneously and allows IRCC to use the Labor Market\nImpact Assessment (LMIA) to issue a WP for another worker, if needed.\nAt the airport in Canada\nEach worker is referred to Immigration Secondary by a BSO at the PIL and presents their\nown:\n valid passport; and\n WP introduction letter, issued by a visa office.\nRole of BSOs at Immigration Secondary", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.33 (Examining foreign workers) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-33-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.33", + "marginal_note": "Examining foreign workers", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "BSOs at Immigration Secondary must make sure of the following:\n Verify the identity of the passport holder;\n79\n Make sure the WP information is correct and matches the passport’s biographical\ndata;\n Stamp and properly annotate the passport with the expiry date, their initials and\ndocument number of the WP; and\n “Close the loop” in ICS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.33 (Examining foreign workers) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-34", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.34", + "marginal_note": "Refugee claimants", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.34 Refugee claimants\nFor information on processing refugee claimants, refer to IRCC’s PDI, In-Canada claims for\nrefugee protection. For instructions on handling possible claims for refugee protection see\nsection 13 of ENF 6, Review of reports under A44(1).\nFor information on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, visit the UNHCR\nwebsite.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.34 (Refugee claimants)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-35-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.35", + "marginal_note": "Vulnerable persons", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.35 Vulnerable persons\nA vulnerable person is a person who has significant difficulties coping with the examination\nprocess, due to a specific condition or circumstance.\nExamples of persons who may be identified as vulnerable could be someone who is:\n elderly;\n pregnant;\n with physical disabilities or injuries;\n an unaccompanied minor children;\n a victim of gender-based and/or family violence;\n a victim of human trafficking;\n a victim of trauma; and\n children, including those who are victims of abuse.\nIndividuals react to violence and trauma in various ways, and not all victims of violence\nand/or trauma exhibit identical or even similar symptoms. While some individuals may show\nsigns of distress, including anxiety, irritability, nervousness, agitation, anger and\naggressiveness, others may be easily intimidated and have difficulty communicating. The\nimportance of building trust with victims/survivors might be helpful. For example, officers\nmay need to explain how the examination process works, and their role as officers, to\nestablish credibility and build trust. Officers should keep in mind that e stablishing a rapport\nand earning a victim’s trust will help victims to be more open and to feel more comfortable\nabout providing information. It may be helpful to separate individuals when conducting\ninterviews if the BSO suspects there may be violence, trafficking, etc. involved. Also ask the\nvictim whether they would be more comfortable in the presence of a female or male officer.\nFN victims brought to Canada by human traffickers for exploitation purposes are exposed to\nincreased vulnerabilities because they may have little or no knowledge of Canadian\ncustoms, laws and human rights, and this lack of knowledge may be used by the trafficker", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.35 (Vulnerable persons) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-35-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.35", + "marginal_note": "Vulnerable persons", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "to compel the victim to provide their labour or service. Victims may react with fear,\nsuspicion, skepticism, distrust, hesitation and/or hostility towards outsiders, especially law\nenforcement. They may worry about their immigration status in Canada and/or fear of being\nissued a removal order and deported. They may also be concerned about the continued\navailability of services in Canada.\n80\nTrauma occurs when a victim lives through an experience so extreme that they cannot\ncompletely comprehend or accept it. Consequently, it falls so far outside the victim’s own\nsystem of values for human behaviour that they cannot rationalize it and may even deny\nthat it ever happened. Key symptoms of trauma likely to have serious implications include:\n denial of being a victim of gender-based violence (GBV), even in the face of\ncontradictory evidence;\n de-personalization of the abusive experience and coming to regard it as having\nhappened to another person;\n fragmentation of memory, perception, feeling, consciousness and sense of time;\n difficulty in providing a clear and consistent statements to investigation; and\n tendency to fill in memory blanks by making up plausible elements of a traumatic\nsituation.\nDue to these types of trauma, one of the optimal methods for working with victims is to\nhelp them feel stable by providing security and assistance.\nAs a general principle, all offices must be flexible to provide priority processing to travellers\nwho are identified as vulnerable persons.\nFor additional information on identifying and processing vulnerable persons, see IRCC’s PDI,\nProcessing in-Canada Claims for Refugee protection of minors and vulnerable persons and\nAddressing cases where a person has experienced abuse.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.35 (Vulnerable persons) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-35-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.35", + "marginal_note": "Vulnerable persons", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For Trafficking in Persons, refer to CBSA’s Enforcement Manual, part 2, chapter 15.\nVictims Support\nIn Canada, responsibility for the protection of victims of crime is shared between the federal\nand provincial/territorial governments. Numerous programs and services are available to\nvictims of crime, including trafficking. These range from health care to emergency housing,\nand social and legal assistance. Legal-aid programs are administered separately by each\nprovince and territory, and eligibility is based primarily on financial need. Similarly, social\nservices such as emergency financial assistance, including food allowances and housing, are\nadministered at the provincial and territorial levels and are available to those in need.\nA TRP may be issued by IRCC for victims of family violence or victims of trafficking in\npersons (VTIP). Should a TRP be issued by IRCC, essential medical care will be provided\nthrough the Interim Federal Health (IFH) Program. A vulnerable person, such as a victim of\nGBV, may be without documents or lack resources such as finances, shelter, or family and\nfriends. However, when a potential victim without legal status is identified at a POE or\nInland, and the local IRCC office is unavailable for an interview, the CBSA should ensure the\ncustody and safety of the individual by releasing them on conditions into the care of a NGO,\nin an immigration holding center, or into the care of a family member. The CBSA must\nexercise reasonable care for the victim’s protection and well-being.\nAll encountered victims of family violence or trafficking in persons who are FNs, should\nimmediately be referred to IRCC for an interview on immigration options (which could\ninclude issuance of a TRP.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.35 (Vulnerable persons) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-35-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.35", + "marginal_note": "Vulnerable persons", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Note: The CBSA should immediately contact local Child Protection Services when\nencountering a child who is believed to be a victim of abuse.\n81", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.35 (Vulnerable persons) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-36", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.36", + "marginal_note": "Biometrically enrolled FNs and PRs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.36 Biometrically enrolled FNs and PRs\nBiometrically enrolled FNs and PRs arriving at a POE will have their travel documents\nexamined and their biometrics compared or verified to assist in making an admissibility\ndecision.\nR12.1 lists in which situation biometrics must be collected.\nR12.2(1) lists the persons exempt of having their biometrics collected.\nR12.5 outlines the procedure for biometric verification upon entry to Canada.\nWhen seeking entry to Canada and when directed by an officer or by alternative means of\nexamination, a biometrically enrolled person shall provide their biometrics for verification.\nBiometric Verification – IPIL\nIf the traveller was biometrically enrolled, the biographic data and photo collected at the\ntime of application will be displayed on the IPIL screen under the Bio tab. The BSO will\ncompare the biometric enrollment photo displayed in IPIL to the traveller and will select\nwhether the photo matches or does not match. If the BSO has doubts as to the traveller’s\nidentity, the BSO will refer the traveller to Immigration Secondary for fingerprint\nverification.\nBiometric Verification – PIK with systematic fingerprint verification (SFV)\nBiometrically enrolled travellers who complete their primary processing via PIK with SFV will\nbe prompted by the system to complete a fingerprint verification. A no-match result will\ngenerate a referral to Immigration Secondary.\nAt POEs where PIK does not have SFV integrated, the traveller will not be referred to\nImmigration Secondary but to a referral officer who will do a facial comparison. Should the\nBSO have doubts on the traveller’s identity, they may refer them to Immigration Secondary\nfor fingerprint verification.\nShould the verifications raise doubts regarding the identity of the foreign national, existing\nprocedures will be followed to determine admissibility.\nSee part 11, chapter 7 of the People Processing Manual for further information on the\nprocessing of biometrically enrolled FNs. For guidelines, refer to the Job Aid on Systematic\nFingerprint Verification.\nAlso, BSOs can refer to OBO-2022-02, 2021-HQ-AC-01-19, PRG-2019-07, PRG-2018-69 and\n2018-HQ-AC-OPS-12-11 for more information.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.36 (Biometrically enrolled FNs and PRs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-13-37", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 13.37", + "marginal_note": "Collection of Biometrics at POEs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.37 Collection of Biometrics at POEs\nBiometrics screening helps to keep Canadians safe. The collection (through enrolment) and\nverification of biometrics, along with criminal and immigration screening and biometric-\nbased information sharing, strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration program. This\n82\nhelps prevent identity fraud, identify those who pose a security risk and stop known\ncriminals from entering Canada.\nAs per R12.1 the collection of biometrics at the POE is mandatory for WPs, SPs, TRPs,\nasylum claimants and a limited number of resettled refugees where IRCC has provided a\ntemporary exemption to the biometric requirement as per R12.8. The enrolment can only be\ndone at select Immigration Secondary where there is a LiveScan Kiosk as per R12.001.\nIn order for the biometrics to be automatically associated to the client, the application must\nbe created in GCMS prior to capturing the traveller's fingerprints for enrollment. Should the\nautomatic association fail, BSOs will have to manually associate the biometrics to the\napplication. For additional information on querying the biometrics holding tank in GCMS and\nassociating biometrics, please refer to Search and Associating Biometrics document and\nVideo: GCMS Support for Fingerprints in the Holding Tank.\nFor more information such as guides on enrolling biometrics, please consult the Biometrics\nToolkit on Atlas as well as the LiveScan User Guide and Quick Reference Card.\nAdditional guidance can also be found in OBO-2020-075.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 13.37 (Collection of Biometrics at POEs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 14", + "marginal_note": "Dual intent", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14 Dual intent\nA22(2) states that the intention of a FN to become a PR does not preclude them from\nbecoming a temporary resident if the BSO is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end\nof the period authorized for their stay.\nA person’s desire to await the outcome of an application for permanent residence from\nwithin Canada may be legitimate and should not automatically result in the decision to\nrefuse entry. A BSO at Immigration Secondary should distinguish between such a person\nand an applicant who has no intention of leaving Canada if the application is refused.\nIn rendering a decision, the BSO should consider:\n the length of time required to process the application for PR status;\n the means of support;\n obligations and ties in the home country;\n the likelihood of the applicant leaving Canada if the application is refused; and\n compliance with the requirements of the Act and Regulations while in Canada.\nIn some cases, the BSO may wish to issue a VR documenting the details of the trip for\ncontrol purposes and provide thorough counselling regarding the conditions of entry. The\nBSO should enter remarks in the Notes tab of the application in GCMS detailing their\nreasoning and counselling given, without delay. In cases where the applicant has already\nreceived a favourable recommendation for PR status, the duration of time authorized at the\nPOE should match the time required to complete the processing of the application.\n83", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 14 (Dual intent)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15 Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs)\nA BSO at Immigration Secondary has discretion, pursuant to A24(1), to issue a TRP to an\ninadmissible FN seeking entry to Canada if satisfied that entry is justified in the\ncircumstances. Consult IRCC’s PDI on Temporary Resident Permits for more information.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15 (Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.1", + "marginal_note": "Process at the POE for persons approved for a TRP by a visa", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.1 Process at the POE for persons approved for a TRP by a visa\noffice\n Background: Visa offices that approve TRP applications will generate the TRP\nelectronically in GCMS for issuance at the POE. This process is similar to the present\nprocess being used when a SP or WP is issued by a visa office.\n Letter of introduction: The applicant arrives at the POE with a letter of introduction\nfrom the visa office. The top right-hand corner of the letter has the application\nnumber. BSOs must do an Integrated Name search and not an application number\nsearch in GCMS. This ensures the BSO uses the appropriate application in GCMS.\n Facilitation counterfoil: Visa offices issue a facilitation counterfoil [IMM 1346] to\nFNs who are from a country where a visa is required and have been approved for a\nTRP. This counterfoil allows the FN to board a commercial carrier bound for Canada.\n There are two types of facilitation counterfoils that can be issued to TRP holders\n(single entry or multiple entry):\no When a FN from a visa-required country has been approved by a visa office to\ntravel to Canada to receive a TRP, a counterfoil coded PA-1 will be issued by\nthe visa office.\no When a FN from a visa-required country has been approved by a visa office to\ntravel to Canada to receive a TRP that authorizes re-entry to Canada, the FN\nmust apply at a visa office for a facilitation counterfoil prior to returning to\nCanada. This counterfoil will be provided at no cost and be coded PC-1.\nNote: Officers at Immigration Secondary must counsel the FN that, should they leave, they\nrequire a counterfoil prior to returning to Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.1 (Process at the POE for persons approved for a TRP by a visa)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.2", + "marginal_note": "Issuing a TRP approved by a visa office", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.2 Issuing a TRP approved by a visa office\nThe BSO at Immigration Secondary will do the following:\n Determine whether the FN is still eligible for the TRP by assessing whether there is\nany material change in circumstances and ascertaining whether there are other\ngrounds of inadmissibility since being issued the documentation from the visa office ;\n Retrieve information from GCMS by doing an Integrated Name Search using the\nclient’s bio data;\n Enter the required information, such as contact address in Canada into GCMS;\n Print the TRP on an IMM 1442B form and attach the foreign national’s passport-sized\nphotograph. Should the FN not provide a photograph, it should be taken at the POE;\n Stamp the foreign national’s passport and notate as per the CBSA stamp policy; and\n Counsel FNs from visa-required countries to obtain a facilitation counterfoil by a visa\noffice if they wish to leave and re-enter Canada.\n84", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.2 (Issuing a TRP approved by a visa office)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.3", + "marginal_note": "Process for initiating a TRP at the POE", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.3 Process for initiating a TRP at the POE\nOfficers may issue TRPs when justifiable and with awareness that the document carries\nprivileges greater than those accorded to other temporary residents (visitors, students and\nworkers). It allows the holder to apply inland for a WP or SP and may give access to health\nor other social services. It also allows certain holders who remains in Canada continuously\nfor a specified period of time, and who do not become inadmissible on other grounds, to be\ngranted PR status. Factors to consider prior to issuing a TRP are listed below in section 15.4.\nFor cases involving serious criminal inadmissibility, a brief email outlining the case\ndetails (red flagged to indicate high importance) is to be sent to the CBSA’s Case\nManagement Branch. Referral to IRCC’s Case Management Branch is not required unless the\ncase is high profile or contentious, in which case officers are encouraged to consult with\nIRCC’s Case Management Branch. Detailed remarks must always be included in the\nappropriate systems when documents are issued.\nFor cases involving inadmissibility on health grounds, officers should send a short case\nsummary by email to IRCC’s Migration Health Branch.\nOnce the officer has made the decision to issue a TRP, the following procedures must be\nfollowed to ensure that all elements of the decision-making process are documented and all\npolicies and procedures are adhered to, in accordance with IL 3 – Designation of Officers\nand Delegation of Authority:\n Create a paper TRP file for each client by printing and completing Appendix D’s\nTemporary Resident Permit Checklist.\n Add the foreign national’s contact address in Canada to GCMS.\n Check validity dates and indicate whether the person shall be allowed to leave and\nre-enter Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.3 (Process for initiating a TRP at the POE) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.3", + "marginal_note": "Process for initiating a TRP at the POE", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Collect the $200 processing fee if required (see section 15.6).\n Print the TRP on an IMM 1442B.\n Stamp the foreign national’s passport as per the CBSA stamp policy.\n Counsel FNs from visa-required countries to obtain a facilitation counterfoil by a visa\noffice if they wish to leave and re-enter Canada.\n Counsel the FN about their inadmissibility and the ramifications of that inadmissibility\nfor future trips to Canada (e.g. require a TRP be issued by visa office prior to any\nfuture trips to Canada).\n Create a note in GCMS regarding your justification for issuing a TRP and the\ncounselling given. This is important as it can be referenced if the FN did not heed the\ncounselling given their last trip.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.3 (Process for initiating a TRP at the POE) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.4", + "marginal_note": "Assessment of need and risk when issuing a TRP", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.4 Assessment of need and risk when issuing a TRP\nAn inadmissible person’s need to enter or remain in Canada must be compelling and\nsufficient enough to overcome the health or safety risks to Canadian society.\nOfficers must consider the factors that make the person’s presence in Canada necessary\n(family ties, job qualifications, economic contribution, attending an event) and the intent of\nthe legislation (protecting public health and the healthcare system).\n85\nNote: only IRCC can issue a TRP to victims of human trafficking, suspected victims of\nhuman trafficking, and victims of family violence.\nFactors to consider\nA TRP can be issued for up to three years. Will the TRP be valid for re-entry or for only\none trip?\nCriminality Medical Other\n What was the\nseriousness of the\noffence?\n Did the crime\ninvolve physical\nharm or violence?\n What was the\npunishment\nreceived for the\noffence?\n What are the\nchances of\nsuccessful\nsettlement without\ncommitting further\noffences?\n Were drugs or\nalcohol involved?\n Is there evidence\nthat the person\nhas been reformed\nor is rehabilitated?\n Is there a pattern\nof criminal\nbehaviour?\n Is the person\neligible for a\npardon or\nrehabilitation?\n How long has it\nbeen since the\noffence occurred?\n Is the person suffering\nfrom a communicable\nor contagious disease?\n How severe is the\nperson’s anticipated\nneed for health or\nsocial services in\nrelation to the demand\nfor these services by\nCanadian residents?\n What is the cost of the\ntreatment?\n How will the costs be\ncovered?\n Will provincial public\nhealth insurers\nprovide insurance\ncoverage?\n Is this a first-time visit\nand is the person\nunaware of their\ninadmissibility?\n Is there an economic\nbenefit for Canadians\nif the person is coming\nfor business reasons?\n Is this an urgent\nfamily situation such\nas a funeral, wedding\nor other low-risk\ncompassionate\nreason?\n Is there a pattern of\nprevious or multiple\nviolations of the Act or\nRegulations?\n Are there public\ncontroversial elements\nto the case that\nwarrant a referral to\nNational\nHeadquarters?\n Is there a settlement\nrisk, as persons\ncontinuously on a TRP\nfor a specified period\nof time will be granted\npermanent residence?\n Are there any\nIndigenous cultural\nconsiderations?\n86", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.4 (Assessment of need and risk when issuing a TRP)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.5", + "marginal_note": "GCMS remarks", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.5 GCMS remarks\nWhen issuing a TRP, officers must enter detailed notes, a record of their decision and their\nrecommendation (where applicable) in the Notes tab of the application in GCMS. These notes\nmay be used in future applications, or in enforcement actions, therefore, the notes need to clearly\nexplain the reasons for the decision to issue a TRP, and reflect that the decision was made in\naccordance with all existing policies and procedures. The detailed notes in GCMS must include:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.5 (GCMS remarks)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "The details and reason for seeking entry", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. The details and reason for seeking entry\no Examples of the above should include: the destination, travel dates and the FN’s\noverall reason for the trip (e.g. work, a family matter, a political meeting, etc.)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 1 (The details and reason for seeking entry)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "The allegation of inadmissibility", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. The allegation of inadmissibility\no What section(s) of IRPA and IRPR apply, and describe how the FN is\ninadmissible;\nNote: If the allegation is based on criminality, the remarks must include:\n The circumstances of each offence and the punishment that was imposed or\ncould be imposed if committed in Canada, including all applicable dates.\n The foreign criminal/penal code conviction(s) and its equivalent(s) in the\nCanadian statute in question; *", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 2 (The allegation of inadmissibility)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The officer's reasons for the decision to issue a TRP.", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. The officer's reasons for the decision to issue a TRP.\no This is where the officer is required to explain why the issuance of a TRP is\njustified in the circumstances. Describe how the reason the FN is seeking entry,\noutweighs the risk presented by the FN entering and staying in Canada (the risk is\nbased on the FN's inadmissibility) which is explained with examples above in 15.4.\no Consider the following reasons:\n economic contribution,\n national interest,\n personal reasons,\n political visit,\nministerial intervention;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (The officer's reasons for the decision to issue a TRP.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "How the duration of the TRP was determined, if the condition to confirm departure has", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. How the duration of the TRP was determined, if the condition to confirm departure has\nbeen imposed and what risks have been taken into account in either granting or refusing\nre-entry.\n87", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4 (How the duration of the TRP was determined, if the condition to confirm departure has)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Any available contact information for themselves and/or their Canadian reception (e.g.", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Any available contact information for themselves and/or their Canadian reception (e.g.\nphone number, email, address of accommodation)\n*Officers will encounter cases where the FN has admitted to having criminal convictions, but\nsystems checks do not show the details, and the FN does not know exactly what they were\nconvicted of and/or the foreign criminal/penal code is not accessible. In these cases, officers will\nhave to determine through further questioning, what transpired in order for the FN to have been\narrested/charged/convicted/etc. in order to determine the elements of the offence and to best\nequate the offence to the Canadian Criminal Code or other statute. (e.g. how much time\nincarcerated, was a fine paid, was community service ordered, etc.)\nImportant\n If the TRP has been approved by a designated authority, the name and position of that\ndesignated authority must be recorded in the GCMS notes. See IL 3 – Designation of\nOfficers and Delegation of Authority\n If notes have been entered by any officer other than the examining officer, those notes\nmust be prefaced by who is entering them and who they are being entered on behalf of\n(e.g. The following notes have been entered into GCMS by BSO R. Smith #12345 on\nbehalf of Superintendent B. Hart #23456 who is the designated authority and decision\nmaker in the issuance of this TRP.)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5 (Any available contact information for themselves and/or their Canadian reception (e.g.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.6", + "marginal_note": "Public policy: Fee exemption for certain TRPs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.6 Public policy: Fee exemption for certain TRPs\nCertain TRPs issued to FNs who are inadmissible are fee-exempt under public policy.\nAs of March 1, 2012, a public policy went into effect wherein certain FNs who are\ninadmissible under A36(2) are exempt (one time only) from the fee for a TRP.\nThe fee-exempt TRP may be considered only if all of the following conditions apply:\n The person was convicted of an offence, not including child pornography or any\nsexual offence, and received no term of imprisonment as part of the sentence\nimposed.\n There have been no other convictions or acts committed that would render the\nperson inadmissible.\nThe fee exemption is available to those who meet the criteria even if they have been issued\na TRP in the past.\nBefore issuing the TRP, officers must check GCMS to ensure the one-time fee-exempt TRP\nhas not already been granted. Officers must also counsel the FN that they are inadmissible\nto Canada and that they are being facilitated with a one-time only fee-exempt TRP, that a\n88\nTRP is only issued in exceptional circumstances, and that they should apply for another TRP\nat a visa office if they wish to return to Canada in the future, or to apply for individual\nrehabilitation if they meet the requirements to do so.\nOn January 11, 2012, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism\napproved a public policy that allows BSOs to grant an exemption from the TRP cost recovery\nfee for TWOV/CTP and emergency landing travellers from visa-required countries who find\nthemselves improperly documented (A41) upon arrival in Canada through no fault of their\nown.\nBSOs should make the validity of the TRP coincide with the FN's newly scheduled departure\ntime.\nBSOs issuing TRPs under these circumstances should include the following note in GCMS\nand on the document: “TRP fee exemption granted pursuant to Fee Exemption for\nTemporary Resident Permits Issued to Foreign Nationals in the Transit Without Visa\nProgram, the China Transit Program and Emergency Landing Situations.”\nFor more information on the Cost recovery fee exemption for TRPs for A36(2), consult\noperational bulletin PRG-2012-34.\nFor more information on the Cost recovery fee exemption under the TWOV/CTP and\nemergency landing, consult operational bulletin OBO-2019-040 and IRCC’s PDI on the\nsubject.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.6 (Public policy: Fee exemption for certain TRPs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.7", + "marginal_note": "TRPs issued in high-profile, complex, sensitive or contentious", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.7 TRPs issued in high-profile, complex, sensitive or contentious\ncases\nThe designated authority must inform the CBSA’s Case Management and IRCC’s NHQ\nmailbox by sending a brief email (red-flagged to indicate high importance) outlining the\ncase details when they issue a TRP. Detailed remarks must always be included in the\nappropriate systems when TRPs are issued.\nFor more information on these cases, refer to IRCC’s PDI on the subject.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.7 (TRPs issued in high-profile, complex, sensitive or contentious)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.8", + "marginal_note": "National Interest TRPs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.8 National Interest TRPs\nIn the event that persons approved for a National Interest TRP (NI-TRP) are referred to\nImmigration Secondary, officers will note the special coding of the TRP (PAX-1) and the\ninformation in GCMS and allow the person to proceed as normal. The information in GCMS\nwill indicate the details for the authorization of the TRP, mainly that no TRP document\nwill be given to the subject at the POE, and that the holder of an NI-TRP counterfoil\nissued by the visa office does not require referral to Immigration Secondary at the POE for\nthe sole purpose of processing the TRP.\n89\nIf the holder of an NI-TRP is referred to Immigration Secondary, an email message should\nbe sent to IRCC’s Case Management Branch and the issuing visa office.\nFor more information on NI-TRP, please refer to IRCC OB 463.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.8 (National Interest TRPs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.9", + "marginal_note": "Designated authority to issue a TRP", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.9 Designated authority to issue a TRP\nThe designated authority to issue a TRP could be found in the Instrument of Designation\nand Delegation (IL 3) and is listed below:\nBSO\n A36(2), Criminality\n A39, Financial reasons\n A40, Misrepresentation\n A41, Non-compliance\n A42, Inadmissible family member\nSuperintendent\n A36(1), Serious criminality\n A38, Health grounds\nIRCC NHQ only\n A34, Security\n A35, Human or international rights violations\n A37, Organized criminality\nCancelling a TRP\n Certain CBSA officials have now been added to the list of persons who are\ndesignated by the Minister to cancel TRPs. Previously, only IRCC officials had this\nauthority. For the complete list of persons designated to cancel a TRP, refer to\nitem 106 of the IRCC Instruments of Designation and Delegation (D & D)\nInstruments.\n For more details, please refer to OBO-2019-042.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.9 (Designated authority to issue a TRP)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.10", + "marginal_note": "TRP file folder retention and storage", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.10 TRP file folder retention and storage\nFile folders should be stored in a secure cabinet for two years and then destroyed using an\napproved shredder.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.10 (TRP file folder retention and storage)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.11", + "marginal_note": "Validity of TRPs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.11 Validity of TRPs\n90\nPursuant to R63, a TRP is valid until any one of the following events occurs:\n the permit is cancelled by the delegated authority under A24(1);\n the permit holder leaves Canada without obtaining prior authorization to re-enter\nCanada;\n the period of validity specified on the permit expires; or\n a period of three years elapses from its date of validity.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.11 (Validity of TRPs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-15-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 15.12", + "marginal_note": "TRPs valid for re-entry to Canada", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.12 TRPs valid for re-entry to Canada\nBSOs should be aware that a TRP holder from a country where a visa is required with prior\nauthorization to re-enter Canada may seek entry to Canada without having obtained a\nfacilitation counterfoil [IMM 1346 counterfoil, coded PA-1 or PC-1] from a visa office. In\nthese cases, the TRP holder is to be granted entry to Canada following a favourable\nexamination for identity and admissibility. The fact that they obtained passage to Canada\nwithout the facilitation counterfoil (PA-1 or PC-1 counterfoil) does not render the FN\ninadmissible. However, a TRP holder, if not exempt under R52(2), will be inadmissible if\nthey fail to produce a valid passport or travel document.\nNote: For more information on TRPs, see IRCC’s manual IP 1 and PDI, Temporary Resident\nPermits.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 15.12 (TRPs valid for re-entry to Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-16-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 16.1", + "marginal_note": "Persons under removal order who are refused entry to another", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.1 Persons under removal order who are refused entry to another\ncountry\nA person subject to an enforceable removal order who leaves Canada, but is refused entry\ninto the country they departed to and are subsequently returned to Canada, by force of\ncircumstances, shall be allowed to enter Canada pursuant to R39.\nAlthough a BSO at Immigration Secondary shall allow these persons to enter Canada, they\ncontinue to be subject to removal as the removal order remains unenforced as per\nR240(1)(d). The BSO should ensure that the person is in possession of documentation\nconfirming that they have been refused entry to the country to which they were seeking\nentry. If there has been a lengthy delay between the person’s departure and return, the\nBSO should investigate to ensure that the person has not been authorized to legally enter\nanother country. It is reasonable to expect that the person should be returning to Canada\non the next available flight from the country they had attempted to enter.\nIf the BSO is satisfied that the person was not legally authorized to enter another country,\nthe BSO should counsel the person that they are still under a removal order and that the\npayment of a deposit, the posting of a guarantee or any conditions imposed remain in\neffect.\nThe BSO may impose new conditions or, without a warrant, arrest and detain the person,\nother than a protected person under A55(2), for removal if the BSO is satisfied that the\nperson is a danger to the public or would be unlikely to appear for removal, especially if the\nperson had been in detention prior to departure.\n91\nFor more information, see ENF 10, Removals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 16.1 (Persons under removal order who are refused entry to another)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-16-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 16.2", + "marginal_note": "Persons with certificates of departure who are refused entry to", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.2 Persons with certificates of departure who are refused entry to\nanother country\nIf a person has been issued a Certificate of Departure form [IMM 0056B] on departing\nCanada and is not granted entry to another country, the BSO at Immigration Secondary\nshould cancel the Removal (Certificate of Departure) in GCMS and create a Note indicating\nthat that the person was refused entry to that country and was allowed back into Canada\npursuant to R39(a). The GCMS Notes should state that the person was not authorized to\nlegally enter another country and has not met the requirements of the removal order.\nTherefore, the officer should ensure that there is an enforceable removal order in GCMS (a\nnew removal order may need to be generated). The order remains outstanding and the\nperson is still required to leave Canada. The BSO may consider whether detention is\nappropriate or whether the person can and will voluntarily effect their departure. The BSO\nshould also notify the removal officer, if it was an Inland case, of the situation via email.\nFor guidelines on Certificate of Departure cases, see section 28 of ENF 10, Removals.\nSeizure of documents\nIf the person is in possession of any travel or identity documents, the BSO should consider\nwhether it is appropriate to seize the documents to facilitate their future removal from\nCanada. The documents would be forwarded to the office handling the removal.\nSee section 8 of ENF 12, Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing, for procedures\nrelating to the seizure of documents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 16.2 (Persons with certificates of departure who are refused entry to)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-16-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 16.3", + "marginal_note": "Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.3 Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA)\nUnder R39(b), persons returning to Canada under a transfer order made under the Mutual\nLegal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA) shall be allowed to enter Canada. This\napplies only to persons who, immediately before being transferred to a foreign state under\nthe transfer order, were subject to an unenforced removal order.\nThe MLACMA and treaties implemented under its authority are used by prosecutors, police\nagencies and other government investigative agencies responsible for the investigation and\nprosecution of criminal offences. Assistance provided on a reciprocal basis may include\nactivities such as locating and questioning witnesses, obtaining search warrants, locating\nsuspects and fugitives from justice, obtaining evidence, and transferring persons in custody\nfor the purposes of assisting in investigations or testifying in criminal proceedings.\nThe MLACMA, proclaimed on October 1, 1988, enables Canada to implement treaties, signed\nwith foreign states that oblige Canada to provide legal assistance in the investigation,\nprosecution and suppression of criminal offences. The Minister of Justice is responsible for\nthe implementation of treaties and for the administration of the MLACMA.\n92\nThe provisions of the MLACMA prevail over those of IRPA, except for statutes limiting or\nprohibiting the disclosure of information. The effect of the MLACMA and any treaties that\nflow from it on the CBSA’s operations are limited to three areas:\n facilitating the transfer of persons at POEs;\n taking enforcement action against persons who are allowed to enter Canada for the\npurposes of mutual legal assistance and who violate any of the conditions of an", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 16.3 (Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA)) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-16-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 16.3", + "marginal_note": "Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "authorization to enter Canada granted by the Minister of Justice; and\n exchanging information.\nThe MLACMA allows for testimony, in a foreign state, by officers who, during the\nperformance of their duties, encounter persons wanted for crimes in a foreign state or\ninvolved in criminal activity. Requests for officers to testify in the United States are usually\nmade by the Office of International Affairs, which is a branch of the US Department of\nJustice, to the Canadian Department of Justice. The appropriate course to follow in these\ncases is set out in the MLACMA, the Canada-United States treaty implementing this Act and\nthe related government policies and procedures.\nOfficers who are called to testify should be aware of the Privacy Act, which prohibits the\ndisclosure of personal information unless an international agreement or arrangement exists.\nThere is also a Statement of Mutual Understanding on Information Sharing (SMU) between\nIRCC, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (USINS), and the U.S. Department of\nState (DOS), which allows participants to assist each other in the administration and\nenforcement of their respective immigration laws by providing information that might\notherwise be prohibited under the Privacy Act.\nWhenever possible, the Minister of Justice will provide notice to the responsible immigration\nrepresentative, of the place, date and time of arrival of a person coming to Canada for the\npurposes of mutual legal assistance. The representative will in turn notify the POE\nconcerned to ensure that a BSO is present to facilitate that person’s movement through the\nPOE.\nAuthorizations to enter Canada\nUnder section 40 of the MLACMA, the Minister of Justice has the authority to authorize an\ninadmissible FN to enter Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 16.3 (Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA)) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-16-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 16.3", + "marginal_note": "Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A BSO at the PIL must refer for a secondary examination, any person seeking to come into\nCanada under the authority of an Authorization to Enter Canada, issued by the Minister of\nJustice of Canada.\nPersons arriving at POE and seeking to come forward under an authorization signed by the\nMinister of Justice do not come within the jurisdiction of the CBSA. Such persons are not\nsubject to normal passport and visa requirements, nor can a BSO examine them to\ndetermine admissibility or detain them.\nLaw-enforcement officers will always escort incarcerated persons from one institution to the\nother. Persons who are not incarcerated in a foreign state and who are coming to Canada in\ncompliance with a request made by a Canadian investigative or prosecuting authority will be\nmet at the POE by a police officer.\n93\nIn both cases, the escorting officer or the police officer will present a BSO at Immigration\nSecondary with a copy of the authorization issued by the Minister of Justice. The\nauthorization will indicate the person’s name, citizenship, the destination, the specific period\nof time during which the person is authorized to remain in Canada and any additional\nconditions that the Minister of Justice deems appropriate [subsection 40(1) of the MLACMA].\nThe conditions may include reporting to an Inland office during the person’s stay and may\nbe varied by the Minister of Justice, particularly with respect to the granting of any\nextension of the time period for which the person is authorized to remain in Canada.\nWhen a BSO at Immigration Secondary receives a copy of the authorization to enter Canada\ngranted by the Minister of Justice, the BSO must forward it directly to the regional\nrepresentative responsible for enforcement. The regional representative will ensure that the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 16.3 (Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA)) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-16-3-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 16.3", + "marginal_note": "Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "authorization is sent on for monitoring purposes to the responsible CBSA office in who se\narea the person concerned is authorized to stay.\nA person who comes into Canada under an authorization of the Minister of Justice, and who\nfails to comply with the conditions set out in the authorization is deemed, for the purposes\nof IRPA, to be a person who entered Canada as a temporary resident and remains after the\nperiod authorized for their stay [subsection 40(3) of the MLACMA].\nAssistance and information\nAn inadmissible FN who is unescorted may approach a POE claiming to be coming to Canada\nfor mutual legal assistance purposes. If so, and if no police officer is on site to meet the\nperson, the BSO should immediately contact the International Assistance Group,\nDepartment of Justice Canada, Ottawa, to request confirmation and advice before\nproceeding with the case (telephone: 613-957-4758 or 613-957-4768).\nInformation regarding persons arriving in Canada under the MLACMA is considered\nsensitive. Interception by unauthorized persons may endanger the safety of the escort\nofficer, inmate or other persons. It is imperative that all information regarding these cases\nbe transmitted through secure channels.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 16.3 (Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA)) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-16-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 16.4", + "marginal_note": "Court transfer orders", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.4 Court transfer orders\nA Canadian court can make a transfer order at the request of a foreign state. The Minis ter of\nJustice may approve the transfer of a sentenced inmate from a Canadian prison to a foreign\njurisdiction where the inmate is required to testify in a foreign court or to assist otherwise in\nthe investigation of a crime. The transfer order specifies the name and citizenship of the\ndetainee, the place in Canada at which the term of imprisonment is being served and the\ndate on or before which the detainee is expected to be returned to the original place of\nconfinement in Canada.\nA BSO at the PIL must refer for a secondary examination any person seeking to come into\nCanada on a transfer order of a Canadian court who is returned to Canada for completion of\ntheir sentence.\nPersons returning to Canada under the authority of a transfer order are subject to\nexamination.\n94\nOfficers must check GCMS and assess whether the person is already subject to IRPA\nenforcement and should provide all relevant information to the CBSA Inland En forcement\nofficer managing the case. If the person is not subject to IRPA enforcement, but may be\ninadmissible, officers should gather relevant evidence and forward it to an CBSA Inland\nEnforcement Office closest to the correctional facility.\nFor further details on managing persons serving a sentence and IRPA enforcement options,\nrefer to ENF 22, Persons Serving a Sentence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 16.4 (Court transfer orders)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-16-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 16.5", + "marginal_note": "Persons extradited to Canada from countries other than the U.S.", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.5 Persons extradited to Canada from countries other than the U.S.\nWhen examining a person who is coming to Canada under extradition proceedings from a\ncountry other than the U.S., a BSO should obtain (at a minimum) the following information\nfor control purposes, either from the person being extradited or from the person’s escort:\nStatus Required Information\nCanadian citizen\nperson’s name\nproof of citizenship\nPermanent\nresident\nperson’s name\ndate of birth\ncountry of citizenship\ndate permanent resident status in Canada\nwas obtained\nplace where the trial is to be held\nForeign national\nperson’s name\ndate of birth\ncountry of citizenship\nplace of permanent residence\nplace where the trial is to be held\nIf the extradited person is not a Canadian citizen, a BSO should forward a memorandum\ncontaining all information relevant to the person’s entry requirements (including a copy of a\nTRP, if applicable) to the CBSA inland enforcement office nearest the place where the trial is\nto be held, with a copy to the Director of Enforcement in that region.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 16.5 (Persons extradited to Canada from countries other than the U.S.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-17-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 17.1", + "marginal_note": "FNs seeking entry for medical treatment", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17.1 FNs seeking entry for medical treatment\n95\nWhen evaluating temporary resident applications for medical treatment in Canada, BSOs\nneed to assess both the health and good faith of the applicant.\nIf a FN has a medical condition that could pose a danger to the public health or safety of\nCanadian residents, the BSO will determine if the FN should submit to an Immigration\nMedical Examination (IME) to ensure their health condition does not render them\ninadmissible to Canada under A38(1)(a) or A38(1)(b). Once the medical exam is performed,\nthe results are sent to IRCC Migration Health Branch (MHB) who will issue an opinion\nregarding potential inadmissibility under A38(1).\nWhen requesting a medical admissibility opinion, CBSA officers will refer the request to\nIRCC.MHBIMPN-RITDMDGMS.IRCC@cic.gc.ca. The request must include the following\ninformation:\n Request is for an IRCC MHB opinion of medical admissibility under IRPA.\n Client details such as full name, DOB, POB, UCI, etc.\n A narrative articulating the nature of the request.\n Signed Medical Consent and Authorization form from the client to allow sharing of\nmedical information with IRCC.\nMHB will offer a medical admissibility opinion based on the information provided, normally\nwithin three business days. The medical admissibility opinion may be used as evidence to\nsupport an A44(1) report and subsequently a finding of inadmissibility under A38(1) at an\nadmissibility hearing at the ID.\nIf an applicant is seeking medical treatment that would cause displacement on a waiting list\nfor Canadians, the application should be refused under A38(1)(c).\nPersons coming to Canada for medical treatment are expected to produce evidence of an\nagreement with the treating physicians and institutions that clearly indicates the medical", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 17.1 (FNs seeking entry for medical treatment) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-17-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 17.1", + "marginal_note": "FNs seeking entry for medical treatment", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "condition being treated, the proposed course of treatment and arrangements for payment.\nThe person must satisfy the BSO at Immigration Secondary that all associated expenses,\nincluding travel and accommodations costs, will be discharged without resulting in any cost\nto Canadian health or social services.\nApplicants who provide satisfactory evidence that they will pay the costs of their treatment\n(usually through an agreement with the Canadian treating physician and medical institution)\nand who meet all other requirements for temporary residence, do not require a TRP to enter\nCanada.\nWhere it is determined that the applicant’s circumstances and ability to pay have changed\nsince the letter of agreement was issued, the officer may ask for evidence that the care -\nprovider in Canada is aware of the new circumstances and that payment arrangements are\nnot affected.\nA FN who cannot satisfy the BSO that they will be able to pay for medical services and\ntreatment may be inadmissible under A39.\nFor additional information, see ENF 5, Writing 44(1) Reports, for more information on\nprocedures for dealing with A44(1) reports on inadmissible persons. See also ENF 2,\n96\nEvaluating Inadmissibility, for more information on determining inadmissibility as well as\nENF 1, Inadmissibility.\nPursuant to section 22 of the Canada/Quebec Accord, Quebec’s prior consent is required\nwith respect to foreign visitors entering that province to receive medical treatment.\nForeign nationals who are coming to receive medical care treatment in a Quebec public\nhealth facility must apply for and obtain a Quebec acceptance certificate (CAQ). There are\nno situations where a foreign national would be exempt of this obligation.\nFor more information on this exemption, please refer to section 2.3 Programme de séjour", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 17.1 (FNs seeking entry for medical treatment) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-17-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 17.1", + "marginal_note": "FNs seeking entry for medical treatment", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "temporaire pour traitement médical of the Guide des procédures d’immigration of the MIFI\n(available only in French).\nFor information on FNs coming to Canada for the purpose of giving birth, please refer to\nIRCC guidelines.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 17.1 (FNs seeking entry for medical treatment) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-17-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 17.2", + "marginal_note": "FNs living with HIV/AIDS and the excessive demands criteria", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17.2 FNs living with HIV/AIDS and the excessive demands criteria\nIt is IRCC’s policy that persons with HIV/AIDS do not represent a danger to public health.\nTherefore, a FN with HIV/AIDS seeking entry into Canada would not, in the absence of\ncontrary evidence, be inadmissible pursuant to A38(1) and the BSO would not normally\nrequest a medical examination based on concerns about danger to public health or safety.\nHowever, persons living with HIV/AIDS may be medically inadmissible if they have an\nassociated medical condition that is considered a public health risk such as active\ntuberculosis.\nAnother concern is the excessive demand that may be placed on health or social services by\nany applicant experiencing severe or chronic illness. As with any other FN making\napplication to enter Canada, persons with HIV/AIDS would not normally be expected to\nplace a demand on health services. It is therefore departmental policy that a diagnosis of\nHIV/AIDS is not in itself a barrier to visiting Canada. When making a determination, BSOs\nshould only consider whether it is likely that the person will require hospitalization during\ntheir visit. The carrying of medication used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS is not grounds for\ndenying temporary residence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 17.2 (FNs living with HIV/AIDS and the excessive demands criteria)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 18", + "marginal_note": "Options for dealing with inadmissibility and incomplete", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18 Options for dealing with inadmissibility and incomplete\nexaminations\nA BSO at Immigration Secondary has a variety of options available when an examination\ncannot be completed or when a person is believed to be inadmissible.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 18 (Options for dealing with inadmissibility and incomplete)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-18-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 18.1", + "marginal_note": "Further examination", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18.1 Further examination\nSituations or circumstances may arise where an adjournment is necessary to ensure a\nproper examination by a BSO in Immigration Secondary. For example, a BSO may require\n97\nan interpreter or additional documents, information or evidence to determine admissibility.\nThe facilities may be inadequate or personnel may not be readily available to deal with\nvolumes.\nA23 authorizes a BSO to allow a person to enter Canada for the purpose of further\nexamination or for an admissibility hearing. R43(2) clarifies that persons who are authorized\nto enter Canada for further examinations do not acquire temporary resident or PR status.\nMandatory conditions to be imposed\nWhere the BSO adjourns an examination under A23, R43(1) requires that mandatory\nconditions be imposed:\n to report in person at the time and place specified for the completion of the\nexamination or the admissibility hearing;\n to not engage in any work in Canada;\n to not attend any educational institution;\n to report in person to an officer at a POE, if the person withdraws their application to\nenter Canada; and\n to comply with all requirements imposed on them by an order or regulation made\nunder the Emergencies Act or the Quarantine Act.\nPersons whose examination has been deferred and who fail to report as required for\ncontinuation of their examination may be subject to an arrest warrant for examination. It is\ntherefore very important that officers consider all relevant information and gather contact\ninformation prior to issuing A23. Remarks in the Examination’s Notes tab should be done\nwithout delay and explain the BSO’s reasoning for furthering the examination. In addition,\nFNs may also be reportable for non-compliance under A41(a) and R43(a) and the MD has\nthe competency to issue the applicable removal order under R228(1)(c)(i). The A44 report\ncannot be concluded until the person is encountered at some point in the future. Therefore,\nBSOs should send the file to their nearest Inland Enforcement Office once the warrant is\nissued.\nFor more details, refer to shift briefing bulletin 2021-HQ-AC-07-16.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 18.1 (Further examination)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-18-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 18.2", + "marginal_note": "Direction to leave Canada", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18.2 Direction to leave Canada\nR40 states that an officer who is unable to examine a person who is seeking to enter\nCanada at a POE shall direct the person in writing to leave Canada. This does not apply to\nprotected persons or refugee claimants. The decision to direct a person to leave is\napplicable in cases where a person cannot be properly examined (such as physical\nimpairment due to alcohol or drugs).\nThe BSO must serve a copy of the Direction to Leave form [BSF 503] on the person\nconcerned and on the transporter who brought them to Canada.\nThe direction ceases to have effect when the person appears again at a POE and a BSO\nproceeds to examine the person.\nPlease consult the CBSA Wiki for GCMS functional guidance.\n98", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 18.2 (Direction to leave Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-18-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 18.3", + "marginal_note": "Direct back", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18.3 Direct back\nR41 authorizes an officer to direct a FN seeking to enter Canada from the U.S. to return to\nthe U.S. if:\n no officer is able to complete an examination;\n the Minister is not available to consider, under A44(2), a report made with respect to\nthe person;\n an admissibility hearing cannot be held by the Immigration Division; or\n the FN is prohibited from entering Canada by an order or regulation made by the\nGovernor in Council under the Emergencies Act or the Quarantine Act.\nSee section 18.4 of this manual on how and when to use the direct back policy for refugee\nclaimants at land POE under exceptional circumstances.\nThe FN will be issued a Direction to Return to the United States form [BSF 505] document.\nThe date and location of the examination, the Minister’s consideration of the A44(1) report,\nthe admissibility hearing, or when an officer will be able to examine their application to\nenter Canada once they are no longer prohibited from entering Canada by an order or\nregulation made by the Governor in Council under the Emergencies Act or the Quarantine\nAct are specified on the document.\nA person who has been directed to return to the U.S. pending an admissibility hearing by\nthe Immigration Division and who seeks to come into Canada for reasons other than to\nappear at that hearing, is considered to be seeking entry. If such a person remain s\ninadmissible for the same reasons, and if a member of the Immigration Division is not\nreasonably available, the person may be again directed to return to the U.S. to wait until a\nmember of the Immigration Division is available. In these circumstances it is not necessary\nto write a new A44(1) report.\nThe BSO at Immigration Secondary should bear in mind that time may be required by the\nperson, to allow for travel to the location where they must appear before a member of the\nImmigration Division and that the circumstances may warrant authorizing the person entry,\nat an appropriate time in advance of the scheduled date.\nBSOs should write detailed remarks without delay in the Examination’s Notes tab in GCMS\nconcerning the reasons for issuing a direct back.\nPlease consult the CBSA Wiki for GCMS functional guidance.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 18.3 (Direct back)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-18-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 18.4", + "marginal_note": "Direct back and refugee claimants arriving at the land POEs from", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18.4 Direct back and refugee claimants arriving at the land POEs from\nthe U.S.\nAll efforts should be made to process refugee claimants at the time of arrival. Refugee\nclaimants may only be directed back to the U.S. under exceptional circumstances. In cases\nwhere a direct back must occur for an exceptional circumstance, approval must be obtained\nfrom Travellers Branch, National Headquarters. Also, the Record of Direct Back must be\ncompleted and emailed to the Border Operations Directorate, Travellers Branch pursuant to\nthe instructions provided below. It should be noted that lack of interpretation services\n99\nshould not be considered “exceptional” or used as the basis for directing refugee claimant\nback to the U.S. See section 8.4 of this manual for guidelines on telephone interpretation.\nProcedures to be followed before directing a refugee claimant back to the\nU.S.\nBefore directing a refugee claimant back to the U.S., BSOs are to fully consider the following\noptions:\n If a BSO is not readily available to take the claim, notify the superintendent that\nit may be necessary to request assistance from another POE or to call an officer\nin on overtime.\n Complete the Initial Refugee Claimant Assessment (IRCA) process to determine\nwhether the claimant is low risk and may be authorized to enter for further\nexamination.\n If the claimant is not considered to be low risk, the full refugee intake process\nshould be completed.\n Detain the refugee claimant, if grounds exist. If arrangements cannot be made to\nconduct the front-end security screening examination and grounds exist, the\nclaimant may be detained according to current detention procedures.\nDecision to direct a refugee claimant back to the U.S. under exceptional\ncircumstances", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 18.4 (Direct back and refugee claimants arriving at the land POEs from) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-18-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 18.4", + "marginal_note": "Direct back and refugee claimants arriving at the land POEs from", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Exceptional circumstances are defined as situations where all of the procedures outlined\nabove have been considered and where an examination still cannot be conducted.\nExceptional circumstances could also include sudden or unexpected surges of people or a\nsituation where the health, security or well-being of the refugee claimant would be\nsignificantly impacted and it would not be appropriate for the claimant to wait at the POE or\nbe detained. In 2020-2021, this was the case due to the COVID-19 pandemic.\nThe direct back procedure should not be used in the case of an unaccompanied minor.\nDirect back procedure for refugee claimants under exceptional\ncircumstances\nOnce a BSO has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, the instructions for\ndirecting the claimant back to the U.S., pursuant to R41, are as follows:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 18.4 (Direct back and refugee claimants arriving at the land POEs from) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Approval must be obtained from the Duty Executive, Operations Branch, before", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Approval must be obtained from the Duty Executive, Operations Branch, before\nallowing a direct back to occur. The Duty Executive can be contacted via the Border\nOperations Centre (613-960-6001).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 2 (Approval must be obtained from the Duty Executive, Operations Branch, before)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The refugee claimant must be provided with a scheduled appointment to return to", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. The refugee claimant must be provided with a scheduled appointment to return to\nthe POE to have their refugee eligibility examination completed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (The refugee claimant must be provided with a scheduled appointment to return to)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "The Refugee Claim Application in GCMS should be completed and a further", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. The Refugee Claim Application in GCMS should be completed and a further\nexamination event should be created reflecting the details and date upon which the\nclaimant is scheduled to return to the POE.\n100", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4 (The Refugee Claim Application in GCMS should be completed and a further)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "The refugee claimant should be issued a Direction to Return to the United States", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. The refugee claimant should be issued a Direction to Return to the United States\nform [BSF 505] stating the date, time and location of the scheduled examination and\nthe claimant is to be advised accordingly. At the POE where local arrangements are\nin place or can be made, the BSO or Superintendent should seek assurances from\nthe U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the claimant can be made available to\nreturn to Canada for their scheduled examination.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5 (The refugee claimant should be issued a Direction to Return to the United States)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "The BSO must complete the attached Record of Direct Back Template (Appendix C)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6. The BSO must complete the attached Record of Direct Back Template (Appendix C)\nfor all refugee claimants that are directed back to the U.S. The template must be\nsent within one business day of the direct back or on the next business day for late\narrivals with the subject line reading “direct back” to the following two email\naddresses:\no OPS_TRAVELLERS-VOYAGEURS@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca\no CBSA.Traveller_Immigration_Prog-Prog_immigration_voyageurs.ASFC@cbsa-\nasfc.gc.ca", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 6 (The BSO must complete the attached Record of Direct Back Template (Appendix C))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-18-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 18.5", + "marginal_note": "Detention for examination", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18.5 Detention for examination\nPursuant to A55(3)(a), a PR or FN may, on entry into Canada, be detained if the BSO at\nImmigration Secondary considers it necessary to do so in order for the examination to be\ncompleted.\nFor detailed procedures on A55(3)(a), refer to ENF 7, Immigration Investigations and IRPA\ns. 55 Arrest/Detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 18.5 (Detention for examination)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-18-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 18.6", + "marginal_note": "Allowing the withdrawal of an application to enter Canada", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18.6 Allowing the withdrawal of an application to enter Canada\nAllowing a person to withdraw their application to enter Canada is an option a BSO at\nImmigration Secondary has to permit a FN, whom the BSO believes is inadmissible or if the\nFN took a wrong turn and had no intention to come to Canada, to leave Canada.\nIf a BSO examines a FN seeking entry and the person is believed to be inadmissible, the\nofficer may allow the person to voluntarily withdraw their application to enter the country\nand leave Canada.\nUnder R42, the officer who examines a FN who is seeking to enter Canada and who has\nindicated that they want to withdraw their application to enter Canada shall allow the FN to\nwithdraw their application, unless R42(2) applies.\nR42(2) provides that a FN shall not be allowed to withdraw their application to enter Canada\nwhere a report under A44(1) is being prepared or has been prepared, unless the Minister\ndoes not make a removal order or refer the report to the ID for an admissibility hearing. In\nother words, once an officer writes an A44(1) report, the allowed to leave option may only\nbe exercised at the MD level.\nBefore writing an inadmissibility report under A44(1), officers should determine whether the\nobjectives of the IRPA are better served by allowing the person to voluntarily withdraw their\napplication to enter Canada pursuant to R42.\nIf a person is allowed to leave Canada voluntarily, officers should counsel the person as\nfollows:\n101\n inform the person why they are believed to be inadmissible;\n inform the person that if they leave Canada voluntarily, they will be free to seek\nentry to Canada once the factor causing inadmissibility has been overcome; and\n inform the person of the possible consequences of an A44(1) report, including the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 18.6 (Allowing the withdrawal of an application to enter Canada) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-18-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 18.6", + "marginal_note": "Allowing the withdrawal of an application to enter Canada", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "possibility of an admissibility hearing and/or a removal order being made against\nthem.\nIf a person is allowed to leave Canada voluntarily, the officer or MD must give the person an\nAllowed to Leave Canada form (IMM 1282B).\nR42(3) provides that FNs who are allowed to withdraw their application to enter Canada\nmust appear without delay at a POE to verify their departure from Canada.\nSometimes a person who is being allowed to withdraw their application to enter Canada is\nauthorized to enter Canada pursuant to A23 when a flight is not immediately available to\naffect their departure.\nNo matter the situation, BSOs should write detailed remarks in the Notes tab of the\nExamination in GCMS without delay.\nR37(c) provides that the examination of the FN ends only when the officer verifies their\ndeparture from Canada.\nPlease consult the CBSA Wiki for GCMS functional guidance:\n￭ Allowed to Leave Canada by MD\n￭ Allowed to Leave Canada by Officer", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 18.6 (Allowing the withdrawal of an application to enter Canada) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-19", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 19", + "marginal_note": "Examinations that may lead to prosecution", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19 Examinations that may lead to prosecution\nImmigration examinations relate to admissibility and, for the most part, the infractions\nidentified during this process result in enforcement actions leading to removal. During the\nexamination, BSOs may encounter serious offences that may warrant further investigation\nfor the purposes of a criminal prosecution. It is important that BSOs are aware that the\nadmissibility determination process does not include gathering evidence as part of a criminal\ninvestigation.\nThis section also addresses the arrest of Canadian citizens who are found to have commit ted\nan offence under IRPA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 19 (Examinations that may lead to prosecution)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-19-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 19.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedures", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19.1 Procedures\nThe BSO must make a determination of admissibility. In order to make a determination,\nBSOs collect information under the regulatory examination process. After the admissibility\ndecision has been reached and if the BSO suspects a criminal offence under A117 to A131\nhas occurred, the officer must advise the person of their rights under the Charter and\ncaution them before proceeding with any further examination including questioning the\nindividual. Criminal Investigations Division (CID) should also be contacted before further\nexamination.\n102\nGenerally, if information is lawfully collected for the purpose of an admissibility examination,\nthat information can be subsequently used as part of a criminal investigation or prosecution.\nThe BSO must ensure they can clearly articulate to the court when the information was\nobtained for the regulatory purposes to make the determination of admissibility and when\nthe officer started to examine further for evidence of a potential criminal offence while\nensuring the individual’s rights were not violated. The officer must be able to articulate how\neach question asked is relevant to their role in making an admissibility determination and\nthat the individual was advised of their rights under the Charter and was cautioned once the\nBSO believed a criminal offence had occurred. Failure to do so can have a negative impact\non the outcome of the case. For this reason it is imperative that the BSO take detailed\nnotes. This is particularly important if the person willingly provides information after being\ncautioned.\nIn accordance with any accepted local procedures, and in consultation with their\nsuperintendent, BSOs should continue to use their discretion in deciding when to refer a\ncase to the CID or local police for investigation but they must also be aware of the potential\nconsequences of continuing an examination after the administrative process is complete and\nonce a criminal offence is suspected. When in doubt, it is best to advise the individual of\ntheir rights and caution them regarding making any statements to protect the admissibility\nof those statements should the case end up being referred to CID.\nRefer to section 4.1 of this manual for legislative powers and authorities to examine and\nseize.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 19.1 (Procedures)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-19-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 19.2", + "marginal_note": "Criminal Code offence discovered by a designated officer", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19.2 Criminal Code offence discovered by a designated officer\nSubsection 163.4(1) of the Customs Act authorizes the President to designate any officer for\nthe purposes of Part VI.1 of the Act; this authority is usually delegated to the Regional\nDirector General. These officers are referred to as “designated officers”. Subsection\n163.5(1) of the Customs Act states that a designated officer, when at a customs office and\nperforming the normal duties of an officer, or acting in accordance with section 99.1 has, in\nrelation to a criminal offence under any other Act of Parliament, the powers and obligations\nof a peace officer under sections 495 to 497 of the Criminal Code, and subsections 495(3)\nand 497(3) of that Act apply to the designated officer as if they were a peace officer. It\nshould be noted that this does not apply to criminal offences under the Customs Act or the\nImmigration Refugee Protection Act, as the expanded authorities under subsection 163.5(1)\nof the Customs Act are not required for an officer to arrest for offences under those Acts.\nAs soon as a designated officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has\ncommitted an offence under the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament, the\nexamination under IRPA is to be temporarily suspended.\nA superintendent should be consulted immediately. The CID, the police agency of\njurisdiction or the Regional Intelligence Officer must also be contacted for further guidance\nas soon as possible. The officer may arrest the individual in accordance with section 495 of\nthe Criminal Code. The detainee must be immediately advised of their right to retain\ncounsel and cautioned regarding making statements. PRs and FNs are also to be informed of\ntheir right to have the nearest representative of their government notified of their arrest\nand detention as per the Vienna Convention.\n103\nThe immigration examination resumes once the person is released and taken to a CBSA\nofficer. For further information, refer to sections 19.5 and 19.6 below.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 19.2 (Criminal Code offence discovered by a designated officer)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-19-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 19.3", + "marginal_note": "Arrest and caution", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19.3 Arrest and caution\nSubject to the limitations set out in subsection 495(2) of the Criminal Code, the person may\nbe arrested under subsection 495(1) if there are reasonable grounds to believe he or she\nhas committed an offence. The individual must then be promptly informed of the reasons for\nthe arrest and of the right to retain counsel as well as be cautioned regarding making\nstatements. PRs and FNs must also be informed of their right to have the nearest\nrepresentative of their government notified of their arrest and detention as per the Vienna\nConvention. Refer to the CBSA Enforcement Manual, Part 6, Chapter 1, Arrest and Detention\nfor the policy and procedures.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 19.3 (Arrest and caution)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-19-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 19.4", + "marginal_note": "Canadian citizens", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19.4 Canadian citizens\nOn rare occasions, evidence of a Canadian citizen committing an offence under IRPA will be\nuncovered at the POE. Should the BSO decide to proceed with an arrest, they are to caution\nand arrest the Canadian under the authority of subsection 495(2) of the Criminal Code as\nnoted in section 19.3 of this manual.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 19.4 (Canadian citizens)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-19-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 19.5", + "marginal_note": "Note-taking", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19.5 Note-taking\nAs officers may be required to provide testimony in court proceedings several months after\na referral to the CID or police has been made, diligent note taking is essential to establish\nwhy certain actions were taken and what the predominant purpose of the officer’s actions\nwas at the time. It is important to note that it is the court’s interpretation of the BSO’s\ntestimony of the events supported by the notes that will determine whether the\ninformation/evidence obtained during the administrative process is admissible in court.\nTherefore, notes should include the events leading to the referral to CID or the police and\nthe time the person was placed under arrest and advised of their rights and cautioned.\nComments and statements made by the subject must be recorded verbatim. Notes must\nalso identify the officers and superintendent involved in the case, including those implicated\nin the chain of custody.\nThe chain of custody, or continuity of evidence, must be ensured in order to meet the\nrigorous evidentiary standards applied in criminal courts. Material evidence should be\nremoved from the person’s possession and taken into custody immediately upon detection.\nThe seized evidence must be kept in view and under the control of the officer. When an\nassisting BSO watches over goods or evidence, this officer becomes part of the chain of\ncustody and could be called as a witness: therefore, the assisting BSO should also maintain\nnotes. Refer to the CBSA Enforcement Manual, Part 8, Chapter 1, Notebooks, for more\ninformation regarding the CBSA officers’ policy for use of the notebooks.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 19.5 (Note-taking)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-19-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 19.6", + "marginal_note": "Completing suspended examinations of FNs (refer to section 19.2)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19.6 Completing suspended examinations of FNs (refer to section 19.2)\nA BSO may encounter circumstances where it is appropriate to suspend the immigration\nexamination to allow a criminal process to proceed. The subject will be placed under arrest\nfor the offence and advised of their rights and cautioned. The BSO must also issue a warrant\nfor arrest pursuant to A55(1) with a Warrant for Arrest form [BSF499] and an Order of the\n104\nCanada Border Services Agency to Deliver Inmate form [BSF498] pursuant to A59 in order\nto ensure that the examination is completed once the person is released after the criminal\nproceedings. Inland Enforcement Investigations must be informed to ensure effective follow\nup.\nFor additional information, please refer to ENF 7, Immigration Investigations and IRPA s. 55\nArrest/Detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 19.6 (Completing suspended examinations of FNs (refer to section 19.2))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-20", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 20", + "marginal_note": "Unauthorized border crossings", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "20 Unauthorized border crossings\nA BSO who becomes aware that a person is attempting an unauthorized border crossing\nshould first notify the RCMP or police of jurisdiction. The primary responsibility for patrolling\nbetween the border rests with the RCMP. The CBSA Investigations Division should also be\nnotified.\nOfficers shall not attempt to stop persons fleeing to or from Canada in high-risk situations\n(e.g. to establish roadblocks to stop port runners or to participate in vehicle pursuits). In\nthese situations, officers are required to ensure that officer and public safety is maintained\n(e.g. open a lane and clear traffic from the area).\nSome points to remember are the following:\n BSO should not attempt to investigate an unauthorized border crossing and should\nrefer the unauthorized crossing to CID.\n BSOs shall follow the provision of the CBSA Directive on Use of Force and\nReporting and the CBSA SOP on Use of Force and Reporting, when they believe that\nthe use of force is justified in the course of administering or enforcing Program\nLegislation.\n BSOs who are trained and certified in defensive tactics and are in possession of\ndefensive equipment are expected to manage situations up to such point that the\nBSO believes that the limit of their training and personal abilities has been attained.\nWhere these limits have been reached, the BSO shall permit the individual to\nproceed into Canada and immediately notify the police force of jurisdiction.\n BSOs should use communication equipment to keep in contact with the POE, should\nthey require assistance.\n BSOs may consider requesting that the CID lay changes under A124 if an\ninvestigation determines that a person has eluded examination or entered Canada by\nimproper means.\n If the BSO has sufficient information relating to the identity of the person who failed\nto appear for examination (e.g. examination started but person left POE before end\nof examination), and the person is a foreign national, BSO should also issue an\nimmigration arrest warrant for examination.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 20 (Unauthorized border crossings)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-21", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 21", + "marginal_note": "Media Cases", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21 Media Cases\nWhen high-profile, contentious or sensitive cases are identified or are in the national media,\nBSOs must follow the procedures outlined below to inform NHQ.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 21 (Media Cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Inform and consult the immediate superintendent once it is suspected that the case", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Inform and consult the immediate superintendent once it is suspected that the case\nmeets the criteria of a high-profile, contentious or sensitive case.\n105\no More information on the types of cases that are potentially high-profile is\navailable on IRCC’s Handling high-profile, complex, sensitive or contentious\ncases page.\no Superintendents are also to report significant events, as outlined in the\nIncident Reporting Criteria, to the Border Operations Centre (BOC) while\nrespecting regional reporting protocols that are in place .", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 1 (Inform and consult the immediate superintendent once it is suspected that the case)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Inform NHQ by sending an email that includes", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Inform NHQ by sending an email that includes\no “High-Profile Case” followed by the subject’s last name and given name in\nthe subject line.\no The applicant’s name, date of birth, file number and/or client identification\nnumber (if applicable).\no A case chronology, including case-specific details and a summary of the\nreason(s) the case is, or has the potential to be, high-profile.\no Any action taken or recommendations to resolve the case (if applicable); and\no Any other pertinent information.\no The following distribution list:\n Immigration Program Manager (overseas cases) or manager or\nsupervisor (inland cases);\n NHQ-NAT-High-Profile-Haut-profil@cic.gc.ca (which includes NHQ-\nCommunications-Cases@cic.gc.ca ; the current Director General and\nSenior Director of Case Management Branch and the Office of the\nAssistant Deputy Minister);\n Case-Management, CBSA-NHQ case-management@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca\n Nat_National_Security_Coordination@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca; and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 2 (Inform NHQ by sending an email that includes)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Use the Single Reporting Tool (SRT) to report a significant event to the BOC and", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Use the Single Reporting Tool (SRT) to report a significant event to the BOC and\nfollow up, as necessary, to keep information up to date and ensure case notes are\ndetailed and able to feed into briefing documents, if required.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (Use the Single Reporting Tool (SRT) to report a significant event to the BOC and)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Refer any communication-related responsibilities to NHQ Communications. Any cases", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Refer any communication-related responsibilities to NHQ Communications. Any cases\nthat have implications in Canada (including those cases that initiate overseas) also\nneed to be coordinated with Communications in the affected region.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4 (Refer any communication-related responsibilities to NHQ Communications. Any cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.1", + "marginal_note": "DART overview", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.1 DART overview\nDisembarkation screening refers to the rapid verification by BSOs that airline passengers\npossess travel documents. Under A15(3), an officer has the authority to board and inspect a\nvehicle and to examine and record documents carried by a person on board a vehicle.\nThe purpose of screening disembarking passengers is to identify and segregate persons not\nin possession of passports or travel documents from the normal flow of passengers. In\naddition, inadmissible travellers who may pose a risk or who are otherwise inadmissible can\nbe identified through intelligence-based indicators such as identified trends, lookouts and\nAdvanced Passenger Information/Passenger Name Record (API/PNR) information received\nfrom the National Targeting Centre’s (NTC) Targeting Travellers unit (TT).\nDisembarkation screening also enables a BSO to identify which airline has carried an\nimproperly documented passenger to Canada and ensures that the CBSA can levy\nadministration fees and removal costs against a liable transporter. When two international\nflights arrive within a brief period of time, for example, passengers from each flight may\n106\nintermingle at the PIL. This can make it difficult to determine which carrier brought an\nimproperly documented passenger to Canada and to properly assess liability.\nOn-board inspections, disembarkation screening, pre-PIL roving and post-PIL activities are\npart of the examination continuum. At these preliminary checks, the DART officer does not\ndo a full examination and does not make a decision to authorize or deny entry. Instead, the\nofficer verifies that a passenger has the necessary documentation and refers undocumented\nand suspected inadmissible persons to Immigration Secondary for an in-depth examination.\nThis does not usurp the authority of the PIL as DART referrals do not bypass the PIL.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.1 (DART overview)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.2", + "marginal_note": "DART mandate and objectives", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.2 DART mandate and objectives\nAs a part of the CBSA’s mandate to manage access to Canada, the mandate of DART is to\nincrease the CBSA’s capacity to:\n identify improperly documented or otherwise inadmissible FNs;\n associate improperly documented FNs to commercial transporters to promote\ncompliance with the CBSA’s administrative programs;\n identify and interdict individuals who pose a threat to the health, safety and security\nof Canada including persons who pose a security threat, serious criminals, human\nsmugglers, human and international rights violators, and persons engaged in trans -\nnational organized crime; and\n analyze and contribute to the intelligence pool on illegal migration trends and\npatterns.\nThe objectives of DART are to:\n use intelligence, trend and statistical analysis and other innovative passenger\nassessment techniques (i.e., API/PNR referrals) to improve secondary examination\nreferrals;\n identify, intercept and control passengers who pose a danger, security threat, or are\na flight risk;\n monitor and promote transporter compliance by linking undocumented persons with\ntransporters;\n assist in the collection of evidence for immigration admissibility reports and\nprosecutions;\n assist in the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence related to travel\nroutes used by illegal migrants and smuggling networks;\n promote cooperation, coordination and the exchange of information with partner\nagencies;\n maintain a professional, responsive and visible presence to deter inadmissible\npersons from entering Canada; and\n remove fraudulent documents from circulation thereby preventing their future\nfraudulent use.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.2 (DART mandate and objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.3", + "marginal_note": "DART activities", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.3 DART activities\nDART activities can vary from one POE to another due to operational requirements, differing\npriorities and other considerations. Specific DART activities can include:\n107\n inspection of airline passengers for possession of passports and travel documents\nand required visas;\n searches of aircraft for discarded or hidden documentation;\n searches of Customs Controlled Areas (CCA) for discarded or abandoned\ndocumentation;\n seizure of documents;\n roving in designated CCA to detect human smugglers and persons discarding\ndocuments;\n completing certain examinations and case files on high-risk cases such as suspected\nhuman smugglers;\n compilation and maintenance of intelligence data, statistics and daily logs;\n internal information-sharing within the CBSA (local office, other POEs, Criminal\nInvestigations intelligence offices, overseas liaison officers [LO]);\n external information-sharing (Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Global Affairs\nCanada (GAC), Office of the Solicitor General, airlines) depending on specific\nagreement with each partner;\n targeting and passenger assessment of flights;\n establishing transporter liability;\n interviewing passengers at Immigration Secondary;\n collection and analysis of officer case notes;\n GCMS and ICES searches/queries;\n use of internal communications systems; and\n analysis of statistical and other relevant records.\nAlthough DART officers are BSOs, their primary function is to perform DART activities. When\ncircumstances permit, however, or when a superintendent requires emergency support,\nDART officers should offer their assistance to the on-site superintendent.\nFor more information on the Customs Controlled Areas, please refer to CBSA Enforcement\nManual part 6, chapter 9.\nMinimal delay to travelling public\nDisembarkation screening by DART teams should be completed as quickly and efficiently as\npossible. To ensure that the bona fide travelling public is not unduly disrupted or delayed,\nthe POE superintendent should ensure that an appropriate number of officers are assigned\nto screen passengers, taking into consideration the different sizes of aircraft and passenger\nvolumes.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.3 (DART activities)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.4", + "marginal_note": "Intelligence-based targeting of airline flights", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.4 Intelligence-based targeting of airline flights\nDART officers propose and confirm flights to be screened with their on-site superintendent\nbased on tactical intelligence identifying flights and persons of interest to the CBSA.\nDetermining which flights to target for disembarkation screening is based on the following:\n lookouts and intelligence information;\n advance passenger information received from NTC’s TT unit;\n trend analysis;\n flights of heightened interest to the CBSA;\n point of embarkation;\n108\n number of passengers on board;\n size of the aircraft;\n estimated time of arrival of the next flight to be monitored; and\n number of officers available to conduct disembarkation checks.\nWhile all carriers should be the target of periodic disembarkation screening, those carriers\nwith a history of carrying undocumented passengers may be subject to more frequent\nscreening.\nSpecific case information is received and analyzed by DART teams through:\n in-person client interviews at Immigration Secondary;\n officer case notes;\n FOSS history checks, GCMS searches and SSI reports;\n reports provided by the CBSA’s Immigration Intelligence Branch;\n statistical reports;\n liaison officers located around the world who provide information on illegal migration\nand smuggling trends;\n NTC’s TT officer that provides API and PNR information on arriving passengers; and\n other agencies such as the RCMP.\nIn a reciprocal manner, DART officers contribute to the intelligence pool with trend and\nillegal traffic information that is used by the liaison officer network to interdict inadmissible\ntravellers abroad and deny them boarding on flights to Canada. Information gathered from\nDART intercepts is entered in the Support System for Intelligence (SSI) that is used by the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.4 (Intelligence-based targeting of airline flights) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.4", + "marginal_note": "Intelligence-based targeting of airline flights", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "CBSA’s intelligence officers in Canada and abroad to monitor and analyse illegal migration\nand human-smuggling trends. Additionally, DART officers ensure that suspected human\nsmugglers and others in possession of fraudulent documents are referred to the CID. Cas es\nof potential human trafficking should be referred to the CID and Intelligence for further\ninvestigation and liaison with partners.\nIntelligence support\nThe DART officers provide an integral operational link within the CBSA’s intelligence and\nliaison officer networks overseas. These are major resources for DART teams and can\nprovide valuable assistance in identifying human smuggler routings. The two-way exchange\nof information also provides the opportunity to interdict inadmissible persons abroad and\ndeny them the opportunity to board flights to Canada.\nRegional intelligence officers can provide a variety of services, which may include :\n document examination training;\n document analysis;\n emerging trend information; and\n SSI analytical reports.\nLiaison officers are located in key locations around the world and play an integral part of the\nscreening, identification and interception of improperly documented persons trying to enter\nCanada. Together with DART officers, they form part of the continuum of the passenger\nassessment process that begins abroad and continues on arrival in Canada. They are both\nkey elements in Canada’s multiple-border strategy.\n109\nAPI/PNR liaison\nNTC’s Targeting Travellers unit uses advance passenger information to identify known\ninadmissible persons and passenger name records analysis to assess individuals who may\npose a potential risk prior to their arrival in Canada. This enables DART officers to use their", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.4 (Intelligence-based targeting of airline flights) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.4", + "marginal_note": "Intelligence-based targeting of airline flights", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "limited resources more strategically to target flights and persons of interest.\nThis is key to the intelligence-based targeting of flights by DART officers. While NTC’s TT\nunit provide strategic information about the arrival of persons linked to terrorist\norganizations, criminal activity and other factors that render them inadmissible, DART acts\non this intelligence information to intercept inadmissible persons immediately on arrival.\nPassengers who pose security or flight risks can be quickly intercepted and maintained in a\ncontrolled environment pending their examination.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.4 (Intelligence-based targeting of airline flights) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.5", + "marginal_note": "DART procedures", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.5 DART procedures\nNotification to partners\nWith as much lead time as possible and in accordance with local procedures, DART officers\nshould notify partners such as Transport Canada and RCMP officials of the flights they\nintend to screen and of other pre-PIL roving activities.\nPre-disembarkation procedures\nDART officers should verify that proper communication (i.e., radio contact) has been\nestablished with the on-site superintendent before leaving the office to perform\ndisembarkation checks. Superintendent should remain in continual contact for updates,\nemergencies and requests for assistance.\nBoarding flights and gate checks\nDART officers should, whenever possible, be gate-side at least five minutes before the\nflight’s scheduled arrival time.\nDART members will then make a final decision as to which level of disembarkation check is\nto be performed. The airline representative must be advised of the level of disembarkation.\nFurthermore, a request should be made to the airline to ensure that an announcement is\nmade on board the flight to prepare the passengers (levels I and II only). This\nannouncement should clearly indicate to passengers that the CBSA will be doing a check to\nensure that they possess the necessary documentation to enter Canada and that they\nshould have their documentation ready for presentation. Only then will the disembarkation\nscreening proceed.\nDocument screening is conducted on board the aircraft, at a point as close to the exit of the\naircraft as possible, or wherever else deemed appropriate by the DART officer. Normally,\nofficers will proceed down the aisle and allow passengers whose documents have been\nverified to leave the aircraft.\n110\nWhen boarding flights and conducting gate checks, DART officers should be mindful of the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.5 (DART procedures) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.5", + "marginal_note": "DART procedures", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "fact that they are in an excellent position to pass information along to the officers at the\nPIL. If a DART check of a passenger does not turn up any immigration concerns, but strong\nindicators are present that the particular traveller may be of interest to Customs, DART\nofficers should make every effort to inform the officer at the PIL or an officer at Customs\nSecondary examination of these indicators to assist them in completing their examination.\nLevel I (boarding the flight): A minimum of two officers is required to do a check at this\nlevel.\nDART members will conduct level-one disembarkation checks in the following manner:\n in a two-aisle aircraft, officers should stay parallel to each other in their\nrespective aisles while doing document checks;\n in a single aisle aircraft, at least one officer checks documents on the left side of\nthe aircraft and another officer, in single file with all other officers, completes the\nright side of the aircraft; and\n in a Boeing 747, at least one officer proceeds to “the bubble,” while another\nofficer checks documents of the passengers in first class. Once those sections\nhave been completed, officers then proceed to economy class. It is preferable\nthat at least three officers check this type of aircraft.\nThe officers inspect passports, travel documents and visas for authenticity. If any concerns\narise regarding a particular document, the document may be held for further examination.\nIf a person is suspected to be improperly documented, without documentation or otherwise\ninadmissible, they will be instructed to remain seated, and their documents will be held. In\nthis instance, the flight attendant should be approached to determine if the passenger is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.5 (DART procedures) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.5", + "marginal_note": "DART procedures", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "travelling alone. If confirmed, the disembarkation check can be resumed. If another person\naccompanied the passenger, the documents of that passenger should be held as well. A\nrequest can be made to the flight attendant to ensure that the passenger and their\ntravelling companion(s) remain seated until the completion of the check.\nAirlines may be requested to hold persons on board an aircraft under the authority of\nA148(1)(b) and R261.\nAfter the disembarkation check has been completed, the officer will:\n1. search the improperly documented passenger’s seat, any companion’s seat and the\nimmediate vicinity, including washrooms, to locate any documentation that may be\nhidden or discarded;\n2. determine if the passenger is sitting in their originally assigned seat. If the person is\nnot in their originally assigned seat, search that area as well;\n3. complete a BSF 453 form confirming the passenger’s presence (see section on\nimproperly documented passengers below for procedures on completing the BSF 453\nform); and\n4. inform the flight director or crew of the conclusion of the check and thank them for\ntheir assistance.\nUpon completion of the disembarkation check, DART members will:\n111\n1. escort the improperly documented arrival (IDA) to the crew counter in the PIL area\nso that the BSO at the PIL can complete the primary examination;\n2. once the primary examination is complete, escort the IDA to Immigration Secondary;\nand\n3. surrender any documentation and provide details of the case to the on-site\nsuperintendent .\nDART members will not be obligated to report any individuals, but when circumstances\nallow, DART officers will offer their assistance to the superintendent .\nIf no passengers require an escort, but documents have been held, DART officers will", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.5 (DART procedures) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-5-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.5", + "marginal_note": "DART procedures", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "proceed to the Immigration Secondary examination area as soon as practicable to explain\nthe rationale for the seizure. If no documents have been held and there is no one to be\nescorted, team members can proceed directly to the next flight.\nLevel II (gate screening): A minimum of two officers is required to do a check at this\nlevel.\nDART members will conduct level-two disembarkation checks in the following manner:\n stand facing each other in the area where the boarding finger meets the terminal\nbuilding so that the disembarking passengers must pass between the officers; and\n confirm that each person has a passport, or other required documentation.\nIf a passenger presents satisfactory documentation, the officer will allow the passenger to\nproceed to the PIL.\nDepending on the circumstances, the officer may instruct the passenger to wait in an area\nin plain view of at least one officer or continue to the PIL if one of the following situations\noccurs:\n a passenger is not in possession of any travel documents; (in this instance, the flight\nattendant should be approached to determine if the passenger is travelling alone and\nto confirm their seat number. A document search should be conducted as in level I);\n the officer is not satisfied with documents presented; or\n the officer suspects the person to be inadmissible for any other reason.\nDART members will hold the document and, in the latter case, the passenger may be given\na receipt. If required, officers may ask for the assistance of airline personnel to maintain\nvisual contact with those persons instructed to wait.\nUpon completion of a disembarkation check, DART members will:\n1. escort the IDA to the crew counter in the PIL area so that the BSO at the PIL can\ncomplete the primary examination;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.5 (DART procedures) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-5-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.5", + "marginal_note": "DART procedures", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. once the primary examination is complete, accompany the IDA to Immigration\nSecondary; and\n3. surrender any documentation and provide details of the case to the on-site\nsuperintendent.\n112\nDART members will not be obligated to report any individuals but, when circumstances\nallow, DART officers will offer their assistance to the superintendent.\nIf no passengers require an escort, but documents have been held, officers will proceed to\nImmigration Secondary as soon as practicable to explain the rationale for the seizure.\nHolding documents during the course of an examination does not constitute a seizure\naction. If the person is to depart the POE without their document (i.e. A23) or go into\ndetention, then it becomes a seizure and a BSF698 Notice of Seizure of Travel and/or\nIdentity Document(s) must be completed.\nIf no documents have been held, and there is no one to be escorted, team members can\nproceed directly to the next flight.\nLevel III (flight observation): A check at this level is performed when only one officer is\navailable.\nThis type of disembarkation screening is usually completed for low-risk flights, or when\nflight-arrival times are scheduled close together. This level of screening should also be\nconsidered when staffing levels prohibit officers from doing a level I, or level II\ndisembarkation check or, in a special circumstance, where surveillance i s required.\nDART members will conduct this level of disembarkation check in the following manner:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.5 (DART procedures) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Inform the airline representative at the gate that an officer will be observing the", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Inform the airline representative at the gate that an officer will be observing the\nflight and will not be requiring passengers to present their passports as they\ndisembark the aircraft. Also, they should specify that no announcement to the\npassengers should be made.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 2 (Inform the airline representative at the gate that an officer will be observing the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Position themselves at a suitable distance, while ensuring that there is a clear view", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Position themselves at a suitable distance, while ensuring that there is a clear view\nof the passenger flow from only the targeted flight.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (Position themselves at a suitable distance, while ensuring that there is a clear view)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "While observing the passengers, officers make suitable notes with regards to", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. While observing the passengers, officers make suitable notes with regards to\npassengers who may be of interest to Immigration Secondary, and those\naccompanying them.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4 (While observing the passengers, officers make suitable notes with regards to)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Officers may ask individual passengers for documentation if there is a strong", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Officers may ask individual passengers for documentation if there is a strong\nsuspicion that they may have improper documents, or no documents at all.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5 (Officers may ask individual passengers for documentation if there is a strong)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Generally, it is most beneficial to follow the passengers down to the PIL area. This", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6. Generally, it is most beneficial to follow the passengers down to the PIL area. This\nwill allow officers the opportunity for further observation and may prevent the\ndestruction or discarding of documentation in garbage containers or washrooms.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 6 (Generally, it is most beneficial to follow the passengers down to the PIL area. This)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "If DART members are not proceeding directly to the Immigration Secondary area,", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7. If DART members are not proceeding directly to the Immigration Secondary area,\nthey should inform the on-site superintendent of the outcome of the disembarkation.\nIf required, DART members should relay any observations, their location and, if\nrequired, request assistance.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 7 (If DART members are not proceeding directly to the Immigration Secondary area,)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "At the earliest convenient break in disembarkation checks, go to the Immigration", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8. At the earliest convenient break in disembarkation checks, go to the Immigration\nSecondary area to link any identified improperly documented arrivals with the carrier\nused to convey them to Canada, referring to the notes taken while observing the\ndisembarkation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 8 (At the earliest convenient break in disembarkation checks, go to the Immigration)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "If an undocumented passenger who the DART officer observed disembarking a flight", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9. If an undocumented passenger who the DART officer observed disembarking a flight\nis encountered in the Immigration Secondary area, the DART officer should complete\na BSF 453 form in accordance with procedures. If it is not practical to complete a\nBSF 453 form, the DART officer shall complete a statutory declaration as soon as\npossible.\n113\nUpon completion of all necessary paperwork, DART members may now advise the on-site\nsuperintendent and proceed to the next flight planned for disembarkation.\nRoving DART activities\nIn addition to boarding flights and conducting gate checks, DART officers conduct roving\nexercises in the Customs Controlled Areas (CCA) area to identify other irregular activities\nsuch as the destruction or handing of documents to an escort or smuggler. DART officers\nengaged in pre-PIL roving may ask a BSO at the PIL for a specific person to be referred to\nImmigration Secondary. All DART referrals must pass through the PIL before being sent to\nImmigration Secondary. DART officers may engage in post-PIL activities when they have\ntargeted suspected human smugglers or other suspected inadmissible persons when new\ninformation has come to light after the passenger has cleared the PIL.\nImproperly documented passengers\nIf an improperly documented passenger is encountered, the officer should complete a\nConfirmation by Transporter Regarding Passenger(s) Carried form [BSF 453] at the earliest\nopportunity, either during disembarkation screening or as soon as the passenger has been\nescorted to the PIL and to the Immigration Secondary area. The local airline representative\nis also required to sign the form. If the representative refuses to sign, the DART officer\nshould place a note on the form accordingly. If it is not practical to complete a BSF 453\nform, the DART officer shall complete a statutory declaration stating which flight the IDA\ndisembarked and outlining details about the lack of documentation.\nSince passengers normally have documents at the time of boarding, it is possible that\nimproperly documented passengers have hidden or destroyed their documents en route.\nUndocumented and other inadmissible passengers identified by DART must be presented at\nthe PIL for completion of Customs’ procedures and then escorted to the Immigration\nSecondary area for a complete examination.\nOnce IDAs have been identified, the DART member must ensure that:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 9 (If an undocumented passenger who the DART officer observed disembarking a flight)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "An airline representative has signed a BSF 453, when possible, for the passenger’s", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. An airline representative has signed a BSF 453, when possible, for the passenger’s\narrival on their airline, and thanked for their assistance.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (An airline representative has signed a BSF 453, when possible, for the passenger’s)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Should a disembarkation check be performed and IDAs not be identified until their", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Should a disembarkation check be performed and IDAs not be identified until their\narrival in Immigration or Customs Secondary, a request can be made to the airline\nstaff to visually identify that person and sign the BSF 453 form confirming their\npresence on their flight. Airline personnel cannot be compelled to sign a BSF 453\nform. If airline personnel refuse to sign the BSF 453 form, a note should be made on\nthe form accordingly. If it is not practical to complete a BSF 453 form, the DART\nofficer shall complete a statutory declaration form [IMM 1392B].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4 (Should a disembarkation check be performed and IDAs not be identified until their)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "The passenger is escorted, if necessary, to the Immigration Secondary area only", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. The passenger is escorted, if necessary, to the Immigration Secondary area only\nafter they have cleared the PIL and the on-site superintendent is informed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 5 (The passenger is escorted, if necessary, to the Immigration Secondary area only)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "The CCA are checked for possible smugglers.", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6. The CCA are checked for possible smugglers.\n114\nReporting improperly documented passengers\nIn all cases where an improperly documented person has been detected, a BSO should:\n create a physical file ensuring that all secured documents are placed in the file;\n take a photograph and fingerprints of the person and place copies in the file;\n place copies of any documents found in the person’s possession in the file;\n ensure that the passenger, their carry-on luggage and their checked luggage are\nsearched for documentation;\n obtain a flight manifest when possible;\n clearly make a note on the file to indicate whether disembarkation screening has\nbeen done so that the person entering SSI data may check “yes” in the\ndisembarkation-screening field; and\n when entering SSI, check “yes” when asked “BSF 453 completed”, if applicable or\nadvise person entering SSI to do so.\nNote-taking\nDART officers should make note of the date, time and flight number in their notebooks or\nDART logs and record any information that may be relevant to the examination or\nprosecution of passengers. Keeping a written record of this information may be useful if the\nofficer is later called to testify in court. More information on officer note-taking is available\nin ENF 7, Immigration Investigations and IRPA s. 55 Arrest/Detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 6 (The CCA are checked for possible smugglers.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.6", + "marginal_note": "Communication and cooperation with partners", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.6 Communication and cooperation with partners\nWithin the CBSA\nThe CBSA airport staff should keep one another, as well as their regional and national\nheadquarters, informed of DART developments. All such communications should be\nmaintained on the master regional and/or national headquarters’ file.\nWith partners\nThe CBSA should consult Transport Canada, the RCMP and airline representatives at the\nPOE regarding any changes to disembarkation screening procedures that affect the\nconfiguration or operation of local facilities. Good communication among partners is\nessential to ensure cooperation and to minimize disruption of airport operations and delays\nto passengers.\nDART officers should provide feedback to agencies and individuals who have initiated a\nDART action, while keeping in mind privacy legislation. This would include timely updates\nand outcomes from referrals, lookouts or general information that was provided to the DART\nteam. DART officers are encouraged to participate in orientation sessions with partners to\nfurther their understanding of the requirements of IRPA and its Regulations and to promote\ncooperation and the exchange of information. DART officers should be vigilant for\nopportunities to engage partners and participate in joint activities that would promote\nunderstanding and cooperation.\n115\nWith the CBSA Immigration and Customs Enforcement Team (ICET)/\nFlexible Response Team (FRT)\nThe CBSA has Immigration and Customs Enforcement Teams (ICET), also known as Flexible\nResponse Teams (FRTs), that occasionally operate pre-PIL in a manner similar to the CBSA’s\nDART teams. Both DART and ICET/FRT report to the Enforcement Division, which is run by\nthe Chief of Enforcement Operations. DART and ICET/FRT should make every effort to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.6 (Communication and cooperation with partners) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.6", + "marginal_note": "Communication and cooperation with partners", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "communicate on a daily basis to enhance the understanding of each other’s activities and to\ncoordinate the targeting of flights whenever possible. While DART and ICET/FRT have\ndifferent mandates and often target different flights, occasionally it will be operationally\nbeneficial for both teams to target the same flights. In these instances, both teams are\nrequired to coordinate their activities to enhance effectiveness and to minimize delays to the\ntravelling public. Among other things, ICET/FRT officers can assist with document\nverification and the search for documents aboard aircraft.\nWith airlines\nIt is essential that carriers understand and support disembarkation screening. POE\nsuperintendent should initiate and maintain frequent communications with local airline\nmanagers and clearly explain the purpose, procedures, and legislative foundation for\ndisembarkation screening.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.6 (Communication and cooperation with partners) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.7", + "marginal_note": "Suspected human smugglers", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.7 Suspected human smugglers\nDART officers must accompany any suspected human smugglers to the PIL, then to the\nCustoms Secondary area for a thorough search. DART officers should identify themselves to\nthe BSO at the PIL and have the suspected human smuggler referred to both Immigration\nand Customs Secondary areas.\nIf evidence of human smuggling is discovered, the DART officer should immediately contact\nthe Criminal Investigations Division. The DART officer should then escort the person to\nImmigration Secondary for an immigration examination to determine citizenship and\nadmissibility.\nIf no evidence of human smuggling is discovered, the DART officer should accompany FNs\nto Immigration Secondary for examination to determine admissibility. Where the person\nprovides satisfactory verbal or documentary proof that they are a Canadian citizen, the BSO\nauthorizes the person to enter Canada at that point. It is not necessary to refer Canadian\ncitizens to Immigration Secondary if the BSO is satisfied that they have that status.\nDocumentation may be photocopied at Customs Secondary if necessary for further\ninvestigation or intelligence purposes.\nDART officers should notify their superintendent of all cases of suspected human smuggling\nand forward the case information to their Criminal Investigations office and regional\nintelligence office.\n116", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.7 (Suspected human smugglers)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.8", + "marginal_note": "Potential prosecutions", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.8 Potential prosecutions\nDART officers are instrumental in identifying and gathering evidence to prosecute human\nsmugglers and traffickers. DART officers can play a key role in identifying, documenting,\nassessing, referring and assisting the RCMP or CBSA Criminal Investigations (depending on\nthe charge) in the laying of charges under IRPA and the Criminal Code.\nWhen there is a concern that charges should be considered, the BSO and/or the CBSA\nEnforcement Division should ensure that the CBSA Criminal Investigations and Intelligence\nare contacted and provided the details of the case. If the RCMP or CBSA Investigations\nconducts an investigation, the BSO and/or Enforcement Division should notify their\nsuperintendent or supervisor immediately.\nBSOs must be familiar with the heightened evidentiary requirements for prosecutions.\nDocuments for a criminal charge must be transferred and secured in a manner that is\nconsistent with the Canada Evidence Act.\nChronicled statements must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See\nsection 7.1 of manual ENF 12, Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing, relating\nto seizure, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.\nWritten declarations should be completed and confirmed with the CBSA Investigator or the\ninvestigating RCMP officer. In situations where a statement is taken from a passenger, the\nresponsible officer should make every attempt to make the passenger availabl e for the\nCBSA Investigator or the RCMP to interview. The declaration form is IMM 1392B.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.8 (Potential prosecutions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.9", + "marginal_note": "Interviewing Canadian citizens, PRs and persons registered under", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.9 Interviewing Canadian citizens, PRs and persons registered under\nthe Indian Act\nDART officers must be cognizant of the change in the legal obligation of the individual when\ndealing with PRs, persons registered under the Indian Act and Canadian citizens and\nconduct the interview accordingly. Any statement made in response to an officer’s question\nmay be inadmissible in court if the person has not been given the proper cautioning prior to\nmaking the statement.\nDART officers should utilize these opportunities to inform partner agencies of Immigration\nSecondary’s role with respect to the specific case and the reasons for the actions taken. This\nmay include instances where no action is taken at that specific time. In these instances,\nDART officers must use the utmost care to ensure that the partner agency does not perceive\nImmigration Secondary as unwilling to act, but rather understands the inability to proceed\ndue to legal restrictions.\nWhen examining Canadian citizens, persons registered under the Indian Act and PRs, DART\nofficers must:\n1. confirm that the person concerned is in fact a Canadian citizen, persons registered\nunder the Indian Act or PR;\n2. receive permission from the person to conduct an interview, or to examine any\ndocumentation in their possession;\n3. collect any evidence that may link the person to an improperly documented arrival;\n117\n4. if no evidence exists, then conclude the interview and thank them for their\ncooperation. If evidence of aiding and abetting exists, contact the CID immediately\nregarding the possible laying of charges. If the investigator attends, properly transfer\nall evidence relating to the charge to them. If the investigator does not wish to\nattend, then conclude the interview and thank the person for their cooperation; and\n5. in all cases where evidence exists, a note should be added to GCMS detailing the\noccurrence. Also, all pertinent details should be relayed to Immigration Intelligence.\nEvidentiary requirements may place DART officers in the best position to complete reports\nof this nature.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.9 (Interviewing Canadian citizens, PRs and persons registered under)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.10", + "marginal_note": "Training", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.10 Training\nAll DART officers are required to be certified in Control and Defensive Tactics (CDT) training.\nIn addition, DART officers should generally have a minimum of one year’s experience as an\nexamination officer at the POE. This is to ensure that the officers are fully aware of the\nCBSA’s mandate, objectives, and policies and have a good working knowledge of operational\nprocedures, internal communication systems and statistical analysis and have recent\nexperience in interviewing clients.\nDART officers also need to be aware of the principles and dynamics underlying and\nmotivating human behaviour, the influences of cultural differences, attitudes and behaviour\nand of departmental interviewing techniques. DART officers are usually required to complete\nup to two weeks’ training that may include courses on:\n DART orientation;\n airline responsibilities;\n fraud document detection;\n immigration intelligence orientation;\n Jetway training;\n evidence and criminal charges;\n CSIS profiles and interviewing techniques;\n cross-cultural awareness;\n anger management;\n first aid and CPR;\n note-taking;\n Customs Controlled Areas; and\n processing Indigenous travellers.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.10 (Training)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.11", + "marginal_note": "Uniforms and appropriate protective and defensive equipment", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.11 Uniforms and appropriate protective and defensive equipment\nDART officers are required to wear their uniform while on duty in accordance with the\nUniform Policy. DART officers are also required to wear appropriate protective and defensive\nequipment including protective vests, OC spray, baton, handcuffs and duty firearm (where\napplicable) when working outside of the secure office setting.\nAny divergence from the standard uniform or equipment complement must be approved by\nlocal management and must be consistent with national guidelines.\n118", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.11 (Uniforms and appropriate protective and defensive equipment)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-22-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 22.12", + "marginal_note": "Statistical and intelligence reports", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.12 Statistical and intelligence reports\nFor audit purposes, POEs must keep an accurate record of the flights where a\ndisembarkation screening has taken place. The daily Action Reports should reflect the\nreason the flights were selected and the number of improperly documented passengers that\nwere identified. These reports may be used as evidence by the Transporter Obligations\nProgram’s Industry Compliance Unit when assessing the fees to be levied on carriers.\nDART superintendents are responsible for compiling (from the daily Action Reports) a\nmonthly report of DART activity during the previous month. The monthly reports should\ncontain statistics on the number of disembarkations performed, the number of improperly\ndocumented FNs intercepted, as well as other DART actions initiated through referrals by\nIntelligence, NTC’s Targeting Travellers unit, the RCMP, the airlines or other sources.\nNHQ Intelligence Branch will provide regular Intelligence reports to NHQ Ports and Border\nManagement, regional headquarters and airport DART superintendent about overseas\ninterceptions by Liaison Officers.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 22.12 (Statistical and intelligence reports)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-23", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 23", + "marginal_note": "Alternate means of examination (AME)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "23 Alternate means of examination (AME)\nR38 lists alternative means of examination that may be used instead of appearing at a POE\nfor an examination by a BSO. Refer to ENF 29, Alternative Means of Examination Programs\nfor more information.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 23 (Alternate means of examination (AME))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-23-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 23.1", + "marginal_note": "Trusted Traveller Programs (TTPs)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "23.1 Trusted Traveller Programs (TTPs)\nTTPs are designed to expedite the border clearance process for pre-approved, low-risk\ntravellers. TTPs such as CANPASS, NEXUS, FAST and CDRP are available to U.S. and\nCanadian citizens and PRs. Successful applicants are issued authorizations to present in an\nalternate manner such as photo identity cards. Persons holding these authorizations are still\napplying for entry, but their examination will be expedited as background checks regarding\ncriminality and previous immigration and customs infractions have been completed.\nSee People Processing Manual, pt. 3 for more information on TTP.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 23.1 (Trusted Traveller Programs (TTPs))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-24-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 24.1", + "marginal_note": "API information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "24.1 API information\nThe Passenger Information (Customs) Regulations, as well as R269, obligate all commercial\nair carriers/commercial transporters to provide the CBSA with Advance Passenger\nInformation (API) relating to all persons on board, or expected to be onboard, the\ncommercial conveyance travelling to Canada prior to, and at, the time of departure from the\nlast point of embarkation of persons before the conveyance arrives in Canada, despite the\nfinal destination or transit port. The information is sent electronically. This enables the NTC-\nTT officers to conduct pre-arrival targeting, security, criminality and FOSS history checks\nand GCMS searches on the travellers prior to their arrival in Canada.\n119\nAPI consists of the following data elements, mostly contained in the machine-readable\nzone (MRZ) of most passports and travel documents:\na) their surname, first name and any middle names, their date of birth, their citizenship or\nnationality and their gender;\n(b) the type and number of each passport or other travel document that identifies them and\nthe name of the country or entity that issued it;\n(c) their reservation record locator number, if any;\n(d) the unique passenger reference assigned to them, if any, by the person who is required\nto provide information or, in the case of a crew member who has not been assigned a\nunique passenger reference, notice of their status as a crew member;\n(e) any information about the person in a reservation system of the person who is required\nto provide information or in a reservation system of the representative of such a person;\nand\n(f) the following information about their carriage on board the commercial conveyance:\n(i) if the person is carried or is expected to be carried on board the commercial", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 24.1 (API information) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-24-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 24.1", + "marginal_note": "API information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "conveyance by air, the date and time of take-off from the last point of embarkation\nof persons before the commercial conveyance arrives in Canada or if the person is\ncarried or is expected to be carried on board the commercial conveyance by water or\nland, the date and time of departure from the last point of embarkation of persons\nbefore the commercial conveyance arrives in Canada,\niii) the last point of embarkation of persons before the commercial conveyance\narrives in Canada,\n(iii) the date and time of arrival of the commercial conveyance at the first point of\ndisembarkation of persons in Canada,\n(iv) the first point of disembarkation of persons in Canada, and\n(v) in the case of a commercial conveyance that carries persons or goods by air, the\nflight code identifying the commercial carrier and the flight number.\nThe API data elements are captured at the time of check-in when the machine-readable\nzone of the passport or travel document is swiped or entered manually.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 24.1 (API information) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-24-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 24.2", + "marginal_note": "PNR information", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "24.2 PNR information\nThe Passenger Information (Customs) Regulations, as well as R269, obligate all commercial\nair carriers/commercial transporters to provide the CBSA with Passenger Name Record\n(PNR) information relating to persons on board the commercial conveyance travelling to\nCanada at the time of departure from the last point of embarkation of persons before the\nconveyance arrives in Canada, despite the final destination or transit port. The information\nis sent electronically and is matched, in PAXIS, with the API data provided. This enables the\n120\nNTC officers to conduct pre-arrival targeting, security, criminality and FOSS history checks\nand GCMS searches on the travellers prior to their arrival in Canada.\nThe PNR information available in a transporter’s reservation system can be extensive, and\nthe data elements captured will vary for each transporter. Some transporters do not have\nPNR systems in use for some flights and thus are not obligated to provide the data for those\nflights.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 24.2 (PNR information)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-24-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 24.3", + "marginal_note": "Disembarkation and Roving Team (DART)", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "24.3 Disembarkation and Roving Team (DART)\nPrior to a commercial vehicle’s arrival in Canada, the NTC-TT unit will analyse the API and\nPNR information, enter required lookouts in ICES, and ensure that the BSOs and the DART\nreceive detailed information on persons who may be inadmissible to Canada. The NTC-TT\nhave the decision-making ability to flag a person, prior to their arrival at the PIL, for referral\nto Immigration Secondary.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 24.3 (Disembarkation and Roving Team (DART))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "25 Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the\nCanadian Police Information Centre (CPIC)\nThe primary objective for entering data on PDPs into the CPIC is to enhance public safety\nand security by providing peace officers with the necessary information to form reasonable\ngrounds that the person may be arrested without a warrant, as per A55(2)(a). The CPIC-\nPDP database will equip peace officers across Canada with information that a FN has been\ndeported from Canada, has returned to Canada without authorization as required by A52(1)\nand, at the time of the person’s removal, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the\nperson is a danger to the public or is unlikely to appear.\nAfter a name is queried in the CPIC and it is a direct match to a person found in the PDP\ndatabase, the information on the CPIC will instruct law enforcement partners to contact the\nWarrant Response Centre (WRC) for further assistance.\nInformation on individuals in the CPIC-PDP database originates from FOSS/GCMS. For more\ninformation on this subject, see ENF 10, Removals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25 (Entering data on previously deported persons (PDP) into the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25.1", + "marginal_note": "POE procedures for completing the Authorization to Return to", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "25.1 POE procedures for completing the Authorization to Return to\nCanada (ARC) application\nThe completion of Authorization to Return to Canada (ARC) applications is normally the\nresponsibility of visa offices. However, on occasion, the POE is required to deal with\nindividuals where completion of an ARC application is necessary. Therefore, Authorization to\nReturn to Canada application functionality in GCMS is accessible at POE and the authority to\ngrant or deny the ARC has been designated at the POE to the Chief of Operations level (see\nIL 3, CIC IDD: Instrument of Designation and Delegation, item 88).\nThe Authorization to Return to Canada application functionality is used to record the\nprocessing and disposition (approval or denial) of an ARC, regardless of the type of removal\norder (i.e., exclusion order cases where written authority is required). When granting an\nARC, an ARC application must be completed in GCMS.\n121\nBefore a physical copy of the Authorization to Return to Canada Pursuant to Subsection\n52(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act form [IMM 1203B] is issued, the\napplicable cost of $400 must be collected and, if CBSA/IRCC paid for their removal,\nrecovery fees must be collected.\nFNs must repay the following:\n $750 for removal to the U.S. or Saint-Pierre and Miquelon [R243(a)]; or\n $1,500 for removal to any other destination [R243(b)].\nRecovery payment must be entered into the Travellers Entry Processing System (TEPS), and\nthe K21 form must be completed using the code 48455, Repayment of Removal Costs, as\nthe cost recovery type.\nFor more information on the repayment of removal costs, please refer to ENF 10, Removals.\nThere are currently no exemptions to the cost recovery fee for an ARC. When authorization\nto return to Canada has been denied, the officer must indicate the denial in the Authority to\nReturn to Canada application in GCMS and issue a Denial of Authorization to Return to\nCanada Pursuant to Subsection 52(1) of IRPA form [IMM 1202B].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25.1 (POE procedures for completing the Authorization to Return to)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25.2", + "marginal_note": "Completing an ARC application in GCMS", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "25.2 Completing an ARC application in GCMS\nThe Authorization to Return to Canada application functionality is accessible in GCMS. The\nperson must be an existing client in FOSS/GCMS and a removal order or PDP document\nmust exist. For more information on completing an Authorization to Return to Canada\napplication in GCMS, refer to GCMS Help or the user guide on the CBSA GCMS Wiki.\nAn ARC can be completed by a BSO designated by the responsible manager to have GCMS\naccess to create ARC documents.\nNote: The rationale for the decision to Approve or Refuse must be fully explained in the\nNotes tab without delay.\nThe completed ARC application will be recorded in GCMS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25.2 (Completing an ARC application in GCMS)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25.3", + "marginal_note": "Amending an ARC decision in GCMS", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "25.3 Amending an ARC decision in GCMS\nIn exceptional circumstances, there may be occasions where a BSO has issued an ARC and\ninformation is later revealed that the document was issued in error. BSOs should take note\nthat once the Decision field has been completed and the document finalized, the ARC cannot\nbe re-opened and amended. This is because a positive decision will have electronically\nremoved the person’s record from CPIC-PDP. It is therefore imperative for BSOs to be sure\nof their decision before completing the ARC in GCMS. The document can be edited until the\nDecision field has been filled. Should unanticipated circumstances occur requiring that the\ndecision be changed after the ARC has been finalized, the following protocol must be\nfollowed:\n122\nTo reverse a positive decision\nAn email must be sent to Warrant Response Centre (WRC) with a short explanation\nrequesting to re-enable the PREV.DEP flag. Copy and paste the email sent to WRC into the\nNotes tab of the ARC.\nTo reverse a negative decision\nA new ARC must be created, choose Approved in the Final Assessment menu, explain the\nreason for the reversal in the Notes tab. There is no need to advise the WRC.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25.3 (Amending an ARC decision in GCMS)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25.4", + "marginal_note": "Effect of ARC decisions on the PDP database", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "25.4 Effect of ARC decisions on the PDP database\nWhere there is a PREV.DEP flag enabled in FOSS/GCMS, the effect of the ARC will be as\nfollows:\n a decision to GRANT an ARC will disable the PREV.DEP flag in FOSS/GCMS, remove\nthe person from the PIL “Hit List” and automatically remove the record from CPIC; or\n a decision to DENY an ARC will maintain the PREV.DEP flag in FOSS/GCMS, cause the\nclient to remain on the PIL “Hit List” and maintain the record in CPIC.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25.4 (Effect of ARC decisions on the PDP database)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-25-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 25.5", + "marginal_note": "Remedial action at POEs", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "25.5 Remedial action at POEs\nPerson is in possession of an ARC but PREV.DEP flag still enabled\nBSOs at Immigration Secondary must be prepared to deal with a person who is referred\nfrom the PIL because a PREV.DEP flag appears against the person’s name when queried.\nWhen a referred individual is in possession of an ARC and is still flagged as PREV.DEP in\nFOSS, the following remedial action must be taken:\n If an examination of FOSS historical notes and GCMS notes satisfies the BSO at\nImmigration Secondary that a positive ARC decision was made and the fees\ncollected, but the visa officer neglected to create an ARC application in GCMS on\nwhich to record the decision, the officer, upon authorizing entry into Canada, must\ncreate an ARC application in GCMS in order to disable the PREV.DEP flag and remove\nthe record from CPIC-PDP.\n If an examination of FOSS/GCMS notes indicates that the visa officer issued an ARC\nin error, without considering the need for written authorization to return to Canada,\nthe decision to grant or deny such authorization rests with the BSO at Immigration\nSecondary.\nEntry denied on other inadmissibility grounds\nThere may be circumstances where a BSO at Immigration Secondary will deny entry to\nCanada on new inadmissibility grounds to a previous deportee who has been authorized to\nreturn to Canada by a visa officer (and therefore the PREV.DEP flag will have already been\ndisabled by the ARC). In such circumstances, BSOs should understand that the requirement\n123\nto obtain authorization to return to Canada has been overcome by the granting of the ARC\nand they should not be exploring ways in which they can re-enable the PREV.DEP flag.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 25.5 (Remedial action at POEs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-26", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 26", + "marginal_note": "Foreign Missions and International Organizations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "26 Foreign Missions and International Organizations\nAct (FMIOA)\nThe Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act (FMIOA) extends privileges and\nimmunities to foreign missions and certain international organizations that operate and/or\nhold meetings or conferences in Canada. Section 5 of the FMIOA provides that an order in\ncouncil (OIC) can be signed by the Governor in Council with respect to certain international\norganizations. The OIC accords international organizations and their representatives\nprivileges and immunities outlined in certain sections of the Convention on the Privileges\nand Immunities of the United Nations and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.\nThe OIC can remain permanently in force [such as the OIC that grants privileges and\nimmunities to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) headquarters in Montreal]\nor can be signed to cover a specific meeting or conference of an international organization\nheld in Canada (such as G8 meetings). Finally, the OIC can be signed to encompass all of\nthe provisions in section 5 of the FMIOA, or can limit which privileges and immunities will be\naccorded.\nOn April 30, 2002, a new subsection of section 5 of the FMIOA came into force.\nSubsection 5(4) states that “In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between an\norder [OIC] made under subsection (1) and any of sections 33 to 43 of the Immigration and\nRefugee Protection Act, the order [OIC] prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or\nconflict.“ This means that representatives of international organizations covered by an OIC\nof the Governor in Council are not subject to the inadmissibility provisions of IRPA. These\nrepresentatives are not to receive any additional documentation, such as TRPs. They shall\nbe granted temporary resident status in the normal manner. If officers feel there is a need\nto further document the arrival of one of these representatives, a Client Note can be\nentered in GCMS.\nNHQ will receive advance notification of all OICs of the Governor in Council, the regions and\nports may be given alternate directions when applicable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 26 (Foreign Missions and International Organizations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-27-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 27.1", + "marginal_note": "Background", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "27.1 Background\nThorough POE examinations are necessary to ensure the safety of all Canadian citizens, PRs\nand visitors to Canada. Secondary examinations are, for the most part, considered routine\nand should not be viewed as an accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the traveller.\nEnforcement flags are generated when an immigration enforcement action was previously\nrecorded in FOSS or in GCMS and is linked to the IPIL database. Upon seeking entry to\nCanada at the PIL, persons who have been the subject of previous enforcement actions may\nbe automatically referred to Immigration Secondary due to an active enforcement flag\ncontained in their FOSS/GCMS record. A person may discuss the issue with the POE officer\nthe next time they seek entry into Canada.\n124\nAlthough FOSS/GCMS will always retain a traveller’s immigration enforcement history, it is\npossible to amend these enforcement flags. The determination to request a flag amendment\nis made at the discretion of the BSO and cannot be guaranteed. All enforcement history\nremains intact in FOSS/GCMS, but the flag may be modified from the IPIL database so that\nit no longer generates a mandatory referral at the PIL. Furthermore, only past enforcement\nflags will be considered, ensuring that if any enforcement action were to take place in the\nfuture, the enforcement flag would automatically be reactivated.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 27.1 (Background)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-27-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 27.2", + "marginal_note": "Considerations", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "27.2 Considerations\nWhen determining an enforcement flag amendment, the following questions should be\nconsidered:\n How often does the traveller visit Canada?\n What was the infraction?\n Is there a history of enforcement actions?\n Was the traveller a minor at the time of the enforcement action?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 27.2 (Considerations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-27-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 27.3", + "marginal_note": "Procedures for amending an enforcement flag", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "27.3 Procedures for amending an enforcement flag\nIndividual officers should not contact the Operations Support Centre directly for an\nenforcement flag amendment. Officers must follow the procedures below:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 27.3 (Procedures for amending an enforcement flag)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Check FOSS history (all records) and GCMS records via GCMS Integrated Search to", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Check FOSS history (all records) and GCMS records via GCMS Integrated Search to\nensure that the client has only one unique client identifier (UCI). In cases where\nmore than one UCI exists, household the UCIs by following the instructions in WIKI\nbefore amending an enforcement flag.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 1 (Check FOSS history (all records) and GCMS records via GCMS Integrated Search to)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Conduct a CPIC/U.S National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check on each client", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Conduct a CPIC/U.S National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check on each client\nthat was previously reported for criminal inadmissibility to ensure that the client is\nno longer criminally inadmissible to Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 2 (Conduct a CPIC/U.S National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check on each client)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Where an Info Alert is the reason for the flag at IPIL, BSO who are MDs and", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Where an Info Alert is the reason for the flag at IPIL, BSO who are MDs and\nsuperintendents have the authority to expire them by following Step 11 of the\nProcessing guide of an Info Alert.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 3 (Where an Info Alert is the reason for the flag at IPIL, BSO who are MDs and)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Where it is due to a Failed (negative) Admissibility Assessment in GCMS, BSOs must", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Where it is due to a Failed (negative) Admissibility Assessment in GCMS, BSOs must\ncreate a new Examination and Pass (positive) the Admissibility Assessment. Refer to\nthe step-by-step on the Wiki page for procedures.\nFor more information on this, consult OBO-2020-011 and PRG-2017-38.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 4 (Where it is due to a Failed (negative) Admissibility Assessment in GCMS, BSOs must)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-27-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 27.4", + "marginal_note": "Enforcement flags on Canadian citizens and persons registered", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "27.4 Enforcement flags on Canadian citizens and persons registered\nunder the Indian Act\nNormally, once a PR of Canada receives citizenship, IRCC grants the citizenship and this\ninformation is reflected in GCMS (or previously in FOSS as an NCB Type 11). Occasionally,\nBSOs will encounter travellers with immigration enforcement flags who have become\ncitizens, but who are still being flagged due to a previous immigration enforcement flag.\nThis is another instance where a BSOMD or superintendent can expire a FOSS Legacy Info\nAlert via GCMS.\n125\nWith the coming into effect of Bill S-3 in 2019, some persons that were considered FN are\nnow persons registered under the Indian Act and therefore enter Canada by right. All\nenforcement flags against these people should be amended as per the steps above.\nAppendix A Memorandum of Understanding between IRCC and\nthe CBSA\nhttp://atlas/cab-dgsi/res/toolkit-outils/partnership-partenariat/wca-ece/federal/cic/index_eng.asp\nAppendix B Quarantine Operations Centres\nPublic Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)\nQuarantine Operations Centres\nEffective May 1, 2019, PHAC centralized the management of border and travel health\nnotifications and the assessment of ill travellers through the new PHAC Notification Line:\n1-833-615-2384 and email phac.cns-snc.aspc@canada.ca. Service in both official\nlanguages will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.\nFor more information, refer to People Processing Manual, pt 8, ch. 5.2, Quarantine - Liaison\nwith the Public Health Agency of Canada.\nAppendix C Record of Direct Backs for Refugee Claimants at the\nLand Border\nRecord of Direct Backs for Refugee Claimants at the Land\nBorder\n1 2 3\nName of the refugee claimant\n(last name, given name)\nGCMS UCI\n()\nPOE\nName of the superintendent who approved the\nDirect Back", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 27.4 (Enforcement flags on Canadian citizens and persons registered) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-27-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 27.4", + "marginal_note": "Enforcement flags on Canadian citizens and persons registered", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Reason for directing back under exceptional\ncircumstances*\nDate and time of Direct Back\ndd/mm/yy – 00h00\n126\nScheduled date of return\ndd/mm/yy\nRemarks\nHave you considered the following arrangements before\ndirecting the refugee claimant back?\nMaking arrangements to reduce the waiting time for the\nrefugee claimant by:\nInvoking overtime hours for border services officers to\nprocess a claim\nCalling in border services officers from a nearby POE\nUsing the telephone translation service\nDetaining the claimant, if grounds to detain exist, to complete\nthe examination\n*Exceptional circumstances are defined as situations where all\nthe procedures outlined above have been considered and an\nexamination still cannot be conducted. The well-being of the\nclaimant should be considered in conjunction with the impact on\nPOE operations. When it has been determined that a case can\nbe substantiated as an exceptional circumstance, the border\nservices officer must obtain approval from the POE\nsuperintendent before directing a refugee claimant back to the\nUnited States.\n127\nAppendix D Temporary resident permit (TRP) annual\ncompliance review and checklist\nAnnual TRP compliance review\nIn January of each year, Regional Programs Officers in each region will select 10 TRPs\nissued over the course of the previous calendar year. The TRPs will be reviewed for inclusion\nof the mandatory elements explained in section 15.5. The results of the review are to be\nsubmitted to HQ by the end of the January that the review is taking place. (ie. In January of\n2025, select 10 TRPs issued throughout all of 2024. The results are to be submitted by the\nend of January, 2025).\nIncluded in the review is a check that anyone making decisions under a delegated authority", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 27.4 (Enforcement flags on Canadian citizens and persons registered) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-4-27-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-4", + "act_short": "ENF 4", + "act_name": "ENF 4 — Port of entry examinations", + "section": "ENF 4 s. 27.4", + "marginal_note": "Enforcement flags on Canadian citizens and persons registered", + "part": "Port of entry examinations", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "or performing the functions of a Minister’s Delegate must have successfully completed the\ntraining prescribed to those positions before exercising their authority as per section and the\nAgency’s National Training Standards.\nThe Apollo folder with the instructions and required material for the review can be found\nhere: Annual TRP Compliance Review\nTRP file checklist\nA short form checklist to assist with ensuring file completion can be found here:\nTRP Checklist\n*This is not used for the compliance review process noted above", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "", + "current_to": "", + "citation": "ENF 4, s. 27.4 (Enforcement flags on Canadian citizens and persons registered) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to appreciate the nature of", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to appreciate the nature of\nthe proceedings ....................................................................................................................... 11\n6.3 Official languages ..................................................................................................................... 12\n6.4 Interpreters ................................................................................................................................ 12\n6.5 Counsel ..................................................................................................................................... 13\n6.6 Dealing with vulnerable persons ............................................................................................... 14\n6.6.1 Considerations for vulnerable persons in the context of A44 ...........................14\n6.6.2 Sexual orientation and gender identity and expression and sex characteristics\n................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................15\n6.6.3 Victims of gender-based violence (GBV) ................................ .........................16\n6.6.4 Interviewing vulnerable persons ................................ ................................ ......17\n6.6.5 TRPs for victims or suspected victims of trafficking in persons (VTIP) or family\nviolence ................................ ................................ ................................ .............18\n7 Procedure: Making a decision to write an A44(1) report .................................................................. 19", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.2 (Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to appreciate the nature of) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to appreciate the nature of", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Preparation and transmission of an A44(1) report .................................................................... 19\n7.2 Procedure: Evidentiary requirements ....................................................................................... 19\n7.3 Burden of proof ......................................................................................................................... 19\n7.4 Standard of Proof ...................................................................................................................... 20\n8 Considerations before writing an A44(1) Report- Scope of officer .................................................. 21\ndiscretion ............................................................................................................................................. 21\n8.1 Limited discretion of officer at A44(1) ....................................................................................... 21\n8.2 Priority Cases: Inadmissibility under A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1) and A37 of the IRPA .............. 23\n9 A44(1) reports concerning foreign nationals .................................................................................... 23\n9.1 Considerations before writing an A44(1) report ........................................................................ 23\n9.2 Special considerations for protected persons ........................................................................... 24\n9.3 Dual intent ................................................................................................................................. 24\n9.4 Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada/ Allowed to leave (Port of entry cases) ... 25", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.2 (Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to appreciate the nature of) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to appreciate the nature of", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.5 Procedure: Directing persons back to the United States under R41 ....................................... 26\n9.6 Restoration of status ................................................................................................................. 27\n9.7 Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) - Port of entry and IRCC only ........................................ 28\n9.8 A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members ...................................................................... 29\n9.9 Impact of Ministerial public policies .......................................................................................... 31\n10 A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents of Canada .......................................................... 31\n10.1 A44(1) reports for criminality cases ........................................................................................ 32\n10.2 Loss of appeal right cases ...................................................................................................... 33", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.2 (Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to appreciate the nature of) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "Whether to consider personal circumstances for permanent residents and protected persons", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.3 Whether to consider personal circumstances for permanent residents and protected persons\nin recommendation to MD to accompany A44(1) report .......................................................... 33\n10.4 Residency obligation cases under A28(2) - Prescribed considerations ................................. 36\n11 Procedure: Gathering evidence for the A44(1) report .................................................................... 36\n11.1 Evidentiary requirements ........................................................................................................ 36\n11.2 Evidentiary requirement: Proof of status in Canada ............................................................... 37\n11.3 Persons claiming to be Canadian citizens or registered Indians under the Indian Act .......... 37\n11.4 Procedure: Overview of the examination process .................................................................. 37\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n2\n11.5 End of examination ................................................................................................................. 38\n11.6 Procedure: End of examination for refugee claimants ............................................................ 39\n11.7 Procedure: Gathering evidence for persons not subject to examination ................................ 40\n11.8 Procedure: In-person interview (all cases) ............................................................................. 41", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 10.3 (Whether to consider personal circumstances for permanent residents and protected persons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.9 Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject\nto examination ......................................................................................................................... 41\n11.10 Procedure: Failure to appear at A44(1) interview ................................................................ 42\n12 Evidence gathering: Additional considerations ............................................................................. 43\n12.1 Serious inadmissibilities [A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1), A37] ....................................................... 43\n12.2 Evidence of pending or withdrawn charges ............................................................................ 43\n12.3 Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act ...................................................................... 43\n12.4 Privacy and information sharing ............................................................................................. 44\n12.4.1 Evidence obtained by mistreatment or torture ................................ ...............44\n12.4.2 Disclosure and procedural fairness considerations ................................ .......45\n12.5 Allegations of inadmissibility subsequent to a declaration under A42.1 ................................. 46\n13 Writing an A44(1) report – Form and content ............................................................................... 46\n13.1 A44(1) report requirements ..................................................................................................... 46\n13.2 Entering the A44(1) report into the Global Case Management System ................................. 47", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.9 (Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject) (part 1 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(GCMS) ........................................................................................................................................... 47\n13.3 A44(1) reports for non-compliance with IRPA requirements – A41 ........................................ 48\n13.4 Multiple allegations ................................................................................................................. 48\n14 Procedures after the A44(1) report is written ................................................................................. 50\n14.1 Providing the A44(1) report to the person concerned ............................................................. 50\n14.2 Referral of the A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate ......................................................... 50\n14.3 Procedure: Referring A44(1) reports when a Minister’s Delegate is not on site ..................... 52\n14.4 Amending the A44(1) report ................................................................................................... 52\n14.5 Overview: Minister's opinions/interventions ............................................................................ 53\n14.6 Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report ............................................................... 54\nAppendix A: Sample call-in letter for interview: Refugee claimant ................................................ 57\nAppendix B: Sample letter to be sent where no interview is requested – Person no longer subject\nto examination (includes permanent resident and protected person) ............................................ 59\nAppendix C: Sample Questionnaire to accompany Appendix A letter to provide submissions ..... 61", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.9 (Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject) (part 2 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-9-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Appendix D: Sample Call-in letter for interview- Person no longer subject to examination (includes\npermanent resident and protected person) ..................................................................................... 67\nAppendix E: Sample A44(1) Narrative Report ............................................................................... 69\nAppendix F: Table: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Inadmissible Classes ........ 76\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n3\nUpdates to chapter\nListing by date:\n2025-02-20\nSubstantive and minor changes, as well as clarifications, have been provided throughout the\nchapter to reflect legislative and regulatory amendments and to ensure consistent application of\nIRPA provisions as clarified through new court decisions.\nContent added throughout to reflect new inadmissibilities for sanctions under section 35.1 and\ntransborder criminality under subsection 36(2.1) of the IRPA.\nSection 8 and section 10: Content updated to reflect jurisprudence on officer scope of\ndiscretion under subsections 44(1) and 44(2) of the IRPA.\nAppendices B, C, D: Updates to align with new court decisions.\nAppendix F: Updates to reflect legislative and regulatory changes.\n2023-04-17\nMinor corrections and clarifications have been made throughout the chapter. Updates made to\nreflect changes to other manual chapters.\nNew content has been added to reflect legislative and regulatory amendments and to ensure\nconsistent application of IRPA provisions as clarified through new court decisions.\nSection 6.6: New section added to provide guidance and resources on dealing with vulnerable\npersons, including victims of gender-based violence (GBV).\nSection 9.5: Amended to reflect regulatory changes to include new ground for directing persons", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.9 (Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject) (part 3 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-9-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "back to the United States under section 41 of the IRPR where the foreign national is prohibited\nfrom entering Canada by an order or regulation made under the Emergencies Act or the\nQuarantine Act.\nSection 9.6: Content on restoration of status updated to reflect change in terminology from\n“implied” status to “maintained” status.\nSection 9.9: New section added on impact of Ministerial public policies.\nSection 12.4: Updates to content on information sharing and evidence obtained by\nmistreatment or torture.\nSection 13.4: Additional guidance on multiple allegations.\n2019-10-28\nSubstantive and minor changes, as well as clarifications, have been provided throughout the\nchapter.\nNew content has been added to reflect legislative and regulatory amendments and to ensure\nconsistent application of IRPA provisions as clarified through new court decisions.\nSections have been re-written for clarity and/or moved and re-organized for more logical flow of\ninformation.\nSection 3.1: Amended to include several new or updated forms.\nSection 9.8: Content added to reflect amendments to IRPA provisions regarding inadmissible\nfamily members under section A42.\nSection 11.6: New section added to clarify the scope of end of examination for a person who\nmakes a claim for refugee protection at a port of entry or inland office, following the addition of\nsubsection R37(2) of the IRPR.\nSection 14.6: New section added to reflect changes to IRPA and IRPR requiring that decision-\nmakers impose prescribed conditions on security (A34) inadmissibility cases.\n2013-08-20\nSections 3 and 9 have been updated to reflect the addition of subsections 16(1.1) and 16(2.1) to\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n4\nthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as of the coming into force of the Faster Removal", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.9 (Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject) (part 4 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-9-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "of Foreign Criminals Act.\nSubsection 8.4 was added to provide guidance on further allegations of inadmissibility\nsubsequent to a declaration pursuant to A42.1 by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness.\n2011-01-01\nThe following changes were made to chapter ENF 5, entitled “Writing 44(1) Reports”: Section 1:\nMinor changes were made to section 1\nSection 4: Minor changes were made throughout Section 4. Section 5: Minor changes were\nmade to Section 5.1.\nSection 8: Changes were made to the paragraph explaining the Cha decision in 8.1 Section 8:\nMinor changes were made to Section 8.2\nSection 8: Minor changes were made to Section 8.3 Section 8: Minor changed were made to\nSection 8.5 Section 8: Minor changes were made to Section 8.9 Section 11: Reference to ID\nmanual deleted.\n2009-10-30\nThe following changes were made to chapter ENF 5, entitled “Writing 44(1) Reports”: Hyperlinks\nto manuals and forms were added throughout ENF 5 for ease of reference. Section 3:\nHyperlinks were added to access forms in Section 3.1.\nSection 4: Minor changes were made to include internet and intranet websites for the\nDelegation and Designation Authorities and Instruments.\nSection 8: Minor changes were made throughout Section 8.1. Section 8: Minor changes were\nmade to Section 8.4.\nSection 8: A paragraph was added to Section 8.9, writing an A44(1) report on a permanent\nresident. Minor changes were made to the paragraph on released cases to clarify when an\nofficer may require counsel to leave.\nSection 11: All reference to the Reciprocal Agreement between the United States and Canada\nwas removed as it expired on October 30, 2009. This section was combined with section 10:\nProcedure: Point of Finality as section 10.1.\nSection 12: Minor changes were made to section 12.1.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.9 (Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject) (part 5 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-9-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Section 12: Section 12.2 was updated to reflect the procedure on accessing the HELP screen in\nFOSS and is now section 11.2.\nSection 12: Section 12.4 was rewritten for clarity and is now section 11.4.Section 13: Minor\nchanges were made to the Note for clarity and is now section 12.\n2007-08-10\nThe following changes were made to ENF 5 Appendices A and B entitled “Writing a report\nagainst a foreign national” and “Writing a report against a permanent resident”.\nAppendix A: Items to bring to the interview have been amended to reflect documents held by\nforeign nationals.\nAppendix B: Permanent residents have been advised that they may have legal counsel present\nif they wish, however it is not a right, it is a privilege.\n2007-04-12\nThe following changes were made to chapter ENF 5, entitled “Writing 44(1) Reports”: Section 1:\nThe words “Minister of CIC” have been added at the end of the first paragraph. Section 4: Minor\nchanges were made to paragraph 3 in order to include CBSA.\nSection 8: Substantial changes appear to sections 8.1 and 8.7.\nSection 12: The words “Minister of CIC” have been added in section 12.1, and an insert was\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n5\nadded to section 12.3, first paragraph.\nSection 13: Minor changes have been made throughout the section. Appendices A and B:\nSubstantial changes appear to both appendices.\n2005-11-04\nChanges made to reflect transition from CIC to CBSA. The term \"delegated officer\" was\nreplaced with \"Minister's delegate\" throughout text, references to \"departmental policy\" were\neliminated, references to CIC and CBSA officers and the Ministers of CIC and PSEP were made\nwhere appropriate, and other minor changes were made. Appendix C was removed and\nAppendix D and E were renamed C and D.\n2004-08-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.9 (Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject) (part 6 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-9-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 5 - Writing 44(1) Reports has been updated to reflect an amendment to paragraph\n229(1)(k) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The amendment allows the\nImmigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to issue a removal order at a\nhearing resulting from multiple allegations that include failure to comply with residency\nobligations.\n2003-09-22\nChapter ENF 5, entitled Writing 44(1) reports, specifically Section 8 on Making a decision to\nwrite an A44(1) report, has been updated and is now available on CIC Explore.\nThe amendments were made in response to commitments made to Standing Committee during\ntheir study of IRPA which called on CIC to strengthen guidelines with respect to how we make a\ndetermination to refer reports to the IRB, especially in cases of permanent residents. These\nchanges were made in consultation with all the domestic regions as well as the Enforcement\nProgram Management Board. The guidelines are intended to ensure greater consistency in the\nsteps taken to obtain information, prior to deciding the disposition of an A44(1) report.\nAmong the changes to this chapter, the highlights include: Section 8:\nSection 8.1 has been updated to provide clear guidelines on keeping a record of an\ninadmissibility in all cases.\nSection 8.3 addresses the issue of forwarding incomplete files to the Hearings Unit.\nSection 8.7 establishes information-gathering guidelines that are to be undertaken prior to\nwriting an A44(1) report.\nAppendix A and Appendix B were also revised. For further information, please contact:\nsusan.savriga@cbsa.gc.ca.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n6", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.9 (Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no longer subject) (part 7 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter provides functional direction and guidance on writing a report under subsection\n44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and how to prepare and present\nsuch a report to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PS) or the Minister\nof Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe objectives of Canadian immigration legislation with regard to the inadmissibility provisions\nare:\n to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian\nsociety;\n to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and\ndenying access to Canadian territory to persons, including refugee claimants, who are\ncriminals or security risks.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and Regulations\nThe following table includes some of the most relevant provisions under the IRPA or the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) that may apply during the A44(1)\nprocess. Some of the authorities listed below pertain specifically to Border Services Officers\n(BSOs) at the port of entry or IRCC officers assessing applications; others are more relevant to\nCBSA Inland Enforcement Officers (IOEs).\nTable 1: Sections of the IRPA and the IRPR applying to the A44(1) process\nProvision Act and Regulations\nDelegation of powers A6(2)\nExamination by officer A15(1)\nObligation - answer truthfully\nObligation- appear in person for\nexamination\nObligation - relevant evidence\nObligation- interview with the Canadian\nSecurity Intelligence Service\nA16(1)\nA16(1.1)\nA16(2)(b)\nA16(2.1)\nObligation on entry - permanent residence\nObligation on entry - period for their stay\nA20(1)(a)\nA20(1)(b)\nPermanent resident A21(1)\nTemporary resident Dual intent A22\nEntry to complete examination or hearing A23\nTemporary resident permit A24\nResidency obligation A28\nSecurity A34\nHuman or international rights violations A35\nSanctions A35.1\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n7\nSerious criminality A36(1)\nCriminality A36(2)\nTransborder criminality A36(2.1)\nOrganized criminality A37\nHealth grounds A38\nFinancial reasons A39\nMisrepresentation A40\nCessation of refugee protection A40.1\nNon-compliance with IRPA or IRPR –\nforeign national\nNon-compliance with IRPA or IRPR –\npermanent resident\nA41(a)\nA41(b)\nInadmissible family member A42\nImposition of conditions A44(3)\nMandatory imposition of conditions –\ninadmissibility on grounds of security\nDuration of conditions\nA44(4)\nA44(5)\nApplicable removal order – Immigration\nDivision\nA45(d)\nNo return without prescribed authorization A52(1)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Right of appeal to Immigration Appeal\nDivision (IAD)\nA63\nLoss of appeal rights A64\nProtected person A95\nIneligibility to refer refugee claim A101\nCessation or refugee protection A108\nVacation of refugee protection A109\nNon-refoulement – Protected person A115(1)\nMinisterial Opinion for protected person –\nDanger to the public\nA115(2)(a)\nRehabilitation R18\nSeeking to enter Canada R28(b)\nEnd of examination R37(1)\nEnd of examination – claim for refugee\nprotection\nR37(2)\nDirect back to the United States R41(b)\nWithdrawing application/Allow to leave R42\nConditions A23 R43(1)\nReport – family members R227(1)\nApplicable removal order – Minister R228\nApplicable removal order – Immigration\nDivision\nR229", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 Forms\nThe following table includes some common forms used in the A44(1) process. This is a non-\nexhaustive list and some may only apply to officers carrying out the administration of the IRPA\nat the port of entry.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n8\nTable 2: Forms\nForm Title Form Number\nDirection to Return to the United States BSF505\nAllowed to Leave Canada IMM 1282B\nSubsection 44(1) and 55 Highlights – Inland Cases IMM 5084B\nSubsection 44(1) Highlights – Port of Entry Cases BSF516\nRequest for Criminal Information BSF567\nAcknowledgement of Conditions BSF821\nNotes to File BSF788\nAcknowledgement of Conditions for IRPA Section 34 Cases BSF798\nEntry for Further Examination or Admissibility Hearing BSF 536\nUse of a Representative IMM 5476", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 3.1 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Instruments and delegations\nA4 sets out which Minister is responsible for the administration of the IRPA. The Minister of\nCitizenship and Immigration [also known as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada\n(IRCC)] and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PS) are jointly\nresponsible for the administration and enforcement of the IRPA, however there are some\ndifferences. The IRCC Minister is responsible for the overall administration of the IRPA, unless\notherwise specified. The Minister of PS has the primary responsibility for the administration of\nthe IRPA as it relates to the following:\n port of entry examinations;\n policy lead relating to enforcement of the IRPA including arrest, detention and\nremoval;\n establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of the IRPA and\ninadmissibility under A34/A35/A35.1/A36(2.1)/A37; and\n declarations referred to under A42.1 (Ministerial Relief provision)\nPursuant to A6(1), the responsible Minister has the authority to designate specific persons or\nclasses of persons to carry out any purpose of any provision of the IRPA with respect to their\nindividual mandate as described in A4, and to specify the powers and duties of the officers so\ndesignated. This is referred to as the designation of authority. In addition, A6(2) authorizes\nthat anything that may be done by the Minister under the Act may be done by a person that the\nMinister authorizes in writing. This is referred to as delegation of authority.\nEach Minister who has responsibilities under the IRPA has written an instrument of delegation\nand designation that is periodically updated. The Delegation of Authority and Designations of\nOfficers (D & D) instruments stipulate who has the authority to perform specific immigration-", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "related functions. CBSA and IRCC personnel are designated by position to perform all\ndelegated or designated authorities, including those associated with A44(1)/A44(2) functions. It\nis to be noted that the IRPA D & D instruments have a hierarchical link which means only the\nlowest level of authority is included in the D & D instruments as every position above this one\n(with a direct hierarchical link) has the same authority to perform specific immigration-related\nfunctions.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n9\nCBSA and IRCC officers should always review both the CBSA and the IRCC D & D instruments\nas they have authorities delegated and designated under both instruments, which can be found\non the IL 3 – Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority.\nThe authority of an officer to prepare an inadmissibility report under A44(1) has been\ndesignated to certain CBSA and IRCC officials. It is important to note that while IRCC officers\nhave been designated the authority to write reports for most inadmissibility sections, A44(1)\nreports for inadmissibility under A34 (security grounds), A35 (grounds of violating human or\ninternational rights), A35.1 (sanctions) and A37 (grounds of organized criminality) may only be\nprepared and reviewed by CBSA.\nAll reports written by CBSA or IRCC officers will be reviewed by the Minister’s Delegate (MD)\nwho has been delegated the authority under the D & D instruments. If the MD is of the opinion\nthat the report is well-founded, the MD will make the appropriate decision based on the\nevidence and determine whether to:\n issue a removal order, if the allegation is within the MD’s authority pursuant to\nR228); or\n refer the report to the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board\n(IRB) pursuant to R229.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For additional information see Appendix F: Table: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\n(IRPA) Inadmissible Classes\nNote: Policy requires that even where officers and officials acting in the capacity of the\nMinister’s Delegate (including chiefs and directors) have the delegated authority under\nthe D & D instruments, they should not perform Minister's Delegate functions and\nreviews until they have successfully completed the necessary training to perform the\nA44(2) function. This policy is consistent with the Federal Court’s decision in Zhang v. Canada\n(Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 362 where judicial review was granted based on a\nfinding that there was an inadequate record before the court to conclude that the MD had\nreceived the required Minister’s Delegate Review training and was therefore authorized to issue\na removal order.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5 Definitions\nAdult legally responsible\nAn adult legally responsible for a minor or suspected incompetent person may be their parent or\nlegal guardian. If the accompanying adult is not a parent or guardian, reasonable efforts must\nbe made to contact a parent or guardian. For more information on accompanying adults, please\nrefer to ENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children.\nForeign national\nA person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident; includes a stateless person\n[A2(1)].\nIndian\nA person who is registered as an Indian under the Indian Act [R2].\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n10\nMinor\nA minor is a person under 18 years of age. Persons claiming to be less than 18 years of age.\nare to be treated as minors unless there is conclusive evidence that they are 18 years old or\nolder.\nPermanent resident\nA person who has acquired permanent residence status and has not subsequently lost that\nstatus under A46 [A2(1)].\nPersons unable to appreciate the nature of proceedings\nThis phrase refers to persons who are unable to understand the reason for the proceedings or\nwhy they are important, or cannot give meaningful instructions to counsel about their case. An\nopinion regarding competency may be based on the person's own admission, the person's\nobservable behaviour at the proceeding, or an expert opinion on the person's mental health or\nintellectual or physical faculties. Pursuant to R228(4)(b) and R229(4)(b), the authority to issue\nany removal order for persons unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings shall be the\nID.\nProtected person\nA person on whom refugee protection is conferred in Canada and whose claim or application\nhas not subsequently been deemed to be rejected because of cessation or vacation\nproceedings [A95(2)]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 5 (Definitions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedural fairness", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Procedural fairness\nAll officers involved in the administration and enforcement of the IRPA must consider and weigh\nall the relevant facts and factors before them. All officers are to support the objectives of the\nIRPA by ensuring all decisions taken under the IRPA are consistent with the Canadian Charter\nof Rights and Freedoms (Charter)1 and the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.\nThe principles of natural justice exist as a safeguard for individuals in their interactions with the\nstate. These principles stipulate that whenever a person's \"rights, privileges or interests\" are at\nstake, there is a duty to act in a procedurally fair manner.\nThis includes, but is not limited to, the individual's rights to the following:\n know the case to be met;\n have an opportunity to present evidence relevant to the case;\n provide a response to facts or new information that will be considered by the decision-\nmaker;\n receive notice of decision and reasons for the decision;\n have the evidence fully and fairly considered;\n right to impartial decision-maker who is free from bias; and\n right to an interpreter where necessary and, where the person is detained, right to\ncounsel.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.1 (Procedural fairness)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Constitution Act, 1982, PART I", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 Constitution Act, 1982, PART I\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n11\nIn general terms, procedural fairness considerations to be applied in each case will be different,\ndepending on a number of factors. The Federal Court has found that the content of the duty of\nfairness in A44 proceedings will vary depending on the nature and circumstances of the\ndecision being made. For example, in Awed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FC\n469, the Court found that where an officer calls a permanent resident or foreign national for an\ninterview in order to confirm facts that would support an A44(1) opinion and report, the content\nof the duty of fairness at the initial stage is minimal. The Court found, however, that such a\ndegree of fairness requires that the officer advise the person of the purpose of the interview so\nthat the person is put on notice of the possible consequences and has an opportunity to make\nmeaningful submissions. In Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v.\nCha, 2006 FCA 126, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) found that it was open to the Federal\nCourt judge to find that the officer had breached the duty of fairness in failing to inform the\napplicant of the possible consequences of the initial A44(1) interview, however the FCA\ndisagreed with the Federal Court’s conclusion that section A44 determinations call for a\nrelatively high degree of participatory rights in respect of persons who are inadmissible on\ngrounds of serious or simple criminality in Canada, as officers and MDs are simply on a fact-\nfinding mission at the A44 stage.\nIt is important for officers to differentiate those cases where the MD may issue a removal order\nand those cases where the jurisdiction to issue a removal order lies with the ID, as different\nprocedural requirements and considerations will apply in order to ensure that procedural\nfairness and natural justice are met.\nThe spectrum of procedural fairness will also depend on the status of the person concerned and\nadditional considerations will apply for permanent residents and protected persons (See section\n8, ‘Considerations before writing an A44(1) Report- Scope of officer discretion’; section 9.2,\n‘Special considerations for protected persons’; section 10, ‘A44(1) reports concerning\npermanent residents of Canada’).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 1 (Constitution Act, 1982, PART I)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to\nappreciate the nature of the proceedings\nR228(4) provides for specific safeguards for certain vulnerable persons by requiring that where\nthe person:\n is under 18 years of age and not accompanied by a parent or an adult legally\nresponsible for them; or\n is unable, in the opinion of the Minister, to appreciate the nature of the proceedings and\nis not accompanied by a parent or an adult legally responsible for them\nthe matter must be referred to the ID for an admissibility hearing. In these cases, the MD does\nnot have jurisdiction to issue a removal order.\nSuch cases will call for a higher degree of procedural fairness at the A44 stage and officers\nmust take extra care to ensure that the person’s interests are represented and that the evidence\nhas been fully and fairly considered.\nDuring the ID proceedings, a designated representative will be appointed pursuant to A167(2) to\nrepresent the person’s interests and ensure that procedural fairness requirements are met with\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n12\nrespect to presenting evidence relevant to the case and providing a response to facts or new\ninformation that will be considered by the decision-maker. In these hearings, parties will also be\ngoverned by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Chairperson Guideline 8:\n‘Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB’\nWhere a person appears to be unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings, it is\nimportant for officers to identify this as soon as possible during the A44(1) process. Where an\nofficer, in the course of their interactions with a person, has identified that a person has a\nsuspected or known mental illness and does not appreciate the nature of the proceedings, this\nshould be clearly documented in notes and flagged for the MD.\nIn such cases, officers should also ensure that other departmental and agency guidelines with\nrespect to dealing with vulnerable persons are followed. See section 6.6 ‘Dealing with\nvulnerable persons’; ENF 20 Detention; and ENF 34 Alternatives to Detention.\nFor additional guidance, including how to identify a vulnerable person, see IRCC Program\ndelivery instructions on Processing in-Canada claims for refugee protection of minors and\nvulnerable persons.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.2 (Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Official languages", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.3 Official languages\nBoth the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establish\nthe right of individuals who are subject to administrative proceedings in Canada to communicate\nwith employees of IRCC and CBSA in the official language of their choice, either in French or\nEnglish. Officers carrying out the administration of the IRPA must respect the right of the\nindividual to proceed in French or English. In order to ensure that procedural fairness is\nmaintained, officers should ensure that the Minister’s documents are provided in the language\nof the proceedings and, where necessary, obtain translations (e.g., a certificate of conviction\nfrom another country that is not in French or English that the Minister is relying on as evidence).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.3 (Official languages)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.4", + "marginal_note": "Interpreters", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.4 Interpreters\nOfficers must be satisfied that the person concerned is able to understand and communicate in\neither of the official languages in which the proceeding is being held. If necessary, an interpreter\nis to be provided to enable the persons to understand and communicate fully.\nNote: Travellers arriving at a port of entry into Canada do not have an automatic right to an\ninterpreter upon request during routine port of entry examinations, however there are situations\nwhere officers at the port of entry are required to suspend the proceedings until a qualified\ninterpreter is available. This may include circumstances where the officer is considering denying\nentry to the traveller. For further information, see Nere v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),\n2018 FC 672.\nCBSA officers should consult guidelines on the use of interpreters contained in ENF 4 Port of\nentry examinations (section 8.5, ‘Use of interpreters’).\nFor further information, see IRCC Program delivery instructions (PDI) on interpreters.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n13", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.4 (Interpreters)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Counsel", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.5 Counsel\nPersons do not have a right to counsel at examinations or A44(1) interviews unless they are\ndetained. In all detained cases, persons must be given the opportunity to obtain and instruct\ncounsel at their own expense. Counsel includes a barrister, solicitor, family member, consultant\nor friend.\nIn detained cases, officers must inform persons of their right to counsel prior to commencing the\ninterview. This right applies in all cases (port of entry or inland) where a person is detained\nunder an Act of Parliament and includes situations where the person is detained by the criminal\ncourts while facing charges or serving a sentence and interviewed for IRPA purposes.\nPort of entry: Generally, CBSA’s policy is not to permit counsel at a port of entry examinations\nunless arrest/detention has occurred. However, if an officer is dealing with an individual who\ndoes have counsel present, the officer should allow the counsel to remain present as long as\ncounsel does not interfere with the examination process.\nNote: In Dehghani v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] 1 S.C.R.\n1053], the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) determined that the principles of fundamental\njustice do not include the right to counsel for routine information-gathering, such as that\ngathered at port of entry examination interviews. The SCC further held that an Immigration\nSecondary examination at a port of entry does not constitute a detention within the meaning of\nparagraph 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.2\nFor further information regarding the right to counsel at POE examinations, see ENF 4 Port of\nentry examinations.\nIn non-detained inland cases (CBSA/IRCC): A non-detained person does not have the right", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.5 (Counsel) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Counsel", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "to have counsel present during A44(1) interviews, however in the spirit of procedural fairness,\nthe officer shall inform the person of the possibility of obtaining counsel prior to commencing the\ninterview. Officers should permit counsel’s participation should the individual subject to the\nA44(1) process have a counsel. Call-in notices for interviews should advise the person that they\nmay have counsel present.\nWhere counsel is representing the person concerned at an examination or A44(1) proceeding,\nofficers should ensure that counsel’s identity, the fact of counsel’s presence at the proceeding\nand statements made by counsel on behalf of the person concerned are documented in the\nofficer’s notes, and that counsel’s representations have been considered in their decision.\nOfficers may also need the person’s representative to complete a Use of a Representative form\n(IMM 5476).\nFor further information, see IRCC Program delivery instructions (PDI) on Use of\n2 Although the SCC held that secondary examination does not constitute detention, this decision also\nhighlighted that detention within the meaning of section 10(b) of the Charter would result where restraints\non the person’s liberty by state authorities have gone beyond those required for the routine processing or\nscreening of their application to enter Canada. Further, while the SCC’s decision affirmed that delays in\nroutine examinations due to operational necessity do not mean the person is “detained”, officers should\nbe cognizant that unreasonably lengthy delays in the examination could lead to the conclusion that the\nperson is detained within the meaning of section 10(b) of the Charter.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n14\nRepresentatives.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.5 (Counsel) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Counsel", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Participation by counsel involves speaking on the client's behalf, presenting evidence and\nmaking submissions on the issues. Allowing counsel to participate, if ready to do so, does not\nmean that the officer is required to tolerate disruptive or discourteous behaviour by counsel.\nWhere such conduct is encountered, counsel may be asked to leave and/or the proceeding may\nbe adjourned to another time. In such cases, the officer should ensure to document their\nreasons for taking such action.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.5 (Counsel) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.6 Dealing with vulnerable persons\n6.6.1 Considerations for vulnerable persons in the context of A44\nIt is an overall goal of Canada’s immigration program to treat all persons with dignity and\nrespect. In exercising their IRPA authorities, officials must approach all cases in a\nnonjudgmental manner, remain sensitive to the potential needs and limitations of vulnerable\npersons, and recognize that a person they are dealing with may have experienced some form of\nviolence, abuse or trauma.\nIn the context of A44, vulnerable persons may face particular challenges, including an impaired\nability to answer questions/provide information to officials respecting a potential IRPA\ninadmissibility, due to a physical or psychological frailty or for other reasons. Such persons may\ninclude, but would not be limited to:\n minors (under 18 years of age), including unaccompanied minors;\n elderly persons;\n individuals with severe medical conditions or physical disabilities;\n persons with a suspected or known mental illness;\n persons who have suffered traumatic experiences that resulted in some degree of\nvulnerability, including:\no victims3 of gender-based violence (GBV) (see section 6.6.3);\no victims/suspected victims of trafficking in persons (VTIPs) or family violence.\nIn the context of A44 procedures, officers should:\n Identify vulnerable persons at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that appropriate\naccommodations are made and any relevant considerations are factored into decisions\nand actions taken. In some instances, officers will need to use their observational skills,\ndiscretion and sound judgement in identifying a person as vulnerable.\n Recognize that a vulnerable individual’s ability to respond to questions or provide", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons) (part 1 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "information may be severely impaired, and remain sensitive to the impact of a perceived\nvulnerability during the A44 process, including during interviews.\n To the extent possible, prevent vulnerable persons from becoming traumatized or re-\ntraumatized during the A44 process.\n3 It is important to recognize wherever the term “victim” is used, that some persons who have e xperienced\nviolence, trauma or abuse may prefer to be referred to as “survivors” rather than “victims”.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n15\nWhere an individual who is subject to IRPA enforcement action is identified as a victim of\nviolence, trauma or abuse, including victims of GBV, family violence or trafficking in persons, or\nother forms of abuse such as sexual abuse or labour abuse, officers must take a victim-\ncentered and trauma-informed approach in order to avoid re-victimizing people who report\nviolence or abuse.\nA victim-centred approach focuses on the needs and concerns of victims to ensure a\ncompassionate and sensitive delivery of services in a nonjudgmental manner.\nA trauma-informed approach is one that avoids triggering trauma that may have placed the\nindividual in their current situation.\nThe guidelines in sections 6.6.2 to 6.6.5 are aimed at assisting officers in identifying vulnerable\npersons and applying a victim-centred and trauma-informed approach when dealing with\nvulnerable persons at A44.\nIn addition to the guidelines set out in this manual chapter, officers should always ensure that\nother Departmental and Agency guidelines with respect to dealing with vulnerable persons and\nminors are followed, including IRCC’s Program delivery instructions on Identifying sensitive\ncases and on Processing in-Canada claims for refugee protection of minors and vulnerable", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons) (part 2 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "persons, where applicable.\n6.6.2 Sexual orientation and gender identity and expression and sex characteristics4\nSome IRPA enforcement cases may involve individuals with, or who are perceived to have,\nsexual orientations, gender identities and expressions (SOGIE)5 that may not conform to\nsocially accepted norms in a particular cultural environment. Such individuals include, but are\nnot limited to: Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and additional\nsexually and gender diverse (2SLGBTQI+) individuals. Depending on factors such as race,\nethnicity, religion, faith or belief system, age, disability, health status, social class and education,\nindividuals with diverse sexual orientations and identities may recognize and express their\nidentity differently.\nIndividuals may conceal their SOGIE out of mistrust or fear of repercussion by state and non-\nstate actors, or due to previous experiences of discrimination, stigmatization, bullying,\nostracism, violence or sexual assault. These circumstances may manifest themselves as an\nindividual being reluctant to discuss, or having difficulty discussing, their SOGIE with an officer\nbased on a fear or general mistrust of authority figures, particularly where intolerance or\npunishment of individuals with diverse SOGIE are sanctioned by state officials in an individual’s\ncountry of origin.\nOfficers need to be sensitive to the possibility that SOGIE issues may exist in any case they\nencounter when executing their IRPA authorities. Officers must follow all relevant guidelines and\nprocedures pertaining to handling SOGIE cases during the A44 process, remain sensitive to\n4 Please note that terminology in this section may have further evolved following the publication date of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons) (part 3 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-6-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "this manual. Consult most recent GoC publications for most up to date terminology.\n5 Also includes individuals with, or who are perceived to have diverse sex characteristics and may also be\nreferred to as SOGIESC. For example, see the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s\nChairperson’s Guidelines on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity\nand Expression, and Sex Characteristics: https://irb.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/policies/Pages/GuideDir09.aspx\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n16\ngender-related considerations when interacting with the person and be careful to use gender-\nneutral or inclusive terms or terms that reflect the person’s gender identification in\ndocumentation/notes and when completing Departmental and Agency forms.\nOfficers should consult the Internationally recognized sexual orientation or gender identity or\nexpression (SOGIE) definitions on IRCC’s Connexion for further information.\n6.6.3 Victims of gender-based violence (GBV)\nWhen considering enforcement under A44, officers need to be sensitive to the fact that a person\nthey encounter may have been subjected to specific violence, trauma or abuse based solely on\ntheir gender, perceived gender, gender identity or gender expression, as well as sexual\norientation. This is referred to as gender-based violence (GBV), which is a human rights\nviolation.\nIt is important to note that GBV is not limited to physical violence and can also include\nemotional/psychological abuse, harassment, threats, sexual violence, coercive control,\nhumiliation, financial abuse, discrimination or neglect. It is important to note that these may also\noccur online through “cyberviolence”6.\nOfficers should be aware that certain individuals face a greater risk of experiencing GBV,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons) (part 4 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-6-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "including: women, girls, 2SLGBTQI+ people and people living with disabilities. Moreover, the\nrisk of GBV may be increased with the intersection of any two or more of these characteristics.\nOther groups that may experience high levels of GBV may also include Black women and\nnewcomer women to Canada7.\nIntimate partner violence (IPV), also referred to as domestic violence or spousal violence, is a\nwidespread form of GBV that encompasses multiple forms of harm perpetrated by a current or\nformer intimate partner or spouse. IPV can occur in many types of relationships, including\nbetween married or common-law spouses as well as within dating relationships, regardless of\ngender and sexual orientation and whether or not the partners co-habit.\nFor further information respecting IPV, see the Government of Canada’s Fact sheet on Intimate\npartner violence.\nDepending on their cultural background, victims of GBV may be reluctant to disclose their\nexperiences in order to not “shame” their families or communities. Similarly, women who have\nbeen subjected to IPV/domestic violence or abuse may also be reluctant to provide information,\nespecially against the alleged perpetrator. Officers should be alert to such cases and will ensure\nto the extent possible that specific accommodations are made during interviews as set out\n(e.g., have a female officer either conduct or be present during an interview, and arrange, if\npossible, for a female interpreter). See section 6.6.4 below for additional guidance on\nconducting interviews.\nVictims and survivors of GBV may be encountered both at the port of entry or inland. In such\ncases, officers should:\n6 “Use of technologies to facilitate virtual or in-person harm including observing and listening to a person,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons) (part 5 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-6-6-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "tracking their location, to scare, intimidate or humiliate a person” (Government of Canada, Fact sheet:\nIntimate partner violence (Canada.ca).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons) (part 6 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7 Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n17\n Consider the factors that led to the individual’s breach of IRPA requirements or conditions,\nincluding the possibility that the person was placed in their situation as part of abuse or\nthrough coercion or threats;\n Be aware that perpetrators of GBV are known to use threats of denunciation to immigration\nauthorities as a tool to control and oppress victims through fear of deportation and/or\ndetention. For example, Immigration Enforcement Officers (IEOs) responding to a tip about\na foreign national overstaying their status shall consider any such factors that may lead the\nofficer to believe that the foreign national was placed in that situation by an abuser;\n Within the confines of an officer’s limited discretion at A44(1), be sensitive to personal\ncircumstances as well as the consequences of immigration enforcement;\n Where appropriate and within an officer’s scope of discretion, consider other options where\nthere are IRPA inadmissibility concerns. At the port of entry, this may include allowing the\nperson to withdraw their application to enter Canada (i.e. Allowed to leave) or issuing a\nTemporary resident permit (TRP) to overcome an inadmissibility that may have resulted\nfrom GBV. In the inland and port of entry context, this may include a referral to IRCC for\nTRP consideration and/or to community-based service organizations experienced in\nproviding services to GBV victims and survivors in accordance with existing policy and\nregional procedures or allowing the person to make arrangements to leave Canada if they\nplan to do so.\nFor further resources on GBV, please refer to the Government of Canada’s Gender-Based\nViolence Knowledge Centre (Canada.ca).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 7 (Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.6.4 Interviewing vulnerable persons\nOfficers must be alert to situations where a person’s ability to answer questions and present\ninformation during A44 proceedings may be impacted by one or more factors listed in section\n6.6.1 above. Officers may find that vulnerable persons may have issues affecting their memory,\nbehaviour, or ability to recount relevant events including symptoms that have an impact on the\nconsistency and coherence of their statements.\nOfficers should be cognizant that individuals react to violence, trauma and abuse in different\nways and not all victims will exhibit identical or even similar signs and/or symptoms. While some\nindividuals may show signs of distress, including anxiety, irritability, nervousness, agitation,\nanger and aggressiveness, others may be easily intimidated and have difficulty communicating.\nIn order to conduct A44 interviews in a way that avoids traumatizing vulnerable persons or re-\nvictimizing persons who have experienced violence, trauma or abuse, officers should:\n Recognize that some vulnerable persons may display less obvious symptoms of a\nvulnerability, which may not become apparent until the person is interviewed/examined.\nOfficers may need to rely on observational skills and sound judgement in identifying\nsigns and symptoms of a vulnerability.\n Be aware that some vulnerable persons may require special accommodations during the\ninterview. Remain sensitive to the fact that victims of severe trauma may have difficulties\ncoping with the interview process because they are confined to a closed room with the\ninterviewer.\n Create optimum conditions to minimize stress. Allow for frequent breaks, if necessary\nand to the extent possible.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n18", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 7 (Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-7-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Be conscious of cultural and gender considerations which may affect communication\nsuch as the person and officer being the same gender, where possible.\n Recognize that victims of violence or abuse may fear people in authority and may be\nintimidated by the many questions that are being asked by officials.\n Recognize that victims of GBV or other forms of violence or abuse may become\ndistressed at the prospect of being interviewed by an officer of the opposite sex.\n Where appropriate, speak to the person alone first in a confidential setting and ask if\nthey are comfortable speaking in front of family members (particularly parents, children\nor relatives of a particular gender).\n Provide the person with a fair opportunity to tell the story.\n Be cognizant that there may only be one opportunity for an individual to reach out to\nauthorities, and for authorities to refer a victim of violence or abuse to victim support\nservices.\n Be courteous, respectful, sensitive and aware of own biases.\n Be aware that some questions may cause a victim to recall painful events.\n Treat the person with sensitivity and with empathy and with full respect of their human\nrights.\n Avoid an authoritarian approach.\n Avoid over-familiarity through eye contact or body language.\n Ask simple questions and use encouragement.\n Use active listening.\n Allow free speech and avoid interruption.\n Remember that if the vulnerable person is under 18 years of age or unable to appreciate\nthe nature of the proceedings, procedural safeguards set out in section 6.2 will apply.\n6.6.5 TRPs for victims or suspected victims of trafficking in persons (VTIP) or family\nviolence\nOfficers should keep in mind that there are specific policy guidelines in place respecting", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 7 (Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-7-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "suspected or known victims of trafficking in persons (VTIP) and victims of family violence. While\nonly IRCC officials may issue TRPs to VTIPs or victims of family violence, CBSA officials should\nfollow the guidelines set out in the IRCC Program delivery instructions for handling these cases.\nFor example, cases in which a foreign national is identified by the CBSA as a VTIP or victim of\nfamily violence should be referred to the responsible IRCC local office on an urgent basis. There\nare also instructions pertaining to IRCC procedures for contacting CBSA with respect to\nindividuals who are subject to a removal order that are applying for a VTIP or victim of family\nviolence TRP.\nWhen dealing with victims or suspected victims, officers must continue to apply existing policy\nguidance respecting VTIPs and victims of family violence. For example, officers will take a\nvictim-centred and trauma-informed approach when a permanent resident or foreign national is\nidentified as a possible VTIP and follow existing guidelines and procedures specific to\nidentifying and interviewing suspected VTIPs, as well as identifying and conducting interviews\nfor suspected human traffickers who are encountered at the port of entry or inland.\nOfficers should always be alert to any information that raises concerns that a minor child has\nbeen trafficked, smuggled or abducted. In such situations, officers should refer to the\nprocedures set out in the following guidance:\n ENF 21 Recovering missing, abducted and exploited children\n Temporary resident permits (TRPs): Considerations specific to victims of trafficking in\npersons\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n19", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 7 (Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Preparation and transmission of an A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Preparation and transmission of an A44(1) report\nUnder A44(1), an officer may prepare a report if that officer is of the opinion that a permanent\nresident or foreign national in Canada is inadmissible. Officers cannot assign the discretionary\nauthority to another person, nor can another person fetter an officer’s discretion by obliging an\nofficer to do or not do something that is at the officer’s discretion. However, once a report is\nprepared under A44(1), it must be transmitted to the MD.\nAlthough an A44(1) report may result from an examination, an examination is not a necessary\nprerequisite for an officer to prepare and transmit a report to the MD. This is due to the fact that\nofficers are only authorized to proceed with an examination under prescribed circumstances.\nFor further information regarding the examination process, please refer to section 11.4,\n‘Procedure: Overview of the examination process’ and ENF 4 Port of Entry Examinations.\nThe wording of A44(1) allows an officer to prepare a report in relation to a permanent resident or\na foreign national “who is in Canada”. In most cases, particularly in regards to foreign nationals,\nthe inadmissibility will be directly linked to the person’s physical presence in Canada (e.g., non-\ncompliance with A29(2) for remaining in Canada beyond the period authorized). In general, an\nofficer will only prepare an A44(1) report where the person is physically present in Canada,\nhowever this requirement must be considered in context. Where an officer receives credible\nevidence that a foreign national or permanent resident is no longer in Canada, the officer should\nnot proceed to write a report under A44(1). However, given that permanent residents have a\nright of entry and may be out of Canada for a number of reasons (e.g., vacation, work, etc.), it\nmay be reasonable for an officer to proceed to write an A44(1) report against a permanent\nresident without confirming that the permanent resident is physically present in Canada at the\ntime of the writing of A44(1) report, as long as procedural fairness requirements have been met.\nThis will also depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and may only be considered\nwhere there is no credible information to suggest that the person is no longer residing in\nCanada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 7.1 (Preparation and transmission of an A44(1) report)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Evidentiary requirements", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Procedure: Evidentiary requirements\nTo form the opinion that a person is inadmissible to Canada, an officer must have knowledge of\nthe evidentiary rules and requirements for immigration matters. Knowledge of what may be\nrequired to substantiate an allegation of inadmissibility is an important consideration in all cases.\nEach allegation has specific requirements for evidence and officers are to be guided by the\ncontent of ENF 1 Inadmissibility; ENF 2 Evaluating Inadmissibility; and ENF 18 Human or\ninternational rights violations.\nBefore officers make a decision to write a report under A44(1), they must be satisfied that the\napplicable burden and standard of proof can be met and that sufficient evidence has been or\nmay be gathered to ensure that each element of an inadmissibility allegation can be satisfied.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 7.2 (Procedure: Evidentiary requirements)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Burden of proof", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3 Burden of proof\nThe burden of proof, in the context of immigration legislation, refers to who is responsible for\nestablishing admissibility under the IRPA.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n20\nUnder A45(d), the burden of establishing admissibility depends on whether or not the person\nhas been authorized to enter Canada.\nIn cases of foreign nationals who are seeking entry (primarily applicable to Port of Entry cases)\nor those who entered Canada illegally, the onus is on the individual to establish that they are not\ninadmissible. Where the person has been authorized to enter Canada, the burden to establish\ninadmissibility is on the Minister.\nTable 3: Burden of proof\nPersons authorized/not\nauthorized to enter\nDetails Burden of proof\nPermanent residents and\nforeign nationals authorized\nto enter\nA45(d) requires the Immigration Division to\nmake a removal order against a\npermanent resident or a foreign national\nwho has been authorized to enter Canada,\nif it is satisfied that they are inadmissible.\nConsequently, in cases involving persons\nwho were granted entry into Canada,\nincluding permanent residents, the onus\nrests on the Minister to establish that the\nperson is inadmissible.\nMinister\nForeign nationals not\nauthorized to enter\nA45(d) requires the Immigration Division to\nmake a removal order if it is not satisfied\nthat a foreign national who has not been\nauthorized to enter Canada is not\ninadmissible. A21(1) states that a foreign\nnational becomes a permanent resident\nand A22(1) states that a foreign national\nbecomes a temporary resident if an officer\nis satisfied that, inter alia, the foreign\nnational is not inadmissible.\nThis applies to persons seeking entry into\nCanada or those persons who have\nentered illegally. Consequently, the onus is\non these persons to establish that they are\nnot inadmissible.\nForeign national", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 7.3 (Burden of proof)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-7-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Standard of Proof", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4 Standard of Proof\nThe term “standard of proof” refers to the degree to which the decision-maker must be satisfied.\nImmigration proceedings are civil in nature and therefore the general standard of proof is the\none applicable to civil matters: balance of probabilities. However A33 provides that, unless\notherwise provided, the standard of proof for allegations listed under sections A34 to A37, is a\nlower standard of proof: reasonable grounds to believe that the facts have occurred, are\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n21\noccurring or may occur, applies.\n“Balance of Probabilities” is a civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals. It means\nthat the evidence presented must show that the facts as alleged are more probable than not.\nThe party having the burden of proof must demonstrate that the evidence presented outweighs\nany opposing evidence or arguments. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe”, but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in\ncriminal proceedings.\n“Reasonable grounds to believe” is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility that a fact has\nbeen established based on credible evidence. Reasonable grounds to believe is more than\nsuspicion. Some objective basis for the belief has to exist. Put another way, the fact itself need\nnot be proven; it is enough to show reasonable grounds for believing the allegation true.\nInformation used to establish reasonable grounds should be specific, compelling, credible and\nbe received from a reliable source.\nThe following table summarizes the standard of proof for sections A34 to A42:\nTable 4: Standard of proof\nReasonable grounds to believe Balance of probabilities\n Security (A34)\n Violation of human or international rights\n(A35)\n Sanctions (A35.1)\n Criminality (A36) – except for A36(1)(c)\nfor permanent residents\n Transborder criminality [A36(2.1)]\n Organized criminality (A37)\n Act committed outside Canada – for\npermanent residents only [A36(1)(c)]\n Health grounds (A38)\n Financial grounds (A39)\n Misrepresentation (A40)\n Cessation (A40.1)\n Non-compliance with the Act or the\nRegulations (A41)\n Inadmissible family member (A42)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 7.4 (Standard of Proof)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-8-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Limited discretion of officer at A44(1)", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 Limited discretion of officer at A44(1)\nThe fact that an officer has the discretionary power to decide whether or not to write an A44(1)\nreport does not mean that the officer can disregard the fact that someone is, or may be,\ninadmissible.\nRather, discretion under A44 means that officers and MDs have some flexibility in managing\ncases where the person is inadmissible, however the objectives of the IRPA may or will be\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n22\nachieved without the need to seek a removal order or write a formal inadmissibility report under\nA44(1), for example:\n• where an officer allows the voluntary withdrawal of an application to enter Canada\n(Allowed to leave) option at a port of entry (see section 9.4);\n• where an officer decides to issue a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to a foreign\nnational who is seeking entry to work in Canada and who was convicted of a non-violent\noffence many years ago, taking into account the relevant assessment risk factors (see\nsection 9.7);\n• where a person is already the subject of a removal order and an officer has\ndetermined that the objectives of the IRPA would not be served by the issuance of an\nadditional removal order;\n• where an IRCC officer restores status to a foreign national who has remained in\nCanada beyond the period authorized.\nWhile the body of case law respecting the scope of an officer’s discretion varies, the courts have\naffirmed that an officer’s discretion under A44, is very limited.\nThe courts have also found that this scope of discretion varies depending on the inadmissibility\ngrounds alleged, whether the person concerned is a permanent resident or a foreign national,\nand whether the MD or the Immigration Division has the authority to issue a removal order. In", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 8.1 (Limited discretion of officer at A44(1)) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-8-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Limited discretion of officer at A44(1)", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "other words, the scope of discretion has been viewed as “variable and flexible”.8\nFor example, in Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Cha, 2006\nFCA 126, a case involving a foreign national inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)(a) of the IRPA,\nthe Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) outlined that the particular circumstances of a foreign\nnational, the nature of the offence, the conviction, and the sentence are beyond the reach of an\nofficer when considering whether or not to write an A44(1) report for criminality or serious\ncriminality against a foreign national.\nMore recent jurisprudence9 confirms that officers making decisions under A44 have very limited\ndiscretion, particularly in matters concerning serious criminality and organized criminality, and\nthat there is no obligation to consider factors related to humanitarian and compassionate (H&C)\nor ‘personal circumstances’. These decisions also confirm that at this the 44 stage, officers and\nMDs are conducting a fact-finding mission into “readily and objectively ascertainable facts” and\nthat this administrative screening function applies to both foreign nationals and permanent\nresidents.\nIn all cases, officers must carefully consider the consequences of not writing an A44(1) report as\na means of creating a formal record of an inadmissibility, given that this decision may have an\nimpact on possible future dealings with the person. This will be particularly important in cases\ninvolving security (A34), violation of human or international rights(A35), sanctions (A35.1),\nserious criminality [A36(1)] and organized criminality (A37), regardless of the status of the\nindividual. In such cases, it is important to have a formal record of that inadmissibility. This is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 8.1 (Limited discretion of officer at A44(1)) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-8-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Limited discretion of officer at A44(1)", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "best accomplished by preparing an A44(1) report.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 8.1 (Limited discretion of officer at A44(1)) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9 Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.\nCanada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 1681; Matharu v. Canada (Public Safety\nand Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 902\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n23\nNote: In most cases where an officer has made a decision to manage a case of an\ninadmissible person without writing an A44(1) report (e.g., where an officer is exercising their\ndiscretion to issue a TRP to overcome inadmissibility or allow the withdrawal of an application to\nenter Canada), there will be a corresponding disposition in GCMS which contains the officer’s\nreasons and rationale. However, where an officer’s decision does not have a corresponding\nrecord in GCMS, officers should record their decision, rationale and any specific circumstances\nconsidered in their decision in GCMS notes.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9 (Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Priority Cases: Inadmissibility under A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1) and A37 of the", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 Priority Cases: Inadmissibility under A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1) and A37 of the\nIRPA\nIt was affirmed by the FCA in Sharma v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),\n2016 FCA 319, that within the context of A44, officers and the MD must always be mindful of\nParliament’s intention in drafting the IRPA to make security of Canadians a top priority.\nIn Sharma, the FCA also concluded that the Court’s rationale in Cha in support of a limited\ndiscretion under A44 would appear to apply equally to both foreign nationals and permanent\nresidents.\nAlthough the factors contained in these guidelines may be considered when writing an A44(1)\nreport, an officer must always consider the various objectives of the IRPA, in particular A3(1)(h)\nand (i). As suggested by Federal Court of Canada jurisprudence, in cases of inadmissibility\nunder A34, A35, A36(1) and A37, the scope of discretion enjoyed by officers making a decision\nregarding whether or not to write an A44(1) report will be very narrow and it generally is\nreasonably open to an officer or an MD to prioritize public safety and security.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 8.2 (Priority Cases: Inadmissibility under A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1) and A37 of the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "Considerations before writing an A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1 Considerations before writing an A44(1) report\nKeeping in mind the scope of discretion related to considerations for writing an A44(1) report\noutlined in section 8 of these guidelines, the following non-exhaustive factors may be\nconsidered when exercising the limited discretion under A44(1) with respect to foreign nationals\n(including officer options at the port of entry such as allowing the person to withdraw their\napplication to enter Canada under R42):\n Has the person been granted protected person status in Canada? What is the nature or\ncategory of the inadmissibility?\n Is the person already the subject of a removal order?\n Is the person already the subject of a separate inadmissibility report incorporating\nallegations that will likely result in a removal order?\n Is the officer satisfied that the person is, or soon will be, leaving Canada on their own\nvolition? And in such a case, is the imposition of a future requirement to obtain an\nauthorization to return warranted?\n Is there a record of the person having previously contravened immigration legislation?\n In the case of non-compliance, was it unintentional or excusable for a valid reason?\n Has the person now been fully counselled on the topic of their inadmissibility? And is the\nofficer satisfied that the person now understands what is required in future to overcome\ntheir inadmissibility?\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n24\n Is there any reason to believe that, after having previously been counselled on the topic\nof their inadmissibility, the person simply chose to ignore that counselling?\n Has the person been cooperative?\n Is there any evidence of misrepresentation?\n Has the person applied for restoration of status, and does the person appear to be\neligible?\n Has a temporary resident permit been authorized?\n How long has the person been in Canada?\n In minor criminality cases, is a decision on rehabilitation imminent and likely to be\nfavourable?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.1 (Considerations before writing an A44(1) report)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Special considerations for protected persons", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2 Special considerations for protected persons\nUnder the IRPA, protected persons are provided with certain protections, including the right of\nnon-refoulement under A115(1) and, subject to A64, the right under A63(3) to appeal to the\nImmigration Appeal Division (IAD) against a decision to make a removal order against them.\nThis was recognized by Justice Décary in Cha, who noted that the Act and the Regulations treat\npermanent residents differently than Convention Refugees who are, in turn, treated differently\nthan other foreign nationals.\nIt should be noted, however that the Federal Court jurisprudence would support that protected\npersons are not entitled to a higher degree of procedural fairness or participatory rights with\nrespect to the operation of A44(1) than other foreign nationals or permanent residents [see\nAwed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FC 469]. Officers should also keep in mind\nthat the Federal Court has made findings to support the principle that officials carrying out\nA44(1) and (2) assessments are not obliged to speculate about how and when future\ndeportation might take place [Faci v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),\n2011 FC 693].\nIn cases of protected persons, officers may also consider as an additional factor in their\nrecommendation to the MD, whether the facts of the case would support a referral for a\nMinisterial opinion (‘Danger Opinion’) under A115(2). For further information, see section 14.5,\n‘Overview: Minister's opinions/interventions’.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.2 (Special considerations for protected persons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Dual intent", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3 Dual intent\nA22(2) states that the intention of a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not\npreclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that the person will\nleave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.\nDual intent is present when a foreign national who has applied for permanent residence in\nCanada (or is entitled to apply for permanent residence within Canada) also seeks to enter\nCanada for a temporary period as a visitor, worker or student. If an officer has concerns/doubts\nabout the foreign national's bona fides, the foreign national must be made aware of these\nconcerns and given an opportunity to respond to them.\nSome examples of dual intent could include:\n a foreign national frequently visiting a Canadian spouse who has complied with\nprevious conditions of entry and is otherwise not inadmissible, even if an application\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n25\nfor permanent residence has not yet been submitted;\n a foreign national who has applied or intends to apply for permanent residence, but\nis visiting Canada to assess employment opportunities, setting up household, etc.\nThe Federal Court in Rebmann v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FC 301 held that an officer\nis required to take into account the foreign national's dual intent in entering/remaining in Canada\nas a temporary resident and provide analysis of the relevant evidence with regards to the\nforeign national’s intention to establish permanent residence in Canada to show that the foreign\nnational will not leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay as a temporary\nresident.\nAn officer should distinguish between a foreign national whose intentions are bona fide and a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.3 (Dual intent) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Dual intent", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "foreign national who has no intention of leaving Canada at the end of their authorized stay if the\napplication for permanent residence is refused.\nHowever, the possibility that a foreign national may, at some point in the future, be approved for\npermanent residence does not absolve the individual from meeting the requirements of a\ntemporary resident, specifically, to leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for their\nstay, in accordance with R179.\nIn assessing the foreign national’s intentions, officers should weigh all the factors relevant to the\ncase, including the length of time the foreign national has spent in Canada, the means of\nsupport; obligations and ties in the home country, previous compliance with requirements of the\nIRPA and any compassionate circumstances of the person concerned. These factors should be\nconsidered before proceeding with administrative enforcement action [i.e., writing an A44(1)\nreport].\nOfficers are reminded to use their own judgment and the flexibility afforded to them by\nsubsection A22(2) when making decisions on cases where the foreign national also has the\nintention to become a permanent resident.\nIn all cases, officers must ensure that GCMS notes clearly demonstrate the officer’s reasoning\nin their decision.\nFor further guidance on assessing dual intent considerations, see IRCC Program delivery\ninstructions on Dual intent. See also: ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.3 (Dual intent) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada/ Allowed to leave (Port of", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4 Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada/ Allowed to leave (Port of\nentry cases)\nIf a Border Services Officer examines a foreign national seeking entry and the person is alleged\nto be inadmissible, the officer may allow the person to voluntarily withdraw their application to\nenter the country and leave Canada.\nUnder R42, the officer who examines a foreign national who is seeking to enter Canada and\nwho has indicated that they want to withdraw their application to enter Canada shall allow the\nforeign national to withdraw their application, unless R42(2) applies.\nR42(2) provides that a foreign national shall not be allowed to withdraw their application to enter\nCanada where a report under A44(1) is being prepared or has been prepared, unless the\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n26\nMinister does not make a removal order or refer the report to the ID for an admissibility hearing.\nIn other words, once an officer writes an A44(1) report, the allowed to leave option may\nonly be exercised at the MD level.\nBefore writing an inadmissibility report under A44(1), officers should determine whether the\nobjectives of the IRPA are better served by allowing the person to voluntarily withdraw their\napplication to enter Canada pursuant to R42. In such circumstances, the same factors as\noutlined above in section 9.1, ‘Considerations before writing an A44(1) report’, are applicable.\nIf a person is allowed to leave Canada voluntarily, officers should counsel the person as follows:\n inform the person why they are believed to be inadmissible;\n inform the person that if they leave Canada voluntarily, they will be free to seek entry to\nCanada once the factor causing inadmissibility has been overcome; and\n inform the person of the possible consequences of an A44(1) report, including the\npossibility of an admissibility hearing and/or a removal order being made against them.\nIf a person is allowed to leave Canada voluntarily, the officer or MD must give the person an\nAllowed to Leave Canada form (IMM 1282B).\nFor further information on this procedure, see ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.4 (Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada/ Allowed to leave (Port of)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.5", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Directing persons back to the United States under R41", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.5 Procedure: Directing persons back to the United States under R41\nR41 authorizes an officer to direct a foreign national seeking to enter Canada from the United\nStates (U.S.). to return to the U.S. if:\n no officer is able to complete an examination (R41(a));\n the Minister is not available to consider, under A44(2), a report made with\nrespect to the person (R41(b));\n an admissibility hearing cannot be held by the ID (R41(c); or\n the foreign national is prohibited from entering Canada by an order or regulation\nunder the Emergencies Act or the Quarantine Act\nIn such cases, the person concerned may be given a Direction to Return to the United States\nform (BSF505) in appropriate circumstances.\nOfficers should be aware that refugee claimants may only be directed back to the U.S. under\nexceptional circumstances. For further guidance on how and when to use the direct back\npolicy for refugee claimants at land POE under exceptional circumstances, officers must consult\nENF 4 Port of entry examinations.\nA person who has been directed to return to the U.S. pending an admissibility hearing by the ID\nand who seeks to come into Canada for reasons other than to appear at that hearing is\nconsidered to be seeking entry. If such a person remains inadmissible for the same reason(s),\nand if a member of the ID is not reasonably available, the person may be directed again to\nreturn to the U.S. to wait until a member of the ID is available. In these circumstances it is not\nnecessary to write a new A44(1) report.\nNote: Persons directed back to the U.S. who choose not to return to Canada will not be subject\nto enforcement action, as they have no desire to continue with their application to enter Canada.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n27", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.5 (Procedure: Directing persons back to the United States under R41) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.5", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Directing persons back to the United States under R41", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Such persons will simply be deemed to have withdrawn their application. Officers should\ntherefore not counsel the person that failure to return in these instances will result in\nenforcement action while the person is not in Canada.\nIn exceptional cases, it may be appropriate to pursue enforcement action for persons seeking\nentry who have failed to comply with R44(3) following a Direction under R41. Officers should\nconsider all information and individual circumstances of each case before they elect to proceed\nwith writing an A44(1) report for non-compliance, including the circumstances surrounding the\nfailure to comply and the intent of the person concerned.\nFor further information, see ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.5 (Procedure: Directing persons back to the United States under R41) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.6", + "marginal_note": "Restoration of status", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.6 Restoration of status\nR182 describes a mechanism by which a visitor, worker or student who has lost temporary\nresident status for having failed to comply with any of the conditions imposed under R185(a),\nR185(b)(i) to (iii) or R185(c), may nevertheless submit an application to IRCC within the 90-day\nperiod of the loss of their status and, if eligible, have that status restored.\nIt is important to note that under the D & D instruments, only IRCC officials have the authority to\nconsider an application for restoration of status.\nThe application submitted to IRCC shall be approved if the processing officer is satisfied that the\nforeign national continues to meet the initial requirements of their stay, and has not failed to\ncomply with any other conditions imposed and is not the subject of a declaration made under\nA22.1. It is to be noted that an officer shall not restore the status of a student if the student is not\nin compliance with a condition set out in R220.1(1).\nNote: If a temporary resident has applied for an extension of their authorized status before the\nstatus expires, they are considered to have maintained status (formerly referred to as “implied\nstatus”) until a decision is made on their application. Maintained status works by operation of\nlaw [R183(5)], and the temporary resident cannot be reported for non-compliance until a\ndecision is made on their application for an extension, unless other IRPA inadmissibilities are\npresent. For further details regarding procedures for persons with maintained status, see IRCC\nProgram delivery instructions on Temporary residents: Maintained status during processing\n(previously called implied status).\nThe following guidelines must be taken into account by Inland Enforcement Officers (IEOs) prior", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.6 (Restoration of status) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.6", + "marginal_note": "Restoration of status", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "to taking enforcement action in such cases:\nScenario 1: Foreign national is out of status, but has applied for restoration of status\nwithin the 90-day period and is otherwise admissible– decision pending\nForeign nationals who have submitted an application to have their status restored within the 90-\nday period, and who are not inadmissible under any other section of the IRPA or the IRPR,\nshould not be subject to an A44(1) report. In such circumstances, officers must allow for a\ndecision to be rendered by IRCC before taking enforcement action, an approach which is\nconsistent with the Federal Court’s findings in Sui v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and\nEmergency Preparedness), 2006 FC 1314.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n28\nScenario 2: Foreign national is out of status and has not applied for restoration of status\nbut still within 90-day eligibility period\nWhile there is nothing in the IRPA or the Regulations that prohibits an officer from writing an\ninadmissibility report during the 90-day restoration period where no application for restoration\nhas yet been made, officers should consider whether or not to pursue enforcement action in\nsuch cases. After taking appropriate steps to ensure that a restoration application has not been\nmade, should an officer decide to write an A44(1) report and refer the report to the MD for\nreview, the officer should articulate their reasoning for pursuing enforcement action in the\ndecision, if such action is pursued prior to the expiration of the 90-day eligibility period.\nIn order to adhere to the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, the officer must\nconsider each case on its own merits and may consider the following:\n Does the foreign national state that they wish to remain in Canada and for what\npurpose?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.6 (Restoration of status) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.6", + "marginal_note": "Restoration of status", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Has the foreign national already made arrangements to depart Canada in the immediate\nfuture?\n Is the foreign national evasive about their departure plans or the intent to remain in\nCanada?\n Has the foreign national otherwise been in compliance with the terms and conditions of\ntheir temporary resident status?\n If the foreign national does not apply for a restoration of status, is the officer satisfied\nthat the foreign national will appear for future immigration interviews and/or depart\nCanada voluntarily?\n If the officer is satisfied that the foreign national will seek to remedy lapsed status within\nthe 90-day period, then the officer may wish to allow the 90-day application period to\nlapse before reviewing the case again in consideration of enforcement action.\nScenario 3: Foreign national is out of status beyond the 90-day restoration of status\neligibility period, or is otherwise inadmissible under the IRPA or Regulations\nIf an officer encounters a foreign national who has overstayed their authorized period of stay\nbeyond the 90-day eligibility period for applying for restoration of status, or where the foreign\nnational is otherwise inadmissible under the IRPA or Regulations, the officer may pursue\nappropriate enforcement action, which includes writing an A44(1) report and referring it to the\nMD for a review under A44(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.6 (Restoration of status) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) - Port of entry and IRCC only", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.7 Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) - Port of entry and IRCC only\nIn some cases, a designated officer may exercise their authority under A24(1) to issue a TRP to\nallow a foreign national who is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of the IRPA to\nenter or remain in Canada where it is justified in the circumstances. TRPs are always issued at\nthe discretion of the delegated authority and may be cancelled at any time.\nThe authority to issue a TRP is determined by the IRCC Designation and Delegation (D & D)\nInstrument and depends on the nature of the allegation.\nNote: For CBSA, TRPs may only be issued by designated officials at the port of entry.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n29\nThere are instances where the person who has the delegated authority to review the A44 report\n(the MD) does not have the designated authority to issue a TRP. In such cases, the official with\nauthority to review the report (i.e., the MD) may make a recommendation to the person with the\ndesignated authority to issue a TRP.\nTRPs should only be issued in accordance with the IRPA and the IRPR, and must follow the\nIRCC Program delivery instructions on Temporary resident permits. In all cases, officers and\nMDs must leave a record, which includes detailed notes entries in GCMS, of their decision or\nrecommendation. For further information, see ENF 4 Port of entry examinations, section 15.5,\n‘GCMS remarks’.\nTRPs should only be issued after careful consideration of all assessment factors as the\ndocument carries privileges greater than those accorded to other visitors, students and workers\nwith temporary resident status. Before issuing a TRP, an officer must consult the departmental\nand agency guidelines on risk assessment factors and procedures for issuing TRPs. This", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.7 (Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) - Port of entry and IRCC only) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) - Port of entry and IRCC only", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "applies to both initial and subsequent TRPs.\nWhere an officer does not have the authority to issue a TRP but has reviewed the case and is\nrecommending the issuance of a TRP, the officer must prepare a written a case summary that\nincludes a recommendation for a final decision. The officer will refer the case file to the\ndecision-maker with the designated authority to issue a TRP for a final determination. If the\ndecision is made to issue a TRP, the decision-maker will determine the period of validity of the\nTRP.\nFor further instructions and procedures for TRPs, officers must refer to the IRCC Program\ndelivery instructions on Temporary resident permits and ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.\nAdditional considerations for TRP issuance:\n A person is not eligible for a TRP if less than 12 months have passed since their\nclaim for refugee protection was last rejected [or determined to be withdrawn or\nabandoned as described under A24(4)].\nException: The one-year ban on accessing a TRP under A24(4) does not bar an\nIRCC officer, on their own initiative, from considering a TRP for a victim of human\ntrafficking.\n There are specific IRCC policy guidelines respecting certain vulnerable persons\nincluding suspected or known victims of human trafficking or victims of family\nviolence. Only IRCC officials may issue TRPs to victims of human trafficking or victims\nof family violence, however CBSA officials should follow the procedures set out in the\nProgram delivery instructions above for handling these cases.\n If a student, worker or visitor with valid temporary resident status is reported\nunder A44(1) but a decision is made not to hold an admissibility hearing or issue a\nremoval order, that person remains a temporary resident, and a TRP is not required", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.7 (Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) - Port of entry and IRCC only) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.8 A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members\nOfficers should be aware that they may need to assemble information about the family members\nof a person who is the subject of an A44(1) report and decide whether family members should\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n30\nalso be reported and/or made subject to a removal order. Under A42, accompanying and non-\naccompanying family members may be inadmissible to Canada under prescribed\ncircumstances. This provision may only apply to family members who are foreign nationals,\nother than protected persons.\nOfficers should always consider reporting family members in order to avoid separating families\nor having other family members abandoned when one member must be removed from Canada.\nR1(3) provides that:\n1.(3) For the purposes of the Act, other than section 12 and paragraph 38(2)(d), and for the\npurposes of these Regulations, other than paragraph 7.1 (3)(a) and sections 159.1 and 159.5,\n\"family member\" in respect of a person means:\n(a) the spouse or common-law partner of the person;\n(b) a dependent child of the person or of the person’s spouse or common-law\npartner; and\n(c) a dependent child of a dependent child referred to in paragraph (b).\nOfficers should note that under A42, a foreign national who is a temporary resident, applying to\nenter or remain as a temporary resident and has a family member who is inadmissible under\nA34, A35, A35.1 or A37, is inadmissible to Canada whether they are accompanying them or not.\nIt is also important to note that pursuant to the exceptions set out under A42(2), foreign\nnationals seeking temporary resident status who have an accompanying or non-accompanying\nfamily member who is inadmissible under any of the other provisions (A36, A38, A39, A40 or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.8 (A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A41) of the IRPA cannot be reported under A42.\nWhere an officer writes an A44(1) report against a family member for inadmissibility under A42,\nthe MD has jurisdiction under R228 to issue the applicable removal order. Officers should note,\nhowever, that for the purposes of A52(1), the making of a removal order against a foreign\nnational on the basis of inadmissibility under A42 is a prescribed circumstance that does not\noblige the foreign national to obtain the authorization of an officer in order to return to Canada.\nR227 sets out the prescribed circumstances under which an A44(1) report against a foreign\nnational is also considered a report against the foreign national’s family members in Canada.\nR227(2) provides that, in the case of a report and a removal order made by the ID against a\nforeign national who has family members in Canada, the removal order issued by the ID against\na foreign is also a removal order against the family members in Canada without the need for a\nseparate inadmissibility report provided that an officer informed the family member(s):\n of the report;\n that they are the subject of an admissibility hearing and, consequently, have the right to\nmake submissions and be represented, at their own expense, at the admissibility\nhearing; and\n that they are subject to a decision of the ID that they are inadmissible under A42 on\ngrounds of being an inadmissible family member.\nWhile this procedural avenue may be available under the IRPR, it is generally recommended\nthat where an officer decides to pursue enforcement action against inadmissible family\nmembers of a foreign national under A42, the officer should proceed by way of writing a\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n31", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.8 (A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-8-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "separate A44(1) report for each family member after the removal order has been made against\nthe foreign national.\nOfficers should always be alert to the possibility that the family member of a foreign national\nmay be inadmissible in their own right and be mindful of situations where the evidence against a\nforeign national also independently supports an A44(1) report against their family member that\nis unrelated to the A42 inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.8 (A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-9-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 9.9", + "marginal_note": "Impact of Ministerial public policies", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.9 Impact of Ministerial public policies\nBefore writing an A44(1) report, officers should be aware of any public policies approved by the\nresponsible Minister that are currently in force, as well as any operational guidance related to\nimpacts of the public policy on procedures or considerations for decisions made under the\nIRPA. In general, these public policies grant temporary remedies or exemptions for certain IRPA\nrequirements for certain categories of persons who meet specified criteria set out in the policy.\nThey are generally in place for a specific and temporary period of time, however, some public\npolicies may remain in place for an extended period. Officers should ensure that they follow any\nnew guidance or instructions related to new public policies.\nOfficers should be aware that, unless a public policy specifies that a person is excluded from\ncertain requirements under the IRPA or the IRPR, all other legislative obligations and\ninadmissibility provisions continue to apply.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 9.9 (Impact of Ministerial public policies)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents of Canada", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10 A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents of Canada\nWhile permanent residents are given an opportunity to make submissions as part of procedural\nfairness during the A44 process, they cannot be compelled to attend an interview, answer\nquestions or provide submissions. As noted in section 11.7, permanent residents are only\nsubject to an obligation to answer questions when subject to examination at a port of entry, and\nonly insofar as it relates to establishing that they hold permanent resident status.\nThe submissions and evidence provided on behalf of a permanent resident should be reviewed\non a case-by-case basis and an officer must clearly articulate which factors were considered.\nOfficers must ensure that all relevant factors have been addressed in their written\nrecommendation to the MD and may best achieve this by preparing a narrative report under\nA44(1), which is to accompany the A44(1) report when it is transmitted to the MD. Officers must\nalso ensure that they forward to the MD all submissions and documents filed by the person\nconcerned as well as any other evidence relied on in the officer’s recommendation.\nIn Hernandez v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2007 FC\n725, the Federal Court held that while a narrative report is not required when referring the\nA44(1) report to the MD, where the officer has prepared such a report, all accompanying notes\nor appendices must be provided to the MD in full. The court also held that once such material is\ncreated and delivered to the Minister, it must be provided to the person concerned prior to the\nadmissibility hearing – this is particularly so when a specific request has been made.\nSee Appendix E: Sample A44(1) Narrative report.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n32\nOfficers should also provide reasons for giving more weight to certain documents over others\nwhere there is conflicting or inconsistent information before them. For example, where there are\nconflicting versions of events pertaining to a criminal offence, an explanation as to why one\nversion is being relied on over the other should be provided in the officer’s recommendation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 10 (A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents of Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-10-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports for criminality cases", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1 A44(1) reports for criminality cases\nIn Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v. Canada (Minister\nof Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 51, the SCC stated that the objectives in the IRPA\nreflect an intent to prioritize security and that this objective is given effect by removing persons\nwith criminal records from Canada. The SCC noted that in drafting the IRPA, Parliament\ndemonstrated a strong desire to treat criminals less leniently than under the former Immigration\nAct. This was noted in Sharma, where the FCA affirmed that officers and MDs, when dealing\nwith matters under A44(1) and A44(2), must always be mindful of the various objectives of the\nIRPA, in particular A3(1)(h) and (i). The FCA also concluded that the Court’s rationale in Cha in\nsupport of a limited discretion under A44 would appear to apply equally to both foreign nationals\nand permanent residents.\nIt is strongly urged that, whenever possible, officers who prepare the A44(1) report in serious\ncriminality cases obtain detailed documentation to support the assessment. Hearings Officers\nwill also find this documentation essential when presenting the case before the ID or when\ndefending a removal order that is challenged at the IAD.\nThree principal factors indicate the seriousness of an offence:\n the circumstances of the particular incident under consideration;\n the sentence imposed; and\n the maximum sentence that could have been imposed.\nThe fact that a conviction falls within A36(1) is itself an indication of its seriousness for\nimmigration purposes. It is also important for officers to be aware that sentences imposed by the\ncourts may have been subject to plea bargaining. The Crown may agree to a reduced sentence", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 10.1 (A44(1) reports for criminality cases) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-10-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports for criminality cases", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "if the person pleads guilty. The circumstances of the crime are not viewed less seriously, but\nsaving the court the time and expense of a full trial is taken into consideration in determining the\nsentence.\nThe best documentation is a transcript of the trial judge's remarks on conviction or sentencing,\ncommonly known as the Judge's Reasons for Sentence. Additionally, reports from probation\nofficials, police agencies, correctional facilities, etc. provide valuable information regarding the\ncircumstances of the offence and sometimes the potential for rehabilitation.\nThe following may be considered when assessing the seriousness of an offence:\nI. Circumstances of the offence:\n• Did the crime involve violence?\n• Did the crime include the use of a firearm?\n• Was it a crime against a person (specifically, was it a crime against a child or children,\nmentally or physically challenged persons, or senior citizens), a racially motivated crime, a\ncrime of gender-based violence, a hate crime or a crime involving trafficking in large\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n33\nquantities of drugs or in hard drugs (for example, heroin)?\n• How serious were the consequences for the victim?\nII. Criminal history:\n• Is the permanent resident a first time offender?\n• Is there a pattern of committing offences (recidivist), and, if so, are the offences committed\nbecoming more serious?\n• Was the permanent resident influenced by others in the commission of the crime?\nIII. Length of sentence:\n• What type of sentence was imposed on the permanent resident?\n• Was jail imposed?\n• Has probation or parole been denied?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 10.1 (A44(1) reports for criminality cases) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Loss of appeal right cases", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2 Loss of appeal right cases\nDuring the assessment under A44(1) for permanent residents and protected persons, officers\nshould gather all information pertaining to whether or not the person will have a right of appeal\nto the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).\nFor inadmissibility under A36(1)(a) for permanent residents, it is important for officers to obtain\nthe most accurate evidence of the sentence imposed to determine whether the person retains a\nright of appeal. Under A64, a loss of appeal rights for serious criminality under A36(1)(a) must\nbe with respect to a crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least six\nmonths. Where it is not clear from the evidence whether the sentence meets the six month\nthreshold under A64(2), before making any assessment under A44(1), the officer should\ndetermine how the judge calculated the total sentence imposed as reflected in the court\ndocuments, taking into account the imposition of further credits for time served. Regardless of\nwhat assessment is made by the officer, and especially in cases where the right of appeal is in\ndoubt, officers should clearly articulate that the determination as to whether the person\nconcerned retains a right of appeal ultimately rests with the IAD.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 10.2 (Loss of appeal right cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "Whether to consider personal circumstances for permanent residents and protected", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.3 Whether to consider personal circumstances for permanent residents and protected\npersons in recommendation to MD to accompany A44(1) report\nDuring the course of A44(1) proceedings, an officer may receive evidence or submissions\nrelating to a permanent resident or protected person’s personal circumstances and why a\nremoval order should not be sought.\nAs confirmed by the courts10, officers are not obligated to consider personal circumstances\nduring the A44(1) process. However, the courts have also affirmed that officers retain the\ndiscretion to consider these circumstances, and if they exercise their discretion to do so, it has\nto be reasonable. The discretion is tempered by their limited role at A44(1).11 The guidance in\nthis section is intended to assist officers determine when and how to exercise such discretion.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 10.3 (Whether to consider personal circumstances for permanent residents and protected)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10 Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.\nCanada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 1681; Matharu v. Canada (Public Safety\nand Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 902", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 10 (Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11 Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n34\nOfficers must always keep in mind the principles set out in sections 8.2 and 10.1 above when\nrendering decisions under A44(1), including Parliament’s intention in drafting the IRPA to make\nsecurity of Canadians a top priority.\nIn consideration of the various objectives of the IRPA and the limited discretion of officers at\nA44 as confirmed by the courts, the CBSA’s policy is that officers must consider the factors\nbelow when deciding whether or not to exercise their limited discretion to consider evidence or\nsubmissions filed by the person concerned regarding personal circumstances.\nGenerally speaking, the following factors would weigh against consideration of personal\ncircumstances in an officer’s recommendation to the MD:\n the inadmissibility falls under section A34, A35, A35.1 or A37;\n A36(1) serious criminality cases in the following circumstances:\no the permanent resident or protected person was previously issued a\nwarning letter by CBSA or had a previous removal order stayed or\nquashed by the IAD on humanitarian and compassionate grounds;\no the reportable offence: involved violence that resulted in bodily or\npsychological harm to another person, the use of a firearm or is a sexual\noffence; was committed against a vulnerable person (e.g. minor child or\nintellectually or physically challenged persons, or senior citizen), was a\nracially motivated crime, a crime of gender-based violence, including\ndomestic violence, a hate crime or a crime involving trafficking or\nsmuggling in large quantities of a controlled substance or weapons;\no the criminal record of the permanent resident or protected person\ndemonstrates a pattern of escalating seriousness", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11 (Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "If the decision is not to consider personal circumstances, the officer at 44(1) should state this in\ntheir recommendation to the MD. For example, the officer may state in their decision: “I am not\nexercising my discretion to consider evidence and/or submissions filed on behalf of (name of\nperson concerned) pertaining to their personal circumstances given the seriousness of the\nreportable offence”.\nIf an officer exercises discretion to consider personal circumstances\nWhile the courts have affirmed that an officer is not required to consider personal\ncircumstances, if an officer does exercise their discretion to consider such factors, they must\nensure that the factors considered are weighed in a fair manner and render a decision that is\n“justified, intelligible and transparent”.12 Any assessment of a person’s personal circumstances\nmust be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In addition, the courts have held that in\ncases involving allegations of criminality or serious criminality, where such factors are rejected,\nan explanation should be provided, even if only very brief in nature.13\n12 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653 [Vavilov]\nwherein the SCC affirmed at para. 85 that a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally\ncoherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain\nthe decision maker”.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11 (Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13 McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n35\nIf an officer decides to consider the personal circumstances of the permanent resident (or\nprotected person), the CBSA’s policy is that they must balance these with the objectives of the\nIRPA to protect public health and safety, and maintain the security of Canadian society by\ndenying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks.\nIf an officer does exercise their discretion to consider personal circumstances in their\nrecommendation to the MD, considerations may include, but are not limited to the following:\n Age at time of landing—has the person been a permanent resident of Canada\nsince childhood?\n Was the permanent resident an adult at the time of admission to Canada?\n Was the person granted protected person status in Canada?\n Length of residence—how long has the person resided in Canada after the date\nof admission?\n Location of family support and responsibilities—are family members in Canada\nemotionally or financially dependent on the permanent resident? Are all extended\nfamily members in Canada?\n Degree of establishment—is the permanent resident financially self-supporting?\nAre they employed? Do they have a marketable trade or skill? Has the\npermanent resident made efforts to establish themselves in Canada through\nlanguage training or skills upgrading? Is there any evidence of community\ninvolvement? Has the permanent resident received social assistance\n(frequency/duration)?\n Criminality—has the permanent resident been convicted of any prior criminal\noffence? Based on reliable information, is the permanent resident involved in\ncriminal or organized crime activities? What is the nature and frequency of the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13 (McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "person’s interactions with the law? (for further details please refer to section 10.1\n‘A44(1) reports for criminality cases’).\n What is the potential for rehabilitation? How much time has passed since the last\nconviction? Has the permanent resident already been released? For how long?\nHas the permanent resident accepted culpability, expressed remorse, enrolled in\nor completed educational, skills upgrading or rehabilitation programs (for\nexample, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narconon/narcotics rehabilitation programs,\nanger management programs, life skills)? Are family members willing and able to\nsupport/assist?\n History of non-compliance and current attitude—has the permanent resident\nbeen cooperative and forthcoming with information? Has a warning letter been\npreviously issued? Does the permanent resident accept responsibility for their\nactions? Are they remorseful?\n Best interests of any children directly affected by the decision.\n Right of appeal—does the person have a right of appeal to the Immigration\nAppeal Division if a removal order is issued?\nNone of these factors will necessarily outweigh other factors of the case. Moreover, in Faci v.\nCanada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 693 the Federal Court made\nfindings to support the principle that officials carrying out A44(1) and (2) assessments are not\nobliged to speculate about how and when future deportation might take place.\nOverall, any consideration of personal circumstances, which is not required but if done, must\nbe reasonable, and must be weighed against the objectives of the IRPA to protect public health\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n36\nand safety, and maintain the security of Canadian society, denying access to Canadian territory\nto persons who are criminals or security risks.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13 (McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Note: By inviting a permanent resident to provide information or make submissions regarding\ntheir personal circumstances at A44(1), this creates an expectation that the officer will engage\nwith this information in the A44(1) assessment and address it in the decision.\nWhere the officer at A44(1) has exercised their discretion to consider personal circumstances in\ntheir recommendation, the MD must consider this information and explain in their decision\nwhether or not they concur with the officer’s recommendation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13 (McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-10-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 10.4", + "marginal_note": "Residency obligation cases under A28(2) - Prescribed considerations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.4 Residency obligation cases under A28(2) - Prescribed considerations\nIf, following an examination of a permanent resident, an officer concludes that a permanent\nresident has failed to comply with the residency obligation under A28, the officer may prepare a\nreport for inadmissibility under A41(b) against a permanent resident, taking into account\nprescribed considerations set in the IRPA. A28(2)(c) specifically requires officers and the MD to\ntake into account humanitarian and compassionate considerations, including the best interests\nof a child directly affected by the determination, when assessing whether such considerations\novercome any breach of the residency obligation prior to the determination.\nOfficers must articulate consideration of these prescribed factors in the decision to write a report\nunder A44(1) and/or their recommendation to the MD.\nNote: Officers should be aware that there are procedures in place for permanent residents who\nwish to renounce their permanent resident status pursuant to A46(1)(e). In certain cases, it may\nbe appropriate for a designated officer (IRCC or port of entry CBSA) to process a renunciation\napplication under R72.6 in place of an A44(1) report. For further guidance, officers should\nconsult with the IRCC Program delivery instructions on Renouncing permanent residence.\nFor further information, see ENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 10.4 (Residency obligation cases under A28(2) - Prescribed considerations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Evidentiary requirements", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1 Evidentiary requirements\nOfficers should be mindful that any piece of evidence gathered may be used at an admissibility\nhearing. All evidence gathered should therefore be of a quality sufficient to satisfy the MD, or\nthe ID member, of the person’s inadmissibility.\nOfficers must take steps in all cases to provide adequate documentation to substantiate the\ninadmissibility allegation(s) in a report and evidence must be on file to support all elements of\nthe inadmissibility. Files should not be forwarded to the MD or to the Hearings Officer (where\njurisdiction lies with the ID) unless all evidence substantiating the allegation is on file, except in\nrare circumstances. In such cases, officers will record in the case notes the attempts that were\nmade to obtain the evidence, so that the MD or the Hearings Officer, if applicable, may follow\nup, where it is agreed that this is appropriate. This is especially important in cases where\ndetention is also being pursued.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n37\nFor further information on obtaining evidence and determining equivalency, see ENF 1\nInadmissibility and ENF 2 Evaluating Inadmissibility", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.1 (Evidentiary requirements)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Evidentiary requirement: Proof of status in Canada", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2 Evidentiary requirement: Proof of status in Canada\nUnder the IRPA, Canadian citizens and persons registered as Indians under the Indian Act have\nan unqualified right to enter and remain in Canada and are not subject to the inadmissibility\nprovisions of the IRPA. Therefore, before writing an A44(1) report, an officer must have\nevidence to confirm that the person does not hold such status in Canada. In cases of permanent\nresidents, officers must confirm through the appropriate queries that the person has not\nobtained Canadian citizenship and ensure that due diligence has been exercised before\nproceeding with further enforcement action.\nFor permanent residents, the officer must also obtain documentary evidence to establish that\nthe person holds such status in Canada. For further information, see ENF 1 Inadmissibility and\nENF 2 Evaluating Inadmissibility\nNote: Due to the possibility of duplicate identities in GCMS, officers should conduct full name\nqueries in the GCMS Integrated Search view to ensure accurate information is obtained.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.2 (Evidentiary requirement: Proof of status in Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.3", + "marginal_note": "Persons claiming to be Canadian citizens or registered Indians under the", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.3 Persons claiming to be Canadian citizens or registered Indians under the\nIndian Act\nUnder the IRPA, Canadian citizens and persons registered as Indians under the Indian Act have\nan unqualified right to enter and remain in Canada and are not subject to the inadmissibility\nprovisions of IRPA. Therefore, before writing an A44(1) report, an officer should have evidence\nto confirm that the person does not hold such status.\nIn cases of permanent residents, officers must confirm through the appropriate queries that the\nperson has not obtained Canadian citizenship and ensure that due diligence has been\nexercised before proceeding with further enforcement action.\nShould an officer detect the possibility of Canadian citizenship or registered Indian status, the\nofficer shall investigate or cause an investigation of the matter to be initiated before taking any\nfurther steps to write a report or refer the case to an MD.\nIn questioning persons in this regard, officers should be fully cognizant of the Citizenship Act\nand/or make contact with a citizenship officer who can provide assistance and guidance.\nShould a person claiming to be a Canadian citizen make a refugee claim to an officer, the officer\nmust ascertain whether that person is indeed a Canadian citizen. If such is the case, the officer\nshould advise the person that Canadian citizens may not make a refugee claim, as they already\nenjoy the protection of Canadian citizenship and the right to enter and remain in Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.3 (Persons claiming to be Canadian citizens or registered Indians under the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Overview of the examination process", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.4 Procedure: Overview of the examination process\nThe procedural requirements and legal obligations related to gathering information from the\nperson for the purpose of writing an A44(1) report will depend on whether the person is still\nsubject to examination.\nPursuant to A15(1), individuals who make applications under the IRPA are subject to an\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n38\nexamination for various reasons, including to determine whether that person has a right to enter\nCanada or may become authorized to enter or remain in Canada pursuant to A18(1).\nR28 provides that, for the purposes of A15(1), a person makes an application to an officer by:\n• submitting an application in writing;\n• seeking to enter Canada;\n• seeking to transit through Canada as provided in R35; or\n• making a claim for refugee protection.\nWhere the person makes an application, there is a legal obligation under A16(1) to answer\ntruthfully all questions put to them by an officer for the purpose of the examination, and produce\nall documents or other evidence reasonably required.\nMoreover, pursuant to A16(1.1), a person who makes an application must, on request of an\nofficer, appear in person for an examination. The power to compel someone to submit to an\nexamination under 16(1.1) may be used overseas, inland and at ports of entry.\n For foreign nationals, the requirement to produce evidence may extend to the provision of\nphotographic and fingerprint evidence [A16(2)].\n Pursuant to A16(2.1), a foreign national who makes an application must, on request of an\nofficer, appear for an interview for the purpose of an investigation conducted by the\nCanadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and must answer truthfully all questions put\nto them during the interview. Officers should note, however, that the power to compel for a\nCSIS interview under A16(2.1) can only be used for inland and port of entry applications.\nFor further information, see ENF 4 Port of entry examinations (section 5, ‘Examinations’)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.4 (Procedure: Overview of the examination process)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.5", + "marginal_note": "End of examination", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.5 End of examination\nThe IRPR provide that an examination begins “when a person makes an application to the\nofficer.” Persons seeking to enter Canada are considered to have made an application pursuant\nto R28(b) as they are “seeking to enter Canada”.\nR37 specifies the point at which the examination of a person who seeks to enter Canada, or\nmakes an application to transit through Canada, ends. In general terms, examinations will end\nwhen an officer makes a decision on the application before them or, in cases referred to the\nMD, when a decision has been made.\nAt a port of entry, with the exception of refugee claimants, persons seeking to enter or transit\nthrough Canada remain subject to an examination until:\n(a) a determination is made that the person has a right to enter Canada, or is authorized\nto enter Canada as a temporary resident or permanent resident, the person is authorized\nto leave the port of entry at which the examination takes place and the person leaves the\nport of entry;\n(b) if the person is an in-transit passenger, the person departs from Canada;\n(c) the person is authorized to withdraw their application to enter Canada and an officer\nverifies their departure from Canada; or\n(d) a decision in respect of the person is made under subsection 44(2) of the Act and the\nperson leaves the port of entry.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n39\nThis means that during an examination at a port of entry the person may be brought back to an\nofficer for a re-examination of their admissibility and appropriate action could be taken until the\nexamination is complete. Such re-examinations may result in an A44(1) report.\nIt should be noted by officers at the port of entry that while permanent residents are subject to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.5 (End of examination) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.5", + "marginal_note": "End of examination", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "examination when seeking entry, the IRPA gives permanent residents of Canada the right to\nenter Canada at a port of entry pursuant to A19(2) once the officer is satisfied that the person\nholds permanent resident status. The obligation to answer truthfully under A16(1) for permanent\nresidents is linked to A18(1) and must be related to examination for the purpose of establishing\nthat the person holds permanent resident status in Canada.\nWhile an officer who is satisfied at examination that a person holds permanent resident status\nmust admit that person, the officer may also form an opinion during examination that the\npermanent resident is inadmissible for other reasons under the IRPA. In such cases, the officer\nshould advise the person that while it has been established that they have a right to enter\nCanada, there are reasons to believe that they could become the subject of a report under the\nIRPA which could lead to the issuance of a removal order. If the person wishes to continue\nanswering questions or providing information/submissions pertaining to the allegation, they\nshould be given an opportunity but are not required to do so. Even if a permanent resident\nbecomes the subject of an A44(1) report, they continue to have a right to enter until a final\ndetermination has been made regarding their loss of status.\nFor further information, see ENF 4 Port of entry examinations (section 5.6, ‘End of examination’\nand section 11.4, ‘Investigating permanent residents for inadmissibility’)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.5 (End of examination) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.6", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: End of examination for refugee claimants", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.6 Procedure: End of examination for refugee claimants\nThe point at which examination ends is different where the person is a refugee claimant as the\napplication exists up until the claim has been decided.\nR37(2) provides designated officers the authority to examine a refugee claimant until a decision\nis made in regards to the claim.\nEnd of examination — claim for refugee protection\n(2) The examination of a person who makes a claim for refugee protection at a port of entry or\ninside Canada other than at a port of entry ends when the later of the following occurs:\n(a) an officer determines that their claim is ineligible under section 101 of the Act or the Refugee\nProtection Division accepts or rejects their claim under section 107 of the Act;\n(b) a decision in respect of the person is made under subsection 44(2) of the Act and, in the case\nof a claim made at a port of entry, the person leaves the port of entry.\nThis means that even after a claim is determined eligible and referred to the Refugee Protection\nDivision (RPD), officers may compel a refugee claimant to appear for an examination to verify\nand/or obtain information from the refugee claimant as the circumstances warrant, even where\nthe initial examination took place at the port of entry. However, the circumstances under which a\nclaimant is directed to answer questions or produce evidence related to ineligibility should be\nlimited to the scope of the inadmissibility section or exclusion grounds being investigated. The\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n40\npurpose of the examination should be related to identity or grounds of ineligibility, such as\nserious inadmissibility [A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1) or A37] or exclusion under section E or section\nF of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.6 (Procedure: End of examination for refugee claimants) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.6", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: End of examination for refugee claimants", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "During the examination, officers (including inland officers) will be able to question the refugee\nclaimant for the purposes of the examination and require the claimant to produce all relevant\nevidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires, as new information or evidence\nbecomes available while the claim is in process.\n Officers should be mindful that where the refugee protection hearing is underway by the\nRPD, the authority to examine under R37(2) should proceed in a manner that does not\ninterfere with the refugee protection hearing.\n Concerns relating to the merits of the claim, or a refugee claimant's general credibility\nshould not be the purpose of the examination. Instead, matters relating to the merits of the\nclaim or credibility shall be raised before the RPD in the context of a Ministerial intervention\n(see section 14.5, ‘Overview: Minister's opinions/interventions’)\n At ports of entry, if a refugee claimant is determined to be ineligible to be referred to the\nRefugee Protection Division, the claimant continues to be under examination until: (i) a\ndecision in respect of the person is made under A44(2), and (ii) leaves the port of entry. For\ninformation concerning port of entry immigration \"end of examinations\", refer to ENF 4 Port\nof Entry Examinations.\n At inland offices, if a refugee claimant is determined to be ineligible to be referred to the\nRPD, the authority to examine the claimant ends, pursuant to R37(2)(a). Should additional\ninformation be required from the person to gather additional evidence necessary for an\nadmissibility hearing before the ID, or to enforce a removal order, it may be collected under\nthe authority provided in A16(3)- where arrested, detained, or subject to examination or a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.6 (Procedure: End of examination for refugee claimants) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.6", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: End of examination for refugee claimants", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "removal order. Otherwise, the officer may request an in-person interview where determined\nto be appropriate (See also: section 11.7, ‘Procedure: Gathering evidence for persons not\nsubject to examination’).\n It should be noted that when refugee claimants have identified a counsel of record in their\nBasis of Claim (BOC) form or elsewhere in the record of the RPD, they have a right to have\ncounsel present at an interview held in respect of their refugee claim. Counsel are to be\nnotified of and given an opportunity to be present for any interview conducted for the\npurpose of gathering evidence for the refugee hearing (post-eligibility).\nNote: this is to be distinguished from IRPA interviews for other purposes. A refugee claimant\ndoes not have a right to counsel at an interview relating to their eligibility to claim refugee\nstatus.\nSee Appendix A: Sample call-in letter for interview - Refugee claimant", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.6 (Procedure: End of examination for refugee claimants) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.7", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Gathering evidence for persons not subject to examination", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.7 Procedure: Gathering evidence for persons not subject to examination\nWhere the person is no longer subject to examination, there is no legal obligation under A16 to\nprovide information, however officers may request that the person voluntarily attend an interview\nin order to gather evidence and information for the purpose of determining whether an A44(1)\nreport will be written and referred. In such cases, including cases for permanent residents, the\ncall-in notice should state the purpose of the interview and follow the procedural fairness\nguidelines noted earlier in this manual.\nAs noted in preceding sections, permanent residents benefit from a higher degree of\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n41\nparticipatory rights during the A44(1) process.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.7 (Procedure: Gathering evidence for persons not subject to examination)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: In-person interview (all cases)", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.8 Procedure: In-person interview (all cases)\nWhere proceeding by way of an in-person interview, officers must always ensure that the\nperson concerned understands the proceedings. For that purpose, the officer must provide the\nperson concerned with an interpreter if required.\nThe person concerned must also be given the opportunity to have counsel present at the\ninterview. This is not to be confused with an unqualified right to have counsel present, however\nas already set out in section 6.5, detained individuals have the right to have a counsel of their\nchoosing present during the interview. Officers must inform persons of their right to counsel\nprior to commencing the interview. This right applies in all cases where a person is detained\nunder an Act of Parliament and includes situations where the person is detained by the criminal\ncourts while facing charges or serving a sentence. As stated in previous sections, all detained\ncases should be interviewed in person.\nSee Appendix D: Sample Call-in letter for interview- Person no longer subject to\nexamination (includes permanent resident and protected person)\nReasonable efforts should be made to ensure that the notification letter is delivered to the most\ncurrent address of the person concerned. Where appropriate, this may include a site visit and/or\ntelephone call. This will be particularly important in cases where the loss of appeal rights under\nA64 may be involved. See section 11.10, ‘Procedure: Failure to appear at A44(1) interview’.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.8 (Procedure: In-person interview (all cases))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.9 Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no\nlonger subject to examination\nThe Federal Court affirmed in Hernandez v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness), 2007 FC 725, a case involving a permanent resident of Canada, that an oral\ninterview by the officer at the A44(1) stage is not always required, as long as the affected\nperson is given an opportunity to make submissions and to know the case against them. This\nprinciple was affirmed in Sharma v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),\n[2017] 3 FCR 492, 2016 FCA 319. In that case, the FCA also confirmed that the duty of fairness\ndoes not require that the A44(1) report is put before the person before a decision is made by the\nMD to refer that report to the ID pursuant to A44(2), provided that such a report is\ncommunicated to the affected person before the hearing of the Immigration Division. In other\nwords, officers must ensure that the report under A44(1) is provided to the person concerned\nbefore the hearing of the ID. As a matter of practice, disclosure of the report will usually occur at\nthe time that the admissibility hearing package is served on the permanent resident by a\nHearings Officer or Hearings Advisor in advance of the hearing, in accordance with the ID Rules\nfor disclosure.\nWhere an officer elects not to proceed by way of an in-person interview and elects to proceed\nby way of written submissions, the officer must notify the person concerned in writing of the\nallegation and the process to be followed, and provide them with an opportunity and reasonable\ntime to provide submissions and information related to their case.\nSee Appendix B: Sample letter to be sent where no interview is requested- Person no", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.9 (Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "longer subject to examination (includes permanent resident and protected person)\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n42\nWhere proceeding by way of written submissions, an officer may also choose to provide a\nquestionnaire to the person concerned in order to facilitate the process and provide an\ninformation guideline to assist the person concerned.\nSee Appendix C: Sample Questionnaire\nNote: For submissions in writing, sufficient time shall be allowed for receipt by regular mail. or\nexample, if the deadline for receipt is 15 days, an officer should not make a decision on day 15,\nbut shall wait an additional seven days to allow for mail delays.\nWhere the person concerned makes a request for an extension of time to provide\nsubmissions, the officer shall reasonably consider such a request, having full regard to the\ncircumstances of the person concerned and the reasons for the request. The officer’s decision\nmust be issued in writing and provided to the person concerned.\nAs already noted, permanent residents (and foreign nationals who are no longer subject to\nexamination) cannot be compelled to provide submissions or otherwise be required to\nparticipate in the A44(1) process. Where reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the\nperson concerned has been notified of the A44 process and no submissions are received or the\nperson concerned has expressly declined to participate in the A44(1) process, the officer may\nproceed to write an A44(1) report based on all relevant evidence available and refer the report\nto be reviewed by an MD under A44(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.9 (Procedure for submissions where no in-person interview is held: Persons no) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-11-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 11.10", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Failure to appear at A44(1) interview", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.10 Procedure: Failure to appear at A44(1) interview\nIf the person concerned does not appear for an interview on the date specified in the call-in\nletter and the responsible officer and/or office where the A44(1) investigation originated has not\nreceived notice or other indication from the person concerned stating why they were unable to\nattend the interview, then officers should make reasonable efforts to locate the person, including\nreasonable efforts to determine the reasons for the no-show (e.g., letter to the last known\naddress, site visit and/or telephone call). This will be particularly important in cases where the\nloss of appeal rights under A64 may be involved.\nIn all cases where the loss of appeal rights under A64 may be involved, where the person\nconcerned was not originally called in for an in-person interview, and no further\nsubmissions/information have been received within the specified timeframe, it is recommended\nthat the officer attempt to interview the person concerned, either by telephone or in person,\nbefore taking further enforcement action. This will ensure that the person concerned is aware of\nthe fact that they may not have appeal rights in their case should a removal order be issued.\nWhere an interview is not possible because the person concerned refuses to meet or talk with\nan officer, the officer must keep a record of the efforts made to gather the information and the\nefforts to provide sufficient time for the person concerned to submit the information for\nconsideration.\nWhere, after making reasonable efforts, the officer has been unable to locate the person\nconcerned and no correspondence or submissions have been received on their behalf, the\nofficer may still proceed to write the A44(1) report based on all relevant evidence available and\nrefer the report to be reviewed by an MD under A44(2).\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n43", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 11.10 (Procedure: Failure to appear at A44(1) interview)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Serious inadmissibilities [A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1), A37]", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1 Serious inadmissibilities [A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1), A37]\nIt is important to balance the requirement to gather information according to the considerations\noutlined in the preceding sections and the need to protect the safety of Canadian society. There\nmay be cases where an officer is pursuing enforcement under the IRPA for serious\ninadmissibility and the person constitutes either a danger to the public or a significant flight risk.\nFor example, criminal intelligence exists that the person is committing crimes of a violent nature,\nis a security risk or is involved in organized crime, etc. In such cases where an arrest and\ndetention is necessary, it may be appropriate that the A44(1) report be written and a decision to\nrefer the matter to the ID be made without advising the client prior to the arrest. In such\nexceptional cases, officers must first document their recommendation, consult with their\nmanager regarding this proposed course of action and receive concurrence before proceeding.\nIf an arrest takes place, the officer will then provide the individual with a copy of the A44(1)\nreport. If the matter concerns a permanent resident or a protected person and they wish to\nmake submissions at that point, the officers will provide them with a reasonable opportunity to\ndo so and will forward the submission to the MD for review.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 12.1 (Serious inadmissibilities [A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1), A37])", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Evidence of pending or withdrawn charges", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2 Evidence of pending or withdrawn charges\nOfficers must be careful about how they rely on evidence of charges which did not lead to a\nconviction. In McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422,\nChief Justice Crampton held that in exercising discretion to refer an individual for admissibility\nhearing, it is reasonable for the Minister or his delegate to place significant weight on the\nnumber of interactions that a person who is the subject of an A44(1) report has had with the law.\nJustice Crampton also found that while the Federal Court has previously found that pending or\nwithdrawn charges may be considered by an officer or an MD in determinations under A44(1)\nand A44(2) and certain other contexts that arise under the IRPA, provided that such evidence is\nfound to be credible and trustworthy14, officers must be mindful that there are limitations to the\nway such evidence is used and officers should not treat the existence of withdrawn charges on\ntheir face as evidence of a person’s history of criminality.\nOfficers must also be careful not to rely on convictions for which rehabilitation or a record\nsuspension has been granted as evidence of a criminal record.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 12.2 (Evidence of pending or withdrawn charges)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3 Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act\nOfficers must ensure that they do not rely on or refer to youth offences in their determination,\nexcept where access is authorized under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Information\nthat is not accessible under the provisions of the YCJA cannot be considered and must not be\nincluded or referenced at any point during A44 proceedings. Moreover, contravention of the\nprovisions of the YCJA is a serious matter.\nThe importance of verifying whether information is protected by YCJA provisions was\nhighlighted in Abdi v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) 2017 FC 950. In\n14 Sittampalam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 326; Thuraisingam v\nCanada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 607; Kharrat v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),\n2007 FC 842\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n44\nthat case, the Federal Court held that the MD did not commit an error in relying on youth crimes\nthat the applicant was found guilty of where access to these records was not restricted by virtue\nof section 119(9) of the YCJA. However, the MD’s reliance on youth offences that were\nwithdrawn or dismissed was unreasonable since section 119(2)(c) of the YCJA allows access to\nthese records for only a brief period after dismissal or withdrawal of the youth charges and the\naccess period to such charges had expired.\nOfficers conducting A44(1) and A44(2) functions must ensure that they only rely on youth\nrecords to which access is not restricted under the YCJA. It is therefore important for officers to\nbe aware of the provisions of the YCJA which relate to access to youth records.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 12.3 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-12-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Privacy and information sharing", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4 Privacy and information sharing\nWhile information sharing is vital to protecting the safety and security of Canadians, the sharing\nof information must be done in a manner which complies with Canada's laws and legal\nobligations. When obtaining and disclosing information obtained from a third party, including a\nforeign government, officers must be aware of their legal obligations under information sharing\nagreements and legislation. In all cases, officers are required to assess the accuracy and\nreliability of information received, and properly characterize this information in any further\ndissemination.\nAll information sharing activities must also comply with the Security of Canada Information\nDisclosure Act (SCIDA)15. The SCIDA provides the authorities for all Government of Canada\ninstitutions respecting the disclosure of information related to national security, including\npersonal information, in order to protect Canada against activities that undermine the security of\nCanada.\nWhen obtaining or assessing evidence at A44, officers must ensure that any and all information\nsharing activities comply with applicable information sharing legislation as well as all relevant\ndepartmental and agency information sharing policies. For further information, CBSA and IRCC\nofficers should consult their respective Agency/Departmental information sharing guidance,\npolicies and toolkits.\n12.4.1 Evidence obtained by mistreatment or torture\nIn addition to ensuring that information is shared in a manner that complies with Canada's laws\nand legal obligations, officers must avoid knowingly contributing to mistreatment of persons by\nforeign entities. Bill C-59 gained Royal Assent in June 2019, thereby establishing the Avoiding", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 12.4 (Privacy and information sharing) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-12-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Privacy and information sharing", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act (ACA). Pursuant to subsection 3(2) of the\nACA, a new Order in Council (OiC) issued to the CBSA in July 2019, which prescribes the\ndirections for avoiding complicity in mistreatment by foreign entities. The OiC prohibits:\n• the disclosure of information that would result in a substantial risk of mistreatment of\nan individual by a foreign entity;\n• the making of requests for information that would result in a substantial risk of\nmistreatment of an individual by a foreign entity; and\n15 The Security of Canada Information Sharing Act (SCISA) was the previous legislation for national\nsecurity information sharing. SCISA was amended and renamed SCIDA after Bill C-59, An Act respecting\nnational security matters, received Royal Assent in June 2019.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n45\n• certain uses of information that was likely obtained through the mistreatment of an\nindividual by a foreign entity.\n12.4.2 Disclosure and procedural fairness considerations\nGenerally speaking, as a matter of procedural fairness, individuals subject to A44 proceedings\nhave the right to know the case against them, which includes understanding what information\nthe officer would rely on in making a decision. However, the Federal Court has recognized that\neach case must turn on its facts and that not every document considered by an officer must be\ndisclosed at the A44 stage. The main question is whether the person has had the opportunity to\nmeaningfully participate in the decision-making process [Karahroudi v Canada (Citizenship and\nImmigration), 2016 FC 522, [2017] 1 FCR 167; Gebremedhin v Canada (Minister of Citizenship\nand Immigration), 2013 FC 380; Bhagwandass v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration), 2001 FCA 49].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 12.4 (Privacy and information sharing) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-12-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Privacy and information sharing", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Officers should keep in mind that where there is relevant information before them which cannot\nbe disclosed to the person due to privacy or information sharing legislation, and where the\nofficer cannot obtain authorization to disclose the document with appropriate redactions, the\ninformation should not be relied upon in the officer’s reasons. There are exceptions where the\nduty of fairness can be met without having to furnish all the documents and reports the decision-\nmaker relied on, such as where a document is protected by privilege based on national security\nor on the solicitor-client relationship, however officers should be careful not to rely specifically\non documents which cannot be disclosed. This position is consistent with Federal Court\njurisprudence [for example, Moghaddam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC\n1063].\nWhere officers receive a request for disclosure of documents at the A44(1) stage, officers\nshould turn their minds to whether the information sought is “material and otherwise unknown\nand unavailable to the person concerned”. Where the information is not material (i.e., not\nbeing relied on in the offer’s assessment) or is otherwise known or available to the person\nconcerned (e.g., a person’s criminal court records which they could access through a request),\nthe officer is not subject to a duty to disclose and this may form the rationale for refusing to\ndisclose it. An officer may still need to refuse to disclose on other grounds. In all cases, it is\nimportant for the officer to provide a rationale for the refusal. [for further information, see Durkin\nv. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 174].\nIn Jeffrey v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 1180, the Federal", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 12.4 (Privacy and information sharing) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-12-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Privacy and information sharing", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Court relied on Durkin and concluded that the Minister does not have a duty to disclose\ninformation other than that which is “material and otherwise unknown or unavailable to the\nperson” until after a decision has been made under A44(2) to hold an admissibility hearing. The\ncourt found that in the circumstances of the case, the officer was not subject to any duty to\nprovide the disclosure sought by the applicant where the applicant was:\n advised of the reason why an inadmissibility report may be prepared pursuant to A44(1);\n informed of the nature of the specific allegations being considered;\n provided an opportunity to respond to those allegations;\n informed of what the relevant information in the officer’s possession consisted of; and\n advised that copies of the information sought would not be provided since the applicant\neither provided that information or was present during the interviews where the\ninformation was obtained.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n46\nIn other words, in responding to such requests for information, officers should ensure that the\nA44(1) procedure is fair.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 12.4 (Privacy and information sharing) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-12-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Allegations of inadmissibility subsequent to a declaration under A42.1", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.5 Allegations of inadmissibility subsequent to a declaration under A42.1\nA decision by the Minister to make a declaration under A42.1 means that the matters referred to\nin A34, A35(1)(b) or (c), or A37(1) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a foreign\nnational, but only in respect of the facts that were reasonably available at the time the Minister\nmade the declaration. Should a person who has been granted an exception pursuant to A42.1\nsubsequently engage in activities that would render them inadmissible on the same or other\ngrounds, or should new and material facts omitted from the record considered by the Minister as\na result of an error or misrepresentation on the part of the person concerned come to the\nattention of the CBSA, an officer may prepare a report that sets out the relevant facts pursuant\nto A44(1).\nBefore making an allegation that the person is inadmissible on the grounds of A34, A35(1)(b) or\n(c), or A37(1), an officer should ensure that the basis of the allegation does not include solely\nthose facts that the Minister has already taken into consideration in granting a declaration under\nA42.1.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 12.5 (Allegations of inadmissibility subsequent to a declaration under A42.1)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) report requirements", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1 A44(1) report requirements\nOfficers should be mindful that the A44(1) report is not evidence. It sets out the allegation and\nthe underlining facts necessary to support the allegation. The report should not contain\ninformation which is unrelated to the allegation (e.g., issues related to grounds for detention or\nthe person’s full immigration history) or opinions of the officer and should be restricted to facts\nwhich support the allegation.\nSince the A44(1) report is an allegation, not evidence, any additional information obtained\nduring an interview which an officer wishes to include in support of the report should be\nprovided by way of a separate statutory declaration from the officer.\nThe authority of the MD to cause an admissibility hearing or issue a removal order cannot be\nexercised unless the form and content of a report under A44(1) comply with specific\nrequirements and contain required information relating to the IRPA inadmissibility upon which\nthe report is based.\nWhen an officer is of the opinion that a permanent resident or foreign national in Canada is\ninadmissible, then that officer may prepare a report under A44(1).\nThe report shall then be transmitted to the MD, along with any forms containing the officer’s\ndisposition, recommendation and rationale. This may be best accomplished by preparing an\nA44(1) case highlights form IMM 5084B (for inland cases) or BSF516 (for port of entry cases).\nFor more complex cases, this may also be accomplished by way of a detailed memorandum or\nA44(1) narrative report (e.g., for permanent residents and protected persons). See also: section\n14.2, ‘Referral of a report to the Minister’s Delegate’.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n47\nAll A44(1) reports must:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13.1 (A44(1) report requirements) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) report requirements", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " be in writing and must indicate the place and date of issue;\n be addressed to the Minister of PS or the Minister of IRCC and be signed by the officer who\nconducted the examination or is otherwise making the report;\n contain the complete name (correctly spelled) of the person who is being reported;\n contain the exact subsection(s)/paragraph(s) of the IRPA (and IRPR, if applicable) upon\nwhich the officer based the opinion that the person, who is the subject of the A44(1) report,\nis inadmissible;\n include a narrative section that justifies the inadmissibility opinion and cites the facts upon\nwhich that opinion is based. The narrative section must indicate the exact grounds for\napplying the particular inadmissibility section(s): these grounds are set out below the words:\n“This report is based on the following information that the above-named individual:”.\nFor example, in applying A36(2)(b), it is not sufficient to state that the person has been\nconvicted of an offence. The report must fully specify the grounds of inadmissibility in the\nfollowing manner:\nThis report is based on the following information that the above-named individual:\nAlso known as (list other names used, where applicable)\n-Is not a Canadian citizen; is not a permanent resident of Canada; is not a registered\nIndian under the Indian Act;\n…has been convicted of an offence; namely, [Possession of Cocaine] on or about [22\nNovember 1982] at or near [Pontiac, Michigan, USA]. This offence, if committed in\nCanada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable by way of indictment under\nparagraph 4(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and for which a maximum\nterm of imprisonment [not exceeding seven years] may be imposed.\nSee also ENF 1 Inadmissibility; and ENF 2 Evaluating inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13.1 (A44(1) report requirements) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "Entering the A44(1) report into the Global Case Management System", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.2 Entering the A44(1) report into the Global Case Management System\n(GCMS)\nAll A44(1) reports are generated in the Global Case Management System (GCMS) under the\n‘Examination’ process.\nOfficers must take care to avoid errors during the data entry process as the written report is a\nlegal document and may be closely scrutinized not only by the MD, but also by Hearings\nOfficers, members of the IRB, and even Federal or Supreme Court of Canada justices.\nWhen officers enter a report into GCMS, they must ensure that the proper allegations are\nselected and that the dispositions of the examination process are accurately staged. Officers\nmust review the contents of the narrative section of the report before finalizing the document.\nFor technical instructions on GCMS processes and detailed instructions on how to enter a report\ninto GCMS, officers should reference their IT Tools and guidelines.\nFor CBSA officers, step by step instructions are available in the GCMS Help Centre.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n48\nNote: Officers must also ensure that the report as well as the investigation process leading up\nto the report are recorded and updated in the National Case Management System (NCMS) in\noffices where NCMS is utilized.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13.2 (Entering the A44(1) report into the Global Case Management System)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports for non-compliance with IRPA requirements – A41", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.3 A44(1) reports for non-compliance with IRPA requirements – A41\nUnder A41, a person is inadmissible for failing to comply with “this Act.” Pursuant to A2(2),\nunless otherwise indicated, references in the IRPA to “this Act” include the Regulations made\nunder it.\nIt is important to note that a non-compliance allegation must be coupled with a specific\nrequirement of either the IRPA or the IRPR; it is not meant to be, nor should it be, a “stand-\nalone” allegation. This means that the report must cite both A41 and the specific IRPA provision\nthat is the subject of the non-compliance (i.e., provision of the IRPA or the IRPR contravened);\nthis structure is necessary in order to determine whether the jurisdiction to issue a removal\norder falls under the MD (R228) or the ID (R229).\nOfficers must also include the specific grounds for the non-compliance in the comments of the\nnarrative portion of the A44(1) report, under the heading: “This report is based on the following\ninformation that the above-named individual:”. In other words, the description of the particular\ncontravention of an IRPA requirement (e.g., person’s failure to leave Canada by the end of the\nperiod authorized for their stay) and any specific reference to a provision of the IRPA or the\nIRPR are to be incorporated in the officer’s narrative justifying the inadmissibility allegation.\nFor further information on the elements of non-compliance under A41, see ENF 2/OP18\nEvaluating Inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13.3 (A44(1) reports for non-compliance with IRPA requirements – A41)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Multiple allegations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.4 Multiple allegations\nWhere the person is inadmissible under multiple provisions of the IRPA, it is generally\nrecommended that the officer writes a separate report for each allegation. The MD will then\nmake a determination on each report during the A44(2) process.\nIf an officer is considering whether to write two separate inadmissibility reports on the same\nperson, and if the objectives of the IRPA would not be further served by pursuing a removal\norder for an additional allegation for which the ID has jurisdiction, then the officer may use\ndiscretion and not write an A44(1) report containing the allegation for which the ID has\njurisdiction [R228(1) and R229(1)]. For example, an allegation may not be worth pursuing\nbecause it will not affect the eligibility of a claim for refugee protection under A101, or because\nthe MD may issue an exclusion order based on the other allegations and there is no concern\nthat the person will be able to return to Canada without consent after one year. However, it is\nimportant to keep in mind the objectives of the IRPA: depending on the circumstances of the\ncase, these objectives may be best served by writing an A44(1) report as a future record of the\ninadmissibility. In such cases, an officer may choose to write the A44(1) report but recommend\nno further action as the A44(2) disposition.\nThere may be instances where an officer, after preparing or reviewing an A44(1) report, finds:\n that the grounds cited in the report are not valid, but in the officer’s opinion, the person\nfalls within some other inadmissible class; or\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n49\n there is an additional ground of inadmissibility\nIn such cases, the officer will need to prepare a new A44(1) report and forward the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13.4 (Multiple allegations) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Multiple allegations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "accompanying documents and evidence to the MD. The officer cannot simply amend the\nexisting A44(1) report. Whether a new A44(1) report is written to replace a previous report or to\nreport a new inadmissibility ground, in either case the officer must ensure that the person\nconcerned is accorded the earliest possible notice of all the grounds against them in\naccordance with the rules of natural justice.\nIf an officer, during the course of an investigation, comes across evidence to support new\nallegations which fall within the jurisdiction of the ID where an existing A44(1) report has already\nbeen referred to the ID, the officer should contact the Hearings Officer to determine next steps,\nincluding whether the additional grounds of inadmissibility should be dealt with at the hearing\nsimultaneously.\nThere may be instances where multiple allegations are contained within the same report. This\npractice is generally discouraged, especially where the jurisdiction for each inadmissibility does\nnot lie with the same decision-maker (i.e., MD or ID). It should be noted, however, that where a\nreport contains one or more inadmissibility allegation, and if the MD has jurisdiction for all\ninadmissibility allegations contained within that report, the MD can determine the disposition of\nthat report. Conversely, where there are several inadmissibility allegations in a report and the\nMD has jurisdiction for only some of them, the MD is not authorized to determine a disposition\nfor that report, and all allegations must be referred to the ID.\nAs set out in section 8 above, discretion under A44 means that officers and MDs have some\nflexibility in managing cases where the person is inadmissible, and assessing whether the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13.4 (Multiple allegations) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Multiple allegations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "objectives of the IRPA may or will be achieved without the need to seek a removal order or write\na formal inadmissibility report under A44(1). Officers should note, however, that where the same\nevidence supports multiple allegations of inadmissibility, they should consider the fact that not\npursuing a particular allegation until a later date may give rise to an abuse of process argument\nby the person concerned. This does not mean an A44(1) report should be written in\ncircumstances where the officer is still in the process of gathering further evidence in relation to\none or more inadmissibility ground, and officers will need to balance whether the objectives of\nthe IRPA would be served by writing a report for all possible allegations or proceeding with only\ncertain allegations at a given point in time.\nExample: A CBSA officer is investigating a permanent resident for inadmissibility for serious\ncriminality under A36(1)(b). The CBSA officer has obtained evidence to support an A44(1)\nreport for the allegation, but has determined that the evidence further supports an A44(1) report\nfor A40(1)(a) based on misrepresentation on the person’s application for permanent residence.\nIt may later be seen or determined by the Courts to be an abuse of process if the officer does\nnot pursue the A40(1)(a) report at the same time as the A36(1)(b) report. On the other hand,\nusing this same scenario as an example, if the officer is also investigating possible\ninadmissibility for organized criminality under A37(1)(a) but is still in the process of gathering\nevidence to establish this allegation, abuse of process is less likely to arise, even if there is\noverlapping evidence in both allegations. In this situation, however, the officer should consider", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13.4 (Multiple allegations) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-13-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Multiple allegations", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "whether to wait until the investigation into the A37(1)(a) allegation is complete before\nproceeding to write the report for A36(1)(b)/ referring it to the MD.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n50", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 13.4 (Multiple allegations) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.1", + "marginal_note": "Providing the A44(1) report to the person concerned", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.1 Providing the A44(1) report to the person concerned\nIn order to comply with natural justice, persons who are reported under A44(1) should fully\nunderstand both the case against them, and the nature and purpose of the report. Wherever\npossible, an officer who writes an A44(1) report must also provide a copy of that report to the\nperson concerned.\nIn cases where a report is prepared as a consequence of an examination (such as at a port of\nentry) or in any other case where the person concerned is on site and/or otherwise available to\nreceive a copy of the report, then a copy of the report should be given to the person concerned.\nIn such cases, officers should also counsel a person who is the subject of an A44(1) report on\nthe following matters, as appropriate:\n the reason why the report was prepared (or in the case of an R41 “Direct Back,” may\nbe prepared);\n the date and time the person should return if the MD was not available to consider a\nreport prepared (or that may be prepared) if the person chooses to return and pursue\ntheir entry request with respect to that person [R41(b)];\n if the review by the MD is to be conducted at a place other than where the report was\ncompleted, appropriate instructions, such as where the office is located and how to\nget there;\n the purpose of the review and the options available to the MD.\nWhere entry seems justified in the circumstances, officers should also inform persons about the\noption to apply for a TRP and about the cost recovery fee. For further information, see IP 1\nTemporary Resident Permits; and ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.\nFor inland cases, where the MD has jurisdiction to issue the removal order, disclosure of the\nreport may occur at the time of the MD review under A44(2). Where the ID has jurisdiction,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.1 (Providing the A44(1) report to the person concerned) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.1", + "marginal_note": "Providing the A44(1) report to the person concerned", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "disclosure of the report may occur at the time the admissibility hearing disclosure package is\nserved on the person concerned. As mentioned in previous sections, the Federal Court of\nAppeal has confirmed that the duty of fairness does not require that the A44(1) report is put\nbefore the person before a decision is made by the MD to refer that report to the ID pursuant to\nA44(2) as long as the affected person is given an opportunity to make submissions and to know\nthe case against them. (See also: section 11.9, ‘Procedure for submissions where no in-person\ninterview is held: Persons no longer subject to examination’).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.1 (Providing the A44(1) report to the person concerned) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.2", + "marginal_note": "Referral of the A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.2 Referral of the A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate\nAll A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents and foreign nationals must be referred to the\nMD who will make the final decision about whether or not to issue a removal order (if within the\nMD’s jurisdiction) or refer the matter to the ID. Where the officer has also prepared an A44(1)\ncase highlights form (IMM 5084B for inland cases or BSF516 for port of entry cases), a detailed\nmemorandum or an A44(1) narrative report, this must also accompany the A44(1) report.\nWhere the officer prepares one of these documents to set out their recommendation and\nrationale, such a document should include:\n• the person's identity, with name, aliases, date and place of birth, citizenship, marital\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n51\nstatus, present immigration status, and details of passports and travel documents;\n• the officer’s opinion based on the assessment of the criteria outlined in the sections\nabove and the recommendation(s);\n• any submissions received from the person or notes taken at the interview; and, if\napplicable, the reasons for any delay in submitting the report.\nThe officer must also forward, where applicable, any other documentation relied on by the\nofficer, including but not limited to:\n• for permanent residents, proof of a search of citizenship records\n• copies of all relevant immigration documents and other certificates and affidavits that\ncan be obtained from IRCC, if applicable;\n• originals or copies of other documents relevant to the case, such as a birth\ncertificate, marriage certificate, a certificate of conviction or other evidence of a\nprevious conviction that is acceptable in a court of law;\n• police occurrence reports;\n• probation, parole and psychiatric assessments;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.2 (Referral of the A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.2", + "marginal_note": "Referral of the A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "• police records and information on other convictions not reportable under A44(1);\n• details of the violations, and the first possible parole or release date if the person is\nserving a sentence;\n• other documentary evidence pertaining to the allegation(s), including all the evidence\nor submissions received from the person concerned.\nThis means that even if the officer at A44(1) does not exercise their discretion to consider\npersonal circumstances, all evidence and submissions received from the person concerned\nmust still be forwarded to the MD.\nNote: When submitting certificates of conviction, officers are to ensure that the conviction (as\nopposed to the original charge) meets the equivalency requirements of the inadmissibility\nallegation.\nSee also, ENF 1 Inadmissibility; ENF 2 Evaluating inadmissibility; and ENF 23 Loss of\npermanent resident status.\nThe importance of forwarding the officer’s recommendation to the MD at the same time as the\nA44(1) report was highlighted in Wong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2011 FC 971.\nIn that case, the Federal Court dealt with the legality of two removal orders issued by the MD\nprior to the A44 case highlights form being signed and dated. In finding that this sequence of\nevents rendered the orders improperly issued and therefore null and void, the Court affirmed\nthat the officer’s recommendation needed to be reviewed by the MD as part of the A44 process\nbefore a removal order was issued.\nIt is in the officer’s recommendation and rationale [contained in the A44(1) case highlights form,\ndetailed memorandum or A44(1) narrative report] that the officer will set out the recommended\ndisposition to the MD at the 44(2) proceedings, including but not limited to:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.2 (Referral of the A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.2", + "marginal_note": "Referral of the A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Issuance of a removal order by the MD (cases within MD jurisdiction under R228);\n Referral to the ID for an admissibility hearing (cases within ID jurisdiction under R229)\n Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada (Port of entry only); see section 9.4,\n‘Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada/ Allowed to leave (Port of entry\ncases)’;\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n52\n Issuance of a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) (Port of entry only); for further\ninformation on TRPs, see section 9.7, ‘Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) - Port of\nentry and IRCC only’;\n Issuance of a warning letter (inland- permanent residents and protected persons only);\nfor further information on warning letters, see ENF 6 Review of reports under A44(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.2 (Referral of the A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.3", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Referring A44(1) reports when a Minister’s Delegate is not on site", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.3 Procedure: Referring A44(1) reports when a Minister’s Delegate is not on site\nThe IRPA requires that A44(1) reports be transmitted to the MD after being prepared: officers\ncannot prepare and then review their own A44(1) report. There may be circumstances where an\nMD is not physically on site and/or otherwise available to conduct a review under A44(2) in\nperson and where deferring the MD review is not a viable option. In such circumstances,\nofficers shall refer to ENF 6, section 10.7, ‘ Procedure: Reviewing A44(1) reports when a\nMinister’s Delegate is not on site’.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.3 (Procedure: Referring A44(1) reports when a Minister’s Delegate is not on site)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.4", + "marginal_note": "Amending the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.4 Amending the A44(1) report\nThere is no mechanism to directly amend an existing A44(1) report in GCMS, therefore at the\ntime the report is being created, officers must ensure that the proper allegations are selected\nand the contents of the narrative section of the A44(1) report are accurate before finalizing the\ndocument.\nThere are instances, however, where errors in an A44(1) report are identified following a review\nof the report after its issuance has been finalized. In such cases, it is important for officers to\ntake appropriate steps to make necessary corrections, taking into account the nature of the\nerror/information to be changed and the stage during which the error is identified.\nWhere, following the issuance of the A44(1) report, an error is identified which does not affect\nthe substance of the report (for example, a typographical error regarding the date of a\nconviction) or it is determined that a change is warranted with respect to the wording in the\nnarrative section of the report, the officer who issued the original A44(1) report may write an\nupdated report in GCMS reflecting the appropriate corrections prior to review by the MD. Where\nthe error is discovered by the MD, it remains open to the MD to send the matter back to the\nofficer so that appropriate corrections may be made or for the officer to consider writing a new\nA44(1) report. In such cases, where a new A44(1) report is written to replace an existing report,\nofficers must ensure the previous report is cancelled in GCMS in accordance with the\nprocedures set out in the GCMS guidelines, including the creation of any process notes as\nrequired. In such cases, the person concerned should be provided with a copy of the amended", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.4 (Amending the A44(1) report) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.4", + "marginal_note": "Amending the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "report in accordance with the procedural fairness requirements outlined in previous sections of\nthese guidelines at some point prior to the proceeding that may result in the issuance of a\nremoval order (e.g., Minister’s Delegate review or admissibility hearing).\nNote: There is a specific process to be followed in GCMS where the MD decides to return the\nA44(1) to the officer. Based on errors or new information identified by the MD, the officer may\ncreate a new A44(1) report by following GCMS procedures for issuing a new A44 report after\nMD returns the report to an officer.\nCBSA officers may consult the GCMS Help Centre for guidance on GCMS procedures where\nthe MD returns the A44 report to an officer.\nIt is also important to note that there are circumstances in which amendments to an A44(1)\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n53\nreport may be made after the report has been referred to the ID, without the need for a new\nreferral under A44(2). While it is generally preferred that amendments be made by way of\nwriting a new A44(1) report containing the amended wording, there may be circumstances\nwhere amendments to the report can be made at the admissibility hearing stage, however, this\nis only possible where the amendment does not affect the substance of the report. For example,\nin Clare v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2016 FC 545, the Minister filed a Notice of\nAmendment to the A44(1) report, after the report had already been referred to the ID. The notice\nitself stated that the amendment did not represent a change in the substance of the original\nreport. The narrative section of the revised version replaced the reference to a particular\nsubsection of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act with reference to a provision under the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.4 (Amending the A44(1) report) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.4", + "marginal_note": "Amending the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Criminal Code of Canada. The Federal Court found that the amendment to the A44(1) report did\nnot need to be submitted to the MD for a fresh determination on a referral to the ID, so long as\nthe amendment conformed generally to the description of the alleged illegal conduct in the\noriginal report and identified an offence that was punishable by a maximum of at least ten years\nimprisonment. Relying on Uppal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC\n338, the Federal Court found that the question was whether the amendment was so significant\nthat it required a fresh consideration by the MD, and held that the ID had reasonably relied on\nthe amended report because there was no substantive change in the description of the offence\non which it was based. Moreover, the person concerned and his counsel were made aware of\nthe amendment to the report at the outset of the hearing.\nOn the other hand, it is important for officers to note that an A44(1) report cannot be amended\nat any point where further review reveals that the report contains a substantive error (e.g.,\nwrong inadmissibility section under the IRPA). In addition, where further investigation leads to a\nfinding that the grounds cited in the report are not valid but the person falls within some other\ninadmissible class, or identifies an additional ground of inadmissibility which the officer intends\nto pursue, the officer must write a new A44(1) report for a fresh referral to the MD. In such\ncases, where a new A44(1) report is written to replace an existing report, officers must ensure\nthe previous examination case is cancelled in GCMS in accordance with required procedures,\nincluding the creation of any process notes where appropriate. Where substantive changes are", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.4 (Amending the A44(1) report) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.4", + "marginal_note": "Amending the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "made to the A44(1) report, officers must also ensure that the new report is provided to the\nperson concerned in accordance with the procedural fairness requirements outlined in previous\nsections of these guidelines.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.4 (Amending the A44(1) report) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.5", + "marginal_note": "Overview: Minister's opinions/interventions", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.5 Overview: Minister's opinions/interventions\nIdentification of cases where an opinion under A115(2) of the Minister of IRCC for\nprotected persons may be warranted\nInformation may come to the attention of an officer in the course of an investigation of a person\nwho is a protected person under A95(2) which the officer believes may warrant flagging the\ncase for a future request for a Minister’s opinion under A115(2) that a person is a danger to the\npublic in Canada, or should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the nature and\nseverity of acts committed or of danger to the security of Canada.\nWhile such a request may not be made until the person has been found to be inadmissible\nunder A34, A35, A35.1, A36(1) or A37 and becomes the subject of a removal order that is in\nforce, officers at the A44(1) stage may flag the case for consideration for a future request for a\nMinister’s opinion in their recommendation to the MD, where appropriate. If a removal order is\nissued, the case can then be referred for consideration of a request for a Minister’s opinion in\naccordance with agency guidelines and local processes.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n54\nFor further information, see ENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and\nseverity of the acts committed and danger to the security of Canada.\nIntervention, cessation and vacation\nDuring the course of an A44(1) investigation, officers may have occasion to deal with\ninformation that may support a possible intervention in an outstanding claim for refugee\nprotection, or a cessation or vacation application for a protected person or Convention refugee.\nIf such is the case, the information should be brought to the attention of the appropriate", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.5 (Overview: Minister's opinions/interventions) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.5", + "marginal_note": "Overview: Minister's opinions/interventions", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Hearings unit where the information and/or evidence can be reviewed with respect to a potential\napplication to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board\n(IRB).\nIn some cases, an officer may receive information about a refugee claimant that could affect the\ndecision of the RPD. If an officer becomes aware of new information relative to any of the\ninadmissibility provisions under A34 through A37, or where there is information to suggest that\nthere is a substantive contradiction of any document or statement made by a refugee claimant,\nofficers should:\n conduct an interview and take notes (see section 11. 6, ‘Procedure: End of\nexamination for refugee claimants’;\n seize any relevant documents under A140(1) that could be used as evidence;\n update the National Case Management System (NCMS) to indicate that the case is\nunder investigation and the reason(s) for the investigation;\n contact the appropriate Hearings unit to discuss case details;\n at the request of the Hearings Officer or Hearings Advisor, conduct a further\ninvestigation to collect additional evidence;\n when the investigation is complete, transfer the file and all supporting documentation\nto the Hearings Officer or Hearings Advisor with a memorandum outlining the case\ndetails.\nNote: following a decision of the RPD that refugee protection has ceased under A108(2), the\nMinister may not simply rely on a previous removal order (issued against the person before\nprotected person status was granted) to remove that person. In other words, a new A44(1)\nreport based on inadmissibility under A40.1(1) would need to be written and a new removal\norder would need to be issued by the MD in these circumstances.\nFor further information, see ENF 24 Ministerial interventions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.5 (Overview: Minister's opinions/interventions) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.6 Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report\nA44(3) authorizes officers to impose any conditions, including the posting of a deposit or the\nposting of a guarantee for compliance with conditions, that the officer considers necessary, on a\npermanent resident or foreign national who is the subject of an A44(1) report, an admissibility\nhearing or, being in Canada, a removal order.\nAt the port of entry, this includes circumstances where the officer does not authorize entry to a\nforeign national and prepares an A44(1) report.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n55\nFor further information on deposits and guarantees, see ENF 8 Deposits and guarantees.\nMandatory Circumstances (POE cases)\nThere are also mandatory conditions which must be imposed at the port of entry pursuant\nR43(1) where the Border Services Officer adjourns an examination under A23:\n1. to report in person at the time and place specified for the completion of the\nexamination or the admissibility hearing;\n2. to not engage in any work in Canada;\n3. to not attend any educational institution; and\n4. to report in person to an officer at a POE, if the person withdraws their application to\nenter Canada.\nNote: A person whose examination has been deferred and who fails to report as required for\ncontinuation of their examination is reportable for non-compliance under A41(a).\nFor further information, see ENF 4 Port of entry examinations and ENF 6 Review of reports\nunder A44(2).\nMandatory Circumstances (Prescribed Conditions for A34 inadmissibility)\nIt is important for officers to note that under A44(4), the imposition of baseline conditions is\nmandatory by designated CBSA officials in cases of inadmissibility on security grounds under", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 1 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A34. For each of the circumstances outlined below, the prescribed conditions to be imposed are\nfound in R250.1.\nCBSA officers should be aware that the prescribed conditions must be imposed by the\ndesignated CBSA authority in the following circumstances:\n when an inadmissibility report on grounds of security (A34) is referred to the ID and\nthe subject of the report is not detained;\n when the subject of either an inadmissibility report on grounds of security (A34) that\nhas been referred to the ID or a removal order for inadmissibility on grounds of\nsecurity is released from detention.\nNote: If the person is already subject to conditions imposed by the ID, an officer has no\nauthority to vary or supersede an order previously issued by the ID. Generally speaking, the ID\nretains jurisdiction with respect to the variation of previous terms and conditions imposed by the\nID. In circumstances where an officer believes that previously imposed conditions by the ID are\nno longer required or are insufficient to ensure compliance, but may not necessarily require that\nthe person be re-arrested first, officers will refer the file to the appropriate Hearings unit,\narticulating the need to amend the existing conditions and request that a Hearings Officer make\na request to the ID to vary the order.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n56\nAppendix List\nAppendix A: Sample call-in letter for interview: Refugee claimant\nAppendix B: Sample letter to be sent where no interview is requested- Person no longer subject\nto examination (includes permanent resident and protected person)\nAppendix C: Sample Questionnaire to accompany Appendix B letter to provide submissions\nAppendix D: Sample Call-in letter for interview – Person no longer subject to examination", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 2 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(includes permanent resident and protected person)\nAppendix E: Sample A44(1) Narrative report\nAppendix F: Table: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Inadmissible Classes\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n57\nAppendix A: Sample call-in letter for interview: Refugee claimant\n(Name and Address of person concerned) Ref: UCI/File #:\n(Date)\nDear XXXX (given name and surname of person concerned) ;\nA report under subsection 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act may be\nprepared alleging that you are inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act. If a report is prepared, the Minister’s Delegate may cause an admissibility\nhearing to be held, which could result in a removal order being issued, or the Minister’s\nDelegate may issue a removal order in certain cases. The next step in the process is to conduct\na review of the circumstances of your case.\nPursuant to subsection 16(1.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, you are required\nto present yourself for an interview on:\n(Insert Date and time) at (CBSA office address)\nThe purpose of the interview will be to discuss your admissibility to Canada and/or eligibility or\nissues related to your claim for refugee protection and to provide you with an opportunity to\nrespond to any concerns the Minister may have.\nPlease bring the following to the interview: (check applicable boxes)\n☐Any passports, travel or identity documents\n☐Two recent passport photographs of yourself\n☐Completed Details of Military Service and Details of Police Service Tables (attached)\n☐Other - specify\nPlease confirm your attendance upon receipt of this letter. If you require the services of an\ninterpreter, please inform the officer and an interpreter will be arranged for you.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 3 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Please be advised that you may have counsel present with you during the interview. Please\nnote that the CBSA is not responsible for legal fees and that you must assume all the costs of\nthe legal counsel yourself. Additionally, the CBSA reserves the right to exclude your counsel\nfrom the interview if they are found to be disruptive or disrespectful.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n58\nPlease be advised that should you fail to report for this interview, a decision will be made based\non the information available on file and further enforcement action may be taken.\nRegards,\nXXX (Officer name)\nTitle\nCc: Counsel/legal representative (if specified on file)\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n59\nAppendix B: Sample letter to be sent where no interview is requested – Person\nno longer subject to examination (includes permanent resident and\nprotected person)\n(Name and Address of person concerned) Ref: UCI/File #:\n(Date)\nDear XXXX (given name and surname of person concerned);\nThis is to advise you that a report under subsection 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act may be prepared alleging that you are inadmissible to Canada under paragraph\nXXX of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.\n(Insert IRPA wording here)\nIf a report is prepared, the Minister’s Delegate may cause an admissibility hearing to be held,\nwhich could result in a removal order being issued, or the Minister’s Delegate may issue a\nremoval order in certain cases.\nA decision to allow you to remain in Canada or to seek to have a removal order issued against\nyou will be made in the near future. The next step in the process is to conduct a review of the\ncircumstances surrounding your alleged inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 4 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "You may provide relevant evidence or submissions that you wish to be considered in relation to\nthis matter of your admissibility to Canada. You should be aware that this office may obtain\nadditional information pertaining to the alleged inadmissibility from other sources, such as\nreports prepared by other enforcement agencies.\nPlease note that any documentation that you choose to submit must be in English or French.\nIf you wish to provide submissions and/or documentation for consideration in this matter, you\nmust ensure that all documents and relevant information, including the enclosed form, are sent\nto this officer by (insert date and time).\nSubmissions can be mailed to our office or dropped off at our front counter reception without an\nappointment (at applicable offices).\nDepending on the circumstances of your case, you may or may not have the right to appeal to\nthe Immigration Division should a removal order be issued against you. Subsection 64(1) of the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act states that:\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n60\n64(1) No appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division by a foreign national or their\nsponsor or by a permanent resident if the foreign national or permanent resident has been found\nto be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality\nor organized criminality.\n64(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), serious criminality must be with respect to a crime that\nwas punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least six months or that is described in\nparagraph 36(1)(b) or (c).\nIf you choose not to provide submissions, an admissibility report against you may be\nprepared and referred to the Minister’s Delegate without the benefit of your comments or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 5 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "submissions. The Minister’s Delegate may, based upon the available evidence, issue a\nremoval order if the allegation is within their jurisdiction, or refer your case to an\nadmissibility hearing where a removal order may be issued against you by a member of\nthe Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.\nPlease quote your file number on all correspondence with this office.\nRegards,\nXXX (Officer name)\nTitle\nCc: Counsel/legal representative (if specified on file)\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n61\nAppendix C: Sample Questionnaire to accompany Appendix A letter\nto provide submissions\nInstructions to Officers:\nThis is a sample questionnaire with suggested wording. Preference as to final wording\nis left to the discretion of local managers provided the content remains consistent with\nthe intent.\nPermanent residents, protected persons and foreign nationals who are not subject to\nexamination cannot be compelled to provide information for the purpose of the A44\nprocess. The burden of proof is on the Minister to establish inadmissibility. However,\nindividuals must be given an opportunity to provide relevant information and make\nsubmissions in relation to their case. Should the person elect not to respond or provide\ninformation/submissions, the officer may proceed by relying on the information available\non file in to determine inadmissibility and whether to write and refer a report under\nA44(1).\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n62\nPlease complete and sign this form and return one signed copy with your completed\npackage and keep one copy for your records.\nThis is your opportunity to have an officer consider any relevant information that you\nchoose to submit at the time your case is reviewed, however, you may also provide", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 6 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "other submissions and documentation instead of or in addition to this form.\nPlease complete this form legibly. If you require more space, please use additional\nsheets of paper the same size as this form and return them with this form. On each\nadditional sheet, write your name and Unique Client Identifier (UCI) number in the top\nright-hand corner, and write the page number at the bottom. Please also indicate\nwhich question you are answering.\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n63\nPROTECTED B WHEN COMPLETED\nUCI: _______________\nA44(1) INADMISSIBILITY REPORT BACKGROUND AND PERSONAL\nINFORMATION FORM\nPLEASE COMPLETE FULLY\nPERSONAL DETAILS\nFull Name\nFamily name(s) (exactly as shown on your passport or travel\ndocument)\nGiven name(s) (exactly as shown on your passport or travel\ndocument)\na) Have you ever used any other name (e.g. former names, nicknames, maiden name, aliases, etc.)? Yes No\nb) If you answered “yes” to question a), please provide the name(s) and specify (e.g. former legal name, nickname, maiden\nname, alias, etc.)\nDate of Birth (YYYY/MM/DD)\nCountry of Birth\nPlace of Birth\nCity/Town/Province\nCitizenship(s) – include current and former\n1)\n2)\nSex\nFemale\nMale\nOther ________________ (please specify)\nIf you do not identify with the sex/gender on your passport, you\nmay self identify your sex/gender:\nCurrent Marital Status\nSingle Married Separated Divorced Common Law Partner Widowed\nNative Language/Mother Tongue\nAre you able to communicate in:\nEnglish Yes No French Yes No\nDate and place of your last entry to Canada (YYYY/MM/DD)\nStatus Granted\nCurrent Immigration Status in Canada\nDate Status Granted (YYYY/MM/DD)\nHeight *cm Eye Colour Hair Colour\nMarks/Scars/Tattoos/Identifying Features\na) Do You Own a Motorized Vehicle in\nCanada?\nYes No", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 7 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "b) If you answered “yes” to question a), please list make, model, year, and\nlicense plate number\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n64\nPROTECTED B WHEN COMPLETED\nUCI: _______________\nCONTACT INFORMATION\nPresent Residential Address in Canada\nApt/Unit\nStreet no. Street Name\nCity/Town Province Postal Code\nI Have Resided at This Address Since (MM/YYYY)\nMailing Address (If different from above)\nP.O. Box\nApt/Unit Street No. Street Name\nCity/Town *Country Province/State\nPostal Code\nDistrict\nDaytime Telephone Number\n[ ] [ ] [ ]\nCountry Code No. Ext.\nEvening Telephone Number\n[ ] [ ] [ ]\nCountry Code No. Ext.\nCell Phone Number\n[ ] [ ] [ ]\nCountry Code No. Ext.\nEmail Address\nSocial Media Accounts (Please list all applicable – e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn\nPrevious Addresses in Canada (last 3 years) [ No Previous Addresses]\nApt/Unit Street no. Street Name\nCity/Town\nProvince Postal Code\nApt/Unit\nStreet no. Street Name\nCity/Town Province Postal Code\nApt/Unit\nStreet no. Street Name\nCity/Town Province Postal Code\nApt/Unit\nStreet no. Street Name\nCity/Town Province Postal Code\nDOCUMENTARY IDENTIFICATION\nPassport/Travel Document Number\nCountry of Issue Issue Date (YYYY/MM/DD)\nExpiry Date (YYYY/MM/DD)\nIf you do not have a valid passport or travel document, please list any other identity documents in your possession\n(e.g., national identity card, birth certificate)\nDocument Number\nPlace of Issue (city/country – include\nparish/province if applicable)\nIssue Date\n(YYYY/MM/DD)\nExpiry Date\n(YYYY/MM/DD)\n*Please attact a copy of the identity document(s) to this form\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n65\nPROTECTED B WHEN COMPLETED\nUCI: _______________\nCIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALLEGATION", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 8 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Provide a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the immigration allegation listed in the cover letter.\nFor example, if the alleged inadmissibility is based on a criminal conviction in Canada, you may speak to the details\nregarding that conviction.\n(Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary)\nPROTECTED B WHEN COMPLETED\nUCI: _______________\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n66\nOTHER INFORMATION\nPlease provide any other information that you feel is important to your case. Please use additional paper if required\nfor your submissions.\nSignature of Person Concerned: _______________________________ Date: ____________________\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n67\nAppendix D: Sample Call-in letter for interview- Person no longer subject to\nexamination (includes permanent resident and protected person)\n(Name and Address of person concerned) Ref: UCI/File #:\n(Date)\nDear XXXX (given name and surname of person concerned;\nThis is to advise you that a report under subsection 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\nmay be prepared alleging that you are inadmissible to Canada under paragraph XXX of the Immigration\nand Refugee Protection Act.\n(Insert IRPA wording here)\nIf a report is prepared, the Minister’s Delegate may cause an admissibility hearing to be held, which\ncould result in a removal order being issued, or the Minister’s Delegate may issue a removal order in\ncertain cases. A decision on whether you are inadmissible to Canada or not and whether the officer will\nseek to have a removal order issued against you will be made in the near future. The next step in the\nprocess is to conduct a complete review of the circumstances surrounding your alleged inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 9 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "In order to fully assess the circumstances of your case and provide you with an opportunity to respond\nto any concerns the Minister may have, you are requested to attend an interview on:\n(Insert Date and time) at (CBSA office address)\nThe purpose of the interview will be to discuss your alleged inadmissibility to Canada and to provide you\nwith an opportunity to respond to any concerns the officer may have. As part of this process, you may\nmake submissions and present any relevant information and documentation related to your\nadmissibility to Canada.\nYou should be aware that this office may obtain information from other sources, such as reports\nprepared by other enforcement agencies. You may wish to address your history with other agencies at\nthe interview.\nAny relevant information that you choose to submit will be considered at the time your case is\nreviewed. Please note that any documentation that you submit must be in English or French.\nDepending on the circumstances of your case, you may or may not have the right to appeal to the\nImmigration Division should a removal order be issued against you. Subsection 64(1) of the Immigration\nand Refugee Protection Act states that:\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n68\n64(1) No appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division by a foreign national or their sponsor or by a\npermanent resident if the foreign national or permanent resident has been found to be inadmissible on grounds of\nsecurity, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.\n64(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), serious criminality must be with respect to a crime that was punished in\nCanada by a term of imprisonment of at least six months or that is described in paragraph 36(1) (b) or (c).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 10 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Please confirm your attendance upon receipt of this letter. If you require the services of an interpreter,\nplease inform the officer and an interpreter will be arranged for you.\nPlease be advised that you may have counsel present with you during the interview. Please note that\nthe Agency is not responsible for legal fees and that you must assume all the costs of the legal counsel\nyourself. Additionally, the Agency reserves the right to exclude your counsel from the interview if they\nare found to be disruptive or disrespectful.\nPlease be advised that should you fail to report for this interview, a decision will be made based on\nthe information available on file and an admissibility report may be referred to the Minister’s\nDelegate without the benefit of your comments and submissions.\nPlease quote your file number on all correspondence with this office.\nRegards,\nXXX (Officer name)\nTitle\nCc: Counsel/legal representative (if specified on file)\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n69\nAppendix E: Sample A44(1) Narrative Report\nOfficer Instructions:\nNote: This is a sample officer narrative report with suggested wording. Preference as to\nfinal wording is left to the discretion of local managers provided the content remains\nconsistent with the intent.\nThis form is generally intended to be used in cases of permanent residents and\nprotected persons. Persons such as permanent residents and protected persons who\nare not subject to examination cannot be compelled to provide information for the\npurpose of the A44 process. The burden of proof is on the Minister to establish\ninadmissibility. However, they may be given an opportunity to provide relevant\ninformation and make submissions in relation to their case. Should the person elect not", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 11 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "to respond or provide information/submissions, the officer may proceed by relying on\nthe information available on file in to determine inadmissibility and whether to write and\nrefer a report under A44(1).\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n70\nA44(1) NARRATIVE REPORT\nTo: Minister’s Delegate\nFrom: (Name of reporting\nofficer, office)\nDate:\nUCI #:\nIRPA Allegation(s):\nSECTION 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION\nSurname/Family Name(s):\nGiven Name(s):\nAlias(es) or Former Name(s) (Specify Which):\nDate of Birth (YYYY/MM/DD): Country of Birth:\nPlace of Birth:\n(City/Town/Parrish)\nGender/Sex: Female ☐ Male ☐\nOther ☐________________________\nCurrent Marital Status:\nSingle ☐ Separated ☐ Married ☐\nDivorced ☐\nCommon Law Partner ☐ Widowed ☐\nCitizenship:\nPermanent Resident ☐\nForeign National ☐\nNative Language/Mother Tongue:\nAble to Communicate In:\nEnglish ☐ Yes ☐ No French ☐ Yes\n☐ No\nDate/Place of Last Entry to Canada:\nStatus Granted:\nCurrent Immigration Status in\nCanada:\nDate Status Granted (YYYY/MM/DD):\nPhysical Description:\nHeight *cm Eye Colour\nHair Colour Marks/Scars/Tattoos/Identifying\nFeatures\nPassport/Travel Document Number:\nCountry of Issue: Issue Date (YYYY/MM/DD)\nExpiry Date (YYYY/MM/DD)\nCopy on File? ☐ Yes ☐ No\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n71\nOther Identity Documents (e.g., national identity card, birth certificate)\nDocument Number\nPlace of Issue (include parish/province)\nIssue Date\n(YYYY/MM/DD)\nExpiry Date\n(YYYY/MM/DD)\nFOR INDIVIDUALS SERVING SENTENCE (FEDERAL OR PROVINCIAL INSTITUTION)\nCorrectional Institution Information:\nPlace of Detention:\nName of Parole Officer:\nTel. Number of Parole Officer: ( )\nStatutory Release Date(YYYY/MM/DD):\nFull Parole Eligibility Date(YYYY/MM/DD):\nWarrant Expiry Date(YYYY/MM/DD):\nSECTION 2 CONTACT INFORMATION\nApt/Unit\nStreet\nno.\nStreet Name", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 12 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "City/Town Province Postal Code\nPerson Has Resided at This Address Since (MM/YYYY):\nMailing Address (If different from above)\nP.O.\nBox\nApt/Unit Street No. Street Name\nCity/Town Country Province/State\nPostal Code\nDistrict\nTelephone Number: (with area code)\nEvening Telephone Number: (with area\ncode)\nCell Phone Number: (with area code)\nEmail Address:\nSocial Media Accounts (Please list all applicable – e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,\nLinkedIn)\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n72\nPrevious Addresses in Canada (last 3 years) [ ☐ No Previous Addresses]\nApt/Unit Street\nno.\nStreet Name\nCity/Town\nProvince Postal Code\nApt/Unit\nStreet\nno.\nStreet Name\nCity/Town Province Postal Code\nApt/Unit\nStreet\nno.\nStreet Name\nCity/Town Province Postal Code\nSECTION 3 CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALLEGATION(S):\nInclude as much detail as possible:\nSECTION 4 FOR CRIMINALITY CASES ONLY\nIs the person currently on supervision or conditions ordered by the courts (e.g., probation or\nparole)?\nPlease provide details:\nHas the person breached supervisory orders or conditions in the past? Please provide details:\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n73\nA. REPORTABLE CONVICTIONS\nOffence:\nConviction\nDate:\nPlace of\nConviction(s):\nSentence\nReceived:\nB. NON-REPORTABLE CONVICTIONS (Group counts of like offences e.g. assault X 4\ncounts; fail to appear X 3 counts, etc.)\nOffence:\nConviction\nDate:\nPlace of\nConviction(s):\nSentence\nReceived:\nSECTION 4 OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n74\nHas a warning letter been issue to the person concerned in the past? ☐ Yes ☐\nNo\nIf yes, provide details:\n☐ Person concerned was notified regarding allegation(s) Date:\n☐ Submissions received from persons concerned Date:\n☐ Person concerned was interviewed in person Date:\nCounsel/Lawyer:\nAddress:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 13 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Interpreter (if applicable):\nLanguage of Interview:\nIf no interview and no submissions received, attempts to contact persons concerned (provide\ndetails):\nOfficer’s Decision:\n☐ No report written\n☐ A44(1) report for (list IRPA allegation(s))\nOfficer’s Recommendation:\n☐ Referral to Immigration Division for Admissibility Hearing\n☐ Issuance of removal order by Minister’s Delegate\n☐ Other (e.g. warning letter) (specify) ___________________\nName of reporting officer: Date (YYYY/MM/DD):\nSignature:\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n75\nSECTION 5 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS\n☐ A44(1) Report\n☐ Certified true copy of IMM 1000 or Confirmation of Permanent Resident Status (IMM 5509)\n☐ Citizenship search\n☐ QRC Certificates\n☐ Warrant(s) of committal\n☐ Certificate(s) of conviction\n☐ Probation/parole reports\n☐ Judge’s reasons for sentence\n☐ Presentence report\n☐ Other (please specify)\n☐ Other (please specify)\n☐ Other (please specify)\nSECTION 6 REVIEW BY MINISTER’S DELEGATE\nDecision:\n☐ Refer to admissibility hearing\n☐ Issue removal order\n☐ Other (e.g. warning letter) (specify) ____________________\n☐ I have reviewed all the facts of the case and the recommendation of the officer above\nReasons:\nRight of appeal ☐ Yes ☐ No\nName of Minister’s Delegate:\nTitle (per D&D Instruments, e.g. Supervisor, Inland Enforcement):\nSignature:\nDate (YYYY/MM/DD):\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n76\nAppendix F: Table: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Inadmissible\nClasses\nIRPA\nSection/\nsubsection\nInadmissibility\nParagraph\nIRPA Text\nIRPR\nreference\nJurisdiction to\nIssue Removal\nOrder\nApplicable\nRemoval\nOrder\nA34\nSecurity\n(PR and FN)\n34(1)(a) act of espionage against\nCanada or that is contrary to\nCanada’s interests\nID\nDeportation\nOrder\nR229(1)(a)\n34(1)(b) subversion by force of any\ngovernment", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 14 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "34(1)(b.1)\nsubversion against democratic\ngovernment, institution or\nprocess\n34(1)(c) terrorism R14\n34(1)(d) danger to security of Canada\n34(1)(e)\nviolence/endanger lives or\nsafety of persons in Canada\n34(1)(f)\nmembership in an organization\ndescribed in (a)(b)(b.1) or (c)\nA35\nHuman or\nInternationa\nl Rights\nViolations\n(PR and FN)\n35(1)(a)\nCrimes against Humanity and\nWar Crimes Act\nR15\nID\nDeportation\nOrder\nR229(1)(b)\n35(1)(b)\nprescribed senior official R16\n35(1)(c.1) organ trafficking\nA35.1 Sanctions\n(FN only)\n35.1(1)(a)\nentry into or stay in Canada\nrestricted due to international\nsanctions\nMD\nDeportation\nOrder\nR228(1)(f)\n35.1(1)(b)\nsubject of an order made\nunder Special Economic\nMeasures Act\n35.1(1)(c) subject of an order made\nunder Justice for Victims of\nCorrupt Foreign Officials Act\nA36(1) Serious\nCriminality\n(PR and FN)\n36(1)(a)\nconvicted in Canada- FN MD Deportation\nOrder\nR228(1)(a)\nconvicted in Canada- PR ID\nDeportation\nOrder\nR229(1)(c) 36(1)(b)\nconvicted outside Canada R17 ID\n36(1)(c) committed an act outside\nCanada\nR17 ID\nA36(2) Criminality\n(FN only)\n36(2)(a) convicted in Canada (= by way\nof indictment or 2 offences)\nR18.1 MD Deportation\nOrder\nR228(1)(a)\n36(2)(b) convicted outside Canada\n(=indictment or 2 offences)\nR17\nR18\nID Deportation\nOrder\nR229(1)(d) 36(2)(c) committed an act outside\nCanada (=indictment)\nR17\nR18\nID\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n77\nA36(2.1) Transborder\nCriminality\n(FN only)\ncommitting, on entering\nCanada, a prescribed offence\nunder an Act of Parliament\nR19\nID\nDeportation\nOrder\nR229(1)(d.1)\nMD\n(specific\noffences\nonly)\nDeportation\nOrder\nR228(1)(a.01)\nA37 Organized\nCriminality\n(PR and FN)\n37(1)(a) member of an organization\nengaged in criminal activity/\nengaging in pattern of activity\nR16.1\nID\nDeportation\nOrder\nR229(1)(e)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 15 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "37(1)(b) engaging in transnational\ncrime (people smuggling/\ntrafficking, laundering money\nor other proceeds of crime)\nA38 Health\nGrounds\n(FN only)\n38(1)(a) danger to public health R20\nID\nExclusion\nOrder*o\nR229(1)(f)\n38(1)(b) health condition danger to\npublic safety\nR20\n38(1)(c) excessive demand on health or\nsocial services\nR24(3)\nA39 Financial\nGrounds\n(FN only)\nunable or unwilling to support\nthemself or dependents\nR21 ID Exclusion\nOrder*o\nR229(1)(g)\nA40 Misrep-\nresentation\n(PR or FN)\n40(1)(a) misrepresentation/\nwithholding material facts\nR22\nID\n(exception:\nR228(1)(a.1)\nExclusion\nOrdero\nR229(1)(h)\nMD\n(Misrep on\neTA re: TRV-\nexempt\nstatus)\nExclusion\nOrder\nR228(1)(a.1)\n40(1)(b) being or having been\nsponsored by a person\ninadmissible for\nmisrepresentation\nID Exclusion\nOrder\nR229(1)(h)\n40(1)(c) final determination to vacate\nrefugee claim or application for\nprotection\nMD Deportation\nOrder\nR228(1)(b)\n40(1)(d) ceasing to be a Canadian\ncitizen\nID Deportation\nOrder\nR229(1)(i)\nA40.1 Cessation of\nrefugee\nprotection\n(PR and FN)\nA40.1(1) FN under A108(2)\nA46(1)(c.1)\nMD Departure\nOrder\nR228(1)(b.1)\nA40.1(2)\nPR under A108(1)(a) to (d)\n[person becomes a FN under\nA46(1)(c.1)]\nA41(a) Non-\ncompliance\nwith Act\n(FN only)\nForeign national — non-compliance\nExamples:\nA41(a) + A52(1) Obligation to obtain the\nauthorization to return to Canada\nA41(a) + A20(1)(a) Does not hold the PR visa\nor other document required under the\nRegulations and have come to Canada in\norder to establish permanent residence\nR6\nMD\nMD\nDeportation\nOrder\nR228(c)(ii)\nExclusion\nOrder**\nR228(1)(c)(iii)\nENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports\n2025-02-20\n78\nA41(a) + A29(2) Failure to leave Canada by\nthe end of the period authorized for their stay\nA41(a) + 30(1) Work or study without\nauthorization\nR183(1)(a)\nR183(1)(b),\n(c)\nMD\nID\nExclusion", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 16 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-5-14-6-p17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-5", + "act_short": "ENF 5", + "act_name": "ENF 5 — Writing 44(1) reports", + "section": "ENF 5 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report", + "part": "Writing 44(1) reports", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Order**\nR228(1)(c)(iv)\nExclusion\nOrder**\nR229(1)(n)\nA41(b)\nNon-\ncompliance\nwith\nresidency\nobligation\n(PR only)\nPermanent resident & non-compliance with\nresidency obligation\nA28\nMD\nDeparture\nOrder\nR228(2)\nA42 Inadmissible\nFamily\nMember\n(FN only)\nA42(1)(a)\naccompanying family member\nis inadmissible\nR23\nMD\nSame\nremoval\norder as\ninadmissible\nfamily\nmember\nR228(1)(d)\nA42(1)(b) FN is accompanying family\nmember of person\ninadmissible under A34, A35,\nA35.1 or A37\nMD\nDeportation\nOrder\nR228(1)(e)\nID: Immigration Division MD: Minister’s Delegate\nMD may not issue a removal order where R228(4) applies (unaccompanied minors and persons unable to appreciate nature of\nproceedings)\n*Departure order for refugee claimants R229(2)\no Deportation order where R229(3) exceptions apply\n**Departure Order for refugee claimants R228(3); Subject to R228(4)\nNote: Only s. 34 deals with future events. Sections 35-37 are limited to past or present events\nThis chart is a quick reference tool reflecting the IRPA inadmissibility classes and\ncorresponding removal orders in effect as of the most recent date of publication of ENF 5.\nOfficers should reference full Act and Regulations on Justice.gc.ca website for complete\ninformation on IRPA inadmissibilities and jurisdiction to issue removal orders.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 5, s. 14.6 (Imposition of conditions following the A44(1) report) (part 17 of 17)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter provides guidance to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Immigration,\nRefugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officials performing the function of the Minister’s\nDelegate (MD) and exercising their authority to review reports prepared under A44(1) of the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe objectives of Canadian immigration legislation with regard to the inadmissibility provisions\nare:\n to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of\nCanadian society;\n to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights\nand denying access to Canadian territory to persons, including refugee claimants,\nwho are criminals or security risks.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and Regulations\nUnder A44(1), an officer may prepare and transmit a report if that officer is of the opinion that a\npermanent resident or foreign national in Canada is inadmissible. Under A44(2), all A44(1)\nreports must be referred to the MD to determine the accuracy and validity of the report and to\ndecide whether to:\n issue a removal order, where the MD has jurisdiction to do so; or\n refer the matter to the Immigration Division (ID) of the Immigration and Refugee Board\n(IRB) for an admissibility hearing.\nThe IRPA provides authority both to members of the ID and to the MD to issue removal orders,\ndepending on the type of allegation contained in the A44(1) report, and pursuant to the authority\nprescribed in the IRPA and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) .\nIn order to streamline the enforcement process in cases involving straightforward allegations,\nand to maintain the principle that the MD may make determinations in cases where there is little\nneed to weigh evidence, the scheme of the Act and Regulations empowers the MD to issue\nremoval orders under the circumstances prescribed in R228. Generally speaking, the more\ndiscretion and analysis required in assessing the allegation, the more likely the jurisdiction rests\nwith a member of the ID.\nIt is important to note that where the MD is authorized to make removal orders under R228, this\nauthority applies at both ports of entry and at inland offices.\nThe following table includes some of the most relevant provisions that may apply during the\nA44(2) process. Some of the authorities listed below pertain specifically to CBSA Border\nServices Officers (BSOs) at the port of entry or IRCC officers assessing applications; others are\nmore relevant to CBSA Inland Enforcement Officers (IOEs).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n7\n2025-02-20\nTable 1: Sections of the IRPA and the IRPR applying to determinations under A44(2)\nProvision Act and\nRegulations\nDelegation of powers A6(2)\nPermanent Resident A21(1)\nTemporary resident dual intent A22\nEntry to complete examination or hearing A23\nResidency obligation A28\nSecurity\nHuman or international rights violations\nSanctions\nSerious criminality\nCriminality\nTransborder criminality\nOrganized criminality\nHealth grounds\nFinancial reasons\nMisrepresentation\nCessation of refugee protection\nNon-compliance with the IRPA or IRPA — foreign national\nNon-compliance with IRPA or IRPR — permanent resident\nInadmissible family member\nA34\nA35\nA35.1\nA36(1)\nA36(2)\nA36(2.1)\nA37\nA38\nA39\nA40\nA40.1\nA41(a)\nA41(b)\nA42\nPreparation of report A44(1)\nReferral or removal order A44(2)\nImposition of Conditions A44(3)\nMandatory imposition of conditions — inadmissibility on grounds of\nsecurity A44(4),(5)\nApplicable removal order — Immigration Division A45(d)\nNo return without prescribed authorization A52(1)\nRight of appeal to Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) A63\nLoss of appeal rights A64\nApplication for judicial review A72(1)\nProtected person A95\nReferral to Refugee Protection Division A100(1)\nSuspension of consideration of eligibility of claim A100(2)\nDeemed referral to Refugee Protection Division A100(3)\nIneligibility to refer refugee claim A101\nCessation of refugee protection A108\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n8\n2025-02-20\nVacation of refugee protection A109\nNon-refoulement — protected person A115(1)\nMinisterial Opinion for protected person A115(2)\nRehabilitation R18, R18.1\nDirect back to the United States R41(b)\nWithdrawing application/Allow to leave R42\nConditions A23 R43(1)\nApplicable removal order — Minister", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Serious criminality/Criminality in Canada (foreign nationals)\nMisrepresentation (vacation of refugee/protected person status)\nCessation of refugee protection\nFailure to comply\nInadmissible family members\nInadmissible under A35.1(1) (foreign nationals)\nPermanent residents and their residency obligation\nClaim for refugee protection\nUnaccompanied minors\nPersons unable to appreciate the nature of proceedings\nR228\nR228(1)(a)\nR228(1)(b)\nR228(1)(b.1)\nR228(1)(c)\nR228(1)(d) or (e)\nR228(f)\nR228(2)\nR228(3)\nR228(4)(a)\nR228(4)(b)\nApplicable removal order— Immigration Division (ID) R229\nFor further information regarding the division of jurisdiction to issue removal orders, see\nAppendix A, ‘Table: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Inadmissible\nClasses’", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 Forms\nThe following table includes some common forms used in the 44(2) process. This is a non-\nexhaustive list and some may only apply to officers carrying out the administration of IRPA at\nthe port of entry.\nTable 2: Forms\nForm title Form\nnumber\nReferral under subsection 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection\nAct for an admissibility hearing BSF506\nDenial of Authorization to Return to Canada Pursuant to Subsection 52(1) of\nthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act IMM 1202B\nAuthorization to Return to Canada Pursuant to Section 52(1) of the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act IMM 1203B\nDeparture Order IMM 5238B\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n9\n2025-02-20\nExclusion Order IMM 1214B\nDeportation Order BSF581\nNotice to Appear for a Proceeding under Subsection 44(2) IMM 1234B\nBSF504\nSubsection A44(1) Highlights – Port of Entry Cases BSF516\nSubsection 44(1) and A55 Highlights – Inland Cases IMM 5084B\nRequest for Admissibility Hearing/Detention Review Pursuant to the\nImmigration Division Rules BSF524\nEntry for Further Examination or Admissibility Hearing BSF536\nDirection to Leave Canada BSF503\nDirection to return to the United States BSF505\nNotification to the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal\nDivision and the Person Concerned by an Immigration Officer Pursuant to\nSubsection 103(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of the\nSuspension of Consideration of Claim\nBSF528\nNotification to the Refugee Protection Division and the Person Concerned by\nan Officer Pursuant to Paragraph 103(2) of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act\nBSF527\nNotification to the Person Concerned by an Immigration Officer Pursuant to\nParagraph 104(1)(A), (B), (C), OR (D) of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act & Notification to the Refugee Protection Division pursuant to\nParagraph 104(1) of the same Act\nBSF529\nAcknowledgement of Conditions BSF 821\nAcknowledgement of Conditions for IRPA Section 34 Cases BSF798\nNotes to File BSF788", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 3.1 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Instruments and delegations\nA4 sets out which Minister is responsible for the administration of the IRPA. The Minister of\nCitizenship and Immigration [also known as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada\n(IRCC)] and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PS) are jointly\nresponsible for the administration and enforcement of the IRPA, however there are some\ndifferences. The IRCC Minister is responsible for the overall administration of the IRPA, unless\notherwise specified. The Minister of PS has the primary responsibility for the administration of\nthe IRPA as it relates to the following:\n port of entry examinations;\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n10\n2025-02-20\n policy lead relating to enforcement of the IRPA including arrest, detention and removal;\n establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of the IRPA and inadmissibility\nunder A34/35/37; and\n declarations referred to under A42.1 (Ministerial Relief provision)\nPursuant to A6(1), the responsible Minister has the authority to designate specific persons or\nclasses of persons to carry out any purpose of any provision of the IRPA with respect to their\nindividual mandates as described in A4, and to specify the powers and duties of the officers so\ndesignated. This is referred to as the designation of authority. In addition, A6(2) authorizes\nthat anything that may be done by the Minister under the Act may be done by a person that the\nMinister authorizes in writing. This is referred to as delegation of authority.\nEach Minister who has responsibilities under the IRPA has written an instrument of delegation\nand designation that is periodically updated. The Delegation of Authority and Designations of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Officers (D & D) instruments stipulate who has the authority to perform specific immigration-\nrelated functions. CBSA and IRCC personnel are designated by position to perform all\ndelegated or designated authorities, including those associated with A44(1)/A44(2) functions. It\nis to be noted that the IRPA D & D instruments have a hierarchical link which means only the\nlowest level of authority is included in the D & D instruments as every position above this one\n(with a direct hierarchical link) has the same authority to perform specific immigration-related\nfunctions.\nCBSA and IRCC officials acting in the capacity of the MD in A44(2) proceedings should always\nreview both the CBSA and the IRCC D & D instruments as they have authorities delegated and\ndesignated under both instruments, which can be found on the IL 3- Designation of Officers and\nDelegation of Authority.\nThe authority to review A44(1) reports has been delegated to certain CBSA and IRCC officials.\nIt is important to note that while IRCC officers have been delegated the authority to review\nreports for most inadmissibility sections, A44(1) reports for inadmissibility under A34 (security\ngrounds), A35 (grounds of violating human or international rights), A35.1 (sanctions) and A37\n(grounds of organized criminality) may only be prepared and reviewed by CBSA.\nAll reports written by CBSA or IRCC officers will be reviewed by the MD who has been\ndelegated the authority under the D & D instruments. If the MD is of the opinion that the report is\nwell-founded, the MD will make the appropriate decision based on the evidence and determine\nwhether to:\n issue a removal order, if the allegation is within the MD’s authority pursuant to R228; or\n refer the report to the ID pursuant to the R229.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For additional information, see Appendix A — ‘Table: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\n(IRPA) Inadmissible Classes’\nNote: Policy requires that even where officers and officials acting in the capacity of the\nMinister’s Delegate (including chiefs and directors) have the delegated authority under\nthe D & D instruments, they should not perform Minister's Delegate functions and\nreviews until they have successfully completed the necessary training to perform the\nA44(2) function. This policy is consistent with the Federal Court’s decision in Zhang v. Canada\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n11\n2025-02-20\n(Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 362 where judicial review was granted based on a\nfinding that there was an inadequate record before the court to conclude that the MD had\nreceived the required Minister’s Delegate Review training and was therefore authorized to issue\na removal order.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5 Definitions\nAdult legally responsible\nAn adult legally responsible for a minor or suspected incompetent person may be their parent or\nlegal guardian. If the accompanying adult is not a parent or guardian, reasonable efforts must\nbe made to contact a parent or guardian. For more information on accompanying adults, please\nrefer to ENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children.\nForeign national\nA person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident; includes a stateless person\n[A2(1)].\nIndian\nA person who is registered as an Indian under the Indian Act [R2].\nMinor\nA minor is a person under 18 years of age. Persons claiming to be less than 18 years of age are\nto be treated as minors unless there is conclusive evidence that they are 18 years old or older.\nPermanent resident\nA person who has acquired permanent residence status and has not subsequently lost that\nstatus under A46 [A2(1)].\nPersons unable to appreciate the nature of proceedings\nThis phrase refers to persons who are unable to understand the reason for the proceedings or\nwhy they are important, or cannot give meaningful instructions to counsel about their case. An\nopinion regarding competency may be based on the person's own admission, the person's\nobservable behaviour at the proceeding, or an expert opinion on the person's mental health or\nintellectual or physical faculties. Pursuant to R228(4)(b) and R229(4)(b), the authority to issue\nany removal order for persons unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings shall be the\nImmigration Division.\nProtected person\nA person on whom refugee protection is conferred in Canada and whose claim or application\nhas not subsequently been deemed to be rejected because of cessation or vacation\nproceedings [A95(2)].\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n12\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 5 (Definitions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedural fairness", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Procedural fairness\nActions and decisions made under the IRPA must be made in accordance with the principles of\nprocedural fairness and natural justice. These principles apply to the exercise of the powers of\nthe Minister’s delegate. In general terms, this means the MD must:\n Allow the person concerned the opportunity to know the case to be met and present\nall relevant facts of the case;\n Inform the person concerned about the purpose and possible outcomes of the MD\nproceedings;\n Provide the person concerned with a reasonable opportunity to respond;\n Allow the person to respond to facts or new information that will be considered by the\ndecision-maker;\n Fully and fairly consider the evidence;\n Render decisions that are impartial and free from bias;\n Provide the notice of decision and reasons for the decision to the person concerned;\n Inform the person concerned of a right to counsel if an A44(2) MD proceeding is\ncaused where the person is detained and the Minister has the authority to issue a\nremoval order;\n Ensure that an interpreter is provided where necessary\nIt is important to differentiate those cases where the MD may issue a removal order and those\ncases where the jurisdiction to issue a removal order lies with the ID, as different procedural\nrequirements and considerations will apply in order to ensure that procedural fairness and\nnatural justice are met.\nThe content of procedural fairness will also depend on the status of the person concerned and\nadditional considerations will apply for permanent residents and protected persons.\nFor additional information, see ENF 5 Writing 44(1) reports: section 6.1, ‘Procedural fairness’;\nsection 8, ‘Considerations before reviewing an A44(1) report- Scope of officer discretion’;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.1 (Procedural fairness) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedural fairness", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "section 9.2, ‘Special considerations for protected persons’; section 10, ‘A44(1) reports\nconcerning permanent residents of Canada’.\nIn reaching a decision, the MD must take into account representations made by persons or by\ntheir counsel, and make particular note of the nature and content of these representations. All\ndecisions of the MD are subject to judicial review, with leave, by the Federal Court of Canada.\nCertain decisions that the MD makes may be subject to appeal before the Immigration Appeal\nDivision (IAD), where a statutory right of appeal exists under the IRPA.\nIndividuals subject to A44 proceedings have the right to know the case against them, which\ngenerally includes understanding what information the MD would rely on in making a decision.\nEach case, however, must turn on its facts and the level of disclosure required at the A44 stage\nmay vary depending on the circumstances of the case.\nIf an MD relies on new information [i.e., information that was not already provided at the A44(1)\nstage] that is material and that the person concerned would not otherwise be aware of or have\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n13\n2025-02-20\naccess to, the MD should ensure that it is provided to the person concerned [for further details,\nsee Durkin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 174]. This is\nparticularly important where the MD has jurisdiction to issue the removal order, as a higher level\nof procedural fairness will apply. Conversely, in cases where the ID has the jurisdiction to issue\nthe removal order, there is no duty to disclose other than information which is “material and\notherwise unknown or unavailable” at A44(1) or A44(2) since the person will be entitled to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.1 (Procedural fairness) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedural fairness", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "receive disclosure in the context of an admissibility hearing [Jeffrey v. Canada (Public Safety\nand Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 1180]. With respect to all requests for disclosure, MDs\nshould always be cognizant of the legal rules and restrictions on the general disclosure of\ndocuments (e.g., Privacy Act, information sharing agreements, etc.). For further details, MDs\nshould refer to ENF 5 Writing 44(1) reports, section 12.5, ‘Disclosure of documents’.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.1 (Procedural fairness) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to\nappreciate the nature of the proceedings\nR228(4) provides for specific safeguards for certain vulnerable persons by requiring that where\nthe person:\n is under 18 years of age and not accompanied by a parent or an adult legally\nresponsible for them; or\n is unable, in the opinion of the Minister, to appreciate the nature of the proceedings and\nis not accompanied by a parent or an adult legally responsible for them;\nthe matter must be referred to the ID for an admissibility hearing. In these cases, the MD does\nnot have jurisdiction to issue a removal order.\nSuch cases will call for a higher degree of procedural fairness at the A44 stage and officers and\nMDs must take extra care to ensure that the person’s interests are represented and that the\nevidence has been fully and fairly considered.\nDuring the ID proceedings, a designated representative will be appointed pursuant to A167(2) to\nrepresent the person’s interests and ensure that procedural fairness requirements are met with\nrespect to presenting evidence relevant to the case and providing a response to facts or new\ninformation that will be considered by the decision-maker. In these hearings, parties will also be\ngoverned by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Chairperson Guideline 8:\n‘Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB’\nWhere a person appears to be unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings, it is\nimportant for the MD to identify this as soon as possible during the A44(2) proceedings. Where\nthe MD, in the course of their interactions with a person, has identified that a person has a\nsuspected or known mental illness and does not appreciate the nature of the proceedings, this", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.2 (Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "should be clearly documented in the MD’s decision so that in cases where the case is being\nreferred for an admissibility hearing, the need for a designated representative is flagged for the\nID.\nIn such cases, the MD should also ensure that other departmental and agency guidelines with\nrespect to dealing with vulnerable persons are followed. See section 6.6, ‘Dealing with\nvulnerable persons’; ENF 20 Detention; and ENF 34 Alternatives to Detention.\nFor additional guidance on how to identify a vulnerable person, see IRCC Program delivery\ninstructions on Processing in-Canada claims for refugee protection of minors and vulnerable\npersons.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n14\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.2 (Procedures for persons less than 18 years old or persons unable to) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Official languages", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.3 Official languages\nBoth the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establish\nthe right of individuals who are subject to administrative proceedings in Canada to communicate\nwith employees of IRCC and CBSA in the official language of their choice, either French or\nEnglish. Officials carrying out the administration of the IRPA must respect the right of the\nindividual to proceed in French or English. In order to ensure that procedural fairness is\nmaintained, MDs should ensure that all the Minister’s documents are provided in the language\nof the proceedings and, where necessary, obtain translations (e.g., a certificate of conviction\nfrom another country that is not in French or English that the Minister is relying on as evidence).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.3 (Official languages)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.4", + "marginal_note": "Interpreters", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.4 Interpreters\nThe MD must be satisfied that the person concerned is able to understand and communicate in\neither of the official languages in which the proceeding is being held. If necessary, an interpreter\nis to be provided to enable the persons to understand and communicate fully.\nNote: Travellers arriving at a port of entry into Canada do not have an automatic right to an\ninterpreter upon request during routine port of entry examinations, however there are situations\nwhere officers at the port of entry are required to suspend the proceedings until a qualified\ninterpreter is available. This may include circumstances where the officer is considering denying\nentry to the traveller. For further information, see Nere v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),\n2018 FC 672.\nCBSA officers should consult guidelines on the use of interpreters contained in ENF 4 Port of\nentry examinations (section 8.5 ‘Use of interpreters’).\nFor further information see IRCC Program delivery instructions (PDI) on interpreters.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.4 (Interpreters)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Counsel", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.5 Counsel\nPersons do not have a right to counsel at MD review proceedings, unless they are detained. In\nall detained cases, persons must be given the opportunity to obtain and instruct counsel at their\nown expense. Counsel includes a barrister, solicitor, family member, consultant or friend.\nIn detained cases: The MD must inform persons of their right to counsel prior to commencing\nthe MD review. This right applies in all cases (port of entry and inland) where a person is\ndetained under an Act of Parliament and includes situations where the person is detained by the\ncriminal courts while facing charges or serving a sentence and subject to IRPA proceedings.\nPort of entry: Generally, CBSA’s policy is not to permit counsel at MD review proceedings\nunless arrest/detention has occurred. However if the MD is dealing with an individual who does\nhave counsel present, the officer should allow the counsel to remain present as long as counsel\ndoes not interfere with the examination process.\nNote: In Dehghani v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] 1 S.C.R.\n1053], the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) determined that the principles of fundamental\njustice do not include the right to counsel for routine information-gathering, such as that\ngathered at port of entry examination interviews. The SCC further held that an Immigration\nSecondary examination at a port of entry does not constitute a detention within the meaning of\nparagraph 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.1\n1 Although the SCC held that secondary examination does not constitute detention, this decision also\nhighlighted that detention within the meaning of section 10(b) of the Charter would result where restraints", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.5 (Counsel) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Counsel", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "on the person’s liberty by state authorities have gone beyond those required for the routine processing or\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n15\n2025-02-20\nFor further information regarding right to counsel at POE examinations, officers should refer to\nENF 4 Port of entry examinations.\nIn non-detained inland cases (CBSA/IRCC): A non-detained person does not have the right to\nhave counsel present during the MD review, however in the spirit of procedural fairness, the MD\nshall inform the person of the possibility of obtaining counsel for the MD review prior to\ncommencing the proceeding. Call-in notices for MD reviews should advise the person that they\nmay have counsel present for the MD review. MDs are not obligated to postpone MD review\nproceedings in non-detained cases due to counsel unavailability, however, may consider such\nrequests on case-by-case basis.\nWhere counsel is representing the person concerned at the proceeding, the MD should ensure\nthat counsel’s identity, the fact of counsel’s presence at the proceeding and statements made\nby counsel on behalf of the person concerned are documented in the their notes, and that\ncounsel’s representations have been considered in their decision. The MD may also need the\nperson’s representative to complete a Use of a Representative form (IMM 5476). For further\ninformation, see IRCC Program delivery instructions on Use of Representatives.\nParticipation by counsel involves speaking on the client's behalf, presenting evidence and\nmaking submissions on the issues. Allowing counsel to participate does not mean that the MD is\nrequired to tolerate disruptive or discourteous behaviour by counsel. Where such conduct is\nencountered, the MD may require counsel to leave and/or the proceeding may be adjourned to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.5 (Counsel) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Counsel", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "another time. In such cases, the MD should ensure to document their reasons for taking such\naction.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.5 (Counsel) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.6 Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44\n6.6.1 Considerations for vulnerable persons in the context of A44\nIt is an overall goal of Canada’s immigration program to treat all persons with dignity and\nrespect. In exercising their IRPA authorities, officials must approach all cases in a\nnonjudgmental manner, remain sensitive to the potential needs and limitations of vulnerable\npersons, and recognize that a person they are dealing with may have experienced some form of\nviolence, abuse or trauma.\nIn the context of A44, vulnerable persons may face particular challenges, including an impaired\nability to answer questions/provide information to officials respecting a potential IRPA\ninadmissibility, due to a physical or psychological frailty or for other reasons. Such persons may\ninclude, but would not be limited to:\n minors (under 18 years of age), including unaccompanied minors;\n elderly persons;\n individuals with severe medical conditions or physical disabilities;\n persons with a suspected or known mental illness;\n persons who have suffered traumatic experiences that resulted in some degree of\nvulnerability, including:\nscreening of their application to enter Canada. Further, while the SCC’s decision affirmed that delays in\nroutine examinations due to operational necessity do not mean the person is “detained”, officers should\nbe cognizant that unreasonably lengthy delays in the examination could lead to the conclusion that the\nperson is detained within the meaning of section 10(b) of the Charter.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n16\n2025-02-20\no victims2 of gender-based violence (GBV) (see section 6.6.3);\no victims/suspected victims of trafficking in persons (VTIPs) or family violence.\nIn the context of A44 procedures, officers/MDs should:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44) (part 1 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Identify vulnerable persons at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that appropriate\naccommodations are made and any relevant considerations are factored into decisions\nand actions taken. In some instances, officers/MDs will need to use their observational\nskills, discretion and sound judgement in identifying a person as vulnerable.\n Recognize that a vulnerable individual’s ability to respond to questions or provide\ninformation may be severely impaired, and remain sensitive to the impact of a perceived\nvulnerability during the A44 process, including during interviews.\n To the extent possible, prevent vulnerable persons from becoming traumatized or re-\ntraumatized during the A44 process.\nWhere an individual who is subject to IRPA enforcement action is identified as a victim of\nviolence, trauma or abuse, including victims of GBV, family violence or trafficking in persons, or\nother forms of abuse such as sexual abuse or labour abuse, officers/MDs must take a victim-\ncentered and trauma-informed approach in order to avoid re-victimizing people who report\nviolence or abuse.\nA victim-centred approach focuses on the needs and concerns of victims to ensure a\ncompassionate and sensitive delivery of services in a nonjudgmental manner.\nA trauma-informed approach is one that avoids triggering trauma that may have placed the\nindividual in their current situation.\nThe guidelines in sections 6.6.2 to 6.6.5 are aimed at assisting MDs in identifying vulnerable\npersons and applying a victim-centred and trauma-informed approach when dealing with\nvulnerable persons at A44.\nIn addition to the guidelines set out in this manual chapter, MDs should always ensure that other\nDepartmental and Agency guidelines with respect to dealing with vulnerable persons and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44) (part 2 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "minors are followed, including IRCC’s Program delivery instructions on Identifying sensitive\ncases and on Processing in-Canada claims for refugee protection of minors and vulnerable\npersons, where applicable.\n6.6.2 Sexual orientation and gender identity and expression and sex characteristics3\nSome IRPA enforcement cases may involve individuals with, or who are perceived to have,\n2 It is important to recognize wherever the term “victim” is used, that some persons who have experienced\nviolence, trauma or abuse may prefer to be referred to as “survivors” rather than “victims”.\n3 Please note that terminology in this section may have further evolved following the publication date of\nthis manual. Consult most recent GoC publications for most up to date terminology.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n17\n2025-02-20\nsexual orientations, gender identities and expressions (SOGIE)4 that may not conform to\nsocially accepted norms in a particular cultural environment. Such individuals include, but are\nnot limited to: Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and additional\nsexually and gender diverse (2SLGBTQI+) individuals. Depending on factors such as race,\nethnicity, religion, faith or belief system, age, disability, health status, social class and education,\nindividuals with diverse sexual orientations and identities may recognize and express their\nidentity differently.\nIndividuals may conceal their SOGIE out of mistrust or fear of repercussion by state and non-\nstate actors, or due to previous experiences of discrimination, stigmatization, bullying,\nostracism, violence or sexual assault. These circumstances may manifest themselves as an\nindividual being reluctant to discuss, or having difficulty discussing, their SOGIE with an officer", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44) (part 3 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-6-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "based on a fear or general mistrust of authority figures, particularly where intolerance or\npunishment of individuals with diverse SOGIE are sanctioned by state officials in an individual’s\ncountry of origin.\nOfficials need to be sensitive to the possibility that SOGIE issues may exist in any case they\nencounter when executing their IRPA authorities. Officials must follow all relevant guidelines\nand procedures pertaining to handling SOGIE cases during the A44 process, remain sensitive\nto gender-related considerations when interacting with the person and be careful to use gender-\nneutral or inclusive terms or terms that reflect the person’s gender identification in\ndocumentation/notes and when completing Departmental and Agency forms.\nOfficials should consult the Internationally recognized sexual orientation or gender identity or\nexpression (SOGIE) definitions on IRCC’s Connexion for further information.\n6.6.3 Victims of gender-based violence (GBV)\nWhen considering enforcement under A44, officers and MDs need to be sensitive to the fact\nthat a person they encounter may have been subjected to specific violence, trauma or abuse\nbased solely on their gender, perceived gender, gender identity or gender expression, as\nwell as sexual orientation. This is referred to as gender-based violence (GBV), which is a\nhuman rights violation.\nIt is important to note that GBV is not limited to physical violence and can also include\nemotional/psychological abuse, harassment, threats, sexual violence, coercive control,\nhumiliation, financial abuse, discrimination or neglect. It is important to note that these may also\noccur online through “cyberviolence”5.\nOfficers and MDs should be aware that certain individuals face a greater risk of experiencing", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44) (part 4 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-6-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "GBV, including: women, girls, 2SLGBTQI+ people and people living with disabilities. Moreover,\nthe risk of GBV may be increased with the intersection of any two or more of these\n4 Also includes individuals with, or who are perceived to have diverse sex characteristics and may also be\nreferred to as SOGIESC. For example, see the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s\nChairperson’s Guidelines on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity\nand Expression, and Sex Characteristics: https://irb.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/policies/Pages/GuideDir09.aspx.\n5 “Use of technologies to facilitate virtual or in-person harm including observing and listening to a person,\ntracking their location, to scare, intimidate or humiliate a person” (Government of Canada, Fact sheet:\nIntimate partner violence (Canada.ca).\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n18\n2025-02-20\ncharacteristics. Other groups that may experience high levels of GBV may also include Black\nwomen and newcomer women to Canada6.\nIntimate partner violence (IPV), also referred to as domestic violence or spousal violence, is a\nwidespread form of GBV that encompasses multiple forms of harm perpetrated by a current or\nformer intimate partner or spouse. IPV can occur in many types of relationships, including\nbetween married or common-law spouses as well as within dating relationships, regardless of\ngender and sexual orientation and whether or not the partners co-habit.\nFor further information respecting IPV, see the Government of Canada’s Fact sheet on Intimate\npartner violence.\nDepending on their cultural background, victims of GBV may be reluctant to disclose their\nexperiences in order to not “shame” their families or communities. Similarly, women who have", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44) (part 5 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-6-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "been subjected to IPV/domestic violence or abuse may also be reluctant to provide information,\nespecially against the alleged perpetrator. MDs should be alert to such cases and will ensure to\nthe extent possible that specific accommodations are made during interviews as set out (e.g.,\nhave a female officer either conduct or be present during an interview, and arrange, if possible,\nfor a female interpreter). See section 6.6.4 below for additional guidance on conducting\ninterviews.\nVictims and survivors of GBV may be encountered both at the port of entry or inland. In such\ncases, officers/MDs should:\n Consider the factors that led to the individual’s breach of IRPA requirements or conditions,\nincluding the possibility that the person was placed in their situation as part of abuse or\nthrough coercion or threats;\n Be aware that perpetrators of GBV are known to use threats of denunciation to immigration\nauthorities as a tool to control and oppress victims through fear of deportation and/or\ndetention. For example, MDs shall consider any such factors that may lead them to believe\nthat a foreign national overstayed their status as a result of being placed in that situation by\nan abuser;\n Within the confines of an MD’s limited discretion at A44(2), be sensitive to personal\ncircumstances as well as the consequences of immigration enforcement;\n Where appropriate and within an MD’s scope of discretion, consider other options where\nthere are IRPA inadmissibility concerns. At the port of entry, this may include allowing the\nperson to withdraw their application to enter Canada (i.e. Allowed to leave) or issuing a\nTemporary resident permit (TRP) to overcome an inadmissibility that may have resulted", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44) (part 6 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-6-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "from GBV. In the inland and port of entry context, this may include a referral to IRCC for\nTRP consideration and/or to community-based service organizations experienced in\nproviding services to GBV victims and survivors in accordance with existing policy and\nregional procedures or allowing the person to make arrangements to leave Canada if they\nplan to do so.\nFor further resources on GBV, please refer to the Government of Canada’s Gender-Based\nViolence Knowledge Centre (Canada.ca).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6.6 (Dealing with vulnerable persons in the context of A44) (part 7 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n19\n2025-02-20\n6.6.4 Interviewing vulnerable persons\nOfficers and MDs must be alert to situations where a person’s ability to answer questions and\npresent information during A44 proceedings may be impacted by one or more factors listed in\nsection 6.6.1 above. Officers/MDs may find that vulnerable persons may have issues affecting\ntheir memory, behaviour, or ability to recount relevant events including symptoms that have an\nimpact on the consistency and coherence of their statements.\nOfficers/MDs should be cognizant that individuals react to violence, trauma and abuse in\ndifferent ways and not all victims will exhibit identical or even similar signs and/or symptoms.\nWhile some individuals may show signs of distress, including anxiety, irritability, nervousness,\nagitation, anger and aggressiveness, others may be easily intimidated and have difficulty\ncommunicating.\nIn order to conduct A44 interviews in a way that avoids traumatizing vulnerable persons or re-\nvictimizing persons who have experienced violence, trauma or abuse, officers/MDs should:\n Recognize that some vulnerable persons may display less obvious symptoms of a\nvulnerability, which may not become apparent until the person is interviewed/examined.\nOfficers/MDs may need to rely on observational skills and sound judgement in identifying\nsigns and symptoms of a vulnerability.\n Be aware that some vulnerable persons may require special accommodations during the\ninterview. Remain sensitive to the fact that victims of severe trauma may have difficulties\ncoping with the interview process because they are confined to a closed room with the\ninterviewer.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6 (Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Create optimum conditions to minimize stress. Allow for frequent breaks, if necessary\nand to the extent possible.\n Be conscious of cultural and gender considerations which may affect communication\nsuch as the person and officer being the same gender, where possible.\n Recognize that victims of violence or abuse may fear people in authority and may be\nintimidated by the many questions that are being asked by officials.\n Recognize that victims of GBV or other forms of violence or abuse may become\ndistressed at the prospect of being interviewed by an official of the opposite sex.\n Where appropriate, speak to the person alone first in a confidential setting and ask if\nthey are comfortable speaking in front of family members (particularly parents, children\nor relatives of a particular gender).\n Provide the person with a fair opportunity to tell the story.\n Be cognizant that there may only be one opportunity for an individual to reach out to\nauthorities, and for authorities to refer a victim of violence or abuse to victim support\nservices.\n Be courteous, respectful, sensitive and aware of own biases.\n Be aware that some questions may cause a victim to recall painful events.\n Treat the person with sensitivity and with empathy and with full respect of their human\nrights.\n Avoid an authoritarian approach.\n Avoid over-familiarity through eye contact or body language.\n Ask simple questions and use encouragement.\n Use active listening.\n Allow free speech and avoid interruption.\n Remember that if the vulnerable person is under 18 years of age or unable to appreciate\nthe nature of the proceedings, procedural safeguards set out in section 6.2 will apply.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n20\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6 (Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.6.5 TRPs for victims or suspected victims of trafficking in persons (VTIP) or family\nviolence\nOfficials should keep in mind that there are specific policy guidelines in place respecting\nsuspected or known victims of trafficking in persons (VTIP) and victims of family violence. While\nonly IRCC officials may issue TRPs to VTIPs or victims of family violence, CBSA officials should\nfollow the guidelines set out in the IRCC Program delivery instructions for handling these cases.\nFor example, cases in which a foreign national is identified by the CBSA as a VTIP or victim of\nfamily violence should be referred to the responsible IRCC local office on an urgent basis. There\nare also instructions pertaining to IRCC procedures for contacting CBSA with respect to\nindividuals who are subject to a removal order that are applying for a VTIP or victim of family\nviolence TRP.\nWhen dealing with victims or suspected victims, officials must continue to apply existing policy\nguidance respecting VTIPs and victims of family violence. For example, MDs will take a victim-\ncentred and trauma-informed approach when a permanent resident or foreign national is\nidentified as a possible VTIP and follow existing guidelines and procedures specific to\nidentifying and interviewing suspected VTIPs, as well as identifying and conducting interviews\nfor suspected human traffickers who are encountered at the port of entry or inland.\nOfficers and MDs should always be alert to any information that raises concerns that a minor\nchild has been trafficked, smuggled or abducted. In such situations, officers/MDs should refer to\nthe procedures set out in the following guidance:\n ENF 21 Recovering missing, abducted and exploited children", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6 (Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-6-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Temporary resident permits (TRPs): Considerations specific to victims of trafficking in\npersons", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 6 (Government of Canada, What is gender-based violence? (Canada.ca)) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Transmission of an A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Transmission of an A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate\nUnder A44(1), an officer may prepare a report if that officer is of the opinion that a permanent\nresident or foreign national in Canada is inadmissible.\nAll A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents and foreign nationals must be referred to the\nMD making the final decision about whether or not to issue a removal order or refer the matter\nto the Immigration Division.\nWhere the officer transmitting the report to the MD has also prepared an A44(1) case highlights\nform (IMM 5084B for inland cases or BSF516 for port of entry cases), a detailed memorandum\nor an A44(1) narrative report, this must also accompany the A44(1) report.\nThe officer transmitting the report must also forward to the MD, all documentation and evidence\nrelied on by the officer in forming their opinion, including but not limited to:\n for permanent residents, proof of a search of citizenship records;\n copies of all relevant immigration documents and other certificates and affidavits that\ncan be obtained from IRCC, if applicable;\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n21\n2025-02-20\n originals or copies of other documents relevant to the case, such as a birth certificate,\nmarriage certificate, a certificate of conviction or other evidence of a previous conviction\nthat is acceptable in a court of law;\n police occurrence reports;\n probation, parole and psychiatric assessments;\n police records and information on other convictions not reportable under A44(1);\n other documentary evidence that supports the allegation(s), including statutory\ndeclarations;\n evidence filed by the person concerned.\nSee also, ENF 1 Inadmissibility; ENF 2 Evaluating inadmissibility; and ENF 23 Loss of\npermanent resident status.\nThe importance of forwarding the officer’s recommendation to the MD at the same time as the\nA44(1) report is transmitted was highlighted in Wong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)\n2011 FC 971. In that case, the Federal Court dealt with the legality of two removal orders\nissued by the MD prior to the A44(1) case highlights form being signed and dated. In finding that\nthis sequence of events rendered the orders improperly issued and therefore null and void, the\nCourt affirmed that the officer’s recommendation needed to be reviewed by the MD as part of\nthe A44 process before a removal order was issued.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 7.1 (Transmission of an A44(1) report to the Minister’s Delegate)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Reviewing the A44(1) report", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Reviewing the A44(1) report\nOnce the A44(1) report is transmitted by the officer to the MD, the MD will then review the report\nto determine its accuracy and validity.\nAccuracy refers to the determination of the correctness of details contained in the report.\nPrior to any substantive review by the MD, it is important for the MD to conduct an initial review\nof the A44(1) report to ensure that:\n the biographical data is correctly cited [name(s), date of birth];\n the status of person concerned is correctly identified in the A44(1) report;\n the inadmissibility section has been properly cited; and\n the A44(1) report has been signed and dated.\nAny report containing such errors should be sent back to the officer who wrote the A44(1) report\nso that it can be corrected accordingly.\nValidity refers to the determination of whether the report is well-founded, based on the MD’s\nreview of all of the evidence.\nIf the report is found to be valid, then the MD upholds the report and decides on the disposition\nof the case.\nThe disposition of the MD review under A44(2) will depend on the allegations and\ncircumstances of each case and may include:\n referring the case to an admissibility hearing;\n issuing a removal order;\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n22\n2025-02-20\n allowing the person to leave Canada (POE cases only);\n issuing a Temporary resident permit (TRP); or\n issuing a warning letter (permanent residents/protected persons).\nIf the MD finds that the report is not valid, the MD may authorize the person to enter or remain in\nCanada; in certain circumstances, the MD may also decide to send the report back to an officer\nto for consideration of preparing a new report with the accurate allegation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 7.2 (Reviewing the A44(1) report)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Evidentiary requirements", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3 Procedure: Evidentiary requirements\nTo form the opinion that an A44(1) report is well-founded, the MD must have knowledge of the\nevidentiary rules and requirements for immigration matters. Knowledge of what may be required\nto substantiate an allegation of inadmissibility is an important consideration in all cases.\nEach allegation has specific requirements for evidence and officers are to be guided by the\ncontent of ENF 1 Inadmissibility; ENF 2 Evaluating Inadmissibility; and ENF 18 Human or\ninternational rights violations.\nIn order to make a decision on the validity of an A44(1) report, the MD must be satisfied that the\napplicable burden and standard of proof may be met and that sufficient evidence has been or\nmay be gathered to ensure that each element of an inadmissibility allegation may be satisfied.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 7.3 (Procedure: Evidentiary requirements)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-7-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Burden of proof", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4 Burden of proof\nThe burden of proof, in the context of immigration legislation, refers to who is responsible for\nestablishing admissibility under the IRPA.\nUnder A45(d), the burden of establishing admissibility depends on whether or not the person\nhas been authorized to enter Canada.\nIn cases of foreign nationals who are seeking entry (primarily applicable to port of entry cases)\nor those who entered Canada illegally, the onus is on the individual to establish that they are not\ninadmissible. Where the person has been authorized to enter Canada the burden to establish\ninadmissibility is on the Minister.\nTable 3: Burden of proof\nPersons authorized/not\nauthorized to enter\nDetails Burden of proof\nPermanent residents and\nforeign nationals authorized\nto enter\nA45(d) requires the Immigration Division to\nmake a removal order against a\npermanent resident or a foreign national\nwho has been authorized to enter Canada,\nif it is satisfied that they are inadmissible.\nConsequently, in cases involving persons\nwho were granted entry into Canada,\nincluding permanent residents, the onus\nrests on the Minister to establish that the\nperson is inadmissible.\nMinister\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n23\n2025-02-20\nForeign nationals not\nauthorized to enter\nA45(d) requires the Immigration Division to\nmake a removal order if it is not satisfied\nthat a foreign national who has not been\nauthorized to enter Canada is not\ninadmissible. A21(1) states that a foreign\nnational becomes a permanent resident\nand A22(1) states that a foreign national\nbecomes a temporary resident if an officer\nis satisfied that, inter alia, the foreign\nnational is not inadmissible.\nThis applies to persons seeking entry into\nCanada or those persons who have\nentered illegally. Consequently, the onus is\non these persons to establish that they are\nnot inadmissible.\nForeign national", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 7.4 (Burden of proof)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-7-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Standard of Proof", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5 Standard of Proof\nThe term “standard of proof” refers to the degree to which the decision-maker must be satisfied.\nImmigration proceedings are civil in nature and therefore the general standard of proof is the\none applicable to civil matters: balance of probabilities. However A33 provides that, unless\notherwise provided, the standard of proof for allegations listed under sections A34 to A37, is a\nlower standard of proof: reasonable grounds to believe that the facts have occurred, are\noccurring or may occur, applies.\n“Balance of Probabilities” is a civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals. It means\nthat the evidence presented must show that the facts as alleged are more probable than not.\nThe party having the burden of proof must demonstrate that the evidence presented outweighs\nany opposing evidence or arguments. It is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds\nto believe”, but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in\ncriminal proceedings.\n“Reasonable grounds to believe” is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility that fact has\nbeen established based on credible evidence. Reasonable grounds to believe is more than\nsuspicion. Some objective basis for the belief has to exist. Put another way, the fact itself need\nnot be proven; it is enough to show reasonable grounds for believing the allegation true.\nInformation used to establish reasonable grounds should be specific, compelling, credible and\nbe received from a reliable source.\nThe following table summarizes the standard of proof for sections A34 to A42:\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n24\n2025-02-20\nTable 4: Standard of proof\nReasonable grounds to believe Balance of probabilities\n Security (A34)\n Violation of human or international\nrights (A35)\n Sanctions (A35.1)\n Criminality (A36) – except for\nA36(1)(c) for permanent residents\n Transborder criminality [A36(2.1)]\n Organized crime (A37)\n Act or omission committed outside\nCanada – for permanent residents\nonly [A36(1)(c)]\n Health reasons (A38)\n Financial reasons (A39)\n Misrepresentation (A40)\n Cessation (A40.1)\n Non-compliance with the Act or the\nRegulations (A41)\n Inadmissible family member (A42)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 7.5 (Standard of Proof)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-7-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Duty to provide information", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6 Duty to provide information\nA person who seeks to enter Canada at a port of entry or who makes an application at an inland\noffice that they should be authorized to enter or remain in Canada, as the case may be, must\ntruthfully provide such information as an officer may require for the purpose of the examination.\nAs such persons are subject to examination, there is a legal obligation under A16(1) to answer\ntruthfully all questions put to them by an officer for the purpose of the examination, and produce\nall documents or other evidence reasonably required.\nR37 specifies the point at which the examination of a person who seeks to enter Canada, or\nmakes an application to transit through Canada, ends. Generally, examinations will end when\nan officer makes a decision on the application before them or, in cases referred to the MD,\nwhen a determination has been made. For refugee claimants, however, R37(2) provides\ndesignated officers the authority to examine a refugee claimant until the refugee claim has been\ndetermined by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the IRB. The same obligation to\nanswer truthfully applies to persons claiming to be refugees who are referred for a determination\nof eligibility pursuant to A100(1.1).\nWhile there is no way of compelling persons to comply with the legal obligation to provide\ntruthful information, under the IRPA it is an offence to knowingly provide false or misleading\ninformation under A127 (Misrepresentation).\nIt should be noted by officers at the port of entry that while permanent residents are subject to\nexamination when seeking entry, the IRPA gives permanent residents of Canada the right to\nenter Canada at a port of entry pursuant to A19(2) once the officer is satisfied that the person", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 7.6 (Duty to provide information) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-7-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Duty to provide information", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "holds permanent resident status. The obligation to answer truthfully under A16(1) for permanent\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n25\n2025-02-20\nresidents is linked to A18(1) and must be related to examination for the purpose of establishing\nthat the person holds permanent resident status in Canada.\nWhile an officer who is satisfied at examination that a person holds permanent resident status\nmust admit that person, the officer may also form an opinion during examination that the\npermanent resident is inadmissible for other reasons under the IRPA. In such cases, the officer\nshould advise the person that while it has been established that they have a right to enter\nCanada, there are reasons to believe that they could become the subject of a report under the\nIRPA which could lead to the issuance of a removal order. If the person wishes to continue\nanswering questions or providing information/submissions pertaining to the allegation, they\nshould be given an opportunity but are not required to do so. Even if a permanent resident\nbecomes the subject of an A44(1) report, they continue to have a right to enter until a final\ndetermination has been made regarding their loss of status.\nFor further details on examination, see ENF 5 Writing 44(1) reports and ENF 4 Port of entry\nexaminations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 7.6 (Duty to provide information) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Minister’s Delegate Options— Limited discretion of the MD at A44(2)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 Minister’s Delegate Options— Limited discretion of the MD at A44(2)\nWhere the MD reviews the A44(1) report and finds that it is well-founded, there are\ncircumstances in which the objectives of the IRPA may be achieved without the issuance of a\nremoval order. The MD has the discretion to take other action within the exercise of their\ndelegated authority as set out in the IRPA and the IRPR. However, as will be seen in this\nsection, the scope of discretion of the MD is limited.\nThe use of the word “may” in the IRPA suggests that Parliament intended to provide the officer\nand the MD with some discretion on decisions made under A44(1) and A44(2). While the body\nof case law respecting this scope of discretion varies, Canadian jurisprudence does affirm that\nan MD’s discretion under A44 is limited.\nThe discretion under A44(1) and A44(2) does not mean that officers and MDs can disregard the\nfact that someone is, or may be, inadmissible. The discretion under A44 is meant to give officers\nand MDs some flexibility in managing cases where circumstances warrant that no removal order\nwill be sought and where the objectives of the IRPA may or will be achieved without the need to\nwrite an inadmissibility report under A44(1) or issue a removal order/refer the case to the ID\nunder A44(2).\nThe courts have also found that this scope of discretion varies depending on the inadmissibility\ngrounds alleged, whether the person concerned is a permanent resident or a foreign national,\nand whether the MD or the ID has the authority to issue a removal order. In other words, the\nscope of discretion has been viewed as “variable and flexible”.7\nFor example, in the case of Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v.\nCha, 2006 FCA 126, a case involving a foreign national inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)(a)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 8.1 (Minister’s Delegate Options— Limited discretion of the MD at A44(2))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Sharma v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FCA 319", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7 Sharma v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FCA 319\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n26\n2025-02-20\nof the IRPA, the FCA held that in spite of the use of the word “may” in the wording of subsection\nA44(2), there are limits to the discretion afforded to officers and MDs. The FCA held that with\nrespect to foreign nationals inadmissible for criminality or serious criminality, officers and MDs\nhave limited discretion under A44(1) and A44(2). The Court further outlined that the particular\ncircumstances of the foreign national, the nature of the offence, the conviction, and the\nsentence are beyond the scope of the discretionary power of the officer when considering\nwhether or not to write an A44(1) report for criminality or serious criminality against a foreign\nnational. The FCA also concluded that permanent residents have more rights and therefore\nbenefit from more discretion by decision-makers than foreign nationals do.\nMore recent jurisprudence8 confirms that officers and MDs making decisions under A44 have\nvery limited discretion on whether to refer a case for an admissibility hearing, particularly in\nmatters concerning serious criminality and organized criminality, and that there is no obligation\nfor officers or MDs to consider factors related to H&C or ‘personal circumstances’. These\ndecisions also confirm that at this the 44 stage, officers and MDs are conducting a fact-finding\nmission into “readily and objectively ascertainable facts” and that this administrative screening\nfunction applies to both foreign nationals and permanent residents.\nIn general, discretion under A44 means that officers and MDs have some flexibility in managing\ncases where the person is inadmissible, however the objectives of the IRPA may or will be", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 7 (Sharma v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FCA 319) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Sharma v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FCA 319", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "achieved without the need to write a report under A44(1) or, at the MD level, issue a removal\norder or A44(2) referral, for example:\n where an MD allows a withdrawal of an application to enter Canada (Allowed to Leave)\noption at a port of entry after an A44(1) report has been written;\n where a person is already subject to an enforceable removal order and the MD\ndetermines that the objectives of the IRPA would not be served by the issuance of an\nadditional removal order and determines that a disposition of “no further action” on the\nA44(2) report would be appropriate;\n where an MD decides to issue a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to a foreign national\ntaking into account the relevant assessment risk factors set out in agency and\ndepartmental guidance (e.g., foreign national who is seeking entry to work in Canada\nand who was convicted of a non-violent offence many years ago);\n where the MD holds the A44(2) review in abeyance pending the decision on an\napplication to IRCC for restoration of status by a foreign national who has remained in\nCanada beyond the period authorized; or\n where the MD decides that the issuance of a warning letter for a permanent resident or\nprotected person reported under A36(1) is warranted, in consideration of all of the\ncircumstances of the case, including the objectives under paragraphs A3(1)(h) and (i) of\nthe IRPA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 7 (Sharma v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FCA 319) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151;", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8 Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151;\nSidhu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 1681; Matharu v.\nCanada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 902\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n27\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 8 (Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151;)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Priority Cases: Inadmissibility under A34, A35, A35.1, A36 and A37 of the IRPA", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 Priority Cases: Inadmissibility under A34, A35, A35.1, A36 and A37 of the IRPA\nIt was affirmed by the FCA in Sharma v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),\n2016 FCA 319, that within the context of A44, officers and the MD must always be mindful of\nParliament’s intention in drafting the IRPA to make security of Canadians a top priority.\nIn Sharma, the FCA also concluded that the FCA’s rationale in Cha in support of a limited\ndiscretion under A44 would appear to apply equally to both foreign nationals and permanent\nresidents.\nAlthough the factors contained in these guidelines may be considered at the A44(2) stage,\nofficers and MDs must always be mindful of the various objectives of the IRPA, in particular\nA3(1)(h) and (i). As suggested by Federal Court jurisprudence, in cases of inadmissibility under\nA34 to A37, the scope of discretion enjoyed by officers and MDs making a decision under A44\nwill be very narrow and generally it is reasonably open to officers and MDs to prioritize public\nsafety and security.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 8.2 (Priority Cases: Inadmissibility under A34, A35, A35.1, A36 and A37 of the IRPA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Special considerations for protected persons", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3 Special considerations for protected persons\nUnder the IRPA, protected persons are provided with certain protections, including the right of\nnon-refoulement under A115(1) and, subject to A64, the right under A63(3) to appeal to the IAD\nagainst a decision to make a removal order against them. This was recognized by Justice\nDécary in Cha, who noted that the Act and the Regulations treat permanent residents differently\nthan Convention Refugees who are, in turn, treated differently than other foreign nationals.\nIt should be noted that the Federal Court jurisprudence would support that protected persons\nare not entitled to a higher degree of procedural fairness or participatory rights with respect to\nthe operation of A44 than other foreign nationals or permanent residents [see Awed v. Canada\n(Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FC 469]. Officers and MDs should also keep in mind that\nthe Federal Court has made findings to support the principle that officials carrying out A44(1)\nand (2) assessments are not obliged to speculate about how and when future deportation might\ntake place [Faci v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 693].\nIn cases of protected persons, the MD may also consider as an additional factor in their\nassessment, whether the facts of the case would support a referral for a Ministerial opinion\n(‘Danger Opinion’) under A115(2). For further information, see ENF 5, section 14.5, ‘Overview:\nMinister's opinions/interventions’.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 8.3 (Special considerations for protected persons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "Charter considerations", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9 Charter considerations\nThe purpose of this section is to provide guidance to officials performing MD functions under\nA44(2) in handling Charter and/or constitutional arguments made in the course of A44(2)\nproceedings.\nThe jurisprudence respecting the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 9\n(Charter) at the A44(2) stage is in a state of flux.10 Therefore, current guidance to MDs is\nconstrained by the evolving state of the law in this area.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 9 (Charter considerations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "For example, see Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 262;", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10 For example, see Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 262;\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n28\n2025-02-20\nExisting case law establishes that all administrative decision-making must be consistent with the\nCharter.11 Under the IRPA, this requirement has been incorporated into the objectives of the Act\nunder A3(3)(d).\nWhere a person specifically alleges that a provision of IRPA or its application (i.e., decision of\nthe MD to issue a removal order or refer the report to the Immigration Division ID for an\nadmissibility hearing) breaches one or more enumerated Charter right, the MD must address\nthese Charter concerns in their written decision. This was affirmed by the Federal Court in its\ndecision in Abdi v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 733. In\nother words, the MD cannot ignore Charter arguments. This does not mean, however, that MDs\nare expected to engage in a complex Charter analysis within the context of A44(2) decisions.\nIn most cases, the courts have found that the specific Charter rights being raised do not apply at\nthe A44(2) admissibility stage, that is, it is premature to say at the A44 stage that the MD’s\ndecision will impact these enumerated Charter rights. For example, in Brar v. Canada, 2016 FC\n1214, the Federal Court expressed doubts that section 7 rights could be engaged by the A44(2)\nreferral decision, and, in a related case, reiterated that section 7 rights are not engaged at the\nreferral stage (Brar v. Canada, 2017 FC 820).\n MDs should keep in mind that the courts have found that the objectives of the IRPA\nindicate Parliament’s intent to prioritize the security of Canadians. 12\n MDs should note that the Federal Court has found that the MD is not obliged to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10 (For example, see Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 262;) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "For example, see Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 262;", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "speculate about how and when a future deportation might take place or engage in a\nsection A25 (H&C considerations) or a section A112 (Pre-Removal Risk Assessment)\nanalysis.13\n Where a person specifically mentions a breach of their Charter rights in either\nverbal or written submissions, the MD should record this in their notes and address it\nin their reasons, even if only to say that they do not find that specific Charter rights are\nengaged at this stage and provide supporting reasons.\nConstitutional arguments about legislation:\nIn cases where the person concerned is challenging the constitutionality of a provision of the\nIRPA itself:\n CBSA and IRCC officials do not have jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies under\nsection 52 of the Constitution Act or under section 24 of the Charter.14\nMoretto v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 261; Surgeon v. Canada (Public Safety and\nEmergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 1314", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10 (For example, see Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 262;) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Faci v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 693", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13 Faci v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 693\n14 Under subsection 24. (1) of the Charter, a person whose rights or freedoms guaranteed by the Charte r,\n“have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as\nthe court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances”. Pursuant to subsection 52(1) of the\nConstitution Act, a court may also strike down a legislated provision which is found to infringe a person’s\nCharter rights as invalid. Subsection 24(1) of the Charter relates to personal remedies for a government\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n29\n2025-02-20\n Where the MD is specifically asked to rule on the constitutionality of A44(2) or another\nprovision under the IRPA, the MD should indicate in their decision that they do not have\nthe authority to do so and such a remedy should be sought in a court of competent\njurisdiction.\n If the MD is requested to delay A44(2) procedures so that the person concerned may\nmake an application to the Federal Court on the constitutionality of a provision under the\nIRPA, the MD should, in deciding the request, consider that the legal process permits an\napplication to the Federal Court to be made following the decision on eligibility or\nadmissibility. Consequently, there is no reason, based on a constitutional argument, for\nthe MD to permit a delay of procedures for the purpose of pursuing a Federal Court\napplication.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 13 (Faci v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 693)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedural fairness considerations", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1 Procedural fairness considerations\nThe purpose of A44(2) proceedings is for the MD to review the A44(1) report to determine\nwhether the report is well-founded. In prescribed circumstances set out in the Regulations,\nwhere the MD determines that the A44(1) report is well-founded, the MD has the authority to\nissue a removal order.\nIn cases where the MD has the authority to issue a removal order, the MD will need to ensure\nthat certain steps are completed to ensure that procedural fairness has been met.\nDuring in-person proceedings before the MD, the person concerned must be informed of the\npurpose of the A44(2) interview/proceeding and the possible outcomes of it. Prior to a\nsubstantive review, the MD must also give the person concerned the opportunity to obtain the\nservices of an interpreter where one is necessary and the MD must ensure that the person\nconcerned understands the proceedings. In certain circumstances, such as where the person\nconcerned is detained, the officer must also explain the right to counsel and ensure that an\nopportunity to be represented by counsel has been provided.\nPersons must be informed of the nature of the allegations regarding their inadmissibility\ncontained in the A44(1) report(s) at the earliest opportunity, and must be given a reasonable\nopportunity to respond to those allegations before a removal order is issued.\nIt is important for the MD to make notes detailing the process followed in exercising their\ndecision-making powers. Where the MD is utilizing the case highlights form (BSF516 or\nIMM5084B) to record their decision, the form should be completed in as much detail as\npossible).\nFor further detail on procedures during in-person proceedings, see Appendix C: Steps to be\ncompleted during in-person A44(2) proceedings where the MD has jurisdiction to issue a\nremoval order.\naction which breaches Charter rights, whereas subsection 52(1) would apply where legislation is found to\nbe invalid. MDs are not considered a court of competent jurisdiction and therefore cannot grant a remedy\nunder section 24 of the Charter.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n30\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.1 (Procedural fairness considerations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Types of administrative removal orders", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2 Types of administrative removal orders\nThe IRPA and IRPR contain provisions regarding the issuance of removal orders for persons\nwho are found to be inadmissible on one of the grounds listed in the IRPA.\nR223 provides for three types of removal orders that may be issued:\n departure order;\n exclusion order; and\n deportation order.\nR228 specifies the type of removal order that the MD is authorized to make in prescribed\ncircumstances for certain inadmissibility provisions. It is important to note that the Regulations\ndo not distinguish between removal orders that are in force under the IRPA and those that are\nnot (conditional) and it is A49 which specifies when removal orders come into force.\nTable 5: Types of removal orders\nDeparture Order\nR224(2)\n Requires the person to leave Canada within 30 days after the\norder becomes enforceable.\n Becomes a deportation order by operation of law when the person\ndoes not meet the requirements set out under R240(1)(a) to (c)\nwithin 30 days after the order becomes enforceable.\nExclusion Order\nR225\n A person who has been removed on an exclusion order cannot\nreturn to Canada for one (1) year* unless the person obtains the\nrequired written authorization to return\n*If the exclusion order issued as a result of the application of\nA40(2)(a) (misrepresentation), the exclusion period is five (5)\nyears\nDeportation Order\nR226\n Permanently bars the person from returning to Canada, unless the\nperson obtains the required written authorization to return", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.2 (Types of administrative removal orders)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "Permanent residents and their residency obligation— R228(2)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.3 Permanent residents and their residency obligation— R228(2)\nPursuant to the IRPR, the MD has the authority to issue removal orders against permanent\nresidents only in cases where the inadmissibility is based on a failure to comply with the\nresidency obligations under A28. The authority of the MD does not include the issuance of\nremoval orders for permanent residents on other grounds of inadmissibility.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n31\n2025-02-20\nBefore the MD issues a departure order against a permanent resident, paragraph A28(2)(c)\nspecifically requires the MD to determine whether humanitarian and compassionate\nconsiderations, including the best interests of any child affected by the decision, overcome any\nbreach of the residency obligation.\nThe MD is required to consider all information presented by the permanent resident on a case-\nby-case basis. The following are examples of considerations the MD may consider in\ndetermining whether humanitarian and compassionate grounds justify the retention of\npermanent resident status. The MD is to consider circumstances and events that occurred in the\nlast five-year period which led to the permanent resident’s non-compliance with the residency\nobligation.\nExamples of factors to weigh under A28(2)(c)\ni. Extent of non-compliance:\n What is the number of days of physical presence in Canada within the five-year period\nunder examination?\n Was any period of time outside of Canada due to a medical condition or the medical\ncondition of a close family member? Could alternative arrangements for the care of the\nfamily member have been made?\nii. Circumstances beyond the person’s control:\n Are the circumstances for remaining outside of Canada compelling?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.3 (Permanent residents and their residency obligation— R228(2)) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "Permanent residents and their residency obligation— R228(2)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Were there circumstances which prevented the permanent resident from returning to\nCanada?\n Has the permanent resident returned to Canada at the earliest opportunity?\n Did the permanent resident leave as a child accompanying a dependent? If so, is the\npermanent resident returning at the earliest possible opportunity? Did the permanent\nresident accompany a parent because of a mental or physical disability?\niii. Establishment in and outside Canada:\n Is the permanent resident a citizen or permanent resident of another country?\n Has the permanent resident taken steps to establish permanence in a country other than\nCanada?\n To what degree is the permanent resident established in Canada?\n What ties to Canada has the permanent resident maintained?\niv. Presence and degree of consequential hardship:\n What is the degree of hardship caused by the loss of permanent resident status in\nrelation to the permanent resident’s personal circumstances? What is the impact on\nfamily members, especially children?\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n32\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.3 (Permanent residents and their residency obligation— R228(2)) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.4", + "marginal_note": "Removal order for refugee claimants— R228(3)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.4 Removal order for refugee claimants— R228(3)\nR228(3) provides that where a removal order issued with respect to a person who has made a\nclaim for refugee protection which has been determined to be eligible to be referred to the\nRefugee Protection Division (RPD) or no eligibility determination has been made, a departure\norder is the applicable removal order in prescribed circumstances.\nA49(2) provides that a removal order made against a refugee protection claimant is conditional\nand prescribes the circumstances under which the removal order will come into force.\nNote: MDs should keep in mind that there are special procedures for vulnerable persons and\nrefer to the IRCC Program delivery instructions on Processing in-Canada claims for refugee\nprotection of minors and vulnerable persons.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.4 (Removal order for refugee claimants— R228(3))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.5", + "marginal_note": "Dual intent", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.5 Dual intent\nA22(2) states that the intention of a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not\npreclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that the person will\nleave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.\nDual intent is present when a foreign national who has applied for permanent residence in\nCanada (or is entitled to apply for permanent residence within Canada) also seeks to enter\nCanada for a temporary period as a visitor, worker or student. If an officer has concerns/doubts\nabout the foreign national’s bona fides, the foreign national must be made aware of these\nconcerns and given an opportunity to respond to them.\nSome examples of dual intent could include:\n a foreign national frequently visiting a Canadian spouse who has complied with previous\nconditions of entry and is otherwise not inadmissible, even if an application for\npermanent residence has not yet been submitted;\n a foreign national who has applied or intends to apply for permanent residence, but is\nvisiting Canada to assess employment opportunities, setting up household, etc.\nThe Federal Court in Rebmann v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FC 301 held that an officer\nis required to take into account the foreign national's dual intent in entering/remaining in Canada\nas a temporary resident and provide analysis of the relevant evidence with regards to the\nforeign national’s intention to establish permanent residence in Canada to show that the foreign\nnational will not leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay as a temporary\nresident.\nOfficers and MDs should distinguish between a foreign national whose intentions are bona fide", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.5 (Dual intent) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.5", + "marginal_note": "Dual intent", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "and a foreign national who has no intention of leaving Canada at the end of their authorized stay\nif the application for permanent residence is refused.\nThe possibility that a foreign national may, at some point in the future, be approved for\npermanent residence does not absolve the individual from meeting the requirements of a\ntemporary resident, specifically, to leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for their\nstay, in accordance with section R179.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n33\n2025-02-20\nIn assessing the foreign national’s intentions, officers and MDs should weigh all the factors\nrelevant to the case, including the length of time the applicant has spent in Canada, the means\nof support; obligations and ties in the home country, previous compliance with requirements of\nthe IRPA and any compassionate circumstances of the person concerned. These factors should\nbe considered before proceeding with administrative enforcement action under A44(1) or\nA44(2).\nOfficers are reminded to use their own judgment and the flexibility afforded to them by\nsubsection A22(2) when making decisions on cases where the foreign national also has the\nintention to become a permanent resident.\nFor further guidance on assessing dual intent considerations, see IRCC Program delivery\ninstructions on Dual intent. See also: ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.5 (Dual intent) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Restoration of status", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.6 Restoration of status\nR182 describes a mechanism by which a visitor, worker or student who has lost temporary\nresident status for having failed to comply with any of the conditions imposed under R185(a),\nR185(b)(i) to (iii) or R185(c), may nevertheless submit an application within the 90-day period of\nthe loss of their status, and if eligible have that status restored.\nIt is important to note that under the D & D instruments, only IRCC officials have the authority to\nconsider an application for restoration of status.\nThe application submitted to IRCC shall be approved if the processing officer is satisfied that the\nforeign national continues to meet the initial requirements of their stay, and has not failed to\ncomply with any other conditions imposed and is not the subject of a declaration made under\nA22.1. It is to be noted that an officer shall not restore the status of a student if the student is not\nin compliance with a condition set out in R220.1(1).\nNote: If a temporary resident has applied for an extension of their authorized status before the\nstatus expires, they are considered to have maintained status (formerly referred to as “implied\nstatus”) until a decision is made on their application. Maintained status works by operation of\nlaw [R183(5)], and the temporary resident cannot be reported for non-compliance until a\ndecision is made on their application for an extension, unless other IRPA inadmissibilities are\npresent. For further details regarding procedures for persons with maintained status, see IRCC\nProgram delivery instructions on Temporary residents: Maintained status during processing\n(previously called implied status).\nThe following guidelines must be taken into account by Inland Enforcement Officers and MDs", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.6 (Restoration of status) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Restoration of status", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "prior to taking enforcement action in such cases:\nScenario 1: Foreign national is out of status, but has applied for restoration of status\nwithin the 90-day period and is otherwise admissible – decision pending\nForeign nationals who have submitted an application to have their status restored within the 90-\nday period, and who are not inadmissible under any other section of the Act or Regulations,\nshould not be subject to an A44(1) report. In such circumstances, officers and MDs must allow\nfor a decision to be rendered by IRCC before taking enforcement action, an approach which is\nconsistent with the Federal Court’s findings in Sui v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and\nEmergency Preparedness), 2006 FC 1314.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n34\n2025-02-20\nScenario 2: Foreign national is out of status and has not applied for restoration of status\nbut is still within 90-day eligibility period\nWhile there is nothing in the IRPA or the Regulations that prohibits an officer from writing an\nA44(1) report or an MD from issuing an exclusion order during the 90-day restoration period\nwhere no application for restoration has yet been made, officers and MDs should consider\nwhether or not to pursue enforcement action in such cases. After taking appropriate steps to\nensure that a restoration application has not been made, should an officer decide to write an\nA44(1) report and refer it to the MD for review, the officer should articulate their reasoning in\npursuing enforcement action in the decision, if such action is pursued prior to the expiration of\nthe 90-day eligibility period.\nWhere the MD receives an A44(1) report for non-compliance within the 90-day restoration\nperiod where the foreign national has not filed an application but is otherwise admissible, the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.6 (Restoration of status) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Restoration of status", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "MD must then consider R182 and has the discretion to hold the report in abeyance until the 90-\nday eligibility period has lapsed. If the MD decides to proceed with the A44(2) review, the MD\nshould verify whether a restoration application has been or will be filed, and must consider all\nthe circumstances of the case, including the fact that the foreign national is within the 90-day\nrestoration period.\nThis approach is consistent with the Federal Court’s decision in Ouedraogo v. Canada (Public\nSafety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FC 810 where the Court noted that the discretion\nof a MD to issue an exclusion order and the ability of a foreign national to apply for restoration of\nstatus are not mutually exclusive – both can occur at the same time. The Court found that the\nsimple existence of an application for restoration does not in and of itself shield a foreign\nnational against enforcement action. In short, where an application for restoration is made,\nalthough the existence of the application should be taken into consideration by the MD when\nthey are exercising their discretion, there is nothing prohibiting the MD from nonetheless making\nan inadmissibility finding where the foreign national is found to be non-compliant with the\nrequirements set out in R185.\nIn order to adhere to the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, officers and MDs\nmust consider each case on its own merits and may consider the following:\n Does the foreign national state that they wish to remain in Canada and for what\npurpose?\n Has the foreign national already made arrangements to depart Canada in the immediate\nfuture?\n Is the foreign national evasive about their departure plans or the intent to remain in\nCanada?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.6 (Restoration of status) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-6-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Restoration of status", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Has the foreign national otherwise been in compliance with the terms and conditions of\ntheir temporary resident status?\n If the foreign national has not applied for a restoration of status, is the officer/MD\nsatisfied that the foreign national will appear for future immigration interviews and/or\ndepart Canada voluntarily?\n If the officer/MD is satisfied that the foreign national will seek to remedy lapsed status\nwithin the 90-day period, then the officer/MD may wish to allow the 90-day application\nperiod to lapse before reviewing the case again in consideration of enforcement action.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n35\n2025-02-20\nScenario 3: Foreign national is out of status beyond the 90-day restoration of status\neligibility period, or is otherwise inadmissible under the IRPA or Regulations\nIf an officer encounters a foreign national who has overstayed their authorized period of stay\nbeyond the 90-day eligibility period for applying for restoration of status, or where the foreign\nnational is otherwise inadmissible under the IRPA or Regulations, the officer may pursue\nappropriate enforcement action, which includes writing an A44(1) report and referring it to the\nMD for a review under A44(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.6 (Restoration of status) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.7", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Reviewing A44(1) reports when a Minister’s Delegate is not on", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.7 Procedure: Reviewing A44(1) reports when a Minister’s Delegate is not on\nsite\nOfficers cannot prepare and then review their own A44(1) report under the IRPA. In those\ncircumstances where a MD is not physically on-site and/or otherwise available to conduct a\nreview under A44(2) in person and deferring the proceeding is not a viable option, officers must\ncontact an off-site MD for the purpose of reviewing the A44(1) report and conducting a\ndetermination under A44(2) by telephone or videoconference.\nIn all A44(2) reviews not conducted in person, the MD will need to review the A44(1) report in\nGCMS as well as any case notes or accompanying documents that the officer has uploaded into\nGCMS. The officer who contacts the MD must also ensure that their recommendation and any\nsupporting evidence has also been provided to the MD prior to the commencement of the\nA44(2) proceeding. The officer must also make notes during the MD review and fully document\nthe procedural steps taken throughout all stages of the proceedings.\nThe MD is required to follow all steps for conducting the MD review and enter detailed\nexamination or application notes into the GCMS that fully support the decision being made. MDs\nmay refer to section 22 of this manual chapter, ‘Entering MD decisions into GCMS’. Where the\nMD also makes handwritten notes during the proceedings, these should be forwarded to the\nofficer holding the file and/or uploaded into GCMS.\nIn those cases where the MD has jurisdiction to issue a removal order, officers and MDs must\nbe particularly diligent in ensuring that all matters relating to natural justice and procedural\nfairness are satisfied and documented in notes.\nIn cases where the MD has jurisdiction to issue a removal order and if, for any reason, the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.7 (Procedure: Reviewing A44(1) reports when a Minister’s Delegate is not on) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.7", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Reviewing A44(1) reports when a Minister’s Delegate is not on", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "opportunity does not exist for the person concerned to communicate directly with the MD, or if\nthe MD is of the opinion that the person concerned does not truly appreciate the nature of the\nproceedings, then the A44(2) proceeding must be postponed until a MD is physically on site to\nconduct the A44(2) review in person.\nIf the MD makes a decision to issue a removal order pursuant to R228, the MD will enter the\ndecision into GCMS and the officer who has the person concerned before them can print the\nremoval order and provide it to the person concerned.\nNote: If, for any reason, the MD has made a decision not to proceed with or otherwise continue\nthe MD review under A44(2), the officer is not to contact other MDs.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n36\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.7 (Procedure: Reviewing A44(1) reports when a Minister’s Delegate is not on) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.8 Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia\nIn absentia is Latin for \"in the absence of\".\nIn the context of A44(2), the practical application of an in absentia proceeding will be in those\nexceptional circumstances when persons who are subject to an A44(2) Minister’s proceeding\nhave a removal order made against them without being present at the time the removal order is\nissued.\nA55(1) allows for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest and detention of a foreign national or\npermanent resident where there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is inadmissible\nand unlikely to appear “at a proceeding that could lead to the making of a removal order by\nthe Minister under subsection 44(2)”.\nAs officers have the authority to issue a warrant for a person unlikely to appear at A44(2)\nproceedings in cases where the MD has jurisdiction to issue the removal order, removal orders\nshould not be issued in absentia, unless under exceptional circumstances. These cases will\nbe rare, and each will need to be assessed on an individual basis taking into consideration all\nrelevant information before proceeding with an in absentia proceeding.\nThe following scenario illustrates an example of exceptional circumstances where an in absentia\nproceeding may be reasonable.\nScenario:\nA foreign national entered Canada as a member of a crew and shortly after deserted\ntheir vessel. The crew member did not report to CBSA or IRCC within the specified time\nframes under the Regulations and was reported under A44(1). In an attempt to locate\nthe person in Canada, all investigative leads were exhausted. The A44(2) proceeding\nwas held in absentia and after reviewing all the evidence, the report was determined to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.8 (Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "be well-founded and the person was issued a removal order and a warrant for removal.\nThis approach is consistent with the FCA’s findings in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v.\nJayamaha Mudalige Don, 2014 FCA 4. While the FCA concluded that it was open to the MD to\nissue the removal order, the court’s finding that procedural fairness was not breached was\nbased on the specific facts of the case (i.e., immigration officials had NO contact information for\nthe person, more than 72 hours had elapsed from the time when the person deserted his ship\nand subparagraph 228(1)(c)(v) of the Regulations expressly provided for the issuance of a\nremoval order). It is important to note that the FCA placed great weight on the fact that the\nperson concerned had an obligation to report to CBSA or IRCC and failed to do so and the\ncoordinates of the person concerned in that case were NOT known to CBSA/IRCC and\ntherefore the person was incapable of being notified.\nNotification when scheduling A44(2) proceedings\nNot all A44(2) proceedings will take place on the same day that the A44(1) report is written, for\nnumber of reasons. In some cases, a person may be reported pursuant to A44(1), and the\nreview of that report by a MD will not take place until a MD is available. In these situations,\nreasonable efforts shall be made to notify the person to appear and provide an opportunity to be\nheard at the A44(2) proceeding. ‘Reasonable efforts' will vary from case to case depending on\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n37\n2025-02-20\nthe nature of the case, type of information available and the level of engagement with the\nperson concerned.\n Where the person's address is known, officers shall provide written notice in-person or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.8 (Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-8-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "mail, depending on the circumstances, by completing a Notice to Appear for a\nProceeding under A44(2) [IMM 1234B or BSF504]. This form will provide notice of the\nlocation, date and time of the A44(2) Minister's proceeding; legal authority to conduct the\nproceeding; and consequences of failing to appear at the proceeding. Other relevant\ninformation such as a copy of the A44(1) report which sets out the allegation(s) and\ncontact information should also be provided.\n If the notice is being mailed, reasonable efforts shall be made to verify the accuracy of\nthe person's address; this includes querying and updating databases. Reasonable time\nand opportunity shall be provided to the person to allow for attendance at the A44(2)\nproceeding.\nFailure to Appear at 44(2) Proceedings\n If the person fails to attend on the date specified, the MD conducting the review shall\nadjourn the proceeding. Reasonable efforts shall be made to determine the reasons for\nthe no-show (e.g. letter to the last known address, site visit and/or telephone call).\n In some circumstances, there will be valid excuses as to why the person failed to\nappear. The onus will be on the person to show cause for not appearing at the\nproceeding. Officers shall make a determination as to whether the explanation is\nreasonable and attempt to communicate the results of that determination to the person.\n If satisfied of the explanation for not attending the proceeding, a second written notice\n[IMM 1234B or BSF504] will be delivered in-person or by mail, depending on the\ncircumstances. Officers must clearly write or otherwise indicate \"second notice\" on the\nform.\n If, following the second call-in notice there is no communication from the person", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.8 (Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-8-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "concerned and/or their legal representative explaining their absence and if the\ninadmissibility allegation falls within the MD’s jurisdiction to issue a removal order\n(R228), the MD may pursue the issuance of an arrest warrant for being unlikely to\nappear for an A44(2) proceeding that could lead to the making of a removal order.\n For allegations where the jurisdiction to issue a removal order rests with the ID, it is open\nto the MD to refer the A44(1) report to ID for an admissibility hearing and consider\nissuing a warrant for admissibility hearing pursuant to A55(1) (see ENF 7 Immigration\nInvestigations and IRPA s.55 Arrests/Detention for further details).\n Note: IRCC officers may refer cases for warrant issuance to CBSA for review. All such\nreferrals must include all details of attempts made to contact the person concerned and\ncopies of all call-in notices sent and case notes.\n In exceptional cases where there is detailed information on file that the person\nconcerned was aware of the A44(2) proceeding (e.g., person was served with the call-in\nnotice in-person and understood the consequences, the A44(2) proceeding was initiated\nby the MD but had to be postponed due to unavailability of the person’s counsel and the\nperson concerned was fully aware of the new date, etc.) the MD may proceed to conduct\na review under A44(2) in absentia.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n38\n2025-02-20\n In those exceptional cases where the MD proceeds with the A44(2) review in absentia,\nthe MD will be required to conduct a paper review of the A44(1) report with all relevant\nevidence available at the time of the A44(2) review. If, after such review, the MD\ndetermines the A44(1) report to be well-founded, and if all grounds of inadmissibility are", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.8 (Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-8-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "those for which the MD has jurisdiction, a removal order may be made against the\nperson concerned even though the person is not present at the time the removal order is\nissued.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.8 (Procedure: Issuing removal orders to persons in absentia) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.9", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.9 A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members\nUnder A42, accompanying and non-accompanying family members may be inadmissible to\nCanada under prescribed circumstances. This provision may only apply to family members who\nare foreign nationals, other than protected persons.\nWhere an officer writes an A44(1) report against a family member for inadmissibility under A42,\nthe MD has jurisdiction under R228 to issue the applicable removal order. Officers and MDs\nshould note, however, that for the purposes of A52(1), the making of a removal order against a\nforeign national on the basis of inadmissibility under A42 is a prescribed circumstance that does\nnot oblige the foreign national to obtain the authorization of an officer in order to return to\nCanada.\nIt is important to note that A42 may only form the basis of an A44(1) report when the person is\ninadmissible under sections A34, A35, A35.1, or A37.\nProcedure to include family members on ID removal order\nR227 sets out that, for the purposes of section 42 of the Act, a report prepared under A44(1)\nagainst a foreign national is also a report against the foreign national’s family members in\nCanada.\nR227(2) provides that, in the case of a removal order made by the ID against a foreign national\nwho has family members in Canada, the removal order issued by the ID against a foreign\nnational may also be made effective against the family members without the need for a separate\ninadmissibility report provided that an officer informed the family member(s):\n of the report;\n that they are the subject of an admissibility hearing and, consequently, have the right to\nmake submissions and be represented, at their own expense, at the admissibility\nhearing; and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.9 (A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.9", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " that they are inadmissible under A42 on grounds of being an inadmissible family\nmember.\nWhile this procedural avenue may be available under the Regulations, it is generally\nrecommended that where an officer decides to pursue enforcement action against inadmissible\nfamily members of a foreign national under A42, the officer should proceed by way of writing a\nseparate A44(1) inadmissibility report for each family member after the removal order has been\nmade against the foreign national. It is also to be noted that this avenue is not available in cases\ninvolving allegations within the jurisdiction of the MD.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n39\n2025-02-20\nNote: the MD only has the authority to issue removal orders against persons against whom an\nA44(1) report has been written. The MD cannot include family members in an administrative\nremoval order relating to another member of the family.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.9 (A44(1) reports for inadmissible family members) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-10-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.10", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Removal orders following vacation or cessation of", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.10 Procedure: Removal orders following vacation or cessation of\nrefugee/protected person status by RPD\nR228(1)(b) allows the MD to issue removal orders to foreign nationals who are inadmissible for\nmisrepresentation under A40(1)(c) on a final determination by the RPD to vacate a decision to\nallow the person’s claim for refugee protection or application for protection pursuant to A109.\nUnder A109(1), the RPD may, on application by the Minister, vacate a decision to allow a claim\nfor refugee protection, if it finds that the decision was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly\nmisrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter.\nR228(1)(b.1) allows the MD to issue removal orders to foreign nationals who are inadmissible\nunder A40.1(1) on a final determination by the RPD under A108(2) that the refugee protection of\nthe foreign national has ceased (i.e., cessation of refugee protection).\nPursuant to A46 a person loses permanent resident status on a final determination by the RPD:\n to vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection or application for protection\n[A46(1)(d)]; or\n that their refugee protection has ceased under A108(2) for any of the reasons described\nin paragraphs A108(1)(a) to (d) [A46(1)(c.1)].\nThe MD should only issue the applicable removal order once all court challenges to the decision\nby the RPD to vacate the refugee protection claim or cease refugee protection have been\nexhausted and are resolved.\nNote: following a decision of the RPD that refugee protection has ceased under A108(2), the\nMinister may not simply rely on a previous removal order (issued against the person before\nprotected person status was granted) to remove that person. In other words, a new A44(1)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.10 (Procedure: Removal orders following vacation or cessation of) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-10-10-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 10.10", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Removal orders following vacation or cessation of", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "report based on inadmissibility under A40.1(1) would need to be written and a new removal\norder would need to be issued by the MD in these circumstances.\nFollowing a decision by the RPD to vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection or\ncease refugee protection, the foreign national has 15 days to apply for leave to the Federal\nCourt for a judicial review as stipulated in A72(2). Therefore, the MD shall wait a minimum of 22\ndays (seven days for receipt of a decision sent by mail and 15 days for the application under\nA72(2)) before issuing the removal order following the writing of an A44(1) report for\ninadmissibility under A40(1)(c) or A40.1(1).\nWhere an application for leave to the Federal Court has been filed, the MD shall wait until the\nfinal decision is rendered and all legal means of challenging the decision have been exhausted\nand resolved. Prior to issuing the removal order, the MD shall ensure that no litigation regarding\nthe RPD decision remains outstanding and that the minimum period of time to file an extension\nof time has elapsed without an application. The MD should seek the assistance of the regional\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n40\n2025-02-20\nJustice Liaison officer with respect to the status of litigation and any issues regarding extensions\nof time.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 10.10 (Procedure: Removal orders following vacation or cessation of) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-11-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Temporary resident permits (TRPs)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11 Temporary resident permits (TRPs)\nIn some cases, a designated officer may exercise their authority under A24(1) to issue a TRP to\nallow a foreign national who is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of the IRPA to\nenter or remain in Canada where it is justified in the circumstances. TRPs are always issued at\nthe discretion of the designated authority and may be cancelled at any time.\nThe authority to issue a TRP is determined by the IRCC Designation and Delegation (D & D)\nInstrument and depends on the nature of the allegation.\nNote: For CBSA, TRPs may only be issued by designated officials at the port of entry\nThere are instances where the person who has the delegated authority to review the A44 report\n(the MD) does not have the designated authority to issue a TRP. In such cases, the official with\nauthority to review the report (i.e., the MD) may make a recommendation to the person with the\ndesignated authority to issue a TRP.\nOfficers and MDs may recommend or issue TRPs only in accordance with the Act and\nRegulations, and must follow the IRCC Program delivery instructions on Temporary resident\npermits. In all cases, officers and MDs must leave a record, which includes detailed notes\nentries in GCMS, of their decision or recommendation. For further information, see ENF 4 Port\nof entry examinations.\nTRPs should only be issued after careful consideration of all assessment factors as the\ndocument carries privileges greater than those accorded to other visitors, students and workers\nwith temporary resident status. Before issuing a TRP, officials must consult the departmental\nand agency guidelines on risk assessment factors and procedures for issuing TRPs. This\napplies to both initial and subsequent TRPs.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 11 (Temporary resident permits (TRPs)) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-11-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Temporary resident permits (TRPs)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Where an officer does not have the authority to issue a TRP but has reviewed the case and is\nrecommending the issuance of a TRP, the officer must prepare a written a case summary that\nincludes a recommendation for a final decision. The officer will refer the case file to the decision-\nmaker with the designated authority to issue a TRP for a final determination. If the decision is\nmade to issue a TRP, the decision-maker will determine the period of validity of the TRP.\nFor further instructions and procedures for TRPs, officers must refer to the IRCC Program\ndelivery Instructions on Temporary resident permits and ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.\nAdditional considerations for TRP issuance:\n A person is not eligible for a TRP if less than 12 months have passed since their\nclaim for refugee protection was last rejected [or determined to be withdrawn or\nabandoned as described under subsection A24(4)].\nException: The one-year ban on accessing a TRP under A24(4) does not bar an\nIRCC officer, on their own initiative, from considering a TRP for a victim of human\ntrafficking.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n41\n2025-02-20\n There are specific IRCC policy guidelines respecting certain vulnerable persons\nincluding suspected or known victims of human trafficking and victims of family\nviolence. Only IRCC officials may issue TRPs to victims of human trafficking or victims\nof family violence, however CBSA officials should follow the procedures set out in the\nProgram delivery instructions above for handling these cases.\n If a student, worker or visitor with valid temporary resident status is reported\nunder subsection A44(1) but a decision is made not to hold an admissibility hearing or\nissue a removal order, that person remains a temporary resident, and a TRP is not", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 11 (Temporary resident permits (TRPs)) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-11-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Temporary resident permits (TRPs)", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "required.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 11 (Temporary resident permits (TRPs)) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 12", + "marginal_note": "Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada/ Allowed to", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12 Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada/ Allowed to\nleave (Port of entry cases)\nUnder R42, the officer who examines a foreign national who is seeking to enter Canada and\nwho has indicated that they want to withdraw their application to enter Canada shall allow the\nforeign national to withdraw their application, unless R42(2) applies.\nR42(2) provides that a foreign national shall not be allowed to withdraw their application to enter\nCanada where a report under A44(1) is being prepared or has been prepared, unless the MD\ndoes not make a removal order or refer the report to the ID for an admissibility hearing.\nIn other words, once an officer writes an A44(1) report, the allowed to leave option may only be\nexercised at the MD level.\nIn exercising their discretion, the MD should consider whether the objectives of the IRPA are\nbetter served by allowing the person to voluntarily withdraw their application to enter Canada\npursuant to R42 in the circumstances of the case.\nR42(3) provides that foreign nationals who are allowed to withdraw their application to enter\nCanada must appear without delay at a port of entry to verify their departure from Canada.\nIf a person is allowed to leave Canada voluntarily, the officer or MD must give the person an\nAllowed to Leave Canada form (IMM 1282B).\nFor further details regarding allowing persons to leave/withdraw their application to enter\nCanada: see ENF 5, section 9. 4, ‘Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada/ Allowed\nto leave (Port of entry cases)’ and ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 12 (Allowing withdrawal of application to enter Canada/ Allowed to)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-13-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Handling possible claims for refugee protection", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13 Procedure: Handling possible claims for refugee protection\nAlthough there is no requirement in the IRPA for the MD to ask whether the subject of a\ndetermination wishes to make a claim for refugee protection, the MD should be aware of\nCanada's obligations under the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,\nand under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or\nPunishment.\nA99(3) excludes persons under a removal order from making a claim for refugee protection.\nTherefore, the MD must ensure, before issuing a removal order under A44(2), that this would\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n42\n2025-02-20\nnot be contrary to the spirit of Canada’s obligations, even when the individual does not explicitly\nrequest access to the refugee determination process.\nIt must also be recognized that some people who may have a legitimate need of Canada’s\nprotection are unaware of the provision for claiming refugee status.\nHandling a possible claim for refugee protection:\n Where the subject of a determination for an administrative removal order has not made a\nclaim, the MD should ask them how long they intend to remain in Canada (port of entry\ncases) or when they intend to return to their home country (inland cases) or if there are\nany reasons why they are unable or unwilling to return to their home country.\n If the person indicates that their intention is or was to remain temporarily, the MD should\nproceed with the removal order decision and issue the removal order, if appropriate.\n If the person indicates that their intention is or was to remain in Canada indefinitely, the\nMD is to inquire about their motives for leaving their country of nationality/home country", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 13 (Procedure: Handling possible claims for refugee protection) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-13-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Handling possible claims for refugee protection", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "and the consequences of returning there before making a decision on issuing a removal\norder.\n Where the responses indicate a fear of returning to the country that may relate to\nrefugee protection, the MD is to inform the person of the definition of a “Convention\nrefugee” or “person in need of protection” as found in A96 and A97, and ask whether\nthey wish to make a claim.\n Where the person indicates an intention not to make a claim, the MD should proceed\nwith the decision and issue a removal order, if appropriate.\n Where the person is uncertain, the MD should inform them that they will not be able to\nmake a claim for refugee protection after a removal order has been issued [A99(3)], and\nprovide them with an opportunity to make the claim before proceeding with a removal\norder decision.\n If the person does not express an intent to make a claim, despite the explanation that\nthis is their last opportunity, the MD should proceed with the decision and issue the\nremoval order, if appropriate.\n Whenever the person indicates a fear of returning to their home country, the MD is to\nrefrain from evaluating whether the fear is well-founded. As well, the MD must not\nspeculate on eligibility before the claim is made or speculate on the processing time or\neventual outcome of a claim.\nThese procedures do not preclude any person from making a claim for refugee protection at any\ntime before a removal order is issued, regardless of the responses provided to the officer.\nIn order to address concerns that may arise subsequent to the issuance of a removal order, it is\nimportant that the notes accurately reflect—in detail—the questions asked and the information\nprovided by the person during the A44 proceedings.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 13 (Procedure: Handling possible claims for refugee protection) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-13-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Handling possible claims for refugee protection", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For further information on processing refugee claims, see ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.\nSee also: PPI In-Canada claims for refugee protection; IRCC Program delivery instructions on\nProcessing in-Canada claims for refugee protection: Post-interview processing and final\ndecision.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n43\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 13 (Procedure: Handling possible claims for refugee protection) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 14", + "marginal_note": "Persons claiming to be Canadian citizens or registered Indians", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14 Persons claiming to be Canadian citizens or registered Indians\nunder the Indian Act\nUnder the IRPA, Canadian citizens and persons registered as Indians under the Indian Act have\nan unqualified right to enter and remain in Canada and are not subject to the inadmissibility\nprovisions of IRPA. Therefore, before writing an A44(1) report, an officer should have evidence\nto confirm that the person does not hold such status.\nIn cases of permanent residents, officers must confirm through the appropriate queries that the\nperson has not obtained Canadian citizenship and ensure that due diligence has been\nexercised before proceeding with further enforcement action.\nShould the MD detect the possibility of Canadian citizenship or registered Indian status during\nthe A44(2) proceedings, the MD shall cause an investigation of the matter to be initiated before\nmaking any removal order or referring the case to the ID for an admissibility hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 14 (Persons claiming to be Canadian citizens or registered Indians)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Cases where the jurisdiction to issue a removal order rests with", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15 Cases where the jurisdiction to issue a removal order rests with\nthe Immigration Division\nIn cases where the MD does not have jurisdiction to issue a removal order, the MD must\ndetermine whether to refer the A44(1) report to the ID if satisfied that the report is well-founded.\nAt the end of the admissibility hearing, if satisfied that the person is inadmissible, the member of\nthe ID shall, pursuant to A45(d), make the applicable removal order against the foreign national\nor permanent resident pursuant to R229.\nBefore forming an opinion that a report is well-founded and referring it to the ID for an\nadmissibility hearing, the MD must assess the case on its own merits. At the time of the MD’s\nassessment, the MD should have before them all submissions and documents filed by the\nperson concerned as well as any evidence relied on by the reporting officer in their\nrecommendation under A44(1).\nThis section is intended to assist officers in making decisions that are consistent with the\nobjectives of the IRPA; it is not intended to restrict the MD in the lawful exercise of their\ndiscretion. What follows are guidelines only.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 15 (Cases where the jurisdiction to issue a removal order rests with)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-15-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 15.1", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports for criminality cases", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.1 A44(1) reports for criminality cases\nIn Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v. Canada (Minister\nof Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 51, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) stated that\nthe objectives in the IRPA reflect an intent to prioritize security and that this objective is given\neffect by removing persons with criminal records from Canada. The SCC noted that in drafting\nthe IRPA, Parliament demonstrated a strong desire to treat criminals less leniently than under\nthe former Immigration Act. This was noted in Sharma, where the FCA affirmed that officers and\nMDs, when dealing with matters under A44(1) and A44(2), must always be mindful of the\nvarious objectives of the IRPA, in particular A3(1)(h) and (i). The FCA also concluded that the\nCourt’s rationale in Cha in support of a limited discretion under A44 would appear to apply\nequally to both foreign nationals and permanent residents.\nThe MD should also be cognizant of how evidence of pending or existing charges was relied on\nby the reporting officer during the A44(1) assessment; the MD should be careful about how such\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n44\n2025-02-20\nevidence is relied on in the A44(2) decision. The MD must also be careful not to rely on\nconvictions for which an application for rehabilitation or a record suspension has been granted\nas evidence of a criminal record. For further information, see ENF 5 Writing 44(1) reports,\nsection 12.2, ‘Evidence of pending or withdrawn charges’.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 15.1 (A44(1) reports for criminality cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-15-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 15.2", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents of Canada", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.2 A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents of Canada\nAs mentioned in section 8 above, the courts15 have confirmed that officers and MD’s making\ndecisions under A44 have no obligation to consider H&C-like factors or ‘personal\ncircumstances’ once inadmissibility is established by the evidence.\nNote: this section does not apply to PR residency obligation cases reported under A41(b).\nBefore the MD issues a departure order against a permanent resident under R228(2),\nparagraph A28(2)(c) specifically requires the MD to determine whether humanitarian and\ncompassionate considerations, including the best interests of any child affected by the decision,\novercome any breach of the residency obligation [refer to section 10.3 Permanent residents and\ntheir residency obligation— R228(2)”].\nDuring the course of A44 proceedings, however, an officer or MD may receive evidence or\nsubmissions relating to a permanent resident or protected person’s personal circumstances and\nwhy a removal order should not be sought.\nWhile the courts have affirmed that an MD is not required to consider personal circumstances,\nbut if the MD does, such an assessment must be reasonable in the circumstances of the case.\nThis means that if an MD exercises their discretion to consider personal factors, the assessment\nmust be reasonable and the reasoning articulated. Where these factors are considered and\nrejected, an explanation of how these factors were assessed should be provided, even if only\nvery brief in nature.16 An MD must ensure that the decision as a whole is “justifiable,\ntransparent, and intelligible”17.\nWhere the officer at A44(1) has exercised their discretion to consider personal circumstances in\ntheir recommendation, the MD must consider this information and explain in their decision", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 15.2 (A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents of Canada) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-15-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 15.2", + "marginal_note": "A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents of Canada", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "whether or not they concur with the officer’s recommendation. To clarify, the MD is not bound by\nthe A44(1) officer’s recommendation. For example, if the officer at A44(1) did NOT exercise\ntheir discretion to consider personal circumstances, this does not prevent the MD from\nexercising that discretion to consider such factors in the A44(2) decision.\nMDs should also provide reasons for giving more weight to certain documents over others\nwhere there is conflicting or inconsistent information before them. For example, where there are\nconflicting versions of events pertaining to a criminal offence, an explanation as to why one\nversion is being relied on over the other should be provided.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 15.2 (A44(1) reports concerning permanent residents of Canada) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15 Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.\nCanada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 1681; Matharu v. Canada (Public Safety\nand Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 902", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 15 (Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-16-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 16", + "marginal_note": "McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16 McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422\n17 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653 [Vavilov]\nwherein the SCC further affirmed at para. 85 that a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an\ninternally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that\nconstrain the decision maker”.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n45\n2025-02-20\nWhether to consider personal circumstances for permanent residents and protected\npersons\nAs confirmed by the courts18, MDs are not obligated to consider personal circumstances during\nthe A44 process. However, the courts have also affirmed that MDs retain the discretion to\nconsider these circumstances, and if they exercise their discretion to do so, the decision must\nbe reasonable. The discretion is tempered by their limited role at A44.19 The guidance in this\nsection is intended to assist MDs determine when and how to exercise such discretion.\nMDs must always keep in mind the principles set out in section 8.2 and 15.1 above when\nrendering decisions under A44, including Parliament’s intention in drafting the IRPA to make\nsecurity of Canadians a top priority.\nIn consideration of the various objectives of the IRPA and the limited discretion at A44 as\nconfirmed by the courts, the CBSA’s policy is that MDs must consider the factors below when\ndeciding whether or not to exercise their limited discretion to consider evidence or submissions\nfiled by the person concerned regarding personal circumstances.\nGenerally speaking, the following factors would weigh against consideration of personal\ncircumstances by the MD:\n the inadmissibility falls under section A34, A35, A35.1 or A37;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 16 (McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-16-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 16", + "marginal_note": "McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " A36(1) serious criminality cases in the following circumstances:\no the permanent resident or protected person was previously issued a\nwarning letter by CBSA or had a previous removal order stayed or\nquashed by the IAD on humanitarian and compassionate grounds;\no the reportable offence: involved violence that resulted in bodily or\npsychological harm to another person, the use of a firearm or is a sexual\noffence; was committed against a vulnerable person (e.g. minor child or\nintellectually or physically challenged persons, or senior citizen), was a\nracially motivated crime, a crime of gender-based violence, including\ndomestic violence, a hate crime or a crime involving trafficking or\nsmuggling in large quantities of a controlled substance or weapons;\no the criminal record of the permanent resident or protected person\ndemonstrates a pattern of escalating seriousness\nIf the decision is not to consider personal circumstances, the MD should state this in their\nA44(2) decision. For example, the MD may state in their decision: “I am not exercising my\ndiscretion to consider evidence and/or submissions filed on behalf of (name of person\nconcerned) pertaining to their personal circumstances given the seriousness of the reportable\noffence”.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 16 (McAlpin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 18", + "marginal_note": "Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18 Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.\nCanada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 1681; Matharu v. Canada (Public Safety\nand Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 902", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 18 (Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 ; Sidhu v.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-19-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 19", + "marginal_note": "Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19 Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n46\n2025-02-20\nIf the MD exercises discretion to consider personal circumstances\nIf the MD decides to consider the personal circumstances of the person concerned, the CBSA’s\npolicy is that the MD must balance these with the objectives of the IRPA to protect public health\nand safety, and maintain the security of Canadian society by denying access to Canadian\nterritory to persons who are criminals or security risks.\nExamples of personal circumstances the MD may consider, if they decide to exercise their\ndiscretion to do so:\n• Age at time of landing—Has the person been a permanent resident of Canada since\nchildhood?\n• Was the permanent resident an adult at the time of admission to Canada?\n• Was the person granted protected person status in Canada?\n• Length of residence—How long has the person resided in Canada after the date of\nadmission?\n• Location of family support and responsibilities—Are family members in Canada\nemotionally or financially dependent on the permanent resident? Are all extended family\nmembers in Canada?\n• Degree of establishment—Is the permanent resident financially self-supporting? Are they\nemployed? Do they have a marketable trade or skill? Has the permanent resident made\nefforts to establish themselves in Canada through language training or skills upgrading? Is\nthere any evidence of community involvement? Has the permanent resident received social\nassistance (frequency/duration)?\n• Criminality—Has the permanent resident been convicted of any prior criminal offence?\nBased on reliable information, is the permanent resident involved in criminal or organized", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 19 (Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-19-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 19", + "marginal_note": "Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "crime activities? What is the nature and frequency of the person’s interactions with the law?\n(for further details please refer to ENF 5 Writing 44(1) reports, section 10.1, ‘A44(1) reports\nfor criminality cases’).\n• What is the potential for rehabilitation? How much time has passed since the last\nconviction? Has the permanent resident already been released? For how long? Has the\npermanent resident accepted culpability, expressed remorse, enrolled in or completed\neducational, skills upgrading or rehabilitation programs (for example, Alcoholics\nAnonymous, Narconon/narcotics rehabilitation programs, anger management programs, life\nskills)? Are family members willing and able to support/assist?\n• History of non-compliance and current attitude—Has the permanent resident been\ncooperative and forthcoming with information? Has a warning letter been previously issued?\nDoes the permanent resident accept responsibility for their actions? Are they remorseful?\n• Best interests of any children directly affected by the decision.\n• Right of Appeal—Does the person have a right of appeal to the IAD under A63 if a\nremoval order is issued? (see section 20.1 of this chapter, ‘Appeals to the Immigration\nAppeal Division’).\nRegardless of the factors being considered, the MD should be aware that there are limitations to\nthe scope of their assessment. For example, the Federal Court has made findings to support the\nprinciple that officials carrying out A44(1) and (2) assessments are not obliged to speculate\nabout how and when future deportation might take place, nor is the expectation that a person’s\nrehabilitation be analyzed in considerable detail.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n47\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 19 (Dass v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 624) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-15-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 15.3", + "marginal_note": "Loss of appeal right cases", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.3 Loss of appeal right cases\nFor inadmissibility under A36(1)(a) for permanent residents, it is important for reporting officers\nto obtain the most accurate evidence of the sentence imposed during the A44(1) process in\norder to determine whether the person retains a right of appeal. Under A64, a loss of appeal\nrights for serious criminality under A36(1)(a) must be with respect to a crime that was punished\nin Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least six months. Where it is not clear from the\nevidence whether the sentence meets the six month threshold under A64(2), before making any\nassessment under A44(1), the officer should obtain evidence demonstrating how the judge\ncalculated the total sentence imposed as reflected in the court documents, taking into account\nthe imposition of further credits for time served. Regardless of what assessment is made by the\nreporting officer, and especially in cases where the right of appeal is in doubt, the officer and/or\nthe MD should clearly articulate in the recommendation and/or decision that the determination\nas to whether the person concerned retains a right of appeal ultimately rests with the IAD.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 15.3 (Loss of appeal right cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-15-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 15.4", + "marginal_note": "Preparation of warning letter", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.4 Preparation of warning letter\nWhere the MD finds that the A44(1) report is well-founded, but that there are other compelling\nreasons, taking into account the objectives of the IRPA, not to refer the A44(1) report to the ID\nfor an admissibility hearing, the MD may exercise their discretion to issue a warning letter. In\nsuch a case, the decision to issue a warning letter constitutes a disposition of the A44(2)\nproceedings on the existing A44(1) report.\nBased on the limited scope of discretion of the MD, this option to the MD is intended only to be\navailable in cases of permanent residents and, in some circumstances, protected persons who\nremain foreign nationals. Such discretion should not be exercised lightly by the MD and must\ntake into account all of the circumstances of the case, the limited scope of discretion of the MD,\nthe objectives of the IRPA and Agency priorities regarding inadmissibility under A34, A35,\nA35.1, A36(1) and A37.\nIn addition to the list of factors provided in section 15.2, in cases involving inadmissibility under\nA36(1), MDs should closely examine the nature of the criminal offence when reviewing the\nA44(1) report before issuing a warning letter.\nWhile balancing IRPA objectives regarding public safety and security, the MD may also\nconsider, in cases where the person is a protected person, whether the severity of the acts\ncommitted is such that the CBSA officer will be seeking a Danger Opinion under A115.\nThe purpose of a warning letter is twofold: it conveys the decision and it is intended to act as a\ndeterrent.\nA warning letter sometimes has a third critical role: if, at some point in the future, the person\nbecomes reportable again (i.e., new circumstances of inadmissibility arise following the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 15.4 (Preparation of warning letter) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-15-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 15.4", + "marginal_note": "Preparation of warning letter", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "issuance of the warning letter), the record of the warning letter will be an important factor to\nconsider in an officer’s determination of whether to write a new A44(1) report and/or in the MD’s\ndecision to issue a removal order or refer the new report to the ID, should the person engage in\nfurther unlawful conduct. Officers also rely on the warning letter to demonstrate to the IAD that\nthe person concerned was duly cautioned as to the negative repercussions if another violation\noccurred.\nIt should be noted, however, that following the issuance of a warning letter, any new A44(1)\nreport must be based on new facts/circumstances. In other words, a new report for the same\nallegation must not arise solely based on the same facts underlying the allegation of the\nprevious report on which the warning letter was issued and the MD cannot re-open the previous\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n48\n2025-02-20\nA44(2) proceedings. For example, if a permanent resident receives a warning letter based on an\nA44(1) report for A36(1)(a) (e.g., based on a robbery conviction), the permanent resident cannot\nbe re-reported under A44(1) for A36(1)(a) and/or referred for admissibility hearing based on the\nsame conviction should the permanent resident be subsequently convicted of a non-reportable\noffence (e.g., theft under).\n The warning letter should always be printed on letterhead. The fields should never be\nhandwritten. This cannot be a standard form letter, as it needs to be tailored to the individual\ncircumstances of the person concerned.\n Every effort should be made to hand-deliver the warning letter. The person concerned\nshould be asked to sign the file copy acknowledging receipt of the original. This is especially", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 15.4 (Preparation of warning letter) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-15-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 15.4", + "marginal_note": "Preparation of warning letter", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "important in criminal cases in the event of a subsequent violation.\n If the letter cannot be hand-delivered because the person concerned is outside of the local\noffice’s jurisdiction, the letter should be forwarded to the responsible office with a request to\nhand-deliver the letter. If this is not feasible or practical, the letter should be sent by\nregistered mail.\n Once the letter is completed and signed, it must be uploaded into GCMS and the MD\ndisposition under the A44(2) examination process must be updated accordingly. The MD is\nalso required to enter detailed examination or application notes into GCMS fully supporting\nthe decision being made (see section 22, ‘Entering MD decisions into GCMS’). The\nissuance of the warning letter must also be recorded in the National Case Management\nSystem (NCMS) in offices where NCMS is utilized.\nFor an example of the warning letter, see Appendix B: Sample warning letter.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 15.4 (Preparation of warning letter) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 16", + "marginal_note": "Adjourning Proceedings", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16 Adjourning Proceedings\nCircumstances may warrant the adjournment of a proceeding under A44(2). In some cases, the\nMD may have to consider a request for an adjournment to ensure that a person has a\nreasonable opportunity to provide more evidence or to obtain counsel.\nThe MD may also have to adjourn proceedings based on operational reasons, such as the lack\nof an interpreter, however adjournments should not be a tool of administrative convenience.\nIn all cases, the MD will need to ensure that any decision regarding a request to adjourn is\nreasonable and meets the procedural fairness requirements set out in previous sections.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 16 (Adjourning Proceedings)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 17", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Entry for the purpose of further examination or an", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17 Procedure: Entry for the purpose of further examination or an\nadmissibility hearing (Port of entry officers)\nUnder A23, an officer may authorize a person to enter Canada for the purpose of further\nexamination or an admissibility hearing. It is important to note that, pursuant to R43(2), a foreign\nnational authorized to enter Canada under A23 does not, by reason of that authorization,\nbecome a temporary resident or a permanent resident. The MD may have to initiate entry under\nA23 following an adjournment of the A44(2) proceeding or for operational reasons, such as the\nlack of an interpreter, however this procedure should not be used as a tool of administrative\nconvenience.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n49\n2025-02-20\nThe MD should not consider a request for entry under A23 to provide additional information\nunless all of the following conditions have been met:\n there are strong indications that the person can easily produce additional documents\nrelevant to the inadmissibility report determination;\n the MD believes the person’s indications to be credible; and\n the person has not yet been given a reasonable chance to present additional\ndocuments.\nMDs should be cautious when considering entry for the purpose of an admissibility hearing\nsince the ID may not schedule an admissibility hearing for weeks or months, which could lead to\nthe foreign national remaining in Canada for a prolonged period without any legal status or a\nmeans of financial support. MDs may also consider other options such as directing persons\nback to the United States under R41 (see section 19, ‘Procedure: Directing persons back to the\nUnited States under R41’).\nNote: Pursuant to R43(1) the imposition of certain prescribed conditions for persons authorized\nto enter Canada under A23 is mandatory.\nThe MD should also keep in mind the provisions of A44(3), A55(3) and A56, which provide\nauthority to detain and release persons, and impose further conditions—including the payment\nof a deposit or the posting of a guarantee—following the furthering of an examination of a\nperson who is the subject of an A44(1) report. For further guidance see ENF 8 Deposits and\nGuarantees. For further details regarding detention and release authorities, see ENF 20\nDetention and ENF 34 Alternatives to detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 17 (Procedure: Entry for the purpose of further examination or an)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 18", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of Conditions following the A44(1) report for A34:", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18 Imposition of Conditions following the A44(1) report for A34:\nMandatory circumstances\nA44(3) authorizes officers to impose any conditions, including the posting of a deposit or the\nposting of a guarantee for compliance with conditions, that the officer considers necessary, on a\npermanent resident or foreign national who is the subject of a subsection A44(1) report, an\nadmissibility hearing or, being in Canada, a removal order.\nWhenever officers write an A44(1) report, consideration should be given to imposing conditions\non the foreign national or permanent resident. The MD also has the authority to impose\nconditions during the A44(2) process (e.g., following an adjournment of the proceedings or\nfollowing the decision to issue a removal order or refer the A44(1) report to the ID for an\nadmissibility hearing). Officers and MDs should always consult the D & D instruments regarding\nthe authority to impose conditions as this authority may vary depending on whether the person\nconcerned is a foreign national or a permanent resident.\nThe MD must be aware that in cases of inadmissibility on security grounds under A34, the\nimposition of conditions is mandatory once the report has been referred to the ID. Under the\nIRPA, decision-makers specified in the relevant legislative authority are required to impose the\nbaseline prescribed conditions in prescribed circumstances: CBSA officers are required in\nA44(4) and A56(3); ID is required in A58(5); Minister is required in A58.1(4) and A77.1(1);\nFederal Court is required in A82(6).\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n50\n2025-02-20\nThe prescribed conditions must be imposed in the following circumstances:\n when an inadmissibility report on grounds of security (A34) is referred to the ID and the\nsubject of the report is not detained (designated CBSA officers);\n when the subject of either an inadmissibility report on grounds of security (A34) that has\nbeen referred to the ID or a removal order for inadmissibility on grounds of security is\nreleased from detention; [designated CBSA officers under A56(3); ID under A58(5) and\nthe Minister under A58.1(4)].\nFor each of the circumstances outlined above, the prescribed conditions to be imposed are\nfound in R250.1.\nSee Acknowledgement of Conditions for IRPA Section 34 Cases [BSF798].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 18 (Imposition of Conditions following the A44(1) report for A34:)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-19", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 19", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Directing persons back to the United States under R41", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19 Procedure: Directing persons back to the United States under R41\nR41 authorizes an officer to direct a foreign national seeking to enter Canada from the United\nStates (U.S.) to return to the U.S. if:\n no officer is able to complete an examination [R41(a)];\n the MD is not available to consider, under A44(2), a report made with respect to the\nperson [R41(b)];\n an admissibility hearing cannot be held by the ID [R41(c)]; or\n the foreign national is prohibited from entering Canada by an order or regulation made\nby the Governor in Council under the Emergencies Act or the Quarantine Act.\nIn such cases, the person concerned may be given a Direction to Return to the United States\nform (BSF505) in appropriate circumstances. Officers and MDs should be aware that there is a\nspecific policy for refugee claimants at the land port of entry.\nA person who has been directed to return to the U.S. pending an admissibility hearing by the ID\nand who seeks to come into Canada for reasons other than to appear at that hearing is\nconsidered to be seeking entry. If such a person remains inadmissible for the same reason(s),\nand if a member of the ID is not reasonably available, the person may be directed again to\nreturn to the U.S. to wait until a member of the ID is available. In these circumstances it is not\nnecessary to write a new A44(1) report.\nNote: Generally, persons directed back to the U.S. who choose not to return to Canada will not\nbe subject to enforcement action, as they have no desire to continue with their application to\nenter Canada. Such persons will simply be deemed to have withdrawn their application. Officers\nshould therefore not counsel the person that failure to return in these instances will\nautomatically result in enforcement action while the person is not in Canada.\nIn exceptional cases, it may be appropriate to pursue enforcement action for persons seeking\nentry who have failed to comply with R44(3). Officers and MDs should consider all information\nand individual circumstances of each case before they elect to proceed with enforcement action\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n51\n2025-02-20\nunder A44(1)/ A44(2), including the circumstances surrounding the failure to comply and the\nintent of the person concerned.\nSee also: ENF 4 Port of entry examinations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 19 (Procedure: Directing persons back to the United States under R41)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-20", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 20", + "marginal_note": "Appeals and Judicial Review— Removal Order", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "20 Appeals and Judicial Review— Removal Order\nThere are two levels of review of decisions made under the IRPA. Sponsors, permanent\nresident visa holders, permanent residents and protected persons have a statutory right to\nappeal adverse decisions to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and\nRefugee Board. In all other cases, where no statutory right of appeal exists under the IRPA or\nthose rights have been exhausted, there is a right to seek judicial review at the Federal Court of\nCanada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 20 (Appeals and Judicial Review— Removal Order)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-20-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 20.1", + "marginal_note": "Appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "20.1 Appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division\nThe MD will encounter three circumstances in which a person against whom they have made a\nremoval order may have a right of appeal to the IAD. Those circumstances involve a person\nwho is:\n a foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa;\n a permanent resident (inside or outside Canada); and\n a protected person.\nWhere a person has a right to appeal, removal orders are stayed until the end of the appeal\nperiod expires (30 days) if no appeal is made and until the day of final determination of the\nappeal, if an appeal is made. Pursuant to A50(c), if the IAD grants a stay of removal, the\nremoval order is stayed under A66(b) and A68 until the stay is no longer in force.\nTable 6: Right to Appeal— Removal Order\nWho has right to\nappeal\nLegislation Period in which\nappeal must be\nmade\nWho is excluded\nForeign national\nholding a permanent\nresident visa\nA63(2)* 30 days after\nreceiving the\ndecision\nA64(1), A64)(2)\nPermanent resident\n(in Canada)\nA63(3)* 30 days after\nreceiving the\ndecision\nA64(1), A64(2)\nPermanent resident\n(outside Canada)\nA63(4) 60 days to appeal\nProtected person\nA63(3)*\n30 days after\nreceiving the\ndecision\nA64(1)\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n52\n2025-02-20\n*A64(1)— No Right to Appeal\nNo appeal may be made to the IAD by a foreign national or their sponsor or by a permanent\nresident or protected person if they have been found to be inadmissible on grounds of:\n security, violating human or international rights (A34)\n violating human or international rights (A35)\n sanctions (A35.1)\n serious criminality (A36)**\n organized criminality (A37)\n**must be with respect to a crime that was punished in Canada by\na term of imprisonment of at least six months or that is described in paragraph 36(1)(b)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 20.1 (Appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-20-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 20.1", + "marginal_note": "Appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "or (c)\nWhen the MD makes a removal order against a person who may have a right to appeal that\ndecision to the IAD, officers must advise the persons of that right. This is easily accomplished\nby giving them a notification of appeal form and informing them of their right to appeal.\nThe MD is also to provide the persons with the address and telephone number of the IAD\nregistry office so that the persons may file a notice of appeal with the Registrar if they so\nchoose.\nThe MD should also obtain a written acknowledgement from the persons that they have been\nadvised of their right to appeal to the IAD and place it in the case file.\nSee Appendix G: Sample letter— IAD Appeal Acknowledgement Letter", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 20.1 (Appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-20-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 20.2", + "marginal_note": "Right to file an application for leave and judicial review— Where no statutory", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "20.2 Right to file an application for leave and judicial review— Where no statutory\nright of appeal exists\nWhen an MD makes a removal order against a person who does not have the right to appeal to\nthe IAD, the MD is to advise the person of their right to file an application for leave and judicial\nreview with the Federal Court pursuant to A72(1).\nFor example, foreign nationals who are not protected persons or who do not hold a permanent\nresident visa have no statutory right of appeal to the IAD against a removal order issued by the\nMD. However, they may challenge a removal order made by the MD at the Federal Court.\nIf a statutory appeal, as may be provided for by the IRPA, has not been resolved, neither the\nMinister nor the person concerned may appeal to the Federal Court.\nThe MD should obtain a written acknowledgment from the persons concerned, stating that they\nhave been advised of their right to file an application for leave and judicial review, and place it in\nthe case file. Applications for leave and judicial review must be filed within 15 days of the date of\nthe removal order.\nSee Appendix H: Sample letter— Judicial Review Acknowledgement Letter\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n53\n2025-02-20\nFor further information regarding Judicial reviews, see ENF 9 Judicial Reviews and ENF 10\nRemovals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 20.2 (Right to file an application for leave and judicial review— Where no statutory)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-21", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 21", + "marginal_note": "Multiple allegations", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21 Multiple allegations\nWhere the person is inadmissible under multiple provisions of the IRPA, it is generally\nrecommended that the officer writes a separate report for each allegation. The MD will then\nmake a determination on each report during the A44(2) process.\nThere may be instances where multiple allegations are contained within the same report. This\npractice is generally discouraged, especially where the jurisdiction for each inadmissibility does\nnot lie with the same decision-maker (i.e., MD or ID). It should be noted, however, that where a\nreport contains one or more inadmissibility allegation, and if the MD has jurisdiction for all\ninadmissibility allegations contained within that report, the MD can determine the disposition of\nthat report; conversely, where there are several inadmissibility allegations in a report and the\nMD has jurisdiction for only some of them, the MD is not authorized to determine a disposition\nfor that report, and all allegations must be referred to the ID.\nIn cases where multiple A44(1) reports have been prepared against an individual concurrently\nand the MD is of the opinion that each of the inadmissibility allegations is well-founded, the MD\nshould consider the potential consequences of not referring all reports for an admissibility\nhearing (where the jurisdiction to the issue the removal order rests with the ID) at the same\ntime, including the following:\n in cases where multiple reports have been written for A36(1)(a) serious criminality based\non separate convictions in Canada, the fact that having a separate removal order on\neach report may be critical in ensuring that IRPA objectives are met in the event that one\nor more of the underlining convictions and/or sentences are later overturned on appeal\nby the criminal courts;\n abuse of process arguments may be raised at a later time if all A44(1) reports before the\nMD are not referred for an admissibility hearing at the same time.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 21 (Multiple allegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "Entering MD decisions into GCMS", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 Entering MD decisions into GCMS\nWhen processing or issuing an immigration document, completing an MD review, or conducting\nan examination, the MD is required to enter detailed examination or application notes into\nGCMS fully supporting the decision being made, regardless of whether the decision was\npositive or negative.\n Notes are to be factual and should not contain personal opinions which are not\nsupported by elements collected during the examination or review. The notes may\nconsist of such items as: questions and answers asked during the examination or\nreview, admissibility concerns the officer or MD may have, a synopsis of any\ndocumentation reviewed or requested, and any other pertinent details related to the\nexamination/application or MD review. The notes are to include the decision made and\nrationale supporting the decision. Notes should provide sufficient detail to allow another\nGCMS user to understand what transpired and why an action was taken. Notes entered\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n54\n2025-02-20\non the Client screen should be general information on the client, and should not be used\nfor Examination/Application Notes.\n Officers are to continue to record user remarks on facilitation documents and narratives\nin the inadmissibility sub-tab supporting the inadmissibility allegations.\n MDs should be uploading examination notes that clearly show that procedural fairness\nhas been met, and what factors were considered as part of the decision.\n It is important to note that A44(2) decision notes in GCMS are also reviewed by officials\nprocessing applications, and therefore may directly impact future decisions (e.g.\napplications for TRPs, temporary residence or permanent residence).\nCBSA officers may consult the GCMS Help Centre for additional information on how to enter\nnotes and upload documents into GCMS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 22 (Entering MD decisions into GCMS)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.1", + "marginal_note": "Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "23.1 Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions\nAs part of the inadmissibility determination for A36(1)(b) or (c) and A36(2)(b) or (c) as well as\nconsiderations related to criminal rehabilitation under the IRPA, it is necessary for the MD to\ndetermine if a conviction or offence committed outside of Canada has an equivalent in Canadian\nlaw. This means that in A44(2) proceedings, all necessary evidence for determining criminal\nequivalency will also need to accompany the A44(1) report.\nIn other words, the MD must have the evidence required to determine whether the acts\ncommitted abroad and punished there would be punishable in Canada. This analysis is a\nnecessary part of the MD’s decision in order to refer the report to the ID for an admissibility\nhearing, even though the MD does not have jurisdiction to issue the removal order.\nIt is important to note that A36(1)(b) or (c) and A36(2)(b) or (c) cannot be used where the\nperson has been acquitted or a court has made a finding of not guilty.\nFor further details, see ENF 2 Evaluating Inadmissibility and ENF 3 Admissibility Hearings and\nDetention Reviews.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.1 (Criminal equivalency between foreign and Canadian jurisdictions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.2", + "marginal_note": "Record suspensions for convictions in Canada", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "23.2 Record suspensions for convictions in Canada\nMDs must also be careful not to rely on convictions for which a record suspension has been\ngranted as evidence of a criminal record.\nIn the case of convictions in Canada, the Parole Board of Canada has the authority to grant and\nissue record suspensions (formerly known as “pardons”) to persons described in A36(1)(a), and\nA36(2)(a), who have been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament.\nRecord suspension for in-Canada offences is the responsibility of the Parole Board of Canada,\nso neither deemed rehabilitation nor rehabilitation can be granted for such offences.\nFor more information about record suspensions, see ENF2, Evaluating inadmissibility.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n55\n2025-02-20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.2 (Record suspensions for convictions in Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.3", + "marginal_note": "Criminal Rehabilitation", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "23.3 Criminal Rehabilitation\nPursuant to A36(3)(c), in prescribed circumstances, an inadmissibility under A36(2)(b) or (c)\nmay be overcome through rehabilitation.\nThere are two types of Rehabilitation: Deemed Rehabilitation and Individual Rehabilitation. The\neffect of both is that they remove specific grounds of inadmissibility if certain conditions exist or\nprescribed requirements are met.\nUnder the D&D instruments, only certain MDs have been delegated to assess and render a\ndecision on applications for individual rehabilitation.\nFor further guidance on criminal rehabilitation, see ENF2 Evaluating inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.3 (Criminal Rehabilitation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "23.4 Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act\nA36(3)(e) exempts permanent residents and foreign nationals found guilty under the Young\nOffenders Act (YOA) or the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) from the inadmissibility\nprovisions in A36(1) and A36(2).\nCanadian legislation (YOA and YCJA) defines a young offender/young person as someone who\nis at least 12, but under 18 years of age. A child under the age of 12, cannot be charged with an\noffence under the Criminal Code of Canada and a person 18 years old and over would be\ncharged as an adult.\nThe MD must ensure that they do not rely on or refer to youth offences in any determinations\nunder A44(2), except where access is authorized under the YCJA. Information that is not\naccessible under the provisions of the YCJA cannot be considered and must not be included or\nreferenced at any point during A44(1) or (2) proceedings. Moreover, contravention of the\nprovisions of the YCJA is a serious matter.\nThe importance of verifying whether information is protected by YCJA provisions was\nhighlighted in Abdi v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) 2017 FC 950. In\nthat case, the Federal Court held that while the MD did not commit an error in relying on youth\ncrimes that the applicant was found guilty of where access to these records was not restricted\nby virtue of section 119(9) of the YCJA, the MD’s reliance on youth offences that were\nwithdrawn or dismissed was unreasonable since section 119(2)(c) of the YCJA allows access to\nthese records for only a brief period after dismissal or withdrawal of the youth charges and the\naccess period to such charges had expired.\nOfficials conducting A44(1) and A44(2) functions must ensure that they only rely on youth", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 1 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "records to which access is not restricted under the provisions of the YCJA. It is therefore\nimportant for reporting officers and the MD to be aware of the provisions of the YCJA which\nrelate to access to youth records.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n56\n2025-02-20\nAppendix A: Table: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Inadmissible\nClasses\nIRPA\nSection/\nsubsection\nInadmissibility\nParagraph\nIRPA Text\nIRPR\nreference\nJurisdiction to\nIssue Removal\nOrder\nApplicable Removal\nOrder\nA34\nSecurity\n(PR and FN)\n34(1)(a) act of espionage against Canada or\nthat is contrary to Canada’s interests\nID\nDeportation Order\nR229(1)(a)\n34(1)(b) subversion by force of any\ngovernment\n34(1)(b.1)\nsubversion against democratic\ngovernment, institution or process\n34(1)(c) terrorism R14\n34(1)(d) danger to security of Canada\n34(1)(e)\nviolence/endanger lives or safety of\npersons in Canada\n34(1)(f)\nmembership in an organization\ndescribed in (a)(b)(b.1) or (c)\nA35\nHuman or\nInternational\nRights\nViolations\n(PR and FN)\n35(1)(a)\nCrimes against Humanity and War\nCrimes Act\nR15\nID\nDeportation Order\nR229(1)(b) 35(1)(b)\nprescribed senior official R16\n35(1)(c.1) organ trafficking\nA35.1 Sanctions\n(FN only)\n35.1(1)(a)\nentry into or stay in Canada restricted\ndue to international sanctions\nMD\nDeportation Order\nR228(1)(f)\n35.1(1)(b)\nsubject of an order made under\nSpecial Economic Measures Act\n35.1(1)(c) subject of an order made under\nJustice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign\nOfficials Act\nA36(1) Serious\nCriminality\n(PR and FN)\n36(1)(a)\nconvicted in Canada- FN MD Deportation Order\nR228(1)(a)\nconvicted in Canada- PR ID\nDeportation Order\nR229(1)(c) 36(1)(b)\nconvicted outside Canada R17 ID\n36(1)(c) committed an act outside Canada R17 ID\nA36(2) Criminality\n(FN only)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 2 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "36(2)(a) convicted in Canada (= by way of\nindictment or 2 offences)\nR18.1 MD Deportation Order\nR228(1)(a)\n36(2)(b) convicted outside Canada\n(=indictment or 2 offences)\nR17\nR18\nID Deportation Order\nR229(1)(d)\n36(2)(c) committed an act outside Canada\n(=indictment)\nR17\nR18\nID\nA36(2.1) Transborder\nCriminality\n(FN only)\ncommitting, on entering Canada, a\nprescribed offence under an Act of\nParliament\nR19\nID\nDeportation Order\nR229(1)(d.1)\nMD (specific\noffences\nonly)\nDeportation Order\nR228(1)(a.01)\nA37 Organized\nCriminality\n37(1)(a) member of an organization engaged in\ncriminal activity/ engaging in pattern\nof activity\nDeportation Order\nR229(1)(e)\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n57\n2025-02-20\n(PR and FN) 37(1)(b) engaging in transnational crime\n(people smuggling/ trafficking,\nlaundering money or other proceeds\nof crime)\nR16.1\nID\nA38 Health\nGrounds\n(FN only)\n38(1)(a) danger to public health R20\nID\nExclusion Order*o\nR229(1)(f)\n38(1)(b) health condition danger to public\nsafety\nR20\n38(1)(c) excessive demand on health or social\nservices\nR24(3)\nA39 Financial\nGrounds\n(FN only)\nunable or unwilling to support\nthemself or dependents\nR21 ID Exclusion Order*o\nR229(1)(g)\nA40 Misrep-\nresentation\n(PR or FN)\n40(1)(a) misrepresentation/ withholding\nmaterial facts\nR22\nID\n(exception:\nR228(1)(a.1)\nExclusion Ordero\nR229(1)(h)\nMD\n(Misrep on\neTA re: TRV-\nexempt\nstatus)\nExclusion Order\nR228(1)(a.1)\n40(1)(b) being or having been sponsored by a\nperson inadmissible for\nmisrepresentation\nID Exclusion Order\nR229(1)(h)\n40(1)(c) final determination to vacate refugee\nclaim or application for protection\nMD Deportation Order\nR228(1)(b)\n40(1)(d) ceasing to be a Canadian citizen ID Deportation Order\nR229(1)(i)\nA40.1 Cessation of\nrefugee\nprotection\n(PR and FN)\nA40.1(1) FN under A108(2)\nA46(1)(c.1)\nMD", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 3 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Departure Order\nR228(1)(b.1)\nA40.1(2)\nPR under A108(1)(a) to (d) [however,\nperson becomes a FN as per\nA46(1)(c.1) so A40.1(1) will apply]\nA41(a) Non-\ncompliance\nwith Act\n(FN only)\nForeign national — non-compliance\nExamples:\nA41(a) + A52(1) Obligation to obtain the\nauthorization to return to Canada\nA41(a) + A20(1)(a) Does not hold the PR visa or\nother document required under the Regulations\nand have come to Canada in order to establish\npermanent residence\nA41(a) + A29(2) Failure to leave Canada by the end\nof the period authorized for their stay\nA41(a) + 30(1) Work or study without authorization\nR6\nR183(1)(a)\nR183(1)(b),\n(c)\nMD\nMD\nMD\nID\nDeportation Order\nR228(c)(ii)\nExclusion Order**\nR228(1)(c)(iii)\nExclusion Order**\nR228(1)(c)(iv)\nExclusion Order**\nR229(1)(n)\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n58\n2025-02-20\nA41(b)\nNon-\ncompliance\nwith\nresidency\nobligation\n(PR only)\nPermanent resident & non-compliance with\nresidency obligation\nA28\nMD\nDeparture Order\nR228(2)\nA42 Inadmissible\nFamily\nMember\n(FN only)\nA42(1)(a)\naccompanying family member is\ninadmissible\nR23\nMD\nSame removal order\nas inadmissible\nfamily member\nR228(1)(d)\nA42(1)(b) FN is accompanying family member of\nperson inadmissible under A34, A35,\nA35.1 or A37\nMD\nDeportation Order\nR228(1)(e)\nID: Immigration Division MD: Minister’s Delegate\nMD may not issue a removal order where R228(4) applies (unaccompanied minors and persons unable to appreciate nature of\nproceedings)\n*Departure order for refugee claimants R229(2)\no Deportation order where R229(3) exceptions apply\n**Departure Order for refugee claimants R228(3); Subject to R228(4)\nNote: Only s. 34 deals with future events. Sections 35-37 are limited to past or present events\nThis chart is a quick reference tool reflecting the IRPA inadmissibility classes and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 4 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "corresponding removal orders in effect as of the most recent date of publication of ENF 6.\nOfficers should reference full Act and Regulations on Justice.gc.ca website for complete\ninformation on IRPA inadmissibilities and jurisdiction to issue removal orders.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n59\n2025-02-20\nAppendix B: Sample Warning letter\n(Name and Address of person concerned) Client ID #:\n(Date)\nDear XXXX;\nThis letter is in reference to your criminal conviction(s) and status in Canada. Enclosed, you will find a\nreport written under subsection 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.\nPermanent residents of Canada may be reported to the Minister when they have engaged in criminal\nactivity of a serious nature. Your conviction for xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is reportable under paragraph\n36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.\nThis report is now a permanent part of your immigration record. The circumstances of your case have\nbeen considered carefully and it has been decided that your case will not be referred to the Immigration\nDivision for an admissibility hearing at this time.\nYou must understand however, that this decision may be reviewed in the future should new adverse\ninformation come to our attention or any further criminal convictions be registered against you. If such a\nreview occurs, a decision to pursue enforcement action may result in referring you to the Immigration\nDivision of the Immigration and Refugee Board for an admissibility hearing. The outcome of this hearing\ncould result in a deportation order and your permanent removal from Canada.\nWe trust that you understand the gravity of this matter and that we will not be required to contact you\nagain as the result of any further criminal activity.\nYours truly,\n(signature)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 5 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Name of Minister’s Delegate and title\nNote: This is a sample letter with suggested wording. Preference as to final wording, or the use of pre-\nprinted as opposed to micro-produced “originals” is left to the discretion of local managers provided the\ncontent remains consistent with the intent.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n60\n2025-02-20\nAppendix C: Steps for in-person A44(2) proceeding where MD has jurisdiction to\nissue a removal order\nPrior to the A44(2) proceedings, MDs should review A44(1) report and accompanying evidence\nto ensure:\n person concerned is not a Canadian citizen\n person is not a Permanent Resident of Canada (except for residency obligation files)\n person concerned is not an Indian registered under the Indian Act\n person’s biographical data is correctly cited (name(s), date of birth)\n status of person concerned is correctly identified in A44(1) report\n inadmissibility section has been properly cited\n A44(1) report has been signed and dated\n ensure MD has jurisdiction to issue the removal order under R228\nDuring the A44(2) proceedings, MD should:\nStep 1 Notate the date/time of proceedings\n Introduce themselves as the MD\nStep 2 Confirm person before the MD is the subject of the A44(1) report\nStep 3 Determine whether person concerned requires an accredited interpreter\n Where an interpreter is required, confirm person understands the interpreter\nand that MD may continue with the proceedings. Advise the person that they\nshould advise MD at any time if they do not understand the interpreter.\n If necessary, adjourn proceedings to obtain interpreter.\nStep 4 Confirm person concerned has a copy of the report and the evidence being used to\nsupport the allegation and has had the opportunity to review it.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 6 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Read the allegations contained in the A44(1) to the person concerned.\n State the purpose of the proceedings and refer to the A44(1) report.\n Advise the person that they must answer questions completely and truthfully.\nStep 5 Explain the process MD will be following, evidence to be considered and the\nconsequences of finding the report well-founded. Ensure the person concerned\nunderstands that this process may result in a removal order being issued, the type of\nremoval order, and the consequence of this order.\nStep 6 In detained cases: Prior to commencing the proceeding, advise the person concerned\nof their right to have a counsel of their choosing present at their own expense. This right\napplies in all cases where a person is detained under an Act of Parliament and includes\nsituations where the person is detained by the criminal courts while facing charges or\nserving a sentence and subject to IRPA proceedings. Should the person express an\nintention to communicate with counsel, the MD should adjourn the proceeding and allow\na reasonable period of time for the person to retain counsel.\nIn released cases: The person does not have the right to have counsel present during\nthe MD review, however the MD should consider permitting counsel’s attendance should\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n61\n2025-02-20\nthe person concerned have a counsel present, as long as counsel’s presence will not\ninterfere with the process. MDs are not obligated to postpone MD review proceedings\ndue to counsel unavailability, however, may consider such requests on case-by-case\nbasis.\nStep 7 Verify each of the case elements of the allegation contained in the A44(1) report\nby questioning the person to confirm that each of these elements has been proven", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 7 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "by the evidence, either verbally or in writing.\n Verify person concerned has no other evidence/information to provide and if so,\ndetermine whether an adjournment is warranted.\n Allow the person the opportunity to respond and acknowledge their evidence and\ndocument this either by notes or making copies of what is presented, particularly if there\nis any inconsistency between the allegation in the A44(1) report and the person's\ndeclaration. MD must ensure that all the evidence presented has been considered.\nStep 8 The MD should ask the person how long they intend to remain in Canada and follow\nthe steps in ENF 6, section 13, ‘Procedure: Handling possible claims for refugee\nprotection’.\n Where the person does not express a fear of returning to their country or indicate an\nintention to make a claim, the MD should proceed with the decision and issue a removal\norder, if appropriate.\n Where the person’s statements indicate a fear of returning to the country that may relate\nto refugee protection, the MD is to inform the person of the definition of a “Convention\nrefugee” or “person in need of protection” as found in A96 and A97, and ask whether\nthey wish to make a claim before proceeding with the issuance of a removal order.\nStep 9 Advise the person of the decision and the reasons for the decision.\nStep 10 If issuing a removal order, provide the person concerned with a copy of the removal\norder and its legal effect.\n Where applicable, explain the Certificate of Departure process and that a Departure\nOrder will turn into a Deportation Order should they fail to properly follow the process for\nverifying departure (for further information, see ENF 10 Removals).\n Advise person concerned of their right to appeal (as applicable) or right to seek judicial", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 8 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "review and the relevant time limits and document this. Provide relevant appeal forms\nand have the person sign the relevant acknowledgement letter, where appropriate. For\nfurther information, see ENF 6, section 20 ‘Appeals and Judicial Review- Removal\nOrder’.\nStep 11 At the conclusion of the review, notate the time and sign the record of decision,\nincluding the completion of the MD portion of forms [e.g., BSF516, IMM5084 or\nA44(1) narrative report]. Complete appropriate system updates/data entry.\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n62\n2025-02-20\nAppendix G: Sample letter— IAD appeal acknowledgement letter\nOffice Address ______________________\nDate: _______________________________\nI acknowledge being informed that I have a right to appeal the removal order issued against me to the\nImmigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board and that I have 30 days from the\ndate of the removal order to file such notice of appeal with the Immigration Appeal Division.\nI also acknowledge having received a notice of appeal form, which I understand is the form to be used to\nfile an appeal with the Immigration Appeal Division.\n____________________________________________________________________________\nSignature Date\n____________________________________________________________________________\nPrint name Client ID\n____________________________________________________________________________\nMinister’s Delegate Name/Badge number\nInterpreter Declaration:\nI, ______________________________________________, solemnly declare\n(Name of interpreter)\nthat I have faithfully and accurately interpreted in the ____________ language.\nI make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true knowing that it is of the same force\nand effect as if made under oath.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 9 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-6-23-4-p10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-6", + "act_short": "ENF 6", + "act_name": "ENF 6 — Review of reports under A44(1)", + "section": "ENF 6 s. 23.4", + "marginal_note": "Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act", + "part": "Review of reports under A44(1)", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "_______________________________________\n(Signature of interpreter)\nENF 6 Review of reports under subsection 44(2)\n63\n2025-02-20\nAppendix H: Sample letter— Judicial Review Acknowledgement letter\nOffice Address ______________________\nDate: _______________________________\nI acknowledge being informed on this date that I have a right to file an application for leave and judicial\nreview with the Federal Court of Canada and that if I wish to file such an application, it must be filed\nwithin 15 days of the date of the issuance of the removal order.\nI have been provided with the following link with instructions:\nhttp://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/appeals-review.asp\n____________________________________________________________________________________\nSignature Date\nPrint name Client ID\n____________________________________________________________________________\nMinister’s Delegate Name/Badge number\nInterpreter Declaration:\nI, ______________________________________________, solemnly declare\n(Name of interpreter)\nthat I have faithfully and accurately interpreted in the ____________ language.\nI make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true knowing that it is of the same force\nand effect as if made under oath.\n_______________________________________\n(Signature of interpreter)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-20", + "current_to": "2025-02-20", + "citation": "ENF 6, s. 23.4 (Offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) (part 10 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf06-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Receiving Orders for Release from the Immigration Division (ID) or delegated", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 Receiving Orders for Release from the Immigration Division (ID) or delegated\nofficer………………………………………………………………………………….…\n15", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.2 (Receiving Orders for Release from the Immigration Division (ID) or delegated)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-20", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.20", + "marginal_note": "Requests for information………………………………………………………...", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.20 Requests for information………………………………………………………...\nAppendix A: Sample letter— Notification to Bondsperson re: Refund of Security\nDeposit…………………………………………………………………………………….\nAppendix B: Sample letter— Notification to Bondsperson re: Refund of Security\ndeposit and cancellation of performance bond……………………………………….\nAppendix C: Sample letter— Notification to Guarantor re: Cancellation of\nPerformance Bond……………………………………………………………………….\n35\n36\n37\n38\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 2\nUpdates to chapter\nListing by date:\n2020-10-07\nSections 3 and 8 have been updated to reflect regulatory changes, including the addition of prescribed\nfactors for consideration under subsection 47(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.\nUpdates have also been made to reflect new BSF Acknowledgement of conditions form. Content has\nbeen updated to include sample form letters. Minor changes and clarifications have been provided\nthroughout the chapter.\n2017-05-15\nSubstantive and minor changes, as well as clarifications, have been provided throughout the chapter.\n2007-02-01\nChanges have been made to Section 7.8 and a paragraph has been deleted. In addition, the title of the\nMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been changed to Minister of Public Safety.\n2005-11-08\nChanges have been made throughout chapter ENF 8 to reflect the change in responsibilities as a result of\nthe CIC/CBSA transition. All previous versions should be discarded.\nOf particular note are the following modifications:\n changes have been made throughout this chapter to reflect accurate officer titles within the CBSA\nand CIC.\n section 4, Instruments and delegations, outlines specific roles and authorities of CIC and CBSA\npersonnel.\n2004-11-04\nEditorial modifications have been made throughout this chapter. All previous versions should be\ndiscarded.\n2004-01-15\nThe chapter’s name has been changed to “Deposits and Guarantees” to better reflect the terminology of\nIRPA and its Regulations.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 3", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.20 (Requests for information………………………………………………………...)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter provides functional guidance to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), both at the\nPort of Entry and Inland, as well as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officers,\nmanagers and others with the delegated and designated authority to impose the payment of deposits and\nthe posting of guarantees in respect of persons seeking entry to Canada, and permanent residents and\nforeign nationals who are the subject of an inadmissibility report, an admissibility hearing, or a removal\norder.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe use of deposits and guarantees, also referred to as “bonds”, in the Canadian immigration program is\nintended to:\n ensure that persons seeking temporary entry comply with any conditions that may be imposed on\nthem under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Regulations (IRPR);\n ensure that persons subject to an inadmissibility report, an admissibility hearing or a removal\norder comply with any conditions that may be imposed under the IRPA and IRPR; and\n allow the release of a person held in immigration detention, based on that person's agreement to\nabide by any conditions of release, to ensure compliance with the IRPA and IRPR.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and Regulations\nThis part of the chapter provides a guide to the IRPA and IRPR provisions concerning deposits and\nguarantees, for officers’ reference.\nIRPA – Deposits and guarantees Section\nThe authority to make Regulations regarding conditions\nthat may be imposed on permanent residents and foreign\nnationals and Regulations governing deposits or\nguarantees for the performance of obligations imposed\nA14(2)\nA14(2)(d)\nA14(2)(f)\nAuthority for a CBSA or IRCC officer or the Immigration\nDivision to impose conditions including the payment of a\ndeposit or posting of a guarantee for compliance with\nconditions imposed by a CBSA or IRCC officer or the\nImmigration Division on a permanent resident or foreign\nnational who is the subject of a report, an admissibility\nhearing or, being in Canada, a removal order\nA44(3)\nAuthority for a CBSA officer to order the release from\ndetention before the first detention review of a permanent\nresident or foreign national on payment of a deposit or\nposting of a guarantee, if required, for compliance with the\nconditions imposed\nA56\nAuthority for the Minister to order the release on request\nof a Designated Foreign National aged 16 or older from\nA58.1\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 4\ndetention and to impose any conditions, including the\npayment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee for\ncompliance with the conditions deemed necessary.\nNote: This authority is not currently delegated, but is held\nby the Minister of Public Safety.\nAuthority for the Immigration Division to impose conditions\nof release on a permanent resident or foreign national,\nincluding the payment of a deposit or the posting of a\nguarantee for compliance with the conditions\nA58(3)\nAuthority to collect monies that a person has agreed to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "pay as a deposit or guarantee of performance is a debt\ndue to the Crown\nA145(1)\nA145(1)(b)\nAuthority to certify debts due that have not been paid, if\neither the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and\nCitizenship (IRCC) or the Minister of Public Safety is of\nthe opinion that the person liable for the amount is\nattempting to avoid payment, or on the expiration of 30\ndays after the default\nA146(1)\nA146(1)(a)\nA146(1)(b)\nThe certificate, when filed and registered in the Federal\nCourt, has the same force and effect, and all proceedings\nmay be taken, as if the certificate were a judgment\nobtained for a debt of the amount specified in the\ncertificate plus interest to the day of payment\nA146(2)\nAuthority to recover costs of registering the certificate A146(3)\nAuthority for the Minister to garnish all or part of a debt\ndue to the Crown, if the Minister is of the opinion that a\nthird person is or is about to become liable to make a\npayment to a person liable to make a payment under\nIRPA\nA147\nIRPR – Deposits and guarantees Section\nAuthority for an officer to require a deposit or guarantee in\nrespect of a person or group of persons seeking entry to\nCanada for compliance with conditions imposed\nR45(1)\nOfficers are to fix the amount of the deposit or guarantee\non the basis of the following factors:\n the financial resources of the person or group;\n the obligations that result from the conditions\nimposed;\n the costs likely to be incurred to locate and arrest\nthe person or group, detain them, hold an\nadmissibility hearing and remove them from\nCanada; and\n the costs likely to be incurred to enforce a\nguarantee\nR45(2)\nR45(2)(a)\nR45(2)(b)\nR45(2)(c)\nR45(2)(d)\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 5\nA person who pays a deposit or posts a guarantee:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " must not have signed or co-signed another\nguarantee that is in default; and\n must have the capacity to contract in the province\nwhere the deposit is paid or the guarantee is\nposted\nR47(1)\nR47(1)(a)\nR47(1)(b)\nA person who posts a guarantee must:\n be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident,\nphysically present and residing in Canada;\n be able to ensure that the person or group of\npersons in respect of whom the guarantee is\nrequired will comply with the conditions imposed;\nand\n present to an IRCC or CBSA officer evidence of\ntheir ability to fulfill the obligation arising from the\nguarantee\nR47(2)\nR47(2)(a)\nR47(2)(b)\nR47(2)(c)\nMoney illegally obtained:\nIf a CIC or CBSA officer believes a sum of money offered\nas a deposit, or a sum of money that a person may be\nobliged to pay under a guarantee was, or would not be\nlegally obtained, the CIC or CBSA officer shall not allow\nthat person to pay a deposit or post a guarantee\nR47(3)\nFactors to consider\nAn officer, the Immigration Division or the Minister must\nconsider the following factors in assessing whether the\nperson who posts a guarantee has the ability to ensure\nthat the person or group of persons in respect of whom\nthe guarantee is required will comply with the conditions\nimposed:\n(a) their relationship to the person or group of persons in\nrespect of whom the guarantee is required;\n(b) their financial situation;\n(c) any previous history posting a guarantee;\n(d) their criminal record; and\n(e) any other relevant factor in determining their ability to\nensure that the person or group of persons in respect of\nwhom the guarantee is required will comply with the\nconditions imposed.\nR47(4)\nMandatory conditions to be imposed on the person or\ngroup of persons in respect of which a guarantee is\nrequired:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-3-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " provide the IRCC or CBSA with the address of\nthe guarantor and advise the IRCC or CBSA\nbefore any change in that address; and\nR48(1)\nR48(1)(a)\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 6\n appear at time and place required by an IRCC or\nCBSA officer or the ID to comply with any\nobligation imposed under IRPA\nR48(1)(b)\nMandatory conditions to be imposed on the person or\ngroup of persons in respect of which a deposit is required :\n provide address and change of address\n appear at time and place required to comply with\nan obligation imposed\nR48(2)\nR48(2)(a)\nR48(2)(b)\nMandatory written acknowledgment required from the\nperson who pays a deposit or posts a guarantee:\n that they have been informed of the conditions\nimposed; and\n That they have been informed that non-\ncompliance with any conditions imposed will\nresult in forfeiture of the deposit or enforcement\nof the guarantee\nR49(1)\nR49(1)(a)\nR49(1)(b)\nRequirement on officer to issue a receipt to the depositor\nand guarantor for the deposit or a copy of the guarantee,\nand a copy of the conditions imposed\nR49(2)\nRequirement of the IRCC or CBSA to return the deposit\npaid after an officer notifies the IRCC or CBSA of\ncompliance with conditions imposed\nR49(3)\nSum of money deposited is forfeited, and guarantee\nbecomes enforceable on the failure of the person or any\nmember of group to comply with any condition imposed\nR49(4)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Definitions\nBond Deposits and guarantees paid or posted to ensure compliance of\nthe person concerned with IRPA conditions.\nBondsperson The depositor or guarantor who paid or posed a deposit or\nguarantee to ensure compliance of the person concerned with\nIRPA conditions. This term is generic and refers to both depositors\nand guarantors.\nCash Bond A cash bond is a deposit.\nDepositor The person who pays a deposit to ensure compliance by the\nperson concerned or the group with conditions imposed under\nIRPA or IRPR.\nDeposit The payment of a sum of money by a person to the Receiver\nGeneral for Canada for compliance with the conditions imposed on\nthe person concerned’s release from detention.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 7\nForfeiture / Forfeit\nThe relinquishment of the deposit as a consequence of a breach of\nconditions.\nGuarantee A guarantee is an written enforceable undertaking by a third party\n(the guarantor) that the person concerned will abide by the\nconditions imposed by a CBSA or IRCC officer or the Immigration\nDivision and to forfeit or pay a sum of money to the Crown if the\nperson concerned breaches any conditions. The guarantor and the\nperson concerned must both agree to the conditions. They are also\ncalled “performance bonds”.\nGuarantee in default A guarantee is in default when a formal demand for payment of the\namount guaranteed has been made to the guarantor and the\namount has not yet been paid or otherwise extinguished.\nGuarantor The person who posts a guarantee with IRCC or the CBSA to\nensure compliance with conditions imposed under IRPA or IRPR\non the person concerned.\nPerformance Bond A performance bond has the same meaning as the term\n“guarantee”.\nPerson concerned The foreign national or permanent resident or the group of persons", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 4 (Definitions) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "on whom conditions are imposed by an IRCC or CBSA officer or\nthe Immigration Division and who is the subject of the deposit or\nguarantee.\nPower of Attorney\nA legal document signed by a person to authorize another person\n(the “attorney”) to act on their behalf in respect of all or some of\ntheir finances and property. The “attorney” does not need to be a\nlawyer. The document must have been issued in accordance with\nthe laws of the province where it was signed.\nLiquid funds Cash or any investment that can easily and quickly be converted to\ncash (e.g. money in personal accounts; stocks and bonds).\nReasonable grounds to believe Credible evidence that would produce in a normally prudent and\ninformed person bona fide belief in a serious possibility. They are\nnot mere suspicions.\nSecurity deposit This term has the same meaning as that for “deposit”.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 4 (Definitions) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Forms\nAll forms required for the processing of a deposit or guarantee are listed below and are accessible on\nIRCC Connexion under Forms or on CBSA Atlas under Forms and Templates.\nForms used for deposits and guarantees are generally IMM forms for historical reasons as the authority to\nperform most functions relating to deposits and guarantees is delegated to both IRCC and CBSA officers .\nHowever, some IMM forms now have BSF equivalents. Where an IMM form has a BSF equivalent, CBSA\nofficers shall use the BSF form for the action.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 8\nTitle Number\nAcknowledgement of Conditions - The Immigration and\nRefugee Protection Act\nBSF821\nAmendment to Guarantee for Compliance Issued IMM 5071B\nGuarantee of Compliance Enforcement Notice IMM 5072B\nGuarantee Bond – The Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act (Where there are Co-Signers)\nPerformance Bond – The Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act (Where there are Co-Signers)\nBSF507E\nIMM 1259E\nGuarantee Log IMM 5073B\nPerformance Bond – The Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act (Guarantee)\nIMM 1230E\nRequest for a Security Deposit pursuant to R45(1)\n(at the port of entry only)\nBSF517E\nRequisition for Enforcement of Guarantee\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations\nIMM 5345B\nRequisition for Refund / Forfeiture of Security Deposit IMM 0709B*\nSecurity Deposit\n(this form is also the official receipt for deposits)\nBSF579*\nSolemn Declaration of Solvency by Guarantor BSF564\nFinancial information related to deposits or guarantees\nassessed during the detention review process\nBSF211\n* Multiple copy form that must be completed manually. Online version of this form in Atlas/\nConnexion is a sample only", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 5 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Delegation and Designation Instruments", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Delegation and Designation Instruments\nOfficers should refer to the most recent version of the Delegation of Authority and Designation of Officers\nby the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness under the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act (IRPA) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) on CBSA Atlas\nand IRCC Connexion to ensure that only delegated and designated officers exercise the authority\nassociated to the functions related to deposits and guarantees.\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)\nDelegated authority\nCBSA and IRCC officers designated as per\ninstruments of delegation\n May require a deposit or a guarantee, or\nboth, for compliance with conditions\nimposed on the release from detention of a\nforeign national or permanent resident who\nis the subject of a report, an admissibility\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 9\nhearing, or, in Canada, a removal order.\n[A44(3)]\nCBSA officers designated as per the instruments\nof delegation\nMay order, before the first detention review\nby the Immigration Division, the release\nfrom detention of a person and impose\nconditions, including the payment of a\ndeposit or the posting of a guarantee for\ncompliance with the conditions [A56].\nCBSA, IRCC and Canada Revenue Agency\nheadquarters officials as per the instruments of\ndelegation\n May certify an amount or part of an amount\npayable under IRPA as debts due to Her\nMajesty; may order payment to the\nReceiver General [A146].\nCBSA headquarters staff as per the instruments\nof delegation\n May garnish all or part of a debt due to the\nCrown, if the Minister is of the opinion that a\nthird person is or is about to become liable\nto make a payment to a person liable to\nmake a payment under IRPA [A147].\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR)\nCBSA and IRCC officers as per instruments of\ndelegation\n May require a deposit or guarantee in\nrespect of a person or group seeking to\nenter Canada for compliance with\nconditions imposed [R45(1)].\n May fix the amount of the deposit or\nguarantee [R45(2)].\n May refuse to allow a person to pay a\ndeposit or post a guarantee [R47(3)].\n Shall impose mandatory conditions when\ndeposit or guarantee required [R48].\n Shall issue a receipt for the payment of a\ndeposit or a copy of the guarantee, and a\ncopy of the conditions imposed [R49(2)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 6 (Delegation and Designation Instruments)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Deposits and guarantees", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Deposits and guarantees\nThe purpose of requiring deposits and guarantees (collectively referred to as bonds) under the IRPA or\nIRPR is to motivate the person concerned or group to comply with the conditions imposed which are\nintended to ensure that they will appear at the next required IRPA proceeding. They also serve as an\nincentive for the bondsperson to ensure compliance.\nCBSA or IRCC officers may request the payment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee, or both,\nunder the following circumstances:\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 10\n At a port of entry, a CBSA officer may require a person or group of persons seeking to enter\nCanada to pay a deposit or post a guarantee, or both, for compliance with any conditions\nimposed [R45(1)]. (For the purpose of this section a group of persons refers to a group of perso ns\nsuch as an entertainment group coming to Canada for the same purpose. This section is not\nmeant to apply to several different individuals believed to be part of an organized smuggling ring.\nIn scenarios such as this, the requirement for a security deposit or guarantee should be assessed\non an individual basis.)\n At a port of entry or inland office, a CBSA or IRCC officer may impose conditions and require a\npermanent resident or foreign national who is the subject of an inadmissibility report, admissibility\nhearing or a removal order to pay a deposit or post a guarantee. [A44(3)].\n Note: the delegated authority to impose conditions on permanent residents is at supervisory level\nor higher.\n Where a permanent resident or foreign national has been detained pursuant to the IRPA or IRPR\nand a CBSA officer orders their release before the first detention review by the Immigration\nDivision, the CBSA officer may impose conditions and require that they pay a deposit or that a\nguarantee be posted [A56].\n At a detention review or admissibility hearing, a CBSA Hearings Officer may request the\nImmigration Division to impose conditions, including the requirement to pay a deposit or post a\nguarantee, on a foreign national or permanent resident prior to ordering they be released from\ndetention [A58(3)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 7.1 (Deposits and guarantees)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-7-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "General requirements", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 General requirements\nNote: for procedures, refer to Part 8.\nThe following requirements apply to deposits and guarantees:\n7.2.1 Delegated Officers\n When imposing the requirement to pay a deposit or post a guarantee under A44(3) or A56,\ndelegated officers are responsible to ensure that a person who pays a deposit (depositor) or\nposts a guarantee (guarantor) meets the regulatory requirements. The office rs should thoroughly\nassess any potential bondsperson who offers to pay a deposit or post a guarantee and, where\nthat person does not satisfy the regulatory requirements, they shall not be permitted to pay a\ndeposit or post a guarantee.\n Only delegated officers may make decisions regarding deposits and guarantees, including the\nassessment of whether the person proposing to post a deposit or guarantee meets any regulatory\nrequirements and is otherwise suitable.\n7.2.2 Immigration Division (ID)\n The Immigration Division (ID) may, at detention review, order the person concerned released\npending continuation of an examination, an admissibility hearing, or removal, and may impose\nconditions, including the payment of a deposit or a guarantee.\n Inland Enforcement Officers may provide valuable input concerning specific requirements under\nR47 (e.g. the proposed bondsperson is in default of a previous guarantee; money offered as a\ndeposit was not legally obtained, the proposed bondsperson is not a Canadian citizen or\npermanent resident, not physically present and residing in Canada; the proposed bondsperson is\nnot able to ensure that the person concerned will comply with conditions, etc.) or if a proposed\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 11\nresidential address for the release is of concern. In these cases, Inland Enforcement Officers", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 7.2 (General requirements) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-7-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "General requirements", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "should articulate their concerns to the Hearings Officer who can address them with the ID.\n During a detention review when counsel presents an alternative to detention involving a\nbondsperson, the ID and Hearings Officers will assess the suitability of the bondsperson by\nquestioning them about their relationship with the person concerned, their knowledge of the\nperson concerned’s immigration status and, if applicable, criminal history, potential\nbondsperson’s income, assets, their ability to pay a cash deposit or fulfill the obligation from the\nguarantee, their living situation, their willingness to provide shelter to the person concerned and\ntheir ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions imposed on their release.\nIn this context, the ID is also required to assess the factors for consideration prescribed under\nR47(2)(d) with respect to persons coming forward as potential guarantors.\n If release on conditions including a requirement of a deposit or guarantee is warranted, the\nImmigration Division will name the bondsperson and set the amount of the deposit or guarantee\nrequired.\nNote: Generally, ability to pay and solvency are not assessed during detention review as\ndocuments from guarantors may not be available and/or there is insufficient time to do so. A\nbondsperson may sometimes be proposed before a detention review which may lead to the\nassessment of the ability to pay or solvency being done during the detention review process\n If a Hearings Officer has assessed the ability of the bondsperson to pay a cash deposit and/or\nfulfil his/her obligation from a guarantee, and the Hearings Officer is satisfied that the\nbondsperson has the ability to pay the cash deposit and/or fulfil the guarantee, the Hearings", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 7.2 (General requirements) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-7-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "General requirements", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Officer will document this information on form BSF211. In those instances, Inland Enforcement\nOfficers may not re-assess the ability to pay or the solvency of the named bondsperson when\nthey seek to pay the deposit or post the guarantee (refer to section 8.14 Determining Solvency for\nGuarantors for further details). This is subject to the following exceptions:\n Officers uncover information after the fact that the bondsperson has signed or co -\nsigned another guarantee that is in default;\n Officers uncover after the fact that the bondsperson does not have the capacity\nto contract in the province where the deposit is paid or the guarantee is posted;\nor\n Officers uncover information after the fact that there are reasonable grounds to\nbelieve that a sum of money offered by the bondsperson to pay a cash deposit\nwas not legally obtained or a sum of money that the bondsperson is obliged to\npay under a guarantee was not legally obtained;\nThe Hearings Officer should communicate these exceptions to the tribunal, detainee and counsel.\n Generally, the suitability of a bondsperson is assessed during the detention review without\nassessing their ability to pay a cash deposit or to fulfil a guarantee as no evidence or insufficient\nevidence was presented during the detention review process on the financial situation of the\nbondsperson and/or there is insufficient time to do so. This may occur for instance in situations\nwhere the bondsperson was not proposed in advance of the detention review. In those cases,\nthe Hearings Officer should clearly indicate to the tribunal, the detainee, and counsel (if\napplicable), that another officer will determine whether the bondsperson has ability to pay the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 7.2 (General requirements) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-7-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "General requirements", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "cash deposit and/or fulfil the guarantee before release can occur. Hearings Officers may use\nBSF211 to provide comments to the officer who will be responsible to take the bond o r if they\nwish to bring specific information to their attention.\n Once the ID has made a decision to release and specified conditions, an officer processing the\nbond has no legal authority to reject or change the conditions; however if the officer has spe cific\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 12\nconcerns regarding the deposit or guarantee requirements, the officer should communicate their\nconcerns to the Hearings Officer who can address them, if appropriate, with the ID.\n7.2.3 Choice of deposit or guarantee:\n When the imposition of a deposit or guarantee is warranted, deposits are always preferred to\nguarantees, but a combination of both may be acceptable.\n If the person who will be paying a deposit or posting a guarantee has sufficient liquid funds (see\nDefinitions) for the amount of deposit deemed appropriate, a deposit should be required.\n7.2.4 Minimum qualifications for bondspersons:\n Bondspersons must not have signed or co-signed another guarantee that is in default [R47(1)(a)];\nand\n Bondspersons must have the capacity to contract in the province where the deposit is paid or the\nguarantee posted [R47(1)(b)]. Bondspersons must not suffer from any serious mental disability\nthat would render them incapable of understanding the bond. In addition, they should be at the\nage of majority according to the law of the relevant province or older.\nNote: A guarantee that is “in default” means that a formal demand for payment of the amount\nguaranteed has been made to the guarantor and the amount owing has not yet been paid or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 7.2 (General requirements) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-7-2-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "General requirements", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "otherwise extinguished. Where a person concerned under a guarantee has breached conditions\nand no formal demand for payment of the guarantee has been issued, the guarantee is not in\ndefault and the guarantor would not be disqualified under R47(1)(a).\n Guarantors must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents, physically present and residing in\nCanada [R47(2)(a)]; and\nNote: The requirement that the guarantor be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident does not\napply to cash bonds.\n Guarantors must be able to ensure that the person concerned will comply with the conditions\nimposed.\n7.2.5 Conditions\n It is imperative that the CBSA and IRCC officers ensure that the person concerned and the\nbondsperson understand the conditions of the deposit or guarantee and the repercussions for\nviolating the conditions.\n The bondsperson is required to acknowledge in writing (BSF579 for security deposits or\nBSF507E for guarantees) that they have been informed of the conditions imposed and that non -\ncompliance with any of the conditions will result in forfeiture of the deposit or enforcement of the\nguarantee [R49(1)].\n CBSA Inland Enforcement Officers are normally responsible for monitoring of compliance of\nconditions for deposits and guarantees.\n Where the person concerned fails to comply with any of the conditions imposed, the deposit will\nbe declared forfeited or the guarantee will be enforced.\n When the conditions under which the deposit or guarantee was posted are revoked or met, the\nobligation under the deposit or guarantee becomes null and void and the deposit shall be\nrefunded.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 13", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 7.2 (General requirements) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 General\n8.1.1 Conditions in officer release cases where a bond is required\nIn addition to any other conditions, the following conditions shall be imposed on a person or a group of\npersons for whom a deposit or guarantee is required (the person concerned):\n Where a guarantee is being posted:\na) to provide IRCC or CBSA with the address of the guarantor; and to advise the appropriate\noffice before any change in that address [R48(1)(a)]; and\nb) to present themselves at the time and place an IRCC or CBSA officer or the ID requires them\nto appear to comply with any obligation imposed on them under the IRPA. [R48(1)(b)].\n Where a deposit is being paid:\na) to provide IRCC or CBSA with their address; and to advise the appropriate office before a\nchange in that address [R48(2)(a)]; and\nb) to present themselves at the time and place an IRCC or CBSA officer or the ID requires\nthem to appear to comply with any obligation imposed on them under the IRPA.\n[R48(2)(b)].\nWhen a person is released by an officer from detention under a deposit or a guarantee with the condition\nto appear at an admissibility hearing, the bond will become void after the appearance of the person at the\nadmissibility hearing. To avoid this situation, the conditions of the deposit or guarantee should include the\nfollowing wording:\n that (name of person concerned) shall appear at the time and place required for the purpose of\nscheduling an admissibility hearing under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for\nadmissibility hearing, and at each subsequent sitting of such admissibility hearing, for removal, or\nwhenever required.\nAn immigration admissibility hearing is not terminated by the effect of a subject of a deposit or guarantee", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.1 (General) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "departing and seeking to re-enter Canada [Ravinder Kaur v. Minister of Employment and Immigration,\nFCA, Doc. No. A-295-84, September 25, 1984; Harnek Singh Grewal v. Minister of Employment and\nImmigration, FCA, Doc. No. A-42-80, May 7, 1980]:\n a guarantee is valid if the person who is the subject of the guarantee has not violated any of the\nconditions;\n should the subject of a guarantee leave Canada and seek to re-enter to attend the continuation of\nthe immigration admissibility hearing, the CBSA officer at the port of entry (POE) should examine\nthe person to determine whether a new report and guarantee would be required ;\n a guarantor may be liable for the amount of the guarantee.\nWhen officers release a person concerned from detention on payment of a deposit or posting of\nguarantee they shall use the Acknowledgement of Conditions – the IRCC form] BSF821 to record any\nadditional conditions imposed.\nFor information on cases where the ID releases a person concerned and imposes a bond, see Part 7.2.2\nabove, for policy and Part 8.2 below, for procedures.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 14\n8.1.2 Amount of deposit and/or guarantee:\nThe amount of the deposit or guarantee is fixed by an officer in consideration of:\n the financial resources of the person concerned or group;\n the obligations resulting from the conditions imposed;\n the costs of enforcement should a condition be breached; and\n the costs that would be incurred to enforce a guarantee.\nWhere risk of non-compliance with conditions is high (e.g. history of non-compliance, serious\ninadmissibility, etc.), a large deposit or guarantee may be a more appropriate incentive for compliance\nwith conditions.\nWhere the risk of non-compliance with conditions is low, financial resources may be the main factor in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.1 (General) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "determining amount.\nA smaller amount may be appropriate when:\n detention has been for a prolonged period due to circumstances beyond the CBSA’s control\n(e.g. inability to obtain travel document where person concerned has cooperated, or inability to\nremove to certain countries due to country conditions) and the person concerned has been\ncooperative; or\n prospects of conclusion of the case are very limited in the short term due to reasons outside of\nthe control of the CBSA or IRCC and not due to the person concerned’s failure to cooperate\nwith the CBSA and IRCC.\n8.1.3 Illegally obtained money\nIf a CBSA or IRCC officer has reasonable grounds to believe (i.e. a belief based on credible evidence)\nthat a sum of money that a person would be obliged to pay as a deposit or under a guarantee was not or\nwould not be legally obtained, i.e. obtained in a manner in accordance with the law, the officer shall not\nallow that person to pay a deposit or post a guarantee [R47(3)].\n For the purposes of R47(3), illegally obtained money is money that has been either:\na) obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of an offence in\nCanada; or\nb) by an act or omission that occurred outside Canada that was an offence in the place that it\noccurred and if it had occurred in Canada, would have also constituted an offence.\nOfficers may seek out sources of additional information regarding the source of the money offered for the\ndeposit if further corroboration is needed. For example, a credible explanation from the bondsperson may\neither negate or justify the need for an officer to obtain further information. Additionally, the officer must\nuse discretion as to the severity of the circumstances and whether further enquires are warranted in the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.1 (General) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "circumstances. An example of this type of situation would be if a bondsperson is paying a $1,000 deposit\nor posting a $1,000 guarantee, the officer might make some enquiries and if reasonable answers are\nforthcoming, go no further; however if the bond is $20,000, the officer’s enquiries are expected to be more\nthorough because the amount would reasonably be more of a burden to the bondsperson.\nWhile one possible indicator of illegally obtained money is where the bondsperson indicates that they do\nnot file tax returns, it does not necessarily follow that their income was obtained in an illegal manner. For\nexample, if the bondsperson admits to not paying income tax, that does not necessarily equate to the\noffence of tax evasion; however if the bondsperson admits to the offence of tax evasion, the officer should\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 15\nnot accept the funds. If the bondsperson indicates that they do not pay taxes or file tax returns, officers\nshould engage in a more thorough inquiry to ensure that the money presented was not illegally obtained.\n8.1.4 Importance of fully documenting each process, decision and rationale\nOfficers involved in the determination of whether to require a deposit or guarantee, or both; whether a\nproposed bondsperson is suitable; whether a breach of a condition has occurred; and whether forfeiture\nof the deposit or guarantee will be pursued must fully detail the reasons, including the factors considered,\nfor their recommendations and decisions on file. A rigorous approach to documenting actions and\ndecisions will assist others, including Hearings Officers and litigators, to understand and defend those\ndecisions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.1 (General) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Receiving Orders for Release from the Immigration Division (ID) or", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 Receiving Orders for Release from the Immigration Division (ID) or\ndelegated officer\nUpon receipt, the CBSA officer shall review the Order for Release which sets out the conditions of\nrelease. The Order for Release can prescribe release on:\n a Cash Bond (deposit);\n a Performance Bond (guarantee);\n an Acknowledgement of Conditions; or\n a combination of any of the above.\nWhere the Order for Release is to release on the Acknowledgement of Conditions only, officers shall\naction the Order immediately on receipt, provided there are no outstanding conditions to be satisfied such\nas the surrender of an identification or travel document.\nOfficers shall complete the Acknowledgement of Conditions [BSF821] in all cases, with the appropriate\nconditions, and have the person concerned sign it. The person concerned is giv en a copy and the original\nis placed on the client file with all associated release paperwork (copies of all bonds, bondsperson’s\nidentification documents, faxes, receipts, solemn declarations, applicable letters, proof of funds,\nconditions of release, the Authority to Release from Detention form, etc.)\nIf release is ordered by the ID, have the person concerned sign conditions of release specified by the ID.\nWhere the person is to be released on the Acknowledgement of Conditions form plus the payment of a\ndeposit or the posting of a guarantee, officers shall comply with the procedures for deposits in Sections\n8.5 to 8.9, or for guarantees in Sections 8.11 to 8.15, as applicable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.2 (Receiving Orders for Release from the Immigration Division (ID) or)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Modifications of conditions of release", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3 Modifications of conditions of release\nWhere release from detention was ordered by a CBSA officer under A56 before the first detention review,\na CBSA delegated officer may modify the conditions of release, including the deposit or guarantee.\nWhere the conditions were imposed by the ID under A58, only the ID may modify the conditions it\nimposed.\nWhen a person concerned’s conditions of release from detention have been modified and there is an\nexisting deposit or guarantee, the bondsperson must be notified and agree to the modifications in order\nfor them to continue to be legally bound by the deposit or guarantee. If they do not agree, the conditions\nshould not be modified or if the modification is deemed necessary, a new deposit or guarantee shall be\nrequired if deemed appropriate in the circumstances for compliance with the conditions.\nIn cases where modification of conditions are considered and it comes to light that the bondsperson\ncannot be notified as they are no longer at their last known address and the person concerned cannot\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 16\nprovide their current address, the person concerned has breached the mandatory condition imposed\nunder R48(1)(a) to advise the IRCC or the CBSA of changes in the address of the bondsperson.\nForfeiture may be considered and actioned, if deemed appropriate in the circumstances. Should the\ncondition modification be deemed necessary, a new deposit or guarantee shall be required.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.3 (Modifications of conditions of release)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Surrendered passports and other documents", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4 Surrendered passports and other documents\n Where the surrender of the person concerned’s passport or other identity or travel doc ument is\na condition of release, the passport or other document shall be placed in a Property Envelope,\nclearly marked with the person concerned’s name and GCMS Unique Client Identifier (UCI) and\nplaced on the case file.\n Officers shall provide the person concerned with a Notice of Seizure of Identity Document(s)\nBSF698 form and update NCMS and GCMS with the information on the document seizure.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.4 (Surrendered passports and other documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Deposits - General", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5 Deposits - General\nThe following guidelines apply to deposits (detailed procedures follow this section):\n A deposit is a sum of money required to ensure compliance by the person concerned with\nconditions imposed by an IRCC or CBSA officer or the ID under IRPA or IRPR.\n A deposit may be provided by the person concerned or by a third party.\n A depositor:\no must not have signed or co-signed a guarantee that is in default [R47(1)(a)]; and\no must be of legal age with the capacity to contract in the province where the deposit is paid\n[R47(1)(b)]. This means that the depositor must not suffer from a serious mental disability that\nrenders them unable to understand the conditions of the deposit and other conditions.\nThe CBSA or IRCC officer should consider whether the person concerned, who is the subject of a\nremoval order, will likely be removed from Canada within a reasonable time.\nWhen considering taking a deposit from the person concerned, CBSA and IRCC officers should consider\nwhether the amount of deposit is sufficiently high that the possibility of its forfeiture will motivate the\nperson concerned to comply with all conditions. If it is reasonably unlikely that the person concerned’s\ncompliance will be ensured by the potential loss of the deposit, officers may consider requiring that any\ndeposit be paid by a suitable third party.\nDeposits by the lawyer for the person concerned or group may be made “in trust” for their client and , as\nsuch, are a debt by the client to the lawyer. They should not be considered a deposit by a third party. The\nconsideration should be whether the requirement to pay that debt to the lawyer, should the deposit be\nforfeited, will be sufficient motivation for the person concerned or group to comply with the conditions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.5 (Deposits - General) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Deposits - General", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Although the IRPR does not require that the depositor be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident,\nCBSA and IRCC officers taking a deposit from a third party should require that the depositor have legal\nstatus under IRPA and be physically present and reside in Canada, and be able to ensure that the person\nconcerned or group will comply with the conditions imposed if these requirements are deemed necessary\nin the circumstances to achieve the compliance objective of the deposit.\nIf the person concerned defaults on or breaches any of the conditions, legal proceedings may be taken to\nforfeit the deposit (see Part 8.19).\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 17\nWhen the conditions under which the deposit was paid are revoked or met, the deposit must be r efunded\n(see Part 8.19).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.5 (Deposits - General) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Ability to ensure person concerned will comply with deposit", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.6 Ability to ensure person concerned will comply with deposit\nconditions\nWhen exercising their authority to impose a deposit, officers may assess whether a proposed depositor is\nable to ensure that the person concerned complies with conditions imposed. Under A56(1) this will form\npart of a CBSA officer��s requirement to consider alternatives to detention. To clarify, where the matter is\nbefore the ID, the ID member will be responsible for conducting this assessment during the detention\nreview.\nIn the assessment, officers may consider factors such as:\n the length and closeness of relationship of the depositor with the person concerned or group;\n whether they are related;\n whether the depositor has real influence over the person concerned or group;\n whether they live in close proximity and the frequency of their contact;\n whether the existence of the deposit and the possibility of its forfeiture will serve as an\nincentive towards compliance by the person concerned\n the financial means of the depositor.\nIf the officer in the circumstances determines that the depositor is unlikely to be able to ensure\ncompliance with the conditions, the officer may refuse the depositor, except when the release is ordered\nby the ID. Officers may consider accepting another person as a depositor in these cases, if one is\navailable and willing to post the bond. Officers shall fully document this decision and the reasons in the\ncase file.\nFor further details regarding the assessment of risk and evaluating alternatives to detention, officers\nshould refer to ENF 20 Detentions and ENF 34 Alternatives to detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.6 (Ability to ensure person concerned will comply with deposit)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.7", + "marginal_note": "Establish identity of depositor", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.7 Establish identity of depositor\nThe IRCC or CBSA should require that the depositor provide the following original genuine\ndocumentation to prove their identity, status and residence:\n Government-issued photo identification (e.g. passport; driver’s license; permanent resident card)\nshowing the image of the depositor, their name, and age or date of birth;\n Proof of status in Canada (e.g., passport; permanent resident card; birth certificate, citizenship\ncard); and\n A document stating the depositor’s current residential address (e.g., driver’s license, water bill,\nhydro bill, cable bill).\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 18\nCopies of the original identity, status and residency documentation provided for the establishment of the\ndepositor’s identity shall be placed on file and shall accompany the security deposit information when\nsent to the Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division.\nFailure to provide requested identity, status and residency documents may result in the rejection of the\ndepositor or a direction to the proposed depositor to return at a later time with the requested\ndocumentation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.7 (Establish identity of depositor)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.8", + "marginal_note": "Acceptable forms of payment for deposits", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.8 Acceptable forms of payment for deposits\nDeposits must be paid by the individual listed on the Order for Release.\nAcceptable forms of payment, payable to the Receiver General for Canada, are:\n Bank draft;\n Money order;\n Certified cheque;\n Debit cards;\n Credit cards, so long as the credit card holder is the same person as the depositor listed on the\norder for release;\n Travellers cheques; and\n Cash – only in offices with capability of processing cash payments.\n Pre-paid credit cards are not acceptable.\nWhen payment is via credit card, officers shall copy the front and back of the credit card used and forward\nit with the deposit package to the Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division for the CBSA and if the\ndeposit is taken by an IRCC officer, to: Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit, NHQ, at the completion of\nthe deposit process.\nPayment may be made only in Canadian funds, or in the exceptional port of entry case described below,\nin U.S. funds:\n U.S. funds shall be accepted only at the port of entry where the depositor does not have sufficient\nCanadian funds. CBSA officers shall indicate in the Security Deposit form [BSF579] that U.S.\ncurrency was accepted. The depositor shall be advised that refunds will be paid in Canadian\nfunds and that no interest is paid on the deposit.\n CBSA officers should refer to Acceptable Forms of Payment in Chapter 10, Section 1 of the\nComptrollership Manual, Finance Volume, for more detailed information", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.8 (Acceptable forms of payment for deposits)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Taking the deposit", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.9 Taking the deposit\nTwo employees are needed to take a deposit, one of whom must be a delegated officer. This is to ensure\nthat there is a witness so that there is protection against accusations of mishandling funds.\nThe Security Deposit form [BSF579] must be completed and, unless the ID has issued the order for\nrelease using their own form, the Acknowledgement of Conditions form [BSF821] must also be\ncompleted. Officers must ensure that the information is complete (including the mailing address) and\neasy to read.\nFor R45(1) port of entry cases, the CBSA officer will begin the process by completing the Request for\nSecurity Deposit [BSF517E] pursuant to subsection 45(1) of the IRPR.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 19\nThe CBSA or IRCC officer:\n records the personal information of the depositor (full name, date of birth, address, phone\nnumbers, driver’s license number, status, name, address and phone number of employer,\nrelationship to person concerned, etc.) for the file;\n verifies that the information on the money order, bank draft, or certified cheque is correct. For\ncash handling procedures, see below;\n completes the Security Deposit form [BSF579] after receiving the sum of money;\n advises the depositor that should conditions be met, the deposit will be refunded in the form of a\ncheque (Canadian currency), which may take several months to be processed and that no\ninterest will be paid;\n advises the depositor that it is imperative that they advise the CBSA if they change addresses as\nthe deposit will be refunded to the address listed on the Security Deposit form;\n completes the Acknowledgement of Conditions form [BSF821], (unless the ID has ordered\nrelease and issued their own form to impose conditions);", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.9 (Taking the deposit) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Taking the deposit", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " explains the conditions and the consequences of non-compliance to the person concerned and\ndepositor, ensuring that they understand their responsibilities and the consequences should the\nperson concerned not comply with any of the conditions imposed;\n ensures that the person concerned and a witness sign the Acknowledgement of Conditions form\n[BSF821] (where applicable) and in port of entry cases, the Request for Security Deposit form\n[BSF517E];\n gives copy 1 (white copy) of the Security Deposit Form (which is also the official receipt) and a\ncopy of the signed Acknowledgement of Conditions to the depositor; in port of entry cases,\nprovide a copy of the Request for Security Deposit form to the depositor;\n If the depositor has presented a signed and sealed Power of Attorney document for an\nassignment for the refund of the deposit, CBSA officers shall send the original copy of the\ndocument, not a photocopy, to Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division at the address below ;\nand for IRCC officers, to: Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit, NHQ;\n advises the person concerned that failure to confirm departure from Canada may result in the\nforfeiture of the deposit if conditions of the deposit require departure from Canada on or before a\nspecified date;\n provides detailed reasons in file notes for the decision to require a deposit;\n CBSA staff shall follow the procedures for depositing payments into a financial institution set out\nin Receipts, Deposits and Safeguarding of Public Money and Monetary Assets in Chapter 10,\nSection 11 of the Comptrollership Manual, Finance Volume;\n The deposit information needs to be entered into the financial systems. The Corporate\nAdministrative System (CAS) document number, or if using TEPs/G11, the K21 or K10 document", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.9 (Taking the deposit) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-9-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Taking the deposit", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "number needs to be recorded on the Security Deposit form [BSF579];\n After ensuring the financial systems are updated, CBSA staff shall forward the following\ndocumentation to the CBSA Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division, 355 North River Road,\n18th Floor, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8:\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 20\no a copy of both sides of the credit card, if payment is by credit card;\no copy 2 of the Security Deposit form [BSF579];\no a copy of the K10 document if deposit entered in G11;\no original of any valid Power of Attorney signed by the depositor.\nIRCC officers shall forward the following documentation to the Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit,\nNHQ, 70 Crémazie Street, Gatineau, QC, K1A 1L1:\n depositor’s personal information (full name, date of birth, address, phone numbers, driver’s\nlicense number, status, name, address and phone number of employer, relationship to person\nconcerned, etc.);\n a copy of both sides of the credit card, if payment is by credit card;\n for payment methods other than credit card, all funds collected must be sent to the Revenue Unit,\nNHQ to be deposited in NHQ bank account;\n copy 2 of the Security Deposit form [BSF579];\n original of any valid Power of Attorney signed by the depositor.\nHard copies of the bank deposit slip and the internal deposit slip shall be placed in the person\nconcerned’s file.\nCash handling procedures\nWhen a deposit is paid in cash, the following procedures will be incorporated into the procedures above:\n The officer and the second employee shall separately count the currency in the presence of each\nother to verify accuracy, noting the currency denominations on the Security Deposit form [BSF579];\n They shall each sign the Security Deposit form;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.9 (Taking the deposit) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-9-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Taking the deposit", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " They shall seal the BSF579 form along with the cash in an envelope and shall initial it over the\nseal;\n The envelope must be labelled with the person concerned’s name, client I.D., deposit number and\nthe amount of the deposit;\n The deposit information is recorded in the office log for bonds, and the officer and employee\nwitness shall initial the entry;\n The officer shall notify the manager via email that a cash deposit has been received, specifying the\namount of the deposit, the name of the depositor and the document number of the deposit;\n The officer and employee witness shall deposit the sealed envelope and corresponding documents\ninto the safe in the office;\n The employee responsible for handling cash payments in the office will retrieve the sealed envelope\nwith accompanying documentation from the drop safe in the presence of a CBSA manager and\nverify the cash amount in the envelope, then secure the cash and documentation in the petty cash\nsafe in the presence of a witness;\n The employee responsible for regional finance transactions will enter the deposit information into\nCAS and record the numbers generated by CAS on the security deposit form [BSF579].\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 21", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.9 (Taking the deposit) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.10", + "marginal_note": "Altering or amending a deposit", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.10 Altering or amending a deposit\nAn amended deposit may be warranted if any of the conditions of the original deposit have been altered\nor amended;\nWhen the subject of a deposit makes a request to the CBSA, IRCC or the ID to have any reporting\nconditions modified and the request is granted, the depositor must be made aware of the new conditions\nimposed on the subject. The depositor is required to appear at the CBSA or IRCC office as applicable\nand sign the amendment to the conditions of the deposit;\nThe original office involved in the original imposition of the deposit, should whenever possible, be advised\nof any alterations, amendments, extensions, and refunds.\nProcedures to increase the amount of the original deposit\nTo increase the amount of the original deposit, the IRCC or CBSA officer:\n advises the depositor that an additional deposit is required;\n completes a second Security Deposit form [BSF579] to replace the original form;\n provides reasons for the increased amount of the deposit in NCMS or GCMS (as appropriate);\n ticks off 'Replaces previous security deposit no...' in the Official Receipt box of the Security Deposit\nform, and add the previous deposit number;\n for the CBSA, forward copy 2 of the BSF579 to CBSA Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division,\n355 North River Road, 18th Floor, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8; and\n for IRCC, forward copy 2 of the BSF579 to Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit, NHQ, 70\nCrémazie Street, Gatineau, QC, K1A 1L1 .\nProcedures to reduce the amount of the original deposit\nTo reduce the amount of the original deposit, the CBSA or IRCC officer:\n completes a Requisition for Refund / Forfeiture of Security Deposit form [ IMM 0709B] to request a\npartial refund of the original deposit;\n provides reasons for the decreased amount of the deposit in NCMS;\n for the CBSA, forwards copies 1 and 2 of the IMM 0709B and documentation showing the current\naddress and the proper full name of the depositor (copies of identity documents; proof of address,\netc.) to CBSA Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division, 355 North River Road, 18 th Floor,\nOttawa, ON K1A 0L8; and\nFor IRCC, forwards copies 1 and 2 of the IMM 0709B to Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit, NHQ, 70\nCrémazie Street, Gatineau, QC, K1A 1L1.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 22", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.10 (Altering or amending a deposit)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.11", + "marginal_note": "Guarantees - General", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.11 Guarantees - General\nA guarantee is a written enforceable undertaking by a third party that the person who is the subject of the\nguarantee (the person concerned) will abide by the conditions imposed by a CBSA or IRCC officer or by\nthe ID and to forfeit or pay a sum of money to the Crown if the person concerned breaches any\nconditions. The guarantor and the person concerned must both agree to the conditions.\nA guarantor is not required to provide the sum of money, unless the subject of th e guarantee does not\ncomply with the conditions, hence, a guarantee is also referred to as a conditional bond.\nOfficers must ensure that prospective guarantors:\no are Canadian citizens or permanent residents;\no are physically present;\no reside in Canada;\no have not signed or co-signed another guarantee that is in default;\no have capacity to contract in the province where the guarantee is posted, i.e. be of legal age\nand capable of understanding the guarantee and its possible consequences;\no be able to ensure that the person concerned will comply with the conditions imposed; and\no present evidence of their ability to fulfil the obligation arising from the guarantee, i.e. pay the\ndebt if the guarantee is forfeited. This is the determination of solvency.\nWhen multiple guarantors are required, all must be present and all must qualify as guarantors. Failure of\none to qualify will result in the rejection of the guarantee.\nRole of the Hearings Officer relating to guarantees\nThe Hearings Officer will generally recommend to the member of the ID that a minimum set of conditions\nbe imposed on the person concerned, including the following:\n that the person concerned shall present themselves at the time and place that an officer, the\nImmigration Division, the Minister or the Federal Court requires them to appear to comply with any\nobligation imposed on them under the IRPA;\n that the person concerned shall inform the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and/or\nImmigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in writing of their address and, in advance, of\nany change in that address;\n that the person concerned shall not commit an offence under an Act of Parliament or an offenc e that,\nif committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament.\nThe Hearings Officer provides detailed reasons in the file notes for the recommendation that a\nguarantee be imposed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.11 (Guarantees - General)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-12-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.12", + "marginal_note": "Ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.12 Ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions\nof guarantee\nWhen exercising their authority to impose a guarantee, officers shall assess whether a proposed\nguarantor is able to ensure that the person concerned complies with conditions imposed [R47(2)(b)]. To\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 23\nclarify, where the matter is before the ID, the ID member will be responsible for conducting this\nassessment during the detention review.\nR47(4) lists the prescribed factors that must be considered in assessing whether the person who post s\na guarantee has the ability to ensure that the person or group of persons in respect of whom the\nguarantee is required will comply with the conditions imposed. These are to be considered in addition to\nexisting regulatory requirements under R47(1) and (2):\na) their relationship to the person or group of persons in respect of whom the guarantee is\nrequired;\nb) their financial situation;\nc) any previous history posting a guarantee;\nd) their criminal record; and\ne) any other relevant factor in determining their ability to ensure that the person or group of\npersons in respect of whom the guarantee is required will comply with the conditions imposed.\nThe application of these prescribed factors under R47(4) will turn on the facts of each case.\nThe following is a non-exhaustive list of specific considerations that may assist an officer who is\nconsidering imposing a guarantee, in considering whether a guarantor has the ability to ensure\ncompliance pursuant to the requirement under R47(2)(b) and the prescribed factors under R47(4):\n Nature and duration of relationship to the person concerned and the strength of that relationship;\n Whether proposed guarantor was aware of the person’s status in Canada;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.12 (Ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-12-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.12", + "marginal_note": "Ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Whether proposed guarantor was aware that the person was coming to Canada;\n When was the last time the guarantor had contact with or spoke to the person concerned ;\n Current employment of guarantor and number of years with that employer;\n Annual income of guarantor based on last notice of assessment;\n Whether guarantor owns a home or other property and value of that property;\n Whether guarantor is the sole owner of that property;\n Whether the guarantor supports any dependents;\n Whether the guarantor has ever posted an immigration bond before and, if so, the out come;\n Whether the guarantor has any criminal record in Canada or elsewhere and, if so, whether the\nnature of any criminal conviction(s) would cast doubt on their ability to ensure compliance with\nconditions (e.g. breach of a court order).\nOther potential relevant considerations (non-exhaustive) relating to R47(4)(e):\n Whether the person concerned will reside with the guarantor if a guarantee is signed on their\nbehalf and, if not, whether the guarantor will be living in physical proximity to the person for whom\nthey are signing a guarantee;\n Whether the guarantor ever posted bail in relation to a criminal matter in Canada and, if so, the\noutcome;\n Whether the bondsperson ever employed the person concerned illegally while in Canada ;\n What arrangements would be in place for the guarantor to be able to exercise control and\ninfluence over the actions of the person concerned; and\n Whether the proposed guarantor had knowledge of, or harboured the person concerned while\nthat person was illegally in Canada\nWhere necessary, officers may conduct checks in the Global Case Management System (GCMS),\nNational Case Management System (NCMS) and other relevant databases regarding the potential", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.12 (Ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-12-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.12", + "marginal_note": "Ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "guarantor(s) and make appropriate and reasonable enquiries as deemed necessary and appropriate as\nlong as it is for the purpose of assessing the prescribed factors under R47(4) for determining the ability of\na proposed guarantor to ensure compliance.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 24\nOfficers should keep in mind that the factors under R47(4) are considerations, but are not in and of\nthemselves determinative of whether the guarantor has the ability to ensure compliance with a guarantee.\nFor example, if it is discovered that the guarantor has a criminal record, it does not automatically\ndisqualify the person from acting as a guarantor, but may lead the officer to question the person’s\nsuitability as a guarantor and determine that, in the circumstances of the case, the criminal conviction\nwould cast doubt on the person’s ability to ensure compliance with conditions (e,g., conviction for breach\nof a court order).\nIf the officer considering whether to impose a guarantee determines that the proposed guarantor is\nunlikely to be able to ensure compliance with the conditions, the officer may refuse the guarantor (see\nPart 8.17 below for procedures on rejecting a guarantee). Officers may then consider other potential\nguarantors in these cases, unless the release was ordered by the ID, if others are available and willing to\npost the guarantee. Officers shall fully document this decision and the reasons in the case file. In cases\nwhere there has been an arrest under A55, this decision will be reflected in their consideration of\nalternatives to detention. For further details regarding the assessment of risk and evaluating alternatives\nto detention, officers should refer to ENF 20 Detentions and 34 Alternatives to detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.12 (Ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-12-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.12", + "marginal_note": "Ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The prescribed factors under R47(4) are also applicable to decisions of the ID at detention reviews.\nCBSA Hearings Officers are to monitor the application of these provisions by ID Members at detention\nreviews and make submissions where necessary. Failure by the ID Members to assess a potential\nguarantor by applying the prescribed factors under R47(4) would constitute an error in law reviewable at\nthe Federal Court.\nWhile CBSA officers (including Inland Enforcement Officers, Hearings Officers and Hearings Advisors)\nare free to conduct appropriate system checks as deemed necessary for the purpose of detention reviews\nand the assessment of the guarantor’s solvency when processing an ID order for release, such checks\nshould not be conducted upon request of the IRB. The CBSA is not the enforcement arm of the IRB.\nOfficers are reminded that, once the ID has made a decision to release on specified conditions, an officer\nhas no legal authority to change the conditions at the time of processing the bond and may not reject the\nbond based on R47(2)(b). If, during bond processing, concerns arise regarding the bondsperson named\nby the ID (e.g. it is discovered through system checks following the issuance of the ID release order that\nthe named guarantor provided false information to the ID regarding one of the R47(4) considerations), the\nofficer should communicate their concerns without delay to the Hearings Officer who can addre ss them,\nas appropriate, with the ID. In such situations, it remains the case that officers may not reject the\nguarantee based on factors other than the requirements under R47(1), R47(2)(a), the solvency\nassessment under R47(2)(c) or the application of R47(3).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.12 (Ability to ensure the person concerned will comply with conditions) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.13", + "marginal_note": "Establish identity of guarantor", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.13 Establish identity of guarantor\nGuarantors must provide the IRCC or CBSA officer taking the guarantee with the following original,\ngenuine documentation to prove their identity, age, status and residence:\n government-issued photo identification (e.g. driver’s license, passport, permanent resident card)\nshowing the image of the guarantor, their name, and age or date of birth;\n proof of status in Canada (e.g. passport; birth certificate, citizenship certificate, certificate of Indian\nstatus, permanent resident card); and\n a document showing the guarantor’s current residential address (e.g. driver’s license, utility bill, bank\nstatement, pay stub).\n copies of the original identity documentation will be placed on file.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 25\n failure to provide identity, status and residency documents will result in the rejection of the application\nto post a guarantee or a direction to the proposed guarantor to return at a later time with the required\ndocumentation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.13 (Establish identity of guarantor)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-14-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.14", + "marginal_note": "Determining solvency for guarantors", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.14 Determining solvency for guarantors\nThe requirement that a guarantor be solvent, i.e. have sufficient liquid funds to pay the guarantee if it is\nenforced, is intended to ensure that the Government is able to collect on the debt should the guarantor go\ninto default upon non-compliance by the person concerned with conditions.\nThe following principles should guide the determination of solvency:\n the guarantor’s annual income should be assessed first. The annual income minus liabilities on\nincome should be three (3) times the total of the guarantee. For example, a requirement of a\nguarantee in the amount of $5,000 would require net income of at least $15,000 (3 x $5,000). A\nperson with annual income of $50,000 and annual liabilities totalling $20,000 leaving $30,000 net\nincome would qualify to post the guarantee. If the guarantor’s annual net income is insufficient, then\nthe guarantor’s assets shall be assessed.\n when assessing income alone, the liabilities to take into account are the total of the annual liabilities,\nnot the total liability. For example, a loan of $15,000 payable monthly in the amount of $200 would\nconstitute a $2,400 annual liability for the guarantor. A rent or mortgage payment of $1000 per mon th\nwould constitute a $12,000 annual liability.\n assets alone without any income are a strong indication that the individual is likely not solvent,\nhowever, officers may consider individual circumstances of the case before making a decision.\n when the amount of the guarantee is too high for the guarantor to qualify on annual income alone,\nboth income and assets are assessed; the guarantor’s solvency is calculated by totalling the\nguarantor’s annual income and current assets minus existing total liabilities.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.14 (Determining solvency for guarantors) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-14-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.14", + "marginal_note": "Determining solvency for guarantors", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " officers should ask for income and assets in an amount approximately three times the total amount\nof the guarantee to be posted.\n existing liabilities should be subtracted from the total of the guarantor’s combined income and assets\nfor the calculation of solvency. For example, if the guarantor’s annual income is $65,000 and they\nown a house valued at $300,000, and they have no other qualifying assets, their total income and\nassets would be $365,000. If the guarantor’s mortgage on the house is $280,000, their car loan\nbalance is $20,000, their student loan balance is $25,000 and they have a line of credit balance in\nthe amount of $15,000, then their total liabilities are $340,000. They have the net amount of $25,000\n($365,000 - $340,000) available for a guarantee, however, if the guarantee required was $10,000,\nthey would be deemed insolvent as a $10,000 guarantee requires $30,000 in available income and\nassets.\n liabilities or debts include mortgage balances; outstanding loan balances; student loan balances;\ncredit card balances; line of credit balances; annual rent obligations; and the average yearly cost of\nmonthly utility payments (e.g. phone, internet, cable, hydro, water, gas/oil).\n original documentation of source of funds must be provided, and if accepted towards the\ndetermination of solvency, copies shall be taken and placed on file.\n where reasonable in the circumstances, to assist in the determination of solvency, officers may\nrequest proposed guarantors to provide a recent credit report.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 26\nAssessing income\nIncome which is not eligible for solvency determination:\n welfare, social assistance, family allowances, child tax benefits, child support payments, medical", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.14 (Determining solvency for guarantors) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-14-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.14", + "marginal_note": "Determining solvency for guarantors", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "disability, and worker’s compensation should not be considered in the solvency determination given\nthat these payments are made in the public interest and it is unlikely that the Crown would seek to\nrecover the amount of the guarantee from these payments to pay the debt on default;\nIncome which is eligible for solvency determination includes:\n employment income, proven by the three most recent Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Notices of\nAssessment, pay stubs;\n Employment Insurance benefits, including maternity leave benefits and parental leave benefits,\nproven by EI statements, or the T4E;\n Canada Pension Plan payments / Quebec Pension Plan payments, proven by pension statements or\nfinancial institution statements showing these deposits;\n Old Age Security payments, proven by OAS statements or financial institution statements showing\nthese deposits;\n other pension payments, proven by pension statements or financial institution statements showing\nthese deposits;\n investment income such as dividends or interest, proven by the T5 Statement of Investment Income;\n trust income, proven by T3 Statement of Trust Income;\n rental income, proven by recent income tax forms submitted to the CRA, or financial institution\nstatements showing these payments as deposits combined with proof of title to the rental property\nand rental agreements;\n earnings on a life insurance policy, proven by statements from the life insurance company;\n spousal support (alimony) payments, proven by most recent income tax form filed, or by financial\ninstitution statements showing the deposits combined with the agreement/court order showing the\namount to be paid;\n business income, proven by the most recent tax filings, or by financial institution professional\nbusiness account statements.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.14 (Determining solvency for guarantors) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-14-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.14", + "marginal_note": "Determining solvency for guarantors", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Regularly documented cash deposits into a guarantor’s accounts may be proof of income; however\nofficers should require credible evidence of the origin of these deposits and their continuing nature, as\nwell as reasonably satisfying themselves that they are not illegally obtained.\nIn cases where officers deem it reasonably appropriate in the circumstances, they may accept alternative\ndocumentary proof of income or require additional corroborating proof.\nAssessing assets:\n assets acceptable for a guarantee should be capable for easy liquidation by the Crown.\n equity in property is acceptable as long as the property is in Canada.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 27\n where the guarantor owns an asset with another person or persons, only the percentage of equity\nowned by the guarantor will be considered for proof of solvency;\n letters of credit, credit limits on credit cards, and unused or available lines of credit are not considered\nassets;\nAssets which should not be accepted for solvency determination:\n assets held in foreign locations (e.g. offshore accounts) due to the difficulty of seizing these assets\nupon forfeiture;\n assets held in forms of ownership so complicated that enforcing the debt would be overly time\nconsuming and difficult, for example, a commercial building held by a number of owners;\n Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSP);\n Registered Educational Savings Plans (RESP);\n value of pension plans, including personal locked-in or prescribed plans such as Locked In\nRetirement Accounts (LIRA), Life Income Funds (LIF), Life Registered Income Funds (LRIF), etc.\n(Note: all provinces provide unconditional protection against creditors for money held in a pension plan or when", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.14 (Determining solvency for guarantors) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-14-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.14", + "marginal_note": "Determining solvency for guarantors", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "transferred out to a personal locked or prescribed plan such as a LIRA, LIF, LRIF)\n Canada savings bonds and bonds issued by entities other than the Government of Canada;\n vehicles of any type;\n tools;\n machinery;\n personal property such as furniture, antiques, collectibles, jewelry, artwork, clothing, and other\npersonal effects.\nEligible assets for solvency determinations include:\n savings, proven by the previous 12 month period of financial institution statements;\n Guaranteed Investment Certificates (GICs), proven by financial institution statements;\n Treasury bills, proven by financial institution statements;\n bonds issued by the Government of Canada which are transferrable (Canada Savings Bonds are not\nacceptable because they are not transferable), proven by bond certificates;\n stocks, proven by stock certificates, where the principle investment is at least 12 months old;\n equity in real estate, proven by the registered title or deed to the property, the mortgage balance\nstatement or mortgage discharge, where applicable, and the most recent municipal property tax\nassessment or property evaluation done by the bank or other reputable institution;\nOfficers may accept other documentary proof of assets, or require additional corroborating proof in cases\nwhere they deem it appropriate in the circumstances.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 28", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.14 (Determining solvency for guarantors) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.15", + "marginal_note": "Taking a guarantee", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.15 Taking a guarantee\nTo take a guarantee, the IRCC or CBSA officer shall:\n ensure that information showing that the guarantor meets regulatory requirements is recorded\nand placed on file;\n photocopy all documents produced to prove income and assets as well as identification\ndocuments, and place on file;\n complete the Solemn Declaration of Solvency by Guarantor form [BSF564];\n complete the Guarantee form IMM1230E;\n complete the Guarantee (where there are Co-signers) Bond, where applicable [BSF 507];\n complete the Guarantee Log form to maintain control of guarantees issued and for statistical\npurposes [IMM 5073B];\n complete the Acknowledgement of Conditions form [BSF821] which shall be written in a clear and\nprecise manner in order to render the guarantee enforceable;\n explain the conditions and the consequences of non-compliance to the person concerned and the\nguarantor, ensuring that the guarantor understands their responsibilities and the consequences\nshould the person concerned not respect any of the conditions imposed;\n ensure that the person concerned and a witness sign the Acknowledgement of Conditions form\n[BSF821]. (Under R49(1), the guarantor must acknowledge in writing that they have been\ninformed of the conditions imposed and that non-compliance with any of the conditions will result\nin forfeiture of the deposit or enforcement of the guarantee);\n provide a copy of the guarantee, the Declaration of Solvency, and the Acknowledgement of\nConditions form to the guarantor; and a copy of the Acknowledgement of Conditions to the person\nconcerned;\n place the original guarantee and Declaration of Solvency, and a copy of all other signed forms on\nfile;\n provide detailed reasons in the file notes for the recommendation that a guarantee be imposed;\nand\n update GCMS and NCMS, as applicable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.15 (Taking a guarantee)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-16-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.16", + "marginal_note": "Altering or amending a guarantee", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.16 Altering or amending a guarantee\nAny unilateral attempt to alter or amend the conditions upon which a guarantee was posted shall not be\nenforceable. The original guarantee will remain valid and enforceable.\nThe conditions of a guarantee cannot be altered without the consent of all parties, e.g., an IRCC or\nCBSA officer or a member of the ID, signatory to the guarantee as well as the guarantor.\nAn amended guarantee is required if any of the conditions of the original guarantee have been altered\nor amended.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 29\nWhen the person concerned makes a request to the CBSA, IRCC or the ID to have any reporting\nconditions modified and the request is granted, the guarantor must be made aware of the new\nconditions imposed on the person concerned; and the guarantor is required to appear at the CBSA or\nIRCC office as applicable and sign the Amendment to Guarantee for Compliance Issued form\n[IMM 5071B] outlining the amended conditions. The person concerned is also required to sign the form.\nThe original office involved in the taking of the original guarantee must be advised of any alterations,\namendments, and extensions.\nProcedures to increase the amount of the original guarantee:\nTo increase the amount of the original guarantee, a CBSA or IRCC officer shall:\n advise the guarantor that the change in conditions means that the guarantee amount is being\nincreased;\n reassess the solvency of the guarantor for the increased amount, following the process outlined in\n8.14 above, complete the Solemn Declaration of Solvency by Guarantor form [BSF564] and the\nGuarantee Log [IMM 5073B];\n complete the Amendment to Guarantee for Compliance form [IMM 5071B], explain amended", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.16 (Altering or amending a guarantee) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-16-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.16", + "marginal_note": "Altering or amending a guarantee", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "conditions to the guarantor and ensure that the guarantor and a CBSA or IRCC witnes s sign the\nform;\n provide a copy of the form IMM 5017B to the guarantor and place the original on file ; and\n update GCMS and NCMS, as applicable.\nProcedures to reduce the amount of the original guarantee:\nTo reduce the amount of the original guarantee, the CBSA or IRCC officer shall:\n complete the Amendment to Guarantee for Compliance form [IMM 5071B], explain the amended\nconditions to the guarantor and ensure that the guarantor and a CBSA or IRCC witness sign the\nform;\n provide a copy of the form [IMM 5071B] to the guarantor and place the original on file; and\n update GCMS and NCMS, as applicable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.16 (Altering or amending a guarantee) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-17-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.17", + "marginal_note": "Rejecting a deposit or guarantee", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.17 Rejecting a deposit or guarantee\nIf the bondsperson fails to provide personal documentation to prove identity, status, residency and their\ncurrent address, or fails to provide evidence of their ability to ensure that the person concerned will\ncomply with the conditions imposed, the officer will advise them to return with more documentation or to\nrequest a change of conditions. Officers will document this action and the reasons o n the file as the\nperson concerned will continue to be detained in the meantime.\nFor guarantees, if income and assets presented are insufficient to post a guarantee, the officer will advise\nthe guarantor to return with more documentation or to request a change of conditions. Officers will\ndocument this action and the reasons on the file as the person concerned will continue to be detained in\nthe meantime.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 30\nDelegated officers may make a decision to reject a deposit or guarantee except in cases where the ID\nhas imposed the guarantee and named the bondsperson. In these cases, officers shall not assess the\nsuitability of the bondsperson and may not reject the bond or guarantee on the basis of R47(2)(b)\nconsiderations. Officers can only consider solvency issues if the assessment was not completed by the\nHearings Officer or one of the exceptions listed in 7.2.2 applies. If justified, the officer may then reject the\ndeposit or guarantee and will document this action and the reasons on file. Since the person will remain\nin detention, the officer must inform the Hearings Officer who will then present this information to the ID,\nclient and their counsel.\nOnce the ID has made a decision to release and specified conditions, an officer has no legal authority to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.17 (Rejecting a deposit or guarantee) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-17-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.17", + "marginal_note": "Rejecting a deposit or guarantee", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "reject or change the conditions; however if they have concerns regarding the bondsperson named by the\nID, they should communicate their concerns to the Hearings Officer who can address them, if appropriate,\nwith the ID.\nThis continues to be the case with respect to the prescribed factors under R47(4): an officer has no legal\nauthority to change the conditions at the time of processing the bond and may not reject the bond unless\nit is based on the requirements under R47(1), R47(2)(a), the solvency assessment under R47(2)(c) or the\napplication of R47(3). If, during bond processing, concerns arise regarding the bondsperson named by\nthe ID (e.g., it is discovered through system checks following the issuance of the ID release order that the\nnamed guarantor provided false information to the ID regarding one of the R47(4) considerations), the\nofficer should follow the procedure for communicating their concerns without delay to the Hearings Officer\nwho can address them, as appropriate, with the ID.\nFor the CBSA, Inland Enforcement Assistants may review the documentation received and prepare the\nfile for officer review, but may not make the decision on whether a proposed bondsperson meets the\nrequirements and is suitable to post a bond.\nOfficers shall fully document decisions to reject a bond and their reasons in the case file and NCMS or\nGCMS, as applicable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.17 (Rejecting a deposit or guarantee) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.18", + "marginal_note": "Stay of removal order", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.18 Stay of removal order\nDeposits: A stay of removal by the Immigration Appeal Division has the effect of cancelling a deposit\n[A68(2)(b)]. Deposits are to be refunded unless the conditions were breached before the stay was\nordered.\nGuarantees: A stay of removal by the Immigration Appeal Division has the effect of rendering the\nguarantee null and void. A guarantee should be left on file and, apart from the requirement to update\nNCMS/GCMS systems in order to register the effect of the stay on the guarantee, no further action is to\nbe taken unless the conditions were breached before the stay was ordered.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.18 (Stay of removal order)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-19-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.19", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.19 Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a\nguarantee\nWithdrawal:\n if the bondsperson wishes to replace or be relieved of the deposit or a guarantee, another deposit\nor guarantee must be signed or the bondsperson must make arrangements with the CBSA to\ndeliver the person into CBSA custody.\n the onus is on the bondsperson to arrange to deliver the person concerned into CBSA custody.\nCBSA officers will not locate and arrest the person concerned so that a bondsperson may be\nrelieved of the obligation of the deposit or guarantee.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 31\n the death of a bondsperson does not render the deposit or guarantee unenforceable. The rights\nand liabilities flowing from security deposits and guarantees are passed on to the executors or\nadministrators of the estate of the depositor or guarantor.\n officers’ decisions on compliance and forfeiture are subject to a judicial review application to the\nFederal Court of Canada.\n procedures must be in place in each office to review deposits for refund or forfeiture at the\nconclusion of the case before the file is sent to archives.\n a bondsperson, including a co-signer, may request to be released from the obligation of the deposit\nor guarantee.\n a bondsperson, including a co-signer, cannot be relieved of their obligation by simply stating the\ndesire to be relieved, or by simply requesting it.\n the bondsperson must apply to a CBSA or IRCC officer, depending on which officer imposed the\ndeposit or guarantee, or to a member of the ID if a member of the ID imposed the deposit or\nguarantee. Before relieving the bondsperson of the bond, and if the bond was posted as an offer of\nrelease by the ID, an application must be made to the ID and the ID must approve the change. If a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.19 (Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a) (part 1 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-19-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.19", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "suitable new bondsperson is not available, the existing bondsperson must surrender the person\ninto CBSA custody as the person no longer meets the conditions of release.\nRefund of a deposit:\nWhen the person concerned subject to a deposit has complied with the conditions of the deposit, as set\nout on the Security Deposit form [BSF579], the deposit will be refunded to the depositor.\nThe IRPA does not provide specific authority for refunds, but R49(3) provides the authority to return funds\nheld in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the depositor.\nOfficers shall review the file to determine if the deposit should be refunded.\nIf the deposit should be refunded, the officer shall cancel the deposit and arrange for the return of the\nmoney deposited.\nThe officer shall complete a Requisition for Refund/Forfeiture of Security Deposit form [ IMM 0709B] and\nforward it to the authorized manager/supervisor for signature.\nWhen completing the IMM 0709B form, officers shall:\n confirm the latest address for the depositor and insert it in the “Current mailing address of the\ndepositor- Addresse postale actuelle du déposant” field;\n insert the security deposit number into the “Receipt No. – Reçu no” field in the IMM 0709B. The\nFIN 0007B or the K21 form number is not to be inserted into this field;\n print the name of the authorizing officer (signing authority) in the “Name of authorizing officer –\nNom du fondé de pouvoir” field. Initials are unacceptable; and\n print out authorizing (signing) officer’s title in the “Title as per delegation instrument – Titre\nconformément au document officiel de delegation de pouvoir” field.\nOnly a manager/supervisor with delegated authority for section 34 of the Financial Administration Act is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.19 (Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a) (part 2 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-19-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.19", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "delegated to sign the IMM 0709B, as per the procedures set out in Chapter 2 - Financial Signing\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 32\nAuthorities of the Comptrollership Manual, Finance Volume.\nThe manager/supervisor will return to the officer the signed IMM 0709B\n.\nPage 3 (pink copy) is placed on file.\nFor the CBSA, the regional Financial Administration officer and/or Administrative officers, depending on\nregional processes, shall forward the following documentation to CBSA Revenue Accounting and\nReporting Division, 355 North River Road, 18th Floor, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8:\n page 1 (white copy) and page 2 (yellow copy) of the a Requisition for Refund/Forfeiture of Security\nDeposit [IMM 0709B];\n copy of the Security Deposit form [BSF579];\n copy of any form completed by officers recording the depositor’s information – sometimes referred\nto as the bondsperson’s information sheet or the personal information sheet (full name; date of\nbirth; address; phone numbers; driver’s license number; status; name, address and phone number\nof employer; relationship to person concerned, etc.);\n copy of any form or request submitted by the depositor or the person concerned requesting a\nrefund of the deposit (this is valuable as it would most likely have a more current address for the\ndepositor than the original Security Deposit form);\n copies or scans of the identification documents provided by the depositor when the deposit was\ntaken (needed to ensure correct spelling of the name for the refund cheque and also to perform a\nname query in GCMS in an attempt to verify the bondsperson’s current address); and\n copy of the proof of address when the deposit was taken.\n IRCC officers shall forward the documentation for action to: Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.19 (Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a) (part 3 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-19-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.19", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "NHQ, 70 Crémazie Street, Gatineau, QC, K1A 1L1.\n once the documentation has been sent as noted above, written notification shall be sent to the\ndepositor that the deposit has been forwarded to CBSA Revenue Accounting and Reporting\nDivision in Ottawa; or if IRCC, to Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit, NHQ for refund and that\nthey should allow ten to twelve weeks for cheque processing.\nIf information becomes available to cause a CBSA or IRCC officer to recommend that the deposit be\nrefunded, rather than forfeited, after a forfeiture has been processed, the refund procedures described\nabove shall be followed, detailing the reasons for the reversal in the Remarks section of the IMM 0709B.\nOnce the bond refund decision has been made and in addition to the completion of required forms,\nwritten notification may also be sent to the bondsperson at the discretion of officers/managers (see\nAppendix A: Sample letter— Notification to Bondsperson re: Refund of Security Deposit). Such\nwritten notification may serve to provide confirmation of the end of the bondsperson’s obligations pending\nreceipt of the official refund from CBSA Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division in Ottawa, especially\nwhere the bondsperson has requested such confirmation from CBSA. Where the bondsperson is also\nbeing relieved of a guarantee posted for the same client, the notification can include both bonds (see\nAppendix B: Sample letter— Notification to Bondsperson re: Refund of Security deposit and\ncancellation of performance bond). In correspondence with a bondsperson, it is important that CBSA\nofficials do not disclose case details/status due to privacy concerns.\nPowers of Attorney:\nA depositor may give power of attorney to another person to act as the depositor’s agent with respect to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.19 (Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a) (part 4 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-19-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.19", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "all or part of the depositor’s finances and property. In order to refund a deposit to an individual who is not\nthe depositor, a validly executed Power of Attorney document must be provided by the depositor;\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 33\nFor the CBSA, the original copy of the Power of Attorney or Consent document, not a photocopy, must be\nforwarded to CBSA Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division, 355 North River Road, 18 th Floor,\nOttawa, ON K1A 0L8, before a deposit can be refunded to an attorney.\nFor IRCC, the original copy of the Power of Attorney or Consent document, not a photocopy, must be\nforwarded to Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit, NHQ, 70 Crémazie Street, Gatineau, QC, K1A 1L1.\nCancellation of a guarantee/performance bond:\nWhere a guarantee is no longer required as it has been determined that the bond has been complied\nwith, it may be appropriate for CBSA officials to advise the guarantor in writing that the conditions of the\nperformance bond have been complied with. Without disclosing further case details, the letter will serve to\nnotify the guarantor that their obligations specified in the performance bond are null and void and confirm\nthe fulfillment of their obligations. Such written confirmation is most likely to be requested by the\nguarantor in cases where the guarantee was not signed in conjunction with a security deposit (see\nAppendix C: Sample letter— Notification to Guarantor re: Cancellation of Performance Bond).\nAssignment of deposit or guarantee:\nA deposit or guarantee, is not assignable to a third party.\nIf a bondsperson wants to “assign” the deposit or guarantee to a third party willing to assume the deposit\nor guarantee obligation, the original deposit must be refunded and the original guarantee must be", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.19 (Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a) (part 5 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-19-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.19", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "cancelled/considered null and void and then a new deposit or guarantee must be issued, following the\nprocedures for the taking of deposits or guarantees.\nForfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a guarantee:\nThe CBSA generally makes the decisions on forfeitures of deposits and enforcement of guarantees.\nForfeiture of a deposit is to the Receiver General for Canada.\nIf the person concerned for whom a deposit has been paid or a guarantee posted breaches any condition,\na CBSA or an IRCC officer will review the circumstances of the breach.\nAlthough R49(4) does not provide for officer discretion in determining if a breach of condition has\noccurred, jurisprudence (Hamid v. Canada, 2015 FC 1208) indicates that officers have a limited discretion\nto decide whether a breach of conditions is severe enough to warrant the forfeiture of the deposit or\nenforcement of the guarantee.\nRecommendations that the deposit be forfeited or the guarantee enforced will be directed to the offic er’s\nmanager with delegated authority for section 34 of the Finance Administration Act.\nThe manager, on receiving the officer’s recommendation for forfeiture of the deposit or enforcement of the\nguarantee, shall determine whether the breach is sufficient in the circumstances of the case to warrant\nforfeiture of the deposit or enforcement of the guarantee.\nThe Regulations do not provide express authority for officers to reduce or otherwise alter the amount of\nthe deposit or guarantee. In the absence of express authority, it is CBSA’s position that if an officer\ndecides to forfeit the deposit or guarantee, the bondsperson will be held accountable for the entire\namount of the deposit or guarantee.\nThe rules of procedural fairness apply when a deposit or guarantor is under consideration for forfeiture or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.19 (Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a) (part 6 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-19-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.19", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "enforcement due to a breach by the person concerned of a condition imposed. Bondspersons will be\nprovided with notification of the breach of conditions and offered an opportunity to provide written\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 34\nrepresentations with respect to whether there was, in fact, a breach of condition and whether the breach\nwas so minor as to not warrant forfeiture.\nIf forfeiture or enforcement is warranted, the manager shall have written notification of the s pecifics of the\nbreach and possible forfeiture or enforcement action sent to the bondsperson by registered mail,\nproviding them with an opportunity to make a written representations as noted above within 30 days of\nreceipt concerning the decision to be made;\nAll written representations or submissions from the bondsperson shall be considered by the manager in\nreaching the decision;\nIf the bondsperson has not responded within 37 days of the written notification, they will be sent written\nnotification of the decision and reasons by registered mail;\nGuarantors are notified of the decision to enforce the guarantee via the Guarantee of Compliance\nEnforcement Notice form [IMM 5072B].\nIf the decision is to forfeit the deposit or enforce the guarantee, the manager will direct an officer to\ncomplete a Requisition for Refund/Forfeiture of Security Deposit form [IMM 0709B] for a deposit forfeiture\nand the Requisition for Enforcement of Guarantee [IMM 5345B] for a guarantee enforcement.\nThe officer shall complete a Requisition for Refund/Forfeiture of Security Deposit form [ IMM 0709B] for a\ndeposit, or a Requisition for Enforcement of a Guarantee form [IMM 5345B] and forward it to the\nauthorized manager/supervisor for signature.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.19 (Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a) (part 7 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-19-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.19", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Only a manager/supervisor with delegated authority for section 34 of the Financial Administration Act is\ndelegated to sign the IMM 0709B and the IMM 5345B as per procedures set out in Chapter 2 - Financial\nSigning Authorities of the Comptrollership Manual, Finance Volume.\nThe manager/supervisor will return to the officer the signed IMM 0709B or IMM 5345B forms.\nFor deposits, the CBSA regional Financial Administration office and/or officers, depending on regional\nprocesses, shall forward the following documentation to CBSA Revenue Accounting and Reporting\nDivision, 355 North River Road, 18th Floor, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8:\n page 1 (white copy) and page 2 (yellow copy) of the IMM 0709B;\n copy of the Security Deposit form [BSF579]; and\n copy of the decision letter to the depositor.\nIRCC officers shall forward the IMM 0709B for action to: Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit, NHQ, 70\nCrémazie Street, Gatineau, QC, K1A 1L1.\nPage 3 (pink copy) of the IMM 0709B is placed on file.\nFor guarantees, the officer or regional financial administration office, according to regional processes, will\nsend the guarantor, by registered mail, the original signed Requisition for Enforcement of a Guarantee\nform [IMM 5345B], and place a copy on file.\nFollowing document shall be sent to CBSA Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division, 355 North River\nRoad, 18th Floor, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0L8:\n copies of the Requisition for Enforcement of a Guarantee form [ IMM 5345B],\n the Declaration of Solvency [BSF564; IMM 1416B],\n a copy of the Guarantee/Performance Bond [IMM 1230E],\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 35\n a copy of the letter of decision sent to the guarantor / the Guarantee of Compliance Enforcement\nNotice form [IMM 5072B] sent to the guarantor, and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.19 (Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a) (part 8 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-19-p9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.19", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " copies or scans of the guarantor’s identification documents taken at the time of posting the\nguarantee.\nFor IRCC, the documentation shall be sent to Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit, NHQ, 70 Crémazie\nStreet, Gatineau, QC, K1A 1L1.\nThe officer shall update the file as well as GCMS and NCMS. Officers should refer to the NCMS and\nGCMS user guides for further details.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.19 (Withdrawal, refund and forfeiture of a deposit or enforcement of a) (part 9 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-20-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.20", + "marginal_note": "Requests for information", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.20 Requests for information\nRegional offices should not refer requests from the person concerned or depositors and guarantors for\ninformation about forfeiture or refunds directly to National Headquarters.\nA CBSA regional office may contact CBSA Revenue Accounting and Reporting Division, on behalf of the\nperson concerned, and the bondsperson.\nAn IRCC regional office may contact IRCC Accounting Operations, Revenue Unit, NHQ, on behalf of the\nperson concerned and the bondsperson.\nFor any financial coding or financial system transactional issues, the IRCC or CBSA officers should\ncontact their regional headquarters.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 36\nAppendix A: Sample letter— Notification to Bondsperson re: Refund of Security\nDeposit\nClient ID: xx-xxxx-xxxx\n(Name of Guarantor\nAddress)\n(Date)\nDear Mr/ Ms.XXXXXX:\nRE: (Name of client) - Security Deposit XXXXX (Bond #)\nThis is to notify you that (Name of client for whom cash bond posted) has complied with the\nconditions of Security deposit (bond #) in the amount of $XXX (amount of bond) signed\nby you on XXX (date).\nA requisition for refund for the Cash Bond has been forwarded to Revenue Accounting section\nin Ottawa. Please allow eight to ten (8–10) weeks for processing.\nYours truly,\nName and signature of designated CBSA official\nCanada Border Services Agency\nNote: This is a sample letter with suggested wording. Preference as to final wording, or the use of pre-\nprinted as opposed to micro-produced “originals” is left to the discretion of local managers provided the\ncontent remains consistent with the intent.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 37\nAppendix B: Sample letter— Notification to Bondsperson re: Refund of Security\ndeposit and cancellation of performance bond\nClient ID: xx-xxxx-xxxx\n(Name of bondsperson", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.20 (Requests for information) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-20-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.20", + "marginal_note": "Requests for information", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Address)\n(Date)\nDear Mr./Ms. XXXXXX:\nRE: Name of client - Security deposit XXX (Bond #) and Performance Bond XXX (Bond #)\nThis is to notify you that the $XXX(amount of bond) Security deposit XXX (bond #)\nand Performance Bond XXX (bond #) in the amount of $XXX (amount of bond)\nboth signed by you on XXX (date) are no longer required.\nA requisition for refund for the Cash Bond has been forwarded to Revenue Accounting section\nin Ottawa. Please allow eight to ten (8–10) weeks for processing.\nFurthermore, your obligations specified in the Performance Bond in the amount of $XXX\n(amount of bond) are now null and void.\nYours truly,\nName and signature of designated CBSA official\nCanada Border Services Agency\nNote: This is a sample letter with suggested wording. Preference as to final wording, or the use of pre-\nprinted as opposed to micro-produced “originals” is left to the discretion of local managers provided the\ncontent remains consistent with the intent.\nENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n2020-10-07 38\nAppendix C: Sample letter— Notification to Guarantor re: Cancellation of\nPerformance Bond\nClient ID: xx-xxxx-xxxx\n(Name of Guarantor)\n(Address)\n(Date)\nDear Mr/ Ms.XXXXXX:\nRE: (Name of client) - Performance Bond XXXXX (Bond #)\nThis is to notify you that (Name of client for whom guarantee posted) has complied with the\nconditions of Performance Bond (bond #) in the amount of $XXX (amount of bond) signed\nby you on XXX (date).\nFurther, your obligations specified in the Performance Bond are now null and void.\nYours truly,\nName and signature of designated CBSA official\nCanada Border Services Agency\nNote: This is a sample letter with suggested wording. Preference as to final wording, or the use of pre-", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.20 (Requests for information) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-8-8-20-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-8", + "act_short": "ENF 8", + "act_name": "ENF 8 — Deposits and guarantees", + "section": "ENF 8 s. 8.20", + "marginal_note": "Requests for information", + "part": "Deposits and guarantees", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "printed as opposed to micro-produced “originals” is left to the discretion of local managers provided the\ncontent remains consistent with the intent.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-10-07", + "current_to": "2020-10-07", + "citation": "ENF 8, s. 8.20 (Requests for information) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf08-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "When a removal order comes into force – refugee protection claimant ............ 24", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.3 When a removal order comes into force – refugee protection claimant ............ 24\n10.4 When a removal order becomes enforceable ................................................ 26\n10.5 When a removal order is actionable ............................................................ 26", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.3 (When a removal order comes into force – refugee protection claimant ............ 24)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Removal orders no longer enforceable – Pardons/Acquittals on appeal ............ 26", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.6 Removal orders no longer enforceable – Pardons/Acquittals on appeal ............ 26\n11 Procedure: Statutory and Regulatory Stays ..................................................... 27\n11.1 Statutory stays of removal ......................................................................... 28\n11.2 Regulatory stays of removal....................................................................... 30\n2025-02-03 2\n12 Procedure: Application of A50(a) stays of removal ........................................... 33\n12.1 Overview of A50(a) stays of removal .......................................................... 33", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.6 (Removal orders no longer enforceable – Pardons/Acquittals on appeal ............ 26)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is the subject of a subpoena to appear as a witness in", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4 Person under removal is the subject of a subpoena to appear as a witness in\ncriminal proceedings ................................................................................. 34", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.4 (Person under removal is the subject of a subpoena to appear as a witness in)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "No subpoena but person under removal is required to appear as a witness in", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.5 No subpoena but person under removal is required to appear as a witness in\ncriminal proceedings ................................................................................. 35", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.5 (No subpoena but person under removal is required to appear as a witness in)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.6", + "marginal_note": "Person is subject of an appearance notice given by a peace officer in a criminal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.6 Person is subject of an appearance notice given by a peace officer in a criminal\nmatter ..................................................................................................... 35", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.6 (Person is subject of an appearance notice given by a peace officer in a criminal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.7", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is subject of a civil summons or a subpoena ................. 36", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.7 Person under removal is subject of a civil summons or a subpoena ................. 36\n12.8 Person under removal is subject to a civil court order .................................... 36", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.7 (Person under removal is subject of a civil summons or a subpoena ................. 36)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.9", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is subject of a notice of examination in a lawsuit", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.9 Person under removal is subject of a notice of examination in a lawsuit\n(discovery process) ................................................................................... 37", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.9 (Person under removal is subject of a notice of examination in a lawsuit)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Temporary Suspension of Removals (TSR) and Administrative Deferral", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13 Procedure: Temporary Suspension of Removals (TSR) and Administrative Deferral\nof Removals (ADR) ..................................................................................... 39\n13.1 Legislation ............................................................................................. 39\n13.2 Exceptions ............................................................................................. 39\n13.3 Generalized risk versus Individualized risk ................................................. 40\n13.4 Countries under TSR and ADR ................................................................... 40\n14 Procedure: Diplomatic assurances cases ......................................................... 40", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 13 (Procedure: Temporary Suspension of Removals (TSR) and Administrative Deferral)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-15-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 15.1", + "marginal_note": "Who can make an interim measures or precautionary measures request ......... 41", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.1 Who can make an interim measures or precautionary measures request ......... 41\n15.2 Procedures ............................................................................................. 41\nPART III - Removal Preparation ................................................................................. 42", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 15.1 (Who can make an interim measures or precautionary measures request ......... 41)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 16", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Determining the method of enforcing a removal order .................... 42", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16 Procedure: Determining the method of enforcing a removal order .................... 42\n16.1 Procedures to enforce a removal order ..................................................... 42\n17 Procedure: Voluntary Compliance .................................................................. 43\n17.1 Requirements for voluntary compliance ..................................................... 43", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 16 (Procedure: Determining the method of enforcing a removal order .................... 42)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-17-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 17.3", + "marginal_note": "What happens after voluntary compliance requirements are not met ............ 45", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17.3 What happens after voluntary compliance requirements are not met ............ 45\n18 Procedure: Removal by the Minister ............................................................... 45\n2025-02-03 3\n18.1 Removal to another country ...................................................................... 45", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 17.3 (What happens after voluntary compliance requirements are not met ............ 45)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-18-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 18.2", + "marginal_note": "Country of removal for persons who have violated human or international", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18.2 Country of removal for persons who have violated human or international\nrights ..................................................................................................... 46\n19 Procedure: Removal of persons who are detained ............................................ 46\n20 Procedure: File review and pre-removal interview ............................................ 47\n21 Procedure: Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) ............................................ 48\n21.1 Who may apply for a PRRA? ....................................................................... 48\n21.2 Who may not apply for a PRRA? ................................................................. 49\n21.3 When a person is considered for a PRRA ...................................................... 51\n21.4 When an individual is ineligible to make a PRRA ........................................... 52\n21.5 When to notify a person to apply for a PRRA ................................................ 53\n21.6 How to notify a person to apply for a PRRA .................................................. 54", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 18.2 (Country of removal for persons who have violated human or international)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.7", + "marginal_note": "When a person does not want to apply for a PRRA ........................................ 54", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.7 When a person does not want to apply for a PRRA ........................................ 54\n21.8 The application for a PRRA ......................................................................... 55\n21.9 PRRA decision .......................................................................................... 55\n21.10 Positive PRRA decision for A112(1) cases ..................................................... 56\n21.11 Positive PRRA decision for A112(3) cases ..................................................... 56\n21.12 Negative PRRA decision ............................................................................. 57", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.7 (When a person does not want to apply for a PRRA ........................................ 54)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.13", + "marginal_note": "Application for leave and judicial review of a negative decision ....................... 57", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.13 Application for leave and judicial review of a negative decision ....................... 57\n21.14 Subsequent PRRA applications ................................................................... 57\n22 Procedure: Obtaining travel documents .......................................................... 58", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.13 (Application for leave and judicial review of a negative decision ....................... 57)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22.2", + "marginal_note": "Referrals to National Headquarters –Stakeholder Engagement Unit ................ 60", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.2 Referrals to National Headquarters –Stakeholder Engagement Unit ................ 60\n22.3 Removal without a valid passport .............................................................. 61\n22.4 Removal without a travel document ........................................................... 62\n22.5 Use of a Single Journey Document (SJD) .................................................... 62\n22.6 Visa requirements.................................................................................... 63\n23 Procedure: Seizure of documents .................................................................. 63", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22.2 (Referrals to National Headquarters –Stakeholder Engagement Unit ................ 60)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-24", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 24", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Subsistence for persons under a removal order ............................... 63", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "24 Procedure: Subsistence for persons under a removal order ............................... 63\n24.1 Preparing the rationale ............................................................................. 64\n24.2 Requesting subsistence funds .................................................................... 64\n24.3 Releasing subsistence funds ...................................................................... 64\n24.4 Tracking subsistence funds ....................................................................... 65", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 24 (Procedure: Subsistence for persons under a removal order ............................... 63)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-26", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 26", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Notifying commercial transporters - Transporter liability (Air and Marine", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "26 Procedure: Notifying commercial transporters - Transporter liability (Air and Marine\nMode) ......................................................................................................... 65\n2025-02-03 4\n27 Procedure: Notification to LOs and RCMP of all cases........................................ 66\n27.1 Notification to liaison officers (LOs) at visa offices abroad ............................. 66\n27.2 INTERPOL notification .............................................................................. 68\n28 Procedure: Fingerprinting at time of removal .................................................. 68\n29 Preparing the Confirmation of Departure envelope ........................................... 69\nPART IV – Escorted Removals This section is currently under review. ............................ 69", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 26 (Procedure: Notifying commercial transporters - Transporter liability (Air and Marine)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-30", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 30", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Administrative travel guidelines for officers performing escorts ......... 69", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "30 Procedure: Administrative travel guidelines for officers performing escorts ......... 69\n31 Procedure: Defining and measuring risk ......................................................... 70\n31.2 Escort Types ............................................................................................ 72\n32 Assessment of the need for escorts ................................................................ 72\n32.1 Determining the number of officers for escort ................................................ 73", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 30 (Procedure: Administrative travel guidelines for officers performing escorts ......... 69)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.2", + "marginal_note": "Examples of removal cases that may require an escort .................................. 74", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.2 Examples of removal cases that may require an escort .................................. 74\n32.3 Exceptional cases that may require an escort ............................................... 74\n32.4 escorts of multiple removals ........................................................................ 75\n32.5 Removals involving transit points ................................................................. 75\n32.6 Removal of minors ..................................................................................... 76\n32.7 Removal of violent persons .......................................................................... 76\n32.8 Removal with a Single Journey Document .................................................... 76\n32.9 Procedure: Medical escorts .......................................................................... 77\n32.10 Example of medical escort case .................................................................. 77\n33 Establishing emergency contacts ................................................................... 78\n34 Dealing with air carriers ............................................................................... 78\n34.1 Airline liability ............................................................................................ 79\n34.2 Using the document envelope ...................................................................... 79\n35 Arranging for escorts ................................................................................... 80\n35.1 Removal arrangements prepared by other officers .......................................... 81\n35.2 Advance notification to the port of departure ................................................. 81\n35.3 Luggage and personal finances .................................................................... 82\n35.4 Escorts for removal via the U.S. ................................................................... 82\n35.5 Escorts for removal via countries other than the U.S. ...................................... 82\n35.6 Escort by transportation companies .............................................................. 83\n36 Taking precautions to prevent escape ................................................................. 83\n36.1 Taking safety precautions ............................................................................ 83", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.2 (Examples of removal cases that may require an escort .................................. 74)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-36-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 36.2", + "marginal_note": "Use of holding centres, cells when transiting through Canada .......................... 84", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "36.2 Use of holding centres, cells when transiting through Canada .......................... 84\n37 Actions to take upon escape or attempted escape ............................................ 84\n2025-02-03 5", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 36.2 (Use of holding centres, cells when transiting through Canada .......................... 84)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-37-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 37.2", + "marginal_note": "Escape or attempted escape from transportation company facilities ................ 85", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "37.2 Escape or attempted escape from transportation company facilities ................ 85\n38 Persons refused entry to another country ...................................................... 86\n39 Confirmation of Departure ............................................................................ 86\n40 When the departure is verified at the POE – R240(1) ....................................... 87", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 37.2 (Escape or attempted escape from transportation company facilities ................ 85)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.2", + "marginal_note": "Verifying departure to the U.S. from airports with pre-clearance facilities ...... 89", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40.2 Verifying departure to the U.S. from airports with pre-clearance facilities ...... 89\n40.3 Verifying departure at land borders ............................................................ 90", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.2 (Verifying departure to the U.S. from airports with pre-clearance facilities ...... 89)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.4", + "marginal_note": "Verifying departure in the case of a removal order not in force ...................... 90", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40.4 Verifying departure in the case of a removal order not in force ...................... 90\n40.5 Inland procedures – removal order not in force ........................................... 91", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.4 (Verifying departure in the case of a removal order not in force ...................... 90)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-41", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 41", + "marginal_note": "When a removal order is enforced by an officer outside of Canada (Canadian", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "41 When a removal order is enforced by an officer outside of Canada (Canadian\nMission) – R240(2) ...................................................................................... 93", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 41 (When a removal order is enforced by an officer outside of Canada (Canadian)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-42", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 42", + "marginal_note": "When a removal order is administratively enforced by an officer in Canada –", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "42 When a removal order is administratively enforced by an officer in Canada –\nR240(3) ............................................................................................................... 94\n42.1 Verifying departure by an officer in Canada................................................. 95", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 42 (When a removal order is administratively enforced by an officer in Canada –)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-43", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 43", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Persons refused entry to their country of destination after a Certificate", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "43 Procedure: Persons refused entry to their country of destination after a Certificate\nof Departure has been issued ........................................................................ 95", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 43 (Procedure: Persons refused entry to their country of destination after a Certificate)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-43-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 43.1", + "marginal_note": "Options available after being refused entry to another country ...................... 96", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "43.1 Options available after being refused entry to another country ...................... 96\n44.1 Persons who can be removed to the U.S. .................................................... 97", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 43.1 (Options available after being refused entry to another country ...................... 96)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-44-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 44.4", + "marginal_note": "Persons issued a direction to leave or a direction to return to the U.S. after", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "44.4 Persons issued a direction to leave or a direction to return to the U.S. after\napplying for entry at a Canadian POE ......................................................... 98", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 44.4 (Persons issued a direction to leave or a direction to return to the U.S. after)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-45-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 45.1", + "marginal_note": "Notice to the U.S. in cases involving medical care or treatment ..................... 98", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "45.1 Notice to the U.S. in cases involving medical care or treatment ..................... 98\n45.2 Official records and privacy consideration ................................................... 98", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 45.1 (Notice to the U.S. in cases involving medical care or treatment ..................... 98)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-45-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 45.3", + "marginal_note": "Notification of persons being removed for criminal or drug offences ............... 99", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "45.3 Notification of persons being removed for criminal or drug offences ............... 99\n45.4 Request for confirmation of vital statistics in the U.S. ................................... 99\n45.5 Removal via the U.S. to other countries ................................................... 100\nPART VI – File Closure ............................................................................................ 101\n46 Procedure: File clean-up after removal ......................................................... 101\n2025-02-03 6", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 45.3 (Notification of persons being removed for criminal or drug offences ............... 99)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47.1", + "marginal_note": "Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "47.1 Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103\n48 Procedure: Repayment of removal expenses ................................................. 103\n49 Procedure: Victims Bill of Rights .................................................................. 104\n50 Procedure: Electronic Travel Authorization Cancellation .................................. 104\n2025-02-03 7\nUpdates to Chapter\nListing by dates:\nDate: 2025-02-03\nThe manual has been updated to display the following structure:\nPART I Introduction\nPART II Removal Program\nPART III Removal Preparation\nPART IV Escorted Removals\nPART V Verifying Departure\nPART VI File Closure\nProcedure 6 outlines updates to the Definitions section\nProcedure 7 amended to Information Management to include section 7.2 Retaining and\nFiling Information that provides guidance on retaining and filing electronic sources of\ninformation, including instant messages and emails\nProcedure 8 Removal Priorities was updated to reflect levels of priority\nProcedure 9 Vulnerable Persons was added including Gender Based Violence (GBV)\nguiding principles and reference information.\nProcedure 10 Authority to remove from Canada was updated to include “actionable\ncases”. 10.1 Types of Removal Orders Consolidates Procedures: 9, 24, and 30 from the\nprevious version of the manual and includes Consequences of the different removal\norders\nProcedure 11 Statutory and Regulatory Stays procedure updated from “Legal\nimpediments that may stay removal”, and update to guidance in A50(b) that a\nconditional sentence order is not considered a term of imprisonment from which a\nforeign national can benefit from a stay of removal.\nProcedure 12.11 Person under removal is subject of a conditional sentence order (CSO)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47.1 (Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103) (part 1 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47.1", + "marginal_note": "Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "updated to reflect the Tran v. Canada decision rendered on October 19, 2017\nProcedure 13 Temporary Suspension of Removals (TSRs) and Administrative Deferral of\nRemovals (ADRs) was updated to include Administrative Deferral of Removals.\nProcedure 15 Interim Measures and Precautionary Measures Requests procedures\nupdated, and wording change under American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of\nMan, from “that allow for”, to “may request”.\nProcedure 20 File review and pre-removal interview was updated to include additional\nguidance for confirming identity, as well as information referring to the IRPR stipulations\nregarding the automatic cancellation of work and/or study permits once a removal order\nis enforceable.\nProcedure 21 PRRA was updated (was previously Procedure 25), and includes\ninformation on PRRA eligibility, the new procedure outlining PRRA Bar applicability and\n2025-02-03 8\ncalculations, additional information to consider when calculating the bar, and\nexemptions.\nProcedure 21.8 guidance is provided should the foreign national choose to withdraw\nfrom the PRRA process.\nProcedure 21.11 updated with clear guidance for restriction assessment process and\ncontacts at DANSC, NHQ.\nProcedure 22 Obtaining travel documents updated to reflect roles and responsibilities.\nProcedure 23 Seizure of documents updated referencing ENF12.\nProcedure 24 Subsistence for persons under a removal order policy updated with\nguidance for requesting and releasing the funds, and maintaining accurate records.\nProcedure 25 Medical Requirements necessary for Removal (MRR) procedure and\ncontact information was updated.\nProcedure 26 Notifying commercial transporters - Transporter liability (Air and Marine\nMode) updated including procedure and documents required when the transporter is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47.1 (Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103) (part 2 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47.1", + "marginal_note": "Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "responsible for cost of removal.\nProcedure 27 Notifications to LOs and RCMP was updated to reflect requirements to\ncontact Liaison Officers.\nPART IV - ESCORTED REMOVALS This section is currently under review.\nPART V – Verifying Departure is a new part that includes amended procedures from Part\nIII Scheduling Removal in the previous version.\nProcedure 39 Confirmation of Departure was updated.\nProcedure 40 When the departure is verified at the POE – R240(1) added.\nProcedure 41 When a removal order is enforced by an officer outside of Canada (Canadian\nMission) – R240(2) added.\nProcedure 42 When a removal order is administratively enforced by an officer in Canada –\nR240(3) added.\nProcedure 48 Repayment of removal expenses updated to reflect current guidance effective\nApril 1, 2025.\nAPPENDIX references removed.\n2017-02-24\nA number of changes have been made throughout the chapter to reflect new policies as well\nas to correct and update information.\nAs well, content from ENF 11 has been incorporated into ENF 10.\n2025-02-03 9\n2010-03-31\nChanges were made to provide clarification to the definition of escort types throughout the\nchapters. Minor changes were made where appropriate.\nMinor changes were made to reflect new title and number on forms.\nChanges were made throughout the chapters to reflect the termination of the Reciprocal\nArrangement between Canada and the U.S.\nAn intranet link was added to the delegation section for easy reference.\nSection 9 – Amended to reflect the three types of removal orders.\nSection 10.1 and 10.2 – Amended to remove the wording “under the IRPA” when referring to\ndetention.\nSection 11 – Links to court decision were added for reference purposes.\nSection 13 procedure – Temporary Suspension of Removals (TSRs) has been added for\nreference.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47.1 (Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103) (part 3 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47.1", + "marginal_note": "Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Section 14 procedure – Sanctuary in places of worship has been added for reference.\nSection 19 procedure – United Nations Interim Measures has been added.\n2009-05-26\nA number of changes have been made throughout the chapter to reflect new policies as well\nas to correct and update information and hyperlinks.\nThe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP) has been changed to\nMinister of Public Safety Canada (PS). The Immigration Warrant Response Centre (IWRC) has\nbeen changed to the Warrant Response Centre (WRC). CIC Medical Services Branch has been\nchanged to CIC Health Management Branch.\nSection 3 has been amended to include a reference to security certificates and protection of\ninformation, pursuant to Bill C-3 which received Royal Assent on February 14, 2008. The\ndescription of a security certificate as a removal order has been added.\nThe definition of voluntary compliance has been clarified in Section 6.\nSection 12.11 has been revised to reflect the correct interpretation of IRPA regarding\nconditional sentence orders as a stay of removal under A50(b).\nNew instructions for seeking diplomatic assurances in death penalty cases is included in\nSection 14.1.\nSection 33 has been updated to include instructions for closing certain cases in FOSS with a\n“GUF5.”\n2006-01-19\nChanges were made to reflect transition from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) to\nthe Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). The term \"delegated officer\" was replaced with\n\"Minister's delegate\" throughout text, references to \"departmental policy\" were eliminated,\nreferences to the CIC and CBSA officers and the Citizenship and Immigration (C&I) Minister\n2025-02-03 10\nand the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP) Minister were made where", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47.1 (Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103) (part 4 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47-1-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47.1", + "marginal_note": "Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "appropriate, and other minor changes were made.\n2004-10-28\nSection 11.2 has been updated to replace a link to the list of countries for which there is a\nTSR. The old link was no longer operational.\nSections 22 and 22.1 have been completely replaced to reflect new procedures that were put\nin place in May 2004 and were published on the Investigations and Removals website.\nProcedure, position titles and contacts have been updated.\nSection 24.1 has been updated as one of the positions referred to was outdated. Details of\nthe procedure and contacts were also added to the last paragraph.\nSection 25 has been updated to change the title “Immigration Control Officer” for “Migration\nIntegrity Officer” as per the new procedure in Section 22.1.\nSection 35.2 has been clarified to read “after a removal order comes into force” instead of\nthe former “becomes enforceable.”\n2003-10-20\nAppendix D - 1, Appendix D - 2, Appendix E - 1, Appendix E - 2, Appendix F and Appendix G\nhave been updated.\n2003-06-27\nLinks added.\n2003-05-07\nAmong many changes to this chapter, the highlights include:\nSection 5.1 has been updated to provide a web link to the Treasury Board Travel Guidelines\nwhich took effect October 1, 2002.\nSection 6 introduces new definitions for Authorization to Return to Canada (ARC) and\nPreviously Deported Person (PDP).\nSection 9.3 has incorporated new procedures for determining the calculation of when a\nremoval order comes under A49(2), specifically when a decision (formerly known as\ndeemed notification) was mailed by the Refugee Protection Division.\nSection 9.5 provides guidance when determining if a removal order is no longer in force and\neffect.\nSection 10.1 has removed the guidelines for deemed notification. For further information on", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47.1 (Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103) (part 5 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47-1-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47.1", + "marginal_note": "Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "determining when a removal order comes into force for decisions delivered by mail, refer to\nthe new instructions in section 9.3.\nSection 11.2 provides a direct web link for a list of countries to which CIC is currently not\nremoving (TSRs).\nSection 12 has been modified to assist in the application of A50(a) which deals with stays of\nremoval. Note: This section is currently under review and further details will be provided as\nthey become available.\n2025-02-03 11\nSection 15 provides amendments to the guidelines for the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment\n(PRRA) program.\nSection 17 has been amended and provides a link to chapter ENF 11 - Verifying Departure\nChapter (sections 10 and 11) for the procedures in determining whether a person should be\nremoved through voluntary compliance or removal by the Minister.\nSection 18 is a new section on entering data on Previously Deported Persons (PDP) onto\nCPIC. This section provides on overview of the PDP initiative, provides the procedures to\ncomplete the PDP screen in FOSS after a person's departure has been verified, as well as the\ncriteria for the PDP information to be downloaded to CPIC.\nSection 19.4 is a new section outlining the circumstances for returning seized documents to\nrefugee claimants.\nSection 20 has been amended to provide clarification on obtaining travel documents.\nSection 24.1 has been amended to provide discretion to officers when contacting Medical\nServices at NHQ in cases where persons with medical conditions who are subject to removal\nfrom Canada claim that inadequate treatment or facilities are available in their destination\ncountry.\nSection 31 provides clarification to the guidelines on repayment of removal expenses for\npersons removed at the expense of CIC.\n2003-05-05", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47.1 (Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103) (part 6 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47-1-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47.1", + "marginal_note": "Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Section 18, Entering Previously Deported Persons onto CPIC. New sections provide details on\nthe scope of the PDP initiative and guidance to officers after enforcing removal orders. These\nsections provide details on how to complete the new PDP document in order to enable the\nPREV.DEP flag in FOSS and identify a record for download to CPIC-PDP database.\n2025-02-03 12\nPART I – Introduction", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47.1 (Who will be added to the previously deported persons database in GCMS? .. 103) (part 7 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter describes how to remove foreign nationals from Canada who have contravened the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and its Regulations and who are the subject of an\nenforceable removal order. It is designed to assist officers in planning, organizing and directing the\nremoval of foreign nationals from Canada who are the subject of departure, exclusion or deportation\norders. This also includes the process to verify/confirm departure of foreign nationals who are at a\nport of entry (POE) or a visa office outside Canada and are the subject of enforceable removal orders.\nIn addition, the latter part of this chapter, to be read in conjunction with the general removal policies\nand procedures, outlines specific procedures for the removal of foreign nationals to the United States.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program Objectives", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program Objectives\nThe objectives of Canada’s immigration policy concerning removals are to maintain and protect public\norder, health and security in Canada;\n to ensure that all the legal rights accorded to foreign nationals being removed are observed;\n to conduct their removal effectively and equitably;\n verify the removal of foreign nationals efficiently and expeditiously;\n ensure that foreign nationals required to leave Canada actually do so;\n ensure that foreign nationals who are the subject of enforceable removal orders leave Canada\nimmediately and that the removal order is enforced as soon as possible; and\n allow the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to update their records to indicate that a\ncase has been concluded and no further enforcement action is required.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 2 (Program Objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and Regulations\nOfficers responsible for the removal of foreign nationals from Canada should be familiar with the\nlegislative and regulatory authorities contained in IRPA and its Regulations. The following are\nreferenced authorities that should assist officers.\nProvision Section\nForeign national A2(1)\nPermanent resident A2(1)\nEnforceable removal order A48(1)\nEffect of an enforceable removal order A48(2)\nWhen a removal order comes into force: non-refugee protection claimants A49(1)\nWhen a removal order comes into force: refugee protection claimants A49(2)\nStay of removal: decision made at a judicial proceeding/Public Safety Canada (PS) Minister\ngiven an opportunity to make submissions/if directly contravened by the enforcement of a\nremoval order\nA50(a)\nStay of removal: sentenced to a term of imprisonment in Canada A50(b)\n2025-02-03 13\nStay of removal: duration of stay imposed by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) or any\nother court of competent jurisdiction\nA50(c)\nStay of removal: duration of stay under A114(1)(b) A50(d)\nStay of removal: duration of stay imposed by the PS Minister A50(e)\nAuthorization to Return to Canada after an enforced removal order A52(1)\nArrest and detention with a warrant A55(1)\nArrest and detention without a warrant A55(2)\nDetention by the Immigration Division A58(2)\nOrder for the delivery of inmate at the end of the period of detention A59\nA security certificate that has been determined to be reasonable is a removal order that is in\nforce\nA80\nArrest and detention of a permanent resident or foreign national named in an A77(1)\ncertificate\nA81\nRelease by the PS Minister from detention for removal from Canada A82.4\nExceptions for Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) protection A112(2)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Persons granted PRRA protection but restricted from being conferred refugee protection A112(3)\nUnenforced removal order – no visa shall be issued R25\nConditions for stay of removal – pre-removal risk assessment (under R232) R162\nand\nR163\nPRRA application received within 15 days must not be decided until at least 30 days after\nnotification was given\nR164\nRequirements to return to Canada - departure order R224(1)\nDeparture order becoming a deportation order R224(2)\n/\nR224(3)\nRequirements to return to Canada - one-year exclusion order R225(1)\nRequirements to return to Canada - five-year exclusion order R225(2)\n/\nR225(3)\nRequirements to return to Canada - deportation order R226(1)\nStay of removal: temporary suspension for generalized risk R230\nStay of removal: judicial review of an RAD decision R231\nStay of removal: PRRA R232\nStay of removal: humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) or public policy considerations R233\nApplication of A50(a) R234\nModality of enforcement: voluntary compliance or removal by the Minister R237\nRequirements for voluntary compliance R238(1)\nVoluntary compliance: choice of country R238(2)\nRequirements for removal by the PS Minister R239\nWhen a removal order is enforced - requirements R240(1)\nCircumstances when a removal order is enforced outside Canada R240(2)\nWhen a removal order is enforced by an officer in Canada R240(3)\nCountry of removal when removed by the PS Minister R241(1)\n2025-02-03 14\nCircumstances when the Minister selects the country of removal R241(2)\nMandatory removal by the PS Minister and the PS Minister selects a country of removal R241(3)\nTransferred under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act: not authorized to enter\nanother country (order not enforced)\nR242", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Requirements to return to Canada: payment of prescribed removal costs if removed by the PS\nMinister\nR243\nNotifying commercial transporter R276\nRelief from obligations R277", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-3-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Transitional provisions", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 Transitional provisions\nIRPA and its Regulations establish a transitional correspondence between the removal provisions of\nthe former Immigration Act, 1976, and IRPA. Each transitional provision having an impact on the\nremovals program is outlined below.\nApplication of IRPA\nUnder the transitional provision of A190, every application, proceeding or matter under the former\nAct that was pending or in progress immediately before the coming into force of this section shall be\ngoverned by IRPA on that coming into force.\nStays\nUnder the transitional provision of A197 and despite A192, if an appellant who has been granted a\nstay under the former Act breaches a condition of that stay, the appellant shall be subject to A64\nand A68(4).\nDecisions made under former Act\nUnder the transitional provision of R317(1), a decision made under the former Act that was in effect\nimmediately prior to the coming into force of IRPA continues to be in effect after that coming into\nforce.\nRemoval orders\nUnder the transitional provision of R319(1), a removal order made under the former Act that was\nunexecuted continues in force and is subject to the provisions of the IRPA.\nStay of removal\nUnder the transitional provision of R319(2) and (3), the enforcement of a removal order that had\nbeen stayed under paragraph 49(1)(c), (d), (e) and (f) of the former Act continues to be stayed\nuntil the earliest of the events described in R231(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).\nThis provision does not apply if the subject of the removal order was determined by the Convention\nRefugee Determination Division not to have a credible basis for their claim; or the subject of the\nremoval order is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, or resides or sojourns in the U.S. or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 3.1 (Transitional provisions) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-3-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Transitional provisions", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "St. Pierre and Miquelon and is the subject of a report prepared under A44(1) on their entry into\nCanada.\nConditional removal order\nUnder the transitional provision of R319(4), a conditional removal order made under the former Act\ncontinues in force and is subject to A49(2).\nEnforced removal order\nUnder the transitional provision of R319(5), A52 applies to a person who was outside Canada after\na removal order had been enforced against them.\n2025-02-03 15\nWarrants\nUnder the transitional provision of R325(1), a warrant for the arrest and detention made under the\nformer Act is a warrant for arrest and detention made under IRPA.\nRemoval not prohibited\nUnder the transitional provision of R326(3), a person whose removal was allowed by the application\nof paragraph 53(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the former Act is a person referred to in A115(2).\nJudicial review\nUnder the transitional provision of R348(1), any application for leave to commence an application\nfor judicial review and any application for judicial review or appeal from an application that was\nbrought under the former Act and is pending or in progress before the Federal Court or the\nSupreme Court of Canada is deemed to have been commenced under Division 8 of Part 1 of IRPA\nand is governed by the provisions of that Division and section 87.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 3.1 (Transitional provisions) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.2 Forms\nThe forms required are shown in the following table.\nForm Title Form number\nCertificate of Departure IMM0056B\nOrder for Detention BSF304\nDetained Sticker BSF578\nDenial of Authorization to Return to Canada IMM1202B\nAuthorization to Return to Canada IMM1203B\nRemoval Costs Payable by Transporter BSF501\nNotice to Transporter BSF502\nDirection to Leave Canada BSF503\nEnvelope: Removal Documents BSF582\nDirection to Return to the United States BSF505\nNotice of Removal and Profile BSF560\nNotice of Issuance of Permit IMM1443B\nRemoval Checklist and File Audit BSF522\nSingle Journey Document IMM5149B\nWithdrawal of a Claim for Refugee Protection Prior to Referral to the\nRefugee Protection Division\nIMM 5317B\nCriminality BSF571\nUse of Force Incident Report BSF586\n2025-02-03 16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 3.2 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Instruments and delegations\nRecognizing their respective mandates, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada\n(IRCC) and the Public Safety (PS) Minister may designate persons or class of persons as officers to\ncarry out any purpose of any provision of IRPA; delegate their powers and functions under IRPA,\nunless otherwise provided.\nWhile the PS Minister and the CBSA has the policy lead for enforcement with respect to IRPA, IRCC\ncontinues to be responsible for screening applicants for inadmissibility and for acting on that\nresponsibility, according to their delegated authority.\nPursuant to A6(1) and A6(2), the Minister [IRCC or PS] has designated persons or class of persons as\nofficers to carry out any purpose of any provision, legislative or regulatory, and has specified the\npowers and duties of the officers so designated. Refer to the Designation of Officers and Delegation of\nAuthority documents in IL 3 for more details.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-5-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 5.1", + "marginal_note": "Responsibilities of an inland CBSA removals office", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.1 Responsibilities of an inland CBSA removals office\nInland Enforcement officers are responsible for making removal arrangements for:\n persons ordered removed by the Immigration Division;\n persons ordered removed by a Minister’s delegate; and\n persons ordered removed at a POE but could not be removed by the POE.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 5.1 (Responsibilities of an inland CBSA removals office)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-5-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 5.2", + "marginal_note": "Responsibility for POE cases", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.2 Responsibility for POE cases\nBorder Services Officers (BSO) are responsible for making removal arrangements for cases where the\nperson is issued a removal order and the removal order can be enforced immediately (e.g. denied\nentry into Canada, can be removed on the next available flight, etc).\nFor all other cases where a removal order has been issued at a POE to persons who cannot be\nremoved immediately, BSOs must transfer the file as soon as possible to their nearest Inland\nEnforcement removal office. The file should be accompanied with a summary of the case and the\nreason why the file is being transferred.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 5.2 (Responsibility for POE cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Definitions\nActionable Actionable is defined as cases that are PRRA-barred and\nno stays, impediments, or active immigration warrants\nexist.\nAccompaniment Escort Occurs when management has identified that there is no\nrisk, but due to airline, in-transit or foreign rules there is\na requirement for an officer presence. This is for\nfacilitation purposes only.\n2025-02-03 17\nAuthorization to return to Canada\n(ARC)\nWritten authorization by an officer, in prescribed\ncircumstances, to allow a person to return to Canada\nafter their removal order has been enforced.\nCertificate of Departure This document confirms that the person named on the\nremoval order has appeared before an officer at the POE\nto verify their departure, that they have departed from\nCanada, and have been authorized to enter their country\nof destination. This document also confirms the\nenforcement of a removal order outside Canada or the\nenforcement of the removal order in Canada when the\nofficer confirms that the foreign national has departed\nfrom Canada.\nEnforceable removal order\nA removal order that has come into force and is not\nstayed.\nEnforced removal order A removal order is enforced only after the requirements\nof R240(1), R240(2), or R240(3) have been met.\nEscorts When it has been determined that an enforcement\npresence is required when the individual under a removal\norder is being transported, accompanied or escorted due\nto risk.\nGender-based violence (GBV) Violence committed against someone based on their\ngender, gender expression, gender identity or perceived\ngender, and is a violation of human rights. It takes many\nforms, including physical, economic, sexual, as well as\nemotional (psychological) abuse.\nForeign national A person who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 6 (Definitions) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "resident, including a stateless person.\nPermanent resident A person who has acquired permanent resident\nstatus and has not subsequently lost that status\nunder A46.\nPre-Removal Risk Assessment\n(PRRA)\nA process which assesses risk prior to the removal of a\nperson who is eligible to apply for a PRRA.\nPreviously deported person (PDP) A person whose deportation order has been enforced and\nrequires authorization to return to Canada by an officer\npursuant to A52(1).\nRemoval by the Minister The PS Minister must enforce a removal order where the\nforeign national does not or cannot avail themselves of\nenforcement by voluntary compliance, a negative\ndetermination is made under R238(1), or the foreign\nnational’s choice of destination is not approved under\nR238(2).\n2025-02-03 18\nRemoval order comes into force A removal order made with respect to a person who is\nnot a refugee protection claimant comes into force on the\nlatest of the dates set out in A49(1). With respect to a\nperson who has made a claim for refugee protection, the\nremoval order is conditional and comes into force on the\nlatest of the dates set out in A49(2).\nRisk-based Escort When an enforcement officer travels outside Canada to\neffect a removal where management has determined\nthat sufficient risk exists to justify it.\nStay of removal The PS Minister cannot remove a person from Canada in\ncircumstances where IRPA or the Regulations specify\nthat the removal is prohibited, or where there is a valid\ncourt order prohibiting the person’s removal.\nTransport Escort Occurs when an individual under a removal order is\nbeing:\n transported from one location to another within\nCanada;\n transported to the last departure point in Canada;\n transferred by land to the United States POE.\nSecurity guards contracted by the CBSA will do", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 6 (Definitions) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "this work where services are available.\nUnenforced removal order A removal order that has not been enforced in\naccordance with IRPA and the Regulations.\nVoluntary compliance A person who is not a danger to the public, a fugitive\nfrom justice in Canada or another country, or seeking to\nevade or frustrate the cause of justice in Canada or\nanother country may voluntarily comply with a removal\norder before an officer and satisfy the officer that the\nrequirements of R238(1)(a) and (b) and R238(2) have\nbeen met. The foreign national must be in a position to\nobtain their own travel documents and pay for all\nremoval arrangements.\n2025-02-03 19", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 6 (Definitions) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Removals Wiki", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Removals Wiki\nOfficers should regularly visit the Removals Wiki site developed and updated by the Removals\nProgram Management Unit at NHQ.\nThis site provides assistance and instructions to officers performing removal functions and includes:\n current policy instructions;\n the list of countries to which removal has been temporarily suspended;\n removal statistics;\n operational updates\n other useful links for other governments or agencies in Canada and abroad.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 7.1 (Removals Wiki)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Retaining and Filing Information", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Retaining and Filing Information\nAll records, documents, officer notes, and correspondence including electronic sources of\ninformation, regardless of medium or format, such as emails and instant messages that pertain to a\nforeign national’s removal must be added to the foreign national’s file and retained as outlined in\nthe Program, Policy and Operational Direction – Retention and Disposition Schedule and guided by\nthe CBSA’s Enterprise Information Management Division.\nThe CBSA Program Policy and Operational Direction Retention Schedule provides:\n descriptions of records created, used and received at the Agency;\n standards for how long each record series should be kept;\n direction on how to dispose of records when retention periods are complete;\n links to applicable legislation, corporate policies and industry guidelines;\n inventory of personal information banks held by the Agency.\nThe records retention schedule applies equally to paper and electronic records as well as structured\ndatabases.\nCase files other than A34, A35, A36(1) and A37 of IRPA must be retained for 10 years after one of\nthe following conditions is met: departure of foreign national has been confirmed, person concerned\nbecomes Canadian citizen, person concerned is removed under the Extradition Act, Convention\nRefugee status has been ceased/vacated.\nSerious case files relating to persons known or suspected of engaging in activities contrary to\nsections A34, A35, A36(1) and A37of IRPA should continue to be retained for 65 years or until the\nforeign national reaches 120 years of age after one of the following conditions is met: departure of\nforeign national has been confirmed, person concerned becomes Canadian citizen, person\nconcerned is removed under the Extradition Act, Convention Refugee status has been\nceased/vacated. Once this period has elapsed, the serious case files must be transferred to Library\nand Archives Canada and cannot be destroyed.\nMore information can be found in the Program, Policy and Operational Direction – Retention and\nDisposition Schedule accessible on CBSA Atlas.\n2025-02-03 20\nPART II – Removal Program", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 7.2 (Retaining and Filing Information)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Removal Priorities", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8 Procedure: Removal Priorities\nConsistent with CBSA priorities, the removals program focuses on cases that pose the greatest\nrisk to the safety and security of Canadians and ensuring the integrity of Canada’s immigration\nprogram. In this regard, while all removals are to occur as soon as possible, specific cases are\nconsidered a greater priority. Below are the three tiers of case priority with corresponding IRPA\nsections:\n Tier One – Safety and Security grounds, specifically, foreign nationals inadmissible for\nsecurity (s. 34); international or human rights violations (s. 35); criminality (s. 36); and\norganized crime (s.37). Failed refugee claimants (s.41(a)), who entered Canada between\nofficial POEs (irregular migrants) are also considered tier one due to their impact on the\nasylum system;\n Tier Two – Regular failed refugee claimants (s.41(a)), who entered Canada through a\ndesignated POE; and\n Tier Three – All other inadmissibilities.\nIt should be noted that all removal cases are a priority, but an officer’s efforts should first be\ndirected to cases in tier one. Note, a detained case in any of the three tiers will always be\nconsidered a tier one priority.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 8 (Procedure: Removal Priorities)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "Vulnerable Persons", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9 Vulnerable Persons\nIt is an overall goal of Canada’s immigration program to treat all persons with dignity and respect. In\nexercising their IRPA authorities, officials must approach all cases in a nonjudgmental manner, remain\nsensitive to the potential needs and limitations of vulnerable persons, and recognize that a person they\nare dealing with may have experienced some form of violence, abuse or trauma.\nWhen making removal arrangements, officers need to be sensitive to the fact that a person they\nencounter may have been subjected to specific violence, trauma, or abuse based solely on the\ngender, perceived gender, gender identity or gender expression, as well as sexual\norientation. This is referred to as gender-based violence (GBV), which is a human rights violation.\nIt is important to note that GBV can take many forms, including physical, economic, sexual, as well as\nemotional (psychological) abuse.\nOfficers should be aware that certain individuals face a greater risk of experiencing GBV including:\nwomen, girls, 2SLGBTQI+ people and people living with disabilities. Moreover, the risk of GBV may be\nincreased with the intersection of any two or more of these characteristics.\nIn the context of removals, vulnerable persons may include, but are not limited to:\n minors (under 18 years of age), including unaccompanied minors;\n elderly persons;\n individuals with severe medical conditions or physical disabilities;\n persons with a suspected or known mental illness;\n2025-02-03 21\n persons who have suffered traumatic experiences that resulted in some degree of\nvulnerability, including:\no persons who may face hardship for sexual or gender based reasons or who may\nbe victims or survivors of gender-based violence. victims/suspected victims of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 9 (Vulnerable Persons) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "Vulnerable Persons", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "trafficking in persons (VTIPs) or family violence.\nDepending on their cultural background, victims of GBV may be reluctant to disclose their experiences in order to\nnot “shame” their families or communities.\nIn the context of removals, victims and survivors of GBV may be encountered both at the port of entry or inland.\nIn such cases, officers should be alert to such cases and will ensure to the extent possible that accommodations\nare made during removal arrangements (e.g., for female victims, have a female officer either conduct or be\npresent during an interview, and arrange, if possible, for a female interpreter).\nFor further resources on GBV, please refer to the Government of Canada’s Gender Based Violence Knowledge\nCentre (Canada.ca).\nNote: Officers should keep in mind that there are specific policy guidelines in place for vulnerable\nindividuals without status that may be victims of family violence. If a foreign national is in Canada,\ncurrently seeking permanent residence, which is contingent on upon remaining in a genuine\nrelationship with the suspected abusive partner or spouse, the CBSA will work with IRCC to ensure\nthe person is processed under the GBV guidelines.\nFor more information, refer to the Removals Wiki Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) for victims of\nfamily violence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 9 (Vulnerable Persons) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Types of removal orders", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1 Types of removal orders\nIRPR s.223 describes the three types of removal orders that can be issued to persons who are found\ninadmissible under the IRPA:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.1 (Types of removal orders)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Departure orders", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Departure orders\nDeparture orders are issued primarily to refugee claimants. For additional information on when a\nconditional departure order comes into force see section 9.3.\nForeign nationals who are issued departure orders must confirm their departure from Canada\nwithin 30 days after the order becomes enforceable. If the foreign national does not depart\nCanada within that period, the order automatically becomes a deportation order (deemed\ndeportation). This will affect the person’s requirements to return to Canada. If the removal order\nis enforced as a departure order that has become a deportation order, the foreign national will\nrequire an Authorization to Return to Canada by an officer [A52(1)].\nThe foreign national must be counselled on the requirements of R240(1)(a), (b) and (c) and\npresent themselves before an officer at a POE. Failure to meet these requirements will result in\nthe departure order becoming a deportation order under R224(2). Departure orders that have\nbeen enforced at a POE within the 30-day applicable period under R224(1) do not require a\nforeign national to obtain authorization to return to Canada under A52(1).\n2025-02-03 22\nCalculation of the applicable period for departure orders\nFor persons issued departure orders who remain in Canada under an unenforced removal order,\nofficers must, when verifying departure, consider and calculate the 30-day period. In calculating the\napplicable period for departure orders, officers must determine if there are any statutory or\nregulatory stays of removal or whether the person is detained under IRPA during the 30-day\napplicable period. Either of these circumstances will have the effect of “stopping the clock” and\nsuspending the 30-day period.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 1 (Departure orders) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Departure orders", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "To ensure that the applicable 30-day period is applied consistently, officers must become familiar\nwith the calculation periods and be aware that the applicable period is suspended when:\n the removal order against the person is stayed; or\n the person is detained under IRPA.\nUnder R224(3), the 30-day applicable period is suspended until the foreign national’s release or when\nthe stay is lifted. The applicable period resumes the day following the release or the removal of the\nstay. The number of days during the applicable period before the detention or stay is then subtracted\nfrom the time remaining in the original 30-day applicable period.\nCalculation of the applicable period for detained persons on a\ndeparture order\nIn cases where a foreign national is the subject of a departure order and has been detained in\nCanada, the 30-day applicable period is suspended under R224(3) until the foreign national’s\nrelease from detention. Once the foreign national is released, the remaining time, if any, resumes\nthe day following the person’s release.\nIt is very important that the GCMS/NCMS systems are updated when a person is detained or\nreleased under IRPA.\nExample: Detained on a departure order within the 30-day applicable period: A departure order\nbecomes enforceable on August 6, 2013. The foreign national is detained under IRPA on August 23,\n2013. The foreign national is then released from detention on September 2, 2013. From August 6,\n2013 to August 23, 2013, there are 17 days that are counted against the departure order. The clock\nresumes on September 3, 2013, and the foreign national has 13 days remaining to depart Canada\nand enforce the departure order. The detention period is not calculated as part of the 30-day", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 1 (Departure orders) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Departure orders", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "applicable period. The foreign national should yield to the departure order by September 15, 2013,\nin order to avoid a deportation order.\nExample: Detained on a departure order within the 30-day applicable period: A departure order\nbecomes enforceable on July 1, 2013. The foreign national is detained under IRPA on July 10, 2013.\nThe foreign national is released from detention on August 31, 2013. Even though the foreign\nnational was detained for a period of more than 30 days, the person is not considered to be under a\ndeportation order. From July 1, 2013 to July 10, 2013, there are nine days that are counted against\nthe departure order. The clock resumes on September 1, 2013, which is day 10 of the applicable\nperiod. The foreign national has 20 days to depart from Canada before the departure order\nbecomes a deportation order.\nWhen departure is verified, it is very important for officers to accurately indicate on the IMM0056B\nand in GCMS/NCMS whether the removal order is a departure or deportation order.\n2025-02-03 23\nCalculation of the applicable period for a stayed departure order\nIf a foreign national is the subject of a departure order that is stayed, the officer must consider\nwhether the person is on a valid stay or whether the stay has been lifted. If the stay has been\nlifted, the officer must calculate the 30-day applicable period, during the time there was no stay of\nremoval in effect. If this calculation shows that the person's time in Canada exceeds 30 days, the\norder becomes a deportation order. If the time period is within the 30-day applicable period, the\norder remains a departure order.\nExample: Stay of departure order: A departure order becomes enforceable on January 2, 2015. The", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 1 (Departure orders) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Departure orders", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "departure order is stayed on January 8, 2015. The stay is lifted on March 21, 2015. From January 2,\n2015 to January 8, 2015, there are six days that are counted against the departure order. From\nJanuary 8 to March 21, 2015, there are 72 days where the removal was stayed. This period is not\ncalculated as part of the 30-day applicable period. The clock resumes on March 22, 2015, and the\nforeign national has 24 days remaining from this date to depart Canada and enforce their departure\norder. The departure order must be enforced by April 14, 2015, in order to avoid a deportation\norder against the foreign national.\nWhen departure is verified, it is very important for officers to accurately indicate on the IMM0056\nand in GCMS/NCMS whether the removal order is a departure or deportation order.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 1 (Departure orders) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion orders", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Exclusion orders\nExclusion orders are issued primarily for less serious immigration violations.\nExclusion orders with a one-year ban under R225(1) require a foreign national to obtain\nauthorization to return to Canada under A52(1) if they wish to return within one year after their\nremoval order was enforced.\nExclusion orders with a five-year ban under R225(2) require a foreign national to obtain\nauthorization to return to Canada under A52(1) if they wish to return within five years after their\nremoval order was enforced.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 2 (Exclusion orders)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Deportation orders", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Deportation orders\nDeportation orders are issued primarily for more serious immigration violations.\nDeportation orders permanently bar a person from returning to Canada. Under R226(1), all persons\nwho are the subject of an enforced deportation order always require authorization to return to\nCanada under A52(1). A departure order becomes a deportation order, through operation of law,\nunder R224(2) if the foreign national does not meet the requirements to enforce their removal\norder under R240(1)(a), (b) and (c) within 30 days after the order becomes enforceable.\nRequirement to return for accompanying family members\nForeign nationals included in removal orders (exclusion or deportation orders) that have been made\non the basis that the person is an accompanying family member under A42(b) will not require\nauthorization to return to Canada under A52(1). Officers should counsel these persons accordingly\npursuant to R225(4) and R226(2).\nThe files of persons removed under A42(b) must not be downloaded into the previously deported\nperson database and will not be placed in CPIC.\n2025-02-03 24", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 3 (Deportation orders)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "When a removal order comes into force – non-", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2 When a removal order comes into force – non-\nrefugee protection claimant\nUnder A49(1), a removal order for a non-refugee protection claimant will come into force on the\nlatest of the following dates:\n the day the removal order is made, if there is no right to appeal [A49(1)(a)];\n the day the appeal period expires, if there is a right to appeal and no appeal is made\n[A49(1)(b)]; or\n the day of the final determination of the appeal, if an appeal is made [A49(1)(c)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.2 (When a removal order comes into force – non-)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "When a removal order comes into force – refugee", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.3 When a removal order comes into force – refugee\nprotection claimant\nWith respect to a refugee protection claimant, the removal order does not come into force under\nA49(2) until specific events have passed. At the time the removal order is made, it is not in force\nand is conditional until it comes into force on the latest of the following dates:\n the day the claim is determined to be ineligible under A101(1)(e) if the claimant came\ndirectly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the Regulations, other than a\ncountry of their nationality or former habitual residence [A49(2)(a)];\n in all cases other than A101(1)(e), seven days after the claim is determined to be ineligible\n[A49(2)(b)]; or\n 15 days after notification that the claim has been rejected by the Refugee Protection\nDivision (RPD) if no appeal is made, or by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) if an appeal is\nmade [A49(2)(c)];\n 15 days after notification that the claim is declared withdrawn or abandoned [A49(2)(d)] by\neither the RPD or RAD; or\n 15 days after proceedings have been terminated as a result of a notice that the claim was\nbased on misrepresentation under A104(1)(c) or the claim was not the first one made by\nthe claimant under A104(1)(d) [A49(2)(e)].\nFor the purposes of A49(2)(c) and A49(2)(d), the Refugee Protection Division Rules and Refugee\nAppeal Division Rules define when a decision is considered to be received, and whether that\ndecision is given in person or made in writing. After a decision takes effect, there is a 15-day period\nunder A49(2)(c) and A49(2)(d) for the removal order to come into force.\nEither party may withdraw a claim or an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection by one\nof the two methods below, depending on the status of the application.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.3 (When a removal order comes into force – refugee)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "No substantive evidence accepted by the RPD:", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. No substantive evidence accepted by the RPD:\nWithdrawal of a claim or application may occur under RPD rule 59(2) if the claimant informs the RPD\norally or in writing that they no longer want to continue their claim. In these cases, substantive\nevidence must not have been accepted at the RPD proceeding. If no evidence has been submitted,\nthe Registrar of the RPD may withdraw the claim, usually on the day the person requests to\nwithdraw. When the claim is withdrawn, the Registrar of the RPD will complete form RPD.12\n“Notification confirming the withdrawal of a claim for refugee protection [rule 59(2)]“ and notify the\nparties.\n2025-02-03 25", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 1 (No substantive evidence accepted by the RPD:)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Substantive evidence accepted by the RPD:", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Substantive evidence accepted by the RPD:\nWhen a claim or application for refugee protection is withdrawn under RPD rule 59(3) and\nsubstantive evidence has been submitted to the RPD, the person must make an application to the\nRPD to withdraw their claim. A hearing is conducted, either orally or in writing, and the RPD\nmember(s) will make a decision on the application. If the application is granted, the RPD Registrar\nwill complete form RPD12.3 “Notice of decision Application to withdraw [rule 59(3)]” and notify both\nthe claimant and the CBSA that the claim is withdrawn.\nDecisions delivered by regular mail\nThe RPD and RAD Rules provide the timelines for determining when a decision is considered to be\nreceived if it was delivered by regular mail. For A49(2)(c) and A49(2)(d) cases only, a document that\nis delivered by regular mail to a party in the proceeding is considered to be received seven days after\nthe day it was mailed. If the seventh day is a Saturday, Sunday or other statutory holiday, the\ndocument is considered to be received on the next working day [RPD rules 41(2) and 41(3); and RAD\nrules 35(2) and 35(3)].\nFor the purposes of the RPD Rules, a decision is provided through a notice of decision [RPD rule\n67(1)] and is considered to be a document under RPD rule 31. Similarly, for the RAD, a decision is\nprovided through a notice of decision [RAD rule 50(1)] and is considered a document under RAD rule", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 2 (Substantive evidence accepted by the RPD:)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-27", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 27", + "marginal_note": "Notification under A49(2)(c) and A49(2)(d) is the delivery date of a notice of decision.", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "27. Notification under A49(2)(c) and A49(2)(d) is the delivery date of a notice of decision.\nFor the purpose of the RPD and RAD Rules, regular mail does not include decisions that are delivered\nby a means other than the Canada Post regular standard mail service. In cases where a decision is\ndelivered by means other than regular mail (i.e., fax, courier service, e-mail), the decision takes\neffect when the person receives the decision. For these cases, proof of service will establish the date\non which the decision was received.\nExample: Calculation of the notification period for a decision sent by mail\nAn appeal of a negative RPD claim was rejected by the RAD on July 31, 2015, and the decision was\nmailed on the same day using a regular mailing service provided by Canada Post. The seven-day\ncalculation period for the delivery of the decision begins on August 1 and ends on August 7. As the\nappeal of the negative claim was rejected by the RAD, the removal order will come into force on\nAugust 22, 2015, which is 15 days after the person was notified of the decision. If there is no stay of\nremoval, a departure order comes into force and the person must depart Canada within 30 days. If\nthe refugee claimant was issued an exclusion or deportation order and if there is no stay of removal,\nthe removal order would become enforceable and the person must leave Canada immediately [A48].\nThere is a simple way to calculate the notification period for the majority of decisions sent by regular\nmail: there is a seven-day mailing period plus a 15-day period before the removal order comes into\nforce. This equals 22 days from the date of mailing of a decision for the removal order to come into\nforce. It is important to remember that in cases where the seventh day falls on a statutory holiday,\nthe calculation of time for when the removal order will come into force must be adjusted accordingly.\nDecisions delivered in person\nWhen a decision is made at an RPD or RAD hearing, the decision takes effect when the Division\nmember or a three-member panel states the decision orally and, if applicable, gives reasons for the\ndecision.\n2025-02-03 26\nDecisions made in writing\nWhen a decision is made by the RPD or RAD in writing, it will take effect when the Division member\nor a three-member panel signs and dates the reasons for the decision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 27 (Notification under A49(2)(c) and A49(2)(d) is the delivery date of a notice of decision.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.4", + "marginal_note": "When a removal order becomes enforceable", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.4 When a removal order becomes enforceable\nA removal order is enforceable under A48(1) after the removal order has come into force and is not\nstayed. If a removal order is enforceable, the foreign national must leave Canada immediately and\nthe order must be enforced as soon as possible.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.4 (When a removal order becomes enforceable)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.5", + "marginal_note": "When a removal order is actionable", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.5 When a removal order is actionable\nActionable is defined as cases where the pre-removal risk assessment has been completed, if eligible,\nand no stays, impediments, or active immigration warrants exist. It is incumbent upon each CBSA\nremoval officer to ensure these cases are removed as soon as possible in coordination with the\npriorities for removal (see section 8).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.5 (When a removal order is actionable)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Removal orders no longer enforceable –", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.6 Removal orders no longer enforceable –\nPardons/Acquittals on appeal\nIf a Canadian criminal conviction is pardoned or acquitted on appeal, a removal order based solely on\nthat conviction must not subsequently be enforced. If the pardon or acquittal is later revoked or\noverturned pursuant to the Criminal Records Act, the removal order may become enforceable again.\nThere will be some cases where the inadmissibility report contained more than one allegation or\nthere was more than one conviction. It may be necessary to review the transcript of the admissibility\nhearing to determine which allegations formed the basis of the removal order. If there was a finding\nof inadmissibility for any other allegation, or for other convictions which have not been pardoned or\nacquitted, the removal order remains enforceable. The order becomes unenforceable only if all of the\nconvictions reflected in the removal order have been pardoned or acquitted.\nThe pardon or acquittal does not have the effect of erasing the deportation order from the record or\nrendering it invalid. If the pardon is revoked or ceases to have effect, the removal order will become\nenforceable again as a result. A pardon is prospective: the intent is to eliminate any negative\nconsequences of the conviction after the time of the pardon. However, it does not erase the\nconviction or any resulting consequences that occurred before the pardon was granted.\nThis policy reflects the jurisprudence in Smith v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)\n(1998), a valid deportation or exclusion order may not be enforced after a pardon has been granted\nfor the offence in question, the conviction has been revoked under the Criminal Records Act, or there\nhas been a final determination of an acquittal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.6 (Removal orders no longer enforceable –) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Removal orders no longer enforceable –", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Former Permanent Residents\nIf the removal order was issued against a permanent resident, then the person lost that status under\nsection 46(1)(c) on the day the removal order came into force. Following a pardon or acquittal, there\nis no provision in IRPA for the person to regain permanent resident status, despite the removal order\nbecoming unenforceable. The person remains a foreign national and may reapply for permanent\nresidence in the normal manner. The valid removal order is simply deferred until permanent\nresidence is granted. Although the person may no longer be inadmissible, it does not change the fact\nthat they were inadmissible at the time the removal order was issued. Therefore, their permanent\nresidence status was lost.\n2025-02-03 27\nOfficers should prepare a letter to the person outlining that:\nAs a result of a pardon/acquittal on [insert date of pardon/acquittal] at [Correctional Services Canada\nor court and location of acquittal] of a conviction of [insert offence name and section number of the\noffence], the [insert type of removal order and document number] issued on [insert date of removal\norder issuance] will not be enforced. On the day that your removal order came into force, your status\nbecame that of a foreign national. You may obtain an application for permanent residence by\naccessing the IRCC Web site at www.cic.gc.ca, or by contacting the Call Centre at 1-888-242-2100.\nPlease note that any further evidence of inadmissibility, including any future convictions, could result\nin enforcement action.\nUpdating NCMS and GCMS\nAfter court records have been reviewed to confirm the pardon or acquittal, the case should be closed\nin GCMS with remarks specifying which convictions have been pardoned or acquitted and that the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.6 (Removal orders no longer enforceable –) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-10-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Removal orders no longer enforceable –", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "removal order is not enforceable. This information will assist with any future encounters with the\nindividual by the CBSA.\nThe removal order disposition in GCMS should be left at “IN FORCE.” A pardon or acquittal is not a\nfinding that the removal order was issued in error or that the removal order is quashed. If the pardon\nor acquittal is subsequently revoked or overturned, the removal order becomes enforceable and\nremoval procedures can resume.\nIn NCMS, the removal process should be “Terminated,” with notes to indicate which specific\nconvictions have been pardoned or acquitted and that the removal order is not enforceable at this\ntime.\nIn the event that a person applies for permanent resident status after the pardon or acquittal is\ngranted, the removal process stage in NCMS should indicate “Pending Landing.” Should the person\nreceive permanent resident status, the removal process stage in NCMS should indicate \"PC Landed.”\nThis disposition will conclude the Removal process.\nNote: Please refer to OP 1, section 6 for instructions on procedures regarding pardons or acquittals\nafter a removal order has been enforced.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 10.6 (Removal orders no longer enforceable –) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Statutory and Regulatory Stays", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11 Procedure: Statutory and Regulatory Stays\nA48(2) imposes an obligation such that if the removal order is enforceable, the foreign national\nagainst whom it was made must leave Canada immediately and it must be enforced as soon as\npossible.\nStatutory and regulatory stays of removal are outlined in A50, and R230 to R234. The courts may\nalso impose stays of removal in individual cases. IRPA has made provision for such stays in A50(a),\nwhere removal cannot contravene a judicial order, and in A50(c), concerning a stay imposed by a\ncourt of competent jurisdiction. An undertaking given on behalf of the PS Minister during the course\nof litigation also constitutes a stay of removal.\nIn some cases, the enforcement of removal orders can be stayed through the statutory and\nregulatory provisions of IRPA and its Regulations as well as through court-ordered stays. When a stay\nof removal is applied, through operation of law, the stay renders the removal order not enforceable\nunder A48(1), and the CBSA must postpone removal. As a result, the person must not be removed\nfrom Canada until they are subject to a removal order that has come into force and is not stayed.\n2025-02-03 28\nIt is essential for the GCMS and/or NCMS systems to be updated when a stay of removal is in place\nand when it is lifted. Accurate information is paramount to ensuring that a person who is the subject\nof a stayed removal order is not removed.\nThere will be occasions when an officer will be uncertain whether a stay of removal applies in a\nspecific removal case. Should this situation arise, officers should consult their supervisor for direction.\nIf the issue is complex, the supervisor may refer the officer to a regional program specialist or\nregional Justice Liaison Officer (JLO) as the case may be. Sometimes, these contacts can bring other\nissues to an officer's attention that may have been overlooked.\nThe following charts should assist officers in determining when a stay of removal may be appropriate\nand when stay provisions do not apply, and any exceptions that may be associated with the\nstatutory, regulatory or court-ordered stays.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 11 (Procedure: Statutory and Regulatory Stays)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-11-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Statutory stays of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1 Statutory stays of removal\nA50 contains provisions to stay the removal of foreign nationals who have been issued a removal order.\nWhen a statutory stay is imposed under IRPA, the removal order is not enforceable.\nAuthority When a stay applies When a stay does not apply\nA50(a) Decision at a judicial proceeding\ndirectly contravenes the enforcement of\na removal order, and the PS Minister is\ngiven the opportunity to make\nsubmissions\nA stay of removal applies if a decision made\nin a judicial proceeding would be directly\ncontravened by the enforcement of a removal\norder. This stay applies where the PS Minister\nwas given the opportunity to make\nsubmissions.\nFor guidelines and scenarios in which an\nA50(a) stay of removal applies, refer to\nsection 12.\nFor guidelines and scenarios in which an\nA50(a) stay is not applicable, refer to\nsection 12.\nA50(b) Imprisonment in Canada\nA stay of removal applies when a\nforeign national is sentenced to a term\nof imprisonment in Canada.\nOfficers must not enforce a removal\norder if the foreign national is an\ninmate of a penitentiary, jail,\nreformatory or prison.\nThe stay of removal is effective until the\nsentence being served is completed.\nThe sentence is completed when the\nforeign national is released from\nimprisonment by reason of expiration of\nsentence, commencement of statutory\nrelease or grant of parole. Unless the\nparole is suspended, terminated or\nrevoked, the removal can take place.\nA conditional sentence order served\noutside a prison is not considered a term\nof imprisonment under paragraph 36(1)(a)\nof IRPA. A foreign national serving a\nconditional sentence order does not\nbenefit from a stay of removal.\n2025-02-03 29\nA50(c) Stay of removal granted by the\nImmigration Appeal Division (IAD)\nA removal order is stayed under", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 11.1 (Statutory stays of removal) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-11-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Statutory stays of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A66(b) and A68 until the stay is\nno longer in force.\nThere is no stay of removal when:\n a permanent resident or foreign\nnational who is on a stay of an appeal\nagainst an inadmissibility finding under\nA36(1) or A36(2) is subsequently\nconvicted of another offence under\nA36(1) and the stay is cancelled;\n the appeal is dismissed; or\n the IAD may, on application or on its\nown initiative, reconsider the appeal\nand lift the stay of removal.\nA50(c) Stay of removal by any other court of\ncompetent jurisdiction\nA removal is stayed if the Federal Court or\nthe Supreme Court of Canada issues an order\nto stay the enforcement of a removal order\nor to bar the PS Minister from carrying out\nthe removal order.\nThe stay order will be in effect until the\nconditions specified in the order are satisfied.\nIf the provincial court issues\nan injunction or a stay to prevent removal,\nremoval may be stayed pursuant to A50(a)\nand possibly A50(c). The stay will be in effect\nuntil the conditions of the stay order are\nsatisfied or the order is rescinded.\nFor more information on applications\nfor stays, court-imposed stays and\nundertakings not to remove, refer to\nENF 9, section 4 and section 5.\nAn application for a stay of removal does\nnot trigger or constitute a stay of removal.\nA50(d) Duration of stay under A114(1)\nThere is a stay of removal when there\nis a positive decision to allow the\nprotection of a person described in A112(3).\nThese persons are:\n inadmissible on grounds of security,\nviolating human rights or international\nrights, or organized criminality;\n inadmissible on grounds of serious\ncriminality punished by a term of\nimprisonment of at least two years;\n refugee claimants rejected on the basis of\nsection F of Article 1 of the Refugee\nConvention; or\n persons named in an A77 certificate.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 11.1 (Statutory stays of removal) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-11-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Statutory stays of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A stay of removal is cancelled if the\nMinister of IRCC re-examines the case and\ndetermines that the circumstances under\nwhich the application was allowed have\nchanged and dismisses the application.\n2025-02-03 30\nA50(e) Duration of stay imposed by the Minister\nThis provision could include discretionary\nstays where the PS Minister imposes the stay\nof removal. These stays will be determined\non a case-by-case basis and will be assessed\nby NHQ in accordance with the instruments\nof delegation.\nIn addition, A50(e) provides for the authority\nof the PS Minister to impose a stay of\nremoval for temporary suspension under\nR230 where the country or place presents a\ngeneralized risk.\nFor more information on R230,\nrefer to section 10.2 below.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 11.1 (Statutory stays of removal) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-11-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Regulatory stays of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2 Regulatory stays of removal\nIn addition to the stays provided for in A50, A53(d) provides authority for the Regulations to stay\na removal order. When the Regulations provide for a stay of removal of foreign nationals, the\nremoval order cannot be enforced.\nAuthority When a stay applies When a stay does not apply\nR230 Temporary suspension of removals\n(TSR) and administrative deferral\nof removals (ADR)\nA TSR or ADR will be imposed where return\nto a specific country or place presents a\ngeneralized risk that the PS Minister\nconsiders dangerous and unsafe to the\nentire general civilian population\nof that country or place.\nThe PS Minister will make the decision by a\nformal process. When a decision is made\nto suspend removals to a particular\ncountry, this decision will be announced to\nall offices.\nFor a list of the countries under a TSR or\nADR refer to:\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-\nsecurite/rem-ren-\neng.html?wbdisable=true\nNote: Generalized risk is different from\nIndividualized risk assessed during\nImmigration and Refugee Board (IRB),\nH&C, and PRRA assessments.\nSection 13.3 describes the differences\nbetween the two.\nThe stay of removal under this provision\ndoes not apply to classes of persons who:\n have been found inadmissible on\ngrounds of security under A34(1);\n have been found inadmissible on\ngrounds of human or international\nrights violations under A35(1);\n have been found inadmissible on\ngrounds of serious criminality under\nA36(1) or on grounds of criminality\nunder A36(2);\n have been found inadmissible on\ngrounds of organized crime under\nA37(1); or\n have been excluded by the Refugee\nProtection Division by reason of\nsection F, Article 1 of the Refugee\nConvention.\n wish to return to their country of risk\nand inform the Minister in writing that", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 11.2 (Regulatory stays of removal) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-11-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Regulatory stays of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "they consent to their removal.\nUnder R230(2), the PS Minister may\ncancel the stay if the circumstances of\ngeneralized risk to a specific country or\nplace no longer pose a risk to the entire\ncivilian population of that country or\nplace.\n2025-02-03 31\nR231 Judicial review of a Refugee\nAppeal Division decision\nA stay of removal will occur when a\nperson files an application for leave to\ncommence judicial review of a decision\nof the Refugee Appeal Division.\nThe stay of removal will continue\nto apply until leave is granted and\nuntil the court of last resort\nhas disposed of the judicial review\nproceeding, if applicable.\nThe removal is stayed when the\nperson or their counsel presents an\nofficer with a certified copy of an\napplication for leave to commence\njudicial review of a RAD decision or\nwhen the officer is so advised\nby the Department of Justice.\nThis stay pursuant to R231 will\nnormally be reflected in the GCMS\nlitigation (LIT) screen as a stay\nrequired by the Act/Regs.\nThe stay provision does not apply to\nclasses of persons who:\n is a designated foreign national;\n are the subject of a removal order\nbecause they are inadmissible on\ngrounds of serious criminality under\nA36(1);\n reside or sojourn in the United States\nor St. Pierre and Miquelon and are\nthe subject of a report under A44(1)\nat the POE only; or\n have filed an application for an\nextension of time to file a leave\napplication.\nThe stay of removal is effective until the\nearliest of the following:\n the application for leave is refused;\n the application for leave is granted,\nthe application for judicial review is\nrefused and no question is certified\nfor the Federal Court of Appeal;\n a question is certified by the Federal\nCourt and the appeal is not filed\nwithin the time limit;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 11.2 (Regulatory stays of removal) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-11-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Regulatory stays of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " a question is certified by the Federal\nCourt, the Federal Court of Appeal\ndismisses the appeal, and the time\nlimit to file an application for leave to\nthe Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)\nhas expired and no application has\nbeen made;\n an application for leave to appeal a\ndecision of the Federal Court of\nAppeal to the SCC is made, and the\napplication is refused; or\n the application to the SCC is\ngranted, but the appeal is not filed\nwithin the time limit or the SCC\ndismisses the appeal.\n For further information on judicial\nreview processes, refer to ENF 9 .\n2025-02-03 32\nR232 PRRA\nA stay of removal applies when an\nofficer notifies a person that they are\neligible to make an application for\nprotection under A112(1) of the Act\nfor the PRRA program.\nA person is notified that they can\nmake an application for PRRA when:\n an officer provides the person\nwith a PRRA application form in\nperson; or\n seven days have elapsed since\nthe application form was mailed\nto the person at the last address\nthey provided to the CBSA.\nIn order for the stay of removal to\ncontinue, an application for protection\nmust be received by IRCC within 15\ndays after the notification is given\npursuant to R162.\nThe stay of removal is effective until the\nearliest of the following dates:\n when an officer receives written\nconfirmation from the person that\nthey do not intend to make an\napplication;\n the person does not make an\napplication within 15 days after\nbeing notified;\n a negative decision of the application\nhas been made; or\n a person receives a positive PRRA\ndecision and receives permanent\nresident status or their application for\npermanent resident status is refused.\nSubsequent PRRAs will not benefit from a\nstay.\nNote: This applies to cases where the\nPRRA was previously declared withdrawn", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 11.2 (Regulatory stays of removal) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-11-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Regulatory stays of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "or abandoned.\nPRRA applications filed at the POE will not\nresult in a stay of the removal.\nR233 H&C or public policy considerations\nA stay of removal occurs when the\ngrounds for H&C considerations on an\napplication for permanent residency\nhave been approved in principle.\nNote: Public policy considerations are\nan element of immigration policy.\nPublic policy may be included in the\nconsideration of exceptional cases.\nThere is no stay of removal where:\n there is only an intention to apply\nfor H&C; or\n there is an outstanding H&C\napplication that has not been\napproved in principle by the IRCC\nMinister.\nThe stay of removal is effective until the\nperson is granted, or refused, permanent\nresident status.\n2025-02-03 33", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 11.2 (Regulatory stays of removal) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview of A50(a) stays of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1 Overview of A50(a) stays of removal\nA50(a) will affect whether the CBSA can enforce removal orders where there are other judicial\nproceedings pending against a person subject to a removal order. A50(a) was not enacted to\nextend a benefit to persons who may be subject to probation orders, interim release orders as a\nresult of pending criminal charges or other court orders. Its purpose is to provide direction to\nofficers where there is a conflict between removal orders and decisions made in judicial\nproceedings. By virtue of A50(a), the enforcement of a removal order is deemed subservient or\nsecondary to a decision made in judicial proceedings and to the proper administration of justice.\nIn order for A50(a) to apply, the following conditions must be met:\n a decision was made (including final judgements and interlocutory orders);\n in a judicial proceeding (a proceeding in a legally constituted court);\n at which the PS Minister was given the opportunity to make submissions; and\n this decision would be directly contravened by the enforcement of the removal order.\nIf these conditions do not exist, then an A50(a) stay of removal is not in effect and the removal\norder should be enforced as soon as possible. In order to determine whether the decision that was\nmade at a judicial proceeding would be directly contravened by the enforcement of a removal order,\nofficers must review the individual circumstances, on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether\nremoval would contravene the decision. To ensure consistency in the application of an A50(a) stay\nwith respect to decisions made at judicial proceedings, officers should contact their manager,\nsupervisor or regional JLO for further guidance.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.1 (Overview of A50(a) stays of removal) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview of A50(a) stays of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Since each case must be evaluated on its individual circumstances, officers should be aware of the\ncomplexity of A50(a) and must also consider R234 when determining the applicability of the stay\nprovision.\nWhen making removal arrangements, officers may encounter situations where persons will invoke\nthe statutory stay provisions in A50(a) in an effort to prolong their stay in Canada or avoid removal\naltogether. In order to ensure that removals are not unduly delayed or unlawfully carried out,\nofficers should carefully assess each situation to ensure proper and correct processing. The\nfollowing case circumstances should be used as a guideline only and may be of assistance when\ndetermining the applicability of A50(a). If the case scenario is not described below, officers should\nconsult their regional JLO, regional program specialist, manager or supervisor for assistance to\nensure the consistent application of A50(a).\nFor more information on the application of A50(a) to different scenarios, see the examples in\nsections 12.2 to 12.13 below.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.1 (Overview of A50(a) stays of removal) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is the subject of a probation", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2 Person under removal is the subject of a probation\norder\nNote: A50(a) does not apply.\nThe Federal Court of Appeal decision in MCI v. Cuski decided that the goal of the enforcement of a\nremoval order is to remove persons from Canada as soon as possible. The goal of removing persons\n2025-02-03 34\nwho are the subject of a removal order is more important than the need to satisfy the terms of\nprobation orders, the purpose of which is to integrate people back into the community.\nWhen removing a person subject to a probation order, officers should take the following steps:\n advise the person and/or counsel that probation orders do not create a situation where a\nstatutory stay exists, and then proceed with removal arrangements; and\n ensure that the regional Department of Justice is contacted if counsel indicates that they\nintend to file before the Federal Court to stay the removal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.2 (Person under removal is the subject of a probation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "Person subject to a removal order has pending criminal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3 Person subject to a removal order has pending criminal\ncharges\nNote: A50(a) may apply.\nIf there is an indication that the person has pending criminal charges, officers should communicate\nwith the provincial or federal Crown, as the case may be, to determine if a statutory stay exists\npursuant to A50(a).\nIf a statutory stay applies, then officers should ask the Crown to either withdraw or stay the\ncriminal charges in order to allow for the expeditious removal of the individual concerned.\nOfficers should inform the Crown that the CBSA has an obligation to carry out removals as soon as\npossible (i.e. if such persons pose a danger to the public.) If the Crown agrees, in writing, to\nwithdraw or stay the criminal charges, either before or after removal is confirmed, the officer will\ndocument the file accordingly and proceed with the removal arrangements. Under R234(a), a\nstatutory stay does not exist where there is an agreement between the Attorney General and the\nCBSA to withdraw or stay criminal charges once the CBSA confirms that a subject has been\nremoved from Canada.\nIf a statutory stay exists and the Crown does not stay charges, officers should document the file\naccordingly and update GCMS and NCMS to indicate that removal is stayed until the criminal matter\nis dealt with. Officers should monitor these files as the particular circumstances of the case may\nchange and a statutory stay may no longer apply.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.3 (Person subject to a removal order has pending criminal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is the subject of a subpoena", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4 Person under removal is the subject of a subpoena\nto appear as a witness in criminal proceedings\nNote: A50(a) provisions may apply.\nOfficers may also encounter situations where the person being removed is the subject of a\nsubpoena or summons obliging them to appear as a witness at a criminal trial or in other criminal\nproceedings. A criminal subpoena/summons is a command by the court to the person to appear as\na witness at subsequent criminal proceedings.\nBefore proceeding with removal in these circumstances, the officer in charge of the removal should\nobtain as much information as possible (from either the Crown attorney or defence counsel as the\ncase may be) in order to determine whether removal is prohibited pursuant to A50(a) and, if so,\nwhether it is possible to have the subpoena cancelled or, alternatively, whether the person’s return\nto Canada after removal should be facilitated in order to allow the person to comply with the\nsubpoena. The following should be considered:\n2025-02-03 35\n whether the Crown or defence would be willing to withdraw/cancel the subpoena or use\nalternative means of testifying. [R234(b) confirms that no statutory stay exists where there\nis an agreement between the Attorney General and the CBSA to cancel or withdraw a\nsubpoena once the CBSA confirms that a subject has been removed from Canada];\n if defence counsel does not want to withdraw the subpoena, the CBSA may request that the\nCrown apply to quash the subpoena;\n if not, and the person is capable of returning to Canada at their own expense, the CBSA may\nconsider whether officers will facilitate the person’s return to Canada, with the appropriate\nconditions, for the purpose of complying with the subpoena. Before removing a person in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.4 (Person under removal is the subject of a subpoena) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is the subject of a subpoena", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "this situation, officers should discuss the circumstances with the Crown; and\n if a statutory stay exists, then the file should be documented accordingly with appropriate\nremarks in GCMS and NCMS. The officer should monitor the file to ensure that the person\nconcerned is removed from Canada after completing their testimony and/or is no longer\nrequired for the judicial proceeding.\nWhere there are compelling reasons to remove the person and it has been decided to proceed with\nremoval and facilitate the person’s return to allow compliance with the subpoena, the file will be\ndocumented accordingly. In addition, the appropriate entry will be made in GCMS or in NCMS,\nwhere available, and the file will be carefully monitored to ensure that removal is carried out at the\nappropriate time and without delay. As well, the person concerned, their counsel or the Crown\nattorney (as the case may be) will be kept informed, as required. In addition, the regional\nDepartment of Justice (Immigration Section) will be given advance warning of the removal\narrangements in order to prepare for any anticipated stay motion before the Federal Court.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.4 (Person under removal is the subject of a subpoena) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "No subpoena but person under removal is required", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.5 No subpoena but person under removal is required\nto appear as a witness in criminal proceedings\nNote: A50(a) provisions do not apply.\nOfficers may occasionally encounter situations where the subject of the removal order is required as\na witness in a criminal proceeding but is not subject to a subpoena or a summons. In some cases,\nthe CBSA may receive written communication from either the Crown attorney or the defence\ncounsel to the effect that the person to be removed is required to testify in a criminal proceeding.\nPrior to IRPA implementation, paragraph 50(1)(b) of the former Immigration Act, 1976, applied;\nhowever, this paragraph has not been incorporated into IRPA.\nConsequently, it is the CBSA’s position that since no court order exists, the provisions of A50(a) do\nnot apply. The appropriate party and the Crown should be so advised, and removal will proceed in\nthe normal manner. The regional Department of Justice (Immigration Section) will be given advance\nwarning of the removal arrangements in order to prepare for any anticipated stay motion.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.5 (No subpoena but person under removal is required)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.6", + "marginal_note": "Person is subject of an appearance notice given by a", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.6 Person is subject of an appearance notice given by a\npeace officer in a criminal matter\nNote: A50(a) provisions do not apply.\nIt is the CBSA’s opinion that an appearance notice (Form 9 s. 493 of the Criminal Code) issued to a\nperson by a peace officer does not create a stay pursuant to A50(a) as long as the appearance\nnotice has not been reviewed by a judge. A peace officer in this specific case is not a judicial officer\n2025-02-03 36\nfor the purposes of A50(a) and thus their decision does not fall within the parameters of a judicial\nproceeding. In these specific cases, a foreign national has not been detained or charged for a crime\nnor has the foreign national gone before a judicial body or tribunal such as a justice of the peace.\nInstead, the foreign national is required to report to court to answer charges not yet laid against\nthem.\nIf the person was issued an appearance notice and failed to comply with the conditions in Form 9, a\nbench warrant may be issued. If a bench warrant exists, officers should consult the Crown before\nremoving such persons.\nShould this specific type of case arise, officers should follow the procedures outlined in section 11.3\nabove and inform the person if the CBSA is proceeding with removal. Before removal, officers must\ndiscuss the case with a supervisor and/or contact the regional JLO. The appearance notice is\ncurrently under review and the case circumstances should be examined carefully before such\npersons are removed. Depending on the specific details of the case, a supervisor or regional JLO\nmay ask the officer to contact Crown counsel to seek a stay of proceedings. If not, the officer\nshould proceed with removal and keep the regional JLO advised if counsel indicates they will be\nfiling a stay application to prevent removal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.6 (Person is subject of an appearance notice given by a)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.7", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is subject of a civil summons", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.7 Person under removal is subject of a civil summons\nor a subpoena\nNote: A50(a) provisions may apply.\nPeriodically, officers may encounter situations where a person being removed is the subject of a\nsubpoena or summons and is required to testify at a civil trial (non-criminal proceeding). The CBSA\nhas taken the position that, where a summons or subpoena is issued by a court clerk or a registrar,\nit does not constitute a decision in a judicial proceeding, and a stay under A50(a) does not apply.\nHowever, the CBSA is reviewing other similar circumstances to determine whether a civil subpoena\nor summons would be considered a judicial proceeding in the application of A50(a).\nBefore proceeding with removal action, officers should carefully review the civil summons or\nsubpoena to determine whether removal is prohibited pursuant to A50(a), taking into account the\nCBSA’s position. If officers are uncertain as to whether a document constitutes a decision made in a\njudicial proceeding as contemplated by A50(a), they should consult their supervisors and/or refer\nsuch cases to their regional JLO, regional program specialist, manager or supervisor, as the case\nmay be. In cases where it appears that a person is invoking this stay provision solely to delay the\nremoval process, this information should be brought to the attention of the regional JLO, regional\nprogram specialist, manager or supervisor.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.7 (Person under removal is subject of a civil summons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.8", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is subject to a civil court order", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.8 Person under removal is subject to a civil court order\nNote: A50(a) provisions may apply.\nIn some cases, the person may be the subject of a court order requiring them to appear at a trial\ninvolving civil proceedings (i.e., relating to family and/or custody issues, etc.) or other civil court\norder which may affect the ability to remove them. As such, a civil court order will constitute “a\ndecision made in a judicial proceeding,” and A50(a) may apply, depending on whether enforcing the\nremoval order will directly contravene this decision.\nBefore proceeding with removal action, officers should carefully review the civil court orders to\ndetermine whether removal is prohibited pursuant to A50(a), taking into account the interpretation\noutlined in this document. If officers are uncertain as to whether a document constitutes a decision\n2025-02-03 37\nmade in a judicial proceeding as contemplated by A50(a), they should consult their supervisors\nand/or refer such cases to their regional JLO. Cases in which it appears that persons are invoking\nthis stay provision solely to thwart the removal process should be brought to the attention of the\nregional JLO.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.8 (Person under removal is subject to a civil court order)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.9", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is subject of a notice of", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.9 Person under removal is subject of a notice of\nexamination in a lawsuit (discovery process)\nNote: A50(a) provisions do not apply.\nIn the case of Shulgatov et al v. MCI , a Federal Court judge dismissed a stay application by ruling\nthat notices of examination in civil suits did not create a statutory stay pursuant to paragraph\n50(1)(a) of the former Immigration Act, 1976. The principal applicant in this case was involved in a\nserious motor vehicle accident and was both the plaintiff and the defendant in the pending law\nsuits. The judge ruled that a notice of examination during the discovery process of a lawsuit does\nnot constitute an order made by a judicial body and therefore does not result in a statutory stay of\nremoval. Upon further review, it is the CBSA’s opinion that a notice of examination in a lawsuit does\nnot constitute a decision in a judicial proceeding for the purposes of A50(a). There is no statutory\nstay.\nOfficers should consult their supervisors and/or refer such cases to their regional JLO or other\nsimilar officer when counsel claims that a statutory stay applies and that removal is prohibited. If\nthe regional JLO or other similar officer is satisfied that no statutory stay exists, then officers should\nadvise counsel and proceed with removal. They should also ensure that the regional JLO is aware of\nthe removal actions if counsel intends to file a stay application.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.9 (Person under removal is subject of a notice of)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.10", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal has a court date for a legal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.10 Person under removal has a court date for a legal\nname change\nNote: A50(a) provisions do not apply.\nIn the case of Louis v MCI, 2001, a Federal Court judge dismissed a stay application by the\napplicant, who claimed that he had to appear in superior court for a motion to legally change his\nname on a marriage certificate. The applicant filed the motion only after he was told he was being\nremoved from Canada. The Court concluded that the provisions of paragraph 50(1)(a) of the\nImmigration Act, 1976, do not apply in these circumstances, where the applicant could decide for\nhimself the date of his appearance in court and could have decided not to present the motion.\nConsequently, it is the CBSA’s opinion that these types of judicial matters do not invoke a statutory\nstay pursuant to A50(a).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.10 (Person under removal has a court date for a legal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.11", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is subject of a conditional", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.11 Person under removal is subject of a conditional\nsentence order (CSO)\nNote: A50(b) provisions do not apply.\nIn the October 19, 2017 decision Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) 2017\nSCC 50, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) concluded that a conditional sentence order imposed\npursuant to the regime set out in ss. 742 to 742.7 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) does not\nconstitute a \"a term of imprisonment\" (aka jail or prison term) under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the\nIRPA.\n2025-02-03 38\nThe SCC interpreted the meaning of \"term of imprisonment\" as articulated in paragraph 36(1)(a) to\nrefer to \"prison\" (aka jail time) and does not include conditional sentence orders served outside of\nprison.\nFurther information related to the Tran decision is available in the Operational Bulletin, PRG-2017-\n67.\nIndividuals who are serving a conditional sentence order do not benefit from a stay of removal in\naccordance with A50(a) or A50(b).\nA50(b) specifies that a removal order is stayed in the case of a foreign national sentenced to a\nterm of imprisonment in Canada, until the sentence is completed. Since a conditional sentence\norder is not considered to be a term of imprisonment, it does not constitutes a stay of removal\nbecause the individual is not incarcerated or detained in any penitentiary, jail, reformatory or\nprison. As such, officers must enforce a removal order while the individual is serving a conditional\nsentence order. If the person leaves Canada during the term of the conditional sentence order, the\nofficer should follow the procedures to confirm departure outlined in section 10.1 (1) for cases\nwhere departure occurs prior to the order not coming into force.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.11 (Person under removal is subject of a conditional)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.12", + "marginal_note": "Person under removal is subject of a RPD", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.12 Person under removal is subject of a RPD\nsummons\nNote: A50(a) provisions do not apply.\nIn the case of Gillani v. MCI, the applicant was the subject of a subpoena for a Convention Refugee\nDetermination Division (CRDD) matter and sought a stay of removal. The Federal Court Trial\nDivision dismissed this application as it ruled that the applicant failed to raise a serious issue.\nConsequently, the CRDD was not a judicial body for the purposes of the former Immigration Act,\n1976.\nThe CBSA is of the position that a summons issued by the Refugee Protection Division is not\nconsidered a decision at a judicial proceeding for the purposes of A50(a) and a stay of removal does\nnot apply in this circumstance. Deferral of removal in these types of cases may encourage abuse of\nthe summons process and may make it more difficult for the CBSA to remove persons in these\nsimilar circumstances in the future.\nOfficers should inform the person and their counsel that removal is proceeding, as there is no\nstatutory stay of removal. They should also keep their regional JLO or other similar officer advised if\ncounsel indicates that they will be filing a stay application to halt the removal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.12 (Person under removal is subject of a RPD)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-12-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 12.13", + "marginal_note": "Requests for deferral from other enforcement", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.13 Requests for deferral from other enforcement\nagencies\nNote: A50(a) provisions do not apply.\nPeriodically, the CBSA may receive requests to delay removals from other enforcement agencies\nthat do not fall within the parameters of the A50(a) provision or other stay provisions in the IRPA or\nRegulations. Such cases should always be referred to the supervisor or manager, who will decide\nwhether or not to defer removal, based on the particular facts of the case and the CBSA��s interest in\nbeing cooperative with other enforcement agencies that share similar interests, goals and concerns.\nA decision to defer removal in these circumstances will be an administrative one and will not fall\nunder the A50(a) provisions. Officers should document the file accordingly and update NCMS. The\n2025-02-03 39\nfile should be monitored to determine if the enforcement agency still requires the person to remain\nin Canada. Once the enforcement agency no longer requires the person, removal should occur as\nsoon as possible.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 12.13 (Requests for deferral from other enforcement)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-13-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "Legislation", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1 Legislation\nThe IRPA provides the PS Minister with the specific legal authority to temporarily suspend or\nreinstate removals according to changes in country conditions.\nImposing a TSR or ADR under R230(1):\nRegulation 230 outlines the basic criteria for determining whether to maintain or suspend removals\nto a particular country:\nR230(1) The Minister may impose a stay on removal orders with respect to a country or a place if\nthe circumstances in that country or place pose a generalized risk to the entire civilian population as\na result of:\na) armed conflict within the country or place;\nb) environmental disaster resulting in a substantial temporary disruption of living\nconditions; or\nc) any situation that is temporary and generalized.\nCancellation:\nR230(2) The Minister may cancel the stay if the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) no\nlonger pose a generalized risk to the entire civilian population.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 13.1 (Legislation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-13-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "Exceptions", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.2 Exceptions\nR230(3) The stay does not apply to a person who:\na) is inadmissible under subsection 34(1) of the Act on security grounds;\nb) is inadmissible under subsection 35(1) of the Act on grounds of violating human or\ninternational rights;\nb.1) is inadmissible under subsection 35.1(1) of the Act on grounds of sanctions;\nc) is inadmissible under subsection 36(1) of the Act on grounds of serious criminality or under\nsubsection 36(2) of the Act on grounds of criminality;\nd) is inadmissible under subsection 37(1) of the Act on grounds of organized criminality;\ne) is a person referred to in section F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention; or\nf) informs the Minister in writing that they consent to their removal to a country or place to\nwhich a stay of removal applies.\nFor cases that fall under paragraph 230(3)(f), the Officer should have the individual complete a\nstatutory declaration stating that they are voluntarily returning to their home country despite the TSR\nor ADR.\nNote: For the above-mentioned exceptions, there is no need to consult NHQ in order to proceed with\nremoval.\n2025-02-03 40", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 13.2 (Exceptions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-13-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "Generalized risk versus Individualized risk", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.3 Generalized risk versus Individualized risk\nThe guiding principle of generalized risk is that the impact of the catastrophic event is so pervasive\nand widespread that it would be inconceivable to conduct general returns to that country until some\ndegree of safety is restored. These measures are not appropriate for countries with persistent and\nsystemic human rights problems, which constitute individualized risk, a process covered by individual\nprotection mechanisms such as the refugee determination process, the PRRA, and the H&C review\nprocess.\nIn addition, even though a situation of human rights violations may be widespread and long-\nstanding, it is an ongoing situation that is outside the scope of a sudden, catastrophic event which\ntemporarily throws a country into crisis. When evaluating general risk, considerations such as fear of\npersecution or personal risk to individuals ordered removed or returned to their country are not part\nof the process. A TSR or ADR are not supplementary nor a substitute for protection mechanisms that\nassess individual risk.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 13.3 (Generalized risk versus Individualized risk)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-13-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Countries under TSR and ADR", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.4 Countries under TSR and ADR\nFor a list of countries that are currently under a TSR or ADR, refer to:\nArrests, detentions and removals - Removal from Canada (cbsa-asfc.gc.ca)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 13.4 (Countries under TSR and ADR)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 14", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Diplomatic assurances cases", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14 Procedure: Diplomatic assurances cases\nCanada does not impose the death penalty in any circumstance. Canadian courts view this type of\npunishment as an unlawful sanction that violates a person’s right to life under the Canadian\nCharter of Rights and Freedoms. If it is determined that a person under removal order faces more\nthan a mere possibility of charges punishable by death, diplomatic assurances may be sought.\nIf an officer encounters a case where the death penalty may be sought by the country to which they\nare being removed, they should refer the case to CBSA Case Management case-management@cbsa-\nasfc.gc.ca. Case Management will then work with IRCC and GAC to secure diplomatic assurances prior\nto removal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 14 (Procedure: Diplomatic assurances cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Interim Measures and Precautionary", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15 Procedure: Interim Measures and Precautionary\nMeasures Requests\nCanada is signatory to several human rights treaty bodies and has accepted the jurisdiction of\nthese organizations to hear individual complaints lodged against Canada. Complaints involving\nimmigration or protection issues can result in a treaty body asking Canada to refrain from removing\nthe person concerned until it has considered the complaint thoroughly. The request is called an\ninterim measures request or precautionary measures request, depending on the treaty body.\nThe Federal Court has confirmed that interim measures and precautionary measures are not legally\nbinding on Canada as per: Ahani, Dadar, Sogi and Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration). Only the PS Minister can make a determination if a stay is warranted under s. 50(e)\nof IRPA. If the Minister declines to issue a stay of removal, the CBSA may once again proceed with\nremoval. However, Canada engages in good faith with the treaty bodies and gives requests/\n2025-02-03 41\ndecisions serious consideration and tries whenever feasible to comply with them while ensuring that\nthe integrity of Canada’s immigration and refugee protection processes are maintained. This means\nthat for most cases Canada will not remove individuals while an interim measures request remains\nin effect.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 15 (Procedure: Interim Measures and Precautionary)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-15-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 15.1", + "marginal_note": "Who can make an interim measures or", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.1 Who can make an interim measures or\nprecautionary measures request\nAs per s. 3(3)(F) of IRPA, the Act is to be construed in a manner that is consistent with any human\nrights treaties that Canada is a signatory to. There is a presumption by the international community\nthat Canada will abide by interim measures requests.\nThe treaties and the bodies that can request a stay of removal are:\nTreaties Treaty Body\nConvention on the Elimination of All\nForms of Discrimination Against\nWomen\nUnited Nations Committee on the\nElimination of Discrimination against\nWomen (CEDAW)\nConvention against Torture and\nOther Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading\nTreatment or Punishment\nUnited Nations Committee Against Torture\n(UNCAT)\nConvention on the Rights of\nPersons with Disabilities\nUN Committee on the on the Rights of\nPersons with Disabilities (CRPD)\nInternational Covenant on Civil and\nPolitical Rights\nUnited Nations Human Rights Committee\n(UNHRC)\nAmerican Declaration of the Rights\nand Duties of Man\n(This is the treaty that may request\nprecautionary measures)\nInter-American Commission on Human\nRights (IACHR)—this is a branch of the\nOrganization of American States (OAS)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 15.1 (Who can make an interim measures or)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-15-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 15.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedures", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15.2 Procedures\nUpon receipt of the interim measures request, the Human Rights Law Section of the Department of\nJustice Canada notifies all relevant departments, including the CBSA Litigation Management Unit\n(LMU). LMU communicates with the responsible region by advising their JLOs that an interim\nmeasures request has been received and that CBSA cannot remove this person without direction\nfrom the PS Minister. LMU is also responsible for updating GCMS. A copy of the notification from\nLMU must be added to the file, in addition to putting a red sticker on the file indicating an IMR has\nbeen issued.\nOccasionally, the person concerned or counsel will present a copy of the IMR before Canada has\nreceived official notification. In this instance, LMU should be notified immediately through regional\nJLOs.\nOnce an interim measures request has been received, a request to lift the interim measures must\nbe presented to the treaty body for a decision. When the treaty body provides its final views, the\n2025-02-03 42\nCBSA and its partners will re-evaluate the case and determine next steps. The removal can also\nproceed if the PS Minister refuses to issue a stay under s.50(e) of IRPA. In these instances, LMU will\nnotify the respective region.\nPART III - Removal Preparation", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 15.2 (Procedures)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 16", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Determining the method of enforcing a", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16 Procedure: Determining the method of enforcing a\nremoval order\nIRPA prescribes that under A48(2), the foreign national against whom the removal order was made\nmust leave Canada immediately after the removal order becomes enforceable, and that it must be\nenforced as soon as possible.\nIn accordance with R235, a removal order that has not been enforced does not become void\nthrough the lapse of time. However, when a foreign national becomes a permanent resident, the\nremoval order becomes void through operation of law under A51.\nBefore an officer enforces a removal order, an assessment must take place to determine if the\nremoval order should be enforced through voluntary compliance or by the PS Minister. The\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Regulations codify the determination process as a mandatory\nprocedure. During this process the officer must determine, through interviews with the foreign\nnational, the method (or modality) of enforcing the removal order. The final determination of how\nthe removal order is enforced rests with the officer. Under R237, a removal order can be enforced\neither through:\n voluntary compliance by the foreign national (see section 16 below); or\n the removal of a foreign national by the PS Minister (see section 17 below).\nIf the person does not meet the requirements of voluntary compliance, the PS Minister must\nenforce the removal order.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 16 (Procedure: Determining the method of enforcing a)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-16-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 16.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedures to enforce a removal order", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.1 Procedures to enforce a removal order\nFor general procedures on the enforcement of a removal order and the verification of departure of a\nperson under a departure, exclusion or deportation order, officers should refer to PART V – Verifying\nDeparture, which includes information related to:\n the criteria for a removal order to become enforced;\n the procedures to verify departure;\n the procedures to complete a Certificate of Departure;\n verifying departure at airports;\n verifying departure to the U.S. from airports with pre-clearance facilities;\n verifying departure at land borders; and\n persons refused entry to their country of destination after a Certificate of Departure has been\nissued.\n2025-02-03 43", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 16.1 (Procedures to enforce a removal order)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 17", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Voluntary Compliance", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17 Procedure: Voluntary Compliance\nAs set out in R238(1), voluntary compliance allows a foreign national, who is the subject of an\nenforceable removal order to voluntarily remove themselves by appearing before an officer for a\ndetermination. The officer's assessment of the individual's circumstances will establish whether the\nforeign national meets the regulatory criteria set for voluntary compliance. This determination can\nbe made by a CBSA officer either inland or at a POE. The designated authority for approving or\nrefusing voluntary compliance with the enforcement of a removal order under R238 is found in the\nDesignation of Officers and Delegation of Authority documents in IL 3, item 121.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 17 (Procedure: Voluntary Compliance)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-17-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 17.1", + "marginal_note": "Requirements for voluntary compliance", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17.1 Requirements for voluntary compliance\nOfficers must be satisfied that the criteria set out in the Regulations have been met before\npermitting voluntary compliance with a removal order. Officers must be aware of the factors that\nwill guide them in making a determination on whether the foreign national can depart through\nvoluntary compliance. If a negative determination is made and the officer decides that the foreign\nnational does not meet all of the prescribed criteria for voluntary compliance, the foreign national\nthen becomes subject to removal by the Minister (see section 17 below).\nUnder R238(1), an officer must be satisfied that the foreign national meets all of the criteria for\nvoluntary compliance through a close examination of the oral and physical information available. In\norder for a foreign national to depart Canada by voluntary compliance, the foreign national must\ndemonstrate that they:\n have the sufficient means (i.e., financial and transportation arrangements) to affect their\ndeparture to a country that will authorize their entry;\n have the intent to voluntarily comply with R240(1)(a), R240(1)(b) and R240(1)(c) by:\no appearing before an officer to verify their departure,\no obtaining a Certificate of Departure [IMM0056B] from an officer, and\no departing from Canada; and\n will be able to act on their intention to comply with R240.\nA person does not have to meet the requirements in R240(1)(d) for authorization to enter the\ndestination country after they have departed from Canada. These requirements should be\nconsidered during the assessment for voluntary compliance, but are not grounds for refusing a\nperson to leave on their own initiative. If the person does not meet the requirements of R240(1)(d)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 17.1 (Requirements for voluntary compliance) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-17-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 17.1", + "marginal_note": "Requirements for voluntary compliance", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "after departing Canada, they remain the subject of an unenforced removal order.\nFor instructions on the procedures to follow after a person has been refused admission to another\ncountry, refer to section 37 below.\nSubmission of a choice country of destination\nIn addition to the foreign national complying with the voluntary compliance criteria (set out above),\nthey must submit their choice country of destination to the officer [R238(2)]. This process is to\nensure that the person is not a danger and is not departing Canada to flee justice here or in another\ncountry. To make a determination on these grounds, the officer should conduct background\nsearches [i.e., search of file information, Global Case Management System (GCMS), the National\nCase Management System (NCMS), CPIC, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Interpol]\n2025-02-03 44\nto determine previous, current or pending criminal involvement. During the voluntary compliance\nassessment, the officer must approve the chosen country of destination unless:\n in the officer’s opinion, the person poses a danger to the public;\n the foreign national is a fugitive from justice in Canada or another country; or\n the foreign national is seeking to evade or frustrate the cause of justice in Canada or\nanother country.\nIf any of the criteria for voluntary compliance are not met, including refusal of a foreign national’s\nchoice country of destination, the foreign national must be removed by the Minister (see section 17\nbelow). This ensures that the person is removed to the appropriate country where they are wanted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 17.1 (Requirements for voluntary compliance) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-17-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 17.2", + "marginal_note": "What happens after voluntary compliance requirements", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17.2 What happens after voluntary compliance requirements\nare met\nWhen voluntary compliance is met, the officer should proceed to enforce the removal order and\nverify the departure of the foreign national from Canada.\nWhen an officer determines that a foreign national meets the requirements of voluntary compliance\nunder R238, the officer should take the following steps:\n counsel the person to settle their personal affairs and transportation arrangements as they\nare required to leave as soon as possible;\n advise the person on their requirement to report to the CBSA to have their removal verified;\n in cases where the person is under a deportation order, advise the person that\narrangements will be made to have their fingerprints and photograph taken;\n when appropriate, give the foreign national a removal order information kit that includes\ninstructions for the foreign national to verify departure, the consequences of not verifying\ndeparture, the consequences of a deportation after the lapse of the 30-day applicable period\nfor departure orders, and the addresses and hours of the POEs that the foreign national\nshould use;\n for control purposes, advise the appropriate POE in advance to ensure that the office is\naware that the foreign national will be departing Canada through that POE on an intended\ndate; and\n for security purposes, and if necessary, send the POE the \"Envelope: Removal Documents\"\n[IMM 1226B] including the person's passport/travel document, IMM0056B, etc., before the\nperson appears at the POE to verify their departure.\nOnce the foreign national appears before an officer at the POE, that officer should verify the\ndeparture (see Part V –Verifying Departure below) of the foreign national from Canada.\nNote: A foreign national who has been authorized to depart Canada voluntarily and has failed to\nleave as required may be the subject of a warrant for arrest for removal and should be counselled\naccordingly [A55]. For further information on the issuance of a warrant for arrest, refer to ENF 7.\n2025-02-03 45", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 17.2 (What happens after voluntary compliance requirements)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-17-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 17.3", + "marginal_note": "What happens after voluntary compliance requirements", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17.3 What happens after voluntary compliance requirements\nare not met\nWhen a foreign national does not want to depart Canada voluntarily or does not meet the\nrequirements for voluntary compliance under R238, the officer, either at the inland office or POE,\nshould take the following steps:\n consider whether arrest and detention is appropriate in order to effect removal by the\nMinister;\n contact the appropriate law enforcement authorities if the person is fleeing justice in\nCanada; and\n make further arrangements for removal by the Minister (see below).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 17.3 (What happens after voluntary compliance requirements)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 18", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Removal by the Minister", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18 Procedure: Removal by the Minister\nR239 sets out mandatory criteria for the enforcement of a removal order by the Minister. The\ndelegated level of authority for deciding whether a removal order shall be enforced by the Minister\ncan be found in the Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority documents in IL 3, item\n200.\nOfficers inland or at a POE must decide whether a foreign national will be removed by the Minister\nand proceed with removal arrangements when:\n a foreign national did not enforce their removal order through voluntary compliance;\n an officer has determined that voluntary compliance is not allowed; or\n a foreign national's choice country of destination for voluntary compliance has not been\napproved because they are a danger to the public, a fugitive from justice in Canada or\nanother country, or are seeking to evade or frustrate the cause of justice in Canada or\nanother country.\nWhen determining the country to which the foreign national should be removed, the Minister has\nthe authority to remove the foreign national to any of the countries outlined in R241(1). The\ncountries to which a foreign national can be removed include the following:\n the country from which they came to Canada;\n the country in which they last permanently resided before coming to Canada;\n a country of which they are a national or citizen; or\n their country of birth.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 18 (Procedure: Removal by the Minister)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-18-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 18.1", + "marginal_note": "Removal to another country", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18.1 Removal to another country\nIf it is determined by an officer that the foreign national is unable to return to any country listed in\nR241(1) because that country will not authorize their entry, R241(2) allows the Minister to:\n select any country that will authorize the entry of the person within a reasonable time; and\n remove the foreign national to that country.\nNote: The delegated level for selecting another country, other than those described in R241(1), that\nwill authorize the person’s entry is at an executive or managerial level, depending on the particular\nregion. For further information on the delegated authorities to perform this function, refer to IL 3.\n2025-02-03 46", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 18.1 (Removal to another country)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-18-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 18.2", + "marginal_note": "Country of removal for persons who have violated", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "18.2 Country of removal for persons who have violated\nhuman or international rights\nIn the case of a person who is the subject of a removal order based on inadmissibility grounds for\nviolating human or international rights under A35(1)(a), the person must be removed by the Minister\nin accordance with R241(3) to a country that the Minister determines will authorize their entry.\nThis provision allows the Department to have greater control over the removal of these serious cases.\nNote: The delegated level of authority for selecting a country that will authorize the person’s entry is\nat an executive or managerial level, depending on the particular region. For further information on\nthe delegated authorities to perform this function, refer to IL 3.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 18.2 (Country of removal for persons who have violated)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-19", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 19", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Removal of persons who are detained", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "19 Procedure: Removal of persons who are detained\nOfficers should be aware of the enforcement procedures to be followed when a permanent resident or\nforeign national is in a correctional institution or other detention facility.\nOfficers can remove detained persons from Canada who:\n are in CBSA custody after being delivered by an institution at the end of their period of\nincarceration under A59;\n have been arrested and detained under A55(1) or A55(2) or A58(2) for removal from\nCanada; or\n have been detained pursuant to A81 and ordered released under A82.4 for their departure\nfrom Canada.\nOfficers must remove detained persons as expeditiously as possible and take care to determine if there\nare any factors such as legal and non-legal impediments that could prevent the enforcement of the\nremoval order. It is important that officers do not remove a person who is subject to a stay of removal\nunder A50(b), where they are serving a sentence in Canada until the sentence is complete. For further\ninformation on stays of removal, refer to section 10.\nTransitional provisions will prevail for many years when an inmate is sentenced prior to the enactment\nof IRPA. In these cases, the procedures under the former Immigration Act, 1976, will apply.\nFor inmates sentenced after the coming into force of IRPA, the new provisions of the Corrections and\nConditional Release Act will apply, as the presence of a removal order will render the inmate ineligible\nfor unescorted temporary absence or day parole until the full parole eligibility date. For further\ninformation on persons serving sentences subject to enforcement action, refer to ENF 22.\n2025-02-03 47", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 19 (Procedure: Removal of persons who are detained)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-20-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 20", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: File review and pre-removal interview", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "20 Procedure: File review and pre-removal interview\nWhen the removal order becomes enforceable, the officer planning the removal should\nperform a final review of the file before conducting a removal interview. The officer\nshould take particular note of the person's case history in order to assess the safety and\nsecurity of all individuals who will be involved in the removal. In conducting this\nassessment, the officer should consider the person’s psychological, behavioral and\ncriminal history. The officer's evaluation of risk should be noted in the file and in NCMS\nand GCMS. During the removals process, officers should be continuously updating the\nphysical file, GCMS and NCMS as information is received. The Removal Checklist and\nFile Audit form [BSF522] could be used to assist the officer with documentation on the\nphysical file.\nIn cases where the person subject to the removal is a minor, the officer must ensure\nthat a competent representative accompanies the minor during the interview. In the\ncase of a detained person, removal arrangements should be made as expeditiously as\npossible to minimize detention costs.\nDuring the pre-removal interview, officers should:\n confirm that the person is not a Canadian Citizen or Status Indian as defined\nin the Indian Act and that they are the same person described in the\nremoval order;*\n update the person on the status of their case;\n advise the person that the removal order is enforceable and that they are to\nbe removed from Canada;\n seek the person's assistance in obtaining a travel document and any other\ninformation that may be required;\n notify the person of the opportunity to make an application for a PRRA, if\napplicable;\n make a determination to allow voluntary compliance or removal by the PS\nMinister;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 20 (Procedure: File review and pre-removal interview) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-20-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 20", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: File review and pre-removal interview", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " inquire if the foreign national has the financial means to enforce their\nremoval and explain the consequences listed in procedure 47 – Requirement\nto seek repayment of removal costs, should the CBSA pay for the cost of\ntheir removal from Canada;\nin the case of a person who has been authorized by an officer to depart\nCanada voluntarily, advise them that they must leave Canada immediately\nand enforce their order as soon as possible. Officers may allow a person\nsubject to voluntary removal some time to organize their personal affairs\nbefore departing from Canada (two to three weeks should be sufficient); and\n counsel the person on the consequences of the removal order, the effect of\nthe removal order, the requirements to return to Canada and the\nconsequences of non-compliance (see section 9).\n*When confirming identity or when new information comes to light relating to a\npossible identity concern, the officer should take the necessary steps to satisfy\nthemselves that the person’s identity is one and the same as the identity under which\nthe enforcement action is being taken. Information to assist in confirming identity may\nvary and can include but not limited to: photos of the individual on file, identity\ndocuments previously seized, and notes to file, which capture verification already\ncompleted in the past. In all cases, officers are required to document what information\nwas assessed and the outcome.\n2025-02-03 48\nThe IRPR stipulates that a study and work permit automatically become invalid once a\nremoval order is enforceable. As such, when officers are preparing removal\narrangements with the foreign national, it is important for the officers to advise the\nforeign national that their study and/or work permit(s) have been cancelled and that", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 20 (Procedure: File review and pre-removal interview) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-20-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 20", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: File review and pre-removal interview", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "they can no longer study and/or work in Canada. Officers must notate on the file that\nthe foreign national has been advised. GCMS must be updated by changing the status\nof the work permit and/or study permit document to “inactive” to reflect that the\nforeign national is no longer eligible to work or study in Canada. Additionally, the study\npermit and/or work permit should be attached to the file, if it is available during the\ninterview.\nIf the person fails to appear either at their pre-removal interview or at the POE on the\nscheduled date of removal, a warrant under A55(1) may be issued for removal and a\nwarrant package sent to WRC for entry into CPIC. Appropriate information should also\nbe input into GCMS and NCMS. Further details are available in ENF 7, Investigations and\nArrests.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 20 (Procedure: File review and pre-removal interview) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21 Procedure: Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)\nPRRA is a process which assesses risk prior to the removal of a person. The procedures\ndescribed in this section are intended to guide officers in determining the most\nappropriate timing for IRCC to do a risk review under the PRRA program for a person\nwith a removal order that is in force. This section is outlined in section 115 of IRPA and\nsection 160 of the IRPR.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21 (Procedure: Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.1", + "marginal_note": "Who may apply for a PRRA?", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.1 Who may apply for a PRRA?\nA person in Canada, other than a person referred to in subsection 115(1), may apply\nto the Minister of IRCC for protection under the PRRA provisions if they are subject to\na removal order that is in force under A49 or are named in a certificate described in\nA77(1). For clarification, the following persons may make an application for a PRRA:\n a person who did not previously seek protection;\n a previous post-determination refugee claimant in Canada class (PDRCC)\nclaimant (PDRCC cases are automatically transferred to the PRRA program\nunder the transitional rules in R346);\n certain failed refugee claimants (see 25.2 for those failed claimants who are\nineligible to apply for a PRRA);\n an ineligible refugee protection claimant (with exception);\n a person at a POE who claimed protection after a removal order was issued;\n a person inland who claimed protection after a removal order was issued;\n a person named in a security certificate [A77(1)];\n a person described under A112(3)(a) or (b). This person is the subject of an\nA44 report for A34(1), A35(1), A36(1) or A37(1) for which a finding was\nmade that determined them inadmissible on these grounds;\n a person described under A112(3)(c). The Immigration and Refugee Board\nhas rejected the person’s claim for refugee protection based on section F of\nArticle 1 of the Refugee Convention; and\n a person described under A112(3)(d). The PS Minister and the IRCC Minister\nhave signed a certificate referred to in A77(1).\nWhen a person is entitled to apply for a PRRA, the officer must complete the “PRRA\nInitiation” screen in GCMS and NCMS.\n2025-02-03 49", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.1 (Who may apply for a PRRA?)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.2", + "marginal_note": "Who may not apply for a PRRA?", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.2 Who may not apply for a PRRA?\nThere are exceptions to who may apply for a PRRA. The exceptions relate to persons\nwho already have protection or have other means of seeking protection. A person may\nnot apply for a PRRA if they are:\n a person referred to in A115(1);\n a person who is the subject of an authority to proceed with extradition;\n a person who is ineligible under A101(1)(e) – Safe third country provision;\nperson for whom less than 12 months* has passed since:\n their claim for refugee protection was last rejected – unless is was rejected\nunder subsection 109(3) or on the basis of section E or F of Article 1 of the\nRefugee Convention – or determined to be withdrawn or abandoned by the RPD\nin the case where no appeal was made and no application was made to the\nFederal Court for leave to commence an application for judicial review, or\n their claim for refugee protection was determined to be withdrawn or\nabandoned by the Refugee Appeal Division, or\n the day on which the Federal Court refused their application for leave to\ncommence an application for judicial review, or denied their application for\njudicial review, with respect to their claim for refugee protection, unless that\nclaim was deemed to be rejected under subsection 109(3) or was rejected on\nthe basis of section E or F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention; or\n a person for whom less than 12 months* has passed, or in the case of a\nnational of a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1)*, less than\n36 months* has passed since:\n their claim for protection was last rejected or was determined to be withdrawn\nor abandoned by the Minister, in the case where no application was made to\nthe Federal Court for leave to commence an application for judicial review, or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.2 (Who may not apply for a PRRA?) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.2", + "marginal_note": "Who may not apply for a PRRA?", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " their application for protection was rejected or determined to be withdrawn or\nabandoned by the Minister, or\n the Federal Court refused their application for leave to commence an\napplication for judicial review, or denied their application for judicial review,\nwith respect to their application for protection.\nNote: IRCC is not under any obligation to assess risk to persons who wish to leave\nvoluntarily and whose removal order is not in force. Therefore, the CBSA does not\nprovide notification of a PRRA to these persons.\n*In 2019, Canada removed all countries from the designated country of origin (DCO)\nlist, effectively suspending the DCO policy, introduced in 2012, until it can be repealed\nthrough future legislative changes.\n12 month PRRA Bar\nCertain unsuccessful refugee claimants or previous PRRA applicants may be barred from\napplying for a PRRA as described in paragraphs A112(2)(b.1) and A112(2)(c).\nBefore notifying an unsuccessful refugee claimant of their entitlement to apply for a\nPRRA (further to section R160), or before assessing a PRRA, the officer must verify if\nthe person is subject to the 12-month PRRA bar.\nIn exceptional circumstances, for individuals who are barred from applying for a PRRA,\nCBSA may request that IRCC reviews a request for a PRRA bar waiver under A25(1) in\nthe context of a request to defer removal. See section 20.4 for more details.\n2025-02-03 50\nApplicability of the PRRA bar\nThe 12-month PRRA bar applies to the following persons:\n persons who have received a negative decision from the Immigration\nRefugee Board (IRB) on a claim for refugee protection;\n persons who have received a negative decision from IRCC on a past PRRA\napplication; and\n persons who have received a negative decision from the Federal Court (FC)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.2 (Who may not apply for a PRRA?) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.2", + "marginal_note": "Who may not apply for a PRRA?", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "on an application for leave or judicial review regarding a claim for refugee\nprotection or a PRRA decision.\n The PRRA bar does not apply to individuals whose refugee claim has been\nrejected on the basis of sections E or F of Article 1 of the Refugee\nConvention refugee protection has been vacated under subsection A109(3).\nCalculating the bar\nThe bar is calculated from the date of the most recent Refugee Protection Division\n(RPD), Refugee Appeals Division (RAD) or PRRA decision, or from the date the FC\nrefuses the application for leave or confirms a negative RPD, RAD or PRRA decision.\nThe date of the decision is considered to be one of the following:\n when an IRB member states the decision and gives the reasons, if the decision is\ngiven orally at a hearing;\n when an IRB member signs and dates the reason for the decision, if the decision\nis made in writing;\n when the PRRA officer provides the written decision (following a PRRA);\n when the application for leave of the RPD, RAD or previous PRRA decision is\ndenied by the FC; or\n when the judicial review of the RPD, RAD or previous PRRA decision is rejected\nby the FC.\nNote: As per A112(2)(b.1) and (c), the bar begins on the day of the decision when\nbased on the merits of the claim/appeal/application. The last day of the PRRA\nbar is the day before the 12-month anniversary of the decision date.\nInformation to consider during calculation\nAdditional due diligence should be taken to ensure the correct decision date is used\nwhen calculating the PRRA bar.\nThe PRRA bar is triggered by a decision that has been perfected. If the Federal Court\ndismisses an application in which the merits of the original RPD/RAD/PRRA decision\nwere not examined, the dismissal does not trigger the PRRA bar.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.2 (Who may not apply for a PRRA?) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.2", + "marginal_note": "Who may not apply for a PRRA?", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The following events will not trigger the PRRA bar:\n RAD dismisses an appeal on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.\nExamples of such circumstances:\nClaimants who are exempt from the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement\n(STCA) are barred from appealing to the RAD. As such, a RAD decision\ndismissing for lack of jurisdiction is not the correct trigger for the PRRA bar.\nRather, the PRRA bar would run from the negative RPD decision or the Federal\n2025-02-03 51\nCourt decision dismissing the application for leave or judicial review of the\nnegative RPD decision, if any.\n RPD refuses an application to reopen a refugee claim, RAD refuses to reopen a\nrefugee appeal or a SIO refuses to reopen a PRRA application which was\npreviously denied or determined to be withdrawn or abandoned or the Federal\nCourt refuses an application for leave to commence an application for judicial\nreview, or denies an application for judicial review, with respect to the refusal to\nreopen.\nThese are not decisions rejecting a claim/appeal/application or declaring it abandoned\nor withdrawn as they do not speak to the merits of the claim/appeal/application.\n The applicant discontinues their litigation before the Courts. This is not a\ndecision by the Court to deny leave or judicial review.\nExemptions from the 12-month bar\nUnder subsection A112(2.1), the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may exempt\nfrom the 12-month bar nationals or former habitual residents of a country where\nconditions have changed such that certain people could be subject to a risk within the\nmeaning of sections A96 and A97. Further information can be found in the program\ndelivery instructions on the IRCC website.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.2 (Who may not apply for a PRRA?) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.3", + "marginal_note": "When a person is considered for a PRRA", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.3 When a person is considered for a PRRA\nTo determine when a case should be considered for a PRRA, the officer must determine\nif the removal order meets the criteria under A48(1). This is established by ensuring\nthat there are no impediments to the removal under A49(1), A49(2), A50, R230, R231,\nor R233. An exception to this would be persons who are incarcerated. For details, see\n\"Persons sentenced to a term of imprisonment,\" in section 20.5 below.\nOnce all legal impediments have been overcome, the officer should determine whether\nremoval could be effected pending the acquisition of travel documents, visas and final\nitinerary arrangements.\nThe officer responsible for removal arrangements will determine whether a person may\nor may not apply for a PRRA. Officers should review A112(2), which outline exceptions\nfor making an application for a risk assessment prior to removal. If the person cannot\napply for a PRRA under A112(2), the officer will prepare the case for removal and, if\nrequested, verbally inform the person that they are unable to apply for protection. If\nthis person insists on submitting an application, the officer will inform the person that\nan application will not be supplied, as they do not meet the requirements to apply for a\nPRRA. Removal arrangements will continue. If the person wishes to access the Federal\nCourt, the officer must not delay removal for a decision by the Court unless a motion\nfor a stay of removal has been granted.\nNote: There is no stay of removal when a person is not given notification to apply for\nPRRA. It is important to update GCMS and NCMS by indicating that the person was not\nnotified of the opportunity to apply for a risk assessment.\n2025-02-03 52", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.3 (When a person is considered for a PRRA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.4", + "marginal_note": "When an individual is ineligible to make a PRRA", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.4 When an individual is ineligible to make a PRRA\nIn exceptional circumstances, a foreign national will be ineligible to make a PRRA\napplication, however an officer will have determined, in the context of a request to defer\nremoval that the new allegations of risk being raised by a foreign national meet the test\nset out in the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decisions of Baron (2009) and Shpati\n(2011). The foreign national must be the subject of an enforceable removal order\nfollowing the rejection or withdrawal of a refugee protection claim or application for\nprotection, including refugee status that has ceased following a successful application by\nthe Minister under A108 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).\nIn the case of Shpati, the FCA confirmed that deferral should be reserved for those\napplications where:\n failure to defer removal will expose the applicant to the risk of death, extreme\nsanction or inhumane treatment;\n any risk relied upon must have arisen since the last Pre-Removal Risk Assessment\n(PRRA) (or since the last risk assessment); and,\n the alleged risk is of serious personal harm.\nNote: While this case law provides important guidance, officers nevertheless retain\ndiscretion to defer removal in cases where these three elements are not strictly met. For\nexample, new evidence may substantiate an allegation of risk that was previously\nconsidered. Similarly, evidence that pre-dates the last risk assessment may arise for\nwhich there are reasons it was not presented before the last risk assessment.\nIn circumstances where an officer concludes that a temporary administrative deferral of\nremoval is warranted, the following must occur:\nStep 1: Using the Notification to Principal Applicant Letter, the removals officer prepares", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.4 (When an individual is ineligible to make a PRRA) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.4", + "marginal_note": "When an individual is ineligible to make a PRRA", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "and sends the notification to the principal applicant that, in light of the allegations of risk\nraised: (i) the removal has been temporarily deferred, (ii) the file will be brought to the\nattention of IRCC for a possible consideration under section 25.1 of the IRPA, (iii) the\nremoval may be rescheduled in accordance with the law, and (iv) there is no action\nrequired on the part of the principal applicant until the CBSA notifies of a date to attend a\nCBSA office.\nStep 2: Using the Notification to IRCC Letter, the officer prepares the IRCC notification to\ninclude:\n(i) notice that the removal has been temporarily deferred in light of the alleged risk, (ii)\nthe removals officer's reasons for the deferral (with reference to the applicant's\nsubmissions),\n(iii) notice that the risk allegations are being forwarded to IRCC for a possible\nconsideration under section 25.1 of the IRPA, and (iv) notice that supporting documents\nare attached, including the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)/Refugee Appeal Division\n(RAD) and/or previous PRRA decisions, the Basis of Claim (BOC) or the Personal\nInformation Form (PIF) and the evidence from submissions relied upon by the officer to\ndefer the removal.\nStep 3: The removals officer scans and emails the IRCC notification to CBSA Case\nManagement along with the supporting documents (i.e. the submissions relied upon by\nthe officer to defer the removal).\n2025-02-03 53\nStep 4: CBSA Case Management forwards the email with supporting documents to\nIRCC Case Review.\nStep 5: IRCC considers the CBSA's request to review the file and emails the decision to\nCBSA Case Management.\nStep 6: CBSA Case Management informs the responsible regional office where the\ndeferral of removal originated for appropriate action.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.4 (When an individual is ineligible to make a PRRA) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.5", + "marginal_note": "When to notify a person to apply for a PRRA", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.5 When to notify a person to apply for a PRRA\nThere are several trigger points that could decide the timing of the notification for a\nperson to submit a PRRA application. Based on a review of the case and the availability\nof travel documents, an officer should determine when it would be the most appropriate\ntime to notify the person of the opportunity to apply for a PRRA. Notification can be\ndone in person. This decision is at the discretion of the officer based on an assessment\nof the case. It is highly recommended that notification be given in person in the\nmajority of cases. The following circumstances include examples of trigger points that\nofficers should consider when assessing the timing for notifying the person to submit a\nPRRA application:\n a valid travel document is available;\n an expired travel document or valid identity or birth record is available and a\nSingle Journey Document [IMM 5149B] can be used;\n there is no valid travel document, an application for one has been submitted,\nthe respective embassy or mission has approved the application in principle\nand the travel document is forthcoming; or\n there is no valid travel document and an application is completed and will be\nsubmitted to the embassy or mission.\nAs the CBSA deals with different embassies and missions located in Canada and abroad,\nofficers are subject to their terms when issuing travel documents. As a result, some\ntimelines for receiving these documents can be very short and others may be longer.\nMost timelines are dependent on whether the person has provided the documents\nrequired, while some are delayed for policy and political reasons. For this reason, the\nofficer must have the flexibility to determine when is the best time to inform the person", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.5 (When to notify a person to apply for a PRRA) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.5", + "marginal_note": "When to notify a person to apply for a PRRA", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "of the availability of a PRRA. It is the CBSA’s goal to enforce a removal order as soon as\npossible after a negative risk decision has been made.\nIf an officer determines that an in-person interview is required, the person will be\ncontacted to discuss removal arrangements at a time and place to be determined by the\nofficer. The letter of convocation should request that the person bring any identity\ndocuments they may possess to the interview. Refer to the Letter of Convocation and\nLetter of Convocation for PDRCC for the sample wording of this letter. If the person\ndoes not report for the interview, the officer will forward the file to the Investigations\nUnit for the appropriate enforcement action.\nPersons sentenced to a term of imprisonment\nWhen a person who is serving a sentence is subject to a removal order, that removal\norder is stayed pursuant to A50(b) until the sentence is completed. If this person is\nsubject to a removal order that is in force pursuant to A112(1), the officer should\nassess when is the most beneficial time for the CBSA to notify the person of the\nopportunity to apply for a PRRA. The CBSA would benefit from an earlier PRRA decision\n2025-02-03 54\nrather than wait until the person is under immigration detention to start the process.\nThis will reduce the detention time, costs and should expedite the removal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.5 (When to notify a person to apply for a PRRA) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.6", + "marginal_note": "How to notify a person to apply for a PRRA", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.6 How to notify a person to apply for a PRRA\nThe onus is on the Removals Unit to notify the person under a removal order that a\nPRRA application may now be submitted. The PRRA notification will include the\nfollowing:\n PRRA Notification Failed Claimant Letter or PRRA Notification Non-\nclaimants Letter;\n a PRRA application and guide; and\n a Statement of No Intention Letter.\nIt is preferable that the notification be given in person during the removal interview.\nHowever, in some instances it may be more efficient to mail the notification directly to\nthe person or to another CBSA office for pickup. If the person is to pick up the envelope\nat a CBSA office, the recipient should sign and date an acknowledgement of receipt.\nA stay of removal is directly linked to the notification and is triggered when a person is\nnotified by the CBSA that they may make an application for a PRRA.\nAt the interview, the person will be counselled on the enforcement of the removal\norder. The officer should then evaluate with the person what other documentation is\nnecessary and should be available to enforce the removal order. If the person provides\na travel or identity document, the officer should seize the document and place it on file,\nas well as update GCMS/NCMS. If there are no travel documents available, the officer\nshould seek the person’s cooperation in completing the necessary applications. At this\ntime the officer may impose conditions for reporting purposes.\nIf the person is eligible and wishes to apply for a risk assessment, the officer must\nprovide the person with an application kit. A guide will explain the time frames as well\nas other instructions.\nIf the person does not intend to apply, a Statement of No Intention Letter should be\nsigned and dated immediately. Removal can then proceed, as there is no stay in effect.\nIf the person intends on completing the application, the removal order is stayed. For\nfurther information on stay provisions, refer to sections 10-11 above. The officer should\nupdate the NCMS/GCMS screens when notification is given in order to monitor the time\nframes for the filing of the application.\nNote: It is entirely up to the person concerned to decide whether or not to apply for a\nPRRA, and no pressure should be made by the officer or anyone else involved to\ninfluence a decision one way or the other.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.6 (How to notify a person to apply for a PRRA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.7", + "marginal_note": "When a person does not want to apply for a PRRA", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.7 When a person does not want to apply for a PRRA\nFor persons not wishing to initiate a PRRA, the Statement of No Intention Letter to\napply for PRRA should be signed as soon as possible after notification has been given.\nThis will enable the CBSA to proceed with removal arrangements without waiting 15\n2025-02-03 55\ndays to file the application, as provided for in the Regulations. If the person later\nwishes to file an application, the kit will be supplied at that time. However, there is no\nstay of removal to await the decision. Removal arrangements can proceed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.7 (When a person does not want to apply for a PRRA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.8", + "marginal_note": "The application for a PRRA", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.8 The application for a PRRA\nThe person making the application should be instructed to mail the application to the\nappropriate PRRA Office within 15 days after notification was given. This is also stated\nin the kit. The PRRA Office is responsible for entering the receipt of the PRRA\napplication into GCMS and NCMS. This is important for determining whether the\napplication was received within the time limit and whether the stay of removal\ncontinues.\nIf the person files an application and submissions following the prescribed period of 15\ndays after notification, the PRRA Unit will accept the application, update GCMS and\nNCMS, and make a decision. When an application is submitted beyond the 15-day\nperiod, the person will not benefit from a stay pursuant to R164, and removal\narrangements can proceed. There may be times when a late application is received\nand the officer conducting the removal may want to consult with their supervisor or\nmanager on whether the removal should be deferred pending the decision of the PRRA\napplication. The discretion to defer will be left entirely to the Removals Unit and\ncaution must be exercised before proceeding with removal.\nAll submissions in support of an application must be sent directly by the person\nconcerned to the PRRA Unit. That unit will enter the receipt in GCMS and NCMS. In\norder for the Removals Unit to remain at arm’s length of the PRRA Unit, all\napplications and submissions must be sent directly to the PRRA Office by the\napplicant. The Removals Unit must not accept any application or submissions for\nPRRAs. As well, the CBSA officer must not interact with the PRRA officer or discuss any\npending cases. Any communication between the Removals Unit and the PRRA Office\nmust be done through the coordinators/managers of these units.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.8 (The application for a PRRA) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.8", + "marginal_note": "The application for a PRRA", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "If the applicant chooses to withdraw their PRRA application, the foreign national can\nattend a CBSA inland office and complete the Notification of Withdrawal: Application\nfor Pre-Removal Risk Assessment form. As per R170, an application for protection\nmay be withdrawn by the applicant at any time by notifying the Minister in writing.\nThe application is declared to be withdrawn upon receipt of the notice and this\nremoves the statutory stay for removal arrangements to proceed. The CBSA officer\nmust immediately send a copy of the signed form via email to IRCC to update NCMS\nand GCMS. The CBSA officer will place the original signed copy on file.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.8 (The application for a PRRA) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.9", + "marginal_note": "PRRA decision", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.9 PRRA decision\nPursuant to R164, a decision on a PRRA application will not be made until at least 30\ndays after notification was given to the person concerned. The PRRA Office will enter\nthe type of decision and the date the decision was rendered into GCMS and NCMS.\nAll decisions, whether positive or negative, will be sent to the respective Removals Unit.\nThe CBSA officer will ask the person to come to the office by sending a Letter to attend\nand pick up the decision. The announcement of the decision will be made at the office\n2025-02-03 56\nduring the removal interview with the officer. The officer should ask the person\nconcerned whether they require the reasons for the decision and, if so, obtain an\nacknowledgment of receipt of the reasons and decision from the person.\nThe convocation letter will again remind the person to bring any travel documents (i.e.,\npassport, identity cards, documentation issued by the Canadian government and other\npertinent documentation) if these were not previously submitted or seized.\nGCMS and NCMS must always be updated to reflect these events.\nFor more information about PRRA decisions, see sections, 20.10 through 20.12 below.\nThe only circumstance in which a PRRA decision will be mailed directly to the claimant is\nin POE cases where the person has been returned to the United States to await the\noutcome of their PRRA decision. In these cases, the decision will be mailed to the\naddress provided on the PRRA application.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.9 (PRRA decision)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.10", + "marginal_note": "Positive PRRA decision for A112(1) cases", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.10 Positive PRRA decision for A112(1) cases\nWhen applicants are advised of a positive PRRA decision, they should be counselled on\napplying for permanent residency. Information on applications for permanent residency\nby protected persons can be found in PP 4, section 7.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.10 (Positive PRRA decision for A112(1) cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-11-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.11", + "marginal_note": "Positive PRRA decision for A112(3) cases", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.11 Positive PRRA decision for A112(3) cases\nPRRA applicants who are either inadmissible on grounds of security (A34), human\nor international rights violations (A35), serious criminality (A36(1)), or organized\ncriminality (A37), or are excluded from refugee protection pursuant to section F of\nArticle 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees are described in\nsubsection 112(3) the IRPA, and as such, their access to protection is restricted.\nAs per A114(1)(b), a PRRA application that is restricted per A112(3) will only result\nin granting a reviewable stay of removal instead of the conferral of protected\nperson status. The processing of these applications is governed by A113(d) and (e)\nand R172. In these cases, when IRCC finds that the applicant’s removal would not\nexpose them to risks under A96 and/or A97, their application is rejected and the\nfile is sent back to the CBSA regional office for removal proceedings.\nWhen IRCC concludes that a PRRA applicant described in 112(3) would be at risk if\nremoved, the assessment is sent to the CBSA regional office along with the PRRA\napplication and the foreign national’s submissions. This is not a final decision but a\npreliminary assessment that should not be shared with the foreign national.\nA restriction assessment is required to assess the danger the applicant poses to the\npublic and/or to the security of Canada, and/or of the nature and severity of acts\ncommitted against the risks they would face upon removal. In order to proceed\nwith the restriction assessment, the CBSA regional office must prepare supporting\ndocumentation to be forwarded to the CBSA Danger Assessments and National\nSecurity Cases Unit (DANSC) at CBSA NHQ.\nCBSA officers may consult ENF 28 or DANSC for additional guidance.\n2025-02-03 57", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.11 (Positive PRRA decision for A112(3) cases) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-11-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.11", + "marginal_note": "Positive PRRA decision for A112(3) cases", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Once a final decision is rendered by the IRCC, the CBSA officer delivers the decision\nin person. If the PRRA application is rejected the removal proceedings may\ncontinue. If the application is allowed a stay of removal is granted. As per A114(2),\nsuch stays are subject to review to determine whether the circumstances\nsurrounding a stay have changed and the cancellation of the stay is justified. The\nperson should be counselled on the Minister’s authority pursuant to 114(2) to re-\nexamine the circumstances surrounding the stay of the removal.\nMore information can be found on the IRCC Program Delivery Instructions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.11 (Positive PRRA decision for A112(3) cases) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.12", + "marginal_note": "Negative PRRA decision", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.12 Negative PRRA decision\nAt the interview, the person will be advised of the negative decision. The person will\nbe counselled on the benefits of voluntary removal and advised that departure from\nCanada is now imminent. Attention must be given to the type of removal order, and\nthe person should be counselled accordingly on its effect. For information on\ncounselling regarding the effect of removal orders, see section 9. Based on the\ninterview and case details, the officer should assess whether the person will\nvoluntarily report to a specified location for removal on a specified date or whether the\nperson should be detained for removal.\nGCMS and NCMS should be updated regularly to capture all events throughout the\nPRRA process.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.12 (Negative PRRA decision)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.13", + "marginal_note": "Application for leave and judicial review of a", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.13 Application for leave and judicial review of a\nnegative decision\nA decision by a PRRA officer may be judicially reviewed if the Federal Court grants leave\nto do so. The filing of the application for leave with the Court does not automatically\nstay a removal order. Usually a motion for a stay and a request that this motion be\nheard on an urgent basis will accompany the application for leave. For detailed\ninformation on the steps to take when a motion for a stay has been filed, see ENF 9,\nsections 5.25 to 5.28.\nIf a motion for a stay has been denied and the application for leave is proceeding, the\nremoval will not be deferred pending the Court's decision on the leave application.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.13 (Application for leave and judicial review of a)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-21-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 21.14", + "marginal_note": "Subsequent PRRA applications", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "21.14 Subsequent PRRA applications\nA person who receives a negative PRRA decision cannot apply for a subsequent PRRA\nas per paragraph 112(2)(c), if less than 12 months has passed since their last\napplication for protection was rejected or determined to be abandoned or withdrawn,\nor in the case of a national from a country that is designated under subsection\n109.1(1), less than 36 months has passed*. Persons who remain in Canada following\nthe aforementioned time periods, may make another application. The application and\nwritten submissions must be forwarded to the PRRA coordinator. If the subsequent\napplication is submitted directly to the removal officer, it must be forwarded to the\nattention of the PRRA coordinator. Pursuant to R165, a subsequent application does\nnot result in a stay of removal and removal arrangements can proceed. In limited\n2025-02-03 58\ncases, exceptional circumstances may warrant the deferral of removal pending a\nsubsequent PRRA decision. In these cases, the officer conducting the removal should\nconsult their supervisor or manager on whether the removal should be deferred.\nGCMS and NCMS should be updated regularly to capture all events throughout the\nPRRA.\n*In 2019, Canada removed all countries from the designated country of origin (DCO)\nlist, effectively suspending the DCO policy, introduced in 2012, until it can be repealed\nthrough future legislative changes.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 21.14 (Subsequent PRRA applications)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Obtaining travel documents", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 Procedure: Obtaining travel documents\nPrior to initiating a request for a travel document, officers should ensure the case is\nactionable as per section 9.5 above. Actionable implies that the person’s location is\nknown, that reasonable grounds exist to believe the individual can be removed within\na reasonable time should a travel document be obtained, and PRRA notification has\nbeen given, if applicable.\nOfficers should make prompt and reasonable efforts to determine the foreign\nnational’s citizenship, or country of legal residence if different, for the purpose of\nacquiring a travel document and executing the removal order expeditiously.\nOfficers should first determine if a travel document is on file, by doing the following:\n query GCMS, NCMS, and the foreign national’s file for the existence of an\noriginal travel document or photocopy; and\n review the foreign national’s physical files for documentary evidence of\ncitizenship and determine whether a formal application for a travel document\nhas been submitted earlier in the enforcement process.\nIf a valid travel document is available, officers should action the file to effect removal\nwithout delay.\nWhen required, travel documents for foreign nationals under a removal order can be\nobtained through diplomatic representatives accredited to Canada. To identify the\nproper diplomatic representation, officers should consult the Removals Wiki, the\nStakeholder Engagement Unit (SEU), or Global Affairs Canada’s list of foreign\nrepresentations and international organizations accredited to Canada.\nEach diplomatic representation requires a variety of information and documentation.\nOfficers should consult with the SEU, the Removals Wiki, and / or the appropriate\ndiplomatic representation to confirm the requirements.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22 (Procedure: Obtaining travel documents) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Obtaining travel documents", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "In cases where a country’s accredited representation is their Permanent Mission to the\nUnited Nations (PM), officers should consult its website to determine if the PM has the\nauthority to issue travel documents before contacting them directly. When requesting\ndocumentation from diplomatic representations, officers should always request the\nmaximum permissible validity period for the travel document to allow for some\nflexibility in making removal arrangements. Although each country may have specific\nrequirements when applying for a travel document, requests for travel documents\nfrom diplomatic representations should normally include:\n2025-02-03 59\n the foreign national's:\no complete name, any aliases, date and place of birth, and any other\nrelevant particulars such as education and employment history;\no last place of residence in the country of citizenship or legal residence;\no date of arrival in Canada, and;\no where countries specifically require:\n parents’ names, places and dates of birth, present and / or past\naddress(es), and similar details, where known, of other family\nmembers or close relatives residing in the country of\ncitizenship;\n names, place, where applicable, clan or tribal information;\no a copy of the removal order. When the removal order is based on\ncriminality, officers should provide details of all known convictions;\no passport photographs, as per country’s specifications, one to be\ncertified on the reverse to the effect that it is a true likeness of the\nperson concerned;\no all identification documents such as, but not limited to: an expired\npassport, national identification card, seaman's identity card, birth or\nbaptismal certificate, laissez-passer or any other pertinent documents", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22 (Procedure: Obtaining travel documents) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Obtaining travel documents", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "that might help in establishing the citizenship of the foreign national\nconcerned (it is recommended to keep a copy on file of all\ndocumentation sent to the diplomatic representation);\no if the previous passport was lost or stolen, a copy of the police report,\nor a statutory declaration from the foreign national in the event that a\npolice report is not available; and,\no any other relevant file information (i.e., itinerary, legal name change,\netc.).\nIn exceptional circumstances, while conducting escorted removals, inland enforcement\nofficers may be asked to engage foreign governments to facilitate travel document\nissuance or confirmation of identity. Any engagement with foreign government\nofficials during escorted removals must be pre-approved by regional management and\nthe Removals Program Unit, and conducted in consultation with the SEU and\nInternational Network responsible for the CBSA LO Network. Any action must be\nclearly documented using standard note taking procedures and added to the foreign\nnational’s file. Furthermore, this activity must be declared to the diplomatic\nrepresentation when submitting the request for a visa to conduct the escorted\nremoval, to allow them to issue the correct visa.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22 (Procedure: Obtaining travel documents) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22.1", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining travel documents for detained", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.1 Obtaining travel documents for detained\nforeign nationals\nIt is the CBSA’s duty to remove inadmissible foreign nationals as soon as possible.\nTherefore, to avoid prolonged detention, officers must make arrangements to obtain\ntravel documents as quickly as possible.\nOfficers should make prompt and reasonable efforts to determine the detained foreign\nnational’s citizenship, or country of legal citizenship if different, for the purpose of\nacquiring a travel document and executing the removal order expeditiously. For\ndetained cases, where there is an identified travel document impediment, officers\nshould reach out immediately to SEU for guidance. In most cases, officers will proceed\n2025-02-03 60\nas usual to submit the request to the diplomatic representation and responsibility for\nthe file remains with them. SEU will work closely with officers and monitor progress to\nbe ready to intervene with the diplomatic representatives, if required.\nWhen officers correspond with a diplomatic representative, four points should be made\nclear:\n a removal order has been issued;\n the foreign national has exhausted all legal avenues to remain in Canada;\n arrangements are being undertaken to obtain a travel document to reduce the\nperiod of detention to a minimum (if applicable); and\n officer(s) will immediately inform the diplomatic representative if the removal\nwill not proceed as planned.\nWhere possible, officers should apply in advance for a travel document as some\ndiplomatic representations will issue travel documents without travel itineraries.\nOfficers must give top priority to any correspondence pertaining to a detained foreign\nnational. They should either put a Detained Sticker [IMM 0476B] on each piece of\ncorrespondence that is sent to NHQ and to the IAD to alert them to the urgency of the\ncase, or note in the correspondence that the foreign national is detained.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22.1 (Obtaining travel documents for detained)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22.2", + "marginal_note": "Referrals to National Headquarters –", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.2 Referrals to National Headquarters –\nStakeholder Engagement Unit\nIn cases where an officer is unable to obtain a travel document from a diplomatic\nrepresentation , the case may be referred to the SEU, who will take the lead on travel\ndocument efforts. This may include elevating the case with diplomatic representation,\nengaging Liaison Officers to take the necessary steps to resolve outstanding issues\nwith the relevant authorities, or seeking other solutions as required. In some cases,\nGlobal Affairs Canada may be asked to intervene if difficulties in obtaining the\nnecessary travel document persist. File referral information should be included in\nNCMS as per Operational Bulletin: PRG-2018-04.\nAs a general rule, cases must be referred for assistance to the SEU where officers\nhave attempted to obtain a travel document and have received no formal reply from\nthe diplomatic representatives in 30 calendar days. This will allow foreign\nrepresentatives a respectful amount of time to respond and/or complete any required\nverifications, and officers to work to resolve any issues at the regional level,\npreserving the relationship. If a regional program specialist is available, they are a\nvaluable resource that maybe able to assist in resolving issues, before referring the\ncase. Furthermore, only cases that are actionable should be referred, as per Part 8.5\nabove. When there is an outstanding PRRA application, consideration should be given\nto the validity period of the travel document and the likelihood of removal proceeding,\nbefore pursuing travel document issuance and seeking SEU assistance. However,\nthere are cases / circumstances that require earlier SEU assistance and officers are\nencouraged to reach out to the unit for guidance / assistance. Examples of cases that", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22.2 (Referrals to National Headquarters –) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22.2", + "marginal_note": "Referrals to National Headquarters –", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "should be an immediate referral:\n2025-02-03 61\n detained\n where no identity / citizenship documentation is available to the CBSA;\n refusal to comply with the travel document application;\n require confirmation of previous legal residency in a third country (permanent\nresident / convention refugee status);\n ad hoc cases (i.e., countries where there is a clear indication from the\ndiplomatic representation that a travel document is not forthcoming, or\ncountries from which SEU can obtain fast confirmation of citizenship); and\n involve nationals of countries where SEU is the single point of contact.\nWhen a case is referred to the SEU for assistance, SEU will assume the lead on\ncommunicating with the diplomatic representation on the travel document. However,\nthe officer remains responsible for the case and, therefore, is expected to continue the\nday-to-day activities and act as the principal contact for any information and/or action\npertaining to the case, unless specifically instructed otherwise by the SEU. In the\nevent that correspondence on the travel document is received from the diplomatic\nrepresentation, officers should forward it immediately to the SEU prior to responding.\nOfficers must inform the SEU immediately of any new developments in the case,\nespecially if an officer receives a travel document, or if the foreign national receives\nstatus in Canada, leaves the country or dies after having referred the case.\nWhen referring a case to the SEU, it is important that officers provide all necessary\nbackground information, this includes but is not limited to a copy of the application\npackage submitted, a case summary, and any follow up correspondence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22.2 (Referrals to National Headquarters –) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22.3", + "marginal_note": "Removal without a valid passport", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.3 Removal without a valid passport\nIn cases where removal without a valid passport is a possibility, officers should review\nthe case, consult the Travel Information Manual (TIM), the Removals Wiki and SEU,\nand discuss it with their supervisor. In some cases, according to the TIM, a foreign\nnational may not require a valid passport to enter their country of nationality, but this\nshould be confirmed with the SEU as the rules for foreign nationals under removal\norder are different than those that apply to regular travelers. Before officers remove a\nforeign national who does not have a valid passport or travel document, they will need\nthe concurrence of the transportation carrier and any country of transit.\nAn officer of the destination country will usually grant admission to a foreign national\nupon satisfaction that the person is a citizen or national of that country. An expired\npassport, birth certificate, national identification card, or any other recognized\ndocument that contains biographical details of the person may serve as evidence of\ncitizenship and could be sufficient; however, the final determination is that of the\nreceiving country. Officers should consult the Removals Program Management Unit and\nthe International Network prior to scheduling the removal.\n2025-02-03 62", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22.3 (Removal without a valid passport)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22.4", + "marginal_note": "Removal without a travel document", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.4 Removal without a travel document\nAlthough it is not recommended to proceed with a removal without proper\ndocumentation, a transportation carrier may accept a foreign national under removal\norder without documentation if the foreign national is being removed directly back to\nthe country of origin and there are no transit points. Before finalizing travel\narrangements, the carrier should be contacted to verify that this is acceptable, and\nofficers should be confident that the destination country is willing to accept the\ndeportee without documents. A Single Journey Document (SJD) [IMM 5149B] should\nbe completed and used only after the destination country has confirmed that their\nnationals can travel on a SJD. It is necessary to consult the Stakeholder Engagement\nUnit (SEU) for guidance when travel documents are not available and seek approval to\nproceed with an SJD.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22.4 (Removal without a travel document)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22.5", + "marginal_note": "Use of a Single Journey Document (SJD)", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.5 Use of a Single Journey Document (SJD)\nA SJD should be used only in exceptional circumstances when it is not possible to\nobtain a travel document or remove an individual on an alternative document. Officers\nshould regard the use of an IMM 5149B as an exception to the rule, not as a standard\noperating procedure. As such, the decision to use an IMM 5149B must be made on a\ncase-specific basis, taking into account all possible complications including the\nrequirements of transit countries. Officers should always seek the concurrence of their\nmanager before removing on an IMM 5149B. Once regional managers are satisfied\nthat an SJD is warranted, managers are to seek approval from SEU. This document\ndoes not guarantee entry into the destination country, and officers should be aware\nof, and plan for, the potential for a person being refused entry into that country.\nAlthough there is not a list of countries that accept persons removed on an IMM\n5149B, officers should consult the Removals Wiki for country specific information\nabout the use of SJDs.\nThe narrative report should include:\n name and UCI of the foreign national;\n the reason the IMM 5149B will be utilized;\n the proposed date of removal, itinerary and name of the transportation\ncompany;\n the reason for removal;\n the number of escort officers to accompany the foreign national and, if\ndetermined at time of reporting, their names;\n any available supporting documentation such as a birth certificate or\nexpired document;\n confirmation that the foreign national is removal ready and has\nexhausted all legal venues to remain in Canada;\n confirmation whether or not the foreign national is willing to return to the\ndestination country;\n pertinent information regarding the foreign national’s health status; and\n any other information that may be useful, including information about the\nprevious successes using SJDs for this particular country.\nFor further information on the escort requirements for the removal of persons on an\nIMM 5149B, refer to PART IV below.\n2025-02-03 63", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22.5 (Use of a Single Journey Document (SJD))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-22-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 22.6", + "marginal_note": "Visa requirements", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22.6 Visa requirements\nWhen a foreign national is required to transit a country where a visa is required,\nofficers must acquire the necessary visa before the foreign national is removed from\nCanada. Additionally, some countries may require re-entry visas or authorizations for\ntheir nationals, permanent residents, or protected persons being removed back to\ntheir countries, which officers will have to obtain.\nFor specific requirements, officers should refer to the TIM, the Removals Wiki, IRCC\nOfficial Travel, and should consult the Removals Program Management Unit. In some\ncases, it may be necessary for officers to contact the diplomatic representation\ndirectly, or as a last resort, confirm visa requirements with the liaison officer.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 22.6 (Visa requirements)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-23", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 23", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Seizure of documents", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "23 Procedure: Seizure of documents\nA140(1) authorizes an officer to seize and hold any means of transportation,\ndocument or other thing if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, one of the\nfollowing:\n that the means of transportation, document or other thing has been\nfraudulently or improperly obtained or used;\n that seizure is necessary to prevent its fraudulent or improper use; or\n that the seizure is necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act and\nRegulations.\nRefer to ENF12 manual for detailed guidance on the seizure of documents.\nWhen arranging the removal of a foreign national from Canada, the officer should\nreturn any genuine identity or travel documents to the rightful holder and/or return all\nseized documents issued by any government department or agency to the appropriate\nissuing authority. For further instructions on the procedure for disposing of seized\ndocuments refer to ENF 12.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 23 (Procedure: Seizure of documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-24", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 24", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Subsistence for persons under a", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "24 Procedure: Subsistence for persons under a\nremoval order\nFor the purpose of this document, subsistence is defined as “a means of surviving”.\nIn exceptional circumstances, the CBSA manager, Director, or Regional Director\nGeneral have the discretion to approve for the foreign national's subsistence or the\nmeans to buy it. Subsistence funds are meant to assist the individual with funds for\nnecessities, if needed, to facilitate their removal to their destination country.\nWhere subsistence funding for transportation is required, it should always be limited\nto one trip, by the most cost-effective means, in order to facilitate the person to\naccess government services, or to be reunified with a support network.\n2025-02-03 64", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 24 (Procedure: Subsistence for persons under a)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-24-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 24.1", + "marginal_note": "Preparing the rationale", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "24.1 Preparing the rationale\nIf the officer determines that it is necessary to provide subsistence funds to a foreign\nnational, the officer must prepare a rationale to seek approval. Officers should\nconsider the following factors:\n Family, friends, support network\n Medication\n Luggage (or lack thereof) and proper attire for travel\n Availability of funds\n Reception at destination airport\n Transportation\n Currency value\n Previous status in Canada\n Current living situation in Canada\n If detained, availability of funds at the financial institution and/or stored at the\nprovincial detention centre", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 24.1 (Preparing the rationale)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-24-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 24.2", + "marginal_note": "Requesting subsistence funds", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "24.2 Requesting subsistence funds\nIn order to request subsistence funds the officer is required to:\n Complete the rationale and seek approval from the manager with the\nappropriate financial authority. The manager level must have at least a Level V\ndelegated spending authority under the CBSA’s Delegation of Spending and\nFinancial Authorities (DSFA) Matrix.\n If the amount is under $500 CAD, the request should be approved by the\nManager (Level V and above).\n If the amount is between $500 CAD - $2,000 CAD, the request should be\nreferred to the Director for approval.\n If the amount requested exceeds $2,000 CAD, the request should be escalated\nto the Regional Director General for approval.\n The officer will complete a Petty Cash Voucher Form [GC34] to have the funds\nissued as a Petty Cash Voucher.\nRegardless of the amount requested, the GC34 request form must clearly articulate\nthat the purpose of the requested funds is for the provision of subsistence funds,\ninclude the foreign national’s name, UCI, and the expected removal date.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 24.2 (Requesting subsistence funds)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-24-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 24.3", + "marginal_note": "Releasing subsistence funds", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "24.3 Releasing subsistence funds\nA Statutory Declaration must be completed by the officer releasing the funds to the\nforeign national.\nFor unescorted removals, the officer will provide the funds to the foreign national\nwhen they are departing Canada (e.g. at the airport gate) and have the foreign\nnational sign the statutory declaration confirming receipt of the funds.\nDuring an escorted removal, the officers will provide the subsistence funds to the\nforeign national and have the foreign national sign the statutory declaration\nconfirming receipt of the funds.\n2025-02-03 65\nA record of issuance of the subsistence funds will be maintained by placing a copy of\nthe statutory declaration on the foreign national’s file.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 24.3 (Releasing subsistence funds)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-24-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 24.4", + "marginal_note": "Tracking subsistence funds", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "24.4 Tracking subsistence funds\nThe following activities are required to maintain clear records of subsistence funds\nissuance:\n The Officer is responsible to attach a copy of the signed GC34 form to the file,\nas well as a copy of the Statutory Declaration.\n The Regional Finance Section is responsible for maintaining records of released\nsubsistence funds.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 24.4 (Tracking subsistence funds)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-25", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 25", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Medical Requirements necessary for", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "25 Procedure: Medical Requirements necessary for\nRemoval (MRR)\nWhen making removal arrangements for a foreign national who has ongoing medical\nissues, the CBSA must ensure that the individual has the proper medical assistance\nduring removal. As officers are not trained in the medical field, they must seek a\nmedical opinion from a licensed physician to determine if any medical assistance is\nrequired for/during travel in accordance with the International Aviation Transport\nAssociation medical manual.\nMRR requests must be forwarded to the MRR Unit inbox accompanied by all relevant\ninformation, pertaining to the medical condition(s) with supporting documentation and\nconsent forms. The MRR Unit will forward the requests to the CBSA Medical\nPractitioner. The CBSA Medical Practitioner will provide an assessment within 48 hours\nof the request. The MRR Unit will send the assessment to the requesting officer within\n24 hours (excluding weekends) of receipt. Should a backlog of requests occur, MRRs\nwill be issued based on the removal date.\nWhile a MRR assessment may result in a short term deferral of removal, foreign\nnationals who allege that removal may cause death or irreparable harm due to a lack\nof critical medical care in the country of removal are, in fact, requesting to stay in\nCanada indefinitely. The responsibility to decide on long term risk falls outside of\nCBSA’s mandate. The discretion that a CBSA officer may exercise is very limited, and\nin any case, is restricted to when a removal order will be executed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 25 (Procedure: Medical Requirements necessary for)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-26", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 26", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Notifying commercial transporters -", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "26 Procedure: Notifying commercial transporters -\nTransporter liability (Air and Marine Mode)\nUnder R276(1)(b) officers must inform the commercial transporter liable for removal\nas soon as a removal order becomes enforceable. Officers should also provide\nbackground details in the advance information so that the commercial transporters\ncan conduct any necessary investigations before removal.\n2025-02-03 66\nIf the commercial transporter responsible for removal are air carriers, the information\nfrom the officer should also include, whenever possible, a photocopy of the original\nairline ticket, inbound ticket numbers, routing to Canada, other carriers involved en\nroute, flight numbers and dates. These details will assist in the carriers' acceptance of\nliability and help them to prorate removal costs to any other carriers involved.\nOfficers should use the Notice to Transporter [BSF502] to serve notice officially to a\ncommercial transporter of its responsibility to convey the person back to their country.\nOnce the officer has established a travel itinerary, the officer presents the BSF502 to\nairline officials for signature.\nNote that there are circumstances where commercial transporters are relieved of their\nobligations to carry a FN from Canada (refer to R277).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 26 (Procedure: Notifying commercial transporters -)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-27", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 27", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Notification to LOs and RCMP of all", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "27 Procedure: Notification to LOs and RCMP of all\ncases\nThe following two subsections provide details concerning notification prior to removal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 27 (Procedure: Notification to LOs and RCMP of all)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-27-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 27.1", + "marginal_note": "Notification to liaison officers (LOs) at visa", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "27.1 Notification to liaison officers (LOs) at visa\noffices abroad\nRemoval officers must notify liaison officers, as per the Mission Territory List, of all\nknown removals arriving in or transiting their countries of responsibility. This includes\nescorted removals, airline liability cases, and non-escorted cases who confirm their\ndeparture.\nThe LOs must be given this information to advise other government officials and police\nof the returning individual as required. The visa office general mailbox should also be\ncopied to ensure the notification is read if the LOs are away. As well, if a specific\ncountry does not have LO coverage at the time of the removal, please notify the IRCC\nimmigration program manager of the Canadian Embassy or High Commission that\nserves that country.\nFor full information including country-specific instructions as well as the list of the\noffice addresses, fax numbers, telephone numbers and territory responsibilities of LOs\noverseas, officers should consult the Notification of Removals Mission Territory List,\nand the LO Contact List at: Liaison officers contact list.\nIt is imperative that officers send the notification and the BSF834 Notification of\nRemoval Form to the post at least seven working days before the proposed removal.\nIf the information cannot be sent within seven working days, officers must notify the\nLO as soon as possible to prevent difficult situations from developing and to ensure\nthat any necessary assistance will be available.\nNotification should stipulate whether it is being sent for information only, or if assistance is required in\neither the transit country or country of destination.\n2025-02-03 67\nThe notification should contain the following information:\n names;\n dates of birth;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 27.1 (Notification to liaison officers (LOs) at visa) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-27-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 27.1", + "marginal_note": "Notification to liaison officers (LOs) at visa", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " passport numbers of escort officers, including police and/or medical officers;\n the full given name, family name and aliases of the foreign national being removed;\n the foreign national's date of birth, citizenship, place of birth;\n a description of the foreign national and a photograph;\n the type, serial number and validity period of the travel document; accompanying\nidentification documents;\n the date of the removal order and the IRPA violation under which the removal order was\nissued;\n the proposed date of removal, itinerary and name of the transportation company;\n any criminal or terrorist background and whether the foreign national has a history of\nviolence;\n the attitude of the foreign national concerning their removal (for example, whether the\nforeign national is likely to resist forcibly);\n if a medical case, the nature of the medical condition;\n any assistance from foreign authorities that is expected during transit;\n information on accompanying family members; and\n any other information that may be useful.\nNotifications should be forwarded to the Liaison Officers, the Mission’s generic inbox as well as the\nremovals notification inbox found on the Wiki, who will disseminate the removal notification to the\nRemovals Program Unit, Stakeholder Engagement Unit, International Operations Division, and Quality\nAssurance Unit. Please also be reminded of the following:\n The BSF834 must always be included in each removal notification.\n The following format should be used in the subject line of your email for consistent screening\nand follow up: Escorted or Unescorted removal of LAST NAME, First Name UCI: XXXX-XXXX to\n(Country) on (Date).\n Notifications must be sent at least seven working days in advance of the removal, or longer if", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 27.1 (Notification to liaison officers (LOs) at visa) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-27-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 27.1", + "marginal_note": "Notification to liaison officers (LOs) at visa", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "specified by the country.\n LOs and Missions emails can be found at: Liaison officers contact list.\nIt can happen that the 7 day mandatory removal notification period may not be met for walk-ins but\nall efforts should be made to meet this timeline for any other case. Some countries have longer\nnotification periods, which is indicated on the country's WIKI page.\nIf a removal is delayed or cancelled, the officer must notify the visa office immediately. If necessary,\nfurther information should be sent regarding the specific reasons for the delay or cancellation and\nwhether further action is required.\nFurthermore, the Removals Unit must provide written instructions to officers confirming the departure,\nof action to be taken if a foreign national does not appear for a removal for which the overseas offices\nwere notified. For these cases, the BSF582 (Envelope: Removal Documents), must include the\nappropriate LO contact information (name, post, e-mail, fax and telephone numbers).\nWhen a foreign national did not appear for removal, the officer must contact the necessary LOs as\nsoon as possible, with a copy to the responsible Removals Unit. The method of notification is at the\nofficer’s discretion, based on the timing and the circumstances of the case, e.g., e-mail, and/or\ntelephone. This will allow the LO, and ultimately the CBSA, to maintain good relations with local\nauthorities in both transit and destination countries.\n2025-02-03 68", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 27.1 (Notification to liaison officers (LOs) at visa) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-27-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 27.2", + "marginal_note": "INTERPOL notification", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "27.2 INTERPOL notification\nPrior to removal, enforcement officers must notify the RCMP via INTERPOL, Ottawa, of the removal of\nan individual who:\n has a serious Canadian criminal record;\n has a serious foreign criminal record; and\n is wanted by a foreign country (active red notice or diffusion).\nEnforcement officers should include the following information when notifying INTERPOL Ottawa:\n all first names, last names and assumed names of the person being removed;\n date and place of birth, citizenship and address in the country of origin;\n physical description of the person removed and photograph;\n type, serial number and valid period of travel documents;\n FPS number;\n identity documents attached to the travel documents;\n date of the removal order and the violation under which the removal order was issued;\n date of removal, the itinerary and the name of the carrier;\n criminal and terrorist background as well as any violence history of the foreigner, if\napplicable;\n nature of illness or condition, if medical attention is required;\n assistance (if required) by foreign authorities during the transit;\n information on accompanying family members, if applicable;\n names and dates of birth of the escorting officers, if applicable;\n passport numbers of the escorting officers, including police officers and medical staff, if\napplicable; and\n other pertinent information.\nRCMP INTERPOL Operations in Ottawa can be reached by telephone at (613)-843-5034 or by email\n(preferred) at ipottawa@rcmp-grc.gc.ca.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 27.2 (INTERPOL notification)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-28", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 28", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Fingerprinting at time of removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "28 Procedure: Fingerprinting at time of removal\nWhen a person is under a deportation order, or a departure order that has become a deportation\norder, the officer conducting the pre-removal interview will capture their fingerprints and photograph,\neven in cases where the fingerprints and photograph are already on file. This process may be\ncompleted up to 90 days prior to removal. Officers are to use LiveScan automated fingerprint systems\nwherever they are available, with ink and roll prints only being used when a LiveScan machine is not\navailable.\nOfficers will be utilizing the CAR-Y workflow and when completing the “Demographic Entry - Statute of\nthe Charge” section, the officer will select the IRPA authority from the dropdown menu. The officer will\nthen select “Other” in the “Section Number and Wording” section and then enter “Removal –\nDeportation Order” in the “Charge Description 1”.\nWhen fingerprints are captured and ready to be submitted, the officer will print 3 copies of the C-216.\nOne copy will be inserted into the person’s file, another will form part of the Previously Deported\nPerson package that is sent to the Warrant Response Centre, and the third form will ultimately be\n2025-02-03 69\nforwarded to the RCMP. The RCMP requires the CBSA to enter the date when the removal from Canada\noccurred and the destination country.\nWhen preparing the PDP package, the officer will include the information below in the Disposition\nsection of all three C-216 forms.\na) Removal Order Authority – Section 48 of IRPA CBSA Removed on: ddmmmyyyy\nb) Destination Country:\nWhen forwarding the PDP package to the Warrant Response Centre, the officer will also insert the C-\n216 copy for the RCMP. The Warrant Response Centre will be responsible for ensuring data quality,\nbatching the C-216 for the RCMP and forwarding them to the RCMP for insertion in the Real Time\nIdentification System.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 28 (Procedure: Fingerprinting at time of removal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-29", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 29", + "marginal_note": "Preparing the Confirmation of Departure envelope", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "29 Preparing the Confirmation of Departure envelope\nAfter an officer notifies the foreign national that a removal order has become enforceable and the\nofficer has determined whether the person can be removed through voluntary compliance or an\nenforced removal order, a Confirmation of Departure (COD) envelope must be prepared. When\npreparing the COD package, officers should:\n Prepare a Certificate of Departure [IMM0056B], and ensure a copy of the foreign national’s\nphotograph is affixed to the CBSA copy of the document;\n complete a Notice of Removal and Profile (BSF560);\n include copies of any airline security notifications and approval;\n include travel document and airline ticket; and\n copy of Direction to Report.\nIf the removal is taking place at an airport and transportation has been arranged, the package may be\nforwarded to the airport.\nPART IV – Escorted Removals\nThis section is currently under review.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 29 (Preparing the Confirmation of Departure envelope)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-30", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 30", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Administrative travel guidelines for officers", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "30 Procedure: Administrative travel guidelines for officers\nperforming escorts\nThe Treasury Board of Canada travel directive is an important document for Government of Canada\nemployees who travel on government business or arrange for those who travel.\nManagement and officers can locate the travel directives at the following Web site: National Joint\nCouncil (NJC) Travel Directive. In addition, this policy is to be read in conjunction with ENF 20\n(Transport Policy, Section 11.5), the Agreement between the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat\nand the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the Border Services (FB) Group (Collective\nAgreement),the Use of Force Policy Suite and the Identifying and reporting significant events policy.\n2025-02-03 70", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 30 (Procedure: Administrative travel guidelines for officers)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-31", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 31", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Defining and measuring risk", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "31 Procedure: Defining and measuring risk\nIn cases where the PS Minister must enforce the removal order, a decision may be required whether or\nnot the individual being removed requires an escort. The final decision of the need to escort and the\naccountability for the decision following the assessment of the need for escorts rests with either the\nsupervisor, manager or in some cases, the director.\nIn the context of escorted removals, risk is measured by the uncertainty that the person under\nremoval may, during the removal, endanger the safety and security of the person(s) being removed,\nthe travelling public, transportation company personnel and/or the officer(s) conducting the removal.\nAs a minimum, some form of quantitative or qualitative analysis is required for making decisions\nconcerning threats to officers, airline personnel and the travelling public; risk that the foreign national\nwill self-harm; or the risk of resistance that will result in the failure of the removal.\nFor each element of risk, two calculations are required: its likelihood or probability (the chance of the\nrisk happening); and the extent of the impact or consequences (the amount of loss, damage or injury\nif an event happens or occurs).\nThe resulting “rating” determines the level of risk. The tables below provide guidance for measuring\nthe likelihood and impact of risk.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 31 (Procedure: Defining and measuring risk)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-31-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 31.1", + "marginal_note": "Likelihood Scale", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "31.1 Likelihood Scale\nLikelihood Description\nVery Likely Almost certain to happen during removal.\nLikely Probably will happen or chances are about even.\nUnlikely Probably will not happen.\nImpact Scale\nImpact Consequence\nMajor Significant consequences: Serious injury or fatality; extensive psychological\ntrauma; major property or economic damage; major confrontation or significant\ndisturbance.\nModerate Medium consequences: Limited damage or minimal long-term consequences;\nminor injury; moderate emotional distress; some disturbance that may result in\nthe failure of the removal.\nMinor Negligible or short-lived consequences: Slight disruption that does not result in\nthe failure of the removal; Minor non-compliance or issue of insignificant concern\nto public; Mild emotional distress.\n2025-02-03 71\n1) Rating the Level of Risk\nOnce the likelihood and impact of the risk is measured, the level of risk is rated using the Risk Matrix\nbelow.\nVery\nLikely\nMedium\nHigh\nExtreme\nLikely\nLow\nMedium\nHigh\nUnlikely\nLow\nLow\nMedium\nMinor\nModerate\nMajor\nImpact\nBased on the level of risk identified in the risk matrix, the table below provides guidance on the\nrequirement for escorts.\nRating Impact on Safety/Security\nExtreme  Escorts are required and other strategies may be required to mitigate risk\ni.e., use of restraints, experienced officers, additional officer.\nHigh  Escorts are required.\nMedium  May proceed with removal with or without escorts, with plans to mitigate risk\ni.e., direct flight, escorts to last transit point.\nLow  Escorts are not required.\n\n2) Completing the Escort Risk Assessment/Escort Request Form [BSF512]\nSection 19 of this manual provides instructions on conducting the file review and pre-removal", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 31.1 (Likelihood Scale) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-31-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 31.1", + "marginal_note": "Likelihood Scale", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "interview. During the pre-removal interview, an assessment can be made of the foreign national’s\nbehaviour, comportment and their reaction toward their scheduled or imminent removal.\nIf the removals officer has determined through the file review and pre-removal interview that escorts\nmay be required, the removals officer must complete the Escort Risk Assessment/Escort Request Form\n[BSF512] and submit it to their Supervisor, Manager or Assistant Director, along with copies of\nsupporting documents and the foreign national’s file.\nLikelihood\n2025-02-03 72\ni) Transportation Liability Cases\nPrior to completing the Escort Risk Assessment/Escort Request Form, the removals officer must review\nthe individual’s paper and electronic file to determine if the case is a Transportation Liability. If the\nremoval is a Transportation Liability, the Escort Risk Assessment/Escort Request Form [BSF512] is not\nrequired, unless the airline is no longer operating. Operating airlines must arrange their own escorts, if\nescorts are required. If the airline is no longer operating (and the removal expenses will be reimbursed\nfrom the airline’s security deposit, by invoice sent to the CBSA Transportation Obligations Unit), the\nremovals officer must indicate this on the form. Note that CBSA officers will only perform airline\nliability escorts in exceptional cases, following concurrence from the Manager or Assistant Director, or\nin cases where the airline is no longer operating.\nii) Medical and Facilitation Escorts\nIf the foreign national has a medical or mental health condition that requires supervision, a\ndetermination should be made by CBSA medical contractor whether a medical escort is required. The", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 31.1 (Likelihood Scale) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-31-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 31.1", + "marginal_note": "Likelihood Scale", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "medical contractor’s recommendation must be included, and if applicable, a Request for Medical Escort\nform, with the escort request.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 31.1 (Likelihood Scale) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-31-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 31.2", + "marginal_note": "Escort Types", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "31.2 Escort Types\nAccompaniment Escort\nIf an escort is required strictly for facilitation purposes, such as the requirement of foreign\nadministration, airline, or transit point, and there is no risk identified to warrant a risk-based escorted\nremoval.\nRisk-based Escort\nWhen the individual who is to be removed presents a level of risk based on their criminal history or\nbehaviour. Risk to the safety and security of the airplane, the general public, and the individual being\nremoved are all factors that can lead to an escorted removal.\nTransport Escort\nOccurs when an individual under a removal order is being transported from one location to another\nwithin Canada, transported to the last departure point in Canada, or transferred by land to the United\nStates POE. Security guards contracted by the CBSA will do this work where services are available.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 31.2 (Escort Types)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32", + "marginal_note": "Assessment of the need for escorts", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32 Assessment of the need for escorts\nIn order to approve or deny a request for escorts, the Supervisor, Manager or Assistant Director\nreviews the information provided on the Escort Risk Assessment/Escort Request Form [BSF512] and\nsupporting documents. The Supervisor, Manager or Assistant Director also reviews the hard- copy file,\nand relevant CBSA systems. The most recent interview notes, detention review notes, police reports\nand sentencing reports on the file should be made available for review upon request.\nIn addition, the Supervisor, Manager or Assistant Director will discuss the request with the removals\nofficer and ask all pertinent questions in order to validate the information provided regarding the\nimpending removal, including that this information equates to the appropriate level of risk based upon\n2025-02-03 73\nthe Risk Matrix. Factors to consider are the person’s comportment, anticipated reaction to their return\nto the country of destination, the length of the trip, and/or the transit point(s).\nThe objective of assessing the need for escorts is to minimize the risk to the safety and\nsecurity of the person(s) being removed, the travelling public, transportation company\npersonnel and/or the officer(s) conducting the removal. The role of the officer is to\ngather pertinent information on the case, identify possible risk, and recommend to their\nrespective managers, assistant directors or supervisors whether an escort is required.\nThe final decision on the need for escort rests with the manager, assistant director or\nsupervisor. Where it is determined that an escort is necessary, the following are\nimportant factors to consider in order to avoid unnecessary risk and ensure the success\nof the removal:\na) the number of officers required to effect the removal;\nb) the physical capability of the officers to restrain the individual should it\nbecome necessary; and\nc) the circumstances and locations in which the removal will take place.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32 (Assessment of the need for escorts)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.1", + "marginal_note": "Determining the number of officers for escort", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.1 Determining the number of officers for escort\nThe determination of the number of escort officers to be assigned to the removal is\nmade by the Supervisor, Manager or Assistant Director (or in some cases, the Director),\nbased on the information provided by the removals officer, the information on file and\nthe escort risk assessment.\ni) Accompaniment Escorts\nIf an escort is required strictly for facilitation purposes, such as the requirement of\nforeign administration, airline, or transit point, and there is no risk identified to warrant\nan escorted removal, only one escort officer, of the same sex, is assigned to accompany\nthe foreign national to either the transit point or final destination. Two escort officers\nmay be assigned when the airline or foreign officials specify that removal with one\nescort officer is not acceptable and despite efforts, no other agreement can be reached.\nii) Risk-Based Escorts and Detained Transport Escorts\nWhen the level of risk is such that an escorted removal is warranted, the standard\nnumber of officers that are assigned to the removal is two. Three officers are only\nassigned to an escorted removal when absolutely necessary and in exceptional cases.\nAn additional officer may be required when there is an extreme risk of bodily\nharm/death or physical resistance. Prior to assigning three officers, consideration must\nbe made whether the risk may be mitigated by assigning two officers who are\nexperienced with controlling violent individuals, using additional restraints as permitted\nby the airline and transit authorities, or assigning officer(s) who have built a rapport\nwith the foreign national and have been able to control the foreign national through\ntactical communication. The length of the trip, including the length and number of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.1 (Determining the number of officers for escort) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.1", + "marginal_note": "Determining the number of officers for escort", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "transits and availability of detention facilities should not be prescribed factors when\ndetermining whether three officers are required.\nOngoing Assessment of Risk\nThere are situations up until boarding the aircraft where new information or new\ncircumstances may warrant a re-assessment of risk. The decision to approve escorts\nmay be changed to a decision to proceed without escorts if the individual being\n2025-02-03 74\nremoved is now compliant. It is the responsibility of the removals officer, assigned\nescort officer(s) to immediately bring the new information to the attention of the\nSupervisor, Manager or Assistant Director, for consideration.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.1 (Determining the number of officers for escort) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.2", + "marginal_note": "Examples of removal cases that may require", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.2 Examples of removal cases that may require\nan escort\nThe following is a non-exhaustive list of examples to assist in assessing the need for\nescorts. Two officers should be considered to escort an individual under the following\ncircumstances:\n the individual has been charged with, or convicted of, a serious offence\ninvolving violence in any country. These offences may involve bodily harm\n(including death), weapons (including explosives), arson, hostage-taking,\nextortion, or acts against children;\n the individual has demonstrated an unwillingness to be removed or has made\nverbal or written threats against anyone in regards to their removal and/or it\nis anticipated that violence or untoward behaviour will be exhibited during the\nremoval;\n the individual has been deemed by the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship\nMinister to be a danger to the public;\n it is anticipated that problems may arise at the transit point or that the\nindividual will avoid connecting to the ongoing aircraft; and\n the individual suffers from a medical condition which requires close\nsupervision and the individual poses a safety or security risk. For further\ninformation on medical escort cases, refer to procedure 24.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.2 (Examples of removal cases that may require)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.3", + "marginal_note": "Exceptional cases that may require an escort", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.3 Exceptional cases that may require an escort\nThe following are a few examples of exceptional cases in which an escort may be\nrequired:\n situations in which an individual has been convicted of a minor assault. The\nnature of the assault and the potential for violence at the time of removal will\nbe the determining factors in these situations. If it is determined that an\nescort is required, two officers should be assigned;\n cases involving serious narcotic or drug convictions and the additional factors\nsuch as acts of violence or organized crime. The circumstances may vary\nfrom the need for no escort at all to the need for two officers. Individuals with\nminor narcotic or drug-related convictions will not normally be escorted\nunless there are indications that violence was, or may be, an issue;\n cases of serious criminal charges, particularly charges that are violence-\nrelated. In these cases, the individual should be escorted by at least two\nofficers. When the individual is wanted by law enforcement authorities in\nanother country for minor charges, the individual might need to be escorted\ndepending upon circumstances such as their willingness to leave or the\nanticipated reception the individual may experience upon arrival at the\ncountry of destination. There may also be other law enforcement \"liaison\"\nissues that need to be factored into the decision to escort;\n2025-02-03 75\n individuals whom the CBSA knows have escaped or attempted to escape the\nCBSA or police custody may not necessarily require an escort, particularly if\ntheir scheduled flight is non-stop. The rationale for this approach is that, if a\nperson appears at the airport voluntarily, then they are willing to leave\nCanada. However, if the individual has a repeated history of escape, or has", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.3 (Exceptional cases that may require an escort) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.3", + "marginal_note": "Exceptional cases that may require an escort", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "made recent attempts to escape, serious consideration should be given to\nescorting such an individual to their final destination. In such cases where it\nis determined that an escort is required, two officers should be assigned; and\nindividuals convicted of property-related or other offences involving non-\nviolent acts should not be escorted unless there are extenuating\ncircumstances determined in the risk assessment which warrant an escort. In\nsuch cases where it is determined that an escort is required, two officers\nshould be assigned. (Property-related offences may include such crimes as\ntheft, possession of stolen property, trespassing or fraud.)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.3 (Exceptional cases that may require an escort) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.4", + "marginal_note": "Escorts of multiple removals", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.4 Escorts of multiple removals\nIn multiple removal cases, the air carrier reserves the right to limit the maximum\nnumber of passengers under escort, considering the size of the aircraft and the level of\ndanger involved.\nis important, in these cases, that the air carrier is aware of the number of individuals\nbeing removed on one flight, the ratio of escorts to removals and the nature of the\ncases involved.\nThe following guidelines are suggested for CBSA liability cases in which the individuals\nare not considered to pose safety or security risks and do not fall within the parameters\nof the profiles outlined earlier:\n 0 to 5 adults = no officer\n 6 to 10 adults = 2 officers\n 11 to 15 adults = 3 officers\n 16 to 20 adults = 4 officers\nIn cases where the air carrier requests a variance in the number of officers provided,\nthe matter will have to be negotiated with the individual air carrier. The airlines should\nalso be reminded that the CBSA officer would be responsible only for cases where the\nCBSA is liable for costs. The responsibility for the escort of airline liability cases rests\nwith the airline, and these cases are not to be included in the calculation related to the\nabove profiles.\nOfficers are reminded that there will be situations that do not fall within the categories\nabove. It should therefore be understood that each case must be assessed in\naccordance with individual circumstances when determining the need for and the\nnumber of officers that may be required, bearing in mind the basic criteria outlined in\nthe profiles. The final decision on whether or not individuals should be escorted\nultimately rests with the manager or supervisor.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.4 (Escorts of multiple removals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.5", + "marginal_note": "Removals involving transit points", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.5 Removals involving transit points\nOfficers are not automatically assigned to ensure connections at transit points. There\nmay be cases where CBSA officers are satisfied that there is no safety or security risk\n2025-02-03 76\nand that the person wants to return, has all the necessary documentation, has made\npersonal reception arrangements at the destination, and will meet connecting flights at\nthe transit point. An officer’s presence should not normally be required in such cases.\nOne officer of the same sex should be assigned to accompany a person to their\ndestination where CBSA officers are satisfied there is no safety or security risk and the\nneed to accompany the person is dictated by transit requirements and/or the CBSA’s\nobligations to satisfy established arrangements or to meet certain requirements\nimposed by other parties such as other countries or transportation companies.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.5 (Removals involving transit points)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.6", + "marginal_note": "Removal of minors", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.6 Removal of minors\nIn instances where fewer than three children under the age of 16 years are\naccompanying adults, they will not be counted in the numbers for the assignment of\nofficers. However, if there are more than three children, an additional officer should be\nconsidered.\nUnaccompanied minors under the age of 13 should be removed with an accompaniment\nescort. Unaccompanied minors between the ages of 13 and 18 can be returned on\ndirect flights to their country of origin, without escort, where the airlines will accept\nresponsibility for the child during the trip and where no other safety and security risk\nexists. An officer should accompany children between the ages of 13 and 18 on non-\ndirect flights or on direct flights where the airlines cannot accept responsibility for the\nchild's care en route or where other safety or security risks exist.\nIn all cases of the removal of minors, reception with the family members or\nrepresentatives of government departments or agencies responsible for child welfare\nshould be arranged prior to departure.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.6 (Removal of minors)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.7", + "marginal_note": "Removal of violent persons", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.7 Removal of violent persons\nAn individual who has a serious violent criminal history or who otherwise meets a profile\nrequiring two officers should not normally be removed on the same aircraft with\nmultiple removals. However, should this become necessary, the airline should be\nconsulted and, if the airline agrees to the removal, two officers should be dedicated to\nthat removal alone, exclusive of other officers involved in the multiple removals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.7 (Removal of violent persons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.8", + "marginal_note": "Removal with a Single Journey Document", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.8 Removal with a Single Journey Document\nIn situations where persons are being removed on a Single Journey Document [IMM\n5149] to countries where this document has been previously used without any\nproblems, the CBSA officers should consult their supervisor or manager to determine\nthat there is no safety or security risk. If no such risk exists and it is anticipated that\nremoval will be successful using an IMM 5149B, an officer may not be required for\nescort. Whenever a person is removed on an IMM 5149B, the individual should be in\npossession of supporting documentation such as a birth certificate or national identity\ncard. For further information on when to use an IMM 5149B, refer to section 21.5.\nWhen an IMM 5149B is being used to remove a person to a specific destination for the\nfirst time, at least one officer of the same sex should accompany the individual being\nremoved.\n2025-02-03 77\nAn officer may not be required for removals through transit points where the person\nconcerned has an IMM 5149B and a visa, and the CBSA officers are satisfied there is no\nsafety or security risk.\nWhen a flight connection is necessary through a strategically important hub or\nconnection point , at least one officer of the same sex should be assigned to accompany\nthe person to the connection point only.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.8 (Removal with a Single Journey Document)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Medical escorts", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.9 Procedure: Medical escorts\nThe CBSA may allow a federal government medical officer to act as an escort only when\nremoval is at public expense and medical attention is required en route. Many removal\noffices employ the services of nurses from non-governmental organizations or\ncorrectional institutions, etc., to assist with cases that require medical attention. Refer\nto existing local office policy with respect to contracting this medical staff.\nDecisions respecting the need to escort persons with medical conditions should be\nguided by whether the individual will require close supervision and qualified medical\nassistance in order to undertake the journey to their final destination without posing a\nsafety or security risk. It may be necessary to assign two officers, in addition to the\nmedical personnel, depending on the circumstances.\nThe following general principles have been established as a guide in determining when\nto seek medical assistance with respect to escorting foreign nationals who have a\nhistory of violent behaviour, or foreign nationals who may become violent or create a\ndisturbance when removal is in progress.\nUnder no circumstances will any foreign nationals be taken to a physician solely for the\npurpose of being placed under sedation for removal from Canada. Where a foreign\nnational has been taken to a physician for some other legitimate medical reason, the\nphysician may address the question of sedation for removal as a secondary issue. If the\nphysician decides to prescribe medication, the foreign national concerned must be\nasked if he or she wishes to take such medication, and if not, no medication is to be\nadministered. The only exception is the psychiatric cases described below.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.9 (Procedure: Medical escorts)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-32-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 32.10", + "marginal_note": "Example of medical escort case", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "32.10 Example of medical escort case\nCases in which medical treatment is being administered or the person is under\npsychiatric care or treatment in an institution or hospital usually involve:\n foreign nationals who are suffering from a medical condition that requires the\nadministration of drugs at regular intervals, or\n foreign nationals who are currently in mental or psychiatric institutions or\nhospitals.\nThe first situation is one in which medication will have been prescribed for treating\nmedical disorders (e.g., heart condition) that are considered serious enough to warrant\nthe presence of a physician or registered nurse during removal. The physician or nurse\nis present only for the purpose of administering medication and/or monitoring the\ncondition of the foreign national being removed from Canada. Any drugs administered\nare given to the patient of their own volition to treat the medical condition.\n2025-02-03 78\nThe second situation is one in which the foreign national being removed from Canada\nhas been institutionalized for psychiatric treatment and is probably being returned to\ntheir home country for the continuation of treatment (i.e., usually to a mental\ninstitution or hospital). The medication administered in these cases is a continuation of\nthe ongoing treatment prescribed by the psychiatrist or physician.\nIn either of these two situations, arrangements may be made for the removal from\nCanada of such foreign nationals under medical escort, if considered appropriate by the\nCBSA in consultation with the attending physician or psychiatrist. It will not be\nnecessary to refer such cases to NHQ for concurrence before finalizing travel\narrangements and effecting removal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 32.10 (Example of medical escort case)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-33", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 33", + "marginal_note": "Establishing emergency contacts", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "33 Establishing emergency contacts\nTo be fully prepared when effecting a removal, officers should have the following\nemergency contact numbers with them:\na) the telephone number and address of the Canadian embassy in countries of\ndestination and transit, or the Canadian Embassy responsible for the country\nof destination;\nb) the telephone number, name and office address of the CBSA LO responsible\nfor the country of destination or transit;\nc) contact details for the Canadian regional office duty supervisor; and\nd) contact details for the 24-hour watch office of Global Affairs Canada.\nAfter regular working hours most Canadian offices abroad will automatically switch from\nthe local consular emergency number to the Global Affairs’ Watch Office. A small\nnumber of offices abroad will have emergency numbers that will activate a voice mail\nwhich should be checked regularly, while others have the calls directly re-routed to a\nduty officer cell phone. In cases where emergency assistance is required, officers may\nreach the Watch Office by calling (613) 996-8885 or 1-800-387-3124. It should be\nnoted that the correct country code prefix for Canada would be required for direct\ndialing from overseas, and the 1-800 number may not work outside North America.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 33 (Establishing emergency contacts)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-34", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 34", + "marginal_note": "Dealing with air carriers", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "34 Dealing with air carriers\nAir carriers are required to comply with their existing flight safety and security\nprocedures, which can be stricter than existing internationally regulated procedures.\nWhen officers are required to escort a subject, all airlines must be advised of the\nfollowing information:\na) the identity of the passenger under escort;\nb) the flight details;\nc) the reason for the escort; and the risk assessment of the passenger\nunder escort as to safety or security.\n2025-02-03 79\nDuring some non-airline liability removal cases, an air carrier may insist that an officer\nor officers accompany a person despite the determination that the individual does not\nconstitute a safety or security risk. The airline has the final decision in these matters\nand can determine whom they will transport on their aircraft. Should the scenario arise,\nofficers are encouraged to explore alternatives, including the review of the travel\nitinerary, routing and airline availability. Officers should be assigned only in cases\nwhere no other appropriate alternative is available.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 34 (Dealing with air carriers)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-34-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 34.1", + "marginal_note": "Airline liability", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "34.1 Airline liability\nIndividual air carriers are responsible for making removal arrangements and providing\nescort officer(s) in situations where a transportation liability exists as described in ENF\n15 – Obligations of Transporters. However, there will be instances in which the airline\nrequests assistance in providing escort officers for the removal. Agreeing to such\nrequests should be the exception rather than the rule and any such case should be\nimmediately brought to the attention of the supervisor or manager. The primary\nconsideration in agreeing to assist the airlines must be based on the risk assessment.\nWhere a safety or security risk in removal has been determined, the person subject to\nthe removal must be escorted. If the supervisor or manager agrees to provide the CBSA\nstaff to effect the removal, there must be confirmation in writing regarding the\nagreement reached with the airline concerning the use of the CBSA officers. This\nagreement must also set out the expenses for which the airline will be liable. The letter\nwill be hand- delivered and served on a responsible representative of the airline.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 34.1 (Airline liability)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-34-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 34.2", + "marginal_note": "Using the document envelope", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "34.2 Using the document envelope\nThe Removal Documents Envelope [BSF 582] is specially designed for safekeeping\npapers such as passports, travel documents and tickets for foreign nationals subject to\nremoval proceedings. The document envelope is addressed to the purser, who will\ninform the pilot. When making removal arrangements, the officer preparing the\ndocument envelope should take the following steps:\n complete the face of the envelope (full name, complete itinerary, etc.) and\nensure that a current photograph of the foreign national is attached to the front\nof the envelope for ready identification;\n give the envelope and contents to the examining officer at the U.S. POE if the\nofficer is turning the foreign national over to the United States Customs and\nBorder Protection (USCBP);\n instruct the escort to carry the foreign national’s envelope if the foreign national\nis being escorted to a destination or on part of the journey;\n instruct the officer to hand the envelope to the purser on the aircraft, with\nverbal instructions on the contents if these differ from the pre-printed notice on\nthe face of the envelope, if the foreign national is unescorted or will no longer\nbe escorted after a transit point.\nAt the time of removal, officers must also brief the purser (either verbally or by a letter\nto the captain) and provide a copy of the Notice of Removal and Profile [BSF560]. The\nCBSA recognizes that the primary responsibilities of every airline captain are the safety\nof passengers and crew, and the security of the aircraft. Certain airlines may also have\na specific form that must be completed and provided to airline officials when escort(s)\nare present on an aircraft. In rare cases, a pilot will refuse to board a person based on\n2025-02-03 80\nthe subject’s demeanour or from the information provided to the pilot. Should these\noccasions arise, the officers conducting the removal must rely on their communication\nskills to provide any additional information to the pilot\nthat could affect the pilot’s decision. Often, a pilot’s initial determination may change\nonce further information is provided by the escorting officers.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 34.2 (Using the document envelope)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-35", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 35", + "marginal_note": "Arranging for escorts", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "35 Arranging for escorts\nThe CBSA is responsible for arranging all overseas escorts, including escorts to the U.S.\nborder or, if circumstances indicate a need for special care, to the final destination in\nthe U.S. Efforts should be made to minimize the number and length of stopovers.\nThe itinerary of a foreign national who is being removed to the U.S. and requires special\ncare may include one or more stops within the U.S. before the final destination is\nreached. In this case, an officer should stay with the person until their final destination,\nor until the officer can leave the person in capable hands. Normally when a foreign\nnational requires special care, the officer will continue to the final destination. If the\nofficer requires ground assistance at any of the stopovers en route, the officer should\nask the airport authorities or officials of the USDHS at the airport involved. In special\ncare cases, unless the officer has already made appropriate arrangements for the\nperson's reception at an alternative location, the officer should not leave the foreign\nnational at any point other than the final destination.\nThe manager or supervisor must exercise discretion in deciding whether the foreign\nnational to be removed requires an escort(s) while en route to the final port of\ndeparture from Canada. The manager or supervisor should consider the following\nquestions:\na) Does the foreign national have a serious criminal background, or was the\nforeign national serving a sentence?\nb) Is the foreign national a potential escapee or considered a danger to the\npublic?\nc) Has the foreign national been previously removed?\nd) Is there evidence of mental health concerns?\ne) Is the foreign national under any special medication?\nf) Are there potential problems at transit points?\nIf the officer determines that the foreign national does not require an escort to another\npoint of departure, the officer should:\ng) book and confirm the connecting flight, preferably leaving on the same day;\nh) notify the responsible airlines; and notify Canadian officials at transit points.\nDetention increases costs and workload at the receiving port. If there is more than a\nthree-hour layover between connecting flights, or if the officer must detain the foreign\nnational overnight, the officer should include in the foreign national's documentation a\nsigned Order for Detention [BSF 304].\n2025-02-03 81", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 35 (Arranging for escorts)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-35-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 35.1", + "marginal_note": "Removal arrangements prepared by other", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "35.1 Removal arrangements prepared by other\nofficers\nOfficers making removal arrangements should give the escort(s) involved in the\nremoval written instructions outlining the nature of the case, the action required,\nrelevant documents and the foreign national's baggage and personal effects, if the\nofficer has custody of them. The instructions must contain the following information:\n case history: a brief outline noting citizenship, age, basis for removal,\naccompanying family members, and whether the foreign national is being\nremoved or repatriated;\n flight arrangements: the flight number and carrier, port of departure and\ndeparture time;\n instructions: if the foreign national is being escorted from the place of residence to the\nport of departure, escorting instructions must include dates, hours of departure, cities,\ntransfer points and stopovers;\n documents: passport and number, medical information, detaining order, Certificate of\nDeparture [IMM0056B], removal order, notice of removal profile and receipts for the\nforeign national's property placed in an Envelope: Removal Documents [BSF 582] ;\n character of the person: information about the foreign national's attitude to removal,\nbehaviour in jail (in applicable cases), and any other information disclosed on file that\nmight be of assistance to the escorting officer; and return to duty: the hour and date on\nwhich the escorts are to report back.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 35.1 (Removal arrangements prepared by other)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-35-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 35.2", + "marginal_note": "Advance notification to the port of departure", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "35.2 Advance notification to the port of departure\nWhen the foreign national who is being removed, escorted or not, transits at a port of departure in\nCanada, the officer making the removal arrangement should advise the port of the foreign\nnational's arrival at least two days in advance by facsimile or e-mail and follow up by telephone.\nSince the receiving port has had no prior contact with the individual, it will need all the useful\ninformation the officer can provide. International airlines often seek detailed information on foreign\nnationals being removed.\nThe following information should be included in the message:\n the foreign national's file number;\n the foreign national's description and sex;\n the names and ages of all family members, if accompanying;\n arrival and departure information;\n details of any previous detention;\n the foreign national's mental attitude;\n the reason for removal;\n whether the foreign national is detained; and whether the foreign national will be\nescorted and, if so, the names of the escort(s).\n2025-02-03 82\nThe foreign national will be carrying a Certificate of Departure [IMM0056B] with a photo affixed.\nThe receiving port can use the certificate to confirm that the foreign national is the subject of the\nremoval order. The officer should also arrange to have the foreign national's documentation placed\nin an Envelope: Removal Documents [BSF 582] and transferred from the first airline's purser to the\nconnecting flight's personnel.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 35.2 (Advance notification to the port of departure)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-35-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 35.3", + "marginal_note": "Luggage and personal finances", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "35.3 Luggage and personal finances\nWhen the officer accepts the foreign national into custody, the institution or immigration station\nmay require receipts for the foreign national and the foreign national's effects. If so, the officer\nmust get a complete list of valuables, money or baggage belonging to the foreign national and see\nthat this list appears on the receipt. A copy should be retained and placed on file when the officer\nreturns to duty.\nOften, family members will bring in personal effects or funds to an inland removal office to assist\ntheir relative who is subject to removal. A written receipt should be provided. When these effects\nare returned at the completion of the escort, officers should obtain a signature from the person\nbeing removed to acknowledge that these effects have been returned. In the absence of a receipt,\nthe officer should record this information in their notebook. If an officer is not diligent in recording\nthe return of these personal effects and funds, then the CBSA or the officer could face claims of\ntheft or loss of effects.\nThe officer must ensure that the foreign national's baggage has been collected, that it accompanies\nthe foreign national when removal is effected, and that it is checked through to the final destination\nwhenever possible.\nWhenever possible, officers should pick up and cash any pay cheques belonging to the foreign\nnational and conclude all banking arrangements on behalf of the foreign national. Money should be\nexchanged, if possible.\nOfficers should advise foreign nationals under a removal order to limit their effects so as not to\nexceed the free baggage allowance limits imposed by transportation companies. Any excess to the\nbaggage allowance is the responsibility of the foreign national, and arrangements must be made to\nship excess belongings at their own expense.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 35.3 (Luggage and personal finances)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-35-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 35.4", + "marginal_note": "Escorts for removal via the U.S.", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "35.4 Escorts for removal via the U.S.\nImmigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) requires five days advance notice to approve requests for\nall transits of third country nationals. Unless officers make other arrangements with ICE, it is the\nCBSA’s responsibility to arrange for an escort for removal via the U.S. if the person must deplane in\nthe U.S. en route to a third country. This provision applies even if the airline does not require the\nperson under removal order to be escorted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 35.4 (Escorts for removal via the U.S.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-35-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 35.5", + "marginal_note": "Escorts for removal via countries other than the U.S.", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "35.5 Escorts for removal via countries other than the U.S.\nThere are countries other than the U.S. that are frequently used as transit points and may also\nrequire the presence of an officer to facilitate the removal. A supervisor or manager may agree to\ndeploy escort officers when persons are removed via transit points, as the CBSA requires continued\naccess to these transiting hubs for the continued success of the removals program.\n2025-02-03 83", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 35.5 (Escorts for removal via countries other than the U.S.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-35-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 35.6", + "marginal_note": "Escort by transportation companies", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "35.6 Escort by transportation companies\nIf a transportation company is responsible for ensuring the departure of a foreign national from\nCanada, the company must make its own escort arrangements for travel outside Canada.\nIf the company does not offer an escort to a foreign national within Canada, it must be reminded in\nwriting of its legal obligation to convey such persons. If the transportation company continues to\nrefuse to provide an escort officer, officers may escort the foreign national, but expenses for the\nescort should be charged to the company (see ENF 15, section 5.1).\nAside from escorting foreign nationals to U.S. ports of departure to third countries, only in\nexceptional circumstances will an officer escort a foreign national outside Canada to accommodate a\ntransportation company.\nThe arrangements and all removal and escort costs must be clearly documented and accepted in\nwriting by the airline.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 35.6 (Escort by transportation companies)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-36", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 36", + "marginal_note": "Taking precautions to prevent escape", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "36 Taking precautions to prevent escape\nThis section provides details on taking safety precautions to prevent escape and using holding\ncentres or cells when transiting Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 36 (Taking precautions to prevent escape)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-36-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 36.1", + "marginal_note": "Taking safety precautions", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "36.1 Taking safety precautions\nOfficers must exercise every caution to prevent the escape of foreign nationals in their custody, and\nmust decide whether handcuffs or other restraining equipment should be used according to the\ncircumstances. Officers should take the following precautions:\n do not handcuff, chain or tape the subject to any immovable object while in transit;\n when transporting a foreign national by automobile, ensure that the foreign national is\nseated on the passenger side of the rear seat;\n if required a second officer must sit directly behind the driver;\n check the vehicle and surrounding area to ensure that there are no objects that could be\nused by the foreign national as a weapon;\n if the foreign national causes a disturbance during the removal, try to remove the foreign\nnational from public view as quickly as possible;\n when using public transportation, arrange if possible to enter the vehicle ahead of the\nother passengers, sit at the rear of the vehicle, and ensure that you and the subject are\nthe last passengers to disembark; and\n do not linger with the foreign national in public places.\n the officer(s) must remain alert at all times and always keep the subject in sight and at\nclose distance;\n if transportation is delayed, officer(s) should try to secure a room in the terminal away\nfrom the general public.\n2025-02-03 84", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 36.1 (Taking safety precautions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-36-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 36.2", + "marginal_note": "Use of holding centres, cells when transiting through", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "36.2 Use of holding centres, cells when transiting through\nCanada\nOther regions can provide their cells or holding centres when officers are transiting a removal\nthrough Canada. Use of these facilities should be considered if:\n an officer is aware that there will be several hours before the onward flight to the\ndestination; and\n an officer experiences unforeseen delays before taking the onward flight.\nIf it is determined that a holding cell is required in these cases, officers should contact the CBSA\noffice at the transit point to obtain the procedures for admittance to a holding centre or cell,\nincluding instructions on the forms that must accompany the detention and release of the detainee.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 36.2 (Use of holding centres, cells when transiting through)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-37", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 37", + "marginal_note": "Actions to take upon escape or attempted escape", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "37 Actions to take upon escape or attempted escape\nThis section sets out the actions to take regarding escape or attempted escape from the custody of\nthe CBSA or the facilities of a transportation company, and the preparation of a Use of Force\nIncident Report [BSF586].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 37 (Actions to take upon escape or attempted escape)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-37-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 37.1", + "marginal_note": "Escape or attempted escape from transportation", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "37.1 Escape or attempted escape from transportation\ncompany facilities\nIRPA provides for the prosecution of foreign nationals who escape or attempt to escape from lawful\ncustody or detention [A124(1)(b)].\nOfficer(s) must take the following action immediately if a foreign national escapes from custody:\na) notify the police force of jurisdiction;\nb) notify the nearest CBSA manager or supervisor, who will in turn notify by e-mail or\nfacsimile the director of the region concerned. The e-mail or facsimile should give details\nof the identity of the foreign national and place of escape unless the officer is instructed\notherwise;\nc) enlist the help of other local officers to search the area thoroughly and provide any other\nassistance necessary;\nd) if the escape occurs outside Canada, notify the police force of jurisdiction and the\nnearest migration integrity officer for advice on how best to handle the situation in the\nlocal context;\ne) if the escape occurs in the U.S., notify the nearest USCBP or ICE officer and the manager\nof the Canadian port responsible for the case. The port manager will then notify the\nappropriate officials;\nf) the officer should complete a Use of Force Incident Report [BSF586] by the end of their\nshift or as soon as reasonably practicable;\n2025-02-03 85\ng) submit a full written narrative report to their manager or supervisor, providing details of\nevents leading up to the escape, the escape itself and action taken following the escape.\nAs soon as a complete investigation has been concluded, the manager or supervisor at\nthe port of origin must submit a full report to the area manager. The report must contain\nany observations or recommendations from the manager that may assist in determining\nthe cause of the escape and preventing future escapes through proper remedial action.\nThe area manager must forward the report with any necessary comments and\nrecommendations to the Director of Inland Enforcement;\nh) if the escapee is not located, the officer must issue a warrant under A55(1) and enter it\ninto CPIC, issue a lookout and update GCMS/NCMS immediately; and\ni) when the escapee is again placed in custody, the officer(s) must inform all authorities\npreviously notified of the escape.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 37.1 (Escape or attempted escape from transportation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-37-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 37.2", + "marginal_note": "Escape or attempted escape from transportation", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "37.2 Escape or attempted escape from transportation\ncompany facilities\nIf a foreign national escapes from the custody of a transportation company’s facilities, the local\nCBSA manager must immediately:\n notify the nearest municipal or provincial police and the RCMP;\n notify by e-mail or facsimile the director of the region concerned. Details in the e-mail or\nfacsimile should include the identity of the foreign national, place of escape, name of the\ntransportation company responsible for the escapee, and the method of escape;\n obtain a written report on the escape from the transportation company or crew member;\n conduct a full investigation into the cause of the escape and all precautions taken by the\ntransportation company. If there is negligence or failure on the part of the transportation\ncompany to provide proper security or facilities, make recommendations for penalty\naction or any remedial action necessary to prevent future escapes;\n if an officer was involved, on returning to work, the officer should complete a Use of Force\nIncident Report [BSF586];\n send the report to the area manager, who will forward it with any necessary comments or\nrecommendations to the Director of the Inland Enforcement Division at the CBSA NHQ.\nThe officer must also ensure that a warrant is issued under A55(1) and entered into CPIC\nif the escapee is not located immediately;\n and input details of the incident into GCMS/NCMS immediately.\nIf the transportation company is at fault, the Director of the Inland Enforcement Division at the\nCBSA NHQ must write to the company advising it of its responsibility under IRPA and the\nRegulations, and that it is liable to a penalty. The transportation company has 30 days in which to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 37.2 (Escape or attempted escape from transportation) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-37-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 37.2", + "marginal_note": "Escape or attempted escape from transportation", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "show cause why the penalty should not be imposed. The Director of the Inland Enforcement\nDivision at the CBSA NHQ will then send to the Director General a full report of the escape from the\ntransportation company's care or custody. This report must provide comments on the cause of the\nescape, the details of the escape itself, any remedial action that has been taken to prevent further\nescapes, and copies of all correspondence to the transportation company.\nThe CBSA NHQ will reply to any representations from the transportation company, informing it in\nwriting of the amount of the penalty when one is imposed and what action, if any, is required for an\nadditional security deposit. When the escapee is again placed in custody, all the authorities\n2025-02-03 86\npreviously notified of the escape should be informed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 37.2 (Escape or attempted escape from transportation) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-38", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 38", + "marginal_note": "Persons refused entry to another country", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "38 Persons refused entry to another country\nOfficers should take appropriate action if a person was not granted lawful admission to another\ncountry. In these cases, the foreign national who has not met the departure requirements under\nR240 cannot be said to have enforced their removal order.\nPART V – Verifying Departure", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 38 (Persons refused entry to another country)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-39", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 39", + "marginal_note": "Confirmation of Departure", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "39 Confirmation of Departure\nA removal order should be enforced when the foreign national departs from Canada. This process is\nthe final step in confirming a person’s departure from Canada and recording that all of the\ndeparture requirements have been met.\nThere are three methods to confirm a departure of a foreign national from Canada as per IRPR.\nWhen the departure is verified at the POE\nR240(1) A removal order against a foreign national, whether it is enforced by voluntary compliance\nor by the Minister, is enforced when the foreign national\n(a) appears before an officer at a port of entry to verify their departure from Canada;\n(b) obtains a certificate of departure from the Canada Border Services Agency;\n(c) departs from Canada; and\n(d) is authorized to enter, other than for purposes of transit, their country of destination.\nWhen a removal order is enforced by an officer outside Canada\n(Canadian Mission)\nR240(2) If a foreign national against whom a removal order has not been enforced has departed\nfrom Canada and applies outside Canada for a visa, an electronic travel authorization or an\nauthorization to return to Canada, an officer shall enforce the order if, following an examination, the\nforeign national establishes that they are the person described in the order.\nWhen a removal order is administratively enforced by an officer in\nCanada\nR240(3) A removal order against a foreign national is enforced by an officer in Canada when the\nofficer confirms that the foreign national has departed from Canada.\n2025-02-03 87\nProcedures 39, 40, and 41 will describe how a removal order can be enforced for the above-\nmentioned three methods.\nNote: Under R242, persons who have been transferred under an order made pursuant to the Mutual\nLegal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act have not been authorized to enter their country of\ndestination.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 39 (Confirmation of Departure)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40", + "marginal_note": "When the departure is verified at the POE – R240(1)", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40 When the departure is verified at the POE – R240(1)\nIn order for a removal order to become enforced on the person’s departure from Canada, R240(1)\nspecifies that a foreign national, regardless of voluntary compliance or removal by the Minister,\nmust take the following steps:\n appear before an officer at the port of entry to confirm their departure from Canada\n[R240(1)(a)]. Note: The designated authority to verify, at a POE, the departure of\nforeign nationals who are effecting their removal order can be found in the\nDesignation of Officers and Delegation of Authority documents in IL 3, item 200;\n obtain a Certificate of Departure (IMM0056B) from the Department [R240(1)(b)];\n physically depart Canada [R240(1)(c)]; and\n have been authorized to enter their country of destination (other than for transit\npurposes) [R240(1)(d)].\nBefore departure is verified, any outstanding warrants must be concluded, as appropriate. Officers\nshould follow instructions in ENF 7 on executing and cancelling warrants. In all cases where a\nwarrant is concluded, officers must contact the local office that issued the warrant.\nIf a foreign national subject to a departure order departs from Canada without complying with the\nrequirements under R240(1)(a), R240(1)(b) and R240(1)(c) and reappears before an officer at a\nPOE within the applicable period, the officer should enforce the removal order as a departure order.\nIn these cases, the person is appearing before an officer at a port of entry to verify their departure\nand must comply with all the requirements set out in R240(1)(a), R240(1)(b) and R240(1)(c). In\nlimited circumstances where the person is applying for a visa or an Authorization to Return to\nCanada and the person complies with all the requirements set out in R240(2), the removal order\nmust be enforced outside of Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40 (When the departure is verified at the POE – R240(1))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40.1 Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure\n[IMM0056B]\nWhen an officer verifies departure under R240(1), they must issue a Certificate of Departure\n[IMM0056B]to a foreign national when enforcing the removal order. When completing the\nIMM0056B, officers must clearly indicate the type of removal order that was enforced at the time of\ndeparture verification, and have the foreign national sign and write the date beside the appropriate\nremoval order. If the foreign national does not want to sign, the officer should indicate ‘Refused to\nSign’ in the signature space on the IMM0056B.\nWhen verifying the departure of a foreign national, the officer should review their identity or travel\ndocuments and ensure that the person departing Canada is the same person named on the removal\norder. Information to assist in confirming identity may vary and can include but not limited to:\nphotos of the individual and identity documents. Accompanying family members issued a removal\norder for being inadmissible under A42(b) do not require a separate Certificate of Departure and\nshould be included on the same Certificate of Departure as the family member who was the\n2025-02-03 88\noriginating cause for the issuance of the removal order. The following fields in the Certificate of\nDeparture (IMM0056B) must be completed by the officer verifying departure:\n in part A, complete the required background information concerning the foreign national\nincluding details of their travel document;\n in part B, determine the type of removal order that is being enforced. The type of removal\norder will be straightforward when the person has been issued an exclusion or deportation\norder, see section 9.1(1) for Procedures on Departure Orders.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.1 (Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " when a departure order is verified at a visa office outside Canada, regardless of whether it is\nwithin or beyond the 30-day applicable period, the departure order must be enforced as a\ndeportation order pursuant to R224(2).\n in part B, record whether the case involves criminality (yes/no). For clarification, the officer\nshould indicate “yes” if there has been any history of criminality recorded in a previous\nA44(1) report;\n in part B, record the CBSA removal fee pursuant to R243.\n in part B, complete all fields and have the person concerned sign and write the date beside\nthe applicable removal order that is being enforced. For departure orders that have become\ndeportation orders, the person must sign the confirmation of a deportation order;\n in part B, include any additional names of accompanying family members who are the subject\nof a removal order under A42(b). Certificates of departure must not be issued for\naccompanying family members. If a separate IMM0056B is created for an accompanying\nfamily member, the \"PDP\" screen in GCMS will automatically be prompted and should be\ndeleted. Accompanying family members under A42(b) are not considered PDPs and therefore\ndo not require authorization to return to Canada;\n in part B, complete the originating office field to record the responsibility center code that\ncommenced the removal arrangements for the person. For clarification, removal\narrangements are considered to be arrangements made at the time that the person is\nremoval-ready (the removal order is enforceable and is not subject to any legal\nimpediments). These arrangements will likely have been made from an office in Canada and\nwill include the acquisition of travel documents, the pre-removal interview, the itinerary, the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.1 (Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "booking of flights, notification of the Canadian visa office abroad and foreign consulate, and\nthe preparation of the removal order information kit;\n in part C, complete the details of the person’s departure from Canada. These fields include\nthe port of exit/mission, country of destination, carrier, time, date of departure, the CBSA\ninvolved, and the signature of the officer who confirmed the departure. Officers verifying\ndeparture outside Canada must accurately record their office code in the port of exit/mission\nbox. This information is important for statistical and tracking purposes;\n if an officer acting as an escort from an inland CBSA office has verified the departure of a\nperson with a removal order, enter the CBSA’s responsibility code in the \"CBSA Involved\"\nsection of the IMM0056B. Where an inland CBSA has not commenced any of the removal\narrangements for the person but has assisted in the transport of a person to the airport or\nthe border, or provided officers to the transit point or to the country of destination, the\nresponsibility center code for the inland CBSA office involved is recorded in this field. Officers\nat visa offices outside Canada should complete the “CBSA Involved” box for the office in\n2025-02-03 89\nCanada that is the active holder of the removal file;\n the mandatory fields \"Danger to the public\" and \"Unlikely to Appear\" are consistent with the\ngrounds for arrest under A55(2)(a) and must be completed in accordance with the guidance\nprovided in ENF 20. These fields play a key role in identifying which deportee records should\nbe downloaded to the CPIC-PDP database. See section 46 below for an overview of the joint\nIRCC/RCMP initiative concerning previously deported persons.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.1 (Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Note: CBSA offices/responsibility codes are to be placed in fields on the IMM0056B where\napplicable.\nWhen verifying the departure at the POE, the IMM0056B should be given to the foreign national\nonly after the foreign national signs the Certificate of Departure just prior to boarding the aircraft.\nThe officer should witness the departure of the aircraft from the airport departure gate in order to\nconfirm that the foreign national has actually departed from Canada. GCMS/NCMS should be\nupdated immediately. If the foreign national refuses to sign, the officer should note ‘Refused to\nSign’ in the signature space.\nMany important decisions concerning removal functions will be made on the basis of the data\nretrieved from the \"Certificate of Departure\" screen in GCMS/NCMS. Immediately following\ndeparture verification, officers should complete the \"Certificate of Departure\" screen in GCMS/NCMS\nand ensure that they take the following steps:\n input information into all mandatory fields of the IMM0056B in GCMS;\n indicate the type of removal order at the time of departure verification;\n input any additional information into the \"Notes\" screen in GCMS (i.e., airline, flight number,\naction on bond, counselling, comments, etc.);\n in the case of an overseas escorted removal, enter the details of the departure verification\ninto GCMS/NCMS within 48 hours of the removal officer’s return to Canada; and\n distribute the copies of the Certificate of Departure accordingly, and as follows:\no copy 1 to the person concerned;\no copy 2 to the CBSA office that enforced the removal order (file holder);\nFollowing the completion of the \"Certificate of Departure\" screen in GCMS, the \"Previously Deported\nPersons (PDP)\" screen will be prompted and must be completed accordingly. The purpose of this", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.1 (Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-1-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.1", + "marginal_note": "Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "screen is to flag in GCMS and CPIC that the person has been deported from Canada and requires\nauthorization to return to Canada pursuant to A52(1). The \"PDP\" screen will appear (except in\nA42(b) cases) if the type of removal order was either:\n a deportation order; or\n a departure order which becomes a deportation order.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.1 (Procedures to complete the Certificate of Departure) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.2", + "marginal_note": "Verifying departure to the U.S. from airports with", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40.2 Verifying departure to the U.S. from airports with\npre-clearance facilities\nIf a foreign national is departing Canada for the United States from an airport with pre-clearance\nfacilities, it is preferable that an officer issue an IMM0056B, after U.S. officials have pre- screened\n2025-02-03 90\nand accepted the foreign national. This process may not always be possible because of the physical\nlayout of some POEs, but the Agency strongly recommends this approach where facilities permit.\nA Certificate of Departure [IMM0056B] should be given to the foreign national only after the foreign\nnational signs the Certificate of Departure just prior to boarding the aircraft. The officer should\nwitness the departure of the aircraft from the airport departure gate to confirm that the foreign\nnational has actually departed from Canada. GCMS/NCMS should be updated immediately.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.2 (Verifying departure to the U.S. from airports with)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.3", + "marginal_note": "Verifying departure at land borders", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40.3 Verifying departure at land borders\nOfficers at a land border POE should issue a Certificate of Departure at the POE where the foreign\nnational physically departs Canada for the United States.\n In the case of foreign nationals who are either U.S. citizens or U.S. resident aliens, an\nIMM0056B can be completed and signed by an officer at a port of entry; or\n In the case of foreign nationals without U.S. status, an officer should obtain the address of\nthe destination and/or a fax number where the IMM0056B can be sent. Mailing or faxing the\nIMM0056B will act as a safeguard to ensure the foreign national receives the Certificate of\nDeparture after being lawfully admitted into the U.S.\nOfficers should counsel the foreign national to proceed to the U.S. port of entry to seek entry.\nWhen the officer is turning the foreign national over to the USDHS, the officer should give the\nEnvelope: Removal Documents [BSF582] and contents to the immigration officer at the U.S. POE.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.3 (Verifying departure at land borders)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.4", + "marginal_note": "Verifying departure in the case of a removal order not in", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40.4 Verifying departure in the case of a removal order not in\nforce\nIn some instances, officers may encounter a foreign national who has been issued a removal order\nand who requests to voluntarily depart Canada before the removal order comes into force under\nA49(1) or A49(2). Examples of these cases could include the following:\n a permanent resident or a foreign national is issued a removal order with a right of appeal\nand requests to depart Canada before their appeal period expires [A49(1)(b)];\n a permanent resident or a foreign national is issued a removal order; they have made an\nappeal and request to depart Canada before the final determination of the appeal is made\n[A49(1)(c)];\n a refugee protection claimant whose claim has been determined ineligible and requests to\ndepart Canada before the expiry of the seven-day period [A49(2)(b)];\n a refugee protection claimant whose claim is rejected by the Refugee Protection Division\n(RPD) and requests to depart Canada before the expiry of the 15-day period [A49(2)(c)];\n a refugee protection claimant whose claim is declared withdrawn or abandoned by the RPD\nand who requests to depart Canada before the expiry of the 15-day period [A49(2)(d)]; and\n a refugee protection claimant whose claim is terminated because of misrepresentation or\nmultiple claims and who requests to depart Canada before the expiry of the 15-day period\n[A49(2)(e)].\n2025-02-03 91\nNote: The CBSA does not provide notification of a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) to\npersons who wish to leave voluntarily and whose removal order is not in force.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.4 (Verifying departure in the case of a removal order not in)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.5", + "marginal_note": "Inland procedures – removal order not in force", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40.5 Inland procedures – removal order not in force\nWhen a person appears at an inland CBSA office requesting to voluntarily depart from Canada\nbefore the removal order comes into force, as in the case of a refugee claimant who has withdrawn\ntheir claim to the RPD or RAD, the CBSA officer must ensure that the person concerned is aware of\nthe fact that the removal order is not yet in force and of the legal implications. The officer should\nobtain a statutory declaration indicating that the person was advised of these details.\n• The officer should obtain an address for service of the IMM 0056B, which will be sent to the\nperson concerned after the expiration of the seven-day or fifteen-day period under A49. If a\nstatutory declaration is obtained, the address for service should be noted in the declaration.\n• The officer should ensure that a detailed note is entered in GCMS explaining the case\ncircumstances. The GCMS notes should reflect that the person wanted to depart Canada voluntarily,\ntheir reasons for departing, whether a statutory declaration was obtained, whether the statutory\ndeclaration was translated, and where and when the IMM0056B should be sent.\n• The officer should complete a Certificate of Departure package and send it to the POE where the\nperson will depart from. The officer should then follow up with the case and mail the IMM0056B to\nthe address provided by the person after the removal order has come into force under A49(1) or\nA49(2).\nWhen a person appears at a CBSA inland office requesting to voluntarily depart from Canada before\nthe removal order comes into force, the officer should advise the person that their removal order\nhas not yet come into force and that they should appear before an officer at a POE. On the arrival of\nthe person at the POE, the POE officer should proceed according to the departure guidelines set out\nin section 39.6 and obtain the required information on the person's departure from Canada. In\ncases where the passport is on file at the inland office, arrangements will need to be made between\nPOE and inland office to transfer the document prior to removal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.5 (Inland procedures – removal order not in force)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.6", + "marginal_note": "Port of entry procedures – removal order not in force", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40.6 Port of entry procedures – removal order not in force\nIf persons subject to a removal order that is \"not in force\" have presented themselves to an officer\nat a POE and indicated a desire to leave Canada, the POE officer can allow them to depart from\nCanada. A Certificate of Departure should be initiated but not completed until the removal order has\ncome into force under A49(1) or A49(2). IRPA only allows an officer to “enforce” a removal order\nthat has come into force and is enforceable (there is no stay of removal). When faced with this\nscenario, the POE officer should follow the procedures set out below before the persons depart the\nPOE:\n The officer must ensure that the person concerned is aware of the fact that the removal order\nis not yet in force and of the legal implications. The officer should obtain a statutory\ndeclaration indicating that the person was advised of these details.\n The officer should obtain an address for service of the IMM0056B, which will be sent to the\nperson concerned after the expiration of the seven-day or fifteen-day period under A49. If a\nstatutory declaration is obtained, the address for service should be noted in the declaration.\n2025-02-03 92\n The officer should ensure that a detailed note is entered in GCMS explaining the case\ncircumstances. The GCMS notes should reflect that the person wanted to depart Canada\nvoluntarily, their reasons for departing, whether a statutory declaration was obtained,\nwhether the statutory declaration was translated, and where and when the IMM0056B should\nbe sent.\n The officer should follow up the case and mail the IMM0056B to the address provided by the\nperson after the removal order has come into force under A49(1) or A49(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.6 (Port of entry procedures – removal order not in force)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-40-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 40.7", + "marginal_note": "Completion of the Certificate of Departure – removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "40.7 Completion of the Certificate of Departure – removal\norder not in force\nThe procedures to complete a Certificate of Departure (IMM0056B) for removal orders not in force\nare different from the regular procedures for confirming departure. Officers are reminded that they\ncannot enforce the removal order until it comes into force and is enforceable. The enforcement of\nthe removal order occurs only after the Certificate of Departure has been signed by an officer on\nthe date of confirmation. When verifying departure of persons with removal orders not in force, POE\nofficers must take the following steps at the time of the person's departure:\n complete boxes in parts A and B as provided for in section 39.1;\n have the person sign beside the applicable removal order that is to be enforced. For example,\nif a refugee claimant was issued a departure order and has subsequently withdrawn their\nrefugee claim, the applicable removal order will be a departure order;\n leave the \"Date of Confirmation\" field blank;\n ensure that any accompanying family members under A42(b) are recorded; and\ncomplete the following fields in part C: port of exit; final destination; carrier; time and date of\ndeparture; and CBSA involved.\nOfficers should calculate and note the date the removal order will come into force and bring forward\nthe IMM 0056B for final completion. At the time the removal order becomes in force, officers must\ncomplete the following fields in the IMM0056B to enforce the removal order:\n record the date of confirmation in part B. This date will be determined by calculating the\nperiod from which the removal order will come into force under A49(2).\nExample: If a refugee claimant withdraws their claim on March 1, 2014, the removal order will\ncome into force 15 days later [A49(2)(d)]. In this case, the date of confirmation will be March\n16, 2014. For further information on establishing the date when a removal order comes into\nforce, refer to, section 9.3.\n sign in the box designated for “Signature of Officer” in part C; and\n ensure the form is accurately completed.\nAfter the IMM0056B is completed, it should be entered into GCMS/NCMS and mailed to the address\nprovided by the foreign national. If the case was referred from an inland office, the POE officer\nshould forward a copy of the IMM0056B to the appropriate inland office for its file.\n2025-02-03 93", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 40.7 (Completion of the Certificate of Departure – removal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-41", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 41", + "marginal_note": "When a removal order is enforced by an officer", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "41 When a removal order is enforced by an officer\noutside of Canada (Canadian Mission) – R240(2)\nOfficers outside Canada may encounter foreign nationals who are subjects of unenforced removal\norders and who are applying to return to Canada. Pursuant to R25, an officer shall not issue a visa\nto a foreign national who is the subject of an unenforced removal order.\nIn limited circumstances, R240(2) authorizes officers outside Canada to enforce an unenforced\nremoval order. To enforce a removal order outside Canada, officers must have the designated\nauthority under the Designation of Officers and Delegations of Authority by the Minister of Public\nSafety and Emergency Preparedness under the IRPA and IRPR, item 224 of the Designated Officials\nof the International Network.\nOfficers should keep in mind that the CBSA's overriding priority is to maintain control of the removal\nprocess. The CBSA aims to ensure that persons who are subject to removal orders verify their\ndeparture at a POE when they depart from Canada. The enforcement of removal orders outside\nCanada is not to be encouraged, but applied in limited circumstances where a foreign national is\napplying for a visa or authorization to return to Canada [IMM1203B] and satisfies a designated\nofficer that all of the criteria under R240(2) have been met.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 41 (When a removal order is enforced by an officer)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-41-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 41.1", + "marginal_note": "Criteria for the enforcement of a removal order", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "41.1 Criteria for the enforcement of a removal order\noutside Canada\nIn order for an officer to enforce an unenforced removal order of a foreign national outside Canada,\nR240(2) establishes that the foreign national must make an application to an officer for one of the\nfollowing documents:\n a permanent resident visa;\n a temporary resident visa; or\n an authorization to return to Canada under A52(1).\nBefore a visa or an authorization to return to Canada can be issued, the officer conducting the\nexamination must first determine whether the person has been previously issued a removal order\nand whether the removal order has been enforced. If the foreign national is the subject of an\nunenforced removal order, the officer shall enforce the removal order under R240(2) if they\nestablish that the foreign national is the person described in the order.\nThe onus is on the foreign national, who is making the application to return to Canada to prove that\nthey are the person described in the order, and not with the officer conducting the examination. If\nthe foreign national cannot satisfy the officer who is assessing the application, the removal order\nmust remain unenforced and any application must be refused.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 41.1 (Criteria for the enforcement of a removal order)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-41-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 41.2", + "marginal_note": "Positive decision to enforce a removal order outside", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "41.2 Positive decision to enforce a removal order outside\nCanada\nAfter the foreign national has satisfied an officer that they have met the requirements for verifying\ndeparture outside Canada as outlined in section 40.1, the officer conducting the examination or a\ndesignated officer in the same office must enforce the removal order and issue a Certificate of\nDeparture.\n2025-02-03 94\nThe Certificate of Departure, [IMM0056B], is a serialized, multi-copy document that serves as proof\nthat a removal order has been enforced. This form is available in hard copy at visa offices outside\nCanada. For detailed instructions on completing the Certificate of Departure, see section 39.1.\nCopy 2 of the IMM0056B should be accompanied by a memo instructing the in-Canada CBSA officer\nto input the IMM0056B information into GCMS/NCMS. Upon receipt, the CBSA officer must input the\nIMM0056B and other case details into GCMS/NCMS to ensure that the systems reflect the fact that\nthe removal order has been enforced.\nIt is important to note that pursuant to R224(2), all departure orders that are not enforced at a POE\nupon departure of the foreign national from Canada must be enforced as deportation orders, even if\nthe 30-day period for enforcement at a POE has not yet passed.\nIf the removal order is a deportation order, exclusion order (within the excluded period), or a\ndeparture order that has become a deportation order through operation of law, the applicant should\nalways obtain the Authorization to Return to Canada under A52(1) prior to the visa issuance. This is to\navoid the contradictory situation of a person appearing at a POE with a visa but without an\nAuthorization to Return to Canada issued by an officer pursuant to A52(1).\nAfter an Authorization to Return to Canada is granted, officers outside Canada must ensure that any\noutstanding warrants are cancelled by contacting the CBSA office that issued the warrant.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 41.2 (Positive decision to enforce a removal order outside)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-41-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 41.3", + "marginal_note": "Negative decision to enforce a removal order outside", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "41.3 Negative decision to enforce a removal order outside\nCanada\nIf a foreign national who has made an application does not satisfy the examining officer outside\nCanada that they are the person described in the order under R240(2),the foreign national’s removal\norder will remain unenforced. In such circumstances, any application for a visa must be refused [R25].\nA foreign national who is the subject of an unenforced removal order is not entitled to obtain a visa or\nan Authorization to Return to Canada.\nThe officer should advise such persons that they are ineligible for a visa due to the outstanding\nunenforced removal order against them, and that if they attempt to re-enter Canada, they will be\nsubject to enforcement action.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 41.3 (Negative decision to enforce a removal order outside)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-42", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 42", + "marginal_note": "When a removal order is administratively enforced", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "42 When a removal order is administratively enforced\nby an officer in Canada – R240(3)\nA foreign national who leaves Canada and does not comply with the departure requirements of\nR240(1) cannot be said to have enforced their removal order. In these cases, the order remains\nunenforced.\nIn the case of a departure order where a foreign national does not meet the requirements under\nR240(1)(a), R240(1)(b) and R240(1)(c) within the prescribed period of time, the order becomes a\ndeportation order by operation of law under [R224(2)]. As such, departure orders enforced under\nR240(3) must always be deemed deportation orders.\n2025-02-03 95", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 42 (When a removal order is administratively enforced)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-42-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 42.1", + "marginal_note": "Verifying departure by an officer in Canada", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "42.1 Verifying departure by an officer in Canada\nAn into force removal order against a foreign national may be enforced under R240(3) by an officer in\nCanada when the officer confirms, on a balance of probabilities, that the foreign national has departed\nfrom Canada, and has not returned. R240(3) does not apply for situations where the removal\norder is stayed. For additional information on stays of removal orders, please refer to Procedures 10-\n12.\nThe following list of non-exhaustive information may support an officer’s determination that the\nindividual has departed Canada:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 42.1 (Verifying departure by an officer in Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Open source Information", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Open source Information\nTo determine that the foreign national has not returned to Canada, the officer must conduct\nverifications in the systems, including GCMS, NCMS and CPIC.\nAs the foreign national is outside Canada, they will not have the opportunity to sign the Certificate of\nDeparture or be provided with a copy of the form. Officers must complete the IMM 0056B with\ninformation that they have at their disposal. The items under Section C – Verification of Departure\nmust be entered as “Unknown”. Officers must sign and date the form on the date the officer\ncompleted their determination, based on the evidence and on a balance of probabilities, that the\nforeign national has departed from Canada. Note that there will be no duty to inform the foreign\nnational that their removal order has been enforced. The copy of the IMM 0056B should remain on file\nand uploaded into GCMS. Additional direction is available in Operational Bulletin: PRG-2018-65.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 3 (Open source Information)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-43", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 43", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Persons refused entry to their country of", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "43 Procedure: Persons refused entry to their country of\ndestination after a Certificate of Departure has been issued\nWhen a foreign national has been issued a Certificate of Departure [IMM0056B] and is subsequently\nrefused admission to another country, they remain the subject of an unenforced removal order (see\ndefinition of \"Unenforced removal order\" in section 6 above). When refusal occurs and the person\nappears back at the port of entry, officers should take the following steps:\na) examine the person [A18(1)];\nb) cancel the \"PDP\" screen in GCMS (make sure appropriate Notes are added);\nc) delete the IMM0056B if it has not been microfilmed or, if it has received a microfilm number,\nsend an e-mail to GCMS Data Quality Control at National Headquarters with instructions to\ndelete the IMM0056B from GCMS.\nd) Add note to GCMS that the removal order has not been enforced. Also include any\ncircumstances surrounding the person’s refusal into another country and include instructions\nto the Warrant Response Centre (WRC) to delete the PDP information from CPIC;\nNote: The WRC will receive daily reports on the cancellation of \"PDP\" screens. Based on instructions in\nGCMS notes, the WRC will delete the PDP information from CPIC.\ne) in the case of a departure order, advise the person of the time remaining before the\ndeparture order becomes a deportation order. The departure order remains enforceable and\n2025-02-03 96\ncan be enforced like any other removal order. Under R224(2), if a departure order is not\nenforced within 30 days, the foreign national has not complied with the departure\nrequirements under R240(1) and the departure order becomes a deportation order;\nf) advise the foreign national that after being refused entry to yet another country, they will be\nallowed back into Canada, but the removal order against them remains unenforced. (for the\noptions available to officers after a foreign national has been refused entry to another\ncountry, refer to section 42.1 below); and\ng) later, when the person departs Canada, the officer should complete and issue a new\nCertificate of Departure.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 43 (Procedure: Persons refused entry to their country of)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-43-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 43.1", + "marginal_note": "Options available after being refused entry to another", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "43.1 Options available after being refused entry to another\ncountry\nWhen a foreign national has been previously issued a Certificate of Departure and has been refused\nentry to another country, the officer at the POE must conduct an interview to determine the method of\nenforcing the removal order. Although this assessment was previously conducted before the foreign\nnational departed Canada, they are subject to a new determination of how their removal order should\nbe enforced since the circumstances surrounding their removal may have changed. In addition,\nofficers should keep in mind that the removal order is unenforced and the foreign national must\ncomply with the criteria for a removal order to become enforced. The following options are available to\nofficers after a person has been refused entry to another country and is being examined under the\nauthority of A18(1).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 43.1 (Options available after being refused entry to another)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Allow the person to proceed into Canada", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Allow the person to proceed into Canada\nOfficers should interview the person to determine the person's ability and intent to depart Canada,\nand, in the case of a departure order, the likelihood of the person's leaving Canada within the 30-day\napplicable period (if any). When an officer believes that the person will continue to make every effort\nto leave Canada as soon as possible or within the time remaining in their 30-day applicable period,\nthey should allow the person to enter Canada under R27(3). Before the foreign national is allowed to\nproceed into Canada, the officer should take the following steps:\n obtain information that would be useful to investigators, such as the person's Canadian\naddress and the addresses of relatives and friends in Canada;\n remind the foreign national of the importance of leaving Canada and that they remain the\nsubject of an enforceable removal order (if there are no stays of removal);\n counsel the person that, under A55, they may be arrested for removal if they fail to depart\nCanada, in the case of a departure order, after the 30-day applicable period or, in all other\ncases, as soon as possible;\n counsel the person that they will have to appear before an officer at a POE to verify their\ndeparture from Canada; and\n amend GCMS/NCMS to reflect the action taken, specifically that the person has returned to\nCanada, and provide other information concerning the person's travel plans.\n2025-02-03 97", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 1 (Allow the person to proceed into Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Impose conditions and/or the payment of a deposit or the posting", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Impose conditions and/or the payment of a deposit or the posting\nof a guarantee for compliance\nUnder A44(3), an officer may impose any conditions, including the payment of a deposit or the posting\nof a guarantee for compliance with the conditions, on persons subject to a removal order. The purpose\nof the conditions and/or the deposit or guarantee for compliance is to encourage compliance with IRPA\nafter the officer is satisfied that the person will leave Canada. Refer to ENF 8, for further information\non taking a deposit, and to ENF 8, for taking a guarantee for compliance. After an officer issues a\ndeposit or guarantee for compliance, the officer should follow the procedures outlined in Option 1\nabove. It is important that all deposit or guarantee information, including any conditions imposed, are\ninput into GCMS/NCMS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 2 (Impose conditions and/or the payment of a deposit or the posting)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Arrest and detention for removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Arrest and detention for removal\nWhere an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national who is the subject of a\nremoval order is a danger to the public or is unlikely to depart Canada and present themselves before\nan officer to verify their departure from Canada, the officer may arrest and detain the person for\nremoval [A55(2)]. After a foreign national has been arrested and detained, this information should be\ninput into GCMS/NCMS. For procedures on making an arrest, see ENF 7.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 3 (Arrest and detention for removal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-44", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 44", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Removal to the United States", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "44 Procedure: Removal to the United States\nThe following subsections contain detailed information about removals to the United States following\nthe termination of the Reciprocal Arrangement on October 30, 2009.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 44 (Procedure: Removal to the United States)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-44-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 44.1", + "marginal_note": "Persons who can be removed to the U.S.", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "44.1 Persons who can be removed to the U.S.\nThe following classes of foreign nationals may be returned to the U.S:\n a foreign national who is a citizen of the U.S.\n a foreign national who is a national of the U.S.\nA national of the U.S. is a person who is not a citizen of that country, but who owes permanent\nallegiance to it. Similar to Canadian Immigration laws, U.S. Citizens have the legal right to return to\ntheir country whereas permanent residents have the right of abode that only a U.S. Immigration Judge\nwill determine if it is in question. The receiving U.S. POE will accept verbal notice of the deportee's\nreturn to the U.S. if they are properly documented.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 44.1 (Persons who can be removed to the U.S.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-44-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 44.2", + "marginal_note": "Documents required when removing to the U.S.", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "44.2 Documents required when removing to the U.S.\nU.S. officials require that all individuals entering their country be properly documented.\nIn line with the documentary requirements under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI),\nwhich are the primary recognized documents to assert an individual U.S. citizenship, other satisfactory\nconfirmation of U.S. status can be presented.\nDuring the course of their investigation, officers will continue to perform database checks and gather\nall the necessary evidence providing status to the individual in the U.S and be prepared to provide\nidentity documents; such as passports, emergency travel documents, birth certificates, certificate of\nnaturalization etc. The documentation will support and provide evidence to U.S. officials during the\nremoval.\n2025-02-03 98", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 44.2 (Documents required when removing to the U.S.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-44-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 44.3", + "marginal_note": "Advance notice of deportees of interest to U.S. law", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "44.3 Advance notice of deportees of interest to U.S. law\nenforcement authorities\nIf, well before the actual removal, officers are aware that a deportee is or may be of interest to law\nenforcement authorities in the U.S., officers should provide the appropriate law enforcement agency\nwith advance notice of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the person's travel\narrangements.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 44.3 (Advance notice of deportees of interest to U.S. law)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-44-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 44.4", + "marginal_note": "Persons issued a direction to leave or a direction to return", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "44.4 Persons issued a direction to leave or a direction to return\nto the U.S. after applying for entry at a Canadian POE\nIn these cases, the foreign national will have:\n a copy of the Direction to Leave Canada [BSF503] because an officer is unable to examine\nthe person under R40(1); or\n a copy of the Direction to Return to the U.S. [BSF505] under R41 because an officer is not\navailable to complete an examination, the PS Minister is not available to review an A44(2)\nreport, or an admissibility hearing cannot be held.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 44.4 (Persons issued a direction to leave or a direction to return)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-45", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 45", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Removal to the United States for variable", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "45 Procedure: Removal to the United States for variable\ncases\nThis section contains detailed information about removal to the United States for variable cases.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 45 (Procedure: Removal to the United States for variable)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-45-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 45.1", + "marginal_note": "Notice to the U.S. in cases involving medical care or", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "45.1 Notice to the U.S. in cases involving medical care or\ntreatment\nThe officer must provide advance written notice of the return of any removal case to the U.S. if the\nofficer has evidence to suggest that medical attention is required because of a mental or physical\ncondition. The written notice of the return of the person being removed must include:\n a written opinion of a competent authority (such as a medical doctor or an official of\na medical institution) confirming the need for care or treatment;\n a description of the facts and circumstances of the case; and\n the deportee's travel arrangements. The officer must supply this information as soon\nas possible if they are not able to do so when giving notice.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 45.1 (Notice to the U.S. in cases involving medical care or)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-45-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 45.2", + "marginal_note": "Official records and privacy consideration", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "45.2 Official records and privacy consideration\nUnder the Privacy Act the officer may provide information from the CBSA’s files to U.S. authorities:\n to establish that a deportee is returnable;\n to ensure that appropriate arrangements for reception are made for deportees requiring\nmedical care;\n2025-02-03 99\n to find out whether the deportee is wanted by U.S. law-enforcement authorities; and to\nassist port-of-entry procedures if safety and security factors may be indicated.\nThe USDHS may provide information from its files to Canadian government offices for these purposes.\nIn cases involving criminality (such as deportees wanted by Canadian police authorities), U.S.\nauthorities will communicate directly with the RCMP.\nOfficers may furnish U.S. authorities with fingerprints and photographs obtained under A16 only when\nidentity is in doubt.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 45.2 (Official records and privacy consideration)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-45-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 45.3", + "marginal_note": "Notification of persons being removed for criminal or", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "45.3 Notification of persons being removed for criminal or\ndrug offences\nOfficers notify the missions abroad of persons being removed from Canada to any country for criminal\nor drug convictions. In U.S. cases, officers should also notify the U.S. immigration attaché in Ottawa\nand the receiving USDHS authorities.\nOfficers should ensure that the U.S. immigration attaché is notified of all persons being removed to the\nU.S. for all criminal or drug offences, and the reason they have been found to be in contravention of\nA34, A35, A36(1), A36(2) and A37.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 45.3 (Notification of persons being removed for criminal or)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-45-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 45.4", + "marginal_note": "Request for confirmation of vital statistics in the U.S.", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "45.4 Request for confirmation of vital statistics in the U.S.\nAn officer must make all requests in the most expedient manner, such as priority post, facsimile, e-\nmail and so forth.\nFor New York City, the request must be in the following form:\nI have been authorized by (name) to obtain confirmation of the birth of (name) on (date) at New York\nCity in (borough), son of (father's name) and (mother's name). Please confirm birth particulars as\nsoon as possible, by courier, facsimile, telegram or whatever is local office procedure.\nOfficers should send the request to:\nDirector of Vital Records,\nNY City Department of Health, 125 Worth Street, Room 133,\nNew York City, N.Y. 10031\nFor foreign nationals under a removal order who were born in Georgia, officers should make the\nrequest, including all relevant information, through the Immigration Section of the Canadian Consulate\nGeneral in New York City. The consulate will inform the officer of the findings of the search made by\nthe Georgia Department of Human Resources. If the officer needs a birth certificate, the same\nprocedure should be followed; the consulate will obtain the document and send it to the officer. The\nconsulate will cover all costs.\nSome states have specific requirements for confirmation of birth particulars, and several charge fees.\n2025-02-03 100\nFor the following states, officers should make the requests through the responsible Canadian\nconsulate:\n Connecticut: requires a written government request and the written consent of the\nindividual concerned;\n Iowa: send requests through the Buffalo office;\n Nebraska: fee, billed to the Buffalo office;\n New Hampshire: fee;\n Oklahoma: requires a letter of authority from the foreign national concerned and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 45.4 (Request for confirmation of vital statistics in the U.S.) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-45-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 45.4", + "marginal_note": "Request for confirmation of vital statistics in the U.S.", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "particulars of the foreign national's parents, including the mother's maiden name;\nfee;\n Texas: keeps statistics by county and requires the consent of the foreign national\nconcerned for every county except Dallas; fee;\n Wisconsin: fee, billed to the Buffalo office.\nIf the officer encounters problems in verifying births in a particular state, they should contact the\nimmigration section of the responsible Canadian consulate, which will then contact the vital statistics\ndepartment with the request, guarantee payment of any fee, and return the information to the officer.\nWhen the officer sends a request through a consulate, the officer must provide the office's financial\ncode so that the consulate can recover any expenses incurred.\nIf a state refuses to release birth information because the foreign national concerned will not consent\nto its release, and all other methods have failed, the officer may have to contact the U.S. immigration\nattaché.\nIf the officer has asked the U.S. immigration attaché or USDHS to confirm or secure vital statistics for\nforeign nationals under a removal order, and the officer has then been able to get the information\nfrom another source, they must inform the attaché or USDHS immediately.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 45.4 (Request for confirmation of vital statistics in the U.S.) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-45-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 45.5", + "marginal_note": "Removal via the U.S. to other countries", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "45.5 Removal via the U.S. to other countries\nEscorted persons: Officers require the consent of the U.S. Immigration Attaché in Ottawa to remove\na person under escort via the U.S. to a third country. On arrival at the U.S. POE, the escort officer\nmust:\n obtain a US 1-94 form from the U.S. examining officer;\n have the form signed by the master of the vehicle by which the person's departure from\nthe U.S. is effected;\n return the signed form to the U.S. port of issue; and sign the Certificate of Departure\n[IMM0056B] after the departure has been verified.\nUnless the officer makes other arrangements with the USDHS, it is the CBSA’s responsibility to\narrange for an escort for the removal via the U.S. of a foreign national deported after admission to\n2025-02-03 101\nCanada, if the foreign national must disembark in the U.S. en route to a third country. This provision\napplies even if the airline does not require the foreign national under a removal order to be escorted.\nRemoval by air: If officers remove a person from Canada on an aircraft that merely calls for servicing\nat a U.S. airport and then continues to its destination in a third country, officers do not need to\nprovide an escort through the U.S. Officers must give advance notice to the USDHS office where the\naircraft lands regarding the expected date and time of arrival and departure, so that the person does\nnot disembark and the USDHS can verify departure. Depending on local office procedures, officers may\nalso inform the U.S. Immigration Attaché.\nRemoval on ships calling at U.S. ports: An escort is not necessary when officers are removing a\nperson from Canada to a third country on a ship that may call at a U.S. port before proceeding abroad.\nIf officers know the port of call, officers must inform the USDHS officer in charge or the USDHS\nregional director. The ship's master is responsible for safeguarding the person and informing the\nUSDHS officer in charge that the person is on board.\nThe officer is still required to escort the person under a removal order who is brought into either\ncountry in transit for embarkation on a ship.\nPART VI – File Closure", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 45.5 (Removal via the U.S. to other countries)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-46-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 46", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: File clean-up after removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "46 Procedure: File clean-up after removal\nOnce a person has been removed from Canada, there are still additional procedures that must be\ncompleted before the file can be considered complete. The officer responsible for the removal should\nensure that:\na. the IMM0056B is on file and entered into GCMS/NCMS and any local case-tracking\nprocedures are completed;\nb. NCMS is updated and all processes concluded;\nc. the appropriate copy of the removal order has been sent to the Records Services Division,\nMicrofilm Unit at IRCC-NHQ to be microfilmed; and\nd. case notes that are relevant to the removal are added to the file, including a copy of any\nincident report if the officer encountered such actions as physical resistance or threatening\ncomments on an escorted removal.\nThe officer should also take the following steps:\ne. if necessary, request that the return of a security deposit or guarantee for compliance is\nactioned. For further information on the refund or forfeiture of a security deposit or\nguarantee, refer to ENF 8;\nf. for billing purposes, contact the appropriate officer in transportation liability cases where the\nCBSA has made removal arrangements on behalf of the transportation company. In cases\nwhere the transporter is liable for the removal costs, the officer should ensure that an\nBSF501 form is completed and a copy sent to the Transporter Obligations Program along\nwith associated e-ticket/s and any supporting documents (e.g. Certificate of Departure,\nescort expense statements). This form outlines all costs incurred in removing a person from\nCanada (with the exception of detention costs). Expenses include flight costs for deportees\nand escorting officers, fees for travel documents, fees for visas, wages of escorting officers\n2025-02-03 102", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 46 (Procedure: File clean-up after removal) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-46-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 46", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: File clean-up after removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "including any overtime, accommodations, meals and incidentals, public transportation costs,\nentry/exit permits, etc.;\ng. if appropriate, contact the Crown counsel to confirm that a person has been removed from\nCanada;\nh. notify other agencies (i.e., parole, probation, welfare, health, Human Resources and Social\nDevelopment Canada, etc.) to confirm that the person has been removed from Canada; and\ni. return any seized government-issued documents to the respective agencies (i.e., driver’s\nlicence, social insurance cards, health cards, etc.). For further information on disposing of\nseized documents, refer to ENF 12, section 11.\nThere may also be other local procedures in place for larger offices, such as archiving files. Officers\nshould refer to local office policy for concluding removal cases. On occasion, a file can be closed for\nreasons other than the successful removal of a person from Canada. Some possibilities include the\nfollowing.\nj. If a person is deceased, GCMS should be updated accordingly, along with explanatory\nremarks. Officers should update NCMS and complete the notes to file.\nk. If the USDHS advises the CBSA that a person has been apprehended in the U.S. and\ndeported to their country of nationality, CBSA can confirm a person is no longer in Canada.\nAn update to GCMS should be entered along with explanatory remarks. Officers should\nupdate NCMS and complete a memo to file;\nl. If an officer at a Canadian mission outside Canada has enforced a removal order pursuant to\nR240(2) and issued a Certificate of Departure, visa officers have been instructed to send the\nresponsible removal office in Canada a copy of the notes and the IMM0056B. Upon receipt,\nthe officer at the removal office in Canada should input the provided information into\nGCMS/NCMS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 46 (Procedure: File clean-up after removal) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-46-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 46", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: File clean-up after removal", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "m. If a decision is made to grant permanent resident status, officers should update NCMS. The\nremoval order becomes void when the person becomes a permanent resident under A51.\nOfficers must be satisfied that the file is no longer considered an active removal case before\nconcluding. If officers have any concern about whether a case should be closed, they should contact\ntheir manager or supervisor for assistance.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 46 (Procedure: File clean-up after removal) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Entering previously deported persons into", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "47 Procedure: Entering previously deported persons into\nCPIC\nThe primary objective for entering previously deported persons (PDP) into the Canadian Police\nInformation Centre (CPIC) is to enhance public safety and security by providing peace officers with the\nnecessary information to form reasonable grounds that the person may be arrested without a warrant\nunder A55(2)(a). The CPIC-PDP database will equip peace officers across Canada with information that\na foreign national has been deported from Canada, has returned to Canada without the authorization\nprescribed under A52(1) and, at the time of the person’s removal, there were reasonable grounds to\nbelieve that the person was a danger to the public or was unlikely to appear.\nAfter a name is queried in CPIC and is a direct match with a person found in the PDP database, CPIC\nwill instruct law enforcement partners to contact the WRC for further assistance. For the purposes of\narrests made without a warrant under IRPA, peace officers as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code\nhave the authority under A55(2)(a) to arrest and detain a foreign national without a warrant. For\nfurther information on arrest and detention by peace officers under IPRA, see ENF 7, section 16.\n2025-02-03 103\nInformation on individuals in the CPIC-PDP database originates from the GCMS-PDP database. For\nmore information on who will be added to the GCMS-PDP database, see section 46.1 below; for\ninformation on who will be added to the CPIC-PDP database, see section 46.2 below.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47 (Procedure: Entering previously deported persons into)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47.1", + "marginal_note": "Who will be added to the previously deported persons", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "47.1 Who will be added to the previously deported persons\ndatabase in GCMS?\nPersons issued a Certificate of Departure [IMM0056B] and removed from Canada under a deportation\norder or a departure order that has become a deportation order will be added to the GCMS-PDP\ndatabase, except where the removal order was issued to a person described in A42(b) as an\naccompanying family member and is therefore exempted from the need for authorization to return to\nCanada as required under A52(1).\nIn such cases, the deportee will be added to the GCMS-PDP database and a previous deportee\n(PREV.DEP) flag will be enabled in GCMS.\nNote: Persons removed pursuant to exclusion orders and departure orders will not be added to the\nGCMS-PDP database at this time.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47.1 (Who will be added to the previously deported persons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-47-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 47.2", + "marginal_note": "Who will be added to the previously deported persons", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "47.2 Who will be added to the previously deported persons\ndatabase in CPIC?\nThere will be an automatic transfer to the CPIC system of PDP information on\nindividuals who meet the criteria in section 46.1 above and for whom, at the time of\ndeparture, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is either:\n a danger to the public; or\n unlikely to appear for examination, an admissibility hearing, removal from\nCanada, or at a proceeding that could lead to the making of a removal order\nby the Minister under A44(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 47.2 (Who will be added to the previously deported persons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-48", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 48", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Repayment of removal expenses", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "48 Procedure: Repayment of removal expenses\nAs per section 243 of the IRPR, all foreign nationals removed from Canada (under deemed\ndeportation, deportation, departure or exclusion order) at the CBSA’s expense are required to repay\nthe costs of their removal in order to return to Canada, provided the costs are not recovered from a\ntransporter.\nIn the absence of transporter liability, foreign nationals must repay:\n $3,840 for removal without escort or under escort other than by air; and [R243(a)];\nand\n $12,880 for removal under escort by air [R243(b)].\nForeign nationals must be counseled on the requirement to seek repayment of removal costs should\nthe CBSA pay for their removal from Canada. Many foreign nationals opt to purchase their own airline\nticket for removal purposes in order to avoid this fee.\n2025-02-03 104\nIn most cases, foreign nationals who are required to repay removal costs will pay the fee as part of an\napplication for an Authorization to Return to Canada or application for a temporary resident visa at a\nvisa office overseas before travelling to Canada. Additional information on the ARC can be obtained at\nIRCC - Authorization to return to Canada (ARC) (ci.gc.ca).\nHowever, there may be situations where foreign nationals are required to pay the fee at a port of\nentry. For example, foreign nationals who are visa-exempt may arrive at a port of entry and seek\nentry to Canada without having paid the required fee as part of an application overseas. In these\ncases, it will be the BSO’s responsibility to properly assess and collect the fee, as required. Additional\ninformation for BSO’s at the POE can be found in OB PRG-2014-49.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 48 (Procedure: Repayment of removal expenses)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-49", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 49", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Victims Bill of Rights", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "49 Procedure: Victims Bill of Rights\nAs part of statutory obligations under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, subparagraph 26(1)(b)(v) of\nthe Correctional and Conditional Release Act requires that Correctional Services of Canada (CSC)\nnotify registered victims of the offender’s removal from Canada, if removal occurs before the\nexpiration of the sentence. Because of this, the CBSA must provide CSC with the removal date through\nthe Offender Management System (OMS).\nAs part of departure verification activities following the removal of a federal offender (relevant dates\ncan be found in OMS and/or on file), the officer shall input the date of removal in the immigration\nscreen of the OMS if the offender’s sentence has not expired. This should be done as soon as possible\nfollowing removal in order that CSC can meet its statutory obligations to provide victims with relevant\nand timely information concerning the removal, and should be part of regular post-removal file clean-\nup activities.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 49 (Procedure: Victims Bill of Rights)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-10-50", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-10", + "act_short": "ENF 10", + "act_name": "ENF 10 — Removals", + "section": "ENF 10 s. 50", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Electronic Travel Authorization Cancellation", + "part": "Removals", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "50 Procedure: Electronic Travel Authorization Cancellation\nThe Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) is an entry requirement that allows Canada to pre- screen\nvisa-exempt travellers, apart from U.S. citizens and certain other exempt travellers, in order to flag\nforeign nationals with any known inadmissibility concerns before they travel to Canada by air.\nAn eTA will be valid for up to five years or until the passport expires, whichever comes first. However,\nan eTA can be cancelled in cases where an officer determines that a foreign national is inadmissible.\nPursuant to section 12.06 of Immigration, Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), an officer may\ncancel an electronic travel authorization that was issued to a foreign national if:\n(a) the officer determines that the foreign national is inadmissible; or\n(b) the foreign national is the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1) of the Act.\nAs per the IRCC Instrument of Designation and Delegation, inland enforcement officers are delegated\nto cancel an eTA. If an individual is removed but still has a valid eTA, the officer must first review the\nfile and determine that the person is inadmissible to Canada, make notes documenting that decision,\nand then cancel the eTA when closing the file. Once the removal has been enforced, the officer will\ninactivate the eTA in GCMS and issue correspondence that will notify the foreign national by email of\nthe reason the eTA was cancelled and further options they may pursue (may seek a Judicial Review of\nthe decision at the Federal Court level). The \"How to Inactivate an eTA, Issue eTA Cancelled Letter\"\nguide provides instructions on how to inactivate the eTA and notify the traveller of the cancellation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2025-02-03", + "current_to": "2025-02-03", + "citation": "ENF 10, s. 50 (Procedure: Electronic Travel Authorization Cancellation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf10-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "The new CBSA forms BSF 698: Notice of Seizure for seizures of all travel and/or identity", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 The new CBSA forms BSF 698: Notice of Seizure for seizures of all travel and/or identity\ndocument(s) and BSF 699: Application for the Return of seized identity document(s) were added\nto the list of forms", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 3.1 (The new CBSA forms BSF 698: Notice of Seizure for seizures of all travel and/or identity)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "This section was amended to reflect use of new CBSA form BSF 698: Notice of Seizure for", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9. This section was amended to reflect use of new CBSA form BSF 698: Notice of Seizure for\nseizures of all travel and/or identity documents under subsection 140(1) of IRPA. The section\nnow also includes instructions for use of new CBSA form BSF 699 Application for the Return of\nseized identity document(s).\nAdditional changes were made to improve the flow of the section.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9 (This section was amended to reflect use of new CBSA form BSF 698: Notice of Seizure for)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "This section was amended to reflect use of new CBSA forms BSF 698 and BSF 699 when", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11. This section was amended to reflect use of new CBSA forms BSF 698 and BSF 699 when\nreturning seized documents. Contact information for the document centre was also updated.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 5\nDate: 2009-03-16\n7.1 The section has been amended to better reflect the fact that searches pursuant to A139 relate\nto persons seeking to come into Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11 (This section was amended to reflect use of new CBSA forms BSF 698 and BSF 699 when)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-7-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "The table for search levels previously found at 7.6 has been modified. The reference to the", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5 The table for search levels previously found at 7.6 has been modified. The reference to the\nMinister’s Delegate has been replaced by supervisor to reflect policy.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 7.5 (The table for search levels previously found at 7.6 has been modified. The reference to the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-7-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Contains the information previously found at 7.7, Search incidental to arrest. Additional", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6 Contains the information previously found at 7.7, Search incidental to arrest. Additional\ninformation has been included concerning searches beyond Level 1 and the Search form (IMM\n5242).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 7.6 (Contains the information previously found at 7.7, Search incidental to arrest. Additional)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-7-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Includes information previously found at 7.5. References to CBSA – customs and CBSA –", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7 Includes information previously found at 7.5. References to CBSA – customs and CBSA –\nimmigration have been eliminated.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 7.7 (Includes information previously found at 7.5. References to CBSA – customs and CBSA –)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.15", + "marginal_note": "Sending documents for analysis has been moved from point 11.14 to 11.15. A link has", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.15 Sending documents for analysis has been moved from point 11.14 to 11.15. A link has\nbeen added to the correct address for each region. Precisions have been added on the\ninformation to join to a request for analysis.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.15 (Sending documents for analysis has been moved from point 11.14 to 11.15. A link has)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.7", + "marginal_note": "Typographical errors have been corrected.", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.7 Typographical errors have been corrected.\nOther minor changes have been made throughout the chapter.\n2006-01-25\nNumerous changes have been made throughout this chapter and any previous version of it\nshould be discarded. Of particular note, amendments have been made to reflect the new\ndesignation of officers and delegation of authority resulting from the Citizenship and Immigration\nCanada (CIC) transfer of port of entry (POE) and enforcement functions to the Canada Border\nServices Agency (CBSA). Resulting changes to CIC’s and the CBSA’s responsibilities with\nrespect to search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing have been incorporated throughout\nthe chapter.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 6\n2004-05-18\nRequirement to input FPS numbers in FOSS:\nIn order to further streamline the administration of fingerprints, all cases where a person has been\npreviously fingerprinted for immigration purposes and a Fingerprint (FPS) number exists, the FPS\nnumber must be entered in FOSS. The FPS number must be included in any subsequent request\nto the RCMP for additional checks or for follow-up information.\nQuoting the FPS number is the certified means to identify an individual. Referencing the\nFingerprint (FPS) number enhances a fingerprint query, facilitates turnaround times and reduces\nthe need to duplicate fingerprinting.\n2003-09-26\nENF 12 – Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing – has been updated to reflect the\nauthorities and procedures that govern how and when an immigration officer may seize\ndocuments and vehicles, conduct searches and take fingerprints and photographs of persons.\nMajor changes to this chapter includes:\nSection 3 describes all relevant sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.7 (Typographical errors have been corrected.) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.7", + "marginal_note": "Typographical errors have been corrected.", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "and Regulations, A140(2), which states that a document or a thing that is detained or seized\nunder the Customs Act is no longer considered in the course of post.\nHyperlinks: Section 3 provides hyperlinks to other pertinent Sections of Law, including Section 99\nand 101 of the Customs Act, which describes a Customs inspectors’ powers to examine the mail\nand detain goods, the importation of which is prohibited, controlled, or regulated by an Act of\nParliament. Section 108 of the Customs Act describes disclosures of information by CCRA to CIC\nfor the purposes of enforcing IRPA. Section 3 provides Charter protection against unreasonable\nsearch and seizure 8(2)(3) of the Privacy Act.\nSection 4 describes the instruments and delegations of authorities as they stem from sections\nA6(1) and (2) of IRPA.\nSection 7 details what constitutes lawful search and seizure while providing Charter protections.\nSection 7.2, Section 7.3, Section 7.4, and Section 7.5 describe reasonable grounds to search;\nwhen searching in detention; right to counsel when a search constitutes detention, and the\nauthority under A139(1)(b) to search any person seeking to enter Canada, including Canadian\nCitizens.\nSection 7.6 describes the three types of Search: Level 1, Preliminary search; Level 2, Frisk\nsearch, and Level 3, Disrobement search, and the required consent from a Supervisor.\nSection 7.7, Section 7.8, Section 7.9 and Section 7.10 describe searches incidental to an arrest;\nofficer safety in conducting searches; general search procedures, and completing Search form\n(IMM 5242B).\nSection 7.11, Section 7.12, Section 7.13, Section 7.14 , Section 7.15 and Section 7.16 describe\nspecific instructions pertaining to conducting preliminary and full examination searches at Ports of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.7 (Typographical errors have been corrected.) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-7-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.7", + "marginal_note": "Typographical errors have been corrected.", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Entry; searching luggage; conducting personal searches (including frisk searches and\ndisrobement searches). Section 7.16 describes information pertaining to search and seizure of a\nvehicle.\nSection 8 describes Search Warrant procedures including Charter considerations; when and how\nto apply for a Search Warrant; information required to obtain a Search Warrant, and procedures\npertaining to the execution of a Search Warrant. Specific instructions pertaining to proper protocol\nwhen conducting searches; protection of evidence, and reports required following the execution of\na search warrant is described in Section 8.8, Section 8.9, and Section 8.10. Section 9 updates\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 7\nSeizure Authority relating to Solicitor-client privilege. Caution should be taken to avoid conflict of\nconfidentiality of solicitor-client privilege when seizing documents.\nSection 9.4, Section 9.5, Section 9.6, Section 9.7, Section 9.8, Section 9.9, Section 9.10, Section\n9.11 describe seizing documents both domestically and internationally; seizing documents from\nrefugee claimants; seizing vehicles, and procedures for the notice and reporting of seized\nvehicles.\nSection 10.1, Section 10.2, and Section 10.3 describe mail search and seizures including\nCustoms procedures for international mail; and courier shipments.\nSection 10.4, Section 10.5, Section 10.6, Section 10.7 and Section 10.8 describe the\nresponsibilities of Immigration officers pertaining to mail seizures, documenting and tracking\nseizures; security, storage and labelling seized items; split seizures, and partial seizures.\nSection 10.9, Section 10.10, and Section 10.11 describe notification of the owner in event of full", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.7 (Typographical errors have been corrected.) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-7-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.7", + "marginal_note": "Typographical errors have been corrected.", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "or partial mail seizures; returning items to the Customs process, and release of information in\naccordance to section 108 of the Customs Act.\nSection 11 describes the disposition of seized objects as per the custody and protection of\nevidence, liability for damage of seized property, and return of seized objects as per R253.\nSection 11.6, and Section 11.7 describe application procedures for the return of items in\nexchange for security as per R245 R245, and R254. This includes information on estimating\nmarket value of a seized vehicle or object. Section 11.7 provides application information by a\nlawful owner for the return of seized items.\nSection 11.8, Section 11.9, Section 11.10, Section 11.11, and Section 11.12 describe conditions\nunder which a seized vehicle may be returned or disposed of, and the forfeiture of security under\nR254(2)(b).\nSection 11.13 and Section 11.14 describe conditions under which fraudulent documents can be\ndisposed of.\nSection 12 describes the Authority to Fingerprint. This section also describes the three (3)\nfingerprint forms used by immigration officers; the C-216, C-216C, and the introduction of the C-\n216R (refugee fingerprint form). Section 12 also describes the procedures for taking “ink roll”\npaper prints, and introduces procedures for the LiveScan automated fingerprint system that\ntransmits fingerprint data electronically to RCMP/AFIS. The LiveScan User Guide and Standard\nOperating Procedures will be posted on the Web.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 8", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.7 (Typographical errors have been corrected.) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. What this chapter is about\nThis chapter provides functional direction and guidance to Canada Border Services Agency\n(CBSA) and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officials when applying the\nsearch, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing provisions of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act (IRPA) and Regulations (IRPR).\nThe content and guidance found in this chapter is specfic to IRPA authorities. Officers (e.g.\nBorder Services Officers) with mandates to enforce more than one Act of Parliament at the same\ntime (e.g. during a POE examination) must ensure that they clearly know and understand which\nAct they are administering and/or enforcing as well as which authority they are relying upon.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Program objectives\nThe objectives of Canada’s immigration program concerning search, seizure, fingerprinting and\nphotographing are:\n To protect public health and safety and to maintain the security of Canadian society;\n To promote international justice and security by denying access to Canadian territory to\npersons who are criminals or security risks; and\n To facilitate the entry of visitors, students and temporary workers for processes such as\ntrade, commerce, tourism, international understanding and cultural, educational and\nscientific activities.\nThe authorities to search, seize, fingerprint and photograph permit officers to:\n confirm the identity of persons seeking entry to Canada;\n ensure compliance with the Act and Regulations;\n seize and hold any means of transportation, document, or other thing that may be used\nfor enforcing the Act and the Regulations, including evidence for prosecutions;\n prevent the misuse of documents that were fraudulently or improperly obtained;\n return and disposing of seized things;\n collect biometric information from a foreign national.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority\nThe following legislative authorities for an officer to search, seize, take fingerprints and\nphotographs are found in the IRPA and IRPR. Authorities may vary between POE and Inland and\nalso between CBSA and IRCC officials.\nThese provisions represent general enabling authorities. As such, officers must ensure that they\nare applied in the proper circumstances and by the appropriate individuals. Both the CBSA and\nIRCC IRPA Designation and Delegation Instruments should be consulted in order to determine\nthat an officer is granted the authority to exercise the provisions in question.\nPursuant to subsection 6(1) of the IRPA, both the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness (PS) and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have the\nauthority to designate any persons or class of persons to carry out any purpose of any provision\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 9\nof IRPA and have specified the powers and duties of the officers so designated. In addition,\nsubsection 6(2) provides that anything that may be done by the Minister under the Act and\nRegulations may be done by a person that the Ministrer authorizes in writing. This is referred to\nas delegation of authority.\nThe Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority instrument stipulates who has the\nauthority to perform specific immigration related functions. There are two Designation and\nDelegation Instruments (D&D). One is made by IRCC and the other by CBSA. In each Instrument,\nIRCC and CBSA designate and delegate authorities to their own officials based on listed job title,\nas well as to officials in the other departments. This is referred to as cross-designations and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 3 (The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "cross-delegations. Therefore, it is important that officials read both documents to know all IRPA\nauthorities linked to their positions.\nThe Instruments can be found on the CBSA Atlas page as well as the IRCC Connexion under\nOperational Manuals – IL3 Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority.\nProvision: Refer to:\nA person who makes a claim, application or request under this Act must follow the\nprocedures set out in the regulations for the collection and verification of biometric\ninformation, including procedures for the collection of further biometric information\nfor verification purposes after a person’s claim, application or request is allowed or\naccepted.\nA10.01\nFor the purposes of an examination, authority for an officer to conduct an\ninspection, including the following:\n board and inspect any means of transportation bringing persons to Canada;\n examine any person carried by that means of transportation and any record or\ndocument respecting that person;\n seize and remove any record or document to obtain copies or extracts; and\n hold the means of transportation until the inspection and examination are\ncompleted.\nA15(3)\nAuthority for an officer to require or obtain from a permanent resident or a foreign\nnational who is arrested, detained or subject to an examination or subject to a\nremoval order any evidence, including photographic, fingerprint or otherwise, that\nmay be used to establish their identity or compliance with the Act.\nA16(3)\nAuthority to search any person seeking to come into Canada, including their\nluggage and personal effects, and the means of transportation that conveyed the\nperson to Canada, if the officer believes on reasonable grounds, that the person:\n has not revealed their identity or has hidden on or about their person", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 3 (The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "documents that are relevant to their admissibility; or\n has committed or possesses documents that may be used in the\ncommission of an offence in relation to smuggling and trafficking in\npersons or other contraventions of the Act in relation to documents.\nA139(1)\nRequirement that a search of a person be conducted by a person of the same sex. A139(2)\nAuthority for an officer to seize and hold any means of transportation, document or\nother thing if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds:\n that it was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used;\n that seizure is necessary to prevent its fraudulent or improper use; or\n to carry out the purposes of this Act.\nA140(1)\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 10\nA document or a thing that is detained or seized under the Customs Act is no\nlonger considered in the course of post for the purposes of the Canada Post\nCorporation Act.\nA140(2)\nAuthority for the detention, seizure or forfeiture of security provided by a\ntransporter and any vehicle or other prescribed good if the transporter fails to\ncomply with an obligation under this Act.\nA148(2)\nThe collection and verification of biometric information as authorized under section\n10.01 of the IRPA is only applicable to the claims, applications and requests as\nstipulated in this section of the IRPR.\nR12.1\nExemptions from the requirement to provide biometric information R12.2\nThe procedure for the collection of biometric information. R12.3\nSecondary disclosure by the RCMP of biometric information to other law-\nenforcement agencies\nR13.11\nRequirement for an officer who seizes a thing under A140(1) to place it without\ndelay in the custody of the CBSA or IRCC.\nR252\nRequirement for an officer following a seizure of a thing under A140(1) to provide", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 3 (The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-3-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "written notice to the person from whom it was seized, including the grounds of the\nseizure.\nR253(1)\nRequirement for an officer following a seizure of a thing under A140(1) to make\nreasonable efforts to identify the lawful owner and give them a written notice of,\nand the grounds for, the seizure.\nR253(2)\nInstructions and timelines for the return of seized items from the person from whom\nit was seized, including prevention of improper or fraudulent use.\nR254(1) to R254(4)\nInstructions and timelines for the return of seized items from the lawful owner,\nincluding prevention of improper or fraudulent use.\nR255(1) to R255(4)\nObligation to process the lawful owner’s application for return before the\napplication for return from the person from whom the thing was seized in case of\nconcurrent applications.\nR256\nRequirement to provide in writing the decision and reasons following an application\nmade under section R254 or R255 as soon as feasible.\nR257\nReturning a seized thing if it is no longer necessary to carry out the purposes of the\nAct or if it was seized in error.\nR257.1(1) and\nR257.1(2)\nConditional return of a seized thing R257.2\nGuidelines for the sale or destruction of a seized thing R258(1) and R258(2)\nGuidelines for the return or disposal of seized documents R258(3)\nAuthority for a transporter to hold prescribed passenger documentation where\nthere are reasonable grounds to believe that the documents may not be available\nfor examination by an officer at a port of entry.\nR260(1)\nAuthority to continue to detain a prescribed good seized under A148(2) until a\ntransporter complies with its obligations or has its obligations discharged.\nR285\nRequirement to give notice of seizure with respect to the object seized under\nA148(2).\nR286(1)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 3 (The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-3-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Authority to return or dispose of a thing seized under A148(2) R286(2)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 3 (The Act, Regulations and Designation & Delegation of Authority) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1. Forms\nForms required for search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing are listed below and are\naccessible on IRCC’s Connexion under Forms, or on CBSA Atlas under Forms and Templates.\nForm title Number\nNotice of Seizure of (a) Travel and/or Identity Document(s) and/or Other Thing(s) BSF 698E\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 11\nApplication for the Return of (a) Seized Travel and/or Identity Document(s) and/or\nOther Thing(s) (Form accessible to the public, available on the CBSA’s public\nwebsite)\nBSF 699E\nSearch under Section 139 of the IRPA BSF 899\nRecord of Examination/Seizure of Documents from International Mail and Courier\nServices\nBSF 573\nFingerprint Form (Criminal Fingerprint Form) C-216 (brown)\nFingerprint Form (Civil Fingerprint Form) C-216C (green)\nFingerprint Form (Refugee Fingerprint Form) C-216R (blue)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 3.1 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Departmental policy\nThe CBSA is responsible for providing integrated border services that support national security\nand public safety and ensures the security and prosperity of Canada by managing the access of\npeople and goods to and from Canada. The CBSA facilitates the entry of genuine travellers who\ncomply with the legislation while restricting the access of travellers who are in non-compliance or\nhave not satisfactorily established their identity.\nTo achieve program objectives, the CBSA may search persons seeking entry into Canada in\norder to confirm their identity and ensure compliance with the Act. Officials may also seize\ndocuments or other things in order to prevent their fraudulent or improper use or to carry out the\npurposes of the Act.\nFurthermore, fingerprints and photographs may be taken to ensure effective identity management\nand risk assessment, which are critical in combating fraud, managing the movement of people\nand protecting Canada’s security interests.\nOfficers are to support the objectives of the IRPA while ensuring that all decisions taken under the\nAct are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (Charter).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 4 (Departmental policy)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-5-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 5.1", + "marginal_note": "Charter rights respecting search or seizure", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.1 Charter rights respecting search or seizure\nThe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) protects the basic rights of all persons in\nCanada, including foreign nationals. Sections 8 through 10 of the Charter govern an officer’s\nauthority to conduct searches and seizure.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 5.1 (Charter rights respecting search or seizure)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-5-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 5.2", + "marginal_note": "Protection against unreasonable search or seizure", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.2 Protection against unreasonable search or seizure\nSection 8 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable\nsearch or seizure. As such, officers can only search and seize in the course of their duties in a\nmanner that meets this obligation under the Charter. Therefore, before conducting a search under\nthe IRPA, an officer must establish that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person\nseeking entry to Canada has not revealed their identity, has hidden documents relevant to their\nadmissibility, or has concealed documents that may be used in the commission of an offence of\nsmuggling or trafficking persons or for contraventions under the Act and Regulations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 5.2 (Protection against unreasonable search or seizure)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-5-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 5.3", + "marginal_note": "Right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.3 Right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned\nSection 9 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or\nimprisoned. When an involuntary personal search is being conducted, the person is considered\nto be detained because they cannot refuse to submit to the search and are not free to leave.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 12\nWhen an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a search and seizure is appropriate, this\nalso means that detention for the purpose of that search and seizure is appropriate as well.\nSearch of the baggage of a person seeking entry to Canada is not considered to be a detention;\nhowever, a full body search of a person (disrobement) is considered to be a detention. It is not\nexcepted that a disrobement search should often be required in the context of s. 139 IRPA\nsearch.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 5.3 (Right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-5-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 5.4", + "marginal_note": "Right to counsel when search constitutes detention", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.4 Right to counsel when search constitutes detention\nSection 10 of the Charter requires that all persons being arrested or detained (including persons\nwho are submitting to any type of involuntary personal search) be advised of the reason for the\ndetention and of their right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.\nOfficers must ensure that the person understands why a search is being conducted and\nnecessary. Officers must take reasonable steps to provide an interpreter or other suitable person\ncapable of speaking the language of the person when a language barrier is identified. Officers\nmust also be mindful that the person appreciates the nature of what is taking place when dealing\nwith vulnerable persons which include but are not limited to individuals with health, mental health\nor addiction issues, the elderly, minors and victims of trafficking.\nA personal (disrobement) search effectively places a person under detention. As such, the person\nmust be advised of their rights and given an opportunity to contact counsel. Officers should\nprovide a reasonable amount of time for the person to talk to a lawyer to obtain legal advice about\ntheir situation and must provide them with information on what legal aid services are available in\nthe area.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 5.4 (Right to counsel when search constitutes detention)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-5-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 5.5", + "marginal_note": "Solicitor-client privilege: Lavallee1 Supreme Court Decision", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.5 Solicitor-client privilege: Lavallee1 Supreme Court Decision\nThe Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Lavallee that the confidentiality of communication\nbetween a lawyer and their client(s), in the context of search and seizure, is protected. On the\nrare occasion when an officer is faced with a solicitor-client privilege scenario, where the officer is\nin possession of a document that may give rise to solicitor-client privilege, an officer will need to\nrefrain from infringing on that right.\nIn order for solicitor-client privilege to apply, the following conditions must be met:\n1. there must be a communication between a client (or their agent) and a legal advisor;\n2. this communication entails the seeking or giving of legal advice; and\n3. this communication is intended by the parties to be confidential.\nThere is an exception to solicitor-client privilege, namely when the client seeks guidance from a\nlawyer in order to facilitate the commission of fraud or crime. An exception also exists where\ncommunication is not intended to be confidential. Nevertheless, caution should be exercised\nbefore examining or seizing documents that could be subject to solicitor-client privilege. Officers\nshould consult with their manager first, then seek further assistance from CBSA Case\nManagement HQ, if needed.\nThe officer should evaluate whether the examination of the document is necessary for the\npurposes of the IRPA and remain cognizant of the possibility that the documents may be subject\nto solicitor-client privilege. For example, if enough evidence exists to support an inadmissibility\nallegation or there are sufficient identity and travel documents to effect removal, then search and\nseizure of the document in question may not be necessary. Furthermore, if subject to solicitor-", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 5.5 (Solicitor-client privilege: Lavallee1 Supreme Court Decision) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-5-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 5.5", + "marginal_note": "Solicitor-client privilege: Lavallee1 Supreme Court Decision", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "client privilege, officers will need to ensure not to infringe upon that right. It is not expected that\nofficers will have to deal with a large volume of documents that could be subject to solicitor-client\nprivilege. Moreover, in the mail examination context, procedures put in place to protect any\n1 Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General); White,Ottenheimer & Baker v. Canada (Attorney General);\nR. V Fink, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209, 2002 SCC 61.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 13\npotential solicitor-client privilege should be invoked as soon as an officer views documents to\nwhich solicitor-client privilege is attached and before a seizure is made under the IRPA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 5.5 (Solicitor-client privilege: Lavallee1 Supreme Court Decision) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Authority and Reasonable Grounds to Search", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Authority and Reasonable Grounds to Search\nThe authority to conduct a search of a person and their luggage, personal effects and the means\nof transportation that conveyed the person to Canada at a port of entry (POE) comes from\nA139(1), which requires that an officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the person\nseeking to come into Canada:\n has not revealed their identity;\n has hidden on or about their person documents that are relevant to their admissibility; or\n has concealed documents that may be or have been used for the purpose of smuggling or\ntrafficking of persons into Canada or for other contraventions under the Act and Regulations.\nCase law has established that “reasonable grounds” is greater than mere suspicion or conjecture\nbut less than the balance of probabilities. Reasonable grounds are grounds that, due to certain\nelements, facts, circumstances or available information, would lead an informed and experienced\nofficer to believe that a violation of the IRPA or its Regulations may have occurred, are occurring\nor may occur.\nFor example, an officer may believe that an undocumented refugee claimant, who is under\nexamination, had a travel document when boarding the aircraft, as it would have been required by\nthe airline. This circumstance may constitute reasonable grounds to do a baggage search and a\npersonal (frisk) search. However, an officer who suspects that a foreign national, seeking entry to\nCanada as a temporary resident, intends to work without authorization – even though the foreign\nnational has given consistent answers to the officer's questions – does not have reasonable\ngrounds to conduct a baggage or personal search. In this instance, mere suspicion does not", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.1 (Authority and Reasonable Grounds to Search) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Authority and Reasonable Grounds to Search", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "constitute reasonable grounds. The officer would require other grounds to support a search, such\nas a past history of untruthfulness or working without authorization and some indication that an\nimmigration violation will occur. Officers must always document what led them to believe that a\nsearch was necessary.\nNOTE: A139(1) only applies when an individual is seeking to come into Canada. Therefore,\nit does not authorize officers to conduct searches in Canada in the absence of evidence\nthe person is seeking entry (e.g. inland). This includes refugee claimants who were\nauthorized to proceed in Canada for further examination pursuant to A23. Please refer to\nsection 6.7 for additional details.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.1 (Authority and Reasonable Grounds to Search) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Types of search pursuant to 139(1) of the IRPA", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Types of search pursuant to 139(1) of the IRPA\nCBSA officers are authorized to search any person seeking to come into Canada (POE) as per\nsubsection 139(1) of the IRPA. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that officers are able to\nconduct a search when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person seeking entry\nmay not be providing their genuine identity, has hidden documents relevant to their admissibility,\nhas committed a contravention of the IRPA, or possesses documents that may be used in the\ncommission of any contravention of the IRPA.\nThere are two types of search that an officer may pursue: a Preliminary Search and a Personal\nSearch.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 14\nA preliminary search at the POE involves the examination of all belongings that are with the\nperson in the examination area, including digital devices, purses, briefcases, baggage, personal\neffects and any vehicle. This examination is for the purpose of detecting documents or evidence\nthat relate to identity, admissibility and offences under the Act. For the examination of digital\ndevices, please refer to section 6.15 – Examination of Digital Devices at the Port of Entry and in\nthe Inland Enforcement Context.\nAn officer may ask the individual undergoing a preliminary search to empty their pockets and to\nremove a coat or jacket for examination. This type of search does not involve physical contact\nwith the individual.\nType of\nsearch\nExplanation\nPreliminary\nSearch\nPreliminary\nSearch\nAn officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is\nseeking to enter Canada and may have documents relevant to identity\nor to admissibility hidden on them, in their luggage and/or conveyance", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.2 (Types of search pursuant to 139(1) of the IRPA) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Types of search pursuant to 139(1) of the IRPA", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "or that were or may be used in the commission of an offence, may\nconduct a preliminary search. A preliminary search is conducted on a\nperson’s luggage and personal belongings. This search may extend to\nthe traveller’s means of transportation or checked baggage.\nPreliminary searches may also involve the search of the outer layers\nof clothing of a person. When searching the outer layers of clothing,\nofficers may ask the person to empty their pockets and may search\nthe outermost layer of clothing to ensure that the pockets are empty\nand that no additional pockets exist. Officers may also ask the person\nto remove the outer layer of clothing. Outer layers of clothing include\nitems that when removed, could not reasonably be expected to\nexpose the person in a manner considered inappropriate.These\nsearches are part of a routine processing and do not raise any\nCharter concerns\nPlease note that a search of the outer layers of clothing and a\nfrisk search done for officer safety are not the same and they\neach have their own purpose and legal authorizations.\nNo concurrence from a supervisor is required unless the search\ninvolves a minor child (see section immediately following this table).\nPersonal\nSearch\nFrisk Search\ninvolving\nphysical\ncontact\nA frisk search involving physical contact with the person in order to\nfind documents hidden on or around their body is considered to be\npart of a personal search and therefore the person must be under\narrest or detention.\nPlease note that this is different from a frisk search done for\nofficer safety.\nApproval from a supervisor is required for a frisk search to be\nconducted under 139(1) of the IRPA.\nDisrobement\nsearch\nA disrobement search involves the full or partial disrobement of a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.2 (Types of search pursuant to 139(1) of the IRPA) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Types of search pursuant to 139(1) of the IRPA", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "person to detect or obtain documents or other evidence that the\nperson has concealed on their person. A disrobement search is\nconsidered a detention. A disrobement search should be a rare\noccurrence and must be performed by a person of the same sex as\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 15\nthe person being searched. If an officer of the same sex is not\navailable, any suitable person of the same sex may be authorized by\nan officer to perform the search. This search requires the approval\nfrom a supervisor, in all cases.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.2 (Types of search pursuant to 139(1) of the IRPA) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Minor Children", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.3 Minor Children\nSpecial consideration must be applied when dealing with minors, particularly in the case of\nunaccompanied minors. An officer does not require approval from a supervisor to conduct a\npreliminary search unless the search involves a minor child. An officer conducting a search\ninvolving a minor child must demonstrate particular sensitivity for the emotional well-being of the\nchild. The parent or adult accompanying the child should be present during the search. An officer\nmust ensure that another officer is present throughout the duration of the search as the witness\nand the activity should be well documented.\nNote: If, when conducting a search, officers suspect that there may be a risk to the welfare of a\nminor child, whether the child is unaccompanied or not, provincial child protection authorities\nshould be contacted. If a local child protection agency declines to become involved, officers\nshould request this be put in writing and sent to them. All interactions with the child protection\nagency should be recorded in the officer notebook. Officers should also be alert to situations\nwhere it is possible that a child has been trafficked, smuggled or abducted.If they encounter\nsuch situations, officers should consult ENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited\nChildren, CBSA Enforcement (EN) manual, Part 2, Chapter 15 Trafficking in Persons as well\nas IRCC’s Program Delivery Instructions for victims of trafficking in persons.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.3 (Minor Children)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.4", + "marginal_note": "Search related to an offence under IRPA", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.4 Search related to an offence under IRPA\nPursuant to A139(1)(b), a CBSA officer may search any person seeking to enter Canada,\nincluding Canadian citizens, if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person has\ncommitted, or possesses documents that may be used in the commission of, an offence referred\nto in sections A117, A118 or A122. Since criminal charges may follow, officers should contact\nCBSA Criminal Investigations from the outset.\nBefore searching or questioning any person about possible violations of the IRPA where charges\nmay be laid, the officer must inform the person of their rights under section 10 of the Charter. If\nthe officer questions the person concerning immigration offences (sections 117 to 137 of IRPA),\nany information obtained before the person is informed of their Charter rights may be inadmissible\nas evidence in subsequent prosecutions against the person.\nHowever, Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and persons registered as Indians under the\nIndian Act have the right to enter Canada if following an examination on their entry an officer is\nsatisfied that the person is a citizen, permanent resident,or person registered as an Indian.\nTherefore, once an officer establishes that a person is Canadian, permanent resident or a person\nregistered as an Indian, the officer must end the examination and authorize the person to enter\nCanada.\nIn the case of Canadian citizens, permanent residents or persons registered as Indians, any delay\nin authorizing entry to Canada, including a personal search in the form of a disrobement search,\nconducted for immigration purposes, may constitute detention and the person would have to be\nadvised of their right to counsel.\nIn the case where a group is travelling together and travellers have different immigration status\n(e.g. Foreign National, Permanent Resident, Canadian Citizen), and an officer has determined\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 16\nthat any or all members of the group will be searched, the officer must ensure that reasonable\ngrounds exist for each individual person who undergoes a search. Concerns related to one\nmember of the group do not authorize the search of other members of the group in order to\nsearch for evidence related to first traveller in question.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.4 (Search related to an offence under IRPA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Officer safety in conducting searches", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.5 Officer safety in conducting searches\nAn officer should never assume that a person, including one that is detained, has been searched.\nOfficer and public safety requires that search procedures be carefully observed and that\nappropriate documentation be completed in full. When custody of a detained person is being\ntransferred from one officer or agency to another, search guidelines and clear communication are\nof critical importance. However, officers should be cognizant that the authority to search does not\nimpose a duty to search. If an officer believes that they can conduct their work safely without\nconducting another search, for instance in cases where the custody of a person is transferred and\nthe officer is satisfied that the person has been searched and the search has been documented,\nthey may decide that no further search is necessary.\nThe safety of the general public, as well as the officer’s own personal safety, are of the utmost\nimportance and caution should be exercised at all times when conducting a search.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.5 (Officer safety in conducting searches)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "General search procedures", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.6 General search procedures\nIt is imperative that officers make notes of all details of any examination that leads to a\npreliminary or personal search, as well as the items found during the search. Officers may be\ncalled on to testify in court as to the reasonable grounds for the search. A second officer should\nwitness the search and both officers should initial each evidence bag or container in which the\nseized items are held. This practice will assist in ensuring officer safety, as well as providing a\nwitness in the event that allegations of impropriety are made against the officer. It may also assist\nin establishing the continuity of evidence.\nAny information relevant to conducting a search must be recorded in the officer’s notebook [BSF\n556] and in the client's file. Officers are required to keep a written record of each personal search\nconducted. All relevant information, including anything out of the ordinary that occurs and any\ncomments made by the client, should be noted. More information about note-taking procedures\nmay be found in ENF 7 Immigration Investigations and IRPA s.55 Arrests/Detention.\nOfficers conducting a search must maintain a professional demeanour and refrain from\nresponding to profanity or abuse. Profane or abusive language directed at an officer is not a\nground for arrest but may constitute a ground for an obstruction charge. Prior to arresting for\nobstruction (criminal offence), an officer should consult with Criminal Investigations.\nIn addition, the following guidelines must be observed in every search situation:\n The person being searched shall not be left alone until the search is completed;\n The person’s belongings, particularly money and other valuables, should not be left", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.6 (General search procedures) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "General search procedures", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "unattended until the search is completed and the belongings have been secured;\n The person being searched shall first be asked to identify their goods or baggage and to\nconfirm ownership. This will enable an officer to establish possession, should they find\ndocuments;\n The search of an individual's personal effects shall be conducted in a closed office or other\narea out of sight of the general public, but in the presence of the individual;\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 17\n Respect for the dignity of the person concerned must be demonstrated throughout the\nconduct of a search. This will help to alleviate some of the person’s anxiety and help to\nprevent the heightening of tension or escalation of uncooperative or violent behaviour;\n Unnecessary conversation, personal remarks and humour are to be carefully avoided by\nofficers conducting the search. Officers should be considerate of the fact that this is a serious\nmatter and stressful for the person who is being searched;\n A Search form (BSF899) must be completed in all cases at a POE and should be scanned\nand uploaded to GCMS to the ‘Clients’ screen at the following path: Clients>Documents>ID\nSupporting documents sub tab. Then select type: CDN Immigration Doc, sub-type: Client\nSubmission and document #: (BSF899).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.6 (General search procedures) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.7", + "marginal_note": "Conducting Preliminary and Full Examination Searches at Ports of Entry", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.7 Conducting Preliminary and Full Examination Searches at Ports of Entry\nPursuant to A139(1), officers may search any person seeking to come into Canada. However,\nofficers should be aware that there are different circumstances in which a person is considered to\nbe seeking entry. Subsection 27(2) of the IRPR states that “a person who seeks to enter Canada\nat a place other than a port of entry must appear without delay for examination at the port of entry\nthat is nearest to that place.”\nTherefore, in order to rely on POE examination provisions and related authorities, such as\nA139(1), officers will need to articulate that there is a geographic and temporal proximity to the\nborder if, for example, a person crosses the border between ports of entry but is intercepted\nwithin a geographic and temporal proximity of the border and brought to a POE for an\nexamination. This should be reflected in officer notes in GCMS and in the client’s file.\nSearches pursuant to subsection A139(1) are linked to the fact that the person crossed\ninternational borders, and as such they have a lower expectation of privacy. The BSO conducting\nthe initial examination, before deciding if authorizing entry under A23 is warranted, may perform a\nsearch if they feel it is necessary. However, once a person has been authorized to enter Canada\nunder A23 and presents themselves at a CBSA office, the officer cannot be reasonably certain\nthat the person will have in their possession the same documents to support a determination of\nadmissibility or eligibility, personal digital devices, or other items they had with them upon entry.\nThe person is still under examination and the officer may ask or require certain information\npursuant to section A16, however this does not equate to a search under A139.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.7 (Conducting Preliminary and Full Examination Searches at Ports of Entry) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.7", + "marginal_note": "Conducting Preliminary and Full Examination Searches at Ports of Entry", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "All searches are to be conducted in a courteous and professional manner in accordance with the\nCBSA Code of Conduct.\nWhen conducting a preliminary or full examination search at a POE, an officer should:\n take measures to ensure their own health and safety as well as that of fellow officers and the\npublic;\n complete the applicable section of the Search form [BSF899];\n explain to the person why their baggage or vehicle is being searched;\n arrange an interview if the person requests permission to speak to a supervisor;\n make detailed notes in their notebook of any articles relating to immigration that are found;\n confirm ownership of all baggage by asking the following questions:\n Is this your bag?\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 18\n Did you pack it yourself?\n Are you aware of the contents?\n Did you, at any time after packing your bag, leave it unattended?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.7 (Conducting Preliminary and Full Examination Searches at Ports of Entry) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.8", + "marginal_note": "Conducting a search of carry-on luggage", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.8 Conducting a search of carry-on luggage\nWhile officers have the authority to search at the port of entry as per A139(1), it is imperative that\nthe grounds to perform the search exist. Therefore,it is not enough that the luggage is at the POE.\nA139(1) only authorizes officers to conduct a search under IRPA, not for Customs Act or other\nreasons.\nOfficers will find it easier to search carry-on luggage if they develop a systematic approach.\nOfficers should wear kevlar or other protective gloves for personal safety.\nOnce a search has begun, the person whose belongings are being searched must never be left\nalone.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.8 (Conducting a search of carry-on luggage)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.9", + "marginal_note": "Conducting personal searches", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.9 Conducting personal searches\nPersonal searches include frisk and disrobement searches. Because these searches involve\nphysical contact, they are of a more sensitive nature. When searching persons under IRPA,\nofficers will encounter cases requiring sensitivity and careful considerations, such as when they\nare dealing with vulnerable persons.\nSearching vulnerable persons\nWhen conducting personal searches pursuant to subsection 139(1) of IRPA, it is important for\nofficers to identify vulnerable persons at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that\nappropriate considerations are factored into decisions and/or any actions taken during the search.\nThe following are some examples of persons who may be identified as vulnerable:\n minors (under the age of 18)/ unaccompanied minors;\n elderly persons;\n individuals with severe medical conditions or physical disabilities;\n pregnant persons and nursing mothers;\n persons with a suspected or known mental illness (includes suicidal persons and persons\nwho self-harm);\n victims/suspected victims of human trafficking or family related violence.\nOther persons may display less obvious symptoms of a vulnerability, which may not become\napparent until the person is searched:\n victims of gender-based violence may become distressed during a personal search. They\nmay also show signs of distress at the prospect of being searched by an officer of a\ndifferent gender;\n victims of trauma may have difficulty coping with the search because it is performed by\npersons in uniform or because they are confined in a closed room with officers.\nPersonal searches\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 19\nThe first step in any personal search is to seek the person's co-operation by explaining to the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.9 (Conducting personal searches) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.9", + "marginal_note": "Conducting personal searches", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "person what is involved in a search.\nIf a person does not comply with being frisk-searched, it may be necessary for an officer to\ndetermine whether detention is necessary in order for the examination to be completed. If an\nofficer makes the decision to detain, the officer must inform the person that they are detained and\nimmediately advise them of their right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. The grounds\nfor the detention should be explained to the person.\nPrior to an officer conducting a personal search that involves disrobement, an officer is required\nto read the following to the person being searched:\n“I have reasonable grounds to believe that you [have hidden documents on or about your\nperson that are relevant to your admissibility/have not revealed your identity/have\ncommitted an offence related to human smuggling or trafficking/documents] and I am\ndetaining you for the purposes of a search of your person as authorized by section 139 of\nthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Do you understand?\nYou have the right to retain and instruct counsel of your choice, in private and without\ndelay. You have the right to free and immediate legal advice from duty counsel. Duty\ncounsel is available at _____: during the following hours: _____ . You have the right to\napply for legal assistance without charge through the Provincial Legal Aid program. The\nLegal Aid telephone number in this area is: _____. Their office is located at: _____ and\noffice hours are from ______. Do you understand? Do you wish to call a lawyer now?\nYou need not say anything. You have nothing to hope from any promise or favour, or\nnothing to fear from any threat, whether or not you do say anything. Anything you do say\nmay be used in evidence. Do you understand?”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.9 (Conducting personal searches) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-9-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.9", + "marginal_note": "Conducting personal searches", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A139(2) requires that a search of a person seeking to come into Canada be performed by a\nperson of the same sex as the person being searched. If an officer of the same sex is not\navailable, any suitable person of the same sex may be authorized by an officer to perform the\nsearch. Officers should be aware that other considerations may arise, specifically in the context of\ngender diversity, which includes all transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, two-spirit, cisgender,\nand other gender identities. Please consult the Internationally recognized sexual orientation or\ngender identity of expression (SOGIE) definitions for additional information.\nShould a situation arise where a personal search is required on a person who self identifies as\ngender diverse, the CBSA must provide the individual with a choice of the sex of the officer who\nwill conduct the personal search. The options that will be available to the individual are:\nA. Male officers only;\nB. Female officers only; or\nC. A split search.\nAlthough these options are specific to a person seeking entry into Canada, and mandated by\nIRPA, they are principles that should be applied in the Inland context (search incidental to arrest)\nwhenever possible.\nA split search is conducted by two sets of officers, the first set completes the search of the upper\nbody while leaving the lower body clothed. The individual is then permitted to fully dress, and is\nturned over to a second set of officers of the opposite sex to conduct the search of the lower\nbody, while the upper body remains clothed. The individual being searched will be fully observed\nat all times during the turnover from the first set of officers to the second set of officers to ensure\nthat continuity of any potential evidence is maintained throughout the search process.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.9 (Conducting personal searches) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-9-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.9", + "marginal_note": "Conducting personal searches", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 20\nOnce the individual has chosen the sex of the officers conducting the personal search, the choice\nwill be recorded in the notebooks of all officers involved.\nIf not previously known that the person being searched is a gender diverse person, but it\nbecomes evident at any point during the personal search that this is the case, officers will\nimmediately stop the personal search and offer the individual the choice of the sex of the officers\nwho will continue the personal search.\nOfficers must follow all relevant guidelines and procedures related to handling cases concerning\nsexual orientation and gender identity and expression during IRPA searches. This includes being\nsensitive to gender-related issues when speaking to the person, and being careful to use gender\nterms that reflect the person’s gender identification or gender-neutral terms when referring to the\nperson in documents/notes or completing IRPA forms.\nAn officer should commence a personal search by:\n explaining the reason for the search to the person concerned;\n explaining, if challenged, the legal authority under A139(1) for the officer to conduct the\nsearch; and\n making arrangements, where the person is detained and wishes to exercise their rights under\nthe Charter, for access to a telephone and to a telephone directory. An officer may observe\nthe person but may not listen to their conversation with counsel. However, the officer should\nbe prepared to intervene if the person is observed in attempting to destroy or conceal\nevidence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.9 (Conducting personal searches) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-10-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.10", + "marginal_note": "Conducting frisk searches involving physical contact", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.10 Conducting frisk searches involving physical contact\nAn officer conducting a frisk search involving physical contact should:\n obtain supervisor’s approval to conduct a frisk search;\n arrest and/or detain the person;\n explain the reason for the search to the person concerned;\n explain, if challenged, the legal authority under A139(1) for the officer to conduct the search;\n recognizing that it may not always be possible, a person’s privacy should be protected by\nconducting the search out of the view of the public whenever possible;\n ask, prior to the commencement of the search, if the person has anything on them that could\nharm them or the officer conducting the search, and if so, to surrender it;\n conduct a search for weapons using a metal detector wand, where available. Before using the\nwand, persons must be asked if they are wearing a pacemaker or other similar heart\ndevice.Those who identify as wearing one should only be frisked manually;\n ask the person to remove any outer garments such as a jacket, coat or sweater and all\nobjects from their pockets;\n should circumstances require that the person being searched needs to be separated from\ntheir personal belongings, account for the personal items and ensure they are returned to the\nperson at the end of the search, unless the items are being seized;\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 21\n record in the BSO’s notebook [BSF556] all information pertaining to the search; charges may\nresult and an officer may be required to testify in court. (More information on using the\nnotebook is available in ENF 7 Immigration Investigations and IRPA s.55 Arrests/Detention.)\n seize and hold any documents or evidence that relates to identity or to the commission of an", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.10 (Conducting frisk searches involving physical contact) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-10-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.10", + "marginal_note": "Conducting frisk searches involving physical contact", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "offence under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;\n in cases where the search was resultant and required a BSF899 form to be filled out before\nthe person who was searched leaves the room, ensure that they sign part E of the BSF899\nand that they are satisfied that they have received all their property, unless it has been\nseized. This will help prevent claims of theft. If the person claims to be missing items, the\nofficer should review the search form with the person to determine what is missing and\nattempt to resolve the situation; and\n in cases where an officer discovers illicit contraband, such as weapons or drugs, they will\nimmediately arrest, advise and caution the person. For more information related to the\ndiscovery of illicit contraband at the POE, refer to CBSA Enforcement Manual – Part 6.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.10 (Conducting frisk searches involving physical contact) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.11", + "marginal_note": "Conducting disrobement searches", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.11. Conducting disrobement searches\nConducting a disrobement search while officers are enforcing the IRPA would only occur under\nexceptional circumstances. An officer must obtain a supervisor’s approval prior to conducting a\ndisrobement search. The purpose of a search under IRPA is to locate documents; consequently,\nit will be extremely rare that a person will hide documentary evidence in a location that would\nrequire disrobement.\nThere may be a situation where, as a result of the frisk search, it may be necessary to have the\nperson disrobe so that an officer can search for or remove evidence.\nA disrobement search consitutes a detention. As such, prior to commencing the search, an officer\nmust advise the person of their rights under the Charter, specifically the right to retain and instruct\ncounsel, and must give the person a reasonable opportunity to exercise those rights. The grounds\nfor the detention should be fully explained to the person. Once the person has had an opportunity\nto contact counsel, the search can proceed. It is not necessary to delay a search until the arrival\nof counsel.\nImmediately after an officer advises the person of their Charter rights, or as a simultaneous\naction, but before the person enters the search room or has access to a telephone, the person\nshould be frisked for weapons. This frisk is a precaution to ensure the safety of the officer and all\npersons in the inspection area and is not meant to discover evidence. An officer may use a metal-\ndetector wand if one is available.\nOfficers must ensure that disrobement searches are properly documented, including notes to be\nkept on file. Resultant disrobement searches will also require proper documentation of any\nassociated seizures.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.11 (Conducting disrobement searches)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.12", + "marginal_note": "Conducting a search of a means of transportation", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.12. Conducting a search of a means of transportation\nPursuant to A139(1), an officer may search a means of transportation that conveyed the person\nto Canada. In order for an officer at the POE to conduct a lawful search of a conveyance, there\nneeds to be reasonable grounds to believe there are documents which reveal the person’s\nidentity, are relevant to their admissibility, or may be used in the commission of an offence,\nnamely human smuggling, trafficking or to otherwise contravene the IRPA.\nDocuments and papers that are in a vehicle or are in the occupants’ possession may offer clues\nregarding other parties who have a legal interest in a means of transportation. Those documents\nshould be examined and if necessary, may be copied. In the event that a means of transportation\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 22\nis seized, these documents may assist an officer in satisfying the requirement of R253 to identify\nany person who is a lawful owner of a thing seized under A140(1) and to provide that person with\nwritten notice of, and reasons for, the seizure.\nUnder subsection A15(3), an officer has the authority to board and inspect any means of\ntransportation and to examine and record documents pertaining to persons carried by that means\nof transportation. Although there is nothing in the wording of A15(3) limiting this authority to the\nPOE, however, in order to rely on this provision to conduct a search, there must be some\ntemporal and geographic connection to the POE. For example, if there is evidence that a\nconveyance was used to bring individuals into Canada, such as law enforcement agency\nobserving this take place or it being captured on video, an officer with delegated authority under\nA15(3) could inspect the conveyance in the context described above. However, even if it is\nbelieved that a conveyance was used to transport persons into Canada, it may be difficult to\njustify the use of this provision some distance from the border.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.12 (Conducting a search of a means of transportation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.13", + "marginal_note": "Removal of the contents of a means of transportation", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.13 Removal of the contents of a means of transportation\nAn officer should ensure that any items of monetary or potentially sentimental value in a seized\nmeans of transportation are removed and returned to the transporter. While a seized means of\ntransportation should not be stripped of all of its contents, officers should remove items to limit the\nAgency’s liability. It may be prudent for the officer to allow the transporter to witness the search. If\nthat person is disruptive or unruly, the officer should have another officer nearby to witness any\nitems removed.\nAn officer should record or document items removed from the means of transportation and\nreturned to the transporter, and should get that individual’s signed acknowledgement that they\nhave received the items. This may alleviate possible allegations of impropriety on the part of the\nofficer.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.13 (Removal of the contents of a means of transportation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.14", + "marginal_note": "Completing the Search form BSF899", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.14 Completing the Search form BSF899\nThe BSF899 is meant to ensure national consistency when documenting searches conducted\nunder subsection 139(1) of the IRPA. Officers must complete the appropriate section(s) of the\nBSF899 in the following circumstances:\n1. Preliminary searches and full examination searches that are resultant require that the BSF899\nbe completed. If a preliminary search and/or full examination is non-resultant, the BSF899 is not\nrequired and a record of such a search in an officer’s notebook is sufficient.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.14 (Completing the Search form BSF899)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Personal searches, whether a frisk search or disrobement require that the BSF899 be", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Personal searches, whether a frisk search or disrobement require that the BSF899 be\ncompleted in addition to any record in an officer’s notebook.\nWhen completing the BSF899, it is important to ensure the following:\nFully complete the top portion of the form labelled “Traveller identification”.\nPart A – Search: This section must be completed in all instances where the BSF899 is being\ncompleted.\nNote: In the case of non-resultant preliminary searches that do not require the completion\nof the BSF899, officers must still ensure:\n that the person being searched is informed of the authority to search found in\nsubsection 139(1) of the IRPA;\n that the person being searched is informed of the reasonable grounds for the search;\n the times that the search commenced and ended are documented in the officer’s\nnotes; and\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 23\n whether the search was resultant or non-resultant is documented in the officer’s\nnotes\nPart B – Preliminary Search: must be completed when a preliminary search and/or full\nexamination is resultant and must include the results of the search and the location of where the\ndocuments or evidence were found;\nPart C – Personal Search: must be completed in all instances when a personal search is\nconducted, whether a frisk involving physical contact or disrobement search. This must include\nthe names and signatures of the searching officer(s) and the witness of the search, as well as the\nsupervisor’s signature indicating whether or not the search was authorized. If the authorization\nwas provided by telephone, this information should be noted on the form.\nPart D – Disrobement Search: must be completed in addition to Part C in all instances where a\ndisrobement search is conducted as it constitutes a detention and requires further documentation\nspecific to the right to counsel.\nPart E – Return of Personal Effects: must be completed to ensure that if personal effects are\nreturned, save for those seized, the person signs for receipt of the items.\nPart F – Interpreter declaration: must be completed in any instances where an interpreter was\nrequired to conduct the search.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 2 (Personal searches, whether a frisk search or disrobement require that the BSF899 be)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-6-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 6.15", + "marginal_note": "Examination of Digital Devices at the Port of Entry and in the Inland Enforcement", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.15 Examination of Digital Devices at the Port of Entry and in the Inland Enforcement\ncontext\nPorts of Entry\nDigital devices, media, documents, software and stored electronic data are considered “goods”\nunder CBSA program legislation and are subject to examination by CBSA officers at ports of\nentry. For procedures related to the examination of digital devices for the administration and\nenforcement of the IRPA at a Port of Entry, please refer to the CBSA Policy on Port of Entry\nExaminations of Travellers' Digital Devices (Enforcement Manual (EN) Part 4, Chapter 16) on\nAtlas.\nInland Enforcement\nInland Enforcement Officers should not rely on A139(1) to examine digital devices since A139(1)\nonly allows for searches of persons seeking entry to Canada.\nA16(3) of the IRPA allows an officer to require or obtain evidence from a permanent resident or a\nforeign national who is arrested, detained, subject to an examination or subject to a removal\norder, any evidence - photographic, fingerprint or otherwise - that may be used to establish their\nidentity or compliance with the Act. That said, A16(3) should not be relied upon as an authority to\nconduct examinations of digital devices for inland investigative purposes. Furthermore, Inland\nEnforcement Officers cannot rely on Criminal Code of Canada warrants to search digital devices\nand gather evidence for inland investigations.\nOfficers may examine digital devices only if they obtain the person concerned’s written valid\nconsent (i.e. informed and voluntary). The person’s written consent must be obtained and\nrecorded on the BSF 835 form. Officers may, with the foreign national’s or permanent resident’s\nvalid consent, examine a digital device in support of the administration and enforcement of the\nIRPA for Inland Enforcement purposes. For additional information on the examination of digital\ndevices in the Inland Enforcement context and valid consent, please refer to section 19.18 –\nSearching an arrested person of ENF 7.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 24", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 6.15 (Examination of Digital Devices at the Port of Entry and in the Inland Enforcement)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Search incidental to arrest", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Search incidental to arrest\nIn common law, a peace officer may carry out a search of a person who has been lawfully\narrested. The existence of reasonable grounds is not a prerequisite to the existence of such a\npower.\nThe courts have ruled that when conducting a search of an arrested person a peace officer is\nauthorized to remove from that person any of the following three types of items:\n weapons or implements that might assist in the person's escape;\n anything with which a person might injure themselves or others; or\n anything that can be considered as evidence of the offence for which the person has been\narrested.\nIn the Supreme Court of Canada decisions Cloutier v. Langlois, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158 and R. v.\nCaslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51, precedents for searches incidental to arrest were established. In\nthese decisions, the Supreme Court held that a search is constitutional if conducted without the\nuse of excessive force or constraint and for some valid purpose connected to the arrest, namely:\n to ensure the safety of the arresting officers; or\n to protect evidence from destruction at the hands of the person under arrest.\nThe authority to arrest and detain compels a detained person to comply with a search by an\nofficer exercising that authority. Search incidental to arrest applies only to things in the\npossession or immediate surroundings of the person arrested. Immediate surroundings may be\nsearched for the purposes previously listed. Because the jurisprudence that establishes the\nprinciple of search incidental to arrest is related to criminal cases and because arrests under A55\nare not made in connection with a criminal offence, any searches of the location in which the\nindividual was arrested for the purpose of seeking evidence of an IRPA inadmissibility or a travel\ndocument may be held unreasonable and not in compliance of section 8 of the Charter.\nThe power to search incidental to arrest is a discretionary one and need not be exercised where\nthe peace officer is satisfied that the law can be effectively and safely applied in its absence.\nNote: Searches conducted in the inland enforcement context can only be conducted incidental to\narrest. The authority to search incidental to arrest is governed by common law. The authority to\nsearch under A139(1) cannot be relied upon in the inland enforcement context to conduct\nsearches.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 7.1 (Search incidental to arrest)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Conducting a Frisk Search Incidental to Arrest", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Conducting a Frisk Search Incidental to Arrest\nWhen a designated CBSA officer has completed an IRPA arrest and detention of an individual,\nwhich includes informing the individual of their Charter rights to speak with counsel, as well as\ntheir rights under the Vienna Convention, the officer may conduct a frisk search of the person\nincidental to the arrest.\nA search applies to anything in possession or within the immediate surroundings of the arrested\nperson. Three conditions must be satisfied in order for the search of the person to be justifiable:\n the arrest must be lawful;\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 25\n the search must be conducted as incidental to a lawful arrest; and\n the search must be carried out in a reasonable manner.\nIf during the search, an officer discovers any means of transportation, document or other thing\nthat the officer believes on reasonable grounds to be fraudulently or improperly obtained or used,\nor that the seizure is necessary to prevent its fraudulent or improper use, or to carry out the\npurposes of the Act, the officer may seize and hold any of the aforementioned items as per\nsection 140(1) of the IRPA. The officer must provide written notice of any seizure and otherwise\nfollow the instructions as per section 8 of this chapter.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 7.2 (Conducting a Frisk Search Incidental to Arrest)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Search warrants", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3 Search warrants\nOutside of the authority to conduct searches incidental to arrest, inland enforcement officers are\nnot permitted to search for evidence of an offence. Although A138(1) provides that an officer has\nthe authority and powers of a peace officer – including those set out in sections 487 to 492.2 of\nthe Criminal Code (CC) to enforce the IRPA, the use of section 487 of the CC provisions is\nlimited, by its own wording, to situations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there\nis evidence in the specific place named in the warrant which would relate to an offence (i.e.\ncriminal offence). Unlike section 43 of the Customs Act, the IRPA does not contain any\nprovisions for compelling the production of records for administrative or non-criminal enforcement\npurposes.\nInland Enforcement Officers cannot rely on CC search warrants or production orders without\nreasonable grounds to believe that evidence of a criminal offence will be found in that place. So\nwhile CC warrants can be used to investigate a criminal offence under IRPA, these warrants\ncannot be obtained for purposes other than obtaining evidence of a criminal offence. Therefore,\nofficers cannot rely on CC search warrants to gather evidence in support of an inadmissibility\nreport under A44(1).\nWhere a CBSA inland enforcement officer suspects a criminal offence under IRPA has occurred\nand evidence in the form of documents or information relating to the offence may be found in a\nspecific place, they should engage a CBSA criminal investigator.\nCriminal investigators will assess the case specifics and, if a criminal investigation and search\nwarrant/production order are warranted, will discuss with the referring officer.\nWhere it can be reasonably demonstrated that an IRPA criminal offence (pursuant to Part 3 –\nEnforcement of the IRPA) has occurred and that information at a specific place will afford\nevidence of that offence (potentially including information that may be used to locate an individual\nor a document), a search warrant or production order may be requested pursuant to s. 487 CC\nand s. 487.012, respectively. These search warrants must be prepared and obtained by CBSA\nCriminal Investigators, in the context of their investigation towards the laying of criminal charges.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 7.3 (Search warrants)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Authority and grounds for seizure", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 Authority and grounds for seizure\nA140 provides the legislative authority to seize any means of transportation, documents or other\nthing if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that it was fraudulently or improperly obtained\nor used or that the seizure is necessary to prevent its fraudulent or improper use or to carry out\nthe purposes of the Act. Both IRCC and the CBSA officials are designated with the authority to\nseize documents and other things. However, only CBSA officers have been designated with the\nauthority to seize a means of transportation.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 26\nA148(2) provides the legislative authority to detain, seize or forfeit all or part of any security\nprovided by a transporter as well as any vehicle or other prescribed good owned or operated by a\ntransporter if they fail to comply with an obligation under IRPA.\nAlthough a seizure under A148(2) may occur without a vehicle being detained first, seizures\nshould be used as a last resort. A vehicle that is detained remains in the possession of the\ntransporter, however, when the vehicle is seized, the CBSA takes possession of the vehicle and\nbecomes liable for the costs of handling, maintaining and disposing of it. The vehicle is seized as\nsoon as an officer delivers the notice of seizure. The delegated authority to seize a vehicle under\nsubsection A148(2) can be found in the Instruments of Designation and Delegation. For additional\ninformation relating to seizures made under the authority of A148(2), refer to ENF 15.\nIn the case of persons seeking entry in to Canada, A15(3) provides the legislative authority for an\nofficer to board and inspect any means of transportation bringing persons to Canada, examine\nany person carried by that means of transportation and any record or document respecting that\nperson, and to seize and remove the record or document to obtain copies or extracts and hold the\nmeans of transportation until the inspection and examination are completed.\nLimitation period for seizures\nThere is no limitation period for seizures of things on the grounds that they were fraudulently or\nimproperly obtained or used. These seizures may occur as necessary when lawful and\nappropriate.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.1 (Authority and grounds for seizure)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 Seizing documents\nWhile the authority to seize under the IRPA will primarily be applicable to situations involving\nforeign nationals or permanent residents, this provision also applies to Canadian citizens if the\nconditions of A140(1) are met. In all cases, officers are required to articulate the grounds for the\nseizure.\nIRCC officers who have reasonable grounds to believe that documents were fraudulently or\nimproperly obtained or used may seize those documents and if necessary, transfer custody to the\nCBSA for further examination and/or investigation. This includes seizure of identity, travel and/or\nother documents as evidence or to effect a removal, should an individual become subject to an\nenforceable removal order. Although it is not a Charter right, if a person from whom a thing has\nbeen seized wants to contact legal counsel, the officer should make every effort to facilitate this\nrequest if is reasonable to do so. This may be as simple as providing the individual with\nopportunity and means to make a telephone call. Officers should record in their notebook whether\nthe person contacted legal counsel.\nFollowing a seizure made by an officer pursuant to A140(1), the officer is required by R253(1) to\nmake reasonable efforts:\n(1) to identify the lawful owner of thing seized; and\n(2) to give the lawful owner written notice of and reasons for the seizure\nFor travel documents, the notice of seizure given to the bearer should be sufficent to allow the\nofficers to fulfill their obligations under R253(1) without having to notify the issuing country.\nOfficers seizing travel and/or identity documents as well as other things (e.g. ticket stubs,\nemployment information, conveyances, etc.) must document the seizure on the Notice of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.2 (Seizing documents) (part 1 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Seizure of (a) Travel and/or Identity Document(s) and/or Other Thing(s) [BSF 698] and to\ninclude the reasons for the seizure as well as information on how/where individuals may make an\nApplication for the Return of (a) Seized Travel and/or Identity Document(s) and/or Other\nThing(s) [BSF 699].\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 27\nNote: In keeping with CBSA policy, officers should, for each document seized, provide the\nperson from whom documents are seized with a copy of the seizure form, which will serve as\na Notice of Seizure receipt.\nIndividuals may require certified true copies of genuine documents, for instance when seeking\naccess to federal and provincial programs or services. In those cases, if the documents are\ngenuine and the individual from whom the document(s) is (are) seized is the rightful holder,\nofficers will make colour copies, certify them as true copies and provide the certified true copies to\nthe individual from whom the documents were seized.\nExamples of document seizures to prevent fraudulent or improper use include but are not limited\nto:\n Document(s) (Confirmation of Permanent Residence, Permanent Resident Card, Study\nPermit, Work Permit, Temporary Resident Permit, Temporary Resident Visa, travel\ndocuments, etc.) issued to an individual other than the individual who is in possession of the\ndocument(s) where the individual does not have a valid explanation for being in possession of\nthe document(s) and the document(s) was/ were not used to enter or exit Canada or another\ncountry;\n Blank identity or travel documents, such as a blank passport or national identity card.\nExamples of fraudulent documents, include, but are not limited to:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.2 (Seizing documents) (part 2 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " altered documents (e.g. photo-substitution and page substitution) and alterations of variable\nmentions (such as date of birth and name) or erasures, and unauthorized additions such as\ncounterfeit entry and/or exit stamps and/or visas;\n counterfeit documents;\n improperly obtained or issued documents;\n fantasy documents.\nExamples of documents that may be seized to carry out the purposes of the Act include, but are\nnot limited to:\n travel documents (e.g. passports, certificates of identity, laissez-passer or refugee travel\ndocuments);\n personal identification (e.g. U.S. social security cards, driver’s licences or any other form of\npersonal identification that may or may not include a photograph of the holder);\n IRCC-issued documents (e.g. Permanent Resident Card, Confirmation of Permanent\nResidence/IMM 1000, Citizenship card);\n airline tickets;\n itineraries;\n work records;\n inmate identification;\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 28\n criminal records documents (e.g. court transcripts, tickets, arrest reports);\n medical history, charts, prescriptions, receipts, notes;\n letters, pictures, video tapes;\n phone and address books; and/or\n purchase receipts.\nThere are different situations that may occur in which an officer will have grounds to seize and\nhold a means of transportation, a document or other thing. Officers should consider each case\nindividually and assess if the seizure meets the grounds articulated in the IRPA. The following are\npotential circumstances when a seizure of a travel document may be appropriate.\nScenario 1\nA foreign national has been charged with a criminal offence in Canada but has been released on\nrecognizance to appear in a Canadian court. The foreign national left the country but is now", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.2 (Seizing documents) (part 3 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "seeking entry to Canada to appear in a Canadian court. An officer may decide to adjourn the\nexamination as per A23, and determine there are reasonable grounds to seize the foreign\nnational’s passport as per A140(1) to carry out the purposes of the Act, namely to ensure the\nforeign national will appear to complete their examination as well as any other enforcement action\n(e.g. removal), in the event that the foreign national is convicted. If this occurs, the passport will\nbe required to enforce the removal. The officer will complete and provide a BSF698: Notice of\nSeizure of (a) Travel and/or Identity Document(s) and/or Other Thing(s).\nScenario 2\nA foreign national is seeking entry to Canada at a POE and provides their travel document to an\nofficer for examination. During the course of the examination, the officer examines the document\nand believes that there has been an alteration made to the photograph. If the officer believes that\nthere are reasonable grounds to believe that the document has been fraudulently obtained or\nused, they may seize the travel document under A140(1). The officer should evaluate\ninadmissibility and consider addtional enforcement options such as arrest and detention as\nappropriate, if they are not satisfied of the foreign national’s identity. The officer should also\nconsult with Criminal Investigations Division as the use of a fraudulent document is an offence\nunder the IRPA. The officer will provide a BSF698: Notice of Seizure of (a) Travel and/or Identity\nDocument(s) and/or Other Thing(s) to the individual. Officers may also refer the document to\nregional Document Analysis Units (DAUs) if appropriate. Please refer to section 8.7 for additional\ndetails on sending documents for analysis.\nScenario 3", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.2 (Seizing documents) (part 4 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-2-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A Permanent Resident is convicted in Canada of a serious offence and is reported by an officer\npursuant to A44(1). The report is referred to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing.\nThe officer concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the seizure of the\npermanent resident’s passport is necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act as per A140(1).\nIf a removal order is issued and becomes enforceable, CBSA requires the passport to enforce the\nremoval order. The officer may provide a certified copy of the document in addition to the\nBSF698: Notice of Seizure of (a) Travel and/or Identity Document(s) and/or Other Thing(s). If,\nhowever, a referral for the admissibility hearing is later withdrawn or the PR is found not\ndescribed (i.e. no removal order is issued), officers must return the seized document.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 29\nNote: Admissibility hearings for released cases may be subject to lenghty time periods before\nbeing heard and Permanent Residents may reasonably require their passport to travel to and\nfrom Canada. Given that they have not yet lost their status per A46(1), officers should\nconsider returning the travel document if requested. A good quality colour copy should be\nretained on file should it be needed later for enforcement purposes such as removal from\nCanada.\nScenario 4\nA foreign national appears at the POE and makes a claim for refugee protection. They are in\npossession of a genuine passport and birth certificate. As per A140(1) and refugee processing\npolicy, the officer will seize the passport and birth certificate in order to carry out the purposes of\nthe Act. The seizure is necessary to ensure compliance with conditions, including the appearance", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.2 (Seizing documents) (part 5 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-2-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "of the refugee claimant for the hearing before the Refugee Protection Division, and for the\nremoval process if their claim is refused, withdrawn or abandoned. The officer will provide colour\ncertified copies to the claimant in addition to the BSF698: Notice of Seizure of (a) Travel and/or\nIdentity Document(s) and/or Other Thing(s).\nScenario 5\nA foreign national comes to the attention of CBSA as a result of an encounter with a local police\nservice. During their investigation, the officer(s) learns that the foreign national has remained in\nCanada beyond the period authorized and has neither applied for nor received any extensions to\ntheir temporary resident status. During their interview with the foreign national, the officer(s) learn\nthat the foreign national is in possession of his genuine passport. The officer(s) conclude that\nthere are reasonable grounds to believe that the seizure of the foreign national’s passport is\nnecessary to carry out the purposes of the Act, as per A140(1). If a removal order is issued and\nbecomes enforceable, CBSA requires the passport to enforce the removal order. The officer(s)\nwill provide a certified copy of the passport in addition to the BSF698: Notice of Seizure of (a)\nTravel and/or Identity Document(s) and/or Other Thing(s). If no removal order is issued, officers\nmust return the seized document.\nEnhanced Driver’s Licence\nAn Enhanced Driver’s Licence (EDL) is a secure document which serves as both a licence to\ndrive as well as an identity and Canadian citizenship document. The EDL is only valid as a\nCanadian citizenship document when travelling between Canada and the United States by land or\nwater. When an individual presents an EDL at a POE, it is read by a radio-frequency identification", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.2 (Seizing documents) (part 6 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-2-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(RFID) machine which then displays the status of the EDL. There is a possibility that the status\ndisplayed by the RFID machine contradicts information on the card (e.g. card appears valid,\nhowever RFID status states ‘cancelled’). It is also possible that an individual is travelling with an\nEDL that they should be not be travelling with (e.g. ‘cancelled’). If this occurs, officers should\nadvise the individual(s) to attend the issuing authority of the EDL in order to resolve any\noutstanding issues. If an officer has any further concerns with regards to the EDL and its status,\nthey should investigate as necessary, including contacting the issuing authority in order to\ndetermine whether a seizure of the EDL is necessary and appropriate. If a seized EDL is not\nrequired for the enforcement or administration of Canadian laws, an officer should return the\ndocument to the issuing authority with a memorandum outlining how it came into the possession\nof IRCC or the CBSA\nPlease note that not all provinces and territories have an EDL program. Some\nprovinces/territories have discontinued their EDL programs and others have announced a\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 30\nphasing out of their EDLs. As such, officers should confirm with the provincial or territorial\nauthorities’ website if they have any doubts whether the EDLs are still valid for land and water\ntravel between Canada and the U.S.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.2 (Seizing documents) (part 7 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents from refugee claimants", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3 Seizing documents from refugee claimants\nAlthough IRPA does not require that all documents in possesion of refugee claimants be seized,\nIRCC and CBSA officers should always consider seizing all passports, pertinent identification and\ntravel documents carried by refugee claimants because the seizure may:\n expedite the identification of the person;\n assist in background checks;\n assist in identifying immediate family members;\n assist in verifying information provided in their Basis of Claim Form (BOC)\n ensure compliance;\n ensure that documents are not recycled;\n assist in removal should the refugee claim be unsuccessful.\nWhere a genuine document is seized, certified true copies will be provided to these individuals as\nthey may be required when seeking to access federal and provincial programs and services.\nOther documents, such as a driver’s license, may also be seized if it meets the criteria of A140(1).\nOfficers must make three copies of all documentation seized and provide a copy to the\nImmigration Refugee Board. Officers must complete a BSF698 and provide a copy to the\nclaimant.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.3 (Seizing documents from refugee claimants)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents abroad", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4 Seizing documents abroad\nOfficers overseas may, following the examination of travel, identity and/or other document(s),\nhave reasonable grounds to believe that the document(s) was/were fraudulently or improperly\nobtained or used, or that the seizure is necessary to prevent a document’s fraudulent or improper\nuse or to carry out the purposes of the Act.\nHowever, Canadian officers may only enforce IRPA abroad to the extent that the host country has\nauthorized it.\nThe Vienna Conventions on Consular and Diplomatic relations impose an obligation on diplomats\nto respect the laws of the receiving state.\nTherefore, CBSA officers may seize documents abroad only if the host country has agreed to\nallow Canada to exercise its legislative authority under subsection 140(1) of the IRPA within the\nhost’s territory.\nWhere officers overseas have the authority to seize documents, they may also seize documents\nthat are not issued by a Canadian authority. The approach to the question of seizure of\ndocuments will vary from location to location depending on the local environment in which the\nCBSA Liaison Officers (LO) and IRCC migration officers work, and the type of partnership or\narrangements they have with the local enforcement agencies, airlines and other foreign-based\nofficials with whom they interact.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 31\nOfficers should be aware that depending on local laws, the type of document or the type of\narrangement with local agencies, officers may not have the authority to seize a document that\nwas fraudulently or improperly used or obtained.\nOfficers overseas must ensure that their actions are based on Canadian law and are not\nprohibited under the foreign law of the host country. Canadian legislation is insufficient to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.4 (Seizing documents abroad) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Seizing documents abroad", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "authorize a seizure where the actions are prohibited by the law of the host country.\nFor example, documents should not be seized from an individual if the seizure impedes a host\ncountry’s ability to repatriate a third-country national.\nIn the event a seizure is authorized, officers are instructed to complete form BSF698: Notice of\nSeizure of (a) Travel and/or Identity Documents(s) and/or Other Thing(s) for all travel and /or\nidentity documents and/or other items seized under subsection 140(1) of IRPA.\nNote: CBSA Liaison Officers (LO) should contact International Operations Division via CBSA.INS-\nSRI.ASFC@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca, if they require additional guidance.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.4 (Seizing documents abroad) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Documenting and tracking document seizures", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5 Documenting and tracking document seizures\nAll things seized under A140(1) (e.g. travel and/or identity documents, conveyances, ticket stubs,\nemployment information, etc.) must be recorded on the BSF698 Notice of Seizure of (a) Travel\nand/or Identity Document(s) and/or Other Thing(s) form.\nOfficers must maintain a detailed record of any seizure action taken. This information may be\nuseful in the event of a complaint, litigation, prosecution or enforcement action. It may be used as\nevidence in immigration proceedings, admissibility hearings, appeals and refugee hearings, or to\nenforce removal orders.\nThe information concerning seizures must be maintained so that information can be retrieved\nquickly. At a minimum, the information recorded in the case of a seizure should include the\nfollowing:\n lawful owner (where it can be determined);\n person from whom the document was seized;\n description of all documents seized;\n name and address of consignor (if applicable);\n name and address of consignee (if applicable);\n details of action taken as a result of seizure;\n details of any representations received; and\n final disposition of items seized.\nProtecting Evidence\nFor information on maintaining the continuity of evidence for the purposes of prosecution under\nIRPA, refer to section 10.2 of this manual.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 32\nGlobal Case Management System (GCMS)\nGCMS is designated as the CBSA’s primary system for the tracking of travel and identity\ndocuments seized by the CBSA under A140(1). More specifically, seized documents must be\ntracked in the GCMS “Documents” tab.\nThe record of seized documents in the GCMS “Documents” tab and supplemented by notes in the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.5 (Documenting and tracking document seizures) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Documenting and tracking document seizures", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "“Notes” tab, if necessary, must include information such as the biographical details visible in a\ndocument, document number, seizure date, reason for seizure, seizure status, held-at location,\nreturn date and other relevant facts if deemed necessary by the officer.\nA step-by-step guide can be accessed at the following wiki link:\nhttps://cbsawikiasfc.omega.dce-eir.net/display/FRPC/Document+Seizures+-\n+Saisir+un+document\nVoiding a fraudulent Canadian visa\nThere are no authorities in IRPA or in the Regulations to cancel a visa. However, officers may\nconsider voiding a visa under certain circumstances, for instance if they encounter a fraudulent\nvisa.\nA fraudulent Canadian visa may include a completely counterfeit document or an alteration of any\npart of a genuine document. It may also include an improperly obtained or improperly issued\nCanadian visa.\nThe proper handling of fraudulent Canadian visas intercepted in Canada or abroad is required to\nprevent the fraudulent use of these documents, while preserving the passport or travel document\nthat they are attached to. Officers may encounter fraudulent Canadian visas in a number of\ndifferent situations, including but not limited to the following examples:\n Foreign national making a refugee claim at a Port of Entry or Inland;\n Foreign national seeking entry to Canada;\n Foreign national is granted an Allowed to Leave;\n Permanent resident or foreign national is arrested or detained under section A55;\n Foreign national is intercepted internationally prior to entry to Canada.\nEvery effort must be made to preserve the travel document or passport that contains a fraudulent\nCanadian visa in its original condition, for evidentiary purposes, whether that be for a criminal", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.5 (Documenting and tracking document seizures) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Documenting and tracking document seizures", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "investigation, an admissibility hearing or for removal purposes.\nWhen possible and where A140 requirements are met, officers should always consider seizure of\nthe entire document first. If the seizure of the document containing the fraudulent Canadian visa\nis not possible or if the travel document is required for the return of the person concerned to their\ncountry of origin or to a third country, subject to local laws of the country (if intercepted abroad),\nthen officers may consider marking the fraudulent Canadian visa. Unless otherwise provided for\nin the legislation of the issuing country, a standardized means of marking such document shall be\nused, using the wording “VOID”.\nOfficers must record all events using GCMS and complete the BSF698.\nIf an Inland Enforcement Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a document was\nfraudulently or improperly obtained or used, the officer may exercise their authority pursuant to\nA140(1) to seize the document, however, should never mark the document without first\npursuing proper analysis, as doing so may render the document invalid and/or prevent future\nremoval efforts.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 33\nIn cases where it is not possible to seize a document that may have been fraudulently obtained or\nused, officers should, in consultation with the issuing authority (i.e. IRCC-Passport, the local\nissuing authority, the officer who issued the temporary resident visa or the local IRCC office, etc.),\nensure that the document is cancelled promptly within the issuing system (i.e. GCMS).\nGenuine expired (i.e. Temporary Resident and/or Permanent Resident) visas may be annotated\n“Canceled without prejudice” in indelible black ink to deter re-use as raw material for fraudulent\npurposes.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.5 (Documenting and tracking document seizures) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Document seizure and referral under section 23.2 of the Citizenship Act and sections", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.6 Document seizure and referral under section 23.2 of the Citizenship Act and sections\n28 and 30 of the Citizenship Regulations\nUnder section 23.2 of the Citizenship Act (CA), IRCC officers may seize and detain documents if\nit is believed they were fraudulently or improperly obtained or used, or that the measure is\nnecessary to prevent their fraudulent use.\nPursuant to section 28 of the Citizenship Regulations (CR), the Minister may disclose to the\nCBSA information with respect to the seized document, including referral of the document itself to\nthe Agency, for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of the IRPA. The CBSA may\ntherefore retain the document for the period necessary to determine whether it is genuine or not.\nPursuant to section 30 of the CR, if the Minister determines that the document was improperly or\nfraudulently obtained or used, the seized document must be detained for as long as is necessary\nfor the administration of the laws of Canada, after which it will be returned to the issuing authority\nor disposed of in accordance with Canadian law.\nCBSA officers who receive documents from IRCC under the authority of section 28 of the CR\nshould:\n Ensure that there is an IRPA nexus to the seized document;\n Transfer the documents to the appropriate area for further examination. Please refer to\nthe Document Examination Referral and Communication Tree [PDF, 463 KB] (OBO-2021-\n081) for more information.\n Ensure proper handling of the documents as per National Directive – Controls for Seized\nTravel and Identity Documents (PDF, 390 KB) and that chain of custody is maintained by\nrecording the seizure in the appropriate system(s).\nIn all cases and regardless of the outcome, the CBSA will return the document to the IRCC", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.6 (Document seizure and referral under section 23.2 of the Citizenship Act and sections) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Document seizure and referral under section 23.2 of the Citizenship Act and sections", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "originator along with copies of the document analyst report and/or forensic examination report.\nThey must also ensure a record of the transfer for continuity of evidence purposes is made and\nrecord the event in the applicable database(s).\nUnder the authority of section 30 of the CR, if the examination indicates the document in question\nis fraudulent (altered through photo-substitution, page substitution, alterations and/or erasure of\ninformation, counterfeit, improperly obtained or issued or fantasy), the document must be\ndetained for as long as is necessary for the administration of the laws of Canada. The forensic\ndocument examiner or document analyst will contact IRCC to inquire if further enforcement action\nis required.\nFor clarity, there are a number of possible outcomes, as follows:\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 34\n Document is found to be fraudulent and document analyst or forensic document\nexamination report(s) prepared. The CBSA & IRCC to be advised accordingly. Document\nis returned to IRCC for enforcement under the CA. The CBSA does not pursue IRPA\nenforcement.\n Document is found to be fraudulent and document analyst or forensic document\nexamination report(s) prepared. The CBSA & IRCC to be advised accordingly. Document\nis returned to IRCC for enforcement under the CA. The CBSA pursues enforcement\naction under the IRPA once IRCC has completed enforcement action under the CA, and\nhas released the document to the CBSA under S.30 of the CR.\n Document is found not to be fraudulent and document analyst or forensic document\nexamination report(s) prepared. The CBSA & IRCC to be advised accordingly. Document\nis returned to IRCC, no enforcement action occurs.\nCBSA Seizures", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.6 (Document seizure and referral under section 23.2 of the Citizenship Act and sections) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Document seizure and referral under section 23.2 of the Citizenship Act and sections", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Once IRCC no longer requires the seized document for enforcement actions under the CA,\nauthorized CBSA officials may then seize and detain the document if the provisions of\nsection 140 of IRPA are met. Officers are to provide the person who provided the document with\na copy of the seizure receipt BSF698 Notice of Seizure of (a)Travel and/or Identity Document(s)\nand/or Other Thing(s). Officers must also ensure a record of the transfer for continuity of evidence\npurposes is made, if applicable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.6 (Document seizure and referral under section 23.2 of the Citizenship Act and sections) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.7", + "marginal_note": "Sending documents for analysis", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.7 Sending documents for analysis\nDocument examination in the CBSA is a shared responsibility between the regional Document\nAnalysis Units (DAUs), the National Document Centre (NDC) and the Forensic Document\nExamination (FDE) section. If officers require analysis of a physical travel or identity document for\na determination of admissibility, investigation or for any other purpose, they should refer to the\nDocument Examination Referral and Communication Tree found within Operational Bulletin 2021-\n081 Document Examinations and Referrals. For a list of document analysts or examiners by\nregion, please refer to the Document Examination Contact List.\nFor referrals to the NDC (from liaison officers or officers located in the Northern Ontario Region),\na referral form is required and is available by contacting nat-intelligence-documents@cbsa-\nasfc.gc.ca\nThe referral form or the initial request for analysis to DAUs should contain the following\ninformation:\n• the details about the document being sent;\n• the date when the document analysis report is required;\n• the purpose of analysis;\n• the reason for the return of the document;\n• the date, if known, for the return of the document; and\n• the return address.\nIf an officer requires that the original document be returned for a hearing or other purpose, the\ninitial request for analysis or referral form should clearly state the date for which the document(s)\nis/are required. Physical documents requring analysis should always be sent through interoffice\nmail (if appopriate) or in a tracked courier package only after communicating with the NDC or the\nappropriate regional DAU.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 35\nUpon completion of analysis, the document analyst will return the document analysis report\n(BSF265) to the requesting officer. Documents that are determined to be fraudulent will be\nretained by the NDC or regional DAU but if necessary may be made available to the officer who\nfiled the request for analysis.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.7 (Sending documents for analysis)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.8", + "marginal_note": "Seizing ankle monitors and other GPS enabled devices", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.8 Seizing ankle monitors and other GPS enabled devices\nCBSA officers may encounter individuals in possession of an ankle monitor or other GPS enabled\ndevices used to monitor the individual’s whereabouts issued by the United States\nauthorities.Officers may seize the device only if the seizure can be justified under subsection\n140(1) of the IRPA. If the device is seized, officers should fill out the BSF698 form to record and\ndocument the seizure.\nDevices that are abandoned or found by officers may be returned to the US authorities under the\nStatement of Mutual Understanding guidelines only if the individual who had the device did\nnot make a claim for refugee status against the United States. In such cases, or for any other\ncases where advising the United States would not be appropriate officers may hold the device on\na BSF 241 – Non-Monetary General Receipt form.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.8 (Seizing ankle monitors and other GPS enabled devices)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Seizing vehicles", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.9 Seizing vehicles\nThe term “vehicle” is defined in the Regulations to include any means of transportation that may\nbe used for transportation by water, land or air. This can include cars, trucks, tractors, buses,\nmotorcycles, boats, airplanes and other modes of transportation.\nWhile A140(1) provides officers with the authority to seize a means of transportation, certain\nconditions must first be met.The officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the conveyance\nwas fraudulently or improperly used or that the seizure is necessary to prevent the fraudulent or\nimproper use or to carry out the purposes of the Act. For an officer to articulate the grounds to\nseize a means of transportation, there must be a logical purpose that is directly correlated with\nthe IRPA, such as an A44(1) report alleging an inadmissibility, an admissibility hearing, a removal\nor criminal charges. In other words, there needs to be an intention to pursue an enforcement\naction.\nCertain circumstances should occur for a seizure of a vehicle to be reasonable. In most cases a\nseizure of a conveyance will arise at a port of entry while carrying out the purposes of the Act.\nOfficers should be aware that seizing a means of transportation in the inland enforcement context\nwill be rare and will typically happen when an offence has occurred that may lead to charges\nunder IRPA. Prior to the seizure of a vehicle in this situation, Criminal Investigations Division\nshould be consulted.\nWhere the vehicle has more than one component (e.g., a car pulling a trailer), each is treated as\na separate vehicle. If they are seized, separate notices (BSF698 and reports) are required for\neach vehicle. In the following scenarios, it may be appropriate for a CBSA officer to consider\nseizing a vehicle:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.9 (Seizing vehicles) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Seizing vehicles", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Where a vehicle is used to drop an undocumented, or otherwise inadmissible, person on the\nU.S. side of the border in order to assist the person in eluding examination, and/or picks up\nthe person on the Canadian side without the person appearing for examination.\n Where the status of a person in the vehicle, who does not have a passport or a visa as\nrequired, is withheld or purposely misrepresented at a Port of Entry to prevent a proper\nexamination. However, BSOs should remember that not all misrepresentation will lead to a\nvehicle seizure. For instance, under section R22, persons who have claimed refugee\nprotection, if disposition of their claim is pending, and protected persons may be exempt from\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 36\nthe application of the misrepresentation provision. A vehicle seizure in those cases might not\nbe warranted.\n Where, during an examination, it is discovered that the driver of a vehicle allowed an\nundocumented person to exit the vehicle before the point of examination and that person\nwalked to the POE to report separately for an examination; and where it is established that\nthe driver was seeking entry to Canada but knowingly withheld documents and any\nconnection with the arrival of the pedestrian who is inadmissible.\n Where the driver or owner of a vehicle knowingly brings refugee claimants to the border and\nreceives remuneration for these services (lawyers, consultants, or others).\nIt may NOT be appropriate for a CBSA officer to seize a vehicle where the driver or owner\nknowingly brings refugee claimants to the border without receiving any remuneration for these\nservices (family members, friends, NGOs). Officers should consider all of the relevant information", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.9 (Seizing vehicles) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-9-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Seizing vehicles", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "in each individual case and ultimately be mindful as to the purpose of any seizure and any\npotential enforcement action along the immigration enforcement continuum.\nSince a vehicle may be seized after the fact, officers should immediately take note of the vehicle’s\nidentity numbers and markings in case it leaves without permission or the seizure cannot take\nplace because of danger. This information can subsequently be used to link the vehicle to a\nfraudulent or improper use if it is located at a later date. If the seizure cannot be completed, the\nofficer should report the incident to the CBSA Regional Office and to the CBSA Regional Director.\nThe matter should be turned over to the RCMP for investigation and appropriate action.\nNote: Only the CBSA is designated to seize a means of transportation under A140.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.9 (Seizing vehicles) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.10", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of commercial vehicles", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.10 Seizure of commercial vehicles\nSubsection A148(2) provides CBSA officers with the authority to detain, seize or forfeit a vehicle\nof a transporter that fails to comply with an obligation under IRPA. The delegated authority to\nseize a commercial vehicle under A148(2) is identified in the Designation of Officers and\nDelegation of Authority manual.\nFor additional information on the procedures relating to seizures of vehicles or assets of\ncommercial transporters pursuant to A148(2), refer to ENF 15, Obligations of Transporters.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.10 (Seizure of commercial vehicles)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.11", + "marginal_note": "Notice of seizure", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.11 Notice of seizure\nThe provisions related to the notice of seizure require that written notification be provided to the\nperson from whom the thing was seized, and if this person is not the lawful owner, reasonable\nefforts must be made to identify and notify the lawful owner of the seizure. With regards to travel\nand identity documents, notification to the bearer of the document will likely be considered as a\nvalid notice of seizure pursuant to subsection 253(1) of the IRPR, without the need to notify the\ncountry of issuance.\nIf the person from whom a thing was seized is not the lawful owner, the officer should ask the\nperson from whom it was seized to identify the owner or owners and request that they complete a\ndeclaration. An officer should document the steps taken to determine ownership and notify the\nlawful owner and, where appropriate, may also consider completing a statutory declaration.\nIn the case of a seized means of transportation, the lawful owner could include:\n the registered owner who is not the person from whom the means of transportation is seized;\n the firm that owns the vehicle that has been leased or rented.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 37\nAn officer who seizes a thing is required to issue a BSF698 and to include the reasons for the\nseizure as well as how/where to make an application for its return.\nIf a person from whom a thing has been seized desires to contact legal counsel, the officer should\nmake every effort to facilitate this. This may be as simple as providing the individual the\nopportunity and means to make a phone call. Officers should record in their notebook whether the\nperson contacted legal counsel.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.11 (Notice of seizure)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.12", + "marginal_note": "Reporting the seizure of a vehicle", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.12 Reporting the seizure of a vehicle\nFollowing the seizure of a vehicle, the officer will place the vehicle in CBSA’s custody, provide\nnotice of seizure pursuant to R253(1) and prepare a report. CBSA officers should provide the\nfollowing information in their report following the seizure of a vehicle:\n the name and other relevant biographical data of the driver and passengers;\n the role of all the persons involved in the case;\n the vehicle information (i.e., plates, description);\n information on the owner of the vehicle, including permission of use if the owner is not the\noperator (the facts will support the evidence in the courts);\n whether it is a rented vehicle (copy of the rental agreement);\n the point of disembarkation and entry as well as the destination in Canada;\n details about passengers disembarking immediately before arriving at the Canadian border;\n presentation of passengers and intent (i.e., failure to report for examination);\n misrepresentation, false or misleading information, deception, stealth;\n details about passport, visa, travel documents and other relevant documents or the lack\nthereof;\n itinerary, plans or details of events;\n specific destination or addresses;\n estimate of the value of the vehicle or things seized.\nThe officer's report must be detailed and accurate as it may be used for evidence in courts. The\nofficer's report may also be used for recommendations to the Minister regarding the disposition of\nthe seized vehicle or to determine the value of the vehicle. The officer's notes should support the\ndecision to seize. Reports that are inaccurate or are incomplete may lead to a decision to return\nthe seized vehicle.\nFor information on note-taking, refer to ENF 7, Immigration Investigations and IRPA s.55\nArrests/Detention.\nThe officer who seizes a vehicle should immediately report the basic information by e-mail to their\nRegional Director according to established regional produres. This will allow the Minister’s\ndelegate to respond quickly to inquiries made within a day or two following the seizure. A written\nreport and the documentary evidence that is available at the time should be sent by fax or\nencrypted email to the officer’s Regional Director within three business days.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 38", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.12 (Reporting the seizure of a vehicle)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-8-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 8.13", + "marginal_note": "Release of information", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.13 Release of information\nUnder some circumstances, there may be authority for an officer to release information obtained\nas a result of a seizure. IRCC and CBSA may release personal information obtained as a result of\na seizure to the RCMP for investigations under the Act and Regulations. Such release is\nconsistent with the purpose of subsection 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act.\nIRCC and the CBSA may also release personal information to an investigative body specified in\nthe Privacy Regulations for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada or a province or carrying\nout a lawful investigation. The investigative body must make a written request, which specifies the\npurpose and describes the information to be disclosed pursuant to paragraph 8(2)(e) of the\nPrivacy Act.\nThere may be other situations where the release of information obtained as result of a seizure\nmay be authorized under the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act. The officer is\nencouraged to seek the advice of their regional Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP)\ncoordinators before considering such options.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 8.13 (Release of information)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Mail and courier search and seizures under IRPA", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9. Procedure: Mail and courier search and seizures under IRPA\nSubsection 42(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act states that all mail arriving in Canada from\na place outside Canada that contains or is suspected to contain anything the importation of which\nis prohibited, controlled or regulated under the Customs Act or any other Act of Parliament shall\nbe submitted to a customs officer.\nThe objective of mail searches and seizures is to take out of circulation counterfeit, altered and\nimproperly obtained travel and identity documents. Documents found in international mail may be\nrelevant to prosecutions or enforcement actions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection\nAct.\nOfficers involved in examining, seizing and caring for items seized in mail and courier systems\nshould strive for minimal impairment of privacy and be mindful of the responsibilities inherent in\ntheir authority. Officers should not examine or seize mail on behalf of any other agency or\ndepartment, unless legally authorized to do so.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9 (Procedure: Mail and courier search and seizures under IRPA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "CBSA inspection procedures for international mail", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1 CBSA inspection procedures for international mail\nInternational mail arrives in Canada from other countries by marine, rail, highway, and air modes\nof transportation. The mail is received at Canada Post processing facilities where it is sorted for\nmovement within Canada. International mail is then directed for CBSA processing to one of three\nCBSA mail centres, all located within Canada Post facilities in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal.\nThe CBSA reviews all classes of mail received from Canada Post to identify and segregate items\nthat require further examination. The review includes priority post, first class, registered and\nparcel mail.\nFor complete information on conducting a postal examination, see CBSA Enforcement Manual\nPart 4 Chapter 12.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.1 (CBSA inspection procedures for international mail)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "CBSA inspection procedures for shipments in the Courier Low Value Shipment", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2 CBSA inspection procedures for shipments in the Courier Low Value Shipment\nProgram\nDue to the high-volume, low-value nature of goods imported in the courier stream, the CBSA has\nstreamlined the reporting, release, and accounting procedures for certain courier shipments via\nthe Courier Low Value Shipments (CLVS) Program. According to these procedures, authorized\ncouriers are allowed to present a single Cargo Release List (CRL) documenting all low-value\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 39\nshipments (i.e., valued at $3,300 CAD or less) onboard a conveyance, instead of having to\npresent separate cargo control documents. The single report, the CRL, must be submitted to the\nCBSA before the conveyance arrives in Canada within specified modal timeframes.\nFor further information pertaining to Courier Examinations, see CBSA Enforcement Manual Part 4\nChapter 13.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.2 (CBSA inspection procedures for shipments in the Courier Low Value Shipment)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "How mail seizures work", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3 How mail seizures work\nWhen a CBSA officer examines a parcel containing suspicious documents or other documents or\nthings that might be subject to seizure under A140(1), the CBSA officer will generally detain the\nparcel until it can be examined further. When deciding whether there are reasonable grounds for\na seizure under A140(1), the officer must take into account the totality of the circumstances,\nincluding the following:\n Whether the information upon which the grounds for seizure are based is compelling?\n Whether the information is credible?\n Whether the information is corroborated?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.3 (How mail seizures work)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Responsibilities of CBSA officers with respect to mail seizures", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4 Responsibilities of CBSA officers with respect to mail seizures\nCBSA officers conducting mail seizures are responsible for the following:\n treating every seized document and/or any other item seized as a potential piece of evidence.\nThe packaging itself may also constitute important evidence and is worthy of the same\nconsideration;\n maintaining records of seizure, including officer notebooks, as they may ultimately be subject\nto scrutiny in court and/or other enforcement proceedings;\n justifying their actions in the examination and seizure of international mail in the event of a\nprosecution, enforcement measure, complaint, audit, investigation, or other review;\n notifying the lawful owner of seized documents and disposing of them in accordance with the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act.\nWith respect to enforcement measures, the integrity of seizure procedures is paramount to\nensuring proper control, accounting and continuity of evidence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.4 (Responsibilities of CBSA officers with respect to mail seizures)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.5", + "marginal_note": "Documenting and tracking seizures", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.5 Documenting and tracking seizures\nOfficers at CBSA mail centres should document seizures pursuant to A140 on the BSF698 form.\nAccording to local procedures, the BSF698 and the seized items may be sent to the appropriate\ninland enforcement office for further processing, such as entering the seizure information in\nGCMS. Officers should forward the items seized and form to the inland enforcement office using\nregistered mail or Purolator. The tracking number and seizure information should be recorded\naccording to existing procedures.\nIt is imperative that officers maintain a detailed record of any seizure action taken. This\ninformation may be useful in the event of a complaint, litigation, prosecution or enforcement\naction. It may also be used as evidence in immigration proceedings, admissibility hearings,\nappeals and refugee hearings, or to enforce removal orders.\nWhere the examination site does not have computer equipment available for use by the officer,\nwork sheets and seizure forms should be completed manually. Manually completed sheets and\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 40\nforms should be recorded according to local procedures at the first available opportunity. The\ninformation concerning seizures must be maintained so that information can be retrieved quickly.\nAt a minimum, the information recorded in the case of a seizure should include the following:\n lawful owner (where it can be determined);\n person from whom the document was seized;\n date and time the package was referred by the initial CBSA officer for further inspection;\n the referral information (e.g., log numbers, courier company labels);\n date, time, and place where examination of the package commenced;\n date, time, and place where examination of the package was completed;\n number of items in package;\n description of all items seized;\n name and address of consignor;\n name and address of consignee;\n whether full or partial seizure;\n if a partial seizure, date/time/place package returned for customs processing;\n details of action taken as a result of seizure;\n details of any representations received;\n final disposition of items seized; and\n the seizure control number.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.5 (Documenting and tracking seizures)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.6", + "marginal_note": "Security, storage, and labeling of items seized", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.6 Security, storage, and labeling of items seized\nRigorous standards of control, including appropriate secure storage, labeling, and regular\nmonitoring of any seizure is mandatory. Seized items stored locally will be subject to normal file\ncontrol practices, including inventory, review and purging. Officers and support clerks should be\nable, at any time, to determine the location and responsible officer for any seized item.\nAppropriate receipts for transmittal of seized items must also be carefully maintained.\nA copy of the BSF698 Notice of Seizure of (a) Travel and/or Identity Document(s) and/or Other\nThing(s) should be securely attached to the envelope used to store seized items and the seizure\nshould be recorded according to local procedures.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.6 (Security, storage, and labeling of items seized)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Split seizures", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.7 Split seizures\nSplitting seizures for any reason should generally be avoided. If a seizure consists of several\nitems, they should all be kept together in the original seizure envelope until final disposition.\nThere may be exceptions to this, such as where multiple documents are seized relating to several\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 41\ndifferent case files. In this instance, the seized documents would be individually forwarded to the\nrespective case files.\nWhile seized items under IRPA should be documented on the BSF698 form, items seized\npursuant to the Customs Act should be recorded on the appropriate CBSA form.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.7 (Split seizures)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "Partial seizures", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.8 Partial seizures\nIn a partial seizure, one or more document or other thing may be seized under IRPA while the\nrest of the items in the parcel may be returned to the customs process. If one or more documents\nor things are removed, the remaining goods should be re-sealed in the package and the officer\ncan return them to the customs process. On release by a CBSA officer, the package may then be\nreturned to the course of post. Where a partial seizure occurs, notification should be provided as\nper the Regulations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.8 (Partial seizures)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.9", + "marginal_note": "Notification of owner", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.9 Notification of owner\nThe Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations require that officers effecting a seizure, full\nor partial, of items from international mail must provide notification to the rightful owner in all\ncases.\nIn cases where ownership of seized goods cannot be readily established, for example where the\nimporter's or exporter's full name and address cannot be determined from the labels or other\ninformation accompanying the seized goods, officers should make reasonable alternative efforts\nto identify the owner. Efforts to locate the owner and the results at each stage should be recorded\nin detail on the seizure file and local mail seizure administrative databases. Where an owner is\nidentified, written notification of mail seizures should be made using the BSF698. Brief grounds\nfor seizure specific to each item listed on the form should be included in the \"Reason and/or\ndetails\" portion.\nIf the goods clearly constitute items such as blank identity documents or counterfeit passports,\nthe officer can conclude that there is no lawful owner. In some cases, state-issued documents\nsuch as passports should be returned to the issuing authority. Officers should not notify an\nissuing state in cases where a document was seized from a refugee claimant when such\nnotification would alert the country to the presence of the refugee claimant in Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.9 (Notification of owner)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-9-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 9.10", + "marginal_note": "Returning items to the customs process", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.10 Returning items to the customs process\nWhere an officer does not establish reasonable grounds for seizure, the package should be\nreturned without delay to the customs inspection process. An imported package is considered to\nbe in the customs secondary process unless seized by a CBSA officer for immigration purposes.\nThere is no requirement to record reasons in support of a decision to return a package to the\ncustoms process. A minimum of information should be recorded about released packages as may\nbe required for tracking the item, for measurement of workload or other legitimate administrative\npurpose. No photocopies, images, transcriptions or other record of the contents of such packages\nare to be retained.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 9.10 (Returning items to the customs process)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Custody of seized items", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1 Custody of seized items\nR252 requires an officer who seizes a thing under A140(1) to place it without delay in the custody\nof the Department/Agency. IRCC and CBSA officers are designated to seize documents or other\nthings under A140 while only the CBSA is delegated to seize a means of transportation under\nA140. It is sufficent for IRCC or CBSA officials to seize the items to consider them as being in the\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 42\ncustody of the respective Department/Agency. Seized items should be stored in a protected\nholding area with restricted access. If the RCMP seizes anything under the Immigration and\nRefugee Protection Act, they are required to turn it over to a CBSA officer.\nStorage of seized vehicles should be arranged locally in consultation with the regional CBSA\noffice when necessary. The storage area should afford reasonable protection against damages,\ntheft and accidents.\nIf a file transfer occurs between IRCC and the CBSA, custody of the seized document or other\nthing will also change from one organization to the other. Means of transportation will always\nremain in the custody of the CBSA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 10.1 (Custody of seized items)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-10-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Protecting evidence", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2 Protecting evidence\nAn officer may be required to testify in court that a document or other item seized has remained\nunchanged since it came into their possession: in other words, that the continuity of evidence has\nbeen maintained. Whatever evidence comes into an officer's possession, the officer must note\nthe date, time and place on the case file and in a notebook.\nTo maintain the continuity of evidence for the purposes of prosecution under the Immigration and\nRefugee Protection Act or the Criminal Code, officers must ensure that seized items are kept in a\nsecure area and handled by a minimum number of persons.\nEvery effort should be made to preserve documentary evidence in the same condition as it was\ncollected. It is also strongly advised to keep direct handling of orginal documents to an absolute\nminimum (if they are to be repeatedly referred to they should be individually placed inside copy\nsafe sheet protectors or transparent sleeves.)\nAt no time should documentary evidence be placed beneath something on which writing can\noccur, such as on a desk or attached to a clipboard, etc. This will add indented impressions to the\ndouments, which may not only impact the examination of the document(s) but risk leaving\nindentations of sensitive Agency information. Evidence containers should be marked for\nidentification before the documentary evidence is placed inside to avoid the addition of indented\nimpressions.\nThe evidence shall not be folded, torn, stamped, hole-punched, stapled, marked or touched\nunnecessarily. Avoid using staples, tweezers, binder clips and other such devices on the\ndocuments. Furthermore, no additional writing should be added to the evidence for record\nkeeping purposes, the documents should not be fed through the automatic document feeder on a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 10.2 (Protecting evidence) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-10-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Protecting evidence", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "photocopier. Copies should be made by manual placement of documents on the glass plate.\nThe officer should:\n make a photocopy of the document and stamp “certified true copy” on each page and write\ntheir initials, the time and the date;\n write a description on the envelope of the contents, the name and file number of the person\nconcerned, the officer's initials and the time and date; and\n seal the evidence in an envelope, write their initials across the envelope seal and secure it\nwith transparent tape.\nIf an authorized officer needs to remove and examine evidence from the envelope, the officer\nmust repeat the steps just described above when placing the evidence back in the envelope. If an\nofficer only needs to refer to a document, the officer should refer to the certified true copy on file.\nIf a peace officer requires possession of the document from the immigration file for prosecution,\ngenerally, this would be done under a subpoena or a production order issued by the Court. An\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 43\nofficer should verify the contents of the envelope with the peace officer against the certified true\ncopy on file. Officers may contact CBSA Case Management should assistance be required.\nAn officer should make a note of these procedures, place the note on file for future reference and\nenter the information in the official notebook.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 10.2 (Protecting evidence) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "Liability for damage to property", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.3 Liability for damage to property\nIf a search results in damage to the traveller's vehicle or baggage, an officer must prepare a\nreport indicating the extent of the damage and other relevant details of the examination. For\nregulations and policy for handling damage claims against the Crown, see the Guidelines on\nClaims and Ex Gratia Payments. When a search brings no results, and the search caused\ndamage to the person's belongings, it is policy to return the conveyance or item to its original\nstate. When it is apparent that items may be damaged during a search because of their state of\nrepair or fragility, the officer should take before and after photographs of the items, to avoid the\nCBSA from having to pay for damages unrelated to the search.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 10.3 (Liability for damage to property)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-10-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 10.4", + "marginal_note": "CBSA liability for damage to a vehicle", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.4 CBSA liability for damage to a vehicle\nCBSA officers who seize a vehicle should make a careful inventory of any damage that the\nvehicle has and should ask the person from whom the vehicle was seized or the owner to give\nwritten acknowledgement of the inventory, if they are present at the time.\nA vehicle that is seized remains in the custody of the CBSA until all legislative requirements for its\nreturn or disposal have been complied with.\nThe CBSA may be liable for any damage caused to a vehicle in its custody depending on the\nfactual circumstances of each case. Any damages caused to a vehicle while under seizure should\nbe reported to the Regional office and to the Regional Director for appropriate assessment.\nOwners of a damaged seized vehicle may seek redress under a number of different laws.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 10.4 (CBSA liability for damage to a vehicle)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Return of seized things", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1 Return of seized things\nSections 254 and 255 of the IRPR outline the requirements to determine when a seized thing can\nbe returned to its lawful owner or to a person from whom it was seized.\nBoth the lawful owner and the person from whom the thing was seized have 60 days to submit an\napplication for the return of the seized thing, and the timeline begins upon the notice of seizure\n(and not the date of the seizure itself). If the notification is sent by mail, it is deemed to have been\nprovided seven days after the day on which the notice was mailed. Applications for the return of a\nseized thing can be made by using the BSF699 form.\nR256 states that should both the lawful owner and the person from whom the thing was seized\nmake concurrent applications, the lawful owner’s application will be processed first. If the\napplication of the lawful owner is granted, the application received from the person from whom\nthe thing was seized will not be processed.\nThe regulations require that an application for return must be made if the thing was seized on the\ngrounds of:\n being improperly or fraudulently obtained;\n being improperly or fraudulently used; and\n to prevent improper or fraudulent use.\nSeizures made on the grounds of being necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act are the\nonly types of seizure that cannot be returned upon application. A thing seized on the ground that\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 44\nit was necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act can only be returned if the seizure is no\nlonger necessary for those purposes.\nOnce an application for return has been submitted, the regulations require that a decision on the\napplication for return be provided in writing to the applicant as soon as feasible which is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.1 (Return of seized things) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Return of seized things", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "understood as being something that must be done soon, taking circumstances into account.\nThe regulations provide that the things seized shall be returned to the person from whom they\nwere seized (R254) or their lawful owner (R255) as follows, provided an application for return has\nbeen submitted:\nRegulations Explanation\nR254(2) Return – Improperly or fraudulently\nobtained\nApplicant must demonstrate that they were\nentitled to have that thing in their possession\nat the time of seizure and that they are still\nentitled to it.\nR254(3) Return – Improperly or fraudulently\nused\nApplicant must demonstrate that they did not\nparticipate in the fraudulent or improper use of\nthe thing. They must also demonstrate that\nthey were entitled to have the thing in their\npossession at the time of seizure and that\nthey are still entitled to it.\nR254(4) Return – Prevention of improper or\nfraudulent use\nApplicant must demonstrate that the seizure is\nno longer necessary to prevent its fraudulent\nor improper use. They must also demonstrate\nthat they were entitled to have the thing in\ntheir possession at the time of seizure and\nthat they are still entitled to it.\nR255(2) Return – Improperly of fraudulenty\nobtained\nApplicant must demonstrate that at the time of\nthe seizure they were the lawful owner and\nthat they are still the lawful owner of the thing\nseized.\nR255(3) Return – Improperly or fraudulently\nused\nThe applicant must demonstrate that they did\nnot participate in the fraudulent or improper\nuse of the thing, and that at the time of\nseizure, they were the lawful owner and that\nthey are still the lawful owner of the thing\nseized. They also need to demonstrate that\nthey exercised all reasonable care to satisfy\nthemselves that the person to whom they", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.1 (Return of seized things) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Return of seized things", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "gave possession of the thing was not likely to\nfraudulently or improperly use it.\nR255(4) Return – Prevention of improper or\nfraudulent use\nThe applicant must demonstrate that the\nseizure is no longer necessary to prevent the\nfraudulent or improper use of the thing. They\nmust also demonstrate that they were the\nlawful owner of the thing at the time of seizure\nand that they are still the lawful owner.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 45\nNote: Following a seizure made under IRPA, a CBSA inland office may hold travel or identity\ndocuments of foreign nationals awaiting their permanent residency. Once the permanent\nresidence application has received stage 2 approval, IRCC will contact the CBSA office where\nthe documents are being held to request that the travel/identity documents be sent to the\nnearest IRCC office responsible for the foreign national’s landing. After receiving this request,\nthe CBSA inland office will release the documents to IRCC following established procedures.\nFor additional information, please consult IRCC’s operational bulletin OB 553 – Obtaining\npassports or travel documents for landing from the Canada Border Services Agency and\nofficer’s discretion to waive the passport requirement for landing purposes.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.1 (Return of seized things) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Sale or destruction of seized things other than documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2 Sale or destruction of seized things other than documents\nR258 sets out the conditions under which a thing that was seized under A140 may be disposed\nof. The Instrument of Delegation and Designation (IL 3) describes the powers that have been\ndelegated and identifies the level of delegation. Things that are seized may be disposed of only\nas provided in the Regulations and following the decision of an officer who has been delegated to\nexercise that authority.\nSale or disposal of seized vehicles\nVehicles are to be processed as any other seized things and may be returned to the person from\nwhom they were seized or their lawful owner if the criteria set out in R254 or R255 are met.\nBecause vehicles often have a high market value, many of the delegations for the disposition of\nseized vehicles are at the managerial level. Many situations will require advice from the CBSA’s\nLegal Services.\nFollowing the seizure of a vehicle, the officer will:\n place it in the custody of the CBSA;\n identify the owner;\n give written notice and reasons;\n prepare a report; and\n review the case in light of R254 or R255.\nIf the vehicle is not returned, the full report on the vehicle seizure is forwarded to the Regional\nDirector of Enforcement, District Director or Regional Director General. Samples of reports,\nmemos and letters that may be used in these circumstances can be found in:\n Appendix A: Sample for a summary/report for a seized vehicle (from the owner, borrowed or\nrented)\n Appendix B: Sample memorandum to DG for decision on application for the return of a seized\nvehicle.\n Appendix C: Sample of a decision to return a seized vehicle\n Appendix D: Sample of a notice of decision and reasons – return of a seized vehicle\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 46\nSale or destruction of seized things other than a document\nR258(1) provides for objects of monetary value (other than documents) to be sold. In cases\nwhere an object has no monetary value or the costs of the sale would exceed the monetary value\nof the object, the object is destroyed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.2 (Sale or destruction of seized things other than documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.3", + "marginal_note": "Notice of decision", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.3 Notice of decision\nAn officer is required to notify the person in writing of the decision with respect to applications\nmade under R254 or R255 for the return of seized objects and provide reasons.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.3 (Notice of decision)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Decision by the Minister not to return a seized thing", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.4 Decision by the Minister not to return a seized thing\nIf the decision following review of an application for return is not to return a seized thing, then it\nremains in IRCC or CBSA custody (depending on the nature of the seizure and the item seized)\nor is disposed of in accordance with R258(1) for things other than documents, and R258(3) for\nseized documents.\nExamples of things that would not be returned are:\n fraudulent documents (photo-substituted passports, travel documents);\n lost or stolen items;\n altered documents (passports with illegal alterations, pages missing);\n counterfeit money;\n iIlegally obtained driver’s licence, social security or credit cards.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.4 (Decision by the Minister not to return a seized thing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.5", + "marginal_note": "Suspension of sale", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.5 Suspension of sale\nR258(2) provides that an object should not be sold during the 15-day period following notification\nthat the object would not be returned, or before a final decision is made in any judicial proceeding\nin Canada relating to its seizure or return.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.5 (Suspension of sale)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.6", + "marginal_note": "Return of documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.6 Return of documents\nWhen returning a document, an officer should record the details on the file and complete the the\nform BSF 699 Application for the Return of (a) Seized Travel and/or Identity Document(s) and/or\nOther Thing(s) to show that the document has been returned. For example:\n“Passport number 12345 issued in Norway was returned to the holder John Doe, date of birth, on", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.6 (Return of documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-27", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 27", + "marginal_note": "February 2002.”", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "27 February 2002.”\nSection R258(3) requires that if a seized document is not returned, it shall be retained for as long\nas is necessary for the administration or enforcement of Canadian laws, after which it is governed\nby the applicable laws relating to the disposal of public archives.\nBefore retiring a file, an officer should return other documents (such as driver’s licences) to the\nissuing authority with a memorandum outlining how they came into the possession of IRCC or\nthe CBSA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 27 (February 2002.”)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-11-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 11.7", + "marginal_note": "Disposing of fraudulent documents", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.7 Disposing of fraudulent documents\nR258(3) prescribes that the seized document is retained as long as it is necessary for the\nadministration or enforcement of Canadian law. Therefore, an officer should not return the\nfollowing documents to the person from whom they were seized:\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 47\n altered documents (examples of alterations include photo-substitution and page substitution)\nand alterations of variable mentions (such as date of birth or name) or erasures, and\nunauthorized additions (counterfeit entry and/or exit stamps and/or visas);\n counterfeit documents;\n improperly obtained or issued documents; and\n fantasy or fictitious documents.\nKnown or suspected fraudulent documents, including documents containing counterfeit visas or\nstamps and all altered or fantasy documents, should be forwarded to a regional DAU via\ninteroffice mail or a tracked courier package. Officers in the Northern Ontario Region should send\nthe documents to the National Document Centre (NDC) by the same means. As for liaison\nofficers, they should send fraudulent documents to the NDC by diplomatic bags. Please ensure to\ninform the DAU or the NDC by email that a package will be arriving and indicate whether or not\nanalysis is required (see section 8.7 of this manual for additional information on how to send\ndocuments for analysis).\nFor further information about the National Document Centre including its published alerts,\nbulletins and communiqués, please refer to the Atlas page: http://atlas/tb-dgv/about-sujet/tp-pv/to-\nov/ndc_cnd_eng.asp", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 11.7 (Disposing of fraudulent documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Authority to collect biometric information", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1 Authority to collect biometric information\nA10.01 and A16(2) provide the legal authority to collect biometric information of foreign nationals\nmaking a claim, application or request under the IRPA, while section 12.001 of the IRPR indicates\nwhere the collection of biometrics may be done.\nThe collection of biometric information includes, but is not limited to, foreign nationals who are\napplying:\n to enter Canada;\n for visas or other documents at a visa office;\n for permanent residence in Canada;\n to vary or cancel conditions imposed; or\n for refugee protection.\nA16(3) provides authority to fingerprint a permanent resident or foreign national who is arrested,\ndetained, subject to an examination or a removal order to establish their identity or compliance\nwith the Act.\nThese sections provide the authority for an officer to collect fingerprints and place an obligation\non the individual to provide them; however, this does not provide the authority to use force to\ncompel an individual to meet this obligation. If necessary, an officer may use reasonable force to\neffect an arrest or detention as described under A55(2) or A55(3) but this does not extend to the\ncollection of fingerprints.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 48\nAlthough an officer cannot physically compel an individual to provide fingerprints, an officer may\npursue administrative options under IRPA that are appropriate to the circumstances. Before\npursuing these options, an officer should take steps to ensure the individual understands the legal\nobligation to provide fingerprints and the potential consequences for failing to meet this obligation.\nShould the individual continue to refuse to provide fingerprints, the administrative options\navailable include:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.1 (Authority to collect biometric information) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Authority to collect biometric information", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " allowing the individual to withdraw their application to enter Canada at a POE as per R42\n preparing an inadmissibility report based on the individual’s non-compliance and/or other\ninadmissibilities\n authorizing entry into Canada for the purpose of further examination as per A23\n directing the person to leave Canada at a POE as per R40\nThe failure to provide fingerprints may constitute an offence under A124(1)(a) of the IRPA. If\nappropriate, an officer should consult with CBSA’ Criminal Investigations Division (CID) regarding\nthe individual failing to comply with a condition or obligation imposed under the Act.\nR12.1 specifies the claims, applications or requests requiring the collection of biometrics.\nR12.3(b) provides for the biometric information that is to be collected; photograph and\nfingerprints.\nBiometric collection is mandatory for foreign nationals who are:\n applying for a temporary resident visa, work permit, or study permit;\n citizens of a country or territory on the prescribed country list; and\n 14 to 79 years of age.\nBiometrics are collected from all applicants who are making an asylum claim in Canada and are\n14 years of age and over.\nNote: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) does not accept the fingerprints of any child\naged 12 years or younger.\nPrivacy notice\nIn accordance with Treasury Board Policy on Data Protection and Privacy, where a department\ncollects personal information directly from individuals, it is required to inform individuals of the\nfollowing:\n1. the purpose of the collection;\n2. whether the collection is voluntary or required by law;\n3. any possible consequences of refusal to respond;\n4. that the individual to whom the information pertains has rights to access and protection under\nthe Privacy Act; and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.1 (Authority to collect biometric information) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Authority to collect biometric information", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. that the personal information is retained in a Personal Information Bank (PIB).\nAccordingly, a Privacy Notice must be posted at all LiveScan automated fingerprint systems sites.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 49", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.1 (Authority to collect biometric information) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Biometrics Expansion", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2 Biometrics Expansion\nThe Biometrics Expansion program has expanded biometric (fingerprints and digital photographs)\nscreening and verification to all temporary resident visa (TRV) applicants, work permit (WP),\nstudy permit (SP), temporary resident permit (TRP) applicants and all Permanent Resident (PR)\napplicants.\nCitizens of the United States are exempt from biometric verification unless they are\napplying for permanent residence. Also, foreign nationals issued a visitor record at a POE will\nnot be subject to biometric enrolment.\nFor further details, please refer to the Biometrics Toolkit.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.2 (Biometrics Expansion)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "Taking fingerprints", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3 Taking fingerprints\nOfficers are to use LiveScan kiosks wherever they are available. Ink and roll prints are only to be\nused when a LiveScan kiosk is not available and officers are processing applications in the\nRefugee or Criminal Charges workflows (please refer to section 12.5 for the description of each\nworkflow). For applications in the TR/PR Enrolment Workflow, the collection of fingerprints may\nbe overridden. For information on where the biometrics may be taken, please refer to section\n12.001 of the IRPR.\nLiveScan is an automated fingerprint system designed to capture fingerprints in an efficient and\naccurate manner without the use of ink. LiveScan records ten-print 'plain' fingerprint impressions,\nten-print 'rolled' fingerprint impressions, palm prints, writer's palm prints (side of the hand), and\nclient demographic information. LiveScan also records the subject's digital photo, which is\nelectronically printed on the fingerprint form. The fingerprint information is then encrypted and\ntransmitted to the RCMP’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) for search of\nregistered convictions and charges.\nLiveScan is an enforcement initiative that enhances capacity to electronically transmit biometric\nfingerprint data to the RCMP/HQ, improve fingerprint quality, reduce response times, and\nsafeguard fingerprint information.\nPlease refer to the LiveScan User Guide or the LiveScan Quick Reference Card for additional\ninformation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.3 (Taking fingerprints)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Obtaining access to LiveScan/CardScanner", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4 Obtaining access to LiveScan/CardScanner\nBefore gaining access to the LiveScan/Cardscanner you must complete a form:\nStep 1: Obtain the LiveScan/CardScanner Acceptance Form by contacting your Regional\nCoordinator or the LiveScan team at livescan@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca.\nStep 2: The Supervisor/Superintendent will email the following to the Regional Coordinator:\n- First/Last name;\n- User ID;\n- Name of the site where access is required; and\n- Scanned copies of the forms\nStep 3: The Regional Coordinator will contact the LiveScan Team at livescan@cbsa-\nasfc.gc.ca. Upon receipt of the required information, the LiveScan team will grant system\naccess.\nPlease refer to the LiveScan User Guide or the LiveScan Quick Reference Card for additional\ninformation.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 50", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.4 (Obtaining access to LiveScan/CardScanner)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "LiveScan kiosk workflows", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.5 LiveScan kiosk workflows\nThe LiveScan kiosk contains the following workflows:\n Criminal Record Check Workflow - (CAR-N)\nThis workflow is a useful tool in determining identity or admissibility. Results obtained through the\nuse of the Criminal Record Check Workflow are accurate and conclusive because they are based\non a biometric match as opposed to a simple name and date of birth match. The Criminal Record\nCheck Workflow can be used to confirm a CPIC or NCIC result.\n Criminal Charges Workflow – (CAR-Y)\nThe Criminal Charges Workflow is used when a person is charged with a criminal offence.\nCurrently at the CBSA, the Criminal Charges Workflow is generally used by criminal investigators\nonly. Officers may be required to use Criminal Charges when submitting prints on behalf of other\nlaw enforcement partners.\n Deportee Workflow\nThis workflow is used when a person is being deported or removed.\nNOTE: Officers should be taking the fingerprints of all:\n escorted removals (all escorted removals under a deportation order, including those\nunder a deemed deportation order);\n deportees with a criminal record; and\n deportees who do not have fingerprints on file.\n Refugee Workflow\nThe Refugee Workflow is used to capture the biographic data, facial image and fingerprints of all\nrefugee applicants over the age of 14. This information is captured for two purposes: to query the\nAFIS database for registered convictions/charges and/or a previous refugee claim and to store\nthe fingerprint set in the AFIS refugee database. The RCMP retains refugee fingerprints until the\nclaimant becomes a Canadian citizen.\n Civil Workflow\nAll CBSA sites have the authority to submit cases using the Civil Workflow. The Civil Workflow is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.5 (LiveScan kiosk workflows) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "LiveScan kiosk workflows", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "used to capture fingerprints for civil purposes such as security clearances, employee background\nverifications, volunteer screenings, etc. All results will go to the Personnel Security Screening Unit\nat HQ in Ottawa.\n TR/PR Enrolment Workflow\nThis workflow is used to biometrically enrol eligible travellers through the collection and\ntransmission of biographic information to RCMP for screening against the three (3) main\nrepositories: Criminal, Immigration, and Legacy Refugee. It is also mandatory for all PR\napplicants over the age of 14 to have their fingerprints collected. The fingerprints serve two\nmain purposes: the first is to query the AFIS database for registered convictions/charges\nand/or previous refugee claim, the second is to store the fingerprint set in the AFIS IMM\ndatabase.\nFurthermore, when a foreign national or a permanent resident has their fingerprints captured by a\nCanadian police agency, the CBSA will automatically receive an Unsolicited Criminal Notification\n(UCN) if they were previously biometrically enrolled by the CBSA or IRCC in the TP/PR or\nRefugee workflows, including foreign nationals who provided biometrics for their Temporary\nResident Visa, Work Permit, Study Permit, or Temporary Resident Permit applications.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 51\nUCNs are only received from police agencies for individuals for whom biometrics were previously\ncollected and ensure that interactions with Canadian police agencies are provided to\nCBSA/IRCC for consideration in future visa, permit, and admissibility decisions.\nFor additional information on UCNs, please refer to the Biometrics Toolkit.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.5 (LiveScan kiosk workflows) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.6", + "marginal_note": "CardScanner", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.6 CardScanner\nThe RCMP no longer accepts ink and roll fingerprint submissions from the CBSA. As such, ink\nand roll fingerprint submissions will be dealt with in the following manner:\nCriminal removal ink and roll fingerprints from Inland Enforcement Officers should be sent to the\nFredericton Inland Enforcement Office:\nCanada Border Services Agency\n495 Prospect Street\nFredericton, NB\nE3B 9M4\nAttention: Manager of Enforcement and Intelligence\nAll CBSA offices conducting ink and roll fingerprints for all other reasons, such as refugee\nclaimants and prints taken following arrests or convictions for criminal charges, will now send their\nC216 forms to a designated regional CBSA office for scanning and submission to the RCMP.\nRegional LiveScan coordinators will identify and inform your office as to where the C216 forms\nshould be sent for scanning. To identify your Regional Coordinator, please contact the LiveScan\nProject Team at livescan@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca. All CBSA offices sending ink and roll fingerprints for\nscanning must include the BSF725 and ensure all necessary fields are properly completed.\nThe CardScan application is used to scan fingerprint cards, palm prints, and photographs.\nWhether all of these functions are available depends upon the chosen workflow. CardScan allows\nyou to scan the following cards:\n C-216 cards;\n Right palm print cards;\n Left palm print cards; and\n Photo", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.6 (CardScanner)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.7", + "marginal_note": "Fingerprinting (ink and roll method)", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.7 Fingerprinting (ink and roll method)\nThe ink and roll method should only be used when LiveScan is not available. To take a proper\nset of ink and roll fingerprints, an officer needs the following:\n a print take ink strip: an inked strip containing a special ink for fingerprinting (some offices use\ninkless pads);\n a print retainer pad: a rubberized pad to hold the ink strip flat;\n a print form holder: a holder that contains the fingerprint form;\n a pen; and\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 52\n a stand or table to hold the materials.\nFingerprint forms\nC-216C (Civil Fingerprint Form): This form is green in colour and is designed for civil purposes\nsuch as civil security checks and applications for permanent residence.\nC-216 (Criminal Fingerprint Form): This form is brown in colour and is designed for criminal\nrecord searches or charges.\nC-216R (Refugee Fingerprint Form): This form is blue in colour and is designed specifically for\nrefugee applicants. The C-216R incorporates the office RC number and the UCI number. The\nbottom right-hand corner is designed to accept the client’s photo.\nLoading the fingerprint form:\nBefore inserting the fingerprint form into the holder, the form should be creased horizontally along\nthree lines:\n the horizontal spaces designated for rolled impressions of the right hand;\n the spaces for the rolled impressions of the left hand; and\n the space for the plain impression.\nNote: Creasing fingerprint forms is only done for ink-roll procedures.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.7 (Fingerprinting (ink and roll method))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.8", + "marginal_note": "Fingerprinting the person (ink and roll)", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.8 Fingerprinting the person (ink and roll)\nTo take ink roll fingerprint impressions, an officer should:\n beginning with the person's right hand and with the fingers closed, grasp the right thumb at\nthe base with either the right or left hand (depending on which side of the person an officer is\nstanding), supporting its tip with the thumb and index finger of the other hand;\n roll the thumb on the ink strip so that the entire bulbous portion (the fingerprint pattern area) is\ninked, from one edge of the nail to the other, and covering the area from the crease of the\nend joint to the tip of the digit as far as the rolling will permit;\n while still maintaining hold of it, roll the thumb firmly with a similar, continuous and even\nmotion, on the designated right-thumb area of the fingerprint form, rotating the digit a full half\nturn, again from one edge of the nail to the other; this complete rolling is absolutely necessary\nto ensure that the entire pattern is reproduced for correct classification;\n ink each of the four fingers of the hand and reproduce them in their respective order in exactly\nthe same manner, and then follow with the left hand.\nWhen fingerprinting the thumb or any finger, it is important that the person holds their remaining\ndigits in a clenched hand formation (a fist), so that they do not in any way interfere with the inking\nand printing movement.\nRequirements for good fingerprints:\n Clearly defined rolled impressions (cores and deltas must be present).\n Clearly defined plain (slap) impressions.\n Clearly defined palm prints.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 53\n Clearly defined ridges (no smears, smudging, broken lines or distortion).\nTaking good fingerprints\nTo take good fingerprints, an officer should:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.8 (Fingerprinting the person (ink and roll)) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.8", + "marginal_note": "Fingerprinting the person (ink and roll)", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " before taking the first set of prints, ask for a demonstration from an experienced officer;\n practice taking a colleague's prints;\n not roll the subject's fingerprint on the ink pad in the same place twice; re-attach the ink pad\ncover and rub it to smooth out the ridges in the ink;\n not apply too much pressure to the finger when taking the print; (The darkness of the\nfingerprint on the form is a result of the amount of ink used, not the pressure. If done properly,\nthe weight of the finger should be sufficient to produce a good quality print as long as the\nofficer inked the finger properly.)\n develop a routine by printing the fingers in the order in which they appear on the form; at all\ntimes, start with the right thumb, continuing with the right index through to the right little finger,\nand then following with the left thumb, and left forefinger through to the left little finger.\n(Misplaced rolled impressions on the fingerprint form would result in a non-existent\nclassification, which could never be successfully searched in the fingerprint bureau.)\n roll thumbs inwardly and fingers outwardly. While there is no set rule governing the direction\nof rotation of the digits during the inking and printing process, experience has shown that\nthere is a natural tendency for thumbs to yield to an inwardly rotating motion (rolling the right\nthumb counter clockwise and the left thumb clockwise) and for the fingers to an outwardly\nrotating motion (rolling the right hand fingers clockwise and those of the left hand counter\nclockwise).\n always centre the core area of the rolled impressions.\nPlain impressions of hand\nTo take plain impressions in the lower portion of the fingerprint form, the officer should:\n take the impressions with the four fingers of the hand extended;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.8 (Fingerprinting the person (ink and roll)) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-8-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.8", + "marginal_note": "Fingerprinting the person (ink and roll)", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " working with one hand at a time, place the fingers simultaneously on the ink strip, applying\nfirm pressure equally to all to ensure even inking;\n place the hand on the appropriate space on the form, again exerting even pressure to ensure\nuniform simultaneous printing;\n allow for flattening of the inked fingers. The fingers should not be held together too tightly.\nThis will ensure the reproduction of the greatest possible portion of the pattern in each finger.\nInk and record the thumbs similarly in the appropriate spaces without rolling.\nPlain impressions serve to verify the accuracy of the sequence of the rolled impressions for the\nclassifier and searcher in the Fingerprint Section of the RCMP.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 54", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.8 (Fingerprinting the person (ink and roll)) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-12-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 12.9", + "marginal_note": "Fingerprint search under the Migration Five High Value Data Sharing Protocol", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.9 Fingerprint search under the Migration Five High Value Data Sharing Protocol\nIRCC and CBSA officers may submit a request to have fingerprints searched against the\nimmigration fingerprint holdings of a Migration Five (M5) partner country (Australia, New Zealand,\nthe United Kingdom and the United States). In the case of requests to Australia, New Zealand\nand the United States, officers should use GCMS to initiate queries. If a query has not been auto-\nsent, an officer may manually initiate a query under the High Value Data Sharing Protocol\n(HVDSP) provided no exemptions apply.\nRequests to the United Kingdom should also be conducted according to the HVDSP.\nHVDSP:\nRequests will be reviewed by the Migration 5 Units at IRCC and CBSA Headquarters (HQ). HQ\nwill decide whether or not to make a formal request under the Protocol.\nRequests may be sent to IRCC or CBSA HQ using the Request for Fingerprints Search form IMM\n5674 when both of the following conditions apply:\n There are grounds to believe that a refugee claimant or a person found to be a refugee\nby the RPD may have claimed asylum in a Five Country Conference partner country; and\n Confirmation of that contact would have an impact on any proceeding carried out under\nthe IRPA.\nRequests should not be made for persons who:\n Are known to be citizens of an M5 country; or\n Are making a refugee claim against an M5 country.\nPlease note that any fingerprints sent to the UK must be sent within 30 days of enrollment.\nHowever, if more than 30 days but less than 90 days have passed, only ink and rolled fingerprints\ncan be sent.\nFor additional details on information sharing and the HVDSP, please consult the Biometrics\nToolkit.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 12.9 (Fingerprint search under the Migration Five High Value Data Sharing Protocol)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-13-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "Authority to photograph", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1 Authority to photograph\nSection A10.01 and subsection A16(2) provide the legal authority to photograph foreign nationals\nmaking a claim, application or request under the Act. This includes but is not limited to foreign\nnationals who are applying:\n to enter Canada;\n for visas or other documents at a visa office;\n for permanent residence in Canada;\n to vary or cancel conditions imposed; or\n for refugee protection.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 55\nA16(3) provides authority to photograph any permanent resident or foreign national who is\narrested, detained, subject to an examination or a removal order that may be used to establish\ntheir identity or compliance with the Act. Officers should be considerate of religious and cultural\nsensitivities when taking photographs (e.g. photographing women who wear a veil) and try to\naccommodate the person being photographed whenever possible.\nR12.1 lists the prescribed foreign nationals required to submit biometric information.\nR12.3 specifically states that the prescribed biometric information to be collected is a photograph\nof the foreign national.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 13.1 (Authority to photograph)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-13-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "Taking photographs", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.2 Taking photographs\nWhile it is recognized that photographs may not always be taken under optimal conditions, it is\nimportant that officers take the best quality photographs possible. Photographs are an asset when\ntrying to locate an individual, issuing a warrant for arrest and for removal arrangements.\nOfficers are required to scan and upload photographs to GCMS (eDocs) in addition to placing\nthem on the physical file. Circumstances may occur where the file cannot be physically\ntransferred to another office, therefore granting access to the photo will assist in confirming\nidentity.\nWhen taking photographs, officers should:\n ensure there is uniform lighting and not show shadows, glare or flash reflections;\n select a plain white background with a clear difference between the face and the background;\n have sunglasses, tinted eye glasses, excessive jewellery, hats and head coverings (unless\nthey are worn daily for religious beliefs or medical reasons) or anything that may impair the\npicture removed;\n ensure that if the hair is worn down it does not cover the face or ears;\n ensure that if glasses are worn, the eyes are clearly visible and there is no glare in the\nglasses;\n ensure the photo is taken with a neutral facial expression (person’s eyes are open and clearly\nvisible, mouth closed, no smiling);\n ensure the photo is 50 mm wide X 70 mm high (2 inches wide x 2-3/4 inches long) and sized\nso the height of the face measures between 31 mm (1-1/4 inches) and 36 mm (1-7/16 inches)\nfrom chin to crown of head;\n ensure the photo is taken straight on, with face and shoulders centred and squared to the\ncamera (i.e. the photograph must show the full front view of the person’s head and shoulders,\nshowing full face centred in the middle of the photograph);\n retake the picture making the appropriate adjustments if the quality of the photo is poor.\nOfficers should take as many pictures as they deem reasonable. Extra pictures should be taken\nand attached to the person’s file to be used as necessary at a later date. An optimal photo should\nconform to the following sample:\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 56\nNote: Not actual size, refer to measurements above.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 13.2 (Taking photographs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-13-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "Photographing minors", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.3 Photographing minors\nA16 provides authority to photograph foreign nationals making an application and this includes\nminor children. A photograph can be an important means of identifying a child.\nAn officer should keep in mind that the comfort level of the child is very important. It is usually\nbest to photograph a child in the presence of a parent or guardian. A very young child who is not\ncomfortable being photographed alone may be photographed in the arms of a parent or legal\nguardian.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 13.3 (Photographing minors)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-13-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Photographing Tattoos", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.4 Photographing Tattoos\nSubsection A16(3) does not give officers the legal authority to conduct searches and take\nphotographs of tattoos. Therefore, officers must rely on section A139 if they wish to do so. This\nmeans that officers need to have reasonable grounds to believe that circumstances described in\nA139(1)(a) or A139(1)(b) apply in order to perform a search and be able to articulate why the\nsearch was done. It is only in the context of a legal search as described in A139 and if an officer\nwere to incidentally come across any tattoos, that may support information relating to an IRPA\ninadmissibility, that an officer may take a photograph. Therefore, photographing tattoos at a Port\nof Entry should only be done in exceptional cases when a photograph of the tattoo combined with\nother information could provide evidence of an IRPA inadmissibility on any grounds (e.g. criminal\ninadmissibility, organized crime, security, war crimes, etc.). In such cases that an individual must\ndisrobe for a tattoo to be photographed, procedures outlined in section 6.11 on Conducting\nDisrobement Searches should be followed. If no link to an inadmissibility proceeding is being\npursued or exists, officers may note a presence of visible tattoos with a description in GCMS as a\npersonal identifier in the event the person is later subject to IRPA enforcement action. Officers\nshould not, however, rely on A139 IRPA search authority to collect information on tattoos merely\nfor intelligence collection purposes.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 57\nAppendix A: Sample of a summary/report for a seized vehicle\nThe following case summary may be modified depending on whether the vehicle is seized from its owner,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 13.4 (Photographing Tattoos) (part 1 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-13-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Photographing Tattoos", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "has been borrowed, or is a vehicle owned by a rental company.\nCase summary\n[Date of case summary]\nAutomobile Seizure - A140\n[name of lawful owner, name of person who borrowed the vehicle if applicable, or name of\nrental company]\nDate of seizure: [date]\nPlace of seizure: [name of POE]\nVehicle data: [year and make/model]\nVIN # [indicate vehicle’s VIN number]\nLicence: [enter vehicle’s licence plate]\nEstimated Value: [indicate the vehicle’s estimated value and how you arrived at this amount, for\nexample by consulting the Red Book and/or a dealership]\nOwner: [name and address of the vehicle’s lawful owner. This may also be the name of a car\nrental company]\nThe person(s) involved:\n[identify the driver and the passengers in the vehicle, if applicable. Indicate their status in Canada\nand any documents provided in support.]\n\n\n\nCircumstances relating to the seizure:\n[explain what happened during the primary and secondary examinations and what led the officer\nto seize the vehicle.]\nName and signature of officer\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 58\nAppendix B: Sample memorandum to DG for decision on an application for the\nreturn of a seized vehicle\nDepartmental Memorandum\nTo: ******************* From: Officer\nDirector General Position\nRegion Office\nSUBJECT: Application under [section of the Regulations] for the return of a seized vehicle\nFOR DECISION: as soon as possible\nA car [owned, borrowed or rented] by [name of owner/rental company or person from whom it was seized] was\nseized at the port of [name of port of entry and province where it is located] on [date of seizure]. It is recommended\nthat you decide to [return/not return] this car to [lawful owner/rental company or person from whom it was seized].\nIssue:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 13.4 (Photographing Tattoos) (part 2 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-13-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Photographing Tattoos", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The purpose of this memorandum is to ask you to decide, pursuant to subsection [insert relevant\nsubsection under R254 or R255] of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, that the\nvehicle [owned, borrowed or rented] by [insert name of lawful owner/rental company or name of\nthe person from whom the vehicle was seized] that was seized because it was [explain why the\nvehicle was seized, e.g. because it was improperly obtained and used] and that it [should/should\nnot] be returned to [lawful owner/rental company or to the person from whom it was seized].\nBackground:\nThe car was seized pursuant to section 140 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by an\nofficer who had reasonable grounds to believe that it was [indicate the reason for the seizure. For\nexample, it was improperly used].\n[In a few sentences, explain why the vehicle was seized and what elements led\nthe officers to seize the vehicle].\nConsiderations:\nPursuant to subsection [indicate which subsection applies] of the Regulations, the [lawful\nowner/rental company or the person from whom the vehicle was seized] may, within 60 days,\napply for its return.\n[Name of lawful owner/rental car company or person from whom the vehicle was seized] initiated\nthis process by letter dated [date of letter] and, in support of their application, they provided [list all\ndocuments provided in support of the application for the return of the vehicle].\nI have reviewed the evidence and believe that [lawful owner/rental car company or person from\nwhom the vehicle was seized] meets [does not meet] the conditions imposed under Regulation\n[indicate which subsection applies] and that they are entitled [or not entitled] to recover the\nvehicle.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 59", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 13.4 (Photographing Tattoos) (part 3 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-13-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Photographing Tattoos", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "[Name of lawful owner/rental car vehicle or person from whom the vehicle was seized] will be\ninformed of your decision and reasons as required under R257.\nRecommendation:\nGiven the evidence submitted, I recommend that the seized vehicle be [returned or not returned]\nto [lawful owner/rental car company or person from whom the vehicle was seized]. Please confirm\nif you agree with the recommendation by checking one of the boxes below and signing this letter\nand the decision document.\nOfficer name and signature\nDG’s response:\n I approve\n I do not approve\nDated at ______________________ this ______day of __________, 20XX\n______________________________\nDirector General (name and signature)\n_________________________\nRegion\nAttachments: - Case summary.\n- Decision document.\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 60\nAppendix C: Sample of a decision to return a seized vehicle\nDecision in respect to a vehicle that was seized\nSection 140 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\nI am [satisfied/not satisfied] that [name of lawful owner/rental company or name of the person from whom\nthe vehicle was seized] meets the conditions of subsection [indicate which subsection of R254 or R255\napplies] of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations in that they have [demonstrated/not\ndemonstrated] that they:\n[List what the applicant needed to demonstrate under the subsection previously mentioned. For example,\nthe person who was the lawful owner of the vehicle prior to its seizure and has remained the lawful owner;\nthe person did not participate in the fraudulent or improper use of the vehicle, etc.]\nI have decided that the [year and make/model of the vehicle, VIN#, licence plate details] that was seized", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 13.4 (Photographing Tattoos) (part 4 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-13-4-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Photographing Tattoos", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "at [POE] on [date of seizure] [should/should not] be returned to [lawful owner/rental company or person\nfrom whom it was seized]\nDated at __________ this _____ day of _____ , 202X\n________________\nDirector General (Name and signature)\n________________\nRegion\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 61\nAppendix D: Sample – Notice of decision and reasons - Return of a seized vehicle\n[Name of lawful owner/person from the car rental company or name of person from whom the\nvehicle was seized\n[Name of car rental company if applicable]\n[Address]\nRe: Seizure of [year, make and model of vehicle]\nVIN#:\nLicence: xxxxxxx\nDear [Name]:\nYour letter of [date of letter received for the return of a vehicle] refers.\nAs required by section 257 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, I am writing to\nnotify you that the Director General, ____________ Region, has decided that this vehicle\n[should/should not] be returned to [lawful owner/car rental company or person from whom it was\nseized]\nThe car was seized pursuant to section 140 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by an\nofficer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the seizure was necessary because [add\nreason for seizure. For example, it was improperly obtained or used]. The evidence shows that\n[give the evidence that supports the decision to seize the vehicle. For example, the vehicle was\nused in connection with an offence under subsection 117(1) of the Act].\n[If you referred to a section/subsection of the Act in the previous paragraph, you may want\nto cite the particular section/subsection. For instance, subsection 117(1) of the Act\nprovides that:\n“No person shall knowingly organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of one or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 13.4 (Photographing Tattoos) (part 5 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-12-13-4-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-12", + "act_short": "ENF 12", + "act_name": "ENF 12 — Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "section": "ENF 12 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Photographing Tattoos", + "part": "Search, seizure, fingerprinting and photographing", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "more persons who are not in possession of a visa, passport or other document required\nby this Act.”]\nIn this case, the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that [explain what happened during the\nexamination and why the vehicle was seized]\nIn view of the evidence that you presented and under the terms of subsection [indicate which\nsubsection of R254 or R255 applies] of the Regulations, the Director General decided that the car\n[should/should not] be returned to [lawful owner/car rental company or person from whom the\nvehicle was seized]. A copy of the decision is attached for your information.\nPlease contact [port of entry or contact person] in order to arrange for the return of this car.[If\napplicable]\n[If the application to return was made by the person from whom the vehicle was seized,\nyou may add the following: The decision will not prevent (name of lawful owner) from\napplying for the return of their vehicle.]\nSincerely,\n__________________\nName and signature of officer\nENF 12: Search, Seizure, Fingerprinting and Photographing\n2022-11-18 62\nEnclosed: copy of the decision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2022-11-18", + "current_to": "2022-11-18", + "citation": "ENF 12, s. 13.4 (Photographing Tattoos) (part 6 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf12-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter describes the obligations and liabilities of transporters with respect to the persons they carry\nto Canada, stipulated in subsection 148(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).\nFurthermore, it specifies enforcement measures that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) may\ntake against transporters who fail to comply with their obligations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe program’s objectives are to ensure that transportation companies fulfil their obligations under\nCanada’s IRPA and the operational, procedural and financial liabilities set out in the accompanying\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and Regulations\nSections A148 to A150 include obligations and liabilities of transportation companies.\nSections R259 to R287 provide procedural rules governing transportation companies.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Required forms", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 Required forms\nThe forms required or referenced are shown in the following table:\nForm name Number\nConfirmation by Transporter Regarding Passenger(s) Carried BSF453\nCosts Payable by Transporters BSF501\nNotice to Transporter BSF502\nOfficial receipt – Cash Security Deposit by a Transporter Company BSF577\nNotice of Detention or Seizure of Vehicle or Prescribed Good (Pursuant to\nSubsection 148(2) of the Act)\nBSF775\nReceipt for Prescribed Document under R260 BSF575", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 3.1 (Required forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Instruments and delegations\nRefer to the transporters section, items 144 to 162, in the document entitled Designations and\nDelegations by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness .\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 6", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5 Departmental policy\nUnder the IRPA and its Regulations, commercial transporters must comply with outlined obligations,\nincluding\n not carrying improperly documented passengers to Canada;\n presenting passengers for examination at ports of entry (POEs) and holding them until\ncompletion of examination;\n ensuring that persons presented for examination have the prescribed documents for travel to\nCanada;\n carrying persons from Canada who have been directed to leave, allowed to withdraw their\napplication to enter or ordered removed;\n paying administration fees, medical costs and removal costs for certain classes of inadmissible\npersons;\n complying with directions to deposit security;\n providing prescribed information, including documentation and reports, upon request; and\n providing facilities at POEs for holding and examining persons carried to Canada.\nThe responsibility to ensure that a passenger is properly documented applies from the time the\ntransporter is boarding at the final embarkation point before arrival in Canada until the e xamination is\ndeclared complete by a border services officer at the POE; entry is authorized or detention of the\npassenger occurs.\nThe Guide for Transporters, published by the CBSA, expands on the above information and provides\ntransportation companies with a resource setting out their obligations and liabilities under the IRPA and\nproviding them with guidance on required travel documents for travel to Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 5 (Departmental policy)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Definitions\nSection R2 defines the following terms:\nTerm Definition\nAdministration fee A portion of the average cost incurred by Her Majesty\nin right of Canada in respect of foreign nationals\nreferred to in subsection 279(1) and includes the costs\nrelating to\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 7\n(a) examinations;\n(b) detention;\n(c) investigations and admissibility hearings in respect\nof inadmissible foreign nationals;\n(d) fingerprinting, photographing and the verification of\ndocuments with other governments and national or\ninternational police agencies;\n(e) translation and interpretation; and\n(f) proceedings before the Immigration Division.\nCommercial transporter A transporter who operates a commercial vehicle.\nCommercial vehicle A vehicle that is used for commercial purposes.\nTime of departure (a) In the case of a commercial vehicle that carries\npersons or goods by air, the time of take-off from the\nlast point of embarkation of persons before the vehicle\narrives in Canada; and\n(b) in the case of a commercial vehicle that carries\npersons or goods by water or land, the time of\ndeparture from the last point of embarkation of persons\nbefore the vehicle arrives in Canada.\nTransporter (a) A person who owns, operates, charters or\nmanages a vehicle or fleet of vehicles;\n(b) a person who owns or operates an international\ntunnel or bridge;\n(c) a designated airport authority as defined in\nsubsection 2(1) of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous\nMatters) Act; or\n(d) an agent for a person or authority mentioned in\nparagraphs (a) to (c).\nVehicle A means of transportation that may be used for\ntransportation by water, land or air\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 8\nVessel A vessel within the meaning of section 2 of the Canada\nShipping Act.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 6 (Definitions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Prohibition to carry improperly documented persons to Canada", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Prohibition to carry improperly documented persons to Canada\nParagraph A148(1)(a) provides that a transporter is prohibited from carrying to Canada a person who is\nprescribed or does not hold a prescribed document. Therefore, a transporter must ensure that their\npassengers are properly documented for travel to Canada, as prescribed in section R259.\nPrescribed documents include\n a travel document issued to a permanent resident abroad to facilitate their return to Canada;\n passports and travel documents referred to in subsections R50(1) and R52(1);\n a travel document issued by Canada to protected persons;\n visas referred to in sections R6 and R7 required of foreign nationals to enter Canada;\n a permanent resident card; and\n an electronic travel authorization (eTA), referred to in section R7.1.\nA transporter must require any person exempt from the need for a passport, visa and eTA to present\nsufficient evidence of their identity, citizenship or residency.\nCanadians, including dual citizens, will need to show proof that they are a Canadian citizen. For purposes\nof international air travel, the following documents are proof of Canadian citizenship: a valid Canadian\npassport, a Canadian temporary passport or a Canadian emergency travel document. Canadian citizens\nreturning to Canada who present other documents, such as a certificate of Canadi an citizenship, birth\ncertificate, provincial driver’s license or foreign passport, instead of a Canadian passport may face delays\nor be denied boarding by transport companies. Foreign nationals may also face delays or be denied\nboarding should they not travel with the passport associated with their visa or eTA. Dual Canadian\ncitizens—citizens of both Canada and a visa-exempt country—who currently fly to Canada on their non-\nCanadian passport will not be eligible to apply for an eTA or a visa.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 7.1 (Prohibition to carry improperly documented persons to Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Persons directed not to be carried by a transporter", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Persons directed not to be carried by a transporter\nParagraph A148(1)(a) also provides that a transporter is prohibited from carrying to Canada any person\nwhom an officer has directed not be carried. While this authority exists, officers should not direct a\ntransporter not to carry a passenger, except in cases of extenuating circumstances, after having received\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 9\ninstructions to do so from National Headquarters (NHQ). The CBSA maintains an advisory role, and the\ndecision to deny boarding is the carrier's alone.\nUnder section R270, the CBSA may notify the transporter that a person they expect to carry is prescribed\nunder section R258.1 or may be a person who does not hold the necessary documents prescribed under\nsection R259. This, however, does not relieve a transporter of their obligation to comply with any\nrequirement imposed by the IRPA or IRPR.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 7.2 (Persons directed not to be carried by a transporter)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Authority for transporter to hold passenger documents", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3 Authority for transporter to hold passenger documents\nParagraph A148(1)(b) requires a transporter to ensure that the documents referred to in section R259 are\navailable for examination upon arrival at the POE. Section R260 clarifies that a transporter who has\ngrounds to believe that the prescribed documents of a passenger may be disposed of prior to arrival in\nCanada must hold the documents for presentation to the examining officer in Canada. The transporter is\nrequired to issue a receipt for any documents held and to present a copy thereof to the examining officer.\nThe transporter can use the BSF575 form or one of their choosing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 7.3 (Authority for transporter to hold passenger documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-7-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Presenting and holding persons for examination", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4 Presenting and holding persons for examination\nParagraph A148(1)(b) requires transporters to present all persons they carry to Canada for examination\nand to hold them until the examination is completed. The point at which an examination ends is\nprescribed in section R37. Section R261 further clarifies that a transporter has complied with the\nobligation to hold a person for examination when\n an officer informs the transporter that the examination of the person is completed;\n the person is authorized to enter Canada for further examination pursuant to section A23; or\n the person is detained under any Canadian law.\nPersons must be held on the vehicles on which they arrive unless facilities for the examination and\nholding of persons are available at the POE. At international airports, transporters norma lly hold their\npassengers inside the terminal building. Persons arriving aboard cargo ships, however, must always be\nheld aboard the vessel until their examination is completed.\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 10", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 7.4 (Presenting and holding persons for examination)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-7-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Providing passenger information before arrival in Canada", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5 Providing passenger information before arrival in Canada\n7.5.1 Prescribed information\nPursuant to subsection A148(1)(d) and section R269, all commercial carriers are required to provide the\nCBSA with Advanced Passenger Information (API) and Passenger Name Record (PNR) information\nrelating to all persons expected to be on board commercial conveyances bound for Canada (air mode\nonly).\nThis information is collected in order to protect Canadians by enabling the CBSA to perform a risk\nassessment of travellers prior to their arrival in Canada.\nSubsection R269(1) requires a commercial transporter to provide information on all passengers and crew\nmembers travelling by commercial vehicle. This includes information such as traveller name, date of birth,\ncitizenship or nationality, gender, and passport or other travel document data as well a s all reservation\ninformation held by the transporter on passengers to be carried to Canada (e.g., travel itinerary, address,\ncheck-in information and any unique passenger reference assigned by the transporter).\nThis information has been integrated into the Interactive Advance Passenger Information (IAPI), which\naims to identify and prevent improperly documented or prescribed persons from boarding flights to\nCanada and identify travellers who may present admissibility concerns before arrival at a Canadian\nairport.\n7.5.2 Transmission\nSubsection R269(2) requires that all information referred to in subsection R269(1) must be provided by\nelectronic means in accordance with the technical requirements, specifications and procedures for\nelectronic data interchange.\nAll information is submitted to the IAPI system, which in turn automatically\n verifies the information received against Canada’s immigration data to confirm that the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 7.5 (Providing passenger information before arrival in Canada) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-7-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Providing passenger information before arrival in Canada", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "passenger has the prescribed travel document (e.g., visa or eTA) or that the traveller is exempt\nor does not require a prescribed document; and\n sends an automated board or no-board message to the air carrier for each passenger.\nThese board and no-board messages serve to assist the air carrier in meeting its transporter obligations\nby validating whether its passengers hold a valid eTA or visa. These interactive messages are a tool to\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 11\nfurther assist airlines in their decision to board and do not replace the requirement for commercial\ntransporters to physically examine a passenger’s travel documents.\nSubsection R269(3) specifies the required time lines of electronic transmission of the information referred\nto in subsection R269(1). These transmission timelines vary depending on the type of information\nrequired and traveller (i.e., passenger versus crew).\nReceiving this information in advance allows for criminality, security and Global Case Management\nSystem (GCMS) checks to be conducted by the National Targeting Center (NTC) prior to the arrival of the\ncommercial vehicle.\n7.5.3 National Targeting Center (NTC)\nTargeting is conducted from a centralized location and is a fully integrated, nationally consistent program\nthat is an integral part of the CBSA's border risk management.\nThe NTC is a 24/7 operation responsible for ensuring national security and the health and safety of\nCanadians by increasing Canada's ability to detect and interdict high-risk people and goods at the earliest\npoint in the travel and trade continuum. The NTC conducts targeting activities for people, goods and\nconveyances in all modes, in accordance with the CBSA/National Targeting Program Mission, Vision,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 7.5 (Providing passenger information before arrival in Canada) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-7-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Providing passenger information before arrival in Canada", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "priorities, policies and procedures. The NTC analyzes and risk-assesses information from current\nintelligence, resultant enforcement actions and compliance data to identify emergi ng trends and establish\nintelligence indicators in order to continuously adapt targeting efforts to the areas of highest threat. The\nNTC has the ability to issue no-board messages to carriers prior to their departure for Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 7.5 (Providing passenger information before arrival in Canada) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-7-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Providing passenger information after arrival in Canada", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6 Providing passenger information after arrival in Canada\nSection R264 requires a transporter to provide without delay the following when requested by an officer,\nprovided the request is made within 72 hours after the presentation for examination of the person in\nCanada:\n• a copy of any ticket issued to a person;\n• the person’s itinerary, including the place of embarkation and dates of travel; and\n• information about the number and type of passport or travel or identity document used by the\npassenger.\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 12", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 7.6 (Providing passenger information after arrival in Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-7-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Obligation to provide facilities", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7 Obligation to provide facilities\nParagraph A148(1)(e) and section R271 require a transporter to provide, equip and maintain facilities for\nthe holding and examination of persons at POEs. Section R271 clarifies that this applies to commercial\ntransporters and transporters who operate airports, international bridges or tunnels. Section R272 further\nclarifies that a commercial transporter carrying persons to Canada aboard a vessel must provide facilities\nfor examination aboard the vessel.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 7.7 (Obligation to provide facilities)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Reporting arrivals", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 Reporting arrivals\n8.1.1 GCMS entries\nBorder services officers at airports, land borders and marine POEs should complete a GCMS entry for a\nforeign national who is improperly documented or inadmissible for any other reason. Officers should\nensure that the Transporter Violation field is completed when an “Examination” is created. In addition,\nofficers should include remarks to provide further details pertaining to the arrival and, in marine cases, to\nthe security deposit. In an airport case, officers should add remarks to show the exact name of the airline,\nthe inbound flight number, the last port of embarkation, the exact date of arrival and how the airline was\nidentified (airline ticket, boarding pass, disembarkation screening, etc.). For a marine case, officers\nshould add remarks to show the exact name of the ship, the exact date of arrival, the date of desertion, if\napplicable, the amount deposited as case-specific security, the exact name of the depositor and the date\nand 6-digit serial number of the official receipt issued to the depositor. For a land-border case, officers\nshould add remarks showing the name of the land carrier and the exact date of arrival.\n8.1.2 Support System for Intelligence entries (SSI)\nBorder service officers must write an SSI report for each arrival of an improperly documented foreign\nnational. The SSI report should be completed within 48 hours of the foreign national’s arrival, and border\nservice officers must ensure that the Transporter Violation field has been checked off.\nNote: Border service officers must also write an SSI report for every foreign national who makes a\nrefugee claim at an airport POE, regardless of whether they are properly documented or not.\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 13\nThe reporting of an improperly documented arrival is very important. Failure to complete an SSI report\ncould result in the CBSA not being able to collect administration fees or removal costs from the liable\ntransporter.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 8.1 (Reporting arrivals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Advising transporters of the arrival of an improperly documented", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 Advising transporters of the arrival of an improperly documented\nforeign national\nThe BSF502 form has two purposes:\n• to notify a transporter that an improperly documented foreign national has arrived; and\n• to notify a transporter that it is or may be required to carry the foreign national from Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 8.2 (Advising transporters of the arrival of an improperly documented)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Evidence establishing transporter liability", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3 Evidence establishing transporter liability\nThe following documents should be kept on case files as evidence that a transporter has brought an\ninadmissible foreign national to Canada:\n• tickets;\n• the passenger manifest;\n• boarding passes;\n• baggage tags, duty free bags or paper napkins with the transporter logo;\n• the passenger's customs declaration (E311 form);\n• a print-out of the passenger's travel itinerary;\n• a disembarkation screening report (DART); and\n• the BSF453 form signed by a representative of the transporter on which the transporter has\nconfirmed the information regarding the passengers carried. If the representative refuses to\nsign the BSF453 form, the border services officer should annotate the form accordingly,\nindicating the name of the airline representative who refused to sign.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 8.3 (Evidence establishing transporter liability)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "Assessment", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1 Assessment\nSubsection R279(1) provides that an administration fee must be assessed against a commercial\ntransporter in respect of any foreign national it carried to Canada\n who is inadmissible for failing to be in possession of the documents required for entry;\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 14\n who is prescribed under section R258.1 or whom the transporter has been directed not to carry\nto Canada;\n who is exempt from the requirement to hold a passport or travel document, but who does not\nhave sufficient evidence of their identity;\n who failed to appear for an examination on arrival in Canada;\n who entered as or to become a member of a crew, and who is inadmissible; or\n who is the subject of a removal order or is allowed under section R42 to withdraw their\napplication to enter Canada, and who fails to leave immediately.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 9.1 (Assessment)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Exceptions", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2 Exceptions\nSubsection R279(2) provides that administration fees are waived in respect of\n• a person referred to in section R39;\n• a foreign national who is prescribed under section R258.1 and in respect of whom notice under\nsection R270 was not given to the transporter before carriage to Canada, and who holds the\nprescribed documents under section R259;\n• a foreign national who does not hold an eTA when one is required under section R7.1 and in\nrespect of whom the CBSA was unable to give notice under section R270 before the foreign\nnational was carried to Canada, but who holds one of the required prescribed do cuments set\nout in paragraphs R259(a) to (f); or\n• a foreign national other than a foreign national referred to in paragraph R190(3)(c) who seeks\nto enter Canada to obtain permanent residence and is inadmissible under paragraph A41(a) for\nfailing to obtain a permanent resident visa, as required under section R6, but who is exempt\nunder Division 1 of Part 2 from the requirement to obtain an eTA, required under section R7.1\nor exempt under Division 5 of Part 9 from the requirement to obtain a temporary resident visa.\nAdministration fees are assessed by the Transporter Obligations Program, NHQ, on the basis of SSI\nreports transmitted to NHQ from POEs or inland offices.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 9.2 (Exceptions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-9-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "How administration fees are imposed", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3 How administration fees are imposed\nBorder services officers are responsible for reporting in the SSI that an improperly documented person\nhas arrived. The information contained in the SSI report is used by the Transporter Obligations Program\nin NHQ to determine if an administration fee should be assessed and, if so, to send a Notice of\nAssessment to the transporter. Transporters may contest the assessment by filing a written submission\nwithin 30 days.\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 15", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 9.3 (How administration fees are imposed)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Airline Memorandum of Understanding Program [R280]", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4 Airline Memorandum of Understanding Program [R280]\nSubsection R280(1) provides that the administration fee is $3,200, unless a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU) is in effect between the CBSA and the transporter, in which case, fees are\nassessed at the rates prescribed in subsection R280(2). Administration fees represent a portion of the\naverage costs incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada in respect to the examination, detention and\nprocessing of inadmissible foreign nationals carried by a transporter.\nSubsection R280(2) provides that an MOU between a transporter and the CBSA may include reductions\nin the amount of administration fees as an incentive for transporters to reduce the number of improperly\ndocumented persons arriving in Canada. The MOU Program is only applicable to commercial air carriers.\nThose air carriers committed to effective document screening and security procedures may bene fit from\nreduced administration fees. Fees are automatically reduced by 25 percent to $2,400 upon signing and\ncomplying with an MOU. Reductions of 50 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent can be granted,\ndepending on the level of interdiction success as measured against the assigned performance standards.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 9.4 (Airline Memorandum of Understanding Program [R280])", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "Detention costs", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10 Detention costs\nTransporters have no direct liability for detention costs. The administration fees paid by transporters are\nintended to offset a portion of the Agency’s overall average detention costs. Un der paragraph R278(a),\nhowever, expenses with respect to the foreign national’s accommodation are removal costs payable by a\ntransporter. If a transporter notifies an officer of their intention to make travel arrangements but fails to\ncarry the foreign national within 48 hours or within whatever longer period was agreed upon by an officer,\nany accommodation costs incurred as a result of the transporter’s delay should be reported to the\nTransporter Obligations Program along with all other removal costs. See sections 11.4 and 11.5.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 10 (Detention costs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Liability to carry foreign nationals from Canada", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11 Liability to carry foreign nationals from Canada\nParagraph A148(1)(f) requires transporters to carry from Canada any inadmissible foreign nationals they\ntransported to Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 11 (Liability to carry foreign nationals from Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-11-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "When there is no removal order in place", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1 When there is no removal order in place\nTransportation companies have the obligation to carry from Canada foreign nationals who are\n• directed to leave pursuant to subsection R40(1);\n• directed back to the United States pursuant to section R41; or\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 16\n• allowed to withdraw their application to enter Canada pursuant to section R42.\nPart B1 of the BSF502 form should be used to notify the transporter of the requirement to carry a foreign\nnational from Canada.\nIn the above situations, the expectation is that the foreign national will leave Canada without delay. If the\ntransporter is unable or unwilling to remove or arrange for the immediate transport of the foreign national\nfrom Canada, the border services officer may consider authorizing the person to enter, pursuant to\nsection A23, or writing a subsection A44(1) report and making a removal order, in which case procedures\nin section 11.2 can be applied.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 11.1 (When there is no removal order in place)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-11-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "When there is a removal order", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2 When there is a removal order\nTransporters have the obligation to carry from Canada foreign nationals who are subject to an\nenforceable removal order, providing their own escorts if escorts are required. If they fail to do so, they\nmust pay all removal costs incurred by the CBSA.\n11.2.1 Notification to transporters of the requirement to carry a person\nfrom Canada\nSection R276 requires an officer to notify a transporter of the transporter’s obligation to carry a foreign\nnational from Canada. There are two types of notification required:\n1. A preliminary notification that the transporter may be required to carry a person from Canada\n[R276(1)(a)]. Part A of the BSF502 form, completed by an officer, is designed for this\npurpose.\nWhen a transporter brings an inadmissible foreign national to Canada who is made subject to a removal\norder that is not yet enforceable, the officer must inform the transporter that it is or may be r equired to\ncarry the person from Canada. This is done in the case of refugee claimants or where there is a stay, and\na removal order cannot immediately be enforced.\n2. A notification of the requirement to carry a foreign national [R276(1)(b)]. Part B of the BSF502\nform, completed by an officer, is designed for this purpose.\nWhen a removal order becomes enforceable, an officer must inform the transporter that it must carry the\nforeign national from Canada and advise whether escorts are required by means of completing the\nBSF502 form. The following information should also be provided to the air carrier:\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 17\n• client ID;\n• Notice to Transporter form [BSF502];\n• cost of the removal order;\n• copy of the deferral of examination, if applicable;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 11.2 (When there is a removal order) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-11-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "When there is a removal order", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "• copy of the passport, emergency travel document, residence card and any transit visa(s);\n• original or photocopy of the airline ticket and itinerary;\n• airline security approval;\n• notice of removal;\n• notice of seizure;\n• copy of airline booking reference numbers, if applicable;\n• criminal record information;\n• any medical concerns;\n• whether the deportee is willing to leave voluntarily and if any escorts are recommended;\n• whether the deportee is willing to purchase their own ticket;\n• if visas are required for transport purposes;\n• written confirmation that the country(ies) the deportee is transiting through and other airline(s)\nwill accept the deportee (partner agency information is not to be divulged);\n• escort officer information; and\n• preferred routing and dates, dependent on when transit and airline authorizations and\napprovals, visas or travel documents are received.\nFor more information, refer to chapter ENF 10, sections 25 and 30.\nThere is no time limitation with respect to a transporter’s liability to carry an inadmissible foreign national\nfrom Canada. Liability continues until a removal order becomes enforceable, regardless of when the\ntransporter brought the foreign national to Canada.\n11.2.2 Requirement for the transporter to make removal arrangements\nSubsection R276(2) requires a transporter, when notified of the requirement to carry a foreign national\nfrom Canada, to advise an officer without delay of the arrangements the transporter makes to carry the\nforeign national from Canada or to notify an officer that they are unable to make such arrangements.\nThe transporter must carry the person from Canada within 48 hours of advising an officer of the\narrangements made or within any longer period of time agreed upon by the officer. Subsection R273(2)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 11.2 (When there is a removal order) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-11-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "When there is a removal order", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "provides that transporters must transport the foreign national who is subject to an enforceable removal\norder from wherever the foreign national is situated in Canada to the vehicle in which they will be carried\nfrom Canada.\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 18\nNote: Pursuant to section 5.10 of Annex 9 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago\nConvention), an airline that is required to carry a foreign national from Canada “shall not be precluded\nfrom recovering from such person any transportation costs involved in his removal”. Nevertheless, the\nairline’s obligation under sections R273 and R276 to carry the inadmissible foreign national from Canada\nand to adhere to the stipulated time frames takes precedence over section 5.10. The CBSA should never\nallow the airline to postpone carrying the foreign national from Canada while it attempts to determine\nwhether the passenger is willing or able to reimburse any of the costs. If the airline wishes to attempt to\nrecover costs, it must pursue the matter after the person has been removed.\n11.2.3 Removal arranged by an officer\nIn cases when a removal order against a foreign national is enforceable, section R276 stipulates that an\nofficer shall make removal arrangements under the following circumstances:\n• the transporter fails to advise an officer without delay of the transporter’s arrangements after\nhaving been notified of the requirement to carry the foreign national;\n• the transporter fails to carry the foreign national from Canada within 48 hours of having advised\nan officer of the transporter’s arrangements or within any longer period of time agreed upon by\nthe officer; and\n• the officer finds the arrangements proposed by the transporter to be unacceptable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 11.2 (When there is a removal order) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-11-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "When there is a removal order", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Most shipping companies will be unwilling or unable to arrange for inadmissible foreign nationals to be\ncarried from Canada, particularly because they will have already deposited security to cover removal\ncosts. They may, therefore, not wish to be notified each time a foreign national they brought to Canada is\nready to be removed. If this is the case, they should advise the CBSA of this in writing, after which officers\nwill no longer be required to provide them with notification each time a removal order becomes\nenforceable. Officers should ensure a copy of the written instructions from the transporter is placed on the\nsubject’s file.\n11.2.4 Requirements for acceptance of arrangements\nThe travel arrangements made by a transporter to carry and escort a foreign national from Canada must\nbe acceptable to an officer. Section R276 provides that the arrangements a transporter makes to carry a\nforeign national from Canada must meet the following criteria:\n• the itinerary must begin where the foreign national is situated in Canada and end in the country\nand city to which the foreign national is to be removed, following the most direct routing\npossible;\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 19\n• the itinerary must not include a country through which transit has not been approved; and\n• the period of time between any connections does not exceed 12 hours.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 11.2 (When there is a removal order) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-11-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 11.3", + "marginal_note": "Relief from obligations", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.3 Relief from obligations\nSection R277 provides that a transporter is relieved of their obligation to carry from Canada any foreign\nnational who was authorized to enter and remain in Canada on a temporary basis or held a temporary\nresident or permanent resident visa at the time of their examination. A transporter is always required to\ncarry from Canada a member of their crew or a foreign national who entered Canada to become a\nmember of their crew.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 11.3 (Relief from obligations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-11-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Liability for removal costs", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.4 Liability for removal costs\nA transporter who is required to carry from Canada a foreign national they brought to Canada is also\nliable to reimburse all costs of removal and, if applicable, attempted removal incurred by the CBSA in\nrespect of that person. Section R278 describes the various types of removal costs for which a transporter\nmay be liable as\n• expenses incurred within or outside Canada with respect to the foreign national’s\naccommodation and transport;\n• accommodation and travel expenses incurred by any escorts;\n• fees paid in obtaining documents for the foreign national and any escorts;\n• the cost of meals, incidentals and other related expenses;\n• regular and overtime wages paid to escorts and other personnel accompanying the foreign\nnational; and\n• costs or expenses for interpreters, medical or other personnel assisting with the removal.\nNote: Refer to chapter ENF 17 for marine transporters’ liability for removal costs.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 11.4 (Liability for removal costs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-11-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 11.5", + "marginal_note": "Reporting of removal costs to the Transporter Obligations", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.5 Reporting of removal costs to the Transporter Obligations\nProgram\nThe recovery of removal costs for which transporters are liable falls under the responsibility of the\nTransporter Obligations Program, Programs Branch.\nIn order to ensure that removal costs are recovered from the liable transporter, CBSA officers should\ncomplete the BSF501 form and\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 20\n• email the completed BSF501 form and a copy of the e-ticket of the person removed and\nescorts (if applicable) to the Transporter Obligations Program; or\n• mail the completed BSF501 form to the Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach Unit,\nTransporter Obligations Program, CBSA.\nThe Transporter Obligations Program reviews each form and, after obtaining any missing information or\nmaking any necessary corrections, assesses the removal costs. An itemized invoice is sent by the\nTransporter Obligations Program to the carrier via email. If the carrier is no longer in operat ion, the\nTransporter Obligations Program will deduct the removal costs from the airline security that has been\ndeposited with the CBSA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 11.5 (Reporting of removal costs to the Transporter Obligations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 12", + "marginal_note": "Medical examination and treatment", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12 Medical examination and treatment\nPursuant to paragraph A148(1)(g), a transportation company must pay all prescribed costs and fees\nrelating to its obligation, and under paragraph A148(1)(c), it must arrange for the medical examination,\nobservation and treatment of a person it carries to Canada. As per subsection R263(3), a commercial\ntransporter must arrange for the medical examination of a foreign national who is required to submit to\none under paragraph A16(2)(b) and for any medical examination, surveillance or treatment that is\nimposed under section R32.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 12 (Medical examination and treatment)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Exceptions", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1 Exceptions\nSubsection R263(1) does not apply if the foreign national\n holds a temporary or permanent resident visa at the time of their examination, and the foreign\nnational’s health condition is not a result of the commercial transporter’s negligence; or\n has been authorized to enter Canada and is not a member of the crew.\nNote: The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) provides health-care coverage to eligible beneficiaries,\nincluding basic, supplemental and prescription drug coverage. Foreign nationals who arrive and require\nimmediate medical attention should only be issued coverage if they qualify under one of the IFHP eligible\ngroups (e.g., refugee claimant, ineligible refugee claimant but eligible to apply for a pre -removal risk\nassessment [PRRA], detainee)\nFull IFHP details, including determining eligibility and issuing coverage in GCMS, can be found in\nchapter IR 10.\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 21", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 12.1 (Exceptions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Duration", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2 Duration\nThe transporter’s liability continues as long as\n• the foreign national requires medical treatment and has not been authorized to enter Canada\nas a temporary or permanent resident; or\n• the transporter’s crew member remains in Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 12.2 (Duration)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "Billing of medical costs to transporters", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3 Billing of medical costs to transporters\nWhen a transportation company is liable for the medical costs of a foreign national, the CBSA should\nprovide the medical service provider with the name and contact details of the transportation company to\nwhich invoices should be directed. The wording suggested hereafter may be adapted for use in such\ncases:\nTo: (Name of medical service provider)\nFrom: (Name and address of CBSA official)\nRe: (Name of patient)\nThe above-noted person is not eligible for coverage under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP).\nPursuant to paragraph 148(1)(g) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and section 263 of the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the transporter is liable to pay medical costs. Therefore,\nif the patient is uninsured and is unable to pay for health care services, medical costs should be billed to\nthe transportation company that brought this person to Canada, whose name and contact detail s are\nshown below. Invoices sent to the IFHP or to the Canada Border Services Agency in respect of this\npatient will not be paid.\ncc (Name of transportation company)\nQuestions regarding the billing of medical costs to transportation companies can be direct ed to the\nTransporter Obligations Program, NHQ.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 12.3 (Billing of medical costs to transporters)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Security deposits", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13 Security deposits\nParagraph A148(1)(h) gives broad authority to require security from transporters to ensure compliance\nwith their obligations. Section R283 provides that the Minister may require commercial transporters to\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 22\nprovide security. The security may relate to a specific inadmissible foreign national or be general security\nfrom which administration fees and removal costs for which the commercial transporter is liable may be\ndeducted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 13 (Security deposits)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-13-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "Case-specific security deposits (marine mode)", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1 Case-specific security deposits (marine mode)\nShip owners, operators and their agents in Canada may be required to deposit security in respect of\ninadmissible foreign nationals who arrive in Canada aboard vessels as stowaways, crew members or\npassengers. The authority to direct transporters to deposit case-specific security in the marine mode is\ndelegated to border services officers. The cash amount required in each case is currently set by NHQ at\n$25,000 per person. This amount is intended to cover the administration fee of $3,200 and the estimated\naverage costs of a removal under escort. Officers may, with the approval of the Manager of the\nTransporter Obligations Program, direct transporters to deposit larger or smaller amounts where\nwarranted. For example, the amount of security requested for a stowaway from Africa may be greater\nthan the amount for a stowaway from Europe, given the significantly higher costs of removals to Africa.\nDirections for cash security deposits should be in writing, using the Direction to D eposit Security standard\nletter format (see Appendix A), which is adaptable, as required. When security is received, the official\nreceipt form BSF577 must be completed for each foreign national and the original given to the\ntransporter, with copies distributed as indicated.\nAdministration fees and any removal costs for which the transporter becomes liable in respect of the\nforeign national are automatically deducted from security. Case-specific security is retained by the CBSA\nuntil all enforcement action against the inadmissible foreign national has been finalized and until all\namounts for which the transporter is liable have been paid.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 13.1 (Case-specific security deposits (marine mode))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-13-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "General security deposits (air mode)", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.2 General security deposits (air mode)\nMost airlines engaged in the international transportation of passengers to and f rom Canada are required\nto deposit general security in the form of cash. The authority for requiring transporters to deposit general\nsecurity is delegated to the Manager, Transporter Obligations Program, NHQ.\nThe general security deposit is a prerequisite for any MOU between a transporter and the CBSA. Only\ntransporters that have entered into an MOU with the CBSA are eligible to deposit general security in a\nform other than cash.\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 23\nThe amount of general security is determined in accordance with subsection R283(2) based on the\ntransporter’s compliance with the Act and the anticipated risk of inadmissible foreign nationals being\ncarried to Canada.\nGeneral security is not returned to a transporter that ceases to operate in Canada until enforcement\naction against all inadmissible foreign nationals previously brought to Canada by that transporter has\nbeen completed and until all amounts for which the transporter is liable have been paid.\nIn the event of unscheduled aircraft landings in Canada for the purpose of dise mbarking passengers who\nare ill or who were a threat to flight security, officers should seek guidance from the Manager, Transporter\nObligations Program, to determine if a security deposit is warranted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 13.2 (General security deposits (air mode))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-13-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "Security deposits (land mode)", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.3 Security deposits (land mode)\nThe operators of trains, buses, ferries, taxis and other cross-border passenger transportation companies\nthat operate at the land border could be required to deposit security in respect of any inadmissible foreign\nnational they bring to Canada.\nOfficers should consult with the Manager, Transporter Obligations Program, whenever they believe that\ncase-specific security may be warranted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 13.3 (Security deposits (land mode))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 14", + "marginal_note": "Ensuring transporter compliance", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14 Ensuring transporter compliance\nSubsection A148(2) provides the authority to detain, seize or forfeit a vehicle or other prescribed good of\na transporter that fails to comply with an obligation under the IRPA (e.g., to deposit security or failure to\npay fees or costs for which the transporter is liable).\nThe enforcement measures that may be taken against a transporter are\n• detention, seizure or forfeiture of a vehicle or other prescribed good under subsection A148(2);\n• registry of a certificate in the Federal Court under section A146.\nNote: The authority to detain or seize vehicles has been delegated to the regions for reasons of\noperational expediency. However, the Director General, Traveller Programs Directorate, NHQ, should be\ninformed prior to seizing or detaining any commercial aircraft pursuant to subsection A148(2).\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 24", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 14 (Ensuring transporter compliance)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-14-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 14.1", + "marginal_note": "Detention of a vehicle or prescribed good", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.1 Detention of a vehicle or prescribed good\nUnder subsection A148(2), the detention of a vehicle is an enforcement option when a vehicle or\nprescribed good is physically located in Canada and is still being operated by the transporter.\nSection R284 clarifies that a prescribed good is any good that is not land, a building or a transportation\nfacility.\nDelegated authority to detain a vehicle is identified in the document entitled Delegations and Designations\nunder the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety. See previous note.\nNote: The detention of a vehicle involves the use of the Notice of Detention or Seizure of Vehicle or\nPrescribed Good form [BSF775]. The Manager, Transporter Obligations Program, NHQ, may request\nregions to detain vehicles in order to obtain payment of overdue administration fees and removal co sts.\nThe vehicle is detained as soon as an officer delivers a signed BSF775 form to the master or any other\nperson in charge of the vehicle. The delivery of the notice triggers the detention. As soon as the notice of\ndetention has been delivered, the officer should transmit copies to the following local authorities, as\napplicable, to ensure that the vehicle will be prohibited from leaving:\n• Canadian Coast Guard Vessel Traffic;\n• local vessel pilotage authority; and\n• airport control tower.\nThe vehicle must be released as soon as the transporter remits the sum of money required or complies\nwith their obligation. When the vehicle is released, the above-mentioned authorities must be immediately\nnotified.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 14.1 (Detention of a vehicle or prescribed good)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-14-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 14.2", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of a vehicle or prescribed good", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.2 Seizure of a vehicle or prescribed good\nAlthough a vehicle may be seized without it first being detained, seizure should be used as a last resort. A\nvehicle that is detained remains in the possession of the transporter. By seizing a vehicle, however, the\nCBSA takes possession of the vehicle and thereby becomes liable for the costs of handling, maintaining\nand disposing of it.\nThe delegated authority to seize a vehicle under subsection A148(2) is identified in the document entitled\nDelegations and Designations under the responsibility of the Minister of Public Saf ety. See previous note\nin section 14.\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 25\nSubsection R286(1) provides that, following a seizure, the Minister shall make reasonable efforts to give\nnotice of the seizure to the lawful owner.\nThe seizure of a vehicle involves the use of the Notice of Detention or Seizure of Vehicle or Prescribed\nGood form [BSF775]. The vehicle is seized as soon as an officer delivers a signed BSF775 form to the\nmaster or any other person in charge of the vehicle. As soon as the notice of seizure has been delivered,\nthe officer should transmit copies of the notice to the local authorities, as applicable.\nThe officer should transmit a copy of the BSF775 form to the harbour master (for a ship) or the control\ntower (for an aircraft), giving specific details, such as the vehicle identification (ship's name and registry,\nor flight number or type of aircraft and registration number), the name of the transporter and the authority\nfor seizing. This notification is necessary so that the harbour master or control tower can deny the vehicle\npermission to leave port or take off.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 14.2 (Seizure of a vehicle or prescribed good)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-14-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 14.3", + "marginal_note": "Disposition of seized vehicle or prescribed good", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.3 Disposition of seized vehicle or prescribed good\nSubsection R286(2) provides that a vehicle or good seized under subsection A148(2) can be sold and the\namount payable by the transporter deducted from the proceeds of the sale, unless the transporter\nsecures the object’s release by providing\n• an amount equal to the value of the object at the time of seizure and any expenses incurred in\nthe seizure or detention;\n• the security required under the Act or any costs and fees for which the transporter is liable,\nincluding the expenses incurred in seizing and detaining the object; or\n• evidence that the transporter is in compliance with their obligations and has reimbursed the\ngovernment for any expenses incurred in the seizure or detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 14.3 (Disposition of seized vehicle or prescribed good)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-14-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 14.4", + "marginal_note": "Storage and security of a seized vehicle or good", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.4 Storage and security of a seized vehicle or good\nWhen a vehicle or good is seized, the CBSA should consult the transporter to the greatest extent possible\nto ensure that the vehicle is handled properly. A manager directing the seizure of t he vehicle or good\nshould commission an insurance appraisal to establish the value and condition at the beginning of the\nseizure period. Officers should ensure that the CBSA is responsible for ensuring procedures are in place\nto protect the seized objects. These procedures often involve\n• arranging to have a vehicle towed to another location;\n• hiring a temporary crew to move the object;\n• ensuring the security of the object by contracting a security firm;\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 26\n• safeguarding the vehicle's log books;\n• taking preventive steps, if necessary, to protect the object from damage in cold weather.\nFor further information on seizures, see chapter ENF 12, which deals with seizures under section A140\nand also includes information concerning the disposition and disposal of seized goods that is applicable\nto seizures under subsection A148(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 14.4 (Storage and security of a seized vehicle or good)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-14-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 14.5", + "marginal_note": "Registry of a certification in the Federal Court", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.5 Registry of a certification in the Federal Court\nIf the transporter does not have vehicles or goods in Canada that may be detained or seized, the amount\npayable by the transporter may be collected by registering a certificate in the Federal Court pursuant to\nsection A146.\nThe authority to certify before the Court that an amount payable by a transporter has not been paid is\ndelegated to the Comptrollership Branch, NHQ.\nOnce registered, the certificate has the same effect as if it were a Federal Court judgment. This means\nthat the Agency may issue what is known as a writ of fieri facias to a sheriff, who can then execute the\njudgment against assets of the company for the amount payable. In practice, this usually involves the\nseizure of the amount payable from the transporter’s bank account.\nThe transporter is liable for the costs of registering a certificate.\nWhere a vehicle cannot be detained to enforce a direction for the deposit of security, regional officers\nhave the option of reporting the transporter’s non-compliance to the Transporter Obligations Program in\norder for the amount payable to be registered.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 14.5 (Registry of a certification in the Federal Court)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-15-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-15", + "act_short": "ENF 15", + "act_name": "ENF 15 — Obligations of transporters", + "section": "ENF 15 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Transporter Obligations Program contact information", + "part": "Obligations of transporters", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15 Transporter Obligations Program contact information\nThe Transporter Obligations Program, Programs Branch, NHQ, can be contacted by\n• e-mail; or\n• mail at the Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach Unit, Transporter Obligations Program,\nPrograms Branch, CBSA.\nENF 15 Obligations of transporters\n2016-11-09 27\nAppendix A Direction to deposit security\n[Name of shipping agent]\n[Mailing address]\n[City, Province]\n[Postal code]\n[Date]\nRE: [Name of ship]\nTo whom it may concern:\nPursuant to paragraph 148(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, [name of shipping agent]\nis hereby directed to deposit with Her Majesty in right of Canada the sum of $25,000 in Canadian\ncurrency. The security should be in the form of a cheque or money order payable to the Receiver General\nfor Canada. This direction is issued as a result of the conveyance to Canada of [name(s) of person(s)\nconcerned] as [(a) stowaway(s)/(a) crew member(s)].\nCompliance with this direction is a statutory requirement. Non-compliance may result in the detention of\nany vessel fully or partly owned by the company concerned, pursuant to subsection 148(2) of the Act.\nThe security deposit may be submitted to the undersigned or to any other departmental official by\narrangement with the undersigned.\nYours truly,\n[Signature of officer]\n[Name of officer]\n[Title]\n[Telephone number]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-11-09", + "current_to": "2016-11-09", + "citation": "ENF 15, s. 15 (Transporter Obligations Program contact information)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf15-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedures when a crew member reports to an inland office or comes to the attention of an", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2. Procedures when a crew member reports to an inland office or comes to the attention of an\ninvestigator .............................................................................................................................................. 11\n8.3. Collecting security deposits .......................................................................................................... 12\n8.4. Detaining or seizing vessels when shipping companies fail to deposit security........................... 12\n8.5. Crew members other than deserters who cease to perform their duties ..................................... 12\n8.6. Discharged crew members ........................................................................................................... 13", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.2 (Procedures when a crew member reports to an inland office or comes to the attention of an)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.7", + "marginal_note": "Examinations at airports and land borders of persons seeking entry to join vessels as crew", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.7. Examinations at airports and land borders of persons seeking entry to join vessels as crew\nmembers .................................................................................................................................................. 13\n8.8. Ship-joining letters ........................................................................................................................ 13\n8.9. Using port stamps ......................................................................................................................... 14\n8.10. Temporary resident records ...................................................................................................... 14\n9. Procedure: Passengers arriving at a maritime POE ............................................................................ 14\n9.1. Requirement to appear for examination ....................................................................................... 14\n9.2. Place of examination .................................................................................................................... 14\n9.3. Referring passengers for secondary immigration examinations .................................................. 15\n9.4. Examining stowaways on board vessels ...................................................................................... 15\n9.5. When to allow for repatriation by air ............................................................................................. 16\n9.6. FOSS entries ................................................................................................................................ 16\n9.7. Use of Association of Characteristics (AOC) code for stowaways ............................................... 16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.7 (Examinations at airports and land borders of persons seeking entry to join vessels as crew) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.7", + "marginal_note": "Examinations at airports and land borders of persons seeking entry to join vessels as crew", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.8. Inland interviews with persons claiming to have been stowaways ............................................... 16\n10. Procedure: SSI reports ..................................................................................................................... 17\n11. Procedure: Collecting security deposits for payment of administration fees and other expenses ... 18\n12. Procedure: Liability for removal ........................................................................................................ 19\n2011-02-11 2\n12.1. Initial notice of liability ............................................................................................................... 19\n12.2. Failure to comply with acceptable removal arrangements ....................................................... 19\n12.3. Liability for removal costs .......................................................................................................... 19\n12.4. Breakdown of costs to be reported ........................................................................................... 19\n12.5. Means of reporting costs ........................................................................................................... 20\n2011-02-11 3\nUpdates to Chapter\nDates: 2011-02-11\n• Section 5.11, reference to customs and immigration was replaced by CBSA Officer/office;\n• Section 7.7, reference to customs was replaced by CBSA;\n• Section 8.1, FOSS code 398 was replaced by FOSS code 184;\n• Section 8.7, reference to customs was replaced by CBSA;\n• Section 9.1, reference to customs was replaced by CBSA;\n• Section 9.2, reference to customs and immigration was replaced by CBSA; and\n• Section 9.3, reference to customs was replaced by CBSA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.7 (Examinations at airports and land borders of persons seeking entry to join vessels as crew) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. What this chapter is about\nThis chapter provides guidance about examination and enforcement procedures at maritime ports\nof entry with respect to crew members, stowaways and other persons arriving in Canada aboard\nvessels. It will also assist officers at airports and land borders in examining persons seeking\nentry for the purpose of joining vessels as crew members as well as inland officers who encounter\npersons claiming to have arrived in Canada as or to become members of a crew. Finally, it\nsummarizes the obligations and financial liabilities of shipping companies with respect to\nadministration fees, removal and medical costs.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Program objectives\nThe objectives of maritime immigration procedures are the control of persons entering at maritime\nports of entry and the enforcement of the Act and Regulations with respect to the obligations and\nliabilities of transportation companies.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. The Act and Regulations\nProvision Reference in\nLegislation\nContravention of Act A124(1)(a)\nObligation of operators of vehicles and facilities A148(1)(b) and (f)\nSeizure of security for compliance A148(2)\nEntry to complete further examination or hearing A23\nNon-compliance with Act A41\nPreparation of report A44(1)\nConditions imposed on foreign nationals who enter as members of a\ncrew\nR184(1)\nConditions imposed on foreign nationals who enter to become members\nof a crew\nR184(2)\nObligation to hold a person R261(1)\nStoaway notification R262\nAmended crew list R265(2)\nAssembly R266\nReporting obligation R268\nNotifying transporters R276(1)(a) and (b)\nNotifying an officer R276(2)\n2011-02-11 4\nTime period R276(3)\nNon-compliance R276(4)\nCriteria for non-acceptance of arrangements R276(5)\nRemoval costs R278\nAssessment of administration fee R279(1)\nExceptions R279(2)\nObject detained or seized R285\nEnd of examination R37\nCeasing to be a member of a crew R3(1)(b)\nWithdrawing application R42", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1. Forms\nThe forms required are shown in the following table.\nForm title Form number\nOfficial Receipt - Cash Security Deposit by a Transporter Company IMM0410B\nWarrant for Arrest IMM0420B\nCosts Payable by Transporters IMM0459B\nNotice of Rights Conferred by the Vienna Convention and to be\nRepresented by Counsel at an Admissibility hearing\nIMM0689B\nVisitor Record IMM1097B\nDeclaration IMM1392B\nNotice of Detention or Seizure of Vehicle or Prescribed Good IMM5266B\nExtra duty and shiftwork authorization PER0007", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 3.1 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.1", + "marginal_note": "Document exemptions for crew members", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.1. Document exemptions for crew members\nPersons coming to Canada as members of a ship's crew, or to become members of a crew, are\nseeking entry as temporary residents to engage in employment. IRPR exemptions have been\ncreated to facilitate the entry of crew members and to provide control of improperly documented\npassengers who pose as seafarers and are victims of abuse by people smugglers. These\nexemptions are listed below.\nType of exemption Description\nExemption from temporary\nresident visa requirement\nUnder R190(3.1) “A foreign national who is a member of a crew\nand who is carried to Canada by a vessel does not require a\ntemporary resident visa if they are seeking\n(a) to enter Canada as a member of the crew of the vessel; and\n(b) to remain in Canada solely as a member of the crew of that\nvessel or any other vessel.”\nNote: All foreign nationals who arrive as passengers by air or\nland seeking entry to join a vessel as crew members are not\nexempt from temporary resident visa requirements. The visa\nexemption applies only to crew members who arrive as crew\n2011-02-11 5\nmembers on board the vessel on which they are employed. The\ntemporary resident visa must be located in the passport of the\nforeign national as opposed to the seafarers document.\nExemption from passport\nrequirement\nUnder R52(2)(g) “persons seeking to enter Canada as members\nof a crew who hold a seafarer’s identity document issued under\nInternational Labour Organization conventions and are members\nof the crew of the vessel that carries them to Canada” do not\nrequire a passport.”\nNote: Foreign nationals seeking to enter Canada to join a vessel\nrequire a passport or travel document as per R52(1). The\npassport exemption applies only to foreign nationals entering\nCanada as a crew member who pos", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.1 (Document exemptions for crew members) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.1", + "marginal_note": "Document exemptions for crew members", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "sess a seafarer’s document.\nMany crew members of cruise ships, for example, require\npassports because they do not have seafarer’s identity\ndocuments.\nExemption from work permit\nrequirement\nR186(s) permits foreign nationals to work as crew members of\nships in Canada without work permit provided that the ship on\nwhich they are or will be employed is of foreign registry and is\nengaged in international transportation.\nCrew members may not, however, perform dockside functions\nsuch as the loading or unloading of cargo, without HRSDC\nconfirmation and a work permit.\nForeign nationals working as crew members aboard any ship of\nCanadian registry (e.g., fishing vessel, research vessel, pleasure\nyacht) or on foreign-registered vessels engaged in the coasting\ntrade require HRSDC confirmations and work permits.\nNote: The coasting trade is the carriage of goods or passengers by ship from one place in Canada,\neither directly or indirectly through a foreign port, to any other place in Canada. It includes marine\nactivity of a commercial nature by a ship in Canada, for example tour boats. Foreign ship owners\nwishing to engage in this activity require coasting-trade licences issued by Canada Border Services\nAgency in cooperation with the Canadian Transportation Agency.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.1 (Document exemptions for crew members) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.2", + "marginal_note": "Crew members on ships of Canadian registry", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.2. Crew members on ships of Canadian registry\nCrew members aboard ships of Canadian registry are not required to appear for examination\nbefore an officer at a maritime POE, provided that they are Canadian citizens. Pursuant to the\nRegulations, the master of a ship of Canadian registry need not present a crew list unless\nspecifically requested to do so.\nThe master must notify an officer of the arrival of crew members who are not Canadian citizens\nand permanent residents. Such persons should be examined normally. They require work permits\nand HRSDC validations. If a Canadian registered vessel is converted to foreign registry while in\nCanada and subsequently leaves Canada, a crew list is not required before its departure.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.2 (Crew members on ships of Canadian registry)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.3", + "marginal_note": "Notification concerning crew members", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.3. Notification concerning crew members\nR268 requires a transporter to notify an officer without delay when a person granted entry as or to\nbecome a crew member fails to become or ceases to be a crew member.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.3 (Notification concerning crew members)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.4", + "marginal_note": "Medical expenses", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.4. Medical expenses\nR263(1) provides that transporters are liable for the medical and hospital costs incurred with\nrespect to their crew members.\n2011-02-11 6", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.4 (Medical expenses)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.5", + "marginal_note": "Hospitalized crew members", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.5. Hospitalized crew members\nR268(1) requires a ship's master to notify an officer when any crew member ceases to be a crew\nmember. The master need report, however, only those crew members whose hospitalization will\ncontinue after the vessel’s departure. R3(1)(b) provides that crew members who are hospitalized\nhave 72 hours after their release from hospital to return to their vessel or leave Canada. They\nmaintain their temporary resident status during this interval.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.5 (Hospitalized crew members)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.6", + "marginal_note": "Requirement to notify when stowaways are on board", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.6. Requirement to notify when stowaways are on board\nR262 requires a shipping company to notify an officer of the presence aboard of any stowaways\nupon the vessel’s arrival at its first port of call in Canada. The notice need not be in writing unless\nan officer has reason to request a written report. Notice is not required if the vessel is in transit\nthrough Canada to a port in the U.S.A.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.6 (Requirement to notify when stowaways are on board)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.7", + "marginal_note": "Requirement to hold stowaways on board", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.7. Requirement to hold stowaways on board\nThe examination of stowaways should take place aboard the ship on which they arrived. Section\nA148(1)(b) requires the master to hold a stowaway (in custody) aboard the ship until the\nexamination has been completed. This will require that the master continue to hold a stowaway\non board when an examination must be adjourned. The master of a ship in transit to the U.S.A. is\nprohibited from diverting the vessel to a Canadian port of entry for the sole purpose of\ndisembarking stowaways in Canada. A stowaway aboard a vessel that is at anchor should not be\nexamined. The examination should only be conducted upon the vessel’s arrival at dockside.\nStowaways who withdraw their application to enter Canada or are issued a removal order should\ndepart Canada aboard the vessel that brought them to Canada unless the transporter has made\nsatisfactory arrangements for that person’s repatriation by other means. (See Section 9.5, When\nto allow for repatriation by air.) A transporter that allows a stowaway to disembark at a place\nother than a designated POE, such as a seaway lock, faces prosecution under A124(1)(a) in\naddition to the usual financial liabilities (security deposits, administration fees and removal costs).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.7 (Requirement to hold stowaways on board)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.8", + "marginal_note": "Liability for removal", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.8. Liability for removal\nPursuant to A148(1(f), a transporter is liable for the removal from Canada of any foreign national\nwhom they bring to Canada as a crew member or to become a crew member. They are also\nliable for the removal of any improperly documented stowaway or other inadmissible passenger\nprovided they were not in possession of a visa.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.8 (Liability for removal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.9", + "marginal_note": "Notice of requirement to convey", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.9. Notice of requirement to convey\nR276(1)(b) provides that when the removal order is enforceable, an officer shall notify the\ntransporter that it must carry the person from Canada and provide escorts if required.\nUpon being notified of this requirement, R276(2) requires the transporter to inform an officer\nwithout delay of removal arrangements. R276(3) requires the transporter to convey the person\nfrom Canada within 48 hours of this notification", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.9 (Notice of requirement to convey)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.10", + "marginal_note": "Presentation of crew lists from foreign-registered vessels", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.10. Presentation of crew lists from foreign-registered vessels\nA crew list is required from each foreign-registered vessel on its arrival in Canada, regardless of\nthe number of crew members aboard. It may be computer generated or typed or printed on a form\nsuch as the International Maritime Organization crew list form.\nThe master must present two copies of the crew list, surrendering one endorsed copy at the time\nof the vessel's departure from Canada. If the master wishes to have an endorsed copy for the\nship's records, a third copy should be presented upon arrival. While the vessel remains in\nCanada, the master must keep the crew list up-to-date, immediately revising it each time a crew\nchange occurs. A current list must be presented whenever requested by an officer.\n2011-02-11 7", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.10 (Presentation of crew lists from foreign-registered vessels)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.11", + "marginal_note": "Delivering crew lists when an officer does not board", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.11. Delivering crew lists when an officer does not board\nDue to selective boarding procedures, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers do not\nboard the majority of vessels on arrival. If a CBSA officer does not board, the master or ship's\nagent must deliver the crew list to the nearest CBSA office immediately after the vessel’s arrival.\nIn some circumstances an officer may allow for the list to be transmitted electronically (e.g., when\na vessel arrives at a port which is not a port of entry). If the master sends the list by facsimile, the\nCBSA officer who receives it should send an endorsed copy by facsimile to the ship's agent for\npresentation at the time of the vessel's departure from Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.11 (Delivering crew lists when an officer does not board)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.12", + "marginal_note": "Persons to be named on the crew list of foreign-registered vessels", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.12. Persons to be named on the crew list of foreign-registered vessels\nR265 requires a transporter to provide an officer at a port of entry with a list of all members of the\ncrew. This must include the names of all persons employed on the vessel to perform duties\nrelated to the operation of the vessel or the provision of services to passengers.\nOn a cargo ship, crew members include:\n• licenced officers: master, first officer, chief officer or chief mate, first engineer or chief\nengineer, and subordinate officers and engineers; and\n• non-licenced crew: ordinary seamen, able-bodied seamen, bosun (deck crew foreman),\nengine- room crew (oilers and fitters), and kitchen and mess-room staff (cooks, stewards and\nmessmen).\nOn a cruise ship, crew members also commonly include the hotel manager, cruise director,\npurser, medical staff, managers and staff of the ship's bars, restaurants, boutiques and casino, as\nwell as house-cleaning staff and entertainers.\nOn a fishing vessel, crew members include all persons involved in the processing of the catch.\nOn a research vessel, all persons employed aboard such as scientists, technicians and divers are\nconsidered to be members of the crew.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.12 (Persons to be named on the crew list of foreign-registered vessels)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-5-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 5.13", + "marginal_note": "Persons not to be named on the crew list", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.13. Persons not to be named on the crew list\nThe definition of member of a crew does not include persons in the following categories.\n• supernumeraries: wives, children and other dependants of crew members;\nNote: Supernumeraries occasionally present seamen’s books and claim to be members of the crew. In\nsuch cases, the master must prove to an officer through ship’s articles and employment contracts that\nthe supernumerary is a legitimate crew member rather than someone pretending to be a crew\nmember in order to circumvent the visa requirement.\n• fare-paying passengers on cargo ships;\n• workaways: passengers provided with transportation aboard a vessel in exchange for work\nperformed during the voyage;\n• foreign contractors and shipping company technicians: foreign nationals temporarily assigned\nto a vessel for the sole purpose of making repairs; they may already be aboard th e vessel\nwhen it arrives or arrive at a POE with the intention of proceeding to the vessel;\n• shipping company superintendents, including persons referred to as supercargo,\nsuperintendent engineers, or port captains;\n2011-02-11 8\n• employees or executives of a marine transportation company who travel aboard or who visit\nships to monitor or supervise operations such as maintenance and repairs, preparation of\ncargo holds, preparation for inspection, and the loading or unloading of cargo;\n• insurance company representatives who travel on vessels to familiarize themselves with\nshipboard operations on behalf of ship-owners' insurers; and\n• meteorological officers: persons monitoring weather patterns whose presence aboard is\nunrelated to the navigation of the vessel.\nThese persons should not be named on crew lists. They are not exempt from passport and visa\nrequirements. This list is not exhaustive. Even if non-crew members claim that they do not intend\nto go ashore while the vessel is in port, they are still required to comply with applicable visa and\npassport requirements.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 5.13 (Persons not to be named on the crew list)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Crew members arriving on vessels of foreign registry", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7. Procedure: Crew members arriving on vessels of foreign registry\nCrew members aboard vessels of foreign registry are not required to appear personally before an\nofficer for examination at a POE unless asked to do so.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 7 (Procedure: Crew members arriving on vessels of foreign registry)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Verifying the crew list", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1. Verifying the crew list\nBefore endorsing a crew list, an officer should take one or more of the following steps to ensure it\nis accurate and complete:\n• ensure that surnames are distinguishable from given names, and if two or more identica l\nsurnames appear on the list, that the master has not included the names of dependants;\n• look at the dates of birth to ensure that no person is either too young or too old to be a\nlegitimate crew member;\n• compare the particulars on the crew list with the information contained in seaman's identity\ndocuments or passports, ensuring that names and dates of birth are accurate;\n• review the crew functions described under the list's rank or rating column and question the\nmaster about unclear terms or abbreviations;\n• compare the names on the crew list with the names of crew members in the ship's articles or\non employment records; and\n• conduct a crew muster, asking each person named on the list to come forward to be\nidentified; compare the particulars in each travel document with the information supplied by\neach person who comes forward; ensure that the photograph in the document bears a\ngeneral resemblance to the holder; question the presence on board of unusual mixes of\nnationalities (e.g., two Tanzanians amongst a crew of Russians – these may have been\nstowaways whom the master has been told to pass off as crew members).\nNote: Crew members arousing suspicion should be questioned more thoroughly concerning their\nexperience at sea and their knowledge of their duties. If they are unable to satisfy an officer that they\n2011-02-11 9\nare legitimate crew members, the officer should allow them to withdraw their application to enter\nCanada or report them pursuant to section A44(1).\nA crew muster is the assembly of all crew members on the vessel. It can be conducted on the\narrival or at any time prior to the departure of the vessel to ensure that all persons named on the\ncrew list are accounted for. An officer should not give the master advance notice of a crew muster\nprior to the vessel’s arrival. Advance notice of subsequent crew musters, however, is advisable\nbecause it encourages ship masters to comply with the requirement to notify an officer of\ndesertions. Pursuant to R266, a master must assemble all members of the crew without delay on\nthe request of an officer.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 7.1 (Verifying the crew list)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Errors on the crew list", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2. Errors on the crew list\nIf minor inaccuracies on the crew list are detected that are believed to be inadvertent, the officer\nshould make the necessary corrections and initial the changes before endorsing the list. If there is\nreason to believe that the inaccuracies are due to a deliberate attempt to mislead, the officer\nshould treat the matter as an offence and consider initiating enforcement action. Offences should\nbe reported to the RCMP or to local or provincial police as appropriate.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 7.2 (Errors on the crew list)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Deleting names from the crew list before endorsement", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3. Deleting names from the crew list before endorsement\nBefore an officer endorses a crew list, an ink line should be drawn through the name of each\nperson who:\n• is not a crew member; or\n• is inadmissible to Canada.\nThe officer should initial each line that is deleted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 7.3 (Deleting names from the crew list before endorsement)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-7-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Actions after deleting names", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4. Actions after deleting names\nAn officer must examine persons whose names were deleted to ensure that they meet all entry\nrequirements. If a crew member or passenger is believed to be inadmissible, an officer may allow\nthe person to withdraw their application to enter Canada pursuant to R42 or report the person\npursuant to A44(1). In these cases, a transporter must continue to hold the person. Section\nA148(1)(b) requires a transporter to present persons for examination and hold them until the\nexamination is completed. R37 clarifies that the examination continues until the person is\nauthorized to enter Canada, until their departure from Canada has been confirmed or until the\nMinister has issued a removal order or referred the case to the Immigrat ion Division. R261(1)\nfurther clarifies that a transporter’s obligation to hold a person only ends when they are informed\nthat the examination is completed, the person is authorized to enter Canada for further\nexamination under A23 or is detained under any Canadian law.\nIf the Minister issues a removal order, A148(1)(f) requires the transporter to carry the crew\nmember from Canada. R276(1)(b) requires an officer to notify the transporter that the person has\nan enforceable removal order and must be conveyed from Canada\nIf an inadmissible person is detained for an admissibility hearing, an officer should arrange to\nhave the person removed from the vessel and detained at a designated immigration detention\ncentre.\nSee also:\nENF 4, Port of Entry Examinations\nENF 5, Writing Section 44(1) Reports\nENF 11, Verifying Departure\nENF 20, Detention.\n2011-02-11 10", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 7.4 (Actions after deleting names)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-7-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Endorsing the crew list", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5. Endorsing the crew list\nUntil an officer endorses a crew list, the persons named on it have not been authorized to enter\nCanada. Consequently, none of them may disembark. When the officer has determined all\npersons named on the crew list to be admissible, or has deleted the names of those persons not\nadmissible as crew members, that officer should endorse the last page of each copy of the\ndocument with a port stamp impression. The master must retain the endorsed copies, and use\nthem to record any crew changes that occur while the vessel is in Canada. Pursuant to R265(2)\nand R265(3), the master must revise these endorsed copies as soon as crew changes have\noccurred and provide an officer with an up-to-date list upon request.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 7.5 (Endorsing the crew list)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-7-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Recording crew changes", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6. Recording crew changes\nThe master must ensure that all crew changes are recorded on the endorsed copies presented at\nthe time of the vessel's departure from its final Canadian port of call. If an officer is aware that the\ncrew list presented upon the vessel’s departure is not current, that officer should amend the list\nusing the following format:\nFor deletions: Immediately below the last entry on the endorsed copies of the crew list,\nofficers should identify each person named on the list who has ceased to\nbe employed aboard the vessel, using the corresponding number from\nthe first column. It is unnecessary to rewrite the names and other\nparticulars of the persons concerned. Following the number, add the\nreason for the change, the date the change occurred (that is, the date on\nwhich the person ceased to perform the duties of a crew member), and\nthe officer’s initials.\nFor additions: Immediately below the last entry on the endorsed copies, the officer\nshould record the name and particulars of each person who joined the\nvessel as a crew member after its arrival in Canada. The numbers\nassigned to crew members joining the vessel after its arrival in Canada\nmust not begin again at number 1. They must continue in numerical\nsequence. For example, if the inbound crew list contained 20 names, the\nnumber 21 should be assigned to the first crew member to join the\nvessel in Canada. The officer’s initials should be written at the end of\neach addition.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 7.6 (Recording crew changes)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-7-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Filing crew lists", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7. Filing crew lists\nUnless alternate arrangements have been made, crew lists endorsed by CBSA should be\npromptly forwarded to the immigration office. Because crew lists contain personal information,\nthey must be kept on file for at least two years pursuant to section 4(1) of the Privacy\nRegulations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 7.7 (Filing crew lists)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Enforcement procedures", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1. Enforcement procedures\nWhen an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has ceased to be a crew\nmember, the officer should consult the ship's inbound crew list to verify whether or not the foreign\nnational’s name has been recorded. If the notification concerns a foreign national who failed to\nreport for duty as a crew member after having been authorized to enter Canada for that purpose,\nthe officer should determine when and where the person concerned was admitted and include\nthis information on a Support System for Intelligence (SSI) report.\nThe master must surrender any identity documents belonging to the former crew member, and\nany information that may be helpful in locating the deserter (names and addresses of relatives or\nfriends in Canada). Such documents should be seized to facilitate the identification and possible\n2011-02-11 11\nremoval of the person concerned. The officer should send any documents suspected of being\nfraudulent to the regional intelligence unit for analysis. Others should be kept on the case file until\nthe deserter is located. The officer should also obtain a copy of the employment contract, medical\nrecords, ports- of-call list, and a copy of the ship’s particulars.\nAn officer should inspect the deserter's cabin and remaining luggage, if possible. The inspection\nmay result in the discovery of additional identity documents or information that could lead to the\napprehension of the deserter.\nAn officer should initiate enforcement action by reporting the deserter under the appropriate\nsection of the Act. During the process of data entry in FOSS, code 184 designating a ship\ndeserter should be inserted in the cause field to facilitate the retrieval of statistical data. The body", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.1 (Enforcement procedures) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Enforcement procedures", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "of the report should be worded in accordance with the following example:\nName of deserter is a person who was granted entry to Canada on date at name of port as a\nmember of the crew of the name of vessel. On or about date of desertion, in name of place, the\nsaid name of deserter deserted the vessel, thereby ceasing to be a temporary resident.\nThe above wording will need to be adjusted in the case of crew members arrested and charged\nwith a criminal offence, foreign nationals who fail to join a vessel after having been granted entry\nto become crew members, and crew members who fail to leave Canada after being discharged\nfrom duty. Suppressed remarks should be added to the FOSS report containing the following\ninformation:\n• name of vessel to which the person concerned had been assigned as a crew member;\n• date and port of vessel’s arrival in Canada;\n• date on which the person concerned ceased to be a crew member;\n• name, address and telephone number of liable shipping company; and\n• amount and official receipt number of any security deposited.\nR184(2) requires a foreign national who enters Canada to become a member of a crew to join the\nvessel within the period authorized or within 48 hours if no period is specified. Crew members\nwho fail to report within this time period are reportable under A41 and R184(2).\nSee also chapter ENF 5, Writing Section 44(1) Reports.\nIf the person does not immediately report to a CIC office or is not immediately apprehended, an\nofficer should issue a Warrant for Arrest (form IMM 0420B), signed by the Minister's delegate.\nThe original of the warrant should be sent to the Immigration Warrant Response Centre for entry\ninto the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). For more information on issuing warrants for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.1 (Enforcement procedures) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Enforcement procedures", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "arrest, see also chapter ENF 7, Investigations and Arrests.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.1 (Enforcement procedures) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Procedures when a crew member reports to an inland office or comes to the attention of", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2. Procedures when a crew member reports to an inland office or comes to the attention of\nan investigator\nAn inland officer encountering a crew member should query FOSS to determine if there is a\nwarrant or any other record for this person. If a record is not found, the officer should ask the\nclient for the ship’s name and the name of the port of arrival and contact the office responsible for\nthat port to determine if the person’s name appears on the crew list for the vessel in question. The\nlack of a record in FOSS may indicate that:\n• the crew member was discharged for repatriation but, without the knowledge of the shipping\ncompany, failed to leave Canada;\n2011-02-11 12\n• the shipping company, in violation of the Regulations, failed to report the desertion of the\ncrew member;\n• the person is using a name other than the one shown on the crew list; or\n• family and given names have been reversed or misspelled.\nIf a warrant is found, the officer should execute it, informing the deserter of the reason for the\narrest and of their applicable rights, using a Notice of Rights Conferred by the Vienna Convention\nand to Be Represented by Counsel at an Admissibility Hearing form ( IMM 0689B). An officer must\narrest a crew member for whom there is an outstanding warrant even if the intention is to release\nthe person immediately after the arrest. For more information on executing warrants, see also\nchapter ENF 7, Investigations and Arrests.\nWhere there is no warrant, an officer can still arrest a crew member who has failed to join a\nvessel or a foreign national who has deserted where there are grounds to believe that the foreign\nnational would not appear for an admissibility hearing or poses a danger to the public. The\narresting officer should immediately request the transfer of the file from the CIC office where the\ndesertion was reported. The file should include a copy of the SSI report and any identity\ndocuments retrieved from the vessel.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.2 (Procedures when a crew member reports to an inland office or comes to the attention of)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Collecting security deposits", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3. Collecting security deposits\nWhen a crew member deserts or for any other reason contravenes the Act, an officer should\nissue a direction to the shipping company for the deposit of security, provided that the company\nhas not deposited general security. Refer to Section 11 for amounts to be collected.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.3 (Collecting security deposits)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Detaining or seizing vessels when shipping companies fail to deposit security", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4. Detaining or seizing vessels when shipping companies fail to deposit security\nWhen a shipping company fails to comply with a direction to deposit security, an officer should\nadvise the company that failure to comply may result in the detention or seizure of the v essel. If\nthe requisite security has not been deposited by the time the vessel is about to leave Canada and\nthe officer is doubtful that security will be received if the vessel is allowed to sail, the vessel or any\nother prescribed goods of the transporter should be detained under A148(2). Pursuant to R285, a\nvessel may be detained until the transporter deposits the requisite security or until another party\ndeposits security on its behalf. The officer must complete and sign the Notice of Detention of\nVehicle or Prescribed Good form (IMM 5266B) and serve the master and shipping agent with\nsigned copies. CCRA, Coast Guard vessel traffic, and the pilotage authority, should be\nimmediately notified of the vessel’s detention, thereby ensuring that the vessel will not be\npermitted to sail. The vessel may, however, be allowed to move to another berth or to anchorage\nwhile detained.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.4 (Detaining or seizing vessels when shipping companies fail to deposit security)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Crew members other than deserters who cease to perform their duties", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5. Crew members other than deserters who cease to perform their duties\nR184(1)(b) requires crew members to leave Canada within 72 hours of ceasing to be members of\nthe crew. In such cases officers should follow the same procedures for taking enforcement action\nas apply in cases of desertion. The following circumstances may lead to the loss of crew member\nstatus:\n• a labour dispute aboard a vessel;\n• the crew member’s arrest on criminal charges;\n• the seizure of a vessel by court order or other authority; or\n• suspension of a ship's operations due to an accident or mechanical problems.\n2011-02-11 13\nIn determining whether or not enforcement action is appropriate, an officer should assess whether\nor not the unwillingness or inability to perform duties will continue after the problem has been\nresolved. If no resolution is in sight, or if the officer has reason to believe that the crew member\nwill not resume duties, enforcement action should be initiated as soon as possible after the 72-\nhour period expires. An SSI report should be generated for each crew member who has been\nreported for failing to leave Canada within the period required. Such reports trigger the\nassessment of administration fees in respect of the crew members concerned.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.5 (Crew members other than deserters who cease to perform their duties)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Discharged crew members", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.6. Discharged crew members\nThe master must immediately notify an officer when a crew member who is not a Canadian\ncitizen or permanent resident is discharged R268(1). Once discharged, a foreign crew member\nretains temporary resident status for a full 72 hours. This period may be shortened or lengthened\nwhere warranted. In such a case, the passport or seaman’s book carried by the discharged crew\nmember should be stamped and the code letter C followed by the expiry date should be written\nbelow the port stamp impression. The name of the vessel should be written under the expiry date.\nThe 72-hour period does not apply to Canadian citizens, returning residents, and crew members\nwith work permits. It applies only to crew members authorized to enter as temporary residents\nwithout work permits. Holders of work permits, whether discharged or not, must leave Canada on\nor before the expiry date indicated on the work permit.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.6 (Discharged crew members)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.7", + "marginal_note": "Examinations at airports and land borders of persons seeking entry to join vessels as", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.7. Examinations at airports and land borders of persons seeking entry to join vessels as\ncrew members\nForeign nationals arriving at airports or land borders to seek entry to join vessels as crew\nmembers may be referred by CBSA for an immigration secondary examination. The majority of\ncrew members are legitimate seamen whose entry should be facilitated. If the issuance of a\nvisitor record is deemed necessary, a copy should be sent by facsimile to the maritime POE in\norder that an officer there may confirm that the person complied with conditions by joining the\nvessel.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.7 (Examinations at airports and land borders of persons seeking entry to join vessels as)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.8", + "marginal_note": "Ship-joining letters", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.8. Ship-joining letters\nMost seamen travel to Canada with employment letters containing ship-joining instructions. The\nletter is normally printed on the letterhead of a foreign shipping company and usually contains:\n• the name, address and telephone number of the ship’s agent in Canada;\n• the crew member’s name, date of birth, and citizenship;\n• the number of the seaman's book or passport of the passenger;\n• the name and location in Canada of the ship that the crew member is to join.\nAn officer should verify the information in a ship-joining letter if there is reason to suspect the\nintentions of the holder.\nBefore deciding whether to admit the holder of a ship-joining letter, an officer should obtain from\nthe agent named in the letter confirmation that:\n• the vessel is in or destined to Canada;\n• the person has been recruited to join the vessel;\n• the ship, if of foreign registry, is not engaged in the coasting trade; and\n2011-02-11 14\n• the duties which the person intends to perform are those of a mem ber of a crew as defined in\nthe Regulations.\nNote: Ship-joining letters are very easily forged by smugglers as a way of convincing airlines to convey\npersons without temporary resident visas. Local shipping agents might even be named in fictitious\ninstructions as a means of making the letter appear legitimate. Letters printed on letterhead appearing\nto be that of a Canadian shipping agent are probably fraudulent. Genuine employment letters are\nnormally issued by foreign shipping companies, not by Canadian agents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.8 (Ship-joining letters)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Using port stamps", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.9. Using port stamps\nAn officer who authorizes entry to a crew member should make a port stamp impression in the\npassport or seaman’s book. If the crew member is travelling with both documents, only the\npassport need be stamped. The officer should write the code letter C below the impression,\ndenoting that the document holder must join a vessel as a crew member within 48 hours after\nentry if no expiry date is specified, or by midnight of the expiry date written after the code letter.\nThe ship’s name should be written immediately below the expiry date.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.9 (Using port stamps)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-8-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 8.10", + "marginal_note": "Temporary resident records", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.10. Temporary resident records\nTemporary resident records need not be issued routinely but only when an officer wishes to have\nan officer at the maritime POE verify that the seaman has complied with terms and condi tions by\njoining the ship. Verification will always be necessary when a temporary resident's security\ndeposit has been received. Issuing a temporary resident record may be warranted in other cases\nif it is used in conjunction with verification of compliance.\nThe lack of a passport in which to make a port stamp impression does not, in itself, warrant the\nissuing a Visitor Record form (IMM 1097 B).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 8.10 (Temporary resident records)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Passengers arriving at a maritime POE", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9. Procedure: Passengers arriving at a maritime POE\nMany shipboard passengers need not appear before an officer at a POE.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9 (Procedure: Passengers arriving at a maritime POE)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "Requirement to appear for examination", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1. Requirement to appear for examination\nAn officer may request cruise ship lines to provide passenger manifests. When a company's\nofficial provides such a list to CBSA, the company may, at an officer’s discretion, be excused from\nits obligation to present each passenger. To expedite the entry of large numbers of passengers\nan officer may, for example, grant entry to Canadian citizens or returning residents and citizens or\nresidents of the U.S.A. on the basis of information found on the passenger manifest. An officer\nshould ensure that all passengers requiring temporary resident visas appear personally for\nexamination by CBSA.\nPassengers aboard cargo ships and pleasure craft are normally required to appear in person\nbefore an officer for examination.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.1 (Requirement to appear for examination)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Place of examination", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2. Place of examination\nA shipping company should normally present passengers for examination on the ship itself. The\nmaster must provide shipboard facilities for this purpose, and must not allow passengers or crew\nto disembark until they have been examined and authorized to leave the vessel. Examples where\npassengers may be allowed to disembark before examination include when:\n• facilities for examination are available at dockside;\n• a medical or other emergency is reported; and\n2011-02-11 15\n• CBSA is not physically present at the port and the distance involved makes travel to the ship\nunfeasible.\nWhen passengers are permitted to disembark before examination, an officer must inform the\ncompany of the place where it must present passengers for examination. A shipping company\nthat allows a passenger to elude examination may be prosecuted for the commission of an\noffence. The company is also liable for the payment of an administration fee pursuant to\nR279(1)(d) in respect of a passenger who eludes examination. In such a case, an officer must\ncomplete an SSI report.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.2 (Place of examination)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Referring passengers for secondary immigration examinations", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3. Referring passengers for secondary immigration examinations\nCBSA officers must automatically refer some passengers for immigration secondary examination,\nincluding:\n• undocumented or improperly documented passengers;\n• passengers presenting travel documents suspected of being altered or fraudulent;\n• passengers who cannot be questioned without an interpreter, other than passengers\naccompanying a crew member on whom they are dependent; and\n• stowaways.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.3 (Referring passengers for secondary immigration examinations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Examining stowaways on board vessels", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4. Examining stowaways on board vessels\nVessels carrying stowaways should be boarded as soon as possible after docking. Vessels\narriving after regular office hours or on weekends need not be boarded until the following\nbusiness day. If the vessel cannot be boarded upon arrival, an officer should advise the agent of\nthe master's obligation to hold the stowaway in custody until the stowaway is presented to an\nofficer, or until the vessel has left Canada if the stowaway is not seeking entry.\nAs part of an examination respecting a stowaway an officer should:\n• interview the master prior to examining the stowaway;\n• take fingerprints and photographs of the stowaway;\n• determine how long they have been on board, where they boarded, and where they were\nfound;\n• determine whether any travel or identity documents were found;\n• determine whether there is any sign of injury or illness;\n• determine whether the stowaway is aware they are in Canada and whether there were any\nother stowaways who may have disembarked prior to the ship’s arrival in Canada;\n• search the stowaway, their hiding place and the place aboard the ship where they are\ncurrently held;\n• include the collection of descriptive data and a notation of any distinguishing marks such as\nscars or tattoos;\n• caution the master that the stowaway must remain aboard the ship and that a security deposit\nwill be required if the stowaway does not leave Canada with the ship.\n2011-02-11 16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.4 (Examining stowaways on board vessels)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.5", + "marginal_note": "When to allow for repatriation by air", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.5. When to allow for repatriation by air\nA shipping company may request permission to repatriate a stowaway by air, particularly if the\nship is not scheduled to return to the stowaway's country of embarkation or citizenship. An officer\nmay grant permission to do so if the following conditions apply:\n• the stowaway is in possession of a valid passport or travel document and any requisite transit\nvisas;\n• the shipping company has obtained a confirmed seat reservation for the stowaway on the first\navailable flight to the country which issued the passport or travel document;\n• the company agrees to provide any escorts which, in the opinion of an officer, may be\nrequired;\n• the company arranges transportation to the airport from the ship; if a removal order has been\nmade against the stowaway, transportation to the airport may be provided by CIC; and\n• the officer is satisfied that the stowaway will depart Canada voluntarily.\nIf the officer grants permission for repatriation by air, the stowaway may be allowed to withdraw\ntheir application to enter Canada. In such cases the stowaway must be escorted to the airport and\ndeparture confirmed by an officer. The stowaway’s departure must be recorded in FOSS on a\ncertificate or a confirmation of departure screen. See also chapter ENF 11, Verifying Departure.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.5 (When to allow for repatriation by air)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.6", + "marginal_note": "FOSS entries", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.6. FOSS entries\nFOSS reports on stowaways should be accompanied by suppressed remarks which contain the\nfollowing information:\n• name;\n• address and telephone number of the liable shipping company;\n• name of ship;\n• official receipt number for security deposit, if applicable.\nThis information is essential to any officers involved in the eventual removal of the stowaway and\nto NHQ officers responsible for deductions from and refunds of security.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.6 (FOSS entries)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Use of Association of Characteristics (AOC) code for stowaways", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.7. Use of Association of Characteristics (AOC) code for stowaways\nThe use of AOC code 421 on all inadmissibility reports differentiates persons w ho arrived as\nstowaways from other inadmissible foreign nationals. Use of this code, therefore, permits the\nextraction from FOSS of data about stowaways.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.7 (Use of Association of Characteristics (AOC) code for stowaways)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "Inland interviews with persons claiming to have been stowaways", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.8. Inland interviews with persons claiming to have been stowaways\nOccasionally, stowaways disembark from ships at ports of entry without being presented to an\nofficer for examination. Such persons elude examination either because they were not discovered\nduring the voyage or because they were concealed and smuggled ashore by a crew member or\npassenger. When such persons report to inland offices, the officer who interviews them must try\nto determine which shipping company should be directed to deposit security and held liable for\nadministration fees and removal costs. A suspected stowaway may or may not be able to identify\nthe ship by name but should be able to specify the dates and ports of embarkation and\ndisembarkation. If the name of a ship is provided, the officer must obtain confirmation that a ship\n2011-02-11 17\nby that name arrived in Canada on the date and at the place stated. If the subject claims not to\nrecall or never to have known the ship name, the officer should determine which ship, if any,\narrived at and from the places stated and on the dates in question. Inquiries should be made\nwhile the person being interviewed is present and the alleged stowaway questioned immediately\nabout any discrepancies.\nInformation about the arrival of ships can be obtained by calling the Canadian Coast Guard\ninformation service in Longueuil at 450-928-4544, in Dartmouth at 902-426-4956, or in Vancouver\nat 604-666-6011. If information provided by the person being interviewed is confirmed, the officer\nshould obtain the name of the shipping agent and, while the alleged stowaway is present,\nimmediately notify the agent by telephone of the allegation. Once reasonably certain of the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.8 (Inland interviews with persons claiming to have been stowaways) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "Inland interviews with persons claiming to have been stowaways", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "identity of the ship, the officer should ask the alleged stowaway to provide the following details:\n• method of embarking and description of hiding place;\n• method of entry and description of container and its contents (if entry is by shipping\ncontainer);\n• method of disembarking from ship and of exiting container, if applicable;\n• names and descriptions of any persons who assisted in embarking and/or disembarking;\n• monies paid;\n• general description of the vessel and of ports of embarkation and disembarkation;\n• significant events or incidents during voyage (e.g., storm at sea, discovery).\nAt the conclusion of the interview, each stowaway should be asked to make a detailed written\ndeclaration on form IMM 5160B and to add a statement authorizing the release of information to\nthe shipping company concerned. The officer should interview separately all stowaways claiming\nto have travelled together, including couples and adult members of the same family. Each of\nthese persons should be asked to provide satisfactory explanations for any discrepancies in their\nstatements.\nIf the information about the ship’s itinerary has been confirmed and other statements appear\nplausible and consistent, the officer should transmit an SSI report to NHQ identifying the liable\nshipping company. If the officer is satisfied that the persons concerned were stowaways but is\nunable to determine the name of the ship on which they arrived, the SSI report should specify that\nthe carrier is unknown. If the carrier has been identified, the report will trigger the assessment of\nan administration fee. If the shipping company contests the assessment by filing a submission,\nthe officer may be asked to provide additional details, including the alleged stowaway’s", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.8 (Inland interviews with persons claiming to have been stowaways) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-9-8-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "Inland interviews with persons claiming to have been stowaways", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "declaration. The officer’s own declaration should be included if there is additional information in\nthe interview notes pointing to the identity of the responsible transportation company.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 9.8 (Inland interviews with persons claiming to have been stowaways) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: SSI reports", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10. Procedure: SSI reports\nSSI is the acronym for the Support System for Intelligence used in reporting details of\ntransportation company violations to NHQ. There is a marine version of the system designed for\nreporting stowaways, crew members and other persons who arrive aboard ships. An SSI report\nnormally triggers the assessment of an administration fee. If officers believe that an administration\nfee should not be assessed, they should indicate this in the remarks section of the report.\nAdministration fees may be assessed pursuant to R279(1) in respect of foreign nationals who:\n• fail to be in possession of required travel documents;\n2011-02-11 18\n• the Minister instructed the transportation company not to carry;\n• are exempt from passport or other travel document requirements but who fail to produce\ndocumentary evidence under the Regulations;\n• elude examination; and\n• remain in Canada without authorization after entering Canada as or to become crew\nmembers.\n• Pursuant to R279(2), fees may not be assessed with respect to foreign nationals:\n• authorized to enter and remain in Canada on a temporary basis (other than those who\nentered as or to become crew members);\n• allowed to withdraw their application for entry and who leave Canada immediately;\n• who are subject to a removal order on their arrival at a POE and who leave Canada\nimmediately;\n• who return as a result of a refusal by another country to allow them entry; and\n• who are in possession of refugee travel papers valid for return to Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 10 (Procedure: SSI reports)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Collecting security deposits for payment of administration fees", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11. Procedure: Collecting security deposits for payment of administration fees\nand other expenses\nAn officer who determines that a shipping company may become liable to pay administration fees\nand removal costs should:\n• issue a direction to the shipping company, usually the ship's agent (ship's master when there\nis no agent) for a cash security deposit to cover the fees and potential costs related to\nremoval and medical treatment, provided that the company has not already deposited general\nsecurity; in the absence of instructions to the contrary, the amount of the deposit should be a\nminimum of $15,000 in all cases (the officer should direct the company to deposit a greater\namount in instances where administration fees and costs may be expected to exceed\n$15,000, e.g., undocumented African stowaways, stowaways requiring medical treatment);\n• if the officer has any doubt about the company’s intention to comply with the direction,\nconsider detaining the vessel as described in Section 8.4;\n• issue an official receipt (form IMM 0410B) to the depositor upon receipt of security; if the\nsecurity is paid by a company other than the shipping company to which the direction was\nissued (such as the ship-owner’s insurance representative), the officer should write the name\nof the liable shipping company in brackets after the name of the depositor; and\n• record the official receipt number and the amount of security received on a remarks screen or\nan NCB screen in FOSS.\n2011-02-11 19", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 11 (Procedure: Collecting security deposits for payment of administration fees)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Initial notice of liability", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1. Initial notice of liability\nR276(1)(a) provides that when a foreign national seeking to enter Canada is made subject to a\nremoval order, an officer is required to notify the transporter that it is or might be required to carry\nthe foreign national from Canada. In cases of refugee claims, this would be a preliminary\nnotification advising that the transporter may be liable in the future to carry the pers on from\nCanada. It is essential that this notification be given in order for CIC to get the transporter to\naccept liability at a later date.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 12.1 (Initial notice of liability)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Failure to comply with acceptable removal arrangements", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2. Failure to comply with acceptable removal arrangements\nIf the transporter fails to make travel arrangements within the delay prescribed, makes travel\narrangements which are unacceptable, fails to respond without delay or responds by informing an\nofficer that it does not intend to provide transportation, removal arrangements will be made by the\nofficer. Removal arrangements will also be made by the officer if the shipping company has\npreviously advised that it is unable or unwilling to arrange for any foreign national to be conveyed\nfrom Canada.\nR276(5) provides that travel arrangements proposed by a transporter are only acceptable if:\n• the foreign national is not inadmissible to the country of destination and any countries of\ntransit;\n• the safety of the foreign national and other persons during the removal is assured; and\n• the transporter complies with any request for escorts.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 12.2 (Failure to comply with acceptable removal arrangements)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "Liability for removal costs", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3. Liability for removal costs\nShipping companies are liable for any removal costs incurred by the Department R278\nConsequently, immediately after the departure of a foreign national has been confirmed and any\nescort officers have returned to Canada, all applicable removal costs must be calculated and\nreported to the Transportation Unit, Enforcement Branch, 300 Slater Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa,\nOntario, KIA ILI. These costs will be automatically deducted from any cash security deposited by\nthe company in respect of the foreign national removed or billed to the company in the absence of\nsecurity or an adequate amount of security.\nNote: Unless removal costs are reported to NHQ, the expenses for which the shipping company is liable\nwill not be recovered, nor will the company receive a refund for any portion of a security deposit to\nwhich it may be entitled.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 12.3 (Liability for removal costs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Breakdown of costs to be reported", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4. Breakdown of costs to be reported\nR278 lists the removal costs for which a transporter is liable. Removal costs reported to NHQ\nshould be itemized as follows.\n• airline tickets for the person removed or, if applicable, the cost of chartering an aircraft or of\npurchasing transportation by any other means of conveyance (including costs of\ntransportation within Canada to the port of entry);\n• transportation expenses for all escorts and any other person assigned to accompany the\nperson removed, including RCMP, medical personnel and interpreters;\n• transportation to and from airports in or outside Canada;\n2011-02-11 20\n• the cost of obtaining a passport or travel document from a foreign embassy, high commission\nor consulate for the person removed;\n• the cost of obtaining visas for any persons who accompanied the person removed;\n• accommodation and meals purchased for the person removed;\n• accommodation for all persons who escorted the person removed;\n• the cost of meals, incidental expenses and other allowances for all persons who escorted the\nperson removed;\n• regular wages payable to any persons who escorted or accompanied the person removed\nfrom Canada or to the port of entry in Canada;\n• overtime wages payable to any persons who escorted or accompanied the person removed\nfrom Canada or to the port of entry in Canada;\n• fees paid to an interpreter during the course of removal proceedings;\n• fees paid to medical personnel engaged to travel with the person removed and any medical\ncosts not previously reported for which the transportation company is liable; and\n• costs incurred to repair any damages caused by the foreign national during the removal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 12.4 (Breakdown of costs to be reported)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-17-12-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-17", + "act_short": "ENF 17", + "act_name": "ENF 17 — Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "section": "ENF 17 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Means of reporting costs", + "part": "Maintaining confidence in the immigration program", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.5. Means of reporting costs\nA detailed breakdown of costs as outlined above may be reported to the Transportation Unit by\nthe following means:\n• an e-mail message to an officer of the Transportation Unit;\n• a form IMM 0459B (Costs Payable by Transporters) completed by hand and mailed or sent by\nfacsimile to the Transportation Unit, Enforcement Branch, NHQ; or\n• an electronic version of form IMM 0459B transmitted to an officer of the Transportation Unit\nas an e-mail attachment in Word. (The electronic version is designed to be saved as a Word\ndocument, in which case the 8-digit FOSS ID number of the person removed is normally used\nas the file name. Upon request, a program officer will transmit a client-specific form by e-\nmail.)\nNote: The form IMM 0459B should only be used for reporting actual costs incurred. It should not be\nused for reporting nil amounts.\nIt is not necessary to submit copies of receipts, invoices, travel expense claims and extra duty\nand shift-work authorizations [form PER 0007] when reporting removal costs to the Transportation\nUnit. However, copies of these should be kept on file and forwarded on request to the\nTransportation Unit in the event that they are needed to substantiate any invoices questioned by\na transporter.\nIf the person removed was brought to Canada aboard a ship, a shipping agent was likely required\nto deposit security. If so, there should be an Official Receipt form IMM 0410B on the case file.\nThe IMM 0410B serial number and the amount of the deposit should be notated on all reports of\nremoval costs transmitted to the Transportation Unit. The Manager, Transportation Unit has been\ndelegated to authorize the deduction of shipping company liabilities from security, if applicable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2011-02-11", + "current_to": "2011-02-11", + "citation": "ENF 17, s. 12.5 (Means of reporting costs)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf17-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-6-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity..……………………………………..8", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity..……………………………………..8\n6.2 Differences between a war crime and a crime against humanity ................................................... 8\n6.3 Differences between a crime against humanity, war crime and a terrorist act: .............................. 9\n7 Program Objectives – CBSA ................................................................................................................. 9\n8 Procedure: Establishing inadmissibility under A35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection\nAct or exclusion under 1F(a) of the United Nations Refugee Agency’s Convention and Protocol\nrelating to the status of refugees. ........................................................................................................ 10\n8.1 Establishing complicity.................................................................................................................. 10\n8.2 The contribution-based test .......................................................................................................... 10\n8.3 6 Factors – Contribution-based test for establishing complicity: .................................................. 11\n8.4 Establishing complicity—brutal (limited purpose) organizations .................................................. 12\n8.5 Other forms of complicity .............................................................................................................. 12\n8.6 Defences ....................................................................................................................................... 13\n8.7 Cases involving prior exclusion by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) ................................. 16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 6.1 (Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity..……………………………………..8) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-6-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity..……………………………………..8", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9 Procedure: Establishing inadmissibility under A35(1)(b) ................................................................... 16\n9.1 Designation of regimes ................................................................................................................. 17\n9.2 Designated regimes pursuant to Section A35(1)(b) ..................................................................... 17\n9.3 Requirements to establish inadmissibility ..................................................................................... 17\n9.4 Opportunity for person to be heard ............................................................................................... 19\n9.5 Consultation with CBSA HQ ......................................................................................................... 19\n10 Procedure: How to assess A35 or 1F(a) cases ................................................................................... 19\n10.1 Determining the general profile ................................................................................................... 19\n10.2 Security vetting of Temporary and Permanent Resident visa applicants .................................... 20\n11 Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(c), A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e) ................................................ 20\n11.1 A35(1)(c) Restricted entry / Imposed sanctions on a country ..................................................... 20\n11.2 Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e) ......................................................... 20\n12 Roles and responsibilities .................................................................................................................... 22", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 6.1 (Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity..……………………………………..8) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-6-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity..……………………………………..8", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1 National Security Screening Division (NSSD) ............................................................................. 22\n12.2 Intelligence Collection, Analysis and Production (ICAP) ............................................................. 22\n12.3 Immigration Enforcement Division ............................................................................................... 23\n12.4 Case Review Unit (CRU) ............................................................................................................. 23\nAppendix A - War crimes amendments to the Immigration Act and Regulations ....................................... 24\nAppendix B – Crimes Against Humanity an War Crimes Act ...................................................................... 25\nAppendix C - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ................................................................. 26\n(a) Article 6—Genocide .................................................................................................................. 26\n(b) Article 7—Crimes against humanity .......................................................................................... 26\n(c) Article 8—War crimes ............................................................................................................... 27\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 2\nUpdates to chapter\nListing by date:\nDate: 2020-06-03\nTitle change of manual chapter: previous title of “War crimes and crimes against humanity” changed to\n“Human or international rights violations”\nList of designated regimes in section 9.2 amended to specify end-date for the interim government in\nRwanda as July 18, 1994 in order to reflect the change in regime which took place on July 19th, 1994.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 6.1 (Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity..……………………………………..8) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-6-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity..……………………………………..8", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Changes made to section 8.6 to reflect Minister’s policy position on defence of duress.\nSection 11: content added to reflect legislative changes and addition of new inadmissibilities under\nparagraphs 35(1)(c), 35(1)(d) and 35(1)(e) of the IRPA.\nTitle of Canada’s War Crimes Program amended to Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes\nProgram (CAHWC).\nDate: 2016-12-01\nChanges were made to ENF 18 to reflect the contribution test for complicity\nSubstantive and minor changes as well as clarifications have been provided throughout the chapter\nDate: 2005-12-15\nChanges were made to ENF 18 to reflect the IRCC and CBSA policy and service delivery roles.\nAppendix E has been removed and a web site address has been given to direct the reader to the list of\ndesignated regimes online. Appendix F was renamed accordingly.\nDate: 2004-01-23\nA bullet was added to Appendix E of chapter ENF 18 and now reads as follows:\ndesignated November 21, 2003, the government of Ethiopia under Mengistu Haile Mariam for the period\nof September 12, 1974 to May 21, 1991.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 3", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 6.1 (Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity..……………………………………..8) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis Chapter describes Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program and the\nCBSA’s role in the Program. The chapter further outlines the inadmissibility provisions under section 35\nof the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) for human or international rights violations and\nprovides guidance on how to determine if persons are inadmissible to Canada for alleged involvement in\nwar crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program objectives", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program objectives\nThe goal of Canada’s CAHWC Program is to deny safe haven in Canada to war criminals and persons\nbelieved to have committed or been complicit in these crimes.\nThe Program is delivered as a partnership between the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA),\nImmigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), Department of Justice (Justice) and the Royal\nCanadian Mounted Police (RCMP).\nThe CBSA administers and enforces the IRPA and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations\n(IRPR) in denying inadmissible persons access to Canada at ports of entry, excluding claimants from\nrefugee protection, and removing inadmissible and excluded persons from Canada.\nIRCC applies the IRPA and IRPR when determining the admissibility of temporary and permanent\nresidents to Canada. IRCC also conducts the initial screening as part of the visa assessment process to\ndetermine if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has committed or was complicit in\nthe commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide. IRCC, in coordination with\nJustice are responsible for citizenship revocation of individuals who have committed or were complicit in\nwar crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide.\nUnder the Extradition Act legislation, Justice leads on cases involving extradition to foreign states or\nsurrender to international tribunals. Justice also works with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada\n(PPSC) in criminal proceedings led by the PPSC. Criminal proceedings are, in turn, based on\ninvestigations conducted by the RCMP under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act .", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2.1", + "marginal_note": "Remedies", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.1 Remedies\nCanada’s CAHWC Program has several remedies available to deal with alleged war criminals and\nindividuals suspected of involvement in crimes against humanity and/or genocide:\n designation of governments and regimes considered to have engaged in gross human rights\nviolations under A35(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;\n denial of visas to persons outside of Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;\n exclusion from refugee protection of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of\nRefugees;\n admissibility hearing and removal from Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;\n prosecution in Canada under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;\n revocation of citizenship under the Citizenship Act;\n extradition upon request of a foreign government under Canada's Extradition Act; and,\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 4\n surrender to an international tribunal (upon request) under Canada's Extradition Act.\nThese remedies are available to the Government of Canada through its various bodies and not\nspecifically the CBSA. Each department or agency is mandated under different legislation further\ndescribed below.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2.1 (Remedies)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Related Legislation", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 Related Legislation\nThe following is the list of applicable legislation and government of Canada departments mandated with\nthe enforcement against individuals who have committed or were complicit in the commission of war\ncrimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide. A description of the relevant provisions is also\nincluded.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3 (Related Legislation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act\nMandate: Justice and the RCMP\nThis Act:\nprovides for the prosecution of any individual present in Canada for any offence stated in the Act\nregardless of where the offence occurred;\n organizes offences of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and breach of responsibility by\nmilitary commanders and civilian superiors;\n creates offences to protect the administration of justice at the International Criminal Court (ICC)\nincluding the safety of judges and witnesses;\n recognizes the need to provide restitution to victims of offences; and\n provides a mechanism to do so.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3.1 (The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "The Extradition Act", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.2 The Extradition Act\nMandate: Justice and the RCMP\nThis Act:\n provides Canada with the legal basis on which to extradite persons located in Canada, who are\nsought for extradition by one of Canada's \"extradition partners\".\nExtradition partners are:\n countries with which Canada has an extradition agreement (bilateral treaties or multilateral\nconventions);\n countries with which Canada has entered into a case-specific agreement; or\n countries or international courts whose names appear in the schedule to the Extradition Act.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 5\nJustice handles all of the extradition cases under their mandate. The extradition process is\nprovided for reference only; this is not an avenue for the CBSA to pursue.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3.2 (The Extradition Act)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3.3", + "marginal_note": "The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.3 The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\nMandate: CBSA and IRCC\nThis Act:\n provides for refusal of visas and Temporary and Permanent Resident status of persons found\ninadmissible abroad, including those inadmissible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or\ngenocide;\n provides for the legal authority to investigate an allegation, review and report the allegation and issue\na removal order when the allegation is founded against individuals seeking entry or already in\nCanada. Provides the opportunity for the Minister to grant relief for those found inadmissible under\nA35(1)(b);\n provides for the exclusion from the refugee determination process of persons who are inadmissible\nunder A35, including those involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide;\n provides for the designation of regimes considered to have engaged in gross human rights\nviolations, war crimes or crimes against humanity and/or genocide; and,\n limits appeal rights of persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide.\n allows for the removal of A35 inadmissible persons to countries, even when there is a temporary stay\nof removal (TSR) and allows Canada to remove to a third country willing to take the individual even\nwhen it is not their former country of permanent residence/citizenship or a country from which the\nentered Canada.\nTable: Sections of the IRPA and the IRPR applying to human or international rights violations\nProvision Act and Regulations\nHuman or international rights violations A35\nCommitting an act outside Canada that constitutes\na Crime Against Humanity or War Crimes Act;\nA35(1)(a)\nPrescribed senior official A35(1)(b)\nRestricted entry/imposed sanctions on a country A35(1)(c)\nSubject of order under Special Economic Measures\nAct (SEMA)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3.3 (The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3.3", + "marginal_note": "The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A35(1)(d)\nListed under Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign\nOfficials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law)\nA35(1)(e)\nMinisterial relief A42.1\nException to non-refoulement A115(2)(b)\nPrescribed conclusive findings of fact for\ndetermining inadmissibility under A35(1)(a)\nR15\nPrescribed conclusive findings of fact for\ndetermining inadmissibility under A35(1)(b)\nR16\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 6\nExclusion from the Principle of Non-refoulement (A115(2)b))\nIn most cases Convention refugees in Canada are protected from removal pursuant to 115(2)(a) of the\nIRPA. An exception may, however, be made when a Convention refugee has been found inadmissible to\nCanada for the commission of human rights violations and a Minister’s Delegate at IRCC is of the opinion\nthat either the danger the person presents to the security of Canada or the nature and severity of their\nactions is greater than the risk they would face upon removal.\nIf an officer identifies a case where they feel it may be appropriate to seek an opinion under A115(2)(b) ,\nthey should consult the manual ENF 28 and contact the CBSA’s Danger Assessment Section.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3.3 (The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3.4", + "marginal_note": "The Citizenship Act", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.4 The Citizenship Act\nMandate: IRCC and the RCMP\nThis Act:\n provides for the not granting of citizenship for security or criminality cases and also allows for the\nrevocation of citizenship obtained by fraud or misrepresentation for a number of reasons including\nmisrepresentation concerning war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide.\n provides that citizenship shall not be granted while the person is under investigation by the Minister\nof Justice, the RCMP or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) for, or is charged with, on\ntrial for, subject to or a party to an appeal relating to, an offence under any of sections 4 to 7 of the\nCrimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3.4 (The Citizenship Act)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5 Instruments and delegations\nA4 sets out which Minister is responsible for the administration of the IRPA. The Minister of Citizenship\nand Immigration [also known as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)] and the Minister\nof Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PS) are jointly responsible for the administration and\nenforcement of the IRPA, however there are some differences. The IRCC Minister is responsible for the\noverall administration of the IRPA, unless otherwise specified. The Minister of PS has the primary\nresponsibility for the administration of the IRPA as it relates to the following:\n port of entry examinations;\n enforcement of the IRPA including arrest, detention and removal;\n establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of the IRPA and inadmissibility under\nA34/35/37; and\n declarations referred to under A42.1 (Ministerial Relief provision)\nPursuant to A6(1), the responsible Minister has the authority to designate any persons or classes of\npersons as officers to carry out any purpose of any provision of the IRPA, and to specify the powers and\nduties of the officers so designated. This is referred to as the designation of authority. In addition,\nA6(2) authorizes that anything that may be done by the Minister under the Act may be done by a person\nthat the Minister authorizes in writing. This is referred to as delegation of authority.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 7\nEach Minister who has responsibilities under the IRPA has written an instrument of delegation and\ndesignation that is periodically updated. The Delegation of Authority and De signations of Officers (D & D)\ninstruments stipulate who has the authority to perform specific immigration-related functions. CBSA and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 5 (Instruments and delegations) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "IRCC personnel are designated by position to perform all delegated or designated authorities . It is to be\nnoted that the IRPA D & D instruments have a hierarchical link which means only the lowest level of\nauthority is included in the D & D instruments as every position above this one (with a direct hierarchical\nlink) has the same authority to perform specific immigration-related functions.\nCBSA and IRCC officers should always review both the CBSA and the IRCC D & D instruments as they\nhave authorities delegated and designated under both instruments, which can be found on the IL 3-\nDesignation of Officers and Delegation of Authority.\nIt is important to note that while IRCC officers have been designated the authority to deny an application\nmade under the IRPA based on inadmissibility under A34 (security), A35 (violating human or international\nrights) and A37 (organized criminality), only CBSA officers may prepare and review A44(1) reports for\nthese inadmissibilities.\nA35(1)(b) of the IRPA stipulates that the Minister (Public Safety) may designate a regime. This authority\nis not delegated to any other person.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 5 (Instruments and delegations) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Definitions\nAs defined in the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act:\nWar Crime\nAn act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and\nin the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to\ncustomary international law or conventional international law applicable to\narmed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in\nforce at the time and in the place of its commission.\nCrimes against\nhumanity\nMeans murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment,\ntorture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or\nomission that is committed against any civilian population or any\nidentifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission,\nconstitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international\nlaw or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal\naccording to the general principles of law recognized by the community of\nnations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at\nthe time and in the place of its commission.\nGenocide\nMeans an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in\npart, an identifiable group of persons, as such, that, at the time and in the\nplace of its commission, constitutes genocide according to customary\ninternational law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being\ncriminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the\ncommunity of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the\nlaw in force at the time and in the place of its commission.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 8", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 6 (Definitions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-6-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity\nGenocide\nCrime against humanity\n\n An act committed to destroy a group.\n\n An act committed as part of a widespread or\nsystematic attack.\n\n The perpertrator intended to destroy a group.\n\n The perpertrator was aware of the widespread or\nsytematic attack and intended to commit the\ncriminal conduct.\n\n The circle of victims, as defined by the Rome\nStatute, is relatively small and includes the\nfollowing groups defined by: nationality,\nethnicity, race and religion. In addition, the\nfollowing distinction was added in\nCanada: any other identifiable group.\n\n The circle of victims, as defined by the Rome\nStatute, is relatively small and includes the\nfollowing groups defined by: nationality, ethnicity,\nrace and religion. In addition, the following\ndistinction was added in Canada: any other\nidentifiable group.\n\n Genocide always falls within the broader\ncategory of crimes against humanity.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 6.1 (Differences between genocide and a crime against humanity)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-6-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Differences between a war crime and a crime against humanity", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Differences between a war crime and a crime against humanity\nWar Crime\nCrime against humanity\n\n Can be limited to a single criminal act.\n\n A single criminal act can only be considered\na crime against humanity if it is shown that\nthis one act was the result of the\nimplementation of a widespread or\nsystematic policy (Rome Statute of the\nInternational Criminal Court art. 7).\n Can only occur when a certain threshold of\nintensity is reached between parties in the conflict\n(Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court\nart. 8, 2(d)).\n For example, police officers conducting\nthemselves in a violent manner during riots would\nnot necessarily constitue a war crime, but could\nbe a crime against humanity.\n\n Can occur in any setting: during international\nwar, civil war, and in times of peace.\nFor example, a particular atrocity such as\nthe killing of a civilian during a civil war can\nbe both a war crime and a crime against\nhumanity.\n\nCan be a crime against property.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 9", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 6.2 (Differences between a war crime and a crime against humanity)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-6-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Differences between a crime against humanity, war crime and a terrorist act:", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.3 Differences between a crime against humanity, war crime and a terrorist act:\nA terrorist act generally has a wider application than a war crime, a crime against humanity and/or\ngenocide because:\n it is different than a crime against humanity in that it can be committed against both persons and\nproperty;\n it can be an isolated incident — it does not have to be committed in a widespread or systematic\nmanner;\n it can be committed both in times of war and peace;\nCriminal conduct pertaining to terrorist acts tends to be limited to very serious acts against persons and\nproperty (see section 83.01(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code Criminal Code). Terrorist acts also have been\ncommitted to achieve a particular purpose and with a specific intention (see section 83.01(1)( b)(i) and\n83.01(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code of Canada).\nThis wider application is also reflected in section 34 of the IRPA, which makes any person who is or was\na member of a terrorist organization inadmissible.\nAn officer may have an applicant who fits the description of all three crimes. An example scenario would\nbe:\n that a person was found to be a member of a group;\n that the group the person belonged to conducted a bombing campaign;\n that the incident occurred during a civil war.\nIn this scenario it would be preferable to find such a person described in A34(1)(f) rather than in\nA35(1)(a). The concept of membership to apply A35(1)(a) would not be sufficient as a result of the\ndecision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Rachidi Ekanza Ezokola v Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration (2013) SCC40 (i.e. it would need to be proven that the person made a voluntary, knowing\nand significant contribution to the organization’s crime or criminal purpose) further described in Section 8\nof this chapter.\nNote: Refer to Appendix C which lists articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal\nCourt. These articles provide further clarification and examples of what constitutes war crimes, crimes\nagainst humanity and/or genocide.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 6.3 (Differences between a crime against humanity, war crime and a terrorist act:)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Program Objectives – CBSA", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7 Program Objectives – CBSA\nPersons who have committed or including those who are complicit in the commission of a war crime, a\ncrime against humanity, genocide or any other reprehensible act, regardless of when or where these\ncrimes occurred, are not welcome in Canada.\nA four-pronged approach is taken when dealing with modern-day war criminals:\n refusing their overseas applications as permanent residents, refugees, or temporary residents;\n denying their entry to Canada at ports of entry;\n excluding them from the refugee determination process in Canada; and,\n finding them inadmissible and removing them from Canada\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 10", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 7 (Program Objectives – CBSA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Establishing inadmissibility under A35(1)(a) of the Immigration", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8 Procedure: Establishing inadmissibility under A35(1)(a) of the Immigration\nand Refugee Protection Act or exclusion under 1F(a) of the United Nations\nRefugee Agency’s Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees.\nA35(1)(a) under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act reads as follows:\n35. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human rights or\ninternational rights for:\n(a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of\nthe Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;\nArticle 1F(a) of the United Nations Refugee Agency’s Convention and Protocol relating to the\nstatus of refugees reads as follows:\n1F The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious\nreasons for considering that:\n(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as defined\nin the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes\nThis includes the following:\n individuals who personally commit an offence;\n individuals who attempt to commit an offence;\n individuals who aid and abet, encourage, or are involved in the planning of an offence;\n individuals who occupy a position of command or superior responsibility with regards to those who\ncommitted the offense;\n individuals who are complicit when an offence is committed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 8 (Procedure: Establishing inadmissibility under A35(1)(a) of the Immigration)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Establishing complicity", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 Establishing complicity\nThe Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in the matter of Rachidi Ekanza Ezokola v Minister of\nCitizenship and Immigration (2013) changed how complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity\nand/or genocide is to be assessed. The court introduced the contribution-based test as the applicable\nlegal test to be applied by the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB) or immigration officers in-Canada or\noverseas. Eliminated components of the United Nations Refugee Agency’s Convention and Protocol\nrelating to the status of refugees 1F(a) jurisprudence, which are also applicable to IRPA A35(1)(a)\nanalysis, are:\n the elimination of complicity by mere association; and,\n the elimination of the presumption that mere membership in an organization with a limited brutal\npurpose is sufficient for an individual to be excluded from refugee protection or found inadmissible\nunder A35(1)(a).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 8.1 (Establishing complicity)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-8-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "The contribution-based test", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 The contribution-based test\nThe key components of the contribution-based test jurisprudence are:\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 11\n Voluntary contribution to the group’s crime or criminal purpose:\nDecision makers are to consider the method of recruitment by the organization and any safe and early\nopportunity the person has had to dissassociate from the organization. The voluntariness requirement\ncaptures the defense of duress. The contribution to the crime or criminal purpose must be voluntarily\nmade; it cannot be made under duress.\n Significant contribution to the group’s crime or criminal purpose:\nThe mere association factor has now been replaced with a culpable complicity factor when a person\nmakes a significant contribution to the crime or criminal purpose of a group. The degree of contribution\nmust be carefully assessed to prevent an unreasonable extension of criminal participation in international\ncriminal law.\n Knowing contribution to the group’s crime or criminal purpose:\nThe person must be aware of the group’s crime or criminal purpose and aware that his or her conduct will\nassist in the furtherance of the crime or criminal purpose.\n8.3 6 Factors – Contribution-based test for establishing complicity:\nTo determine whether a person’s conduct meets the test for complicity, the following 6 factors should be\nconsidered in the decision maker’s analysis:\n The size and nature of the organization, including whether the organization was one with a brutal,\nlimited purpose;\n The part of the organization with which the person was most directly concerned:\nDecision makers should be aware that persons may not have been affiliated with all parts of the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 8.2 (The contribution-based test) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-8-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "The contribution-based test", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "organization and could have been excluded from affiliating with the part that was involved in the crime or\ncriminal purpose. The decision maker should drill down as far as possible in the organization so as to\nmore properly define the group to which the person is said to belong, especially with organizations that\nare hybrid or multi-faceted.\n The person’s duties and activities within the organization:\nThis factor is significant because it goes to the heart of a person’s day-to-day participation. The decision\nmaker should look at the person’s day-to-day participation in regards to the duties and activities and\nconsider the link between these and the crimes and criminal purpose of the organization.\n The person’s position or rank in the organization;\n The length of time the person was in the organization, particularly after acquiring knowledge of the\ngroup’s crime or criminal purpose; and,\n The method by which the personwas recruited and the person’s opportunity to leave the\norganization,\nThese factors are not exhaustive and are not given the same weight in all cases. The focus must remain\non the person’s contribution to the crime or criminal purpose and the analysis. The weight of each factor\nwill depend on the facts and context of each case.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 12", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 8.2 (The contribution-based test) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-8-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Establishing complicity—brutal (limited purpose) organizations", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4 Establishing complicity—brutal (limited purpose) organizations\nIn the decision of Rachidi Ekanza Ezokola v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2013) SCC40, the\nSupreme Court of Canada has stated that when looking at establishing complicity, the contribution-based\ntest should be applied.\nA first step is to look at the size and nature of the organization. If the main purpose of the organization is\nthe involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide, the factor with respect to such\nan organization may weigh more heavily than some of the other factors set out above. A characterization\nof an organization as brutal only has an effect in relation to the other factors in the contribution-based test\nbut by itself can never lead to complicity. The Supreme Court stated in the Ezokola decision of that “In\ncontrast, where the group is identified as one with a limited and brutal purpose it will be easier to establish\ncomplicity. In such circumstances, a decision maker may more readily infer that the accused had\nknowledge of the group’s criminal purpose and that his conduct contributed to that purpose.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 8.4 (Establishing complicity—brutal (limited purpose) organizations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-8-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Other forms of complicity", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5 Other forms of complicity\nWhile the new contribution-based test for complicity set out in Ezokola replaces the former “personal and\nknowing participation test”, it also allows for the continued and direct application of international criminal\nlaw including modes of partial liability for the commission of international crimes, such as aiding and\nabetting based on article 25 of the Rome Statute, and also command or superior responsibility based on\narticle 28 of the Rome Statute.\nThe Canadian courts have determined that the following activities constitute aiding and abetting (as 1\nform of complicity):\n handing over people to organizations (brutal or non-brutal) with the knowledge that these people\nwould come to harm;\n providing information to organizations on individuals which result in harm to these individuals;\n providing support functions, such an being an intelligence officer, a driver or a bodyguard to\nmembers of the organization;\n assisting in increasing the effectiveness of a limited brutal purpose organization, for example, by\nbeing a policeman in charge of political prisoners at a military hospital or being in charge of legal\ntraining with a police force.\nIf the above examples of aiding and abetting do not fit the situation at hand, international criminal law can\nbe helpful in this regard. The aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage\nor lend moral support to the perpetration of a certain specific crime (murder, extermination, rape, torture,\nwanton destruction of civilian property, etc.), and this support has a substantial effect upon the\nperpetration of the crime. (Tadić (IT-94-1-A), Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999 at para. 229.)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 8.5 (Other forms of complicity) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-8-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Other forms of complicity", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "While the concepts of command responsibility and superior responsibility have been introduced into\nCanadian criminal law and are now part of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (which is in\nturn based on article 28 of the Rome Statute) there has been no jurisprudence in Canada as of yet.\nCommand responsibility applies to military hierarchies and superior responsibility applies to civilian\norganizations.\nHowever, international criminal law has been instrumental in providing clarifications for its various\nelements. For example, a superior will be subject to individual criminal liability if the following elements\ncan be demonstrated: a superior-subordinate relationship; the superior knew or had reason to know\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 13\nthat a criminal act was about to be, was being or had been committed (the requisite mens rea); and a\nfailure to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish the conduct in question.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 8.5 (Other forms of complicity) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-8-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Defences", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.6 Defences\nThe burden of proof with respect to defences lies with the person concerned, i.e. it has to be raised and\nproven by that person. Two common defences in immigration/refugee law are superior orders and\nduress.\nSuperior Orders:\nA common defence of a person who committed a war crime, genocide, or a crime against humanity is\nbased on the concept of superior orders; i.e., the position held required the individual to follow orders\nfrom the government or a superior officer. Although this defence may be used in arguing for a lighter\nsentence in a criminal prosecution, it is not relevant for the purposes of the IRPA and cannot overcome\ninadmissibility under A35(1)(a) or 1F(a) exclusion, except if the person concerned can show that the order\nfollowed was not manifestly unlawful; a difficult test to meet.\nDuress:\nThe Ministers' policy position regarding the appropriate test for the defence of duress, when it is raised in\nthe context of assessments under A35(1)(a) or 1F(a) exclusion under A98, is one which adopts a\nharmonized approach based on Canadian criminal law, Canadian immigration law and international\ncriminal law.\n1. When assessing the defence of duress for inadmissibility under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the IRPA or\nfor a 1F(a) exclusion under section 98 of the IRPA, we must rely on international criminal law.\nThis was articulated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of\nEmployment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 8540 (FCA)\n2. However, the defence of duress under international criminal law has changed since Ramirez was\nrendered. The current state of the test is codified in article 31(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of the\nInternational Criminal Court . The test for duress set out in article 31(1)(d) of the Rome Statute\ntherefore applies.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 8.6 (Defences)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Canadian criminal law test for the defence of duress set out by the Supreme Court of", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. The Canadian criminal law test for the defence of duress set out by the Supreme Court of\nCanada in in R v. Ryan, 2013 SCC 3 should only be relied upon as an interpretive aid (see “For\ncross-reference purposes only: Test under Ryan” below).\nThe following is a summary of the elements of the test to be applied:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3 (The Canadian criminal law test for the defence of duress set out by the Supreme Court of)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Such threat is required to be made by other persons or constituted by other circumstances", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Such threat is required to be made by other persons or constituted by other circumstances\nbeyond the control of the person concerned;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (Such threat is required to be made by other persons or constituted by other circumstances)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "The person concerned must act necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat;", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. The person concerned must act necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat;\n5. In so acting the person concerned does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to\nbe avoided.\nDetails of Minister's harmonized interpretation:\nThe Minister's position is that the elements of the international criminal law test for the defence of\nduress are in harmony with the elements found in the domestic criminal law test.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 14\nIn accordance with the Minister's interpretation, both tests recognize that responsibility for the commission\nof a crime disappears when:\n the \"accused person\" (the person who is alleged to have committed the crime) committed the\ncrime in circumstances which removed the \"accused's\" ability to exercise free will (i.e., the act was\nno longer voluntary / the \"accused\" was compelled to act), because of\no a threat of death or serious bodily harm to the \"accused\" or another person which\noutweighed the harm which the \"accused\" was being forced to inflict.\nBoth tests consist of stringent elements which must be met in order for the defence to apply. Those\nelements are harmonized as follows:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 4 (The person concerned must act necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat;)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "There must have been a \"threat of death or serious bodily harm\";", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. There must have been a \"threat of death or serious bodily harm\";\ni. the threat must have been made by other persons or constituted by other circumstances\nbeyond the control of the \"accused\";\nii. a merely abstract danger or simply an elevated probability that a dangerous situation\nmight occur will not suffice;\niii. the threat must have been objectively present and not merely exist in the perpetrator's\nmind (the \"accused\" must reasonably have believed that the threat would be realized);\niv. the threat must have been directed against the \"accused\" or some other person.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 1 (There must have been a \"threat of death or serious bodily harm\";)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "There must have been a \"close temporal connection\" between the threat and the harm", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. There must have been a \"close temporal connection\" between the threat and the harm\nthreatened;\ni. a \"close temporal connection\" is sufficient to show that the threat was not too far removed\nin time or too vague in terms of its timing;\nii. a \"close temporal connection\" supports a finding that it is reasonable to believe that t he\ndegree of pressure placed on the \"accused\" was sufficient for the \"accused\" to lose the\nability to act freely (the \"accused\" therefore acted in an involuntary manner);\niii. \"close temporal connection\" does not require that the harm threatened occurred\nimmediately (threats of future harm may be considered). Future harm is evaluated in the\ncontext of whether there still remained a sufficiently close temporal connection to the\nthreat;\niv. \"imminent\" under the Rome Statute is understood to mean \"close temporal connection\" as\nthis phrase is used by the SCC in Ryan.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (There must have been a \"close temporal connection\" between the threat and the harm)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "There must have been a \"close temporal connection\" between the threat and the act of the", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. There must have been a \"close temporal connection\" between the threat and the act of the\n\"accused\" in order to determine whether there was any legal way of averting the act;\ni. a \"close temporal connection\" is sufficient to show that the threat was not too far removed\nin time or too vague in terms of its timing;\nii. a \"close temporal connection\" supports a finding that it is reasonable to believe that the\ndegree of pressure placed on the \"accused\" was sufficient for the \"accused\" to lose the\nability to act freely (to have acted in an involuntary manner);\niii. \"imminent\" under the Rome Statute is understood to mean \"close temporal connection\" as\nthis phrase is used by the SCC in Ryan.\n4. There must have been no legal way of averting the act based on a modified objective standard\n(this reflects both the position in Ryan and the Rome Statute's requirement to have acted\nnecessarily and reasonably to avoid the threat)\ni. a threat results in duress only if it is not otherwise avoidable (i.e., if a reasonable person\nin comparable circumstances would not have submitted and would not have been\ndriven to the relevant criminal conduct; no other available alternative course of evasive\naction that could reasonably have been expected to be taken; could not have fairly\nbeen expected to withstand or assume the risk);\nii. acting necessarily and reasonably to avoid a threat does not require special valour,\nprowess or heroism which, by definition, go beyond the call of a reasonable person;\niii. part of this analysis includes an evaluation of whether there was a safe avenue of\nescape;\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 15\niv. part of this analysis includes an evaluation of whether the predicament in which the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3 (There must have been a \"close temporal connection\" between the threat and the act of the) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "There must have been a \"close temporal connection\" between the threat and the act of the", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "\"accused\" finds himself or herself was of his or her own making or consistent with his or\nher own will (e.g., where the \"accused\" becomes (or remains) a party to an association\nin which he or she knowingly accepted a risk that, as a result of such association, he or\nshe could be compelled to commit such a crime). Voluntarily associating oneself\n(joining or remaining associated) with such knowledge would not meet the requirement\nto act necessarily and reasonably;\nv. the \"modified objective standard\" refers to assessing how a reasonable person in the\nsame situation as the \"accused\" and with the same personal circumstances and\nexperiences as the \"accused\" would have acted (e.g., concluding whether or not there\nwas no legal way of averting the act, such as a safe avenue of escape).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3 (There must have been a \"close temporal connection\" between the threat and the act of the) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "There must have been a measure of proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. There must have been a measure of proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm\nwhich the \"accused\" inflicted on the victim(s). The harm threatened must outweigh the harm\ninflicted. This should be based on a modified objective standard;\ni. part of this analysis includes an evaluation of the severity of the bodily harm that was\nthreatened;\nii. the \"modified objective standard\" refers to assessing how a reasonable person in the\nsame situation as the \"accused\" and with the same personal circumstances and\nexperiences as the \"accused\" would have acted (e.g., concluding whether or not the\nharm being threatened outweighed the harm inflicted on the victim(s)).\nFor cross-reference purposes only: Test under Ryan\nThe Supreme Court of Canada in R. v Ryan, 2013 SCC 3 (CanLII), at paragraph 55, set out the test for\nthe defence of duress in Canadian criminal law as follows:\n1. an explicit or implicit threat of death or bodily harm proffered against the \"accused\" or a third\nperson. The threat may be of future harm. Although, traditionally, the degree of bodily harm was\ncharacterized as \"grievous\", the issue of severity is better dealt with at the proportionality stage,\nwhich acts as the threshold for the appropriate degree of bodily harm;\n2. the \"accused\" reasonably believed that the threat would be carried out;\n3. the non-existence of a safe avenue of escape, evaluated on a modified objective standard;\n4. a close temporal connection between the threat and the harm threatened;\n5. proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm inflicted by the \"accused\". This is also\nevaluated on a modified objective standard;\n6. the \"accused\" is not a party to a conspiracy or association whereby the \"accused\" is subject to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 5 (There must have been a measure of proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "There must have been a measure of proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "compulsion and actually knew that threats and coercion to commit an offence were a possible\nresult of this criminal activity, conspiracy or association.\nApplication of the defence of duress:\n When an allegation under A35(1)(a) or 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention is made before the\nImmigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), and the person concerned has raised the issue\nof duress, it will be an IRB member who decides whether the defence has been sufficiently\nestablished.\n When the defence of duress is raised, CBSA Hearings Officers, who represent the relevant\nMinister before the IRB (either for an allegation under A35(1)(a) or an allegation under 1F(a) of\nthe Refugee Convention), should argue whether the defence of duress has been sufficiently\nestablished based on the facts of the case and the Minister's position on the applicable test for\nthe defence of duress.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 16\n In the context of considering writing a report under A44(1) or referring a report under A44(2) for\ninadmissibility under A35(1)(a), or in the context of a claim being made for refugee protection\nwhere article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention is a possible issue, and when the defence of\nduress is raised, the officer should record and document any evidence of duress that has been\nraised. In these circumstances, officers/ Minister’s Delegates are not to make a decision on\nwhether the defence of duress has been made out.\n In the context of considering an application for permanent residence from inside Canada, Senior\nImmigration Officers, when deciding whether the person concerned has or has not satisfied the\nofficer that the person concerned is not inadmissible to Canada under A35(1)(a), should record\nand document any evidence of duress.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 5 (There must have been a measure of proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "There must have been a measure of proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " When A35(1)(a) is at issue during the processing of a visa application, and the person concerned\nhas raised the defence of duress, it will be an IRCC Migration Officer who decides whether the\ndefence has been sufficiently established. IRCC Migration Officers should record and document\nany evidence of duress that has been raised.\nIRCC Migration Officers should consider the policy position on the appropriate test for the\ndefence of duress as articulated in this manual chapter.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 5 (There must have been a measure of proportionality between the harm threatened and the harm) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-8-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 8.7", + "marginal_note": "Cases involving prior exclusion by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.7 Cases involving prior exclusion by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)\nSection R15(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) has established that the\nfindings of fact pursuant to section F of Article 1 of the United Nations Refugee Agency’s Convention and\nProtocol relating to the status of refugees [1F(a)] are conclusive during an IRPA A35(1)(a) assessment.\nAn example would be where the person has previously been in Canada and the officer has evidence that\nthe Refugee Protection Division has excluded the person from refugee determination under 1F(a). In\nmost instances there would be no need to conduct any further investigation to establish further facts\nunder A35(1)(a), as long as the decision maker can demonstrate that these facts would stand up using\nthe new contribution-based test. In most cases, RPD decisions made before the Ezokola decisions can\nbe utilized without having to apply the new complicity test.\nThere will be situations where the person provides the officer with additional information that was not\navailable at the time of the Refugee Protection Division exclusion. The decision maker must take into\naccount any new and credible evidence regarding the inadmissibility. Any such additional information\nmust be accepted and has to be assessed to demonstrate the contribution-based test.\nBoth submissions by the applicant as well as the CBSA can be found to be new evidence, provided that\nthey were not before the Refugee Protection Division. Where relevant and credible evidence is brought\nforward that requires consultation with CBSA HQ, officers may contact the Case Review Unit .\nR15 also considers a decision by any international criminal tribunals established by resolution of the\nSecurity Council of the United Nations or by the ICC as a conclusive finding of fact for the purposes of\ninadmissibility under A35(1)(a), as well as a decision by a Canadian court pursuant to the Criminal Code\nof Canada or the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.\nFor case law on complicity, refer to ENF24 Appendix H.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 8.7 (Cases involving prior exclusion by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "Designation of regimes", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1 Designation of regimes\nA person cannot be described in A35(1)(b) unless the government concerned has been designated by the\nMinister of Public Safety as a regime that has been involved in terrorism, systematic or gross human\nrights violations, a war crime, crime against humanity or genocide within the meaning of subsections 6(3)\nto (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 9.1 (Designation of regimes)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Designated regimes pursuant to Section A35(1)(b)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2 Designated regimes pursuant to Section A35(1)(b)\nDesignated June 16, 1993, extended on August 15, 1997: the Bosnian Serb regime between March 27,\n1992 and October 10, 1996.\nDesignated October 12, 1993: the Siad Barré regime in Somalia between 1969 and 1991.\nDesignated April 8, 1994: the former military governments in Haiti between 1971 and 1986, and between\n1991 and 1994, except the period August to December 1993.\nDesignated October 21, 1994: the former Marxist regimes of Afghanistan between 1978 and 1992.\nDesignated September 3, 1996, amended September 9, 2004: the governments of Ahmed Hassan Al –\nBakr and Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq between 1968 and May 22, 2003.\nDesignated April 27, 1998: the Government of Rwanda under President Habyarimana between October\n1990 and April 1994, as well as the interim government in power between April 1994 and July 18, 1994.\nDesignated June 30, 1999, amended March 14, 2001: the governments of the Federal Republic of\nYugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia (Milosevic) between February 28,1998, and October 7, 2000.\nDesignated March 14, 2001, amended September 9, 2004: the Taliban regime in Afghanistan between\nSeptember 27, 1996 and December 22, 2001.\nDesignated November 21, 2003: the Government of Ethiopia under Mengistu Haile Mariam between\nSeptember 12, 1974 and May 21, 1991.\nThe CBSA, in consultation with Immigration, Refugee, Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) International Region\nand Global Affairs Canada (GAC), provides a recommendation to the Ministers that a particular\ngovernment should be designated. The following are among the factors that will be considered in deciding\nwhether a regime should be designated:\n condemnation by other countries and organizations;\n the overall position of the Canadian government, including whether accepting a refugee claim by a\nsenior member of the government would undermine Canada's strong position on human rights;\n the nature of the human rights violations; and\n immigration concerns such as the number of persons coming from that specific country and whether\nthere might be a concern for the protection of Canadian society.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 9.2 (Designated regimes pursuant to Section A35(1)(b))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-9-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Requirements to establish inadmissibility", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3 Requirements to establish inadmissibility\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 18\nPersons who are described in A35(1)(b) may be broken down into three categories , each with its own\nevidentiary requirements, as set out in the following table:\nCategory\nEvidence required Notes", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 9.3 (Requirements to establish inadmissibility)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Persons described", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Persons described\nin R16(a), R16(b),\nR16(f)\n(ambassadors only),\nand R16(g)\n\nDesignation of regime\nProof of position\nA person in this group is presumed to be or to have\nbeen able to exert significant influence on the\nexercise of that government's power. This is a non-\nrebuttable presumption which has been upheld by the\nFederal Court of Appeal. In other words, the fact that\na person is or was an official in this category is\ndeterminative of the allegation. Aside from the\ndesignation and proof that the person holds or held\nsuch a position, no further evidence is required to\nestablish inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 1 (Persons described)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Persons described", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Persons described\nin R16(c), R16(d),\nR16(e), and R16(f)\n(senior diplomatic\nofficials only)\nDesignation of regime\nProof of position held\nProof that position is\nsenior (see the note\nfollowing this table)\nIn addition to the evidence required, it must be\nestablished that the position the person holds or held\nis a senior one. In order to establish that the person's\nposition was senior, the position should be related to\nthe hierarchy in which the functionary operates.\nCopies of organization charts can be located from the\nEuropa World Year Book, Encyclopedia of the Third\nWorld, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices\n(U.S. Department of State). If it can be demonstrated\nthat the position is in the top half of the organization,\nthe position can be considered senior. This can be\nfurther established by evidence of the responsibilities\nattached to the position and the type of work actually\ndone or the types of decisions made (if not by the\napplicant then by holders of similar positions).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (Persons described)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Persons not", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Persons not\ndescribed in R16\nDesignation of\nregime\nProof that the person\ncould exercise\nsignificant influence or\nwas able to benefit\nfrom the position\nIn addition to the designation of the regime, it must be\nestablished that the person, although not holding a\nformal position, is or was able to exercise significant\ninfluence on the actions or policies of the regime or\nwas able to benefit from the position.\nA person who assists in either promoting or sustaining\na government designated by the Minister can be\ncharacterized as having significant influence over its\npolicies or actions.\nThe concept of significant influence is not limited to\npersons who made final decisions on behalf of the\nregime; it also applies to persons who assisted in the\nformulation of these policies, e.g., by providing advice,\nas well as persons responsible for carrying them out,\nas long as the influence or benefit occurred at a high\nlevel and not an average situation applicable to large\ncategories of people. If a person conducts activities\nwhich directly or indirectly allow the regime to\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 19\nimplement its policies, the test for significant influence\nis met. The phrase \"government power\" in R16 is not\nlimited to powers exercised by central agencies or\ndepartments but can also refer to entities that\nexercise power at the local level.\nOnce it is established that the person exerted\nsignificant influence or benefited, the extent or degree\nof this influence or benefit is not relevant to the finding\nof inadmissibility; however, they are factors that could\nbe considered by the Minister when deciding whether\na declaration of relief under A42.1 would not be\ncontrary to the national interest.\nThere is no definition of \"senior official\" in the IRPA but the Federal Court has held on a number of\noccasions that ‘senior’ applies to the top 50% of an organization.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 3 (Persons not)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Opportunity for person to be heard", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4 Opportunity for person to be heard\nIf an officer is reporting the person for an allegation under A35(1)(b), the applicant must be given an\nopportunity to demonstrate that their position is not senior as described in R16 (category 2) or that they\ndid not or could not exert significant influence on their government's actions, decisions, or policies and did\nnot benefit from their position (category 3). This can be done by mail or by personal interview. In either\ncase, the officer should provide the applicant with copies of all unclassified documents that will be\nconsidered in assessing admissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 9.4 (Opportunity for person to be heard)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-9-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 9.5", + "marginal_note": "Consultation with CBSA HQ", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.5 Consultation with CBSA HQ\nOfficers should be aware of the sensitive nature of A35(1)(b) and the need for careful and thorough\nconsideration of all relevant information. It is not intended that officers should cast the net so widely that\nall employees of a designated regime are considered inadmissible.\n Before considering the refusal of an applicant whose position is not listed in R16 or writing an A44 for\nan allegation of inadmissibility, officers are requested to consult with CBSA Case Management (HQ).\nFor Port of Entry and in-Canada cases", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 9.5 (Consultation with CBSA HQ)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Determining the general profile", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1 Determining the general profile\nWhen reviewing an application for entry into Canada or investigating an allegation of inadmissibility for\npersons in Canada, applicants who are from countries where there is/was war, internal turmoil, genocide,\nor where human rights abuses are/were widespread and who are one of the following qualify for more in-\ndepth investigation:\n senior government officials, diplomats or employees of the government;\n current and former military, para-military, security, intelligence and police personnel or individuals\nemployed in technical or scientific backgrounds related to chemical or biological weapons;\n close family relatives of heads of government/state;\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 20\n persons suspected of being members of an organization that is involved in terrorism or crimes\nagainst humanity; or\n members of guerrilla groups.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 10.1 (Determining the general profile)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Security vetting of Temporary and Permanent Resident visa applicants", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2 Security vetting of Temporary and Permanent Resident visa applicants\nIRCC visa officers processing temporary and permanent resident visa applications should be aware that\nan Immigration Control (IC) manual outlines procedures for security screening.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 10.2 (Security vetting of Temporary and Permanent Resident visa applicants)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-11-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "A35(1)(c) Restricted entry / Imposed sanctions on a country", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1 A35(1)(c) Restricted entry / Imposed sanctions on a country\nA person is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for:\n A35(1)(c) Being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry into or stay in Canada is\nrestricted pursuant to a decision, or, resolution, or measure of an international organization of states\nof which Canada is a member that imposes sanctions on a country against which Canada h as\nimposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that organization or association.\nThe officer may obtain evidence for A35(1)(c) by collecting:\n Proof that the person concerned is a citizen of a country against which Canada has imposed or has\nagreed to impose sanctions;\n Proof of the international organization of states or association of states valid decision, resolution or\nmeasure (see also ENF 2, Evaluating Inadmissibility); and\n Other documentary evidence including, but not limited to, media articles, scholarly journals, expert\nevidence (i.e. evidence from a person who is a specialist in a subject and who may present an\n“expert” opinion).\nThe following considerations apply to inadmissibility under A35(1)(c):\n 35(1)(c) only applies to foreign nationals (it does not apply to permanent residents).\n 35(1)(c) may be used to deny entry to foreign nationals who are listed by an organization or\nassociation of states.\n Canada must be a member of that organization or association of states.\n The restricted entry must be pursuant to sanctions imposed “on a country”.\n Canada must have agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that organization or association of\nstates. There is no requirement of complicity, intent or purpose.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 11.1 (A35(1)(c) Restricted entry / Imposed sanctions on a country)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-11-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2 Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e)\nA person is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for:\n A35(1)(d) Being a person, other than a permanent resident, who is currently the subject of an\norder or regulation made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act on the grounds\nthat any of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(1.1)(c) or (d) of that Act has occurred.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 21\n A35(1)(e) Being a person, other than a permanent resident, who is currently the subject of an\norder or regulation made under section 4 of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act\n(Sergei Magnitsky Law).\nBill S-226, created the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) and\nmade related amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA) and the IRPA. The bill was\npassed and received Royal Assent on October 18, 2017.\nPursuant to Bill S-226, sanctions may be made against foreign nationals who have committed gross\nviolations of internationally recognized human rights or who have committed signi ficant corruption. As\nsuch, the Government of Canada will publish, update and maintain comprehensive lists of foreign\nnationals who are responsible for, or complicit in gross violations of human rights or significant corruption.\nThe names on these lists include foreign nationals who are subject to an order or regulation under the\nJustice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) or SEMA.\nJustice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law)\nThe Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) enables the Governor in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 11.2 (Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e)) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-11-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Council to issue an order or regulation restricting or prohibiting certain activities in relation to a foreign\nnational who is responsible for, or complicit in gross violations of human rights. An order or regulation\nunder this Act may also be made in respect of foreign public officials who are responsible for, or complicit\nin, acts of significant corruption. The comprehensive list is accessible through the Justice Canada website\n(https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2017-233/page-2.html#docCont).\nSpecial Economic Measures Act\nThe Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA) came into force in 1992 to permit Canada to impose\nsanctions against foreign states and their nationals. The Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials\nAct (Sergei Magnitsky Law) amends SEMA by expanding the grounds upon which the Governor in\nCouncil may cause to be seized, frozen or sequestrated any property in Canada that is held by or on\nbehalf of a foreign state, any person in that foreign state, or a national of that foreign state who does not\nordinarily reside in Canada. When sanctions are imposed under the Act, the names of listed persons are\npublished in a schedule to the relevant regulations.\nProcedures for A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e):\nIn cases where an individual is listed under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials (Sergei\nMagnitsky Law) or the SEMA, a lookout will be created in the Integrated Customs Enforcement System\n(ICES) and a Secure Tracking System (STS) case will be created by the National Security Screening\nDivision (NSSD). Officers will need to confirm biographic details of the foreign national. Foreign nationals\nwho are confirmed to be positive matches to the list meet the reasonable grounds to believe standards for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 11.2 (Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e)) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-11-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "inadmissibility under A35(1)(d) or A35(1)(e).\nBefore proceeding with an inadmissibility report or a visa refusal, officers must determine whether:\n the individual is a foreign national; and\n the individual is currently the subject of an order or regulation under section 4 of the SEMA on the\ngrounds described in paragraph 4(1.1)(c) or (d); or under section 4 of the Justice for Victims of\nCorrupt Foreign Officials Act (Serguei Magnitski Law).\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 22\nIn the event of a suspected name match, other biographic details (i.e. full name, date of birth, place of\nbirth, and/or citizenship, etc. where available) shall be confirmed against the CBSA master sanctions list.\n At ports of entry, officers may contact the Border Operations Centre (BOC) to assist in\ndetermining whether the foreign national is, in fact, a positive match to the CBSA master\nsanctions list.\n At inland or overseas offices, when encountering a suspected match, officers may send an email\nduring business hours (8am to 4pm EST) to the NSSD’s Security Screening Intelligence Unit’s\n(SSIU) mailbox at CBSA HQ to initiate the verification process. After business hours, officers are\nto contact the CBSA’s Border Operations Centre.\nNote: Pursuant to A35(2), there is a temporal aspect to inadmissibility under A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e).\nDespite section 33 of the IRPA, a person who ceases being the subject of an order or regulation referred\nto in A35(1)(d) or (e) is no longer inadmissible under that paragraph. In other words, an individual is only\ninadmissible as long as they are currently listed.\n The details supporting why an individual is, or was, listed are not relevant for determining\ninadmissibility under A35(1)(d) or A35(1)(e).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 11.2 (Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e)) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-11-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " The details for listing the foreign national are not in the possession of the CBSA and therefore the\nCBSA is not under an obligation to disclose. With respect to determining inadmissibility under\nA35(1)(d) or A35(1)(e) of the IRPA, the position of CBSA is that the only relevant information is that\nrelated to the foreign national’s identity.\n While Ministerial relief under A42.1 is available for inadmissibility under A35(1)(c), it is not available\nfor inadmissibility under A35(1)(d) and/or A35(1)(e).\n Should a delisted foreign national be encountered, the officer must evaluate other inadmissibility\ngrounds under IRPA as outlined in ENF 1 and ENF 2.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 11.2 (Inadmissibility under paragraphs A35(1)(d) and A35(1)(e)) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "National Security Screening Division (NSSD)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1 National Security Screening Division (NSSD)\nThe NSSD is located within the Intelligence and Enforcement Branch at CBSA HQ and is responsible for\nscreening temporary and permanent resident applicants as well as refugee claimants for involvement in\norganized crime, crimes against humanity, genocide, terrorism, espionage and subversion. The NSSD\nalso develops assessments and provides recommendations on security screening referrals to IRCC\noffices (both domestically and internationally) and CBSA offices.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 12.1 (National Security Screening Division (NSSD))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Intelligence Collection, Analysis and Production (ICAP)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2 Intelligence Collection, Analysis and Production (ICAP)\nThe Intelligence Collection, Analysis and Production Division of the Intelligence and Enforcement Branch\nat CBSA collects, analyses and disseminates actionable intelligence on individuals, organizations and\nevents of security concern. The division conducts trend analyses and produces threat assessments and\nscreening aids on current issues and/or groups including those related to foreign interference, espionage,\nwar crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 23", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 12.2 (Intelligence Collection, Analysis and Production (ICAP))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "Immigration Enforcement Division", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3 Immigration Enforcement Division\nThe Immigration Enforcement Division of the Intelligence and Enforcement Branch at CBSA HQ, is\nresponsible for:\n coordination of the CBSA program input into Canada’s CAHWC Program administration documents\nand agreements including the annual reports, performance measurements, evaluations, etc.\n shared responsibility for governance of the program by representing the CBSA at the Program\nCoordination Operations Committee (PCOC) along with the CBSA’s Case Review section. The unit\nrepresents the CBSA and works closely with program partners in Justice, the RCMP and IRCC in\npolicy development and program administration, setting of program priorities, and accountability for\nprogram performance including annual reporting, implementation of performance measurements and\nevaluations.\n updates of the ENF 18 manual relating to Human or international rights violations.\n providing functional direction and program policy development related to assessment of\ninadmissbility under A35, including Canada’s CAHWC Program.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 12.3 (Immigration Enforcement Division)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-12-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Case Review Unit (CRU)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4 Case Review Unit (CRU)\nThe Case Review Unit is located within the Case Management Directorate as part of the Intelligence and\nEnforcement Branch at CBSA HQ and is responsible for providing advice to the regions concerning case\nspecific enforcement options. The unit is also responsible for managing, tracking and reporting on high\nprofile cases in consultation with program areas, IRCC and the regions. It works closely with IRCC to\nresolve inadmissibility issues and responds to information requests on immigration cases from senior\nmanagement, the Minister’s Office, IRCC and stakeholders. The CBSA’s Case Review Unit is\nresponsible for producing case chronologies; a weekly report on high-profile immigration cases; and\nmanagement of the “Wanted by the CBSA” program.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 24\nAppendix A - War crimes amendments to the Immigration Act and Regulations\nApril 10, 1978 – The Immigration Act 1976 came into force. The Act marked a significant shift in\nCanadian immigration policy in limiting the wide discretionary powers of the Minister of Manpower and\nImmigration.\nOctober 30, 1987 - Bill C-71 created 19(1)(j), a new ground of inadmissibility pertaining specifically to war\ncrimes and crimes against humanity.\nJanuary 1, 1989 - Bill C-55 added to the Immigration Act the exclusionary clauses of the 1951\nConvention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 1F(a) of the Convention excludes protection under\nthe Convention to persons who have committed or are complicit in war crimes or crimes against\nhumanity.\nFebruary 1, 1993 - Bill C-86 created 19(1)(l), a new ground of inadmissibility pertaining to individuals who\nare or were senior members of regimes designated by the Minister as having committed gross human", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 12.4 (Case Review Unit (CRU)) (part 1 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-12-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Case Review Unit (CRU)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "rights violations or war crimes.\nJuly 10, 1995 - Bill C-44 enabled senior immigration officers to render ineligible decisions at any stage of\nthe refugee determination process. This included the authority to declare a positive refugee decision null\nand void if it was determined that the original decision on eligibility was based on misrepresentation.\nMay 1, 1997 - Amendments to the Post Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada Class (PDRCC) and\nDeferred Removal Orders Class (DROC) Regulations restricted persons excluded under Article 1F(a) of\nthe Convention from accessing these reviews.\nJune 17, 1999 - Bill C-40 introduced changes to the Immigration Act concurrent with the proclamation of\nthe new Extradition Act. These included three new provisions 69.1(12), (14), and (15) designed to\nharmonize the extradition and refugee determination processes.\nOctober 23, 2000 - Bill C-19 modified the description of 19(1)(j) and (l) concurrent with the proclamation\nof the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. The grounds of inadmissibility are now based on\nthe definitions of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide contained in the new Act.\nJune 28, 2002 - Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force. The Act provides two specific\ngrounds of inadmissibility for persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide,\nreporting of those inadmissible and issuance of removal orders. It also provides for the exclusion from\nthe refugee determination process of persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or\ngenocide; and it limits appeal rights of persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or\ngenocide.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 25", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 12.4 (Case Review Unit (CRU)) (part 2 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-12-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Case Review Unit (CRU)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Appendix B – Crimes Against Humanity an War Crimes Act\nThe Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act is a statute of the Parliament of Canada. The Act\nimplements Canada’s obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and\nincorporates several grounds of jurisdiction:\nEnsures Canada holds jurisdiction over crimes committed on Canadian territory and by Canadians\nanywhere in the world;\nGives Canada jurisdiction over crimes committed against Canadian nationals; and,\nAllows Canada to prosecute any individual present in Canada for crimes listed in the Crimes Against\nHumanity War Crimes Act, regardless of that individual’s nationality or where the crimes were committed.\nSection 4 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act\n4 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence who commits\n(a) genocide;\n(b) a crime against humanity; or\n(c) a war crime.\n(1.1) Every person who conspires or attempts to commit, is an accessory after the fact in relation to, or\ncounsels in relation to, an offence referred to in subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence .\n(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (1.1)\n(a) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, if an intentional killing forms the basis of the offence;\nand\n(b) is liable to imprisonment for life, in any other case.\n(3) The definitions in this subsection apply in this section:\n\"crime against humanity\" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment,\ntorture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against\nany civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its\ncommission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 12.4 (Case Review Unit (CRU)) (part 3 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-12-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Case Review Unit (CRU)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of\nlaw recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law\nin force at the time and in the place of its commission.\n\"genocide\" means an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an\nidentifiable group of persons, as such, that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes\ngenocide according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its\nbeing criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations,\nwhether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its\ncommission.\n\"war crime\" means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the\nplace of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or\nconventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a\ncontravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.\n(4) For greater certainty, crimes described in Articles 6 and 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Rome\nStatute of the International Criminal Court are, as of July 17, 1998, crimes according to customary\ninternational law. This does not limit or prejudice in any way the application of existing or developing\nrules of international law.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 26\nAppendix C - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court\nhttps://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 12.4 (Case Review Unit (CRU)) (part 4 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-12-4-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Case Review Unit (CRU)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the treaty that established the International\nCriminal Court (ICC). It was adopted as a diplomatic conference in Rome on July 17, 1998 and it entered\ninto force on July 1, 2002. As of 2015, 123 countries are party to the statute. The R ome Statute\nestablished 4 core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of\naggression.\nArticles 6, 7 and 8 pertain to definitions and scenarios of genocide (article 6), crimes against humanity\n(article 7) and war crimes (article 8)\nArticles 6, 7 and 8\n(a) Article 6—Genocide\nFor the purpose of this Statute, \"genocide\" means any of the following acts committed with intent to\ndestroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:\n(a) Killing members of the group;\n(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;\n(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction\nin whole or in part;\n(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;\n(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.\n(b) Article 7—Crimes against humanity\n1. For the purpose of this Statute, \"crime against humanity\" means any of the following acts when\ncommitted as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with\nknowledge of the attack:\n(a) Murder;\n(b) Extermination;\n(c) Enslavement;\n(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;\n(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of\ninternational law;\n(f) Torture;\n(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 12.4 (Case Review Unit (CRU)) (part 5 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-12-4-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Case Review Unit (CRU)", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;\n(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural,\nreligious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as\nimpermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any\ncrime within the jurisdiction of the Court;\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 27\n(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;\n(j) The crime of apartheid;\n(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to\nbody or to mental or physical health.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 12.4 (Case Review Unit (CRU)) (part 6 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "For the purpose of paragraph 1:", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:\n(a) \"Attack directed against any civilian population\" means a course of conduct invol ving the multiple\ncommission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in\nfurtherance of a state or organizational policy to commit such attack;\n(b) \"Extermination\" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of\naccess to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;\n(c) \"Enslavement\" means the exercise of any of all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over\na person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular\nwomen and children;\n(d) \"Deportation or forcible transfer of population\" means forced displacement of the persons concerned\nby expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds\npermitted under international law;\n(e) \"Torture\" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,\nupon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include\npain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;\n(f) \"Forced pregnancy\" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the\nintent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of\ninternational law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating\nto pregnancy;\n(g) \"Persecution\" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to\ninternational law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (For the purpose of paragraph 1:) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "For the purpose of paragraph 1:", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(h) \"The crime of apartheid\" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in\nparagraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and\ndomination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the\nintention of maintaining that regime;\n(i) \"Enforced disappearance of persons\" means the arrest, detention or abduction of per sons by, or with\nthe authorization, support or acquiescence of, a state or a political organization, followed by a refusal\nto acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of\nthose persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged\nperiod of time.\n3, For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male\nand female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different\nfrom the above.\n(c) Article 8—War crimes\n1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as a part of a\nplan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 28", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (For the purpose of paragraph 1:) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:\n(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts\nagainst persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:\n(i) Wilful killing;\n(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;\n(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;\n(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and\ncarried out unlawfully and wantonly;\n(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;\n(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;\n(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;\n(viii) Taking of hostages.\n(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the\nestablished framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:\n(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual\ncivilians not taking direct part in hostilities;\n(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not mi litary\nobjectives;\n(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles\ninvolved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter\nof the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian\nobjects under the international law of armed conflict;\n(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:) (part 1 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe\ndamage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete\nand direct overall military advantage anticipated;\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 29\n(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are\nundefined and which are not military objectives;\n(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of\ndefence, has surrendered at discretion;\n(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the\nenemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva\nConventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;\n(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population\ninto the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the\noccupied territory within or outside this territory;\n(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or\ncharitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are\ncollected, provided they are not military objectives;\n(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical\nor scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital\ntreatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death\nto or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:) (part 2 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;\n(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;\n(xiii)Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively\ndemanded by the necessities of war;\n(xiii) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the\nnationals of the hostile party;\n(xiv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed\nagainst their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the\ncommencement of the war;\n(xvi)Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;\n(xv) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;\n(xvi) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or\ndevices;\n(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard\nenvelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;\n(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to\ncause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in\nviolation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and\nmaterial and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are\nincluded in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant\nprovisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;\n(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 30\n(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:) (part 3 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a\ngrave breach of the Geneva Conventions;\n(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or\nmilitary forces immune from military operations;\n(xxiv) intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and\npersonnel using the distinctive emblems of Geneva Conventions in conformity with international\nlaw;\n(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects\nindispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under\nthe Geneva Conventions;\n(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces\nor using them to participate actively in hostilities.\n(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3\ncommon to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts\ncommitted against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces\nwho have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or\nany other cause:\n(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and\ntorture;\n(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;\n(iii) Taking of hostages;\n(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement\npronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally\nrecognized as indispensable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:) (part 4 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(d) Paragraph 2(c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to\nsituations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence\nor other acts of a similar nature.\n(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international\ncharacter, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:\n(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual\ncivilians not taking direct part in hostilities;\n(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and\npersonnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with\ninternational law;\n(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles\ninvolved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter\nof the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given objects under the law\nof armed conflict;\n(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or\ncharitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are\nENF 18 Human or international rights violations\n2020-06-03 31\ncollected, provided they are not military objectives;\n(v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;\n(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7,\nparagraph 2(f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a\nserious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:) (part 5 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-18-2-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-18", + "act_short": "ENF 18", + "act_name": "ENF 18 — War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "section": "ENF 18 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:", + "part": "War crimes and crimes against humanity", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or\nusing them to participate actively in hostilities;\n(viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unl ess\nthe security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;\n(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;\n(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;\n(xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or\nto medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental\nor hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which\ncause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;\n(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be\nimperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict.\n(f) Paragraph 2(e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not\napply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic\nacts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in\nthe territory of a state when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities\nand organized armed groups or between such groups.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-06-03", + "current_to": "2020-06-03", + "citation": "ENF 18, s. 2 (For the purpose of this Statute, \"war crimes\" means:) (part 6 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf18-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nActive Operational Bulletins (OBs)\nMost recent date of changes: 2024-08-22\nENF 19: Table of Contents\nUpdates to chapter ................................................................................................................. 6\n1. What this chapter is about.................................................................................................. 9\n2. Program objectives ............................................................................................................. 9\n3. The Act and Regulations .................................................................................................... 9\n3.1. Forms .................................................................................................................... 15\n4. Instrument of delegation and designation ....................................................................... 15\n5. Departmental policy.......................................................................................................... 16\n5.1. Officer safety and security.................................................................................. 16\n5.2. Incident report writing ......................................................................................... 16\n6. Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 17\n7. Procedure: General hearing............................................................................................. 20\n7.1. Calculating time limits......................................................................................... 20\n7.2. Withdrawing an appeal (IAD rule 94) ................................................................ 20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3. Reinstating an appeal after withdrawal (IAD rule 95-96) .................................. 21\n7.4. Proof document was provided (IAD rule 25) ..................................................... 21\n7.5. Applications to reopen an appeal ...................................................................... 21\n7.6. Applications......................................................................................................... 22\n7.7. Loss of appeal rights .......................................................................................... 23\n7.8. Non-disclosure of information: Prior to an appeal hearing ............................... 23", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n7.10. Pre-hearing conferences .................................................................................... 24\n7.11. Liaison with the Department of Justice.............................................................. 24\n7.12. Applications for judicial review ........................................................................... 25\n7.13 Post hearing procedures .............................................................................................. 26\n8. Procedure: Family class sponsorship appeals ............................................................... 27\n8.1. Family class sponsorship appeals ..................................................................... 27\n8.2. Notice of appeal .................................................................................................. 27\n8.3. Designated representative ................................................................................. 27\n8.4. Grounds for appeal ............................................................................................. 28\n8.5. Disputed appeal rights........................................................................................ 28\n8.6. Preparation of the record ................................................................................... 28\n8.7. Requirements to be eligible to sponsor ............................................................. 29\n8.8. Failure to meet financial criteria ......................................................................... 30\n8.9. Other sponsorship eligibility requirements ........................................................ 31", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.10", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate grounds related to sponsorship................. 31", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.10. Humanitarian and compassionate grounds related to sponsorship................. 31\n8.11. Bad faith marriage [R4(1)] .................................................................................. 32\n8.12. New relationship [R4.1] ...................................................................................... 33", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.10 (Humanitarian and compassionate grounds related to sponsorship................. 31)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.13", + "marginal_note": "Sponsors residing in provinces under federal-provincial agreements [A8(1)", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.13. Sponsors residing in provinces under federal-provincial agreements [A8(1)\nand A9(2)] ........................................................................................................... 34\n8.14. Members of the family class .............................................................................. 35\n8.15. Filing evidence .................................................................................................... 35", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.13 (Sponsors residing in provinces under federal-provincial agreements [A8(1))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.17", + "marginal_note": "Authorization to return to Canada and refusal of permanent residency", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.17. Authorization to return to Canada and refusal of permanent residency\napplication ........................................................................................................... 36", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.17 (Authorization to return to Canada and refusal of permanent residency)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n9. Procedure for appeals involving medical inadmissibility ................................................ 36\n9.1. Overview of process for medical refusal ........................................................... 36\n9.2. Grounds for appeal ............................................................................................. 36", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Procedures upon receipt of new medical information during the appeal ........ 37", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4. Procedures upon receipt of new medical information during the appeal ........ 37\n9.5. New medical examination .................................................................................. 38\n9.6. Communicating medical results ......................................................................... 39\n9.7. Medical officers’ statutory declaration ............................................................... 39\n9.8. Effective communication .................................................................................... 40\n10. Alternative dispute resolution conference (ADR) [IAD rule 69(1)]................................ 41\n10.1. Purpose of ADR .................................................................................................. 41\n10.2. Responsibilities of hearings officers for dispute resolution .............................. 41\n11. Procedure for removal order appeals ............................................................................ 43\n11.1. Persons who may appeal against removal orders ............................................ 43\n11.2. Criminality ........................................................................................................... 43\n11.3. All the circumstances of the case ...................................................................... 44\n11.4. Mandatory conditions to be imposed by the IAD .............................................. 44\n11.5. Discretionary conditions in criminal inadmissibility cases ................................ 45", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.4 (Procedures upon receipt of new medical information during the appeal ........ 37)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.6", + "marginal_note": "Monitoring compliance with the conditions of a stay of removal ...................... 46", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.6. Monitoring compliance with the conditions of a stay of removal ...................... 46\n11.7. Cancellation of stays by operation of law .......................................................... 47\n11.8. Permanent resident visa holders ....................................................................... 47\n12. Procedure: Loss of residency status appeals................................................................ 49\n12.1. In Canada............................................................................................................ 49", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.6 (Monitoring compliance with the conditions of a stay of removal ...................... 46)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n12.2. Outside Canada .................................................................................................. 49\n12.3. Record of refusal (outside Canada)................................................................... 49", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Requests to return to Canada for the hearing (Outside of Canada) ................ 50", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4. Requests to return to Canada for the hearing (Outside of Canada) ................ 50\n12.5. Dismissed appeals—Type of removal order ..................................................... 50\n12.6. Failure to appear at an appeal ........................................................................... 50\n13. Procedure: The Minister's appeal rights ........................................................................ 51\n14. Procedure: Roles and responsibilities ........................................................................... 52\nAppendix A – Detention, Safety & Security Annex ............................................................. 54\nAppendix B – Examples of cases that do not need to be forwarded to Operations\nDirectorate, Migration Health Branch, NHQ, by the officer ............................................ 62\nAppendix C – Sample letter from hearings officer to appellant or counsel for the appellant\n- New medical examinations ............................................................................................ 63\nAppendix D – Statement of Service ..................................................................................... 64\nAppendix E – Notice of cancellation, by operation of law, of a stay of removal order\ngranted by the IAD [A68(4)] ............................................................................................. 65", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 12.4 (Requests to return to Canada for the hearing (Outside of Canada) ................ 50)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nUpdates to chapter\nListing by date:\nDate: 2024-08-22\nChanges have been made throughout this chapter. All previous versions should be discarded in\nfavour of the current one. Changes have been made throughout this chapter to reflect the\nrevised Immigration Appeal Division Rules (2022-12-15), updating the name of the Litigation\nManagement Unit to the Judicial Review Unit as well as directions on recording final decisions\nin GCMS.\nDate: 2018-08-03\nChanges have been made throughout this chapter. All previous versions should be discarded in\nfavour of the current one.\nOf particular importance are changes and additions as follows:\n Content from previous section 5 has been moved to section 4 and reworded\n Updates to section 7.5 application to re-open appeals\n Section 7.7 updated to reflect change in definition of serious criminality\n Section 7.7 updated to reflect SCC Tran decision, conditional sentence is not considered a\nterm of imprisonment\n Section 7.11 DOJ has a new name and contact information for requests to assign a\nlitigator\n Old 8.9 right of permanent residence fee refund has been deleted\n Update to section 8.8 Failure to meet financial criteria\n New 8.9 has amended old 8.10 replacing sponsorship exclusion with other sponsorship\neligibility requirements\n Old 8.11 is now 8.10\n New section added 8.11 Bad faith marriage R4(1)\n New section added 8.12 New relationship R4.1\n Old 8.12 now 8.13\n Old 8.13 now 8.14\n Old 8.14 deleted,\n New section added 8.17 ARC\n Old 8.17 now 8.18\n Old 8.18 deleted\n The old section 11.6 from the 2005-12-30 version has been deleted.\n Old 11.7 (now 11.6) amended to remove distinction between criminal and entrepreneurial\ncases\n Old 11.8 now 11.7\n Old 11.9 deleted\n The old Appendix A Procedural fairness letter has been deleted\n New Appendix A added for the Detention, Safety and Security Annex", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n The old Appendix B Letter to medical officer – new medical information has been deleted\n Old Appendix C is now Appendix B\n Old Appendix D is now Appendix C\n Old Appendix E is now Appendix D\n Old Appendix F is now Appendix E\n The old Appendix G Application to reconsider an appeal (A197, A64) has been deleted\n The old Appendix H Application to reconsider an appeal (A197, A68(4)) has been deleted", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nDate: 2005-12-30\nChanges have been made throughout this chapter. All previous versions should be discarded in\nfavour of the current one.\nOf particular importance are changes and additions as follows:\n Dispositions with respect to guardianship have been deleted in the Regulations amending\nthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which came into force on March 22,\n2005. Changes throughout this chapter have been made accordingly.\n Changes have been made to reflect sharing of policy responsibility between the Minister\nof Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness. The latter is also responsible for the service delivery of hearings before the\nImmigration Appeal Division.\nMore comprehensive sections have been added in relation to the conditions, mandatory and\ndiscretionary, imposed by the Immigration Appeal Division when a decision to stay a removal\norder is taken. See new sections 11.4, 11.5, 11.6 and 11.7.\n2003-10-01\nImportant changes have been made to ENF 19 - Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division\n(IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Among the changes to this chapter, the\nhighlights include:\n A new Section 11.7 provides guidelines on the interpretation and the application of A197\nof the transitional provisions of the IRPA (appellant who has been granted a stay of the\nremoval order and who breaches a condition of the stay);\n Appendix F has been updated to reflect changes to the Immigration Appeal Division\nRules;\n a new Appendix G provides guidance on how to prepare an application to reconsider an\nappeal pursuant to A197 and A64 of the IRPA and rule 26 of the IAD Rules;\n a new Appendix H provides guidance on how to prepare an application to reconsider an\nappeal pursuant to A197 and A68(4) of the IRPA and rule 26 of the IAD Rules;\nIt is recommended that any former version of this chapter be discarded in favour of the one now\nappearing in IRCC Connexion.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. What this chapter is about\nThis chapter describes the role of a Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA) hearings officer while\nacting as counsel at appeals heard before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the\nImmigration and Refugee Board (IRB) for either the Minister of Immigration, Refugee,\nCitizenship Canada (IRCC) or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP).\nProcedures for the preparation of an appeal, the conduct of appeal proceedings and for post-\nhearing responsibilities are all covered in this chapter. In addition, this chapter will also outline\nthe program objectives, the role and jurisdiction of the IAD, the different types of IAD hearings\nand the ways in which they may be resolved are discussed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Program objectives\nCanada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) allows specific groups of people to\nappeal to the IAD in order to:\n ensure that prescribed groups of people ordered to be removed from Canada after an\nexamination or admissibility hearing have had the benefit of a full hearing on the\nallegations against them. The Act recognizes an additional commitment to permanent\nresidents, protected persons and foreign nationals who hold a permanent resident visa by\nallowing them to appeal their removal orders to the IAD, not only on the basis of legal\nand factual questions relating to the allegations at the admissibility hearing, but also on\nthe basis that special considerations may be warranted;\n ensure that the reunion in Canada of Canadians and permanent residents with their close\nrelatives from abroad is facilitated by providing a review, by way of appeal, of refusals of\nsponsored applications for permanent residence from members of the family class; and\n ensure that the rights of permanent residents are given due consideration by allowing an\noral appeal to the IAD for loss of residency status determinations made both within and\noutside Canada.\nPursuant to A63(5) the Minister may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a\ndecision of the Immigration Division (ID) in an admissibility hearing.\nThe right of appeal to the IAD is consistent with the objectives of IRPA in that it helps to\naccomplish the following:\n ensure that families are reunited in Canada; and\n protect the health and safety of Canadians and maintain the security of Canadian society.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nProvision IRPA and its Regulations\nDefinition of foreign national A2(1)\nDefinition of permanent resident A2(1)\nFamily reunification A12(1)\nSponsorship of foreign nationals A13(1)\nObligation-answer truthfully (non-compliance) A16\nResidency obligation – permanent resident residency\nobligation\nFor more details regarding the residency obligation,\nsee ENF 23, Loss of Permanent Resident Status, OP\n10, Permanent Residency Status Determination, and\nENF 1, Inadmissibility\nA28(1), A A28(2)\nSecurity - inadmissibility on security grounds\nFor more details, see ENF 1 ,ENF 2\nA34(1)\nHuman or international rights violations –\ninadmissibility for violating human or international\nrights\nFor more details, see ENF 1, ENF 18\nA35(1)\nSerious criminality – inadmissibility for serious\ncriminality\nFor more details, see ENF 1, ENF 2, Evaluating\ninadmissibility\nA36(1)\nCriminality – inadmissibility for criminality\nFor more details, see ENF 1\nA36(2)\nOrganized Criminality – inadmissibility for criminality\nFor more details, see ENF 1, ENF 2, Evaluating\ninadmissibility\nA37(1)\nHealth grounds – inadmissibility for health grounds\nFor more details, see ENF 1,see ENF 2, /OP 18,\nEvaluating Inadmissibility, section 8,\nhttps://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-\ncitizenship/corporate/mandate/policies -operational -\ninstructions-agreements/excessive-demand-june-\n2018.html\nA38(1)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nFinancial reasons – inadmissibility for financial\nreasons\nFor more details, see ENF 2, /OP 18, Evaluating\nInadmissibility, section 8\nA39\nMisrepresentation – inadmissibility for\nmisrepresentation\nFor more details, see ENF 1, ENF 2, Evaluating\ninadmissibility, section 9\nA40\nInadmissibility – cessation of refugee protection A40.1\nNon-compliance with the Act – inadmissibility for\nnon-compliance with the Act\nFor more details, see ENF 1, Inadmissibility, ENF 2,\nEvaluating inadmissibility\nA41\nNon-compliance with the Act and failure to meet\nresidency obligations\nA41/A28\nInadmissible family member\nSee, ENF 2, Evaluating inadmissibility, for more\ndetails\nA42\nLoss of status – loss of permanent resident status\nFor more details regarding the residency obligation,\nsee ENF 23, Loss of Permanent Resident Status, OP\n10, Permanent Residency Status Determination and\nENF 1, Inadmissibility, ENF 2 - Evaluating\ninadmissibility\nA46\nRight to appeal - visa refusal of family class A63(1)\nRight to appeal – visa holder and removal order A63(2)\nRight to appeal - removal order A63(3)\nRight of appeal - residency obligation A63(4)\nRight of appeal - PSEP Minister A63(5)\nNo appeal rights – inadmissibility A64(1)\nNo appeal rights – serious criminality A64(2)\nNo appeal rights – misrepresentation A64(3)\nHumanitarian and compassionate considerations A65", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nDisposition of an appeal A66\nAllowing an appeal A67\nEffect of allowing an appeal A67(2)\nStaying a removal order A68\nEffect of staying a removal order A68(2)\nReconsideration of a stay of a removal order A68(3)\nTermination of a stay of a removal order A68(4)\nDismissal of an appeal A69(1)\nMinister’s appeal A69(2)\nMaking a removal order A69(3)\nIAD decision binding A70(1)\nExamination suspended A70(2)\nReopening appeal A71\nJudicial review A72\nJudicial consideration A78\nApplication for non-disclosure of information A86\nComposition of the IRB A151\nSole and exclusive jurisdiction A162(1)\nProceedings before all Divisions A166\nAbandonment of proceeding A168(1)\nAbuse of process A168(2)\nDecisions and reasons A169 / Rule 54(1)\nIAD - Court of record A174(1)\nPowers of the IAD A174(2)\nIAD proceedings A175(1)\nPresence of a permanent resident at a hearing A175(2)\nTransition – Application of the Act A190\nTransition – Immigration Appeal Division A192\nTransition – Loss of appeal rights A196\nTransition – Stays – Breach of conditions –\nApplication of the Act\nA197\nDefinition of common-law partner R1(1)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nDefinition of family member R1(3)\nDefinition of marriage R2\nDefinition of conjugal partner R2\nDefinition of dependent child R2\nDefinition of Hague Convention on Adoption R2\nDefinition of relative R2\nDefinition of minimum necessary income R2\nDefinition of social assistance R2\nFamily relationships – Bad faith R4(1)\nAdopted children R4(2)\nNew relationship R4.1\nExcluded relationships R5\nMedical examination required R30(1)\nDanger to public health R31\nDanger to public safety R33\nDefinition of excessive demand R1\nDefinition of health services R1\nDefinition of social services R1\nExcessive demand on health services or social\nservices\nR34\nDefinition of Canadian business (residency\nobligation)\nEmployment outside Canada (residency obligation)\nRenounce permanent residence\nR61\nR61(3)\nR72.5\nMember of the family class R117(1)\nAdoption under 18 R117(2)\nBest interests of the child R117(3)\nAdoption over 18 R117(4)\nExcluded relationships R117(9)\nMember of the spouse or common-law partner in\nCanada class\nR123", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nSponsorship eligibility R130\nSponsorship undertaking R131\nRequirements for sponsor R133\nIncome calculation rules R134\nRehabilitation R18\nInadmissibility on health grounds R20\nTypes of removal order R223\nSpecified removal order – Permanent resident loss of\nresidency status\nR228(2)\nCountry of removal R241\nIAD – Mandatory conditions for stayed removal\norders\nR251\nProvision IAD Rules\nDefinitions Rule 1\nAppeal by sponsor – Notice of appeal Rule 13(1)(a)\nTime limit Rule 16(a)\nAppeal record Rule 20\nTime limit Rule 22\nLate appeal record Rule 23\nRemoval order appeals made at an admissibility\nhearing\nRule 13(1)(b)\nAppeal record – admissibility hearing Rule 20(2)\nAppeal record - Removal order appeals made at an\nexamination\nRule 20(3)\nAppeals of decisions made outside Canada on\nresidency obligations\nRule 13(1)(c)\nAppeal record – residency obligation Rule 20(4)\nAppeals by the Minister Rule 15\nCounsel of record Rule 10\nDesignated representative Rule 42\nInformal resolution process Rule 64", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nAlternative dispute resolution conference Rule 69(1)\nParty in custody Rule 62\nStay of removal order Rule 78\nDisclosure of documents Rule 24\nWitnesses Rule 55\nApplications Rule 84", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instrument of delegation and designation", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Instrument of delegation and designation\nExcept as otherwise provided in section 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),\nthe Minister of IRCC is responsible for the administration of IRPA and the Minister of PSEP is\nresponsible for the administration of IRPA as it relates to:\na) examination at ports of entry;\nb) the enforcement of IRPA, including arrest, detention and removal;\nc) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of IRPA and inadmissibility on\ngrounds of security (A34), organized criminality (A37) or violating human or international\nrights (A35); or\nd) declarations referred to in section 42.1 of the IRPA.\nThe Minister of IRCC is responsible for appeals pertaining to visa refusal of family class\n(sponsorship appeals) and residency obligation appeals re decisions made abroad. Consequently\nthe CBSA hearings officers represent the Minister of IRCC for these appeals.\nThe Minister of PSEP is responsible for removal order appeals (including for residency obligation\nappeals re in-Canada decisions) and Ministerial appeals against a decision by the IRB\nImmigration Division in an admissibility hearing. The CBSA hearings officers represent the\nMinister of PSEP for these appeals.\nThe Minister of IRCC has delegated to the CBSA hearings officers the authority to make an\napplication for non-disclosure of information during an appeal before the IAD made under\nsubsections 63(1) and 63(4) of the IRPA (Item 121 in the June 2017 Instrument).\nThe Minister of PSEP has delegated to the CBSA Manager of the Judicial Review Unit and the IRCC\nDirector of Litigation Management the authority to appeal under 63(5).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 4 (Instrument of delegation and designation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Departmental policy\nUnder section 167 of the IRPA the Minister (whichever Minister that may be according to the\nareas of responsibility articulated in section 4 of the IRPA) may be represented by legal or other\ncounsel. Prior to the creation of the CBSA, IRCC officers represented the Minister before the IAD.\nLegal assistance or personal attendance by a Government lawyer at a hearing was, when\nrequired, provided by the Department of Justice (DOJ).\nWith the creation of the CBSA, the responsibility to represent the Minister before the IAD was\npassed from IRCC officers to the CBSA hearings officers.\nThere will be rare circumstances where the assistance of a DOJ lawyer may be required. Such\nassistance will usually be in the form of consultation and advice to the hearings officer however\npersonal attendance by the Government lawyer to present legal arguments is also possible.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 5 (Departmental policy)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-5-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 5.1", + "marginal_note": "Officer safety and security", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.1. Officer safety and security\nIf an officer perceives a threat to their safety prior to a hearing, they should immediately\ninform their manager and communicate those concerns to the IRB. The officer should\ncommunicate their safety and security concerns to the IRB by using the form entitled\n“Identification of Potential Security Risk in IRB Proceedings”. If time does not permit, the IRB\ncould be alerted of the security concern verbally and the form submitted as soon as possible. The\nIRB security unit will conduct a risk assessment to determine if additional security measures\nshould be implemented. In certain circumstances, depending on the safety and security concerns\nand location of the scheduled hearing, it may be more appropriate for hearings officers to file an\napplication to request a change of hearing location. A164 provides that whether an IAD hearing\nis to be conducted in the presence of the person who is subject to the proceedings or by means\nof live telecommunication is in the division’s discretion.\nSituations may arise during a hearing in which an officer feels their personal safety or the\nsafety of others is being compromised. When an officer feels their safety has been threatened,\nsuch as in situations of intimidation by witnesses, the uttering of threats or other safety\nconcerns, they should immediately bring the matter to the attention of the presiding member\nfirst and then their manager at the earliest opportunity, and take any necessary measure within\nreason to protect their own safety according to the IRB protocol.\nIRB procedures for safety and security should help prevent such situations and provide guidance\nfor managing them if they do arise. See Appendix A Detention Safety and Security Annex.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 5.1 (Officer safety and security)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-5-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 5.2", + "marginal_note": "Incident report writing", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.2. Incident report writing\nWhere an incident occurs before, or during, a hearing where an officer feels their safety has been\nthreatened, they should complete an incident report. Reporting procedures enable the CBSA to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 5.2 (Incident report writing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nmake important decisions regarding the safety and security of staff, ongoing training needs, and\nthe recognition of exemplary performance in difficult situations.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6. Definitions\nThe hearing process\nImmigration Appeal\nDivision (IAD)\nThe IAD is an administrative tribunal that provides an independent\nreview of decisions made under the immigration program where a right\nof appeal exists. The IAD examines cases before it for possible errors\nin law, in fact, and mixed law and fact, or for failure to observe a\nprinciple of natural justice. It also has the authority to reverse valid\ndecisions on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This Division is\npart of the IRB and is completely independent of the IRCC, the PSEP\nand their respective Ministers.\nA174 states that the IAD is a court of record. It conducts public\nhearings on the basis of the adversary system and established judicial\nprinciples, rules and precedents. The IAD has all the powers, rights and\nprivileges vested in a superior court of record with respect to any\nmatter necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction, including the\nswearing and examination of witnesses, the production and inspection\nof documents, and the enforcement of its orders.\nThe matters that may be brought before the IAD are:\n refusal to issue a visa to a member of the family class A63(1);\n removal orders made against foreign nationals who hold\npermanent resident visas A63(2);\n removal orders made against permanent residents and\nprotected persons at an examination or admissibility hearing\nA63(3) ;\n appeals of overseas decisions on loss of permanent resident\nstatus A63(4); and\n Minister’s appeal of a decision made by a member of the\nImmigration Division A63(5).\nHumanitarian and\ncompassionate\nconsiderations\nThe IAD has an equitable jurisdiction, which allows it to consider\nfactors that may warrant an appeal being allowed despite the fact the\ndecision is valid in law. IRPA sets out the test to be applied by the IAD\nin order to allow a case for reasons of equity. Under IRPA, the test of\nequity, which the IAD is to apply, has been consolidated into one test\nfor all types of appeals to the IAD by a party other than the Minister.\nA67(1)(c) states that the IAD must be satisfied that, at the time the\nappeal is disposed of “…taking into account the best interests of a child", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 6 (Definitions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\ndirectly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and\ncompassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the\ncircumstances of the case.\"\nThe IAD will balance factors such as those set out below against the\ngrounds for the removal order or refusal under appeal if it finds in\nfavour of the appellant, it will set aside the decision. In the case of an\nappeal regarding an application based on membership in the family\nclass, the IAD must first be satisfied that the foreign national is a\nmember of the family class and the sponsor is a sponsor within the\nmeaning of the Regulations before it can consider humanitarian and\ncompassionate considerations [A65]. Minister of Public Safety and\nEmergency Preparedness v. Hagos, IMM 6378-11, April 20, 2012].\nFactors to be considered by the IAD in appeals of removal orders\ninclude:\n the seriousness of the offence leading to the removal order,\nwhere applicable;\n the possibility of rehabilitation, where applicable;\n the length of time spent in Canada and the degree to which the\nappellant is established here;\n the family in Canada and the dislocation to the family that the\ndeportation would cause;\n the support available to the appellant, not only within the\nfamily but also within the community;\n the degree of hardship that would be caused to the appellant by\ntheir return to their country of nationality, provided that the\nlikely country of removal has been established by the appellant\non a balance of probabilities.\nThese factors have been established by the Immigration Appeal\nCommission in Ribic v. Canada (Minister of Employment and\nImmigration), [1985] I.A.B.D. No. 4 (QL). The Supreme Court of\nCanada in Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,\n[2002] 1 S.C.R. 84 at paragraph 90, reaffirmed that “The factors set\nout in Ribic, [supra], remain the proper ones for the IAD to consider\nduring an appeal...”\nWhen considering a family class appeal, some of the factors that may\nbe considered by the IAD include:\n whether authorizing the applicant to enter would result in the\nreunion in Canada of the appellant with close family;\n the strength of the relationship between the applicant and the\nappellant;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n the degree to which the applicant is established abroad;\n whether an applicant has demonstrated the potential to adapt\nto Canadian society;\n whether the parties to the application have obligations to one\nanother based on their cultural background;\n whether the applicant is alone in their country;\n the availability of health services to the applicant in Canada and\nabroad (for refusals based on medical grounds);\n whether there is evidence of rehabilitation or the risk of the\napplicant re-offending (for refusals based on criminal grounds).\nHearings IAD hearings are de novo and therefore not limited strictly to reviewing\nthe evidence that led up to the refusal or removal order. In Kahlon v.\nCanada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1989) 7 Imm.\nL.R. (2d) 91; 97 N.R. 349 (F.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal\nestablishe d that the IAD must hear the whole case and consider any\nadditional facts brought to its attention.\nEvidence The IAD has broader powers regarding the admission of evidence than\nregular courts since it is not bound by any legal or technical rules of\nevidence [A175(1)c)]. During a hearing, the IAD may receive, and\nbase a decision, on evidence it considers credible or trustworthy in the\ncircumstances, even if the strict rules of evidence have not been met\nby either party to the proceedings.\nDecisions The IAD may dispose of an appeal by allowing it or dismissing it. In the\ncase of an appeal against a removal order, the IAD may also direct\nthat the enforcement of the order be stayed for a set period of time,\nwith conditions attached [A68]. Stays are sometimes granted by the\nIAD in cases where the residency obligation has not been complied\nwith. These stays can be seen in files where a removal order has been", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "issued at a port of entry but can also apply to cases against a decision\nmade outside Canada on the residency obligation when a member\nauthorizes their return to Canada for their hearing. IRPA requires the\nIAD to impose mandatory conditions specified in R251 as well as any\nother conditions that it considers necessary. The IAD can reconsider a\ndecision to stay a removal order at any time. A reconsideration of a\nstay may be initiated either by application by the appellant or the\nMinister’s counsel or on the IAD’s own initiative. [IAD rule 78 & 79]\nWhere the Minister is successful in appealing a favourable decision\nmade by the Immigration Division, the IAD may make or stay the\nremoval order that the member of the Immigration Division did not\nmake.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nA decision that is delivered orally at a hearing takes effect when the\nmember states the decision. A decision made in writing takes effect\nwhen the member signs and dates the decision [IAD rule 104].\nReasons The IAD is required to provide written reasons for all decisions\nregarding an appeal by a sponsor and for decisions that stay a removal\norder. For all other decisions, the person concerned or the Minister of\nIRCC or Minister of PSEP may request written reasons [IAD rule 103].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Calculating time limits", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1. Calculating time limits\nThe Interpretation Act governs the calculation of time limits in federal statutes, regulations and\nrules:\nPursuant to subsection 27(2) of the Interpretation Act, when a statute refers to a number of\ndays (not clear days) between two events, officers will exclude the day on which the first event\nhappened and include the day on which the second event is to occur. When the time limit for the\nperformance of a required action expires or falls on a holiday, the action may be performed on\nthe next workday after the holiday. Pursuant to sections 26 and 35 of the Interpretation Act,\nSundays are holidays, Saturdays are not.\nFor example, if there is a 15-day limit to appeal a decision made on June 2, the count begins on\nJune 3 and ends on June 17. Holidays are not left out in counting up to the 15th day. June 17\nwould therefore be the last day to file, unless it were a Sunday, in which case, June 18 would be\nthe last day. If June 17 is a Saturday and the office is closed, then the appeal must be filed on\nJune 16.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.1 (Calculating time limits)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawing an appeal (IAD rule 94)", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2. Withdrawing an appeal (IAD rule 94)\nAn appellant may apply in writing to the IAD to withdraw their appeal. Should the IAD determine\nthat withdrawing the appeal would likely have a negative effect on the integrity of the IAD\nDivision, it may determine that the withdrawal is an abuse of process and refuse to allow the\nappellant to withdraw their appeal.\nIf an appeal is withdrawn before the record is prepared or distributed, it is not necessary to\ndistribute the record.\nWhen a decision is received from the IAD indicating that an appeal has been withdrawn, the\nGlobal Case Management System (hereinafter “GCMS”) “Appeals” screen and National Case\nManagement System (NCMS) should be updated by the hearings officer.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.2 (Withdrawing an appeal (IAD rule 94))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Reinstating an appeal after withdrawal (IAD rule 95-96)", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3. Reinstating an appeal after withdrawal (IAD rule 95-96)\nAn appellant may apply to the IAD to reinstate an appeal that has been withdrawn. The\napplication must conform to the IAD Rules for applications and include the appellant’s address\nand telephone number. The IAD may reinstate the appeal if it is satisfied that it failed to observe\na principle of natural justice or that it is in the interest of justice to do so [IAD rule 96].\nIf an appeal is reinstated by the IAD, the decision must be entered in GCMS and NCMS by the\nhearings officer.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.3 (Reinstating an appeal after withdrawal (IAD rule 95-96))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Proof document was provided (IAD rule 25)", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4. Proof document was provided (IAD rule 25)\nA written statement stating how and when the documents were provided to the other party must\naccompany all applications, documents and records of appeal filed with the IAD. A sample\nstatement of service is attached in Appendix D.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.4 (Proof document was provided (IAD rule 25))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Applications to reopen an appeal", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5. Applications to reopen an appeal\nA foreign national who has not left Canada under a removal order may make an application to\nthe IAD to reopen their appeal. The IAD may grant the application and reopen the appeal only if\nit is satisfied that it failed to observe a principle of natural justice [A71].\nThe IAD does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal once the deportation order has been\nexecuted. [Corpuz Ledda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 14; Ramkissoon v\nCanada (MCI); [1978] 2 FC 290 (FCA); Canada (MCI) v Toledo, [2000] 3 FCR 563 (FCA). The\npowers conferred upon IAD under IRPA (sections 66-69, 71) with respect to removal order\nappeals refer to possible action before the enforcement of the deportation order. The IRPA does not\nconfer power for the IAD to take any action in cases where the deportation order has been enforced.\nAs such, the IAD does not have jurisdiction to re -open an appeal if the foreign national who filed an\napplication to re-open has been removed before their application is determined by the IAD.\nHearings officers should strongly oppose any application to reopen unless they are satisfied there\nwas a breach of natural justice that merits the appeal being reopened. Hearings officers should\nfile a motion on the ground that the IAD has no jurisdiction against any application to reopen\nwhere the foreign national has already been removed from Canada.\nPlease note the following section of operation bulletin PRG-2017-67 as it pertains to attempts to\nre-open appeal hearings:\nAttempts based on Tran (Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017\nSCC 50), 2017 SCC 50) to reopen final ID or IAD decisions where a determination of\ninadmissibility has been made, a removal order issued, and all avenues of appeal and/or judicial\nreview exhausted can be opposed by the hearings officers on the basis of the doctrine of res\njudicata. The purpose of the Operational Bulletin (hereinafter “OB”) is to direct the regions to use\nres judicata in the present context where the law has changed and where we do not want all", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.5 (Applications to reopen an appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Applications", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6. Applications\nThe IAD Rules specify that unless the IAD Rules provide otherwise, requests made to the IAD\nmust be made in an application in writing [IAD rule 84,85]. Applications may also be made\norally at a proceeding. Procedures for applications made orally at an appeal will be determined\nby the IAD at the proceeding.\nApplications made in writing must:\n state the decision that the applicant wants the IAD to make;\n give reasons why the IAD should make the decision;\n state whether the other party agrees to the application; and\n include any evidence that the applicant wants the IAD to consider when it renders its\ndecision.\nEvidence included with an application must be in the form of a statutory declaration or affidavit\n[IAD rule 85(3)]. This rule, however, does not apply to applications to change the location of a\nhearing or the date or time of a hearing or applications to reconsider the appeal, where a stay of\nremoval has previously been granted.\nWritten applications must first be provided to the other party and then filed at the IAD registry\nwith a written statement indicating how and when the other party was provided with the\napplication. The sample statement of service (Appendix D) may be used to meet the proof of\nservice requirement.\nSome examples of requests that must be made by way of application are:\n requests to change the location of a proceeding IAD rule 88(1);\n requests for non-disclosure of information (A86)\n requests to change the date or time of a proceeding IAD rule 90;\n requests to change or extend time limits;\n requests to hold a hearing in the absence of the public IAD rule 93; and\n requests to withdraw or reinstate an appeal IAD rules94,95.\nResponses to written applications must be in writing [IAD rule 86(1) ]. A written response must\ninclude the same information as noted above for the application. The response must be filed with\nthe IAD no later than seven days after the respondent receives the application [IAD rule 86(5)\nAn applicant may reply in writing to the response no later than five days after they have received\nthe response. [IAD rule 87(3) ].\nWhen an application is received, it should be reviewed to determine whether it has merit and\nwarrants the Minister’s consent or should be opposed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.6 (Applications)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nWhen an application is filed or received, the “Application” screen of NCMS should be completed\nby the hearings officer showing that an application has been initiated. All events in the\napplication process should be entered into NCMS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Loss of appeal rights", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7. Loss of appeal rights\nA64 specifies the circumstances under which a foreign national, their sponsor or a permanent\nresident loses their right of appeal. If a foreign national or permanent resident is determined by\nan officer or the Immigration Division to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human\nor international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, they do not have a right to\nappeal to the IAD.\nSerious criminality—Term of imprisonment of 6 months or more for a crime that was\npunished in Canada or crime described in paragraph A36(1)(b) or (c) [A64(2)].\nIn order for the loss of appeal rights to apply on grounds of serious criminality, the person must\nhave received a sentence of 6 months or more for a crime punished in Canada or must have\nbeen found inadmissible for a crime described in A36(1)(b) or (c). In cases where there has been\ntime served, i.e., pre-sentence custody, the officer must verify the credit given by the criminal\ncourt sentencing judge for the pre-sentence custody by reviewing the criminal court transcript as\ntime spent in pre-trial detention may form part of a term of imprisonment for the purpose of\nA64(2). Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Atwal, 2004 FC 7. It is important\nthat officers gather information as to the actual sentence served. When calculating the total\nsentence imposed, it is imperative that the sentence be calculated to the day and not rounded\noff to the month as the repercussion of meeting the 6 months threshold is the loss of a right of\nappeal. (R. v. Wust, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455, 2000 SCC 18, para. 44 and 45). A sentence of 6\nmonths is considered 183 days of imprisonment.\nA64(2) is not meant to include multiple, consecutive sentences. It refers to only a single\nsentence. As a result of the SCC decision in Tran, a conditional sentence order is not considered\na term of imprisonment for the purposes of A64(2) [Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and\nEmergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 50].\nMisrepresentation\nIf a sponsored application for permanent residence is rejected based on a finding of\ninadmissibility on grounds of misrepresentation, there is no right of appeal. However, this\nprovision does not apply if the foreign national is the sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner or\nchild [A64(3)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.7 (Loss of appeal rights)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.8", + "marginal_note": "Non-disclosure of information: Prior to an appeal hearing", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.8. Non-disclosure of information: Prior to an appeal hearing\nThere exists some information in the possession of the Minister that should not be disclosed to\nthe IAD or to the other party. Different sources of information may be received by the public, the\napplicant, the sponsor, law enforcement, or other government departments.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.8 (Non-disclosure of information: Prior to an appeal hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nThe methods available to the Minister to protect this information include:\n a valid privilege over the information (common law public interest privilege, informer\nprivilege)\n an application for non-disclosure (A86)\n the security certificate regime (A77)\n redacting irrelevant portions of a document\n not relying on a document (when the Minister is not under an obligation to disclose all\ninformation)\nFor the purposes of the production of an appeal record, the Minister must first determine if the\ntip needs to be included in the record. Then, the Minister must take steps to determine if the tip\nneeds to be redacted from the appeal record and finally, decide on which method is best suited\nto protect this information.\nFor guidelines on non-disclosure of information [A86] and protecting information, see ENF 31\nand the Hearings Fundamentals Manual.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.9", + "marginal_note": "Non-disclosure of information: During an appeal hearing", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.9. Non-disclosure of information: During an appeal hearing\n should the Minister’s counsel present a written application for the non-disclosure of\ninformation [A86], the IAD member adjourns the hearing. The IAD member determines\nwhether section 86 proceedings apply.\nFor guidelines on non-disclosure of information [A86] and protecting information, see ENF 31.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.9 (Non-disclosure of information: During an appeal hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Pre-hearing conferences", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.10. Pre-hearing conferences\nWhen officers enter into an undertaking with counsel and the IAD at a pre-hearing conference, it\nmust be detailed in writing on the file. For example, if the Minister’s counsel agrees on a\nstatement of facts, concedes on certain issues or undertake to take specific actions, it must be\nclearly noted on file.\nWhere one officer has entered into an undertaking, any officer who subsequently has\nresponsibility for that appeal is bound by the undertaking made by the previous officer unless\nnew information supports a change in position.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.10 (Pre-hearing conferences)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.11", + "marginal_note": "Liaison with the Department of Justice", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.11. Liaison with the Department of Justice\nIRCC and the CBSA’s Legal Services must be the primary source of legal advice to IRCC and the\nCBSA respectively to ensure uniform advice and to keep IRCC and the CBSA senior officials\ninformed of new or unexpected issues.\nThe office concerned should inform the Hearings Program as early as possible of appeals\ninvolving important Charter questions or issues that could have a potentially serious impact on\nthe immigration program and the interpretation of the legislation. IRCC or the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.11 (Liaison with the Department of Justice)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nCBSA will consult Legal Services to decide if assigning a Department of Justice lawyer to the case\nis warranted.\nWhen the hearings officer requires urgent assistance in relation to an upcoming IAD hearing,\nthey should consult their Justice Liaison Officer (JLO) who may request the assignment of\ncounsel by contacting the Legal Issues Coordination Group (LICG) at\nLICG_Litigation_Assignments@justice.gc.ca with a copy to the Hearings Program (Hearings-\nAudiences-Programs@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca), and the CBSA Judicial Review Unit (JRU) (CBSA-\nASFC_SecurityLitigationManagement-Gestiondeslitigessécurité ) for questions under the responsibility of the Minister of PSEP or the Hearings\nProgram and the IRCC Litigation Management Branch (LMB) for questions under the\nresponsibility of the Minister of IRCC.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.12", + "marginal_note": "Applications for judicial review", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.12. Applications for judicial review\nWhere the officer who represents the Minister before a Division of the IRB believes that there are\nor may be grounds to seek judicial review, the officer will immediately consult their manager or\nthe regional CBSA Justice Liaison Officer, subject to local procedures, to discuss the possibility of\nseeking judicial review of the decision. If the manager agrees that judicial review should be\npursued, the hearings officer must do the following:\n(a) immediately request the reasons for decision from the Board; and\n(b) within five business days of the decision, determination, order, etc., being made, send,\nthrough the regional CBSA Justice Liaison Officer, a report to the Director of Litigation\nManagement Branch (LMB) at IRCC or the Manager of Judicial Review (JRU) at the\nCBSA. The report is to be transmitted by electronic means.\nOfficers should also keep in mind the very strict time limits involved when seeking judicial\nreview. The 15 days for serving and filing the leave application with respect to a decision of the\nBoard is calculated from the giving of notice of the decision or from the sending of written\nreasons, whichever is later pursuant to A169(f).\nIn order for NHQ to correctly calculate the date for filing, the request for judicial review must\nclearly indicate the date that IRCC or the CBSA became aware of the decision and the date the\ndecision was sent by the Board. Once IRCC LMB or the CBSA JRU agrees to seek judicial review,\nimmediate instructions will be issued to the Department of Justice to file the appropriate\ndocumentation with the Court. Should IRCC LMB or the CBSA JRU disagree with the\nrecommendation for judicial review, IRCC or the CBSA office will be provided with a rationale for\ntheir decision. The rationale can be provided by JRU/LMB or the JLO depending on the reasons\nand discussions can take place to clarify certain points.\nNote: In situations where an application is required to be filed with the Court on an urgent basis\nin order to preserve the Minister’s rights, the decision to seek judicial review may be made at the\nregional level. The IRCC Director of LMB or the CBSA Manager of JRU will be notified as soon as\npossible thereafter. Officers should refer such requests to the regional CBSA Justice Liaison\nOfficer after they have obtained concurrence from their manager.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.12 (Applications for judicial review)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-13-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.13", + "marginal_note": "Post hearing procedures", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.13 Post hearing procedures\nWhen the hearings office concerned receives notice of the IAD’s decision and reasons, the GCMS\nand NCMS “Appeals” screens are to be completed promptly.\nIf the IAD allows the appeal and the hearings officer, in consultation with their supervisor and\nJustice Liaison Officer, believes that an application for leave and judicial review of the decision is\nwarranted the hearings office should follow the procedures for the Judicial review outlined in\n7.12.\nIf the C&I Minister applies for leave to begin an application for judicial review of the IAD decision\nallowing a sponsorship appeal, further processing of the visa application by the officer is stayed\nuntil the leave and judicial review application are disposed of by the courts (Federal Court\nFederal Court of Appeal and or/ the Supreme Court). If leave is granted, further processing of\nthe visa application is stayed until the courts have finally disposed of the matter, or until the\ntime limits for filing the application for judicial review or appeal have elapsed.\nIf the IAD allows the appeal, refers the matter back for reconsideration and the Minister does not\nfile an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision, the case is returned to the\nresponsible IRCC office for reconsideration in accordance with the IAD’s decision [A70(1)].\nFor sponsorship appeals, in addition to uploading the decision and reasons into GCMS, the\nhearings office should also include any new evidence that was established at the hearing. If the\nMinister consented to the appeal, the IRCC office is given a full explanation of the reasons for the\nMinister’s consent.\nA70(1) obliges an officer to respect the decision of the IAD in re-examining an application.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.13 (Post hearing procedures) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-7-13-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 7.13", + "marginal_note": "Post hearing procedures", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "However, the officer must review the application to determine whether the application meets all\nother requirements of eligibility and admissibility. Sponsors and applicants are exempt from any\nrequirements that the IAD has set aside in its decision. In rare cases, if there are new grounds of\nineligibility or inadmissibility, or grounds that were not assessed in the first decision, the\napplication may be refused again.\nNote: To ensure that IRCC offices do not process applications where an application for judicial\nreview has been made on sponsorship appeals, hearings offices must inform IRCC that an\napplication for judicial review of the IAD decision is pending", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 7.13 (Post hearing procedures) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Family class sponsorship appeals", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8. Procedure: Family class sponsorship appeals\nIRCC has the policy responsibility for family class sponsorship and the Minister of IRCC is the\nrespondent (as of today the official name of the Ministry had not changed to IRCC and as such\nuntil it does change, the style of cause is to remain Minister of Citizenship and Immigration).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8 (Procedure: Family class sponsorship appeals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Family class sponsorship appeals", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1. Family class sponsorship appeals\nIf a Canadian citizen or permanent resident files an application to sponsor a foreign national as a\nmember of the family class, and the application for a visa is refused, the sponsor may appeal the\nrefusal of the application to the IAD [A63(1)]. The sponsor must be informed of the reasons for\nthe refusal and of the right of appeal to the IAD.\nThere is no right of appeal to the IAD if the foreign national (applicant) is inadmissible on the\nfollowing grounds [A64(1), (2) and (3)]:\n security, violating human or international rights;\n serious criminality with respect to a crime that was punished in Canada by a term of\nimprisonment of at least 6 months or a crime that is described in paragraph 36(1)(b) or\n(c);\n organized crime; or\n misrepresentation [unless the foreign national in question is the sponsor’s spouse,\ncommon-law partner or child A64(3)].\nDetails regarding loss of appeal rights and exceptions can be found in section 7.7 above.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.1 (Family class sponsorship appeals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Notice of appeal", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2. Notice of appeal\nTo file an appeal to the IAD under IRPA, the sponsor must submit a notice of appeal and the\nofficer’s written reasons for refusal to the IAD registry no later than 30 days after the appellant\nreceived the reasons for the refusal of the application [IAD rule 16(a)]\nThe IAD will then provide the notice of appeal and written reasons for refusal to CBSA who\nrepresents the Minister of IRCC in sponsorship appeals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.2 (Notice of appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Designated representative", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3. Designated representative\nIf counsel for the appellant or Minister believes the IAD should designate a representative for the\nsubject of the appeal because they are under 18 years of age or unable to appreciate the nature\nof the proceedings, they must notify the IAD in writing. If counsel is aware of a person in Canada", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.3 (Designated representative)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nwho meets the requirements to be designated as a representative, they must provide the\nperson’s contact information in the notice of appeal [IAD rule 43,44(1)]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Grounds for appeal", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4. Grounds for appeal\nAn appeal to the IAD may be based on questions of law, fact, or mixed law and fact, a principle of\nnatural justice has not been observed or on the grounds that there are humanitarian and\ncompassionate considerations that warrant granting special relief under its equitable jurisdiction.\nThe definition of “humanitarian and compassionate considerations” in section 6 above elaborates\non the IAD’s equitable jurisdiction.\nIf the IAD determines that the applicant is not a member of the family class or that their sponsor\nis not a sponsor within the meaning of the Regulations pursuant to R130 or R117, it cannot\nexercise its equitable jurisdiction to consider humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors\n[A65]. In other words, the IAD cannot consider H&C factors unless it is satisfied that the\napplicant is a member of the family class or the sponsor meets the requirements of the\nregulations. If an IRCC officer refused the application without deciding if the applicant is a\nmember of the family class, the IAD cannot consider H&C without first making a determination\non whether the applicant is indeed a member of the family class. For example, in the context of a\nspousal application the IAD would have to be satisfied that the marriage is legally valid and the\nrelationship is genuine (R4) [Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness v. Hagos,\nIMM 6378-11, April 20, 2012].\nIn the absence of a determination made by an IRCC officer on whether the applicant is a\nmember of the family class, it is up to the IAD to consider the issue for the first time during the\nappeal, however this is not the best option. The hearing may be postponed to permit the\nhearings officer to reach out the visa office and request that they assess the relationship (OB\n396).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.4 (Grounds for appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Disputed appeal rights", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5. Disputed appeal rights\nWhen a refusal is based on a determination that the sponsor has not filed their application in the\nprescribed manner as set out in R10, then an application to dismiss the appeal should be made\nto the IAD. Hearings officers should argue that the IAD does not have jurisdiction to hear the\nappeal because the sponsor has not made an application under the Act pursuant to R10. The\nissue of whether or not the sponsor is entitled to appeal to the IAD will be decided by the IAD.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.5 (Disputed appeal rights)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Preparation of the record", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.6. Preparation of the record\nThe IAD will notify the responsible IRRC office that an appeal has been filed and will request\nthat their file be forwarded to the CBSA Hearings office. The IAD will copy the CBSA hearings\noffice with this request. Once the IRCC office has received the notice of an appeal, it will send\nthe IRCC sponsorship file to the applicable CBSA hearings office as soon as possible.\nUpon receiving the notice of appeal and the file, the hearings office should:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.6 (Preparation of the record)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n ensure that the GCMS and NCMS “Appeals” screens are completed promptly;\n enter any motions or applications associated with the appeal in the GCMS and NCMS.\n prepare the record, ensuring the documentation is complete and that it is legible and\nsuitable for presentation to the IAD. IAD rule 20(1) states that a record shall contain\na table of contents and the following documents:\no the application for a permanent resident visa that has been refused;\no the application for sponsorship and the sponsor’s undertaking;\no any document that the Minister has that is relevant to the application, to the\nreasons for the refusal or to any other issue in the appeal; and\no the written reasons for the refusal.\nNote: Under IRPA, the IRCC officer is no longer required to prepare a statutory declaration.\nHowever, officers are required to record the rationale for their decision and this must be\nincluded in the record.\nThe CBSA hearings office must provide the appeal record to the appellant or their counsel and a\ncopy to the IAD. The copy of the appeal record provided to the IAD must be accompanied by a\nwritten statement saying how and when the appeal record was provided to the appellant [IAD\nrule 21(1) and (2)].\nRecords must be received by the IAD no later than 60 days after the Minister receives a\ncopy of the written request from the Division to IRCC for the sponsorship file [IAD rule\n22(a)].\nIf the IAD has not received the record within 60 days , it may take one of the following\nmeasures:\n require the Minister to explain why the appeal record is late and give reasons\nwhy the appeal record should be accepted late; or\n schedule and start the hearing and decide the appeal without the appeal record\nor with only part of the appeal record.\nNote: It is important that a hearings officer review the IRCC office file immediately after receipt.\nThis review will allow officers to identify problems and opportunities to resolve the case without a\nhearing. Furthermore, early review of the visa file will allow the opportunity to add additional\ngrounds of refusal if necessary.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.7", + "marginal_note": "Requirements to be eligible to sponsor", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.7. Requirements to be eligible to sponsor\nR130 to R134 provide the requirements that a person must meet to be eligible to sponsor a\nrelative as a member of the family class. The Family Class Program Delivery Instructions (PDIs)\non assessing the sponsor provide further information on the legislative requirements to be met\nby the sponsor.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.7 (Requirements to be eligible to sponsor)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.8", + "marginal_note": "Failure to meet financial criteria", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.8. Failure to meet financial criteria\nR134 provides procedures for calculating a sponsor’s ability to meet the minimum necessary\nincome (MNI) requirement. Financial requirements are specific to the type of family member\nbeing sponsored.\nAssessment of ability to meet this requirement for the sponsorship of a family member is based\non the last notice of assessment or equivalent document. Where the sponsor does not produce\nthe document or their income is less than the required amount, their income will be calculated\nbased on the income during the 12 months preceding the application. The date of the application\nis the date on which a complete family class application, including the processing fees, has been\nreceived at the CPC-Mississauga. Under R133(4), a sponsor is exempt from meeting MNI\nrequirements when they are sponsoring a spouse or partner or dependent child.\nAmendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations that came into force on\nJanuary 1, 2014, made changes to the financial requirements for parents and grandparents. For\nthe sponsorship of parents and grandparents, the sponsor must meet the minimum necessary\nincome requirement (Low Income Cut-offs (LICOs) plus 30%) for each of the three taxation\nyears immediately preceding the date of their application. The Minimum Necessary Income must\nmeet or exceed the minimum necessary income requirement plus 30% on the date on which the\nsponsorship application is signed until the day the family members are granted status as\npermanent residents.\nThe ruling in the decision Nematollahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2017 FC 755 has\nled the IRCC to review its interpretation of the Regulations concerning the three consecutive", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.8 (Failure to meet financial criteria) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.8", + "marginal_note": "Failure to meet financial criteria", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "taxation years immediately preceding the date the application to sponsor is received. The ruling\nhas an impact on applications to sponsor parents and grandparents that have been received\nsince 2014. Sponsors are encouraged to sign the statement of consent (question 8 on the\nFinancial Evaluation for Parents and Grandparents Sponsorship) and provide their Social\nInsurance Number (SIN) to allow the IRCC to collect their SIN and request their income tax\ninformation quickly from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to determine whether they meet the\nminimum necessary income requirements. This may be used in cases where the sponsor has\nsubmitted their application to sponsor at the beginning of the year and may not have filed their\ntaxes at the time of application or have still not received their Notice of Assessment for the\nprevious taxation year. If the sponsor does not provide their consent, they must complete the\napplicable form Income Sources for the Sponsorship of Parents and Grandparents and submit a\nNotice of Assessment issued to them by the CRA for each of the three taxation years\nimmediately preceding the date their application is received by the IRCC. If the sponsor does not\nhave paper copies of their Notices of Assessment on file, they may view and print their tax\nreturns as well as other personal tax information using the CRA’s My Account online service.\nSubsection 134(2) of IRPR provides officers with the authority to request updated evidence of\nincome from all sponsors who submit a sponsorship application for a member of the family class\nin the following circumstances:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.8 (Failure to meet financial criteria) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n the officer receives information indicating that the sponsor is no longer able to fulfil the\nobligations of the sponsorship undertaking; or\n more than 12 months have elapsed since the receipt of the sponsorship application.\nAppellants may submit new evidence of income relating to the period preceding the date of filing\nof their sponsorship application. In such cases, officers are required to take into account the new\nevidence of income in determining the IRCC’s position at the appeal hearing.\nHowever, officers should argue that evidence of income relating to the period that follows the\nreceipt of the sponsorship application is not a valid indication of a sponsor’s ability to meet the\nrequirements in R134 for authorization to sponsor. The IAD should not take such evidence into\naccount in deciding on the basis of a question of fact or law. Where the sponsor’s financial\nsituation has improved, the option to submit a new sponsorship application is available.\nThe ruling in the decision of Dokaj v. Canada (2009, FC847) has led the IRCC to review its\ninterpretation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations concerning the adding of a\nco-signer to an existing family class undertaking. The Federal Court found that the IRCC could\nnot take into account the additional expenses incurred when adding a family member to the\nhousehold, such as a spouse or common-law partner, without also taking into consideration the\nincome that the individual brings to the household, if they have co-signed an undertaking.\nHenceforth, a co-signer can be added between the day on which the sponsorship application was\nfiled and the day on which a decision is made with respect to the application, if required, due to\na change in circumstances related to family composition. When assessing the sponsor’s income\nagainst the MNI requirement, both the increase in the MNI requirements resulting from the\naddition of a family member, and the co-signer’s income, calculated in accordance with R134(a)\nto (c) against the MNI in effect at the time, shall be considered. However, a co-signer may not\nbe added to the sponsorship application if the sponsorship was already assessed and at that\nassessment, the sponsor failed to meet the sponsorship requirements.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Other sponsorship eligibility requirements", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.9. Other sponsorship eligibility requirements\nSponsors are not eligible to sponsor if they are convicted of a sexual or violent offence against\nanyone, or for an attempt or a threat to commit such an offence, or if they are convicted of an\noffence causing bodily harm against certain members of their family, or for an attempt or a\nthreat to commit such an offence [R133(1)(e)].\nIn addition, the sponsorship application shall only be approved if there is evidence that the\nsponsor is not in receipt of social assistance for a reason other than disability [R133(1)(k)].\nSee the PDI on Permanent Residence , Family classes, Processing Applications to\nSponsor Members of the Family Class, for further information concerning the\nprocessing of applications to sponsor.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.9 (Other sponsorship eligibility requirements)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.10", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate grounds related to sponsorship", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.10. Humanitarian and compassionate grounds related to sponsorship\nIf the IAD determines that the applicant is a member of the family class pursuant to R117 and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.10 (Humanitarian and compassionate grounds related to sponsorship)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nthat their sponsor is a sponsor within the meaning of the Regulations in R130, it can exercise its\nequitable jurisdiction to consider humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors [A65]However,\nwhen a refusal is based on the fact that the sponsor has not met the minimum necessary income\nrequirement set out in R134 or is in default of a previous sponsorship as of the date that the\nundertaking was given, officers should argue that the fact that the sponsor would meet the\nrequirements if the current situation were taken into consideration does not constitute, in itself,\nsufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds.\nHearings officers should argue that, for an appeal to be allowed in equity, the decision must be\nbased on factors other than an improvement in the sponsor’s financial situation or the fact that the\nsponsor is no longer in default. Officers should ask the IAD to note that the sponsor had the option\nof taking a refund of the processing fee or proceeding with their application, knowing it would be\nrefused because they did not meet the requirements at the time. Otherwise, allowing persons who\ndid not meet the regulatory requirements during the specific time frame to sponsor a member of\nthe family class negates the effect of the Regulations.\nSee the PDI on Permanent Residence, Family classes, for more information.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.11", + "marginal_note": "Bad faith marriage [R4(1)]", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.11. Bad faith marriage [R4(1)]\nThe IAD will consider a refusal by the IRCC office in order to determine whether section R4(1) is\napplicable, thereby excluding the applicant as a member of the family class. A “bad faith” or\n“non-genuine” relationship pursuant to R4(1) is present when either a relationship is not genuine, or it\nwas entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act. This\ncreates a disjunctive relationship between the “genuineness” and the “purpose” of the bad faith\nassessment. This clarifies that a finding of bad faith can be made if either of these elements is present.\nTherefore, the wording of subsection 4(1) of the Regulations is unambiguous; a finding\nof bad faith can involve either a finding that the marriage was entered into primarily for\nthe purpose of immigration or that the marriage is not genuine. This interpretation was\nconfirmed by Chief Justice Paul Crampton in Gill v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration), 2012 FC 1522.\nWhen conducting the file review in preparation of the appeal, it is important to be cognizant of the\nlegal framework within which sponsorship appeals are considered. In assessing whether a\nmarriage/common law relationship/conjugal relationship was entered primarily for the purpose of\nacquiring status or privilege or whether the marriage was genuine, the IAD must take into\nconsideration the totality of the evidence on the balance of probabilities standard. Since the hearing is\na de novo hearing, the IAD’s role is to evaluate all of the evidence gathered up to the hearing so as\nto determine whether section 4(1) of the Regulations applies.\nFurther instructions are available under the PDI (Program Delivery Instructions) – identifying a\nrelationship of convenience.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.11 (Bad faith marriage [R4(1)])", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nOther important guidance established in jurisprudence:\n The appeal to the IAD is a de novo appeal, in which the IAD must consider afresh\nwhether the person sponsored as a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner is a\nmember of the family class. Singh Sandhar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),\n2013 FC 662;\nThe relevant time to assess the marriage’s genuineness is the present, while the relevant\ntime to assess the primary purpose of the marriage is in the past, i.e., at the time of the\nmarriage. Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1077;\n The first part of the test requires an assessment of whether the marriage “was entered into\nprimarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act”. In assessing\nwhether the test is satisfied, the focus must be upon the intentions of both parties to the\nmarriage at the time of the marriage. The Federal Court has recognized that the testimony\nof the couple parties regarding what they were thinking at that time typically will be the\nmost probative evidence regarding their primary purpose for entering into the marriage. Gill\nv. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1522;\n A finding that a marriage is genuine weighs “significantly in favour of a marriage that was\nnot entered into for the purpose of gaining status in Canada”. However, the finding that a\nmarriage is genuine is not determinative of the primary purpose. Sandhu v. Canada\n(Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 834;\n Evidence of commitment subsequent to the marriage can be used to prove the primary\npurpose of the marriage. This might include evidence of a continuing relationship or the\nbirth of a child. However, such evidence is not necessarily determinative. Gill v. Canada\n(Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1522; Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and\nImmigration), 2014 FC 834;\n The Board, must be careful about imposing western or Canadian paradigms on non-\nwestern culture. Nadasapillai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 72;\n The birth of a child is not determinative, however in assessing whether a marriage is\ngenuine great weight must be afforded to the birth of a child. Gill v. Canada (Citizenship\nand Immigration), 2010 FC 122.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.12", + "marginal_note": "New relationship [R4.1]", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.12. New relationship [R4.1]\nAn applicant may be refused under Regulation 4.1 if they were previously in a prescribed\nrelationship with their sponsor, but dissolved it primarily for immigration purposes. Section 4.1 is\ndiscussed at some length in Chapter 5 of the IRB’s guideline on Sponsorship Appeals. According\nto this document, the intent of Section 4.1 has been stated to be “to prevent persons in a\nconjugal relationship from dissolving the relationship to free them to gain admission to Canada\nonly to turn around and resume their previous relationship” (Harripersaud, Janet Rameena v.\nM.C.I. (IAD TA3-11611), Sangmuah, 2005).\nIn Wen, Chun Xiu v. M.C.I. ((IAD TA5-14563), MacLean, 2007), the IAD set out a list of non-\nexhaustive factors to consider when assessing the applicability of section 4.1 of the Regulations,\nincluding:\n When the relationship dissolved;\n The reason for the dissolution of the relationship;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.12 (New relationship [R4.1])", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n The temporal relationship between the ending of the relationship and the forming of a\nnew relationship with the subsequent partner;\n Evidence that the former spouses or partners did not separate or end contact with each\nother;\n the intent of the spouses or partners upon re-establishing their relationship;\n the length of the subsequent relationship;\n the temporal connection between the dissolving of the subsequent relationship and the\nre-establishment of a new relationship with the previous spouse or partner, and;\n the intentions of the parties to the new relationship with respect to immigration.\nIt is clear from the cases of Wen and Harripersaud, as well as the IRB’s guidelines that section\nR4.1 only applies to situations involving the reunion of two parties who previously separated\nprimarily for immigration purposes. For greater clarity, “the dissolution of a conjugal relationship\nbetween two persons and a subsequent resumption of a conjugal relationship between these two\npersons to facilitate immigration constitutes an act of bad faith.” Further instructions is available\nunder the PDIs Identifying a relationship of convenience, under the section “Conjugal\nrelationships—Dissolutions of convenience”.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.13", + "marginal_note": "Sponsors residing in provinces under federal-provincial", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.13. Sponsors residing in provinces under federal-provincial\nagreements [A8(1) and A9(2)]\nIf a sponsor resides in a province that has sole responsibility for establishing and applying\nfinancial criteria for sponsors under a federal-provincial agreement [A8(1)], the sponsor has no\nright of appeal to the IAD on any ground of law, fact or mixed law and fact when both of the\nfollowing circumstances exist:\n the application is refused based on the rejection of the person's application for\nsponsorship by an official of that province on the grounds that the person failed to meet\nthe financial criteria or to comply with any prior undertaking concerning the sponsorship\nof any application for permanent residence and\n the laws of that province provide the person with a right to appeal the rejection of their\napplication for sponsorship.\nNote: The sponsor can still appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds [A9(2)] and\nhave a Certificat de Sélection du Québec (CSQ) issued by the Ministère de l’immigration, de la\nDiversité et de l’inclusion (MIDI). If the appeal is allowed, the visa office can reopen the\nprocessing of the application but the sponsor residing in Quebec would still need to meet the\nMIDI’s financial requirements. A refusal by the MIDI can be appealed with the Tribunal\nadministratif du Québec (TAQ) and the sponsor can provide them with the positive decision from\nthe IAD. The visa office can also contact the MIDI directly and provide them with the IAD\ndecision for the issuance of a CSQ.\nAt present, Quebec is the only province with such an agreement.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.13 (Sponsors residing in provinces under federal-provincial)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.14", + "marginal_note": "Members of the family class", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.14. Members of the family class\nThe definition of member of the family class includes spouses, common-law and conjugal\npartners, dependent children (including adopted children), children to be adopted, parents and\ngrandparents, some orphaned relatives under 18 and certain other relatives in specified\ncircumstances. A12(1), R116 and R117 specify who is a member of the family class.\nThe age for dependent children is under 22 years old according to the definition found in R2", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.14 (Members of the family class)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.15", + "marginal_note": "Filing evidence", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.15. Filing evidence\nInformation and documents must be submitted in a form suitable for presentation to the IAD,\nsuch as a statutory declaration or the interviewing officer's reasons or GCMS notes recording the\ninformation or identifying the documents received. Officers' declarations should contain facts, not\nopinions or conclusions, and should clearly indicate that the person making the declaration is an\nofficer.\nDocuments must be filed with the IAD no later than 60 days after the day on which the party\nreceives the appeal record. [IAD rule 26] with a written statement saying how and when the\ndocuments were provided to the other party[IAD rule 25].\nNew information may be received in the form of a report, with appropriate documentation, from\nan officer in Canada or abroad who has become aware of new information concerning an\nappellant, such as marriage, the birth of a child, hospitalization, a criminal conviction or\nreliance on social assistance.\nThe IRCC office may forward information to the officer that it has used in assessing a sponsored\napplication for permanent residence. If such evidence was obtained in confidence from the\ngovernment or an institution of a foreign state, or an international organization of states and\ncannot be released publicly, the Minister may make an application for non-disclosure of\ninformation to the IAD. The grounds for the application will be that disclosure of such information\nwould be injurious to national security or the safety of persons. Procedures for applications for\nnon-disclosure of information are found in section 7.8 above.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.15 (Filing evidence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.16", + "marginal_note": "Consenting to an appeal—Communication with the IRCC office", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.16. Consenting to an appeal—Communication with the IRCC office\nWhen a decision is made to consent to a sponsorship appeal, it is imperative that the hearings\nofficer inform the IRCC office of the reasons in writing. In order to assist the IRCC officers in\nidentifying ways to strengthen decisions and avoid potential trends from developing, lines of\ncommunication with the IRCC offices must be kept open.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.16 (Consenting to an appeal—Communication with the IRCC office)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nShould the hearings officer notice a trend forming with particular types of refusals or refusals\nfrom a particular office, copies of the refusals in question should be forwarded to the Hearings\nPrograms Area at HQ (Hearings-Audiences-Programs@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca) and Litigation\nManagement Branch, IRCC NHQ, e-mail to: IRCC.CMBLitigationMgmtRequest-\nDemandeGestLitigesDGRC.IRCC@cic.gc.ca with an overview of the scenario. Should a trend\ndevelop without being brought to the attention of the IRCC office and NHQ, the number of similar\nrefusals may increase. It is imperative that hearings officers and IRCC-NHQ work in collaboration\nwith processing offices and the processing networks (International Network, Centralized Network\nand Domestic Network), to ensure well-reasoned, consistent decisions that can be defended\nbefore the IAD.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.17", + "marginal_note": "Authorization to return to Canada and refusal of permanent", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.17. Authorization to return to Canada and refusal of permanent\nresidency application\nIn circumstances where a hearings officer is faced with the issue of an Authorization to Return to\nCanada (ARC) before the Board, Hearings Officers should argue that the IAD has no authority to\nissue an ARC. The issuance of an ARC in Canada is quite rare and has been delegated to the\nmanager or director levels in the IRCC and the CBSA for inland cases. Generally, a subject who is\nin Canada and requires an ARC is reported for non-compliance. It is the Minister’s jurisdiction to\nissue an ARC and should not be added as an issue before the Board.\nIAD has no jurisdiction to order the issuance of an ARC, regardless of whether a decision on ARC\nwas made by a visa officer. However, IRCC’s position is that when a visa officer refuses to issue\nan ARC and then refuses the PR application on that basis, the IAD has H&C jurisdiction to\novercome the inadmissibly underlying the ARC refusal, but it cannot order a visa officer to issue\nan ARC.\nRecent jurisprudence has supported the position that no appeal lies to the IAD from a decision to\nrefuse an ARC. [MOMI v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019, FCA 163]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.17 (Authorization to return to Canada and refusal of permanent)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview of process for medical refusal", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1. Overview of process for medical refusal\nIRCC has the policy responsibility with respect to medical inadmissibility [A38]. For further\nguidance on medical refusal procedures, please refer to the Program Delivery Instructions on\nMedical Requirements.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.1 (Overview of process for medical refusal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Grounds for appeal", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2. Grounds for appeal\nThe IAD will normally deal with the issue of additional medical information with the appellant at", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.2 (Grounds for appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nthe assignment court. This includes clarifying the grounds for appeal for which the information is\nintended to be used and setting time frames for providing the information.\nTo accelerate the processing of these appeal cases, the hearings officer should try to ascertain as\nsoon as possible the grounds for appeal to be used before the IAD, namely, whether there is a\nchallenge in law or whether it will be argued that there are compassionate or humanitarian\nconsiderations that warrant the granting of special relief, or both.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "When to consider a new medical examination during the appeal", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3. When to consider a new medical examination during the appeal\nprocess\nWhere only compassionate or humanitarian considerations form the basis for the appeal, a new\nmedical examination should not be issued during the appeal process. In these cases, the\nhearings officer will simply need to consider requesting sufficient time between receipt of the\nmedical information from the appellant and the hearing. During this time, the hearings officer\nwill seek the advice of Operations Directorate, Migration Health Branch, IRCC, NHQ, about the\nmedical information submitted, and to consider whether to introduce an opinion of a medical\nofficer as rebuttal evidence.\nWhere newly-submitted medical information is intended to challenge the decision in law, the\nappellant or counsel should be advised that the examining health-care professional consulted by\nthe applicant must refer to the medical notification of medical inadmissibility. Any health care\nprofessional’s report aimed at challenging the decision in law should expressly and clearly\naddress the issues raised in the medical notification, that is, diagnosis, prognosis and the issue\nof excessive demand on health and social services, and the issue of whether the health condition\nis likely to be a danger to public health and safety. Prior to agreeing to a postponement for\nobtaining this new medical information, the hearings officer will confirm that the applicant is\nwilling to undergo further medical examinations if a medical officer so recommends.\nIn considering the appropriate time frame for obtaining the medical information, the hearings\nofficer must be fair to the appellant and consider facilitating resolution without litigation, but\nwithout compromising IRCC’s interest in the finality of litigation.\nGenerally, IRCC will not support the consideration of more than one submission of new medical\ninformation from counsel once an appeal has been filed unless there is a genuine need to clarify\nthe evidence previously gathered by obtaining supplementary evidence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.3 (When to consider a new medical examination during the appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Procedures upon receipt of new medical information during the", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4. Procedures upon receipt of new medical information during the\nappeal\nWhen hearings officers receive new medical information about an applicant, they will reconfirm\nwith the appellant or counsel the purpose for which the information is being submitted, review\nthe new information and decide whether it should be forwarded to the Operations Directorate,\nMigration Health Branch, IRCC, at NHQ. Hearings officers must assess whether the information is\nrelevant and related to the applicant’s medical condition, as described in IRCC medical officer’s\nmedical assessment, namely, in terms of the diagnosis, the prognosis and the issue of excessive\ndemand on health and social services, and the issue of whether the health condition is likely to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.4 (Procedures upon receipt of new medical information during the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nbe a danger to public health or safety. In most cases, the information will be forwarded to the\nOperations Directorate, Migration Health Branch, IRCC, at NHQ. However, the new information\nshould not be forwarded to the Medical Services Branch if it clearly has no link with the reason\nfor refusing the applicant on medical grounds or if the medical information is so vague or of such\na general nature that it has little or no probative value. Instead, a date for hearing at the IAD\nshould be requested. (Examples are provided in Appendix B.)\nOn receipt of the new medical information, the Migration Health Branch, NHQ will transfer a copy\nto the medical officer abroad and inform both the relevant visa office and the hearings officer.\nThe hearings officer will inform the IAD and appellant or counsel in writing of the timing of this\ntransfer. The Migration Health Branch at NHQ and the medical officer abroad will review this new\nmedical information and jointly decide if the original medical assessment should be upheld or if a\nnew medical examination should take place because it appears that there is a change in the\nperson’s medical status. The medical officer abroad will then forward this decision directly to the\nhearings officer, with a copy to both the visa office in charge of the case and the Migration\nHealth Branch at NHQ. The findings will read as follows:\nMedical officer X has reviewed the applicant’s entire medical file including the newly-\nsubmitted medical information that consists of [list what was reviewed about the\napplicant]. After completing this review, the medical officer upholds the original medical\nassessment. In this case, the hearings officer will proceed with the appeal before the IAD.\nor\nAfter completing this review, it is recommended that the applicant undergo a new medical\nexamination. The hearings officer will provide any direction required as to the requested\nmedical examination.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.5", + "marginal_note": "New medical examination", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.5. New medical examination\nWhen medical officers recommend a new medical examination, the officer will contact the\napplicant within 30 days, request photographs within that time frame (where necessary) and\nissue new medical instructions.\nUpon receipt of a notice that a new medical examination is required, the applicant should either\nundergo the medical examination within 30 days or, alternatively, provide the officer with the\ndate of an appointment for the medical examination within 30 days.\nThe medical examination will be at the applicant’s own risk and expense. The applicant should be\nadvised that failure to comply within 30 days will lead IRCC to terminate the medical\nreassessment process. (Example letter provided in Appendix B.)\nAt the same time, the hearings officer will immediately inform the appellant or counsel in writing,\nwith a copy to the IAD that the applicant will be allowed to undergo a new medical examination.\nThe hearings officer will also advise the appellant or their counsel that it is their responsibility to\nensure the applicant complies with the officer’s instructions to forward passport-size photographs\nwithin 30 days and, if required, to undergo a medical examination or make an appointment for\nthe medical examination within 30 days of receipt of the new medical instructions. The hearings", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.5 (New medical examination)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nofficer should notify the appellant or counsel that the applicant’s failure to comply within 30 days\nmay result in IRCC terminating the medical reassessment process. (Example letter provided in\nAppendix C.)\nIt is important for IRCC office to indicate, in GCMS, the date on which the new medical\ninstructions were sent out. If the applicant does not comply with the instructions, the officer will\nnotify the hearings officer, who will in turn inform the IAD and ask for a hearing date to be set,\nwith a copy of the request for a hearing date to the appellant or counsel.\nEach IRCC office should appoint a coordinator to ensure the follow-up of these cases by means of\na bring-forward (BF) system. The results of the new medical examination must be forwarded to\nthe hearings office as soon as they have been received.\nHearings offices should also use a BF system to follow up on these cases with IRCC offices, at a\nminimum every three months, with appropriate follow-up to IRCC offices where no action seems\nto have been taken. GCMS could be used for follow-up by those hearings offices that have\naccess.\nIRCC’s target time frame for the medical reassessment process is a maximum of nine months\nfrom the time IRCC office is informed that a new medical examination is required.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.6", + "marginal_note": "Communicating medical results", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.6. Communicating medical results\nWhen the IRCC office receives the results of the medical officer’s updated medical assessment, it\nshall immediately forward them to the hearings officer, with a copy to the IAD. The IRCC officer\nmust pass on the results as soon as possible to permit the Department to meet the nine-month\nprocessing targets.\nWhere the re-examination reveals that the applicant is no longer medically inadmissible, there\nwill be no need to pursue the appeal, barring other non-medical grounds for inadmissibility. The\nappellant or counsel should be advised in writing that processing will continue once the appeal\nhas been formally withdrawn. Upon notification from the hearings office that the IAD has\nacknowledged receipt of the withdrawal of the appeal, visa officers can continue processing the\napplication for permanent residence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.6 (Communicating medical results)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Medical officers’ statutory declaration", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.7. Medical officers’ statutory declaration\nThe specialized knowledge of a medical officer is important to hearings officers in properly\ndefending medical refusals before the IAD. Although it was the practice for medical officers to\nprepare statutory declarations when they were informed that a sponsor had appealed a refusal\non health grounds, medical officers can no longer systematically prepare statutory declarations\nfor all medical refusals.\nMedical officers may still be called upon in some cases to provide hearings officers with statutory\ndeclarations to establish the connection between the diagnosis and the conclusion that the\nperson’s coming to Canada might cause an excessive demand on health or social services, or is\nlikely to be a danger to public health or safety. To assist medical officers, hearings officers will\nhave to indicate clearly those points in the medical documents that require explanation. A", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.7 (Medical officers’ statutory declaration)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nmedical record contains technical terms and specialized vocabulary that are not always easy to\nunderstand and interpret. To help and support hearings officers in this task, the Operations\nDirectorate, Migration Health Branch at IRCC, NHQ are available to answer questions from\nhearings officers and provide clarifications that could prevent additional delays.\nA statutory declaration can be requested in situations where the threshold of the proof can be\nvery demanding, for example, when a person suffering from intellectual disability is refused\nbecause their entry into Canada might cause excessive demands on social services.\nIn cases where the person’s state of health is very serious and it is recognized by the medical\ncommunity that a person suffering from this type of illness will require repeated access to health\nservices, hospitalization or major surgery, and the medical record as well as the medical\nnotification contain sufficient details, it is not necessary to request a statutory declaration. An\nexample would be a person suffering from metastatic malignancy, renal failure or AIDS.\nThe IAD has upheld inadmissibility based on health reasons in cases where clear evidence was\nprovided without a statutory declaration from a medical officer.\nAs of June 1, 2018, IRCC has issued a temporary public policy expanding the definition of\nexcessive demand. Please refer to IRCC’s PDIs for details on how this public policy may impact\nthe appeal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "Effective communication", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.8. Effective communication\nCommunication is the key to ensuring that the set procedures are dealt with effectively. This\nmeans updating GCMS notes, bringing files forward on a regular basis and communicating with\neveryone involved in given cases, including the IRCC officers, medical services and hearings\nofficers. If established procedures are followed, the number of requests for updates received at\noffices and unnecessary litigation before the IAD will be reduced. More importantly, client service\nin the form of more timely decisions on complex medical appeals will result.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.8 (Effective communication)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "Alternative dispute resolut ion conference (ADR) [IAD rule 69(1)]", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10. Alternative dispute resolut ion conference (ADR) [IAD rule 69(1)]\nThe IAD may require the parties to participate in an ADR conference in order to encourage\nthe parties to resolve an appeal without having recourse to a full hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 10 (Alternative dispute resolut ion conference (ADR) [IAD rule 69(1)])", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Purpose of ADR", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1. Purpose of ADR\nADR IRP aims to empower parties to an immigration appeal to participate in the resolution of\ntheir case through the use of an informal meeting. This program is premised on the notion that\nlitigation is often not in the best interests of the parties and that some types of appeals could be\nprevented from proceeding to a hearing by applying ADR techniques.\nThe principal ADR method of attempting to resolve appeals is through a resolution process. An\nIAD-employed Early Resolution Officer (ERO) acts as dispute resolution officer and attempts to\nbring the parties to resolve the appeal. ADR cases are generally resolved by the sponsor\nwithdrawing their appeal or by Minister's counsel consenting to it. Alternatively, in unsuccessful\nresolution processes, the evidence and legal issues required at the hearing are often reduced as\na result of the early resolution session and a full hearing is scheduled to dispose of the appeal.\nIt is important to note that, as Minister's counsel, hearings officers possess the authority to make\ndecisions on behalf of the Minister of C&I or the Minister of PSEP when appearing at ADR\nsessions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 10.1 (Purpose of ADR)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Responsibilities of hearings officers for dispute resolution", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2. Responsibilities of hearings officers for dispute resolution\nWhen Responsibility\nBefore and\nduring the\nADR session\nThe role of Minister's counsel is to represent the public interest and attempt to\nensure that justice is done.\nA crucial difference between the role of Minister's counsel in the hearings\nprocess versus the ADR process is that an ADR approach requires parties to\nopera te in a proactive manner by searching for a resolution that will avoid a\nhearing. This does not mean that compromise is reached for the sake of\ncompromise. However, Minister's counsel must balance the need for program\nintegrity with efficiency.\nThis means ensuring that a resolution reached through ADR is consistent with\nthe principles of the IRPA, and IRCC or the CBSA policy. An approach that\nacknowledges statutory obligations and ADR values is one in which the\nMinister's counsel decides to consent to an appeal because it is recognized\nthat it is not in the public interest to litigate cases that have a poor chance of\nsuccess at a hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 10.2 (Responsibilities of hearings officers for dispute resolution)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nPost-ADR In appeal cases that are resolved at ADR, an IAD-issued Summary of\nAgreement of the Parties form is completed by the ERO. The Minister's counsel\nmust ensure that this form and any additional and relevant information\nrelating to the reasons for the ADR settlement of the case are forwarded to the\nappropriate IRCC office. It is acceptable to do this by e-mail in addition to\ninserting this summary of agreement in the file that will be returned to IRCC\nfor further processing.\nQuestions regarding the outcomes of individual appeals should be directed to\nthe hearings officer who acted as the Minister's counsel on the case. General\nquestions regarding the use of ADR in the appeals process may be forwarded\nto the CBSA Director of the Inland Enforcement Branch at NHQ.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Procedure for removal order appeals", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11. Procedure for removal order appeals\nThe CBSA has the policy responsibility with respect to the issuance of removal orders and the\nMinister of PSEP is the respondent in removal order appeals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11 (Procedure for removal order appeals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Persons who may appeal against removal orders", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1. Persons who may appeal against removal orders\nPursuant to A63(2) and A63(3), permanent residents, foreign nationals who hold a permanent\nresident visa and protected persons, may appeal against a decision at an examination or an\nadmissibility hearing, their removal order to the IAD . They may appeal not only on the basis of\nlegal and factual questions, but also on the basis that there are humanitarian and compassionate\nconsiderations that warrant granting special relief.\nAn appeal may be based on the grounds that the decision appealed is wrong in law, fact or\nmixed law and fact or that a principle of natural justice has not been observed or that sufficient\nhumanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the\ncircumstances of the case. [A67]\nA64 provides that no appeal may be made to the IAD by a foreign national, their sponsor or a\npermanent resident if the foreign national or permanent resident has been found to be\ninadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or\norganized criminality. Inadmissibility for serious criminality here refers to an offence punished in\nCanada by a term of imprisonment of at least six months or that is described in A36(1)(b) or\nA36(1)(c).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.1 (Persons who may appeal against removal orders)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Criminality", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2. Criminality\nInadmissibility provisions have been consolidated under IRPA such that provisions apply both\ninland and at the port of entry. For details on inadmissibility provisions, see ENF 1,\nInadmissibility, and ENF 2, Evaluating inadmissibility.\nSituations may arise where the appellant had convictions as a young offender, and evidence\nrelated to those convictions is important in establishing the Minister’s case. Under A36(3)(e),\ninadmissibility on the grounds of A36(1) or A36(2) may not be based on an offence under the\nYoung Offenders Act (YOA). The YOA was replaced by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA)\nwhich came into effect on April 1, 2003. A conditional sentence order (CSO) is not considered a\nterm of imprisonment for the purpose of 64(2). [Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness), 2017 SCC 50]. The SCC in Tran decided two main issues; 1) a conditional\nsentence order imposed pursuant to the regime set out in ss. 742 to 742.7 of the Criminal Code\nof Canada (CCC) does not constitute a “term of imprisonment” under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the\nIRPA and ; 2) the phrase “maximum term of imprisonment” in paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA\nrefers to the maximum term of imprisonment available at the time of the commission of the\noffence and not the term of imprisonment available at the time of sentencing or the time when\nadmissibility is determined.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.2 (Criminality)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nFor additional information, see ENF 14, Criminal Rehabilitation, OP 19, Criminal Rehabilitation\nand ENF 28, Ministerial Opinions on Danger to the Public and to the Security of Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.3", + "marginal_note": "All the circumstances of the case", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.3. All the circumstances of the case\nThe definition of “humanitarian and compassionate considerations” in section 6 above provides\ndetails of the test to be applied by the IAD when exercising its equitable jurisdiction. It also sets\nout the general factors the IAD considers when hearing removal order appeals. Removal order\nappeals differ from sponsorship appeals in that the IAD’s equitable jurisdiction includes the\npotential risk the appellant may face in their country of destination.\nThe Supreme Court ruled in Chieu v. M.C.I., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84 and Al-Sagban v M.C.I., [2002]\n1 S.C.R. 133 that “all the circumstances of the case” may include foreign hardship, including the\nrisk that the individual may face, provided that the likely country of destination has been\nestablished. Based on the Supreme Court’s reasoning, it is highly likely that appellants will\nsubmit documentation regarding the human rights situation in the country of destination and\nother documentation related to risk at the appeal against their removal order. The Court has\nacknowledged that the Minister is entitled to have documents verified prior to the hearing or to\nchallenge their validity.\nWithout a passport or travel document for a particular country, it is the CBSA’s position that\nthere is insufficient evidence to assume which will be the likely country of destination and foreign\nhardship should be considered only where the likely country of destination has been established.\nIf such documentation is necessary to determine the likely country of destination, the\ncircumstances in the country of destination at the time of removal cannot be certain. Where the\nappellant is serving a sentence or it can be established that the removal process is particularly", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.3 (All the circumstances of the case) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.3", + "marginal_note": "All the circumstances of the case", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "lengthy, it will become even more difficult to anticipate country conditions at an uncertain point\nin the future.\nHearings officers should evaluate the circumstances of each case and, where appropriate, argue\nthat, in the absence of sufficient evidence to establish the likely country of destination or time of\nremoval, anticipated risk or hardship cannot be properly evaluated.\nFurther, appellants will have an opportunity to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA)\nwhen they become ready for removal. Foreign hardship will be more accurately assessed at the\nright time through the PRRA process. Therefore, in some cases it will be appropriate for hearings\nofficers to submit that foreign hardship should be given little weight for these reasons.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.3 (All the circumstances of the case) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Mandatory conditions to be imposed by the IAD", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.4. Mandatory conditions to be imposed by the IAD\nA68(2)(a) states that where the IAD stays a removal order:\n“it shall impose any condition that is prescribed and may impose any condition that it\nconsiders necessary.”\nMandatory conditions are found in R251 and are as follows:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.4 (Mandatory conditions to be imposed by the IAD)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n251.…\n(a) to inform the Department and the IAD in writing in advance of any change in the\nperson’s address;\n(b) to provide a copy of their passport or travel document to the Department or, if they\ndo not hold a passport or travel document, to complete an application for a passport or a\ntravel document and to provide the application to the Department;\n(c) to apply for an extension of the validity period of any passport or travel document\nbefore it expires, and to provide a copy of the extended passport or document to the\nDepartment;\n(d) to not commit any criminal offences;\n(e) if they are charged with a criminal offence, to immediately report that fact in writing\nto the Department; and\n(f) if they are convicted of a criminal offence, to immediately report that fact in writing to\nthe Department and the Division.\nNote: Effective December 12, 2003, the portions of the Department of Citizenship and\nImmigration that deal with enforcement (removals, detention, investigations, hearings, appeals,\ninterventions) and war crimes were transferred to the Canada Border Services Agency.\nTherefore, the words “the Agency” should be read where the words “the Department” currently\nappear in the above-referenced section of the Regulations (R251).\nThe mandatory conditions shall be imposed in all stays of removal imposed by the IAD, whether\nthe removal order was based on criminal inadmissibility or for any other removal order appeal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.5", + "marginal_note": "Discretionary conditions in criminal inadmissibility cases", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.5. Discretionary conditions in criminal inadmissibility cases\nThe IAD has discretionary power to impose non-prescribed conditions when it stays a removal.\nGenerally, these conditions are imposed in cases involving criminal inadmissibility and\nentrepreneur appellants.\nIn criminal inadmissibility appeals, conditions of a stay that are frequently imposed by the IAD\ninclude the following:\n provide all information, the notice and documents required by the conditions of the stay\nby hand, by regular or registered mail, by courier or priority post to the CBSA, at\n(address of the CBSA’s office) and to the IAD (address of the IAD and fax number) It is\nthe responsibility of the appellant to ensure that the documents are received by the\nAgency within any time period required by a condition of the stay.\n report to the CBSA on the dates set by the IAD, or the first of the month in a sequence\nchosen by the IAD. The appellant shall report in person, in writing or by telephone. The\nreports are to contain the following details:\no employment or efforts to obtain employment, if unemployed;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.5 (Discretionary conditions in criminal inadmissibility cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\no current living arrangements;\no marital status, including common-law relationships;\no attendance at meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other drug or alcohol\nrehabilitation program;\no other relevant changes of personal circumstances (i.e. separation,\ndivorce, children).\n make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain full-time employment and immediately\nreport any change in employment to the Agency.\n not knowingly associate with individuals who have a criminal record or who are engaged\nin criminal activity, except contact that might result while attending meetings of\nAlcoholics Anonymous, or any other drug or alcohol rehabilitation program.\n not own or possess offensive weapons or imitations of offensive weapons.\n respect all parole conditions and any court orders.\n refrain from the use of alcohol.\n keep the peace and be of good behaviour.\n take immediate steps to repay any and all debts owed to creditors. Provide proof of\nrepayment schedule and compliance at each time of reporting to the Agency.\n follow or continue to follow a psychotherapy program if the probation officer sees the\nneed. (If appellant withdraws consent to this condition, they must forthwith make an\napplication to the IAD to have this condition removed.)\n engage in or continue anger management counselling with (name of therapist or group).\n refrain from the illegal use or sale of drugs.\n maintain the payment schedule as foreseen in the agreement with the Municipal Court.\nDiscretionary conditions depend on the nature of the appellant’s situation, which will have been\nestablished during the hearing before the IAD. They can be suggested by the Minister’s counsel\nand the appellant, but the IAD decides which conditions will be imposed.\nThe burden rests on the appellant to demonstrate that the conditions have been met; however,\nthe CBSA’s hearings office will monitor whether the appellant complies with the mandatory and\ndiscretionary conditions imposed with the stay in order to report, when required, to the IAD. See\nsection 11.7 below.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.6", + "marginal_note": "Monitoring compliance with the conditions of a stay of removal", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.6. Monitoring compliance with the conditions of a stay of removal\nWhere the IAD has stayed a removal order, it may, at any time, on application or on its own\ninitiative, reconsider the appeal [A68(3)].\nThe Minister or the appellant can apply to the IAD to reconsider the appeal [IAD rule 78(1)]. The\napplicant must follow IAD rule 85 for applications generally, but evidence is not required in an\naffidavit or a statutory declaration. However, a written statement of whether the subject of the\nappeal has complied with the conditions of the stay must be provided with the application.\nWhen the IAD provides notice that it may reconsider an appeal in which it stayed a removal\norder, both parties must immediately provide the IAD with a written statement concerning\ncompliance with the conditions of the stay of removal [IAD rule 78(2)].\nThe statement of the Minister’s counsel must indicate the information the Minister has", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.6 (Monitoring compliance with the conditions of a stay of removal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nconcerning compliance with the conditions of the stay and should indicate what decision the IAD\nshould make when reconsidering the appeal [IAD rule 78(2) or 79(2) and 86(1)].Where a\nremoval order on the grounds of criminal inadmissibility has been stayed, verification of\ncompliance with the conditions imposed by the IAD is the CBSA’s responsibility. When a date is\nscheduled by the IAD for a review, a report indicating compliance, or default, with the conditions\nshall be prepared with a recommendation to the IAD. Such a recommendation may be to:\n allow the appeal, cancel the stay and quash the removal order; or\n maintain the stay for an extended period of time with additional conditions, or removal of\nconditions which have been met; or\n dismiss the appeal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.7", + "marginal_note": "Cancellation of stays by operation of law", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.7. Cancellation of stays by operation of law\nA68(4) provides that a stay is automatically cancelled by operation of law and the appeal\nterminated where a person who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality or\ncriminality is granted a stay of removal and is then convicted of another offence described in the\nserious criminality provisions of A36(1).\nWhere a stay is cancelled by operation of law, hearings officers must send the appellant a notice\nin writing regarding cancellation of their stay (see Appendix E). A copy of the notice must also be\nsent to the IRB with a statement of service [IAD rule 80 and 81].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.7 (Cancellation of stays by operation of law)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.8", + "marginal_note": "Permanent resident visa holders", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.8. Permanent resident visa holders\nAs outlined in manual chapter ENF 4, section 12.2, border services officers may prepare a report\nunder subsection A44(1) if they establish that a foreign national in possession of a permanent\nresident (PR) visa is inadmissible. The PR visa holder may later be issued a removal order as a\nresult.\nUnder A63(2), a foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa may appeal to the IAD\nagainst a decision to make a removal order against them.\nIf the appeal on the removal order is allowed, A67(2) provides that the IAD shall set aside the\noriginal decision and substitute a determination that, in its opinion, should have been made,\nincluding the making of a removal order, or refer the matter to the appropriate decision-maker\nfor reconsideration. If the foreign national arrived at the point of entry while the PR visa was\nvalid and the examination was deferred pursuant to section A23, the foreign national can be\ngranted PR status as per R71.1.\nAs the permanent resident visa holder will likely be in Canada following the IAD decision, the\nhearings officer must return the case to the closest local IRCC office in Canada, and not return\nthe file to a migration office overseas.\nPursuant to A70(1), the responsible IRCC office is bound by the IAD’s decision. Officers should\nread the IAD’s decision and reasons in order to determine next steps in processing. These cases\nshould be processed on a priority basis as the PR visa holder may be have been without status\nfor some time. The IRCC office must follow the following procedures depending on the IAD’s", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.8 (Permanent resident visa holders)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\ndecision:\n If the IAD sets aside the original decision and refers the matter to a decision-\nmaker for reconsideration, the responsible IRCC office must re-open the application,\nupdate background verifications and ensure the foreign national is not inadmissible to\nCanada before granting permanent residence.\n If the IAD’s decision is to allow the individual to remain in Canada, the\npermanent resident application should only be re-opened to grant permanent resident\nstatus. The individual may be granted permanent resident status even if the permanent\nresident visa expired, provided they initially appeared for examination and presented\ntheir permanent resident visa within its period of validity. Given the passage of time, the\nresponsible IRCC office may update background verification of the applicant if there are\nconcerns there may be new grounds that could make the applicant inadmissible to\nCanada.\n In both cases, family members that were not previously examined and were added to the\napplication following the IAD’s decision must provide any required forms and documents,\nand complete a medical examination to allow the IRCC officer to assess their eligibility\nand admissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 12", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Loss of residency status appeals", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12. Procedure: Loss of residency status appeals\nIRCC has the policy responsibility with respect to loss of residency status and the Minister of\nIRCC is the respondent in these appeals (as of August 3, 2018, the official name of the Ministry\nhas not changed to IRCC and as such until it does change, the style of cause is to remain\nMinister of Citizenship and Immigration).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 12 (Procedure: Loss of residency status appeals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "In Canada", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1. In Canada\nPermanent residents who are determined by the Minister’s delegate to have lost their permanent\nresident status have the right to appeal their removal order against the Minister of IRCC\npursuant to A63(3). Persons in this category are subject to the same appeal provisions as\npermanent residents who are ordered removed on other grounds of inadmissibility.\nFor more information, see section 11.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 12.1 (In Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Outside Canada", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2. Outside Canada\nPursuant to A63(4), permanent residents may appeal to the IAD, against the Minister of IRCC,\nwith respect to a decision made outside Canada on the residency obligation under A28. IAD rule\n13(1)(c), 16(c) and the IAD Appeal form require that:\n the notice of appeal be filed with the IAD of the region in Canada where the appellant last\nresided;\n the written reasons for the loss of status decision be filed with the notice of appeal;\n if the appellant wants to return to Canada for the hearing of the appeal, they must\nindicate it on the notice of appeal; and\n after they receive the written reasons for the decision, appellants have 60 days to file\nwith the IAD a notice of appeal and the written reasons for the decision.\nWhen the notice of appeal is received, the hearings office should:\n ensure that the GCMS and NCMS “Appeals” screens are completed promptly; and\n enter any motions or applications associated with the appeal in the GCMS appeals screen.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 12.2 (Outside Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "Record of refusal (outside Canada)", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3. Record of refusal (outside Canada)\nIAD rule 20(4) requires that the Minister prepare an appeal record that includes a table of\ncontents and the following documents:\n any documents the Minister of IRCC has that is relevant to the decision on the\nresidency obligation or any issue in the appeal; and\n the officer’s written decision and written reasons.\nAll parties must receive the appeal record and proof of compliance no later than 60 days after", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 12.3 (Record of refusal (outside Canada))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Requests to return to Canada for the hearing (Outside of Canada)", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4. Requests to return to Canada for the hearing (Outside of Canada)\nA31(3)(c) provides that a permanent resident shall be issued a travel document if:\n they were physically present in Canada at least once in the last 365 days; and\n they have made an appeal under A63(4); or\n the period for making an appeal has not expired.\nThe situation will arise where permanent residents who do not meet the residency requirement\nrequest a travel document during the 60-day appeal period although they have not filed an\nappeal. Persons in this situation would be allowed to enter Canada during the 60-day appeal\nperiod even if they have not yet filed an appeal. In cases such as this, the port of entry will\nnotify the hearings office. Hearings offices should monitor the file to determine if an appeal is\nfiled. When an appeal is not filed within the 60-day period, the file should be referred to the\nCBSA for investigation.\nApplications must be filed with the IAD and the Minister without delay after the notice of appeal\nis filed. If the IAD is satisfied the presence of the permanent resident at the hearing is\nnecessary, it will order that the permanent resident physically appear at the hearing. Where the\nIAD has ordered that the appellant be physically present, an officer shall issue a travel document\nfor that purpose [A175(2)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 12.4 (Requests to return to Canada for the hearing (Outside of Canada))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-12-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Dismissed appeals—Type of removal order", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.5. Dismissed appeals—Type of removal order\nA69(3) requires that where the IAD dismisses an appeal under A63(4) and the permanent\nresident is in Canada, it shall make the removal order. Neither the Act nor the Regulations\nspecify what type of removal order should be issued by the IAD. To ensure consistency with\nprocedures in cases involving the in-Canada determination of residency obligation, hearings\nofficers should request that the IAD issue a departure order for failure to comply with the\nresidency obligation [R228(2)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 12.5 (Dismissed appeals—Type of removal order)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-12-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 12.6", + "marginal_note": "Failure to appear at an appeal", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.6. Failure to appear at an appeal\nIf an appellant fails to appear for their appeal, hearings officers should ask the IAD to declare the\nappeal abandoned pursuant to A168(1). If the person concerned is subject to a removal order,\nthis order will then come into force and they will be removable from Canada. Where an appellant\nwas determined to have lost their residency status outside Canada, and the person concerned\nhas returned to Canada for their appeal, officers should ask that the IAD issue the appropriate\nremoval order in absentia.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 12.6 (Failure to appear at an appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-13-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: The Minister's appeal rights", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13. Procedure: The Minister's appeal rights\nIf a member of the Immigration Division decides at an admissibility hearing that the person\nconcerned is not a person against whom a removal order should be made or, that the person\nmay be granted authorization to enter Canada, the Minister of PSEP may appeal that decision to\nthe IAD on questions of law or fact, mixed law and fact, or on question of a breach of a principle\nof natural justice. [A63(5) and A67(1)].\nThe decision to appeal an Immigration Division decision to the IAD is made at Litigation\nManagement (LMB), NHQ, or CBSA Judicial Review Unit (JRU), by persons with delegated\nauthority from the Minister. When the Minister decides to appeal, Litigation Management will:\n serve a notice of appeal on the respondent and the IAD within 30 days after\nthe day on which the Minister receives the Immigration Division's decision\n[IAD rule 16(d)];\n send a copy of the material to the appropriate hearings office and advise the hearings\nofficer supervisor where the decision was made; and\nThe Immigration Division must provide the Minister and the IAD with a certified true copy of\nthe record no later than 30 days after the IAD receives the notice of appeal [IAD rule 22(b)].\nWhen the Minister begins an appeal, Litigation Management (LMB) NHQ or CBSA Judicial\nReview Unit (JRU), will complete the GCMS appeals screen. If the Minister or the respondent\nbegins a motion or application, hearings officers are responsible for completing the “Motions”\nscreen in GCMS.\nA69(2) – In the case of an appeal by the Minister respecting a permanent resident or a\nprotected person, other than a person referred to in subsection 64(1), if the Immigration Appeal", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 13 (Procedure: The Minister's appeal rights) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-13-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: The Minister's appeal rights", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Division is satisfied that, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the\ndecision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light\nof all the circumstances of the case, it may make and may stay the applicable removal order, or\ndismiss the appeal, despite being satisfied of a matter set out in paragraph 67(1)(a) or (b).\nAfter the IAD renders its decision, the hearings office promptly updates the GCMS “Appeals” or\n“Motions” screens and the NCMS screens, as the case may be. This is particularly important\nwhen the IAD issues a removal order. In those cases, the officer completes the appropriate\nremoval order by hand and forwards the CBSA's copy of the order to the appropriate office.\nIf the IAD dismisses the Minister's appeal and the officer, in consultation with their supervisor,\nbelieves that an application for judicial review of the decision is warranted, the officer should\nimmediately bring the decision to the attention of Litigation Management(LMB) NHQ or CBSA\nJudicial Review Unit (JRU). The documents may be e-mailed to:\nIRCC.CMBLitigationMgmtRequest-DemandeGesLitigesDGRC.IRCC@cic.gc.ca (See ENF 9, Judicial\nReview).\nIn addition, in dismissed appeals, the officer should make a written request for the written\nreasons.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 13 (Procedure: The Minister's appeal rights) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 14", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Roles and responsibilities", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14. Procedure: Roles and responsibilities\nRole Responsibilities\nIRCC and CBSA’s\nLitigation Management\nThe Litigation Management Branch (LMB), situated in the Case\nManagement Branch, NHQ, and the CBSA Judicial Review Unit\n(JRU) , NHQ share responsibility for the management of all the\nIRCC and the CBSA cases involving litigation in the Federal Courts\nand for ministerial appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division\npursuant to A63(5). Litigation Management (LMB) will determine\nwho should manage the case and they will refer certain cases to\nCBSA Judicial Review Unit (JRU) that fit within the JRU mandate.\nSee ENF 9, Judicial Review, for more information.\nHearings officer Hearings officers present cases in accordance with policies and\nfunctional direction from either the IRCC Admissibility Branch, or\nthe CBSA Inland Enforcement Program Management Division at\nNHQ.\nThe role of a hearings officer as the Minister’s counsel is to\nensure that the integrity of the system is upheld and that justice\nis served. In most circumstances, this requires the hearings\nofficer to defend the decision of an officer not to issue a visa, or\nthe decision of a Minister’s delegate or the Immigration Division\nto issue a removal order.\nExceptions may arise where the original decision is not defensible\ndue to an error in law or fact or due to a breach of natural justice.\nOfficers should consent to an appeal being allowed only when the\ncircumstances of the case merit the original decision being\noverturned. Due to the de novo nature of IAD hearings, hearings\nofficers will often have different evidence to consider and present to\nthe IAD than that considered by the original decision-maker. New\nevidence is often introduced through documentation at the hearing.\nIt is essential that hearings officers be familiar with the IAD Rules\nas they govern procedures such as disclosure, preparation of the\nrecord and procedures at IAD hearings.\nWhen the hearings office concerned receives notice of the IAD’s\ndecision, the GCMS and NCMS “Appeals” screens are to be completed\npromptly.\nHearings officers represent the Minister of IRCC or the Minister of\nPSEP in proceedings before all Divisions of the IRB. Hearings officers\nhave direct contact with counsel and clients. They should always be", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 14 (Procedure: Roles and responsibilities)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nprofessional in both decorum and appearance. Hearings officers\nshould maintain their professionalism in their telephone manner,\nwritten correspondence, conduct at hearings and all other\ninteractions with the public. Professionalism should be exhibited by\nproperly preparing for cases and treating all participants at a\nhearing with dignity and respect. The participants include members,\ncounsel, witnesses, interpreters and observers, if any.\nLegislative and\nRegulatory Policy\nDivision, Admissibility\nBranch, IRCC, NHQ.\nThe IRCC Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Policy Division at\nNHQ is responsible for all admissibility policies except security, war\ncrimes and organized crime. The Director is also responsible for\npolicies related to appeal rights and grounds for appeals.\nInland Enforcement,\nCBSA, NHQ.\nThe CBSA Director of Inland Enforcement Program Management\nDivision, Intelligence and Enforcement Branch at NHQ is responsible\nfor detention reviews, admissibility hearings as well as appeals of a\nremoval order by a permanent resident, a protected person or a\nholder of a permanent resident visa.\nThe Hearings Unit at NHQ can provide guidance and assistance to\nhearings officers on all hearings-related matters and can be reached\nat: Hearings -Audiences-Programs@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nAppendix A – Detention, Safety & Security Annex\nNOTE: The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is\ncurrently (August 3, 2018) being referred to as the Ministry of\nImmigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) but the name has\nnot officially been changed from CIC.\nDetention, Safety and Security Annex\nBETWEEN\nTHE DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION (CIC)\nAND\nTHE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY (CBSA)\nAND\nTHE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD OF CANADA (IRB)\nCollectively referred to as the “Parties”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nIntroduction\nWHEREAS the Parties concluded and signed a Memorandum of Understanding in February 2016,\nhereinafter referred to as the “MOU”, specifying that the Parties agree to negotiate Annexes under\nthe MOU. This Annex will be interpreted in accordance with the principles contained in the MOU;\nWHEREAS the Parties recognize that their roles are interdependent and as such, need to work\ntogether regarding the safety and security of proceedings before the IRB;\nWHEREAS the Parties agree on the importance of establishing and maintaining efficient processes\nin relation to detention, safety and security that are open and transparent for the purposes of\nachieving their respective mandates;\nWHEREAS the Parties recognize that the Canada Labour Code Part II sets out the responsibilities\nand obligations of both employers and employees with respect to the health and safety of\nworkplaces; and\nWHEREAS this Annex does not supersede provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection\nAct (IRPA), Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, Rules of any of the Divisions of the\nIRB or any other applicable legislation.\nTherefore the Parties agree as follows:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Purpose and Objective", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Purpose and Objective\n1.1 The purpose of this Annex is to outline the responsibilities of the Parties as they relate to\nthe safety and security of all proceedings before the IRB, including proceedings involving\npersons in detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 1 (Purpose and Objective)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-1-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 1.2", + "marginal_note": "The objectives of this Annex are:", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1.2 The objectives of this Annex are:\n to assist the Parties in providing a safe and secure environment for all persons\npresent at proceedings before the IRB; and\n to assist the Parties in fulfilling their roles and obligations with respect to persons\nin detention, including maintaining their well-being.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 1.2 (The objectives of this Annex are:)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-2-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 2.1", + "marginal_note": "The Parties commit to take reasonable steps to provide a safe and secure environment", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.1 The Parties commit to take reasonable steps to provide a safe and secure environment\nfor all proceedings before the IRB by implementing the provisions set out in section 6 of\nthis Annex.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 2.1 (The Parties commit to take reasonable steps to provide a safe and secure environment)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-2-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 2.2", + "marginal_note": "The Parties commit to maintaining, and upon request, sharing information on their own", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.2 The Parties commit to maintaining, and upon request, sharing information on their own\nsecurity practices and standards with the other Parties as set out in their respective\npolicies and guidelines relating to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) required by the\nCanada Labour Code Part II. Information shared under this provision will only be\ndisclosed in accordance with the Privacy Act as outlined in the provisions of the\nInformation Sharing Annex.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 2.2 (The Parties commit to maintaining, and upon request, sharing information on their own)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-2-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 2.3", + "marginal_note": "The Parties commit to bearing all costs associated with carrying out their respective", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.3 The Parties commit to bearing all costs associated with carrying out their respective\nresponsibilities and commitments under this Annex.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 2.3 (The Parties commit to bearing all costs associated with carrying out their respective)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "The IRB is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal comprising the Immigration Division", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 The IRB is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal comprising the Immigration Division\n(ID), the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), and\nthe Refugee Appeal Division (RAD).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 3.1 (The IRB is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal comprising the Immigration Division)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "The IRB is responsible for all decisions relating to the conduct of its proceedings and", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.2 The IRB is responsible for all decisions relating to the conduct of its proceedings and\nensuring that principles of fairness and natural justice are respected in these proceedings.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 3.2 (The IRB is responsible for all decisions relating to the conduct of its proceedings and)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 3.3", + "marginal_note": "The ID has the sole jurisdiction to review the reasons for detention and render decisions", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.3 The ID has the sole jurisdiction to review the reasons for detention and render decisions\nregarding continued detention or release of foreign nationals (FN) or permanent residents\n(PR) detained for immigration reasons under the specific timelines as set out under the\nIRPA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 3.3 (The ID has the sole jurisdiction to review the reasons for detention and render decisions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-3-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 3.4", + "marginal_note": "The IRB is responsible for the security of IRB controlled premises used to conduct", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.4 The IRB is responsible for the security of IRB controlled premises used to conduct\nproceedings before the IRB including providing instructions during an emergency\nsituation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 3.4 (The IRB is responsible for the security of IRB controlled premises used to conduct)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-3-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 3.5", + "marginal_note": "The IRB does not have jurisdiction over security in non-IRB controlled premises such as", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.5 The IRB does not have jurisdiction over security in non-IRB controlled premises such as\nprovincial and federal correctional institutions or premises under the control of other\ngovernment departments or agencies or other institutions where proceedings could be\nheld.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 3.5 (The IRB does not have jurisdiction over security in non-IRB controlled premises such as)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-3-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 3.6", + "marginal_note": "When security risks are identified to the IRB in advance of a proceeding, the IRB is", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.6 When security risks are identified to the IRB in advance of a proceeding, the IRB is\nresponsible for communicating those security risks and recommended mitigation\nstrategies to the provincial or federal correctional institutions, or other institutions where\nthe proceeding is scheduled to take place.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 3.6 (When security risks are identified to the IRB in advance of a proceeding, the IRB is)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-3-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 3.7", + "marginal_note": "The IRB has the authority to schedule cases before any Division of the IRB and will do so", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.7 The IRB has the authority to schedule cases before any Division of the IRB and will do so\nin a manner that respects the rights and ensures the safety and security of all persons\nthat attend IRB proceedings and takes into account the well-being of persons in\ndetention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 3.7 (The IRB has the authority to schedule cases before any Division of the IRB and will do so)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-3-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 3.8", + "marginal_note": "The IRB will consult CIC or the CBSA on availability of space and resources when", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.8 The IRB will consult CIC or the CBSA on availability of space and resources when\nscheduling proceedings at premises controlled by that Party.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 3.8 (The IRB will consult CIC or the CBSA on availability of space and resources when)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-4-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 4.1", + "marginal_note": "The CBSA represents the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP)", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.1 The CBSA represents the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP)\nand the Minister of CIC in proceedings before the IRB.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 4.1 (The CBSA represents the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 4.2", + "marginal_note": "The CBSA is responsible for ensuring the security, safety and well -being of all persons", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.2 The CBSA is responsible for ensuring the security, safety and well -being of all persons\nunder arrest, or detained under the IRPA and has the authority to apply restraints to\npersons who are lawfully arrested and detained, including during proceedings before the\nIRB.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 4.2 (The CBSA is responsible for ensuring the security, safety and well -being of all persons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-4-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 4.3", + "marginal_note": "The CBSA strives to avoid all unnecessary transportation of persons in detention under the", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.3 The CBSA strives to avoid all unnecessary transportation of persons in detention under the\nIRPA where alternative measures are available and can be implemented;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 4.3 (The CBSA strives to avoid all unnecessary transportation of persons in detention under the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 4.4", + "marginal_note": "The CBSA is responsible for the security of CBSA controlled premises used to conduct", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.4 The CBSA is responsible for the security of CBSA controlled premises used to conduct\nproceedings before the IRB including providing instructions during an emergency situation.\n4.5 When a security risk arises during an IRB proceeding at a provincial or federal correctional\ninstitution or other institution, the CBSA is responsible for communicating security risks\nand requesting additional security measures where a ppropriate from the institution and\ninforming the presiding member at the earliest opportunity.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 4.4 (The CBSA is responsible for the security of CBSA controlled premises used to conduct)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-5-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 5.2", + "marginal_note": "CIC is responsible for the security of CIC controlled premises used to conduct proceedings", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.2 CIC is responsible for the security of CIC controlled premises used to conduct proceedings\nbefore the IRB including providing instruction during an emergency situation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 5.2 (CIC is responsible for the security of CIC controlled premises used to conduct proceedings)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-6-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Security of Proceedings before the IRB", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Security of Proceedings before the IRB\n6.1.1 The IRB has security screening measures on IRB controlled premises to ensure\nthe safety and security of all persons on these premises.\n6.1.2 The Parties will share information about identified security-related risks associated\nwith a proceeding before the IRB without delay to those Parties impacted by the\nsecurity-related risk, and in writing whenever possible, where required and\npermitted by law.\n6.1.3 A Departmental Security Officer (DSO) and Deputy Departmental Security Officer\n(DDSO) or other delegate from each Party, if they are involved in the proceeding,\nwill assess and may consult or share information related to identified security risks\nwhere required and permitted by law.\n6.1.4 Where a proceeding before the IRB is scheduled to take place on premises\ncontrolled by one of the Parties, that Party will be responsible for taking\nreasonable efforts to address the identified security risks associated with the\nproceeding by implementing the appropriate risk mitigation strategies, e.g. the\npresence of security personnel or the use of telecommunication in place of in-\nperson proceedings.\n6.1.5 Where the IRB schedules a proceeding on premises which are not under the\ncontrol of one of the Parties, the IRB will address any security risks associated\nwith the proceeding with the proprietor by requesting appropriate risk mitigation\nstrategies be implemented. Where another Party has a contractual relationship\nwith the proprietor, the IRB will inform that Party of the request.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 6.1 (Security of Proceedings before the IRB)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\n6.1.6 Where security risks associated with a proceeding have been identified, the IRB\nwill take reasonable efforts to schedule the proceeding at a location where both\nthe fairness and security of the proceeding will not be compromised; this could\ninclude scheduling at another location if possible, or using telecommunications in\nplace of in-person proceedings.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-6-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA) of the premises where IRB proceedings take place.", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA) of the premises where IRB proceedings take place.\n6.2.1 The Parties conduct TRAs of their controlled premises.\n6.2.2 The IRB does not have authority to conduct a TRA at any provincial or federal\ncorrectional institution or premises or other institutions where proceedings could\nbe held.\n6.2.3 The IRB commits to working with other institutions to conduct a security\nassessment when security risks are identified.\n6.2.4 The Parties DSOs/DDSOs or other delegates commit to:\n sharing existing TRAs or portions of TRAs with the DSO or the DDSO or\nother delegate of the requesting Party where required and permitted by law;\n conducting joint TRAs or portions of TRAs at IRB itinerant locations and co-\nlocations;\n conducting joint TRAs or portions of TRAs, as appropriate, where\nproceedings occur at CBSA, CIC or IRB facilities; and\n obtaining authorization from the originating Party prior to further sharing\nTRAs or portions of TRAs.\n6.2.5 Where a joint TRA or portions of the TRA are undertaken by one or more of the\nParties, the Party on whose premises the proceeding before the IRB is held commits\nto implementing the appropriate risk mitigation strategies.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 6.2 (Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA) of the premises where IRB proceedings take place.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-6-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Emergency Response", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.3 Emergency Response\n6.3.1 The Party on whose premise the proceeding takes place commits to providing\nemergency response instructions when an emergency situation arises.\n6.3.2 Each Party in control of premises where a proceeding before the IRB is scheduled\nwill post an evacuation plan or appropriate signage for all persons present at the\nproceeding, including members of the public, to inform them of basic emergency\nplans and exit routes.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 6.3 (Emergency Response)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "While the IRB has the authority to require the presence of the subject of the proceeding", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 While the IRB has the authority to require the presence of the subject of the proceeding\nto appear before any division, it recognizes that the CBSA has the sole responsibility for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.1 (While the IRB has the authority to require the presence of the subject of the proceeding)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nthe care and control of persons in detention under the IRPA and the identification and\nmanagement of risks associated with the transportation of persons in detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "The IRB will consider the use of alternatives to transportation of persons in detention", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 The IRB will consider the use of alternatives to transportation of persons in detention\nincluding the use of telecommunication in place of in-person proceedings, when an\napplication is made under the appropriate Division’s Rules or the IRB decides risk\nmitigation strategies are required to conduct the proceeding.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 8.2 (The IRB will consider the use of alternatives to transportation of persons in detention)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "The Parties DSOs /DDSOs or other delegates agree to review safety and security", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2 The Parties DSOs /DDSOs or other delegates agree to review safety and security\nincidents as soon as possible after their occurrence and to commit to meeting quarterly\nto discuss and implement preventative safety and security measures as appropriate.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 9.2 (The Parties DSOs /DDSOs or other delegates agree to review safety and security)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Any disagreement arising with respect to the terms of this Annex is to be resolved", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1 Any disagreement arising with respect to the terms of this Annex is to be resolved\npursuant to sections 21 and 22 of the MOU.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 10.1 (Any disagreement arising with respect to the terms of this Annex is to be resolved)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-11-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "This Annex will remain in effect until it is suspended or terminated as set out under the", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2 This Annex will remain in effect until it is suspended or terminated as set out under the\nTermination section of the MOU.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 11.2 (This Annex will remain in effect until it is suspended or terminated as set out under the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-13-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "This Annex may be signed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1 This Annex may be signed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but\nall of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.\nIN WITNESS THEREOF, this Annex, in both official languages, was signed in triplicate, each copy\nbeing equally authentic.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 13.1 (This Annex may be signed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nSigned on March 29, 2016 in Ottawa, Canada.\n_ _\nSarita Bhatla Michael MacDonald\nDirector General, Director General,\nRefugee Affairs Branch, CIC Operational Management and\nCoordination, CIC\nLeslie Soper Andrew Le Frank\nA/Director General, Director General,\nEnforcement and Intelligence Programs Enforcement and Intelligence\nOperations\nCBSA CBSA\nGreg Kipling Rebecca McTaggart\nDirector General, Director General,\nPolicy, Planning and Research Branch, Registry and Regional Support\nIRB Services Branch, IRB", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nSchedule 1\nDefinitions\n“Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA)”\n“Threat and Risk Assessment” means an evaluation of the potential for losses (in term of\ndisruption, modification, destruction) through any act or condition exploiting vulnerability\nto cause those losses. The threat and risk assessment consist of this examination in terms\nof a threat’s ability to exploit a vulnerability in order to cause injury to an asset, thereby\nresulting in the losses in terms of disruption of operations, injury to persons, or injury (in\nterms of destruction, modification, loss) of asse ts nature, likelihood and consequences of\nacts and events that could place employees and information, assets and systems at risk.\n“Other institution”\n“Other institution” could include public or private institutions such as hotels, conference\ncentres, hospitals, universities or colleges or under federal, provincial, municipal or\nterritorial control, whose primary ownership is defined as a legal entity outside of the\ngovernment community.\n“Itinerant locations”\n“Itinerant locations” refers to locations where IRB proceedings are held other than in the\ncities where IRB regional offices are located.\n“Co-location”\n“Co-location” refers to the sharing of facilities between the Parties.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nAppendix B – Examples of cases that do not need to be forwarded\nto Operations Directorate, Migration Health Branch, NHQ, by the\nofficer\nThe officer should not forward the new medical information about the applicant to Operations\nDirectorate, Migration Health Branch at NHQ when it either has no link with the applicant’s\nreason for refusal on medical grounds or the medical information is so vague or of such a general\nnature that it has little or no probative value. Instead, the officer should request that a date be\nset for a hearing at the IAD. The following are examples of cases where the officer should not\nforward the new medical information to the Migration Health Branch at NHQ:\n1. when the person concerned was initially found inadmissible because they were diagnosed\nwith emphysema, and the new medical information received about the applicant states\nthat they are being treated for an unrelated condition (e.g., a broken leg);\n2. when the applicant was initially found inadmissible because of hypertension and the new\nmedical information received deals with the applicant’s prognosis with diabetes; or\n3. the applicant was found inadmissible because of cancer, and the new medical information\nsubmitted states that the applicant’s hypertension is being treated and there is a good\nprognosis.\nNote: If the officer is uncertain whether the submitted information refers to the reason for\nmedical inadmissibility, they should request clarification from their regional medical officer.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nAppendix C – Sample letter from hearings officer to appellant or\ncounsel for the appel lant - New medical examinations\nAppellant/counsel’s address\nSubject: New medical examination required for (insert name of applicant)\nDear Sir/Madam:\nFurther to the new medical information submitted by (insert name of applicant) on (insert date),\nwith respect to (describe in detail the newly submitted medical information), please be advised\nthat a new medical examination will be required in order for us to make a determination about\nthe applicant’s case.\nPlease note that it is your responsibility to ensure that the applicant complies with the officer’s\ninstructions to:\n forward passport-size photographs within 30 days (if required by the officer); and the\napplicant may either:\n undergo the new medical examination within 30 days of receipt of this notification letter\n(medical submitted to applicant by office); or alternatively,\n provide the officer, within 30 days of receipt of this notification letter, with a date for the\nmedical examination.\nWe wish to advise you that should the applicant fail to comply with the above-mentioned 30-day\ntime frame, we will have no other choice but to discontinue the medical reassessment process\nconcerning the applicant’s file.\nSigned at , on\nHearings officer\nc.c.: IAD Registry", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nAppendix D – Statement of Service\nThe Registrar\nImmigration and Refugee Board\nDivision\nAddress\nRe: (Insert name of person concerned)\nFOSS ID:\nAddress\nIRB File:\nTAKE NOTICE that the attached documents were provided to (insert name of person concerned)\nat the above-noted address on (insert date). The documents were provided to the person\nconcerned by the method of service noted below:\n by hand;\n by email;\n regular mail;\n registered mail;\n certified mail;\n courier;\n priority post;\n facsimile; or\n other.\nName and position\nHearings Office\nAddress", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nAppendix E – Notice of cancellation, by operation of law, of a stay\nof removal order granted by the IAD [A68(4)]\nDate\nName of appellant\nClient UCI/IRB file\nAddress\nRe: Notice of cancellation, by operation of law, of a stay of removal order\ngranted by the IAD\nDear Mr./Ms. (name of appellant):\nAs provided for in subsection 68(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (hereinafter\n“the Act”), you are hereby notified, in accordance with Immigration Appeal Division rule 80, that\nthe stay of the removal order that was granted to you on (insert date) by the Immigration\nAppeal Division is cancelled by operation of law because of your conviction for (enter nature of\nconviction), contrary to (insert relevant provision of an Act of Parliament) on (insert date) at\n(insert place), this being a conviction for which you have been sentenced to a term of\nimprisonment of (insert prison sentence imposed). The maximum term of imprisonment for such\nan offence is (insert maximum term of imprisonment). The relevant provisions of the Act\nstipulate that:\n68.(4) If the Immigration Appeal Division has stayed a removal order against a permanent\nresident or a foreign national who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality or\ncriminality, and they are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1), the stay is\ncancelled by operation of law and the appeal is terminated.\n36.(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious\ncriminality for\n(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a\nmaximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament\nfor which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;\n(b) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would\nconstitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of\nimprisonment of at least 10 years; or\n(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and\nthat, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable\nby a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-19-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-19", + "act_short": "ENF 19", + "act_name": "ENF 19 — Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "section": "ENF 19 s. 22", + "marginal_note": "August 2024", + "part": "Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "22 August 2024\nAs a result of this conviction, the stay of the removal order that you enjoy is cancelled by\noperation of law, and your appeal is now terminated. The removal order that was issued against\nyou on (insert date) is now enforceable.\nSincerely,\nName of officer\nHearings Officer\nTAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Act you may file an application\nseeking leave from the Federal Court to commence an application for judicial review of\nany matter—a decision, determination or order made, a measure taken or a question\nraised—under the Act. Pursuant to paragraph 72(2)(b) of the Act, notice of such an\napplication must be served on the other party and filed in the Registry of the Federal\nCourt within 15 days.\nc.c.: Registry of the IAD\nCounsel for the appellant\nEncl. Certificate of conviction\nDeclaration of service", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2024-08-22", + "current_to": "2024-08-22", + "citation": "ENF 19, s. 22 (August 2024)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf19-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter describes primary and secondary examination procedures intended to assist officers to\nidentify and recover missing and abducted children at the port of entry.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe protection and recovery of children at risk is part of Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s\ncommitment to:\n ensuring and securing the best interest of a child;\n facilitating family reunification; and\n protecting the health and safety of Canadians and maintaining the security of Canadian society.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and Regulations\nEvery person seeking to enter Canada must appear for an examination to\ndetermine whether that person has a right to enter Canada or is or may become\nauthorized to enter and remain in Canada.\nA18(1)\nA foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of\nan inadmissible family member if\n(a) their accompanying family member or, in prescribed circumstances,\ntheir non-accompanying family member is inadmissible; or\n(b) they are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person.\nA42\nIt is affirmed as a principle that a minor child shall be detained only as a\nmeasure of last resort, taking into account the other applicable grounds and\ncriteria including the best interests of the child.\nA60\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 5", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Form", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 Form\nThe form required is shown in the following table.\nForm title Form number\nOur Missing Children Recovery Report E-514 (see\nAppendix B)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 3.1 (Form)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5 Departmental policy\nA18(1) requires every person seeking to enter Canada to appear for examination to determine whether\nthat person has a right to enter Canada or is or may become authorized to enter and remain in Canada", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 5 (Departmental policy)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Definitions\nAbduction The unlawful removal or taking of a person against their will or, in the\ncase of children, against the will of their parent or legal guardian and by\nuse of force or deceit\nCPIC Canadian Police Information Centre\nCustody order An order of custody issued by a court\nE-514 Our Missing Children Recovery Report used by both CIC and CCRA\nGuardian Includes any person who has, in law or in fact, the custody or control of\nanother person\nICES: Integrated Customs\nEnforcement System\nA CCRA computer database that includes up to date information on\nabducted/missing children cases\nIndicators Descriptions of general situational, behavioural and sometimes physical\ncharacteristics (for example, tattoos) used by enforcement agencies to\nassist in identifying persons likely to engage in a particular type of illegal\nactivity\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 6\nMissing child Any person under 18 years of age whose whereabouts are unknown to\ntheir legal guardian and where the circumstances surrounding the\ndisappearance suggest the child was removed without the guardian’s\nconsent, or the child's safety is at risk\nPALS: Primary Automated\nLookout System\nA CCRA computer database that includes up to date information on\nabducted/missing children\nParental/familial abductions Children who are taken from their legal custodian by a parent or family\nmember without consent or in violation of a custody agreement\nPIRS: Police Information\nRetrieval System\nA database governed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police\nand operated by the RCMP [Customs and immigration personnel can\naccess data on seizures (made by both CCRA and the RCMP),\nintelligence files and information pertinent to current narcotics activity]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 6 (Definitions) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Recovery A confirmed case of child abduction or a runaway (whether or not it was\nreported as such to a competent authority) that has been brought to a\nresolution through the intervention of one or more of the five agencies\ninvolved in the Our Missing Children program\nRestriction order An order issued by a court, restricting travel beyond a specified area\n(city/town, province/state or country)\nRunaways Children who leave home voluntarily without the knowledge or\npermission of the parent or guardian (some provinces may only record\nrunaway children that are 16 years of age or older as missing persons)\nStranger abductions Children that are taken by a person who is not their parent or legal\nguardian and without the knowledge or against the wishes of the parent\nor legal guardian\nThrowaways Children whose whereabouts are both unknown and unsought by the\nparents or guardians and who are unable to return to the family home\ndue to mostly irresolvable issues within the family (Throwaways are not\nstatistically captured as part of the Our Missing Children program.)\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 7", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 6 (Definitions) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Getting assistance from Our Missing Children (OMC) Program", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Getting assistance from Our Missing Children (OMC) Program\nCIC is one of five Government of Canada organizations working together to locate missing and abducted\nchildren and return them to their proper guardians. The other members of this successful partnership are\nCanada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of\nForeign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Justice. Together, these departments form\na national clearinghouse, assisting one another, as well as police and other agencies in 40 countrie s, to\nreunite children with their families.\nSince the OMC program began in 1986, over 4,000 missing children have been found. Customs and\nimmigration officers alone have reunited 1,083 children with their parents or legal guardians. In 2001, 93\nchildren were recovered at our borders. Customs and immigration officers must be fully alert to children\nwho need protection and should pay extra attention to children as they enter Canada. A child or youth\ntravelling without proper identification, or in the company of adults other than their legal guardian(s), may\nrequire careful examination. This additional scrutiny is for the sole purpose of ensuring the safety of the\nchild.\nFor any OMC-related questions, officers can be directed to the contacts.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 7.1 (Getting assistance from Our Missing Children (OMC) Program)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Our Missing Children Recovery Report (Form E-514)", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Our Missing Children Recovery Report (Form E-514)\nFollowing the interception of any abducted or runaway child, officers are required to complete an Our\nMissing Children Recovery Report (E-514) and forward it to the regional OMC coordinator. For detailed\ninstructions on the correct way to complete this form, see Appendix B.\nThe OMC Recovery Report is a form jointly issued and used by CCRA and CIC to record enforcement\nactions involving the recovery of abducted or runaway children. Correct and uniform completion of the\nreport ensures the accuracy of compiled abductor and victim indicators and assists in identifying\nemerging trends. Incomplete forms will be returned to their originators for completion.\nForm E-514 is completed only by the recovering department. One copy is retained at the POE and the\noriginal is forwarded to the regional OMC coordinator, who also retains a copy before sending the original\nto their respective national coordinator.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 8", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 7.2 (Our Missing Children Recovery Report (Form E-514))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Completing form E-514 for intelligence purposes", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3 Completing form E-514 for intelligence purposes\nThe form may also be completed, in exceptional circumstances, where no actual recovery has taken\nplace, for example, where examination of a case suggests a potential abduction, but computer checks\nand other investigation produce negative results. Detailed information regarding the circumstances of\nsuch a case may be of use at a later date. Officers should clearly identify that the information is for\nintelligence purposes only.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 7.3 (Completing form E-514 for intelligence purposes)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Persons with the right to come into Canada", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8 Procedure: Persons with the right to come into Canada\nOnce an officer is satisfied that an adult or a child is a Canadian citizen, registe red Indian or permanent\nresident, the examination should end and the person be allowed into Canada without further delay.\nOnce the right to enter Canada is established, there is no authority for CIC officers to question a person in\ndetail with respect to a possible missing or abducted child. Officers should be aware that any\nsupplementary information gathered which does not relate to immigration requirements for entry to\nCanada may not be admissible as evidence should prosecution result.\nWhere there is a suspicion of abduction, the welfare of the child remains paramount and an officer should\nimmediately contact the appropriate law enforcement agency. An officer who has concerns about a child’s\nwelfare but no evidence or information to confirm their suspicions should make a referral to customs\nsecondary examination. Customs inspectors have authority to examine and detain persons seeking entry\nto Canada for specific offences under the Criminal Code, including abduction.\nOfficers have greater authority to examine foreign nationals who must establish that they are not\ninadmissible to Canada. The possibility that a child is missing or abducted or that the adults travelling with\na child may be abductors is directly relevant to admissibility and an officer is enti tled to ask questions\nrelating to the security and well-being of the child. Foreign nationals may therefore be questioned in detail\nin relation to the OMC mandate.\nAuthority to examine\nThe situation What to do\nThe child is a foreign national and the\nadult is also a foreign national\nOfficer has the authority to question both parties.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 8 (Procedure: Persons with the right to come into Canada) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Persons with the right to come into Canada", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 9\nThe child is a foreign national and the\nadult is either a Canadian citizen or\nPermanent Resident\nOfficer has the authority to question the child; the\nresponsible law enforcement agency would have to question\nthe adult if prosecution is contemplated.\nThe child is a foreign national travelling\nby themselves\nOfficer has the authority to question the child.\nThe child is a Canadian citizen or a\nPermanent Resident and so is the adult\nOfficer should initiate pre-arranged local procedures with\nCCRA and contact the responsible law enforcement agency.\nThe child is a Canadian citizen or a\nPermanent Resident and the adult is a\nforeign national\nOfficer has the authority to question the adult.\nThe child is a Canadian citizen or a\nPermanent Resident travelling by\nthemselves\nOfficer should initiate pre-arranged local procedures with\nCCRA and contact the responsible law enforcement agency.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 8 (Procedure: Persons with the right to come into Canada) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "Mandatory PIL referrals of children", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1 Mandatory PIL referrals of children\nThe Immigration Secondary Referral List provides that foreign national children, accompanied or alone,\nwho incite concern about the purpose of their trip to Canada or their welfare in Canada are to be referred\nfor an immigration secondary examination. The fact that one adult is travelling alone with a child should\nnot in itself warrant a referral to a secondary examination. If it appears, after a preliminary interview, that\nthe traveller(s) exhibit certain indicators or if there are other grounds for concer n, the customs inspector\nwill refer them for a secondary examination.\nCanadians and those persons who have the right to enter Canada are examined under the identical\ncriteria and are referred to a customs secondary examination when concerns about child se curity arise.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 9.1 (Mandatory PIL referrals of children)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Line of questioning at PIL", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2 Line of questioning at PIL\nCustoms inspectors at the primary inspection line usually begin each examination by asking travellers to\nstate their citizenship. Foreign nationals are queried about their destination, duration and purpose of\ntravel.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 10\nPIL officers may then ask an adult under examination to state their relationship to any accompanying\nchildren. They may ask if they have proof of the relationship and, if only one parent is present, if they\nhave permission from the absent parent to travel with the child. If the adults are not the parents, they will\nbe asked if they have a note or permission from the parents. Officers may also ask each child a few\nquestions. The officer may then ask to see identity documents, including proof of citi zenship and\nrelationship to the child.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 9.2 (Line of questioning at PIL)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-9-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Where consent/documentation not required", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3 Where consent/documentation not required\nOfficers should be aware that a letter of permission from an absent parent is not required where either of\nthe following documents are presented: a birth certificate listing the father as ‘unknown’ or custody papers\nindicating that the travelling parent has sole custody.\nCanadian and American citizens are not required by law to carry identification when travelling into\nCanada. They can be authorized to enter Canada as long as the officer is satisfied of their citizenship.\nConsequently, parents without identification for their children should not automatically be referred to a\nsecondary examination simply for that reason.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 9.3 (Where consent/documentation not required)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Persons with a right to come into Canada", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1 Persons with a right to come into Canada\nIf satisfied that all persons in the group have the right to enter Canada, the officer will authorize entry to\nCanada and may provide a handout on the OMC program.\nIf concerns about child security exist, a referral to a Customs secondary examination will be made.\nIf an officer is not satisfied that all persons in the group have the right to enter Canada, a referral for an\nimmigration secondary examination will be made.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 10.1 (Persons with a right to come into Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Persons making an application to come into Canada", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2 Persons making an application to come into Canada\n If satisfied of both admissibility and child security issues, a PIL officer will authorize entry and may\nprovide a handout on the OMC program.\n If not satisfied of the admissibility or the security of a child, the officer will refer to an immigration\nsecondary examination.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 11\nNote: To alert the secondary officer, PIL officers are expected to code the E -67 or E-311 referral form with\n“OMC” for “Our Missing Children”. The secondary officer then contacts the PIL officer for details of the\nindicators that resulted in the referral. The use of non-secure communications such as a radio\ntransmission should be avoided to protect the client’s privacy. No member of the public should be made\naware of a potential child abduction case. Officers should only use radio communicati ons in an\nemergency situation where the relay of information is time sensitive or the child's safety is in jeopardy.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 10.2 (Persons making an application to come into Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Abduction indicators", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11 Procedure: Abduction indicators\nThe following list of possible abduction indicators assists PIL customs inspectors in deciding whether to\nrefer travellers with children for a secondary examination. While every missing child case is unique, the\nmajority of referrals that result in the recovery of a child exhibit several of these indicators.\nType of indicator Details\nGeneral indicators  Display of unwarranted hostility to being questioned;\n Responding to questions with obviously prepared answers;\n Hesitation if asked unexpected questions;\n Attempts by the adult to answer for or block questioning of the\nchild;\n Unwillingness to produce documents;\n Suspicious or inappropriate documentation;\n Unwillingness of any person in the group to make eye contact;\n Undue hesitation by children in responding to questioning and\noverreaction by adults to their answers;\n Travelling on a school day;\n Physical appearance of a child such as clothing, hairstyle or\nmakeup that might indicate an attempt to alter appearance;\n Signs of physical abuse such as bruising, poor hygiene or mal -\nnourishment;\n Nervousness or fear on the part of a child;\n Inappropriate reason for travel considering the age of a child;\n Vague reasons for the absence of one or both parents.\nIndicators at land border\ncrossings\n Children squeezed between adults or appear to be physically\ncontrolled;\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 12\n Amount of clothing inappropriate for length or purpose of trip;\n Quantity and condition of a child’s toys inconsistent with the stated\npurpose and duration of the trip and the age of the child;\n Presence of child pornography in vehicle;\n Appearance of feigned sleep by minor passengers;\n Inappropriate time for crossing border with a child in conjunction\nwith other factors.\nIndicators at airports  Adult passenger with baby but no diaper bag or toys;\n Minimal luggage;\n Discrepancies between duration of trip and quantity of luggage\ncarried;\n Recently purchased ticket or different purchase dates for adult and\nchild’s ticket;\n Illogical trip routing.\nFor more information on missing child indicators, see Appendix A.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 11 (Procedure: Abduction indicators)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Examining persons with a right to come into Canada", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1 Examining persons with a right to come into Canada\nCustoms inspectors may conduct secondary examinations of persons whose right to enter Canada has\nbeen established. When the security of a child is brought into question by OMC coding on the PIL referral\nform (E-67 or E-311), the customs secondary officer may examine both adults and minors to determine if\nabduction of a child is a possibility.\nThe customs inspector will confirm the number of persons in the vehicle or travelling party, and will\nrequest identification for both adults and children. Customs inspectors may ask additional questions\nconcerning travel plans, the adult/child relationship and the location and consent of any absent parent to\nthe travel plan. They also have the authority to conduct CPIC, ICES and PIRS checks on both adult and\nchild. If the travelling parent agrees, an officer may call the absent parent. Customs inspectors are well\nversed in the provisions of the Privacy Act and their obligation to refrain from revealing information about\nthe person under examination when seeking telephone confirmation.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 13\nBased on the answers provided and the results of computer checks, the customs inspector will either be\nsatisfied of the bona fides of the situation and authorize entry or will investigate further. If authorized to\nenter, parents or guardians are given a handout on the OMC program.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 12.1 (Examining persons with a right to come into Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Examining persons making an application to come into Canada", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2 Examining persons making an application to come into Canada\nAt most ports of entry, officers conduct secondary examination of foreign nationals making an application\nto enter Canada. When presented with a secondary referral form coded OMC, the officer should\nimmediately and discreetly contact the PIL officer for information on the indicators th at resulted in referral.\nExamination then follows a similar format to that described above for a customs secondary examination.\nThe officer:\n confirms the number of travellers;\n requests identification for each adult and child;\n determines the usual place of residence, purpose and intended duration of the visit to Canada;\nand\n verifies the adult/child relationship and the security of the child.\nIn addition to examining the adults, the officer may wish to question the child, conduct checks using\nFOSS, CPIC, NCIC and Interpol, or confirm the information provided at examination by contacting the\nabsent parent(s) by telephone.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 12.2 (Examining persons making an application to come into Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "CPIC check", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3 CPIC check\nCanada Immigration Centres across Canada have access to the Canadian Police Information Centre\n(CPIC) either directly or through local law enforcement partnerships. The CPIC Reference Manual\ncontains information on the use of CPIC in relation to missing children. In cases of possible child\nabduction or runaway, the officer should always check CPIC as it is kept up to date with all of the children\nreported to the National Missing Children Services from enforcement agencies. FOSS is not as reliable in\nthis respect.\nAn additional resource which officers may choose to access is Canadian Centre for Child Protection’s\nMissing Kids.ca. This online database lists missing children from Canada. While not exhaustive, this\ndatabase contains a large listing of missing children, most with photos. While not a substitute for the\nauthoritative information contained on CPIC and NCIC, this site may assist the examination process,\nparticularly if usual sources are not available.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 14", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 12.3 (CPIC check)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Confirming information by telephone", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4 Confirming information by telephone\nTelephone verification can be a quick and effective way to establish that the absent parent(s) have\nknowledge of their child’s location. The officer may find the OMC handout a useful tool in gaining the\ncompliance of the accompanying adult when conducting this check.\nOfficers should ensure the privacy of the persons under examination while conducting a telephone check.\nWhen contact is made with an absent parent, officers should clearly identify themselves, their location\nand the name of the child making application to enter Canada. They should confirm that they are\nspeaking to a parent or guardian of the child concerned, then briefly explain CIC’s role in the OMC\nprogram before verifying that the child is known to be travelling with the accompanying parent or other\nadult. No further information about the persons under examination should be communicated beyond what\nis absolutely necessary to confirm the security of the child.\nBased on the information gathered through these examination techniques and the results of comp uter\nchecks, the officer will authorize entry if satisfied as to the security of the child or will investigate further.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 12.4 (Confirming information by telephone)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Examining children", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13 Procedure: Examining children\nThe questioning of travellers on adult-child relationships requires tact and diplomacy. To prevent an\naccompanying adult from taking offence to the questioning of a child, it is important for an officer to clearly\nexplain the reasons for this procedure. Providing a copy of the OMC handout may assist in diffusing\ntension in this situation.\nWhen questioning a child directly, officers must also take care to adopt a less formal line of questioning in\norder to avoid frightening or intimidating the child.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 13 (Procedure: Examining children)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-13-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "Separating an adult and child for questioning", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1 Separating an adult and child for questioning\nUnder normal circumstances, a child should not be separated from an adult, particularly a parent, during\nexamination. The majority of referrals to a secondary examination due to concerns for a child’s security\nprove to be legitimate relationships. After questioning the adults of the party and conducting datab ase\nchecks, the officer can usually be satisfied that the situation is bona fide.\nWhere an officer is not satisfied and efforts to contact the absent parents are unsuccessful, the officer\nmay wish to question the child separately. This may be done only if, and for as long as, the child appears\nto be comfortable with the situation. The adult must be informed of the purpose of this procedure (to verify\nthe reported purpose of the trip, relationship, etc.) and the child should then be interviewed within the\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 15\neyesight but out of hearing range of the adult. If circumstances require that a child be interviewed out of\nsight of the adult, a second officer should also be present throughout the interview. A child should never\nbe forced to accompany an officer out of sight of the adult.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 13.1 (Separating an adult and child for questioning)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-13-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "Guidelines for interviewing children", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.2 Guidelines for interviewing children\n Where possible, a male child should be interviewed by a male officer and a female child by a\nfemale officer. The presence of a toy or stuffed animal may be a reassuring presence to a child in\nthis circumstance.\n The officer must take care to use plain language, to adopt a relaxed, non-threatening posture and\ntone of voice and to make eye contact when speaking.\n Ensuring that the child understands what has been said can be accomplished with the use of\nperception checking techniques. An example of this is to ask the child to explain, in their own\nwords, what has been explained to them.\n Officers must bear in mind that some children may be shy, embarrassed or simply unfamiliar with\nabduction terminology. Other children may have a fear of authority figures. A child who has been\nabducted may be highly traumatized and unable to coherently explain the situation, while other\nchildren may not even be aware that they have been abducted. Attentive observation o f body\nlanguage and careful listening are valuable skills in determining which children are at risk.\n The interview should be concluded in a positive and supportive manner. An explanation of why\nthe questions were asked should be provided on a level equal to the child’s age and ability to\nunderstand.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 13.2 (Guidelines for interviewing children)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-13-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "Line of questioning for children", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.3 Line of questioning for children\nQuestions for children must be kept as simple as possible. Initial questions should be targeted at:\n confirming the child’s name, age and usual place of residence;\n establishing the child’s knowledge of the relationship to the person with whom they are travelling,\ntheir intended destination and the duration of the trip;\n establishing the usual domestic or custody arrangement, the absent parents’ knowledge of and\nconsent to the travel plan, their current location and phone number.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 13.3 (Line of questioning for children)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 14", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Guidelines in the case of a confirmed abduction", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14 Procedure: Guidelines in the case of a confirmed abduction\nWhere a secondary immigration examination confirms concerns about the security of a child, further\nimmediate action is required. The steps to be taken in the event of an interception of a missing child\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 16\ndepend upon the situation. Abduction cases and runaways are not handled in the same manner. Wheth er\npersons concerned have a right to enter Canada is also an important factor. It must be stressed that\nthese are guidelines only. Each circumstance is unique and procedures will vary from region to region.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 14 (Procedure: Guidelines in the case of a confirmed abduction)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-14-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 14.1", + "marginal_note": "Protecting the well-being of the child", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.1 Protecting the well-being of the child\nThe first priority in a case of confirmed abduction must be to secure the safety of the child. The following\nguidelines may assist officers in successfully managing these emotionally charged situations with the\nleast amount of trauma to the child concerned.\n Where practical, the child should be removed from the physical control of the suspected abductor.\nOfficers must recognize that the child may be anxious or may become anxious at the prospect of\nbeing separated from the accompanying adult, especially if the adult is a parent. If necessary for\nthe child’s peace of mind, secure the adult and child together.\n While demonstrating both concern and compassion, an officer can reassure the child that they\nare safe. Where possible, the child should be provided with comfortable surroundings away from\nthe eyes of the public. They should not be discouraged from expressing their feelings. Should the\narrest of an accompanying parent become necessary, the child should be protected from\nwitnessing this procedure.\n Officers should answer the child’s questions as simply and truthfully as possible, ensuring that\ntheir remarks do not reflect prejudice, cynicism, over-reaction or zealousness.\n If the child is turned over to a police officer, social worker or other agency, the officer should be\npresent to make the introduction and provide additional reassurance by explaining who the\nperson is and why the child must go with that person.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 14.1 (Protecting the well-being of the child)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-14-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 14.2", + "marginal_note": "Detention of children", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.2 Detention of children\nA60 stipulates that a minor child shall be detained only as a measure of last resort, taking into account\nthe other applicable grounds and criteria including the best interests of the child. (For detailed information\non the factors that must be taken into account for the detention of minor children under 18 years of age,\nsee ENF 20, section 5.10.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 14.2 (Detention of children)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-14-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 14.3", + "marginal_note": "Persons with a right to enter Canada", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.3 Persons with a right to enter Canada\nAn immigration secondary examination may result in the identification of an abductor who is a Canadian\ncitizen, permanent resident or registered Indian. In this circumstance, the officer must immediately contact\nthe local police agency, clearly communicating that a particularly quick response is necessary since CIC\nis unable to detain or unreasonably impede those with a right to enter Canada. The officer should not\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 17\ncontinue questioning once the offence has been discovered but should keep factual notes of the event by\nrecording statements, times, observations and other relevant information.\nThe adult should be advised that the police have been notified. Where an alleged abductor with a right to\ncome into Canada refuses to await the arrival of police officials, customs inspectors may assist by\nexercising their authority to detain or arrest anyone suspected of having committed or who is in the\nprocess of committing a Criminal Code offence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 14.3 (Persons with a right to enter Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-14-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 14.4", + "marginal_note": "Foreign nationals", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.4 Foreign nationals\nIn all cases where the abductor does not have the right to enter Canada, an A44(1) report must be\ncompleted under the appropriate section of the Act or Regulations. In the case of familial abduction, the\nchild should be reported A(42) as an inadmissible family member .\nOfficers must then assess the child’s individual circumstances. In cases of familial abduction, it may be\nappropriate to secure and/or transport the child with the parent where facilities allow. Where separation of\nthe child from the abductor is necessary, the local child protection agency may be contacted to take\ncustody of the child.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 14.4 (Foreign nationals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-14-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 14.5", + "marginal_note": "U.S. citizens and resident aliens", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.5 U.S. citizens and resident aliens\n Where the alleged abductor is a U.S. citizen or resident seeking entry to Canada or encountered\ninland, an officer must contact the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (USINS).\nCIC officers are required to alert them to the confirmed abduction, the facts known and the time\nwhen the adult and child will be returned. If the USINS is unable to confirm that they have the\nauthority to hold the persons for the police, the officer then contacts the nearest U.S. police\ndepartment directly for assistance. The parties to a confirmed abduction case must never be\nreturned to the United States without confirmation that U.S. authorities will be on site to take\nappropriate action.\nOnce reception arrangements have been made, a decision can be reached, on a case by case basis, as\nto arrangements for returning the subjects to the United States. The overriding factor in every situation is\nthe safety of the child.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 18", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 14.5 (U.S. citizens and resident aliens)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-14-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 14.6", + "marginal_note": "Other foreign nationals", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.6 Other foreign nationals\nWhere the abduction involves persons other than those with a right to enter Canada or U.S. citize ns or\nresidents, an officer can utilize the following resources to alert the family of the missing child to their\nrecovery and to initiate arrangements for their repatriation:\n the Missing Children Registry can request an Interpol check, however, officers should be aware\nthat results are sometimes not received for one or more days;\n the consulate of the country of the child's nationality can provide information and assistance;\n the municipal police of the child’s country of nationality may assist in establishing contact with the\nfamily to advise of the recovery;\n the Provincial Central Authority for the Hague Convention can also assist in the quick return of\nthe abducted child.\nNote: Only as a last resort should officers contact the person who has lega l custody of the child.\nExperience has shown that it is preferable to have local police establish contact with the family abroad as\ntheir presence lends credibility to the news of the recovery and can also help to prevent\nmiscommunication.\nWhen arrangements are being made for the return of a child, the receiving country's immigration or law\nenforcement agency should also be notified. They may be able to provide assistance that will ensure safe\nand straightforward repatriation, transfer of the child to lawful custody (if this has not already occurred)\nand follow up action on the abductor, where necessary. This notification is made through the OMC office\nat RCMP headquarters.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 14.6 (Other foreign nationals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Guidelines for runaways", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15 Procedure: Guidelines for runaways\nAn officer who encounters a runaway must advise the police agency that has jurisdiction over the\nrunaway of their interception at the border point. The police agency will then provide direction. Legislation\nregarding runaways differs between provinces and states. Some jurisdictions will simply cance l the\nmissing person report once it is known that the subject is alive and is not a victim of foul play.\nWhile it is not a criminal offence to be a runaway, CIC officers have an obligation to consider the safety\nand protection of the child. Therefore, officers must contact either a local police or youth protective\nservice agency whenever a runaway who is under 15 years of age is detected.\nA runaway 15 years or older is free to go if an officer has confirmed that they have a right to enter\nCanada and that the originating police agency requires no further action on the case.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 19\nFor runaways who do not have a right to enter Canada, the procedure is identical, with the exception that\nadmissibility must be addressed and immigration enforcement action taken where appropriate.\nIf a runaway expresses a wish to return home but the responsible police agency indicates that it will not\nprovide transport, the following social service agencies may be contacted to provide assistance:\n Children's Aid Society;\n Operation Go Home;\n local shelters;\n YMCA;\n youth protection agencies.\nIn all cases where a runaway is intercepted, the officer completes an OMC Recovery Report and forwards\nit to the regional OMC coordinator.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 15 (Procedure: Guidelines for runaways)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 16", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Border alerts - Lookout procedures for missing", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16 Procedure: Border alerts - Lookout procedures for missing\nchildren\nBorder alerts or “lookouts” are only issued at the request of law enforcement agencies. Where a request\nis received from parents, non-profit organizations, private investigations firms, lawyers or other\nindividuals, they should be referred to their local police force.\nLookouts must contain the following information:\n a contact name and number at the requesting police agency, in the event of a recovery;\n the name of the CIC officer issuing the lookout;\n a brief description of the situation and the reasons the lookout has been requested.\nLookouts are entered into FOSS and are also input, by CCRA staff, into ICES, PALS and PIRS. Requests\nfor lookouts concerning potential minor abduction cases must be referred to the OMC National\nCoordinator. These lookouts will not be issued regionally/locally.\nAll ports of entry are required to notify their regional OMC coordinator in the event of any lookout being\nissued for a minor. The regional coordinator will pass the information to the national office. Local POEs\nare permitted to issue lookouts to their opposing U.S. Customs/USINS partners regarding minors not\nbelieved to be victims of abduction, provided they give notification to their regional coordinator. All\nnational cross border alerts will be issued from the national OMC office.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 20", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 16 (Procedure: Border alerts - Lookout procedures for missing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-17-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 17", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Counselling the public", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17 Procedure: Counselling the public\nAn important part of an officer’s job at the port of entry is to provide clear and accurate information to help\ntravellers adequately prepare for immigration examination. Often this counselling takes place during an\nexamination, when travellers experience more difficulty than they had anticipated in meeting the\nrequirements of the Act for entry to Canada. It also frequently occurs that travellers will contact the POE\nbefore they depart to determine exact requirements. Wherever possible, officers should provide a copy of\nthe handout “Tips for Canadians Crossing the Border”.\nThe following table lists the type of information that an officer may have to provide to travellers.\nTopic for counselling Details\nIdentification for children Parents should be advised that the best type of identification for a child is a\npassport or birth certificate and that if they travel without these documents it\nwill be at the examining officers' discretion as to whether or not they will be\nadmitted. Officers should also indicate that, under normal circumstances,\nfailure to produce these documents would not prevent their entry to Canada.\nProof of relationship In addition to identification, parents and guardians should be counselled to\ncarry proof of their relationship to the child. For parents, the best proof is a\nbirth certificate that identifies one or both of the parents. The parent’s\nidentification should then correspond to the child's name. Proof of adoption,\nwhere relevant, should also be carried. When travelling in several vehicles,\nparents and their children should be advised to arrive at the border in the\nsame vehicle.\nCustody orders Where a parent has obtained an order legally establishing custody of the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 17 (Procedure: Counselling the public) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-17-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 17", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Counselling the public", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "child, it must be carried as proof. Officers should note that there could be\ndifferent custody orders held by each parent. Custody orders can be issued\nby a variety of jurisdictions (province, state or county) and in some situations\nthese orders can overlap.\nConsent for children\ntravelling without their\nlegal guardian\nAdults travelling with children for whom they are not the legal guardians\nshould be advised to carry a letter from the parent(s) or guardian(s) that\ncontains the following information:\n name and address of parent/guardian;\n telephone numbers at work/home;\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 21\n the destination in Canada;\n the period of time the child will be in Canada;\n explicit authorization by the legal guardian for the child to travel with\nthe named adult and to enter Canada.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 22\nAppendix A Missing children indicators", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 17 (Procedure: Counselling the public) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Parental abduction", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Parental abduction\nA parental abduction occurs when a child under 14 is taken by a parent or guardian without permission or\nlegal authority from the parent or guardian with lawful custody of the child. This applies whether or not\nthere is a formal custody order. (See sections 282 and 283 of the Criminal Code.)\nThe parents of an abducted child may be separated, divorced or unwed. Abductors may be joint custodial\nor non-custodial parents. One parent may abduct a child in order to deprive the other parent of his or her\nrights, possibly with the hope of obtaining custody in another province or country.\nMany people believe that a child abducted by a parent is not at risk, however, the effect of uprooting a\nchild from their home, school and community can have lasting detrimental effects on children already\ndistressed by the break-up of the family home. Further trauma may result if they are led to believe that the\nabsent parent is dead or has abandoned them. For all of these reasons, victims of parental abduction are\nchildren at risk.\nStatistics over a ten-year period show that, in Canada, an average of 400 cases of parental abduction are\nreported to police each year.\nGeneral characteristics of parental abductors and their victims\n Male and female non-custodial parents are equally likely to abduct their own child. Male and\nfemale children are equally likely to be abducted.\n Abductor characteristics transcend ethnic, economic and social boundaries.\n The majority of parents who abduct their children are between 28 and 40 years of age. The\nchildren they abduct usually range from infant to eight years of age, with the majority falling in the\nrange of three to seven years of age.\n Parental abductors frequently act alone. When an accomplice is used, they are often a relative or\nthe abductor’s partner.\n The majority of recoveries involve trans-border vehicle transportation and commercial air\ntransportation, though other modes of transportation can and have been used.\n Some communication usually occurs between the searching parent and the abductor.\n The majority of parental abductions are short-term and are resolved within seven days.\n Children are most frequently abducted during weekends or summer/winter holiday visits.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 23", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 1 (Parental abduction)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-1-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 1.1", + "marginal_note": "Stranger abductions (non-parental abductions)", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1.1 Stranger abductions (non-parental abductions)\nIn non-parental abductions, the child is taken by someone other than a parent, guardian or person with\nlawful care or charge of the child. This can be a stranger, a relative, a non-related person known to the\nchild or a person not yet identified. Canadian statistics show that very few non -parental abductions are\ncommitted by true strangers. Most of the abductors are relatives, friends or acquaintances. Similar to U.S.\nstatistics, stranger abductions (which are uncommon in Canada) often involve sexual assault or homicide.\nMissing children statistics in 1999 show that females accounted for 65% of children ab ducted by a\nstranger. Canadian data corresponds closely to studies in the United States, which show that half of the\nvictims abducted by non-family members are 12 years or older and three-quarters of the victims are\nfemale.\nAccording to CPIC data, an average of 60 children in Canada were abducted by strangers each year\nbetween 1990 and 1999. This represents less than 0.1% of the average 62,000 children registered as\nmissing on CPIC during each of those same years. Many non-parental abductions take place on weekday\nafternoons.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 1.1 (Stranger abductions (non-parental abductions))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-1-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 1.2", + "marginal_note": "Runaways", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1.2 Runaways\nRunaways are children who voluntarily leave their homes. In Canada, over three -quarters of all missing\nchildren cases reported to police are “runaways”. According to CPIC data, between 1990 and 1999, an\naverage of 44,000 children ran away each year. More female runaways are typically reported to police\nthan males. Over 17% of runaways are age 12 to 13 years and roughly half are between the ages of 14\nand 15.\nWhile many children run away to assert their independence, studies show that an overwhelming number\nof children run away to escape from painful family conflict or from physical, psychological or sexual\nabuse.\nThe majority of runaways return home after a brief absence but others become repeat or chronic\nrunaways. Life on the street or on the run for these children can be extremely dangerous and harmful.\nThe longer they are on the street, the greater their chances of becoming entrenched in street life and\nfalling victim to the exploitation of criminal elements.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 24\nAppendix B Form E-514, Our missing children recovery report\nCompletion instructions", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 1.2 (Runaways)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Indicate the ICES number, if applicable.", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Indicate the ICES number, if applicable.\n4. Indicate the DFAIT (Dept. of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) number, if applicable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 3 (Indicate the ICES number, if applicable.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "B Intercepted By When a missing child has been intercepted, place a check in the applicable", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11. B Intercepted By When a missing child has been intercepted, place a check in the applicable\nbox: Lookout, Indicator or Other. Use ‘Other’ for the following situations:\n referred to immigration secondary examination for reasons other than those related to\nconcerns for the security of a child;\n refused entry by U.S. border personnel.\n12. C Intelligence Only This section should be completed when suspicious circumstances exist; for\nexample, when examination of the case suggests a potential abduction, but computer checks\nand posters show negative results.\nThis information may be of use at a later date. In certain cases, because parties cannot be\ndetained, it is imperative that officers capture as much information as possible and identify that\nthis information is for intelligence purposes only.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 25\n13. Mode of Transportation Place a check in the applicable box: Vehicle, Bus, Train, Air, Marine\nor Other. (Additional information is required for vehicles and aircraft.) ‘Other’ applies to those\npersons who walk to the port of entry.\n14. Name of child Surname should be in capital letters; full given names of the individual, rather\nthan initials, should be recorded.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 11 (B Intercepted By When a missing child has been intercepted, place a check in the applicable)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 17", + "marginal_note": "Self-explanatory.", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "17. Self-explanatory.\n18. Indicate the destination in Canada according to information available; for example, address, city\nand province.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 17 (Self-explanatory.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-20", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 20", + "marginal_note": "Identify the type of identification including the document number.", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "20. Identify the type of identification including the document number.\n21-\n27.\nComplete in the same manner as fields 14-20.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 20 (Identify the type of identification including the document number.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-36", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 36", + "marginal_note": "Indicate the relationship of the abductor to the child; i.e., father, mother, aunt, uncle.", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "36. Indicate the relationship of the abductor to the child; i.e., father, mother, aunt, uncle.\n37. Indicate the circumstances of the recovery or the information gathered for intelligence purposes;\nfor example, indicators, characteristics, results from automated queries, results of telephone call\nto other parent or guardian.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 36 (Indicate the relationship of the abductor to the child; i.e., father, mother, aunt, uncle.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-21-38", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-21", + "act_short": "ENF 21", + "act_name": "ENF 21 — Recovery of removal costs", + "section": "ENF 21 s. 38", + "marginal_note": "Assisting agencies List all agencies that have assisted in the recovery of the child.", + "part": "Recovery of removal costs", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "38. Assisting agencies List all agencies that have assisted in the recovery of the child.\n39-\n41.\nPrint the names of the officers involved.\n42-\n44.\nPrint the names of the departments involved.\n45-\n47.\nIndicate badge numbers.\nENF 21 Recovering Missing, Abducted and Exploited Children\n2017-08-25 26\n48-\n50.\nIndicate area codes, telephone numbers (and extensions, if applicable).\n51-\n53.\nSignatures of the officers involved.\nTo facilitate the completion of form E-514, officers are expected to keep notes pertaining to OMC\nincidents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-08-25", + "current_to": "2017-08-25", + "citation": "ENF 21, s. 38 (Assisting agencies List all agencies that have assisted in the recovery of the child.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf21-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-11-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Summary of steps to be completed where detention under the IRPA is determined to be", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.4 Summary of steps to be completed where detention under the IRPA is determined to be\nnecessary following completion of the person’s custodial sentence ....................................................... 23\n12 Impact of removal orders on Federal conditional releases under the CCRA ........................................ 24\n13 Procedure: Removal of persons who are detained ................................................................................ 24\n14 Cases where the person was sentenced prior to the enactment of the IRPA ....................................... 25\n15 Case examples ...................................................................................................................................... 26\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n2\n2020-03-16\nUpdates to chapter\nListing by date:\n2020-03-16\nSubstantive and minor changes, as well as clarifications, have been provided throughout the\nchapter.\nNew content has been added to provide more detailed guidance, reflect policy changes and\nensure consistent application of the IRPA.\nSections have been re-written for clarity and/or moved and re-organized for more logical flow of\ninformation.\n2005-12-06\nChanges were made to chapter ENF 22 in order to reflect the Citizenship and Immigration\nCanada (CIC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) policy responsibility and service\ndelivery roles.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n3\n2020-03-16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 11.4 (Summary of steps to be completed where detention under the IRPA is determined to be)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter explains an officer's responsibilities and authorities relative to permanent residents\nand foreign nationals who are serving a sentence in a federal or provincial correctional\ninstitution.\nThe chapter outlines the role of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) as it relates to\nprocesses governed by Correctional Services Canada (CSC) and provincial correctional\nservices, and the impact of decisions of the courts as well as federal and provincial parole\nboards on the administration and enforcement of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\n(IRPA). It also describes the transitional provisions regarding permanent residents and foreign\nnationals who were sentenced before the IRPA came into force and who are serving sentences\nin provincial and federal correctional institutions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe objectives of the IRPA with respect to its enforcement and inadmissibility provisions are:\n to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian\nsociety;\n to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and\ndenying access to Canadian territory to persons, including refugee claimants, who are\ncriminals or security risks.\nIn collaboration with its correctional partners, the CBSA will achieve government objectives by:\n supporting the IRPA examination, investigation, and removal processes through the\nearly identification of inadmissible permanent residents and foreign nationals who are\nserving a sentence; and\n protecting Canadian society by detaining those who pose a danger to the public or\nsecurity risk and through effective management and monitoring of persons serving a\nsentence who are the subject of IRPA enforcement action.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-3-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 The Act and Regulations\nThe IRPA provides the authority for an officer to report, arrest, detain, and remove inadmissible\npersons.\nThe following are some relevant legislative authorities to assist an officer in dealing with persons\nserving a criminal sentence who are subject to IRPA enforcement :\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n4\n2020-03-16\nTable 1: Relevant sections of the IRPA\nDescription of IRPA provision IRPA\nSection\nArrest and detention with warrant\nAn officer may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of a permanent\nresident or a foreign national who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe\nis inadmissible and is a danger to the public or is unlikely to appear for\nexamination, for an admissibility hearing, for removal from Canada or at a\nproceeding that could lead to the making of a removal order by the Minister\nunder subsection 44(2).\nA55(1)\nNotice to the Immigration Division\nIf a permanent resident or a foreign national is taken into detention, an officer\nshall without delay give notice to the Immigration Division.\nA55(4)\nRelease: officer\nAn officer may order the release from detention of a permanent resident or a\nforeign national before the first detention review by the Immigration Division if the\nofficer is of the opinion that the reasons for the detention no longer exist. The\nofficer may impose any conditions, including the payment of a deposit or the\nposting of a guarantee for compliance with the conditions, that the officer\nconsiders necessary.\nA56(1)\nOrder to deliver inmate\nIf a warrant for arrest and detention under this Act is issued with respect to a\npermanent resident or a foreign national who is detained under another Act of\nParliament in an institution, the person in charge of the institution shall deliver the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 3.1 (The Act and Regulations) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-3-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "inmate to an officer at the end of the inmate’s period of detention in the\ninstitution.\nA59\nStay of removal until sentence completed\nA stay of removal applies when a foreign national is sentenced to a term of\nimprisonment in Canada. Officers must not enforce a removal order if the foreign\nnational is an inmate of a penitentiary, jail, reformatory or prison, or if they are\nserving a conditional sentence order in the community.\nThe stay of removal is effective until the sentence being served is completed.\nThe sentence is completed when the foreign national is released from\nimprisonment by reason of expiration of sentence, commencement of statutory\nrelease or grant of parole.\nA50(b)\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n5\n2020-03-16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 3.1 (The Act and Regulations) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-3-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.2 The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)\nThe Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) is the law that governs the Correctional\nService of Canada (CSC). CSC is responsible for supervising offenders serving a sentence of\ntwo years or more, and supervises offenders both in custody and in the community. The CCRA\nalso governs the Parole Board of Canada (PBC). The PBC has exclusive authority to grant,\ndeny or revoke the conditional release of an offender. The PBC also has the authority to impose\nspecial conditions on offenders who are supervised in the community on statutory release or\nlong term supervision orders.\nNote: Under paragraph 16(1)(b) of the CCRA, a federal institution may also house persons\nserving a sentence of less than two years where there are service agreements in place.\nTable 2: Relevant sections of the CCRA\nDescription of\nProvision under the\nCCRA\nCCRA Text\nSection\nof the\nCCRA\nCorrectional\nService of Canada\n(CSC)\nThere shall continue to be a correctional service in and for\nCanada, to be known as the Correctional Service of Canada,\nwhich shall be responsible for\n(a) the care and custody of inmates;\n(b) the provision of programs that contribute to the\nrehabilitation of offenders and to their successful reintegration\ninto the community;\n(c) the preparation of inmates for release;\n(d) parole, statutory release supervision and long-term\nsupervision of offenders; and\n(e) maintaining a program of public education about the\noperations of the Service\n5\nConstitution and\nJurisdiction of\nprovincial Boards\nJurisdiction of boards\nSubject to subsection (2), a provincial parole board for a\nprovince shall exercise jurisdiction in accordance with this\nPart in respect of the parole of offenders serving sentences in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 3.2 (The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-3-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "provincial correctional facilities in that province, other than\n(a) offenders sentenced to life imprisonment as a minimum\npunishment;\n(b) offenders whose sentence has been commuted to life\nimprisonment; or\n(c) offenders sentenced to detention for an indeterminate\nperiod.\nDay parole jurisdiction\n(2) A provincial parole board may, but is not required to,\nexercise its jurisdiction under this section in relation to day\nparole.\n112(1)\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n6\n2020-03-16\nIncorporation of\nCCRA by\nreference by\nprovince\nWhere a provincial parole board has been established for a\nprovince, the lieutenant governor in council of the province\nmay, by order, declare that all or any of the provisions of this\nPart that do not otherwise apply in respect of provincial parole\nboards shall apply in respect of that provincial parole board\nand offenders under its jurisdiction.\n113(1)\nChange of\nprovince of\nresidence\nSubject to any agreement entered into pursuant to this\nsection, an offender who is released on parole in one\nprovince and moves to another province remains under the\njurisdiction of the board that granted the parole.\n114 (1)\nStatutory Release Subject to any provision of this Act, an offender sentenced,\ncommitted or transferred to penitentiary is entitled to be\nreleased on the date determined in accordance with this\nsection and to remain at large until the expiration of the\nsentence according to law.\n127 (1)\nContinuation of\nsentence\nAn offender who is released on parole, statutory release or\nunescorted temporary absence continues, while entitled to be\nat large, to serve the sentence until its expiration according to\nlaw.\n128(1)\nFreedom to be at\nlarge\nExcept to the extent required by the conditions of any day\nparole, an offender who is released on parole, statutory", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 3.2 (The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-3-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "release or unescorted temporary absence is entitled, subject\nto this Part, to remain at large in accordance with the\nconditions of the parole, statutory release or unescorted\ntemporary absence and is not liable to be returned to custody\nby reason of the sentence unless the parole, statutory release\nor unescorted temporary absence is suspended, cancelled,\nterminated or revoked.\n128(2)\nSentence deemed\nto be completed\nDespite subsection (1), for the purposes of paragraph 50(b)\nof the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and section\n64 of the Extradition Act, the sentence of an offender who has\nbeen released on parole, statutory release or an unescorted\ntemporary absence is deemed to be completed unless the\nparole or statutory release has been suspended, terminated\nor revoked, the unescorted temporary absence is suspended\nor cancelled or the offender has returned to Canada before\nthe expiration of the sentence according to law.\n128(3)\nRemoval order Despite this Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the\nCriminal Code, an offender against whom a removal order\nhas been made under the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act is not eligible for day parole or an unescorted\ntemporary absence until they are eligible for full parole.\n128(4)\nParole inoperative\nwhere parole\neligibility date in\nfuture\nIf, before the full parole eligibility date, a removal order is\nmade under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\nagainst an offender who has received day parole or an\nunescorted temporary absence, on the day that the removal\norder is made, the day parole or unescorted temporary\nabsence becomes inoperative and the offender shall be re-\nincarcerated.\n128(5)\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n7\n2020-03-16\nException An offender referred to in subsection (4) is eligible for day", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 3.2 (The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-3-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "parole or an unescorted temporary absence if the removal\norder is stayed under paragraph 50(a), 66(b) or 114(1)(b) of\nthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.\n128(6)\nException Where the removal order of an offender referred to in\nsubsection (5) is stayed under paragraph 50(a), 66(b) or\n114(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\non a day prior to the full parole eligibility of the offender, the\nunescorted temporary absence or day parole of that offender\nis resumed as of the day of the stay.\n128(7)\nParole reviews\nDay parole review Subject to subsection 119(2), the Board shall, on application,\nat the time prescribed by the regulations, review, for the\npurpose of day parole, the case of every offender other than\nan offender referred to in subsection (2).\n122 (1)\nFull parole review The Board shall, within the period prescribed by the\nregulations and for the purpose of deciding whether to grant\nfull parole, review the case of every offender who is serving a\nsentence of two years or more and who is not within the\njurisdiction of a provincial parole board.\n123 (1)\nFurther review —\nBoard does not\ngrant parole\nIf the Board decides not to grant parole following a review\nunder subsection (1) or section 122 or if a review is not made\nby virtue of subsection (2), the Board shall conduct another\nreview within two years after the later of the day on which the\nreview took place or was scheduled to take place and\nthereafter within two years after that day until\n(a) the offender is released on full parole or on statutory\nrelease;\n(b) the offender’s sentence expires; or\n(c) less than four months remain to be served before the\noffender’s statutory release date.\n123(5)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 3.2 (The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 3.3", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.3 Forms\nThe following table includes some common forms that may relate to permanent residents and\nforeign nationals who are serving a sentence in a federal or provincial correctional institution.\nThis is a non-exhaustive list.\nTable 3: Forms\nForm Title Form number\nWarrant for Arrest BSF499\nOrder of the Canada Border Services Agency to\nDeliver Inmate (under section 59 of the IRPA)\nBSF498\nNotice of Arrest under Section 55 of the Immigration\nand Refugee Protection Act\nBSF561\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n8\n2020-03-16\nNotice of Rights Conferred by the Canadian Charter\nof Rights and Freedoms and by the Vienna\nConvention Following Section 55 Immigration and\nRefugee Protection Act Arrest or Detention\nBSF776\nOrder for Detention BSF304\nNational Risk Assessment for Detention BSF754\nDetainee Medical Needs BSF674\nAcknowledgement of Conditions BSF 821*\nIMM1262**\nAcknowledgement of Conditions for IRPA Section", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 3.3 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-34", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 34", + "marginal_note": "Cases", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "34 Cases\nBSF798\nRequest for Admissibility Hearing/Detention Review\nPursuant to the Immigration Division Rules\nBSF524\nNotes to File BSF788\n**currently available in GCMS\n* currently available only in CBSA Atlas", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 34 (Cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Instruments and delegations\nA4 sets out which Minister is responsible for the administration of the IRPA. The Minister of\nCitizenship and Immigration [also known as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada\n(IRCC)] and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PS) are jointly\nresponsible for the administration and enforcement of the IRPA, however there are some\ndifferences. The IRCC Minister is responsible for the overall administration of the IRPA, unless\notherwise specified. The Minister of PS has the primary responsibility for the administration of\nthe IRPA as it relates to the following:\n• port of entry examinations;\n• policy lead relating to enforcement of the IRPA including arrest, detention and removal;\n• establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of the IRPA and inadmissibility\nunder A34/A35/A37; and\n• declarations referred to under A42.1 (Ministerial Relief provision)\nPursuant to A6(1), the responsible Minister has the authority to designate specific persons or\nclasses of persons to carry out any purpose of any provision of the IRPA with respect to their\nindividual mandates as described in A4, and to specify the powers and duties of the officers so\ndesignated. In addition, A6(2) authorizes that anything that may be done by the Minister under\nthe Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) may be done by a\nperson that the Minister authorizes in writing. This is referred to as delegation of authority.\nA designated authority refers to the position that has been given the legal authority by the\nMinister to carry out the delegated function.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n9\n2020-03-16\nThe Delegation of Authority and Designations of Officers (D & D) instruments stipulate who has\nthe authority to perform specific immigration-related functions. CBSA officials should always\nconsult the D & D instruments with respect to their authorities to take any enforcement\naction under the IRPA, including the issuance of warrants and arrests under A55, writing\nA44(1) reports, reviewing reports under A44(2) and release on conditions under A44(3).\nFor example, under the CBSA D & D instrument, the designated authority to issue warrants for\narrest under A55(1) for permanent residents is different from the authority for issuing warrants\nfor foreign nationals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "CBSA policy relating to persons serving a sentence", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5 CBSA policy relating to persons serving a sentence\nThe CBSA is responsible for providing integrated border services that support national security\nand public safety. As part of its legislative mandate, the CBSA uses offender information to\nidentify and investigate permanent residents and foreign nationals who are inadmissible to\nCanada in order to enforce the objectives of the IRPA and ensure the safety of Canadians.\nTo achieve program objectives, the CBSA tracks criminally inadmissible inmates through the\nfollowing priorities:\n early identification of inmates who are permanent residents and foreign nationals who are\nserving sentences in federal or provincial correctional institutions;\n communication with correctional partners to ensure that persons who are serving\nsentences and subject to a removal order under the IRPA are not released in\ncontravention of the CCRA;\n cooperation and communication with partners to ensure that at full parole or statutory\nrelease, inmates subject to an IRPA warrant (for examination, admissibility hearing,\nremoval or a proceeding that could lead to the making of a removal order by the Minister)\nare delivered to the CBSA for their detention under IRPA where a decision is made that\nIRPA detention is necessary;\n commitment to the maintenance of effective working arrangements with CSC and\nprovincial correctional services relating to permanent residents and foreign nationals who\nare subject to IRPA enforcement action; and\n minimizing delays in administrative enforcement action taken under the IRPA while a\nperson is serving sentence.\nIn achieving departmental objectives pertaining to safety with respect to persons serving\ncriminal sentences, an enforcement officer will:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 5 (CBSA policy relating to persons serving a sentence) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "CBSA policy relating to persons serving a sentence", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " develop and maintain good working relationships and sound networking systems with a\nbroad range of partners and key contacts;\n be proactive in obtaining and sharing information with CSC and provincial correctional\nservices pursuant to information sharing agreements and privacy legislation regarding\npermanent residents and foreign nationals serving a sentence to ensure appropriate\nenforcement action under the IRPA;\n conduct appropriate risk assessments for persons serving sentence who are subject to\nIRPA enforcement action to determine, at the earliest opportunity and taking into\nconsideration alternatives to detention and the IRPA objectives regarding the safety and\nsecurity of Canadians, a strategy in regards to detention/release and appropriate\nmonitoring upon the person’s release from criminal detention;\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n10\n2020-03-16\n where the continued detention of an individual serving a sentence is determined to be\nnecessary under the provisions of the IRPA, issue a warrant for arrest and A59 order to\nthe person in charge of the institution and notify the institution of their legal obligations\nunder A59 at the end of the inmate’s sentence;\n investigate leads from key partners and take appropriate action; and\n investigate permanent residents and foreign nationals serving a sentence who are\nsuspected to be inadmissible and, where appropriate, gather evidence, prepare reports\nunder A44(1) and ensure timely processing of cases within the immigration enforcement\ncontinuum, in accordance with the provisions of the IRPA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 5 (CBSA policy relating to persons serving a sentence) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Overview of correctional services", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Overview of correctional services\nCorrectional services operate on both the provincial and federal level. A person serving a\ncustodial sentence of two years or more falls under federal jurisdiction; a person who receives a\ncustodial sentence of less than two years will serve their sentence in a provincial correctional\nfacility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 6 (Overview of correctional services)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-6-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Federal sentences", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Federal sentences\nCBSA policy with respect to the management of inadmissible permanent residents and foreign\nnationals serving a federal sentence in Canada is achieved through the IRPA and the CCRA\nand managed by the CBSA and CSC. While CBSA requires offender information from CSC,\npursuant to its mandate, CSC requires information regarding the immigration status of persons\nsubject to IRPA enforcement as they relate to federal offenders in order to enforce their\nmandate under the CCRA.\nOffenders serving a federal sentence are managed by CSC. As part of the information sharing\nagreement with CSC, CBSA is informed of offenders admitted into a federal institution\n(penitentiary) where there is reason to believe that the offender is not a Canadian citizen, so\nthat CBSA may determine their immigration status and if any immigration enforcement is\nwarranted. In turn, CBSA provides CSC with information it requires to conduct sentence\nmanagement in accordance with the provisions of the CCRA. A person subject to arrest and\ndetention under the IRPA who is serving a federal sentence will be transferred to either a\nprovincial correctional facility or an immigration holding centre (IHC) at the end of their\nsentence, as persons on immigration hold are not ‘housed’ in federal facilities. Moreover, CBSA\nis responsible for making the necessary transportation arrangements to transfer an inmate from\nthe Federal facility at the end of their sentence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 6.1 (Federal sentences)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-6-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Provincial sentences", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Provincial sentences\nProvincial correctional services generally have jurisdiction over offenders 18 years of age and\nover who are:\n sentenced to terms of imprisonment of less than two years\n terms of probation of up to three years\n conditional sentences of up to two years less a day\n offenders under parole supervision, as granted by a provincial parole board\n adults on remand, awaiting trial or sentencing\n offenders awaiting transfer to federal institutions to serve sentences of two years\nor more.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n11\n2020-03-16\nIn such cases, provincial correctional services establish, maintain and operate adult correctional\ninstitutions and probation and parole offices. Provincial correctional services also have\njurisdiction over adult offenders under parole supervision, as granted by a provincial parole\nboard (Quebec and Ontario).\nIn addition, adults held in immigration detention under the IRPA may be housed in a provincial\nfacility following an arrest/detention under A55, depending on the results of the National Risk\nAssessment for Detention (NRAD). For further information, see ENF 20 Detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 6.2 (Provincial sentences)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-7-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 General\nThe following general terms relate to the serving of criminal sentences in Canada. Some terms\nmay be more applicable within the context of sentences served under provincial jurisdiction;\nothers apply to sentences served under both federal and provincial jurisdiction.1\nTable 3: General terms pertaining to persons serving a sentence\nTerm Description\nSentence A sentence is a ruling handed down by a court in the criminal\njustice system which determines an accused person's punishment\nafter the person is found guilty or pleads guilty at trial. The Court\ncan impose different types of sentences or combinations of\npenalties.\nConcurrent sentence A concurrent sentence is merged and served simultaneously with\nanother sentence. It is also referred to as an ‘aggregate’ or\n‘combined’ sentence. For example: a person who receives a\nsentence of two concurrent terms of 6 months each would serve a\n6-month sentence, not a sentence of 12 months.\nSentences are merged in order to calculate a person's parole\neligibility date, discharge possible date and warrant expiry date.\nConsecutive sentence\n718.3(4) CCC\nConsecutive sentences are served separately , one after the other.\nFor example: a person who receives a sentence of two consecutive\nterms of 6 months each would serve a 12-month sentence.\nUnder the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), sentences are\nconcurrent unless otherwise specified by the court.\nIntermittent sentence\nAn intermittent sentence may be imposed for a sentence of 90 days\nor less and is served in blocks of time on specific days of the week\n(e.g., on weekends).\nAn intermittent sentence must be accompanied by a probation order.\n1 Sources referenced include: Department of Justice (https://www.justice.gc.ca); Correctional Service Canada", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 7.1 (General) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-7-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca); Parole Board of Canada (https://www.canada.ca/en/parole-board.html); Ontario Ministry of the\nSolicitor General (https://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/default.html). For further details, please refer to these\npublications.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n12\n2020-03-16\nConditional sentence\n742.1 CCC\nA conditional sentence is served in the community under\nsupervision rather than in a correctional facility.\nIf the person does not meet the conditions imposed by the court,\nthey may be returned to court and ordered to serve some or all of\nthe remainder of the sentence in custody.\nNote: In Tran v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness, (2017 SCC 50), the Supreme Court of Canada\nruled that conditional sentence does not constitute a “term of\nimprisonment” for the purpose of determining inadmissibility for\nserious criminality under A36(1)(a).\nParole Parole is a form of release granted by the PBC or a provincial\nparole board that allows persons serving sentences in provincial or\nfederal custody to serve the remainder of their sentence in the\ncommunity under the supervision of a probation/ parole officer.\nMost provincial offenders are able to apply for parole. In Ontario\nand Quebec, provincial parole boards are responsible for the\nrelease of offenders from incarceration, outside the normal\nexpiration of sentence.\nProbation Probation is a court disposition that allows the person to be in the\ncommunity following the completion of their sentence subject to\nconditions set out in a probation order. The person is supervised by\na probation officer.\nAbsolute or Conditional\ndischarge\nA disposition where the court orders that accused be discharged of\nan offence after a finding of guilt, and no conviction is registered.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 7.1 (General) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-7-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "General", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The court may then grant an absolute discharge (no conditions) or\nimpose conditions for a specified period of time as set out in a\nprobation order and the accused will be discharged when the\nconditions are met (conditional discharge). If an offender is\nconvicted of a subsequent offence during the term of probation, the\ncourt may decide to revoke the probation order and impose any\nsentence that could have been imposed at the time the order was\nmade.\nSuspended Sentence A conviction where the passing of sentence is suspended.\nLike a conditional discharge, the order may be revoked if a\nprovision is in place for revoking the order.\nParole Board of\nCanada (PBC)\nAn independent administrative tribunal which reports to Parliament\nthrough the Minister of Public Safety. The PBC operates under the\nauthority of the CCRA and has exclusive authority to grant, deny,\nand revoke parole for offenders serving sentences of two years or\nmore.\nThe PBC also makes parole decisions for offenders serving\nsentences of less than two years in all provinces and territories\nexcept Ontario and Quebec, which have their own parole boards.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n13\n2020-03-16\nDay Parole The authority granted to an inmate by the PBC or a provincial\nparole board to be at large during that inmate's sentence in order to\nprepare the inmate for full parole or statutory release. Eligibility for\nday parole is six months into the sentence or six months before full\nparole, whichever is later.\nDay parole requires the inmate to return to a penitentiary, a\ncommunity-based residential facility or a provincial correctional\nfacility each night unless otherwise authorized in writing.\nCorrectional services Both federal CSC and its provincial counterparts", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 7.1 (General) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-7-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Terminology related to federal offenders", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Terminology related to federal offenders\nThe following table contains terms that pertain to persons serving a federal sentence and types\nof federal releases under the CCRA for which persons serving a federal sentence may be\neligible during their incarceration:\nTable 4: Terms pertaining to persons serving a federal sentence\nTerm Description\nPenitentiary Section 2(1) of the CCRA describes a penitentiary as\n(a) a facility of any description, including all lands connected therewith,\nthat is operated, permanently or temporarily, by the CCRA and\n(b) any place declared to be a penitentiary pursuant to section 7 of the\nCCRA\nConditional\nrelease\nThe PBC has sole authority to grant both day parole and full parole to\nFederal offenders under the CCRA, based on information and\nassessments prepared by CSC prison and community staff. Before\ngranting conditional release, Parole Board members must be satisfied that\nthe offender will not pose undue risk to the community and will fulfill\nspecific conditions.\nFull Parole A form of conditional release by the PBC that allows an offender to serve\npart of a prison sentence (normally 1/3) in the community under specific\nconditions. The offender is placed under supervision and is required to\nabide by conditions designed to reduce the risk of re-offending, and to\nfoster reintegration of the inmate into the community. Under full parole, the\nperson does not have to return nightly to an institution, but must report\nregularly to a parole supervisor, and in certain cases, to the police. If the\noffender is performing successfully in the community, full parole may\ncontinue, under supervision, for the remainder of the sentence.\nOffenders (except those serving life sentences for murder) are eligible to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 7.2 (Terminology related to federal offenders) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-7-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Terminology related to federal offenders", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "apply for full parole after serving either 1/3 of their sentence, or seven\nyears, whichever is less.\nOffenders serving life sentences for first-degree murder are eligible to\napply for full parole, after serving 25 years. Dates for offenders serving life\nsentences for second-degree murder are set between 10 and 25 years\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n14\n2020-03-16\nDay Parole See definition in section 7.1 above\nEligibility to apply for day parole for federal offenders:\n Offenders serving sentences of two years or more: 6 months before\nfull parole eligibility date (PED) or 6 months into the sentence,\nwhichever is greater\n Offenders serving life sentences: 3 years before PED\nTemporary\nAbsences\nThe first type of release that an offender may receive. Under the CCRA,\nthere are three types of temporary absences from prison: escorted\ntemporary absences (ETA), unescorted temporary absences (UTA) and\nwork releases. Such releases may be authorized for various reasons,\nincluding for work in community service projects, contact with family,\npersonal development, and medical reasons.\nEscorted\nTemporary\nAbsence (ETA)\nCCRA s. 17\nA release of temporary duration in which an offender, either alone or as a\nmember of a group, leaves the institution accompanied by one or several\nescorting correctional officers. The duration of the ETA is limited. Medical\nabsences, however, may be unlimited. Offenders may apply for ETAs at\nany time during their sentence. Most ETAs are at the discretion of the\nCSC, however others (e.g. for some life sentences) must be approved by\nthe PBC.\nUnescorted\nTemporary\nAbsence (UTA)\nCCRA s. 116\nA release of temporary duration in which an offender leaves the institution\nunaccompanied by CSC staff. Offenders must have served a portion of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 7.2 (Terminology related to federal offenders) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-7-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Terminology related to federal offenders", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "their sentence before being eligible to apply for a UTA.\n For sentences of 3 years or more: offenders are eligible for UTAs after\nserving 1/6 of their sentence\n For sentences of 2-3 years: offenders are eligible at 6 months into the\nsentence\n Offenders serving life sentences are eligible for UTAs 3 years before\ntheir full parole eligibility date\n Offenders classified as maximum security are not eligible for UTAs\nAccelerated Day\nParole\nA streamlined process of review (Accelerated Parole Review or APR) for\nday parole for first-time offenders serving a sentence for a non-violent\noffence. It is a conditional release granted by the PBC if the inmate meets\ncertain criteria. The eligibility date for accelerated day parole is at 1/6 of\nsentence or six months into the sentence, whichever is later. APR is only\navailable to offenders who were sentenced prior to March 28, 2011; in\nBritish Colombia, this eligibility is extended to offenders who committed an\noffence before March 28, 2011, but who were sentenced on or after that\ndate.\nStatutory Release\nDate\nCCRA s. 127\nStatutory release is a mandatory release by law. It is not a form of parole\nand is not a decision of the PBC; rather, it is an inmate's legal entitlement\nto be released into the community at 2/3 of the sentence. Unlike parole,\nstatutory release is a right, not a privilege. Statutory Release requires\nfederally sentenced offenders to serve the final third of their sentence in\nthe community, under supervision and under conditions of release similar\nto those imposed on offenders released on full parole. Offenders serving\nlife or indeterminate sentences are not eligible.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n15\n2020-03-16\nOffenders on statutory release are offenders who either did not apply for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 7.2 (Terminology related to federal offenders) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-7-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Terminology related to federal offenders", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "parole, or who were denied release on full parole. Although statutory\nrelease is legislated (i.e. it is not 'conditional' and is not granted by the\nPBC), the PBC can keep an offender in the institution after his/her\nstatutory release where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the\noffender is likely to commit an offence causing serious harm or death, a\nsexual offence involving a child or a serious drug offence.\nOffenders on statutory release are required to follow standard conditions\nincluding reporting to a parole officer. In some instances offenders on\nstatutory release are required to reside in a halfway house or community\ncorrectional centre operated by CSC.\nWarrant Expiry\nDate\nThe final date in the inmate's current sentence.\nRelease on Expiry\nof Sentence\nRelease on expiry of sentence is not a conditional release; it is the full\nrelease required when the entire sentence has been served.\nWork release\nCCRA s. 18\nA structured and supervised program of release, established for a\nspecified period of time, involving work or community service outside the\npenitentiary. Offenders who are eligible for a UTA are also eligible to apply\nfor a work release.\nCSC’s Offender\nManagement\nSystem (OMS)\nA CSC database containing sentence information on every offender under\nfederal jurisdiction. Access to CSC offenders' information is based on\ngoverning legislation to ensure that partner organizations receive only the\ninformation required to perform their duties, and to which they are legally\nentitled. Based on a memorandum of understanding (MOU), CSC has\ngranted CBSA access to OMS whereby certain officers can consult\nrelevant offender information and also input data related to an offender's\nimmigration status.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 7.2 (Terminology related to federal offenders) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Policy on identification of inadmissible persons serving a sentence", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 Policy on identification of inadmissible persons serving a sentence\nIdentifying and monitoring inadmissible foreign nationals and permanent residents who are\nserving a sentence in Canada is essential to CBSA’s ability to achieve its statutory objectives.\nThe identification of inadmissible foreign nationals and permanent residents serving sentences\nis dependent on the interrelationship between CBSA and other government institutions,\nincluding CSC, the provincial correctional facilities, the provincial courts and police agencies.\nMaintaining effective liaison practices and processes ensures that foreign nationals and\npermanent residents are identified early in their sentence, investigated and tracked to ensure\nthat appropriate enforcement action can be taken by CBSA. In this way, the development and\nmaintenance of working arrangements with key partners within the judicial system are crucial to\nCBSA investigations.\nAs officers respond to information or leads regarding permanent residents and foreign nationals\nserving a sentence, they should follow established investigative procedures. These include\ncitizenship determination, interviewing of individuals, fact-finding, recording of evidence,\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n16\n2020-03-16\npreparation of reports and execution of appropriate documents relevant to CBSA enforcement\nmeasures.\nFor further guidance, officers should refer to ENF 7 Investigations and arrests, ENF 5 Writing\n44(1) reports, and ENF 6 Reviewing reports under A44(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 8.1 (Policy on identification of inadmissible persons serving a sentence)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Information sharing", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 Information sharing\nIdentifying inadmissible foreign nationals and permanent residents who are serving sentences is\nachieved through information sharing with correctional services, police services and the criminal\ncourts. Officers will access different sources of information in their efforts to identify incarcerated\npermanent residents and foreign nationals serving sentences.\nWhen obtaining and disclosing information obtained from a third party, CBSA officers must be\naware of their legal obligations under written collaborative arrangements and privacy legislation.\nIn all cases, officers are required to assess the accuracy and reliability of information received,\nand properly characterize this information in any further dissemination.\nInformation sharing agreements make it possible to effectively manage information between\norganizations in order to ensure effective monitoring through data exchange. Even where there\nis no formal written agreement in place, the Privacy Act may authorize the disclosure of\ninformation under a government institution’s control to another government body. For example,\nunder the Privacy Act, a government institution may disclose personal information to another\ngovernment institution for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by\nthe institution or for a use consistent with that purpose [8(2)(a)].\nCBSA employees are responsible for ensuring that personal information is only disclosed in\naccordance with the Privacy Act and should be guided by the CBSA Policy on the Disclosure of\nPersonal Information: Section 8 of the Privacy Act.\nCBSA officers should also consult the CBSA Information Sharing Toolkit, including the Written\nCollaborative Arrangements Toolkit.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 8.2 (Information sharing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Identification through correctional services", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3 Identification through correctional services\nOfficers will liaise regularly with correctional institutions in accordance with regionally\nestablished procedures and written collaborative agreements to ensure that permanent\nresidents and foreign nationals subject to enforcement action under the IRPA are managed\neffectively through the Sentence Management offices of correctional services.\nGenerally, CBSA may require the following information from correctional facilities:\n offender details\n date of committal\n date and details of conviction(s)\n documentation to substantiate conviction (e.g.’ warrant of committal)\n statutory release date\n warrant expiry date\n parole eligibility date\n parole board decisions\n correctional service reports\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n17\n2020-03-16\nFor further information on documentation that may be required to establish inadmissibility under\nthe IRPA, see ENF 2 Evaluating Inadmissibility.\nLikewise, correctional services may request information from CBSA in order to achieve their\nmandates, for example:\n confirmation of offender’s status/citizenship\n information pertaining to removal orders issued under the IRPA\n stage of an offender’s immigration proceedings under the IRPA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 8.3 (Identification through correctional services)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-8-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Information sharing at the federal level", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4 Information sharing at the federal level\nFor federal offenders, information sharing is achieved primarily through extraction and inputting\nof relevant information into CSC’s OMS in relation to the offenders status, and whether the\nCBSA intends to arrest and detain the offender upon completion of their sentence. For CSC,\ninformation from the CBSA is entered by a designated CBSA official into CSC’s OMS to\nfacilitate effective file management. OMS terminals are available at various CBSA offices.\nRegional offices must ensure that the running of appropriate OMS reports and monitoring of\noffender information through OMS and parole/probation contacts are utilized in accordance with\nestablished practices and procedures.\nIn regards to CSC, there is a written collaborative arrangement between CBSA and CSC which\nestablishes the conditions and procedures for the exchange of information between CSC and\nthe CBSA and outlines mutual obligations and responsibilities with respect to management of\ninmates who are subject to enforcement action under the IRPA through data exchange.\nUnder this agreement, CBSA shall provide to CSC, any information in its possession which is\nrelevant to the risk assessment of the offender, as soon as practicable, for consideration in the\nCSC case management and release decision-making processes.\nFor example, CSC may require the assistance of local CBSA offices when the citizenship of an\ninmate is in doubt. When such a request is made, the CBSA official must inform the CSC\ninstitutional chief, Sentence Management, of the inmate’s citizenship status and indicate\nwhether the inmate is of interest to CBSA and whether enforcement action under the IRPA is\nunderway.\nIn addition, where a person is already under a removal order, CBSA also needs to ensure that\nthe appropriate CSC contacts have been given this information and any related documentation\nthey may require under the CCRA. For further information, refer to section 12 of this manual\nchapter, ‘Impact of removal orders on Federal conditional releases under the CCRA’.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 8.4 (Information sharing at the federal level)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-8-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Information sharing at the provincial level", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5 Information sharing at the provincial level\nCBSA has specific MOUs with some provinces authorizing the detention of persons detained\nunder the IRPA in provincial correctional facilities (NB, BC, Ontario, Quebec, NS, Alberta).\nThese agreements also deal with the transfer of custody of a person detained under IRPA at a\nprovincial correctional institution.\nCBSA also has information sharing agreements with some provinces which govern procedures\nsurrounding the exchange of information.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n18\n2020-03-16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 8.5 (Information sharing at the provincial level)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "The Impact of A59", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9 The Impact of A59\nA warrant for the arrest and detention of a foreign national or permanent resident is issued\npursuant to A55(1). Where an immigration warrant has been issued against a person who is\nalready detained under another Act of Parliament (e.g. incarcerated while serving a sentence in\na correctional facility), A59 provides legislative authority for the transfer of the inmate at the end\nof the criminal sentence from correctional services custody into CBSA custody.\nSection A59 does not legally authorize correctional institutions to continue detention of a person\nonce their sentence is completed and they are released from criminal detention. Rather, A59 of\nthe IRPA imposes an obligation on correctional institutions to notify CBSA that the person’s\ncriminal sentence/detention has ended and turn the person over to CBSA to execute an\nimmigration warrant for arrest and take the person into immigration custody. This means that a\nperson is not legally detained under the IRPA until the immigration warrant is executed. This is\nwhy the section A59 Order (BSF498) must always be coupled with the A55(1) warrant for arrest.\nFor example, when a permanent resident or foreign national subject to IRPA enforcement action\nis eligible for full parole or statutory release, the effect of the A59 order is that the institution\nshall notify CBSA and release the person to the CBSA so that an immigration warrant can be\nexecuted. It is at that point that certain legal processes under the IRPA would be triggered. For\nexample, once detained under the IRPA, the officer shall without delay give notice to the\nImmigration Division (ID) [A55(4)] and the detained person must be brought before the ID within\n48 hours of being taken into detention to review the reasons for detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 9 (The Impact of A59) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "The Impact of A59", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Note: Persons who are detained in a provincial psychiatric hospital under the jurisdiction of a\nprovincial Review Board are not serving a sentence. Such persons have been found by a\ncourt or a provincial Review Board to be either not criminally responsible (NCR) or unfit to\nstand trial for criminal offences on account of a mental disorder.\nProvincial Review Boards are independent tribunals established pursuant to the Criminal Code\nof Canada, which stipulates that each province and territory must establish or designate a\nReview Board to oversee these individuals.\nFollowing a finding that an accused is NCR (not criminally responsible) or unfit to stand trial, a\ncourt or a provincial Review Board may make an order directing that the accused be detained in\ncustody in a hospital, subject to such conditions as the court or Review Board considers\nappropriate. Such persons are detained under the jurisdiction of the provincial Review Board\nand are therefore not detained under an Act of Parliament. Therefore, in such cases, an A59\nOrder cannot be used to impose a legal obligation on the institution to notify CBSA in case there\nis a warrant.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 9 (The Impact of A59) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-10-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "Case management: Inadmissibility assessment and investigation", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10 Case management: Inadmissibility assessment and investigation\nOnce a CBSA official identifies that a foreign national or permanent resident is serving a\ncustodial sentence, a case review will need to be conducted to determine whether enforcement\naction is warranted and to initiate appropriate enforcement steps under the IRPA.\nOnce the initial investigation confirms that the person is a permanent resident or a foreign\nnational, a preliminary investigation into the status of the person’s admissibility or current\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n19\n2020-03-16\nimmigration processes will need to be conducted. Where the facts indicate the presence of an\ninadmissibility (or new/additional inadmissibility), an officer will need to review the file to\ndetermine whether an A44(1) process should be initiated. If necessary, the file will be\ntransferred and assigned to the appropriate office or unit responsible for processing the A44\ninvestigation.\nOfficers will need to consider the following:\n Is the person already the subject of a removal order?\n If so, would an additional A44(1) report and another removal order serve the objectives\nof the IRPA?\nEven where the person is already the subject of proceedings under the IRPA, including removal,\na CBSA officer will need to conduct a case review to determine whether a new A44(1) process\nis warranted. Where it is determined that the person is already under a removal order and no\nnew A44(1) proceedings are warranted, the case will need to be assessed to determine next\nsteps in enforcing the removal order. This may require transferring the file to the appropriate\noffice or unit in the jurisdiction where the person is serving their custodial sentence. Where the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 10 (Case management: Inadmissibility assessment and investigation) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-10-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "Case management: Inadmissibility assessment and investigation", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "person is serving a federal sentence and is already under a removal order, CBSA will also need\nto ensure that CSC has been notified of the removal order in accordance with section 12 of this\nmanual chapter, ‘Impact of removal orders on Federal conditional releases under the CCRA’.\nIn cases where enforcement action originates at the port of entry (e.g., warrant for arrest and\nA59 Order are issued following a criminal arrest by another law enforcement agency), case\nmanagement and monitoring should be coordinated regionally with inland offices and next steps\nwill be determined by the circumstances of the case.\nFor further details on investigating inadmissibility, refer to ENF 7 Investigations and arrests and\nENF 2 Evaluating inadmissibility.\nFor further details on writing A44(1) reports, see ENF 5 Writing 44(1) reports.\nFor further information on Minister’s Delegate reviews under A44(2), see ENF 6 Reviewing\nreports under A44(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 10 (Case management: Inadmissibility assessment and investigation) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-11-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Assessment of risk", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1 Assessment of risk\nDuring the initial inadmissibility investigation, a concurrent assessment of the file should also be\nconducted to consider whether CBSA should seek detention of the permanent resident or\nforeign national upon completion of their sentence, having regard to all of the circumstances of\nthe case. This assessment will also entail considering whether risks can be offset by any\nalternatives to detention, including the imposition of conditions under the IRPA.\nRisk identification requires an evaluation of the information available at the time of the\nassessment and includes any information or evidence available that may help predict future\nbehaviour.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n20\n2020-03-16\nFor persons serving a federal sentence, there will generally be an ongoing opportunity to\nevaluate the need for immigration detention prior to the person completing their criminal\nsentence. In general, this will include an initial file review prior to any immigration warrant being\nissued, and an additional assessment of risk factors closer to the statutory release date, prior to\nexecuting any warrant (if one was previously issued, along with the A59 order).\nNote: There is no specific form to document this process, however Notes to File may be used.\nFor further clarity, this is separate from the requirement for a formal risk assessment following\nthe execution of the warrant through the process for completion of the BSF754 form—National\nRisk Assessment for Detention (NRAD). Officers should consult ENF 20 Detention for further\ndetails.\nIt is important for officers to keep in mind that, even if during an earlier review of the file it is\ndetermined that the risk can be mitigated upon release from serving sentence, a warrant for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 11.1 (Assessment of risk) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-11-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Assessment of risk", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "arrest and A59 Order can be issued at a later time where circumstances and facts warrant a\ndifferent assessment.\nConversely, there may be circumstances where an initial review of the case leads to a\ndetermination that IRPA arrest and detention are necessary and therefore that a warrant for\narrest and A59 Order should be issued and filed with the correctional institution. Where\ncircumstances change prior to the completion of the sentence, officers may later determine that\ndetention under the IRPA is no longer necessary. In such circumstances, a delegated officer or\nsupervisor/manager may cancel the warrant where the initial reasons for the warrant no longer\nexist and document the reasons in the Global Case Management System (GCMS) and the\nNational Case Management System (NCMS). See ENF 7 Investigations and arrests for further\ninformation regarding warrant cancellation.\nNote: A person serving a sentence may already be subject to conditions imposed under the\nIRPA by either CBSA, IRCC or the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). In such cases, an\nofficer will need to assess whether the existing conditions are sufficient to offset risks upon\ncompletion of the sentence, whether these conditions have been violated or whether a new\narrest and detention process under the IRPA is warranted.\nRisks are related to the objectives of the IRPA and can generally be divided into:\n Risk to public safety, as related to A3(1)(h) and A3(2)(g). Public safety is the top priority for\nthe CBSA. When the associated risks to public safety are significant, these risks need to be\nvirtually eliminated before release.\n Risk to program integrity. This risk relates to a negative impact on achieving all other\nobjectives of the IRPA. The acceptable degree of risk depends on the specific", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 11.1 (Assessment of risk) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-11-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Assessment of risk", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "circumstances of the case.\nFor further details regarding the assessment of risk see ENF 34 Alternatives to detention.\nFor persons serving a sentence, a layered approach to the evaluation of risk is generally\nrecommended where circumstances permit:\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n21\n2020-03-16\nAn initial file assessment should be conducted once it is determined that CBSA will pursue\nenforcement action under the IRPA against the person serving a sentence. The officer will need\nto consider information such as:\n Nature and extent of recent criminal activity\n Nature of the conviction and type of sentence imposed;\n Statutory release dates;\n Circumstances of the offence(s) for which the person was convicted;\n Presence of any other serious IRPA inadmissibility (e.g., security, organized crime)\nirrelevant of the conviction(s) for which the person is currently serving sentence;\n Whether removal is imminent once the person finishes serving their sentence;\n Whether the person is already subject to IRPA conditions imposed by CBSA, IRCC\nor the IRB\n Tools identified to manage or mitigate risk upon release from correctional services\ncustody, including those imposed by the criminal courts.\nWhere possible, there should be an ongoing evaluation of risk and a final review of the person’s\ncase conducted closer to the person’s statutory release date or anticipated conditional release\nby correctional services. This will be particularly important in cases for persons serving a federal\nsentence who are serving longer sentences and the circumstances pertaining to their level of\nrisk may change over time based on institutional behaviour, programs completed while serving\nsentence, reports from CSC, and PBC decisions/assessments. Officers should liaise with CSC,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 11.1 (Assessment of risk) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-11-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Assessment of risk", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "probation and parole officers, institutional reports and any other relevant documentation\npertaining to institutional programs completed (e.g., anger management) pertaining to the\nperson’s behaviour while serving sentence. Officers assessing risk for federal offenders should\nalso obtain decisions of the PBC to determine conditions of release, including residency in CSC\nfacilities (e.g., half-way houses). Once all available information has been gathered, officers\nshould analyze the information to identify risks, determine whether these risks can be offset,\nand evaluate residual risk. This will require a case-by-case analysis of the information gathered.\nNote: This process is not intended to replace the procedures set out in ENF 20 Detentions.\nFor further guidance regarding the assessment of alternatives to detention, officers should refer\nto ENF 34, section 8, ‘Assessment of alternatives”.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 11.1 (Assessment of risk) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-11-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Alternatives to detention", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2 Alternatives to detention\nOfficers handling cases for persons serving a sentence should always consider whether\ncontinued detention upon completion of the sentence will be necessary under the IRPA and\nwhether a release plan incorporating alternatives to detention may be appropriate. Where a\nperson serving a sentence is also the subject of enforcement action under the IRPA, it remains\nopen to a delegated CBSA official at any stage to place the person on IRPA conditions following\nan assessment of risk factors and all the circumstances of the case.\nAn alternative to detention (ATD) is any condition that may be imposed on an individual to offset\na risk they represent to the enforcement objectives and the mandate of the CBSA. ATDs include\ngeneral conditions, deposits, guarantees, in-person reporting, and, depending on the region,\nmay include other types of community based supervision tools and electronic supervision tools.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n22\n2020-03-16\nAs part of the arrest process, an officer must consider the factors outlined in R245–R248,\nincluding alternatives to detention, to form a recommendation regarding detention and release.\nOfficers are required to document their assessment of alternatives to detention and the reasons\nthe decision to continue detention or release on the basis of alternatives to detention was made.\nOfficers should refer to ENF 7 Investigations and arrests, ENF 20 Detention and ENF34\nAlternatives to Detention for further procedural guidance.\nFollowing an arrest, if an officer determines that risk can be offset by alternatives to detention\nupon completion of the person’s sentence, the person may be placed on conditions by a CBSA\nofficial [see Acknowledgement of Conditions (BSF821/IMM1262) and Acknowledgement of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 11.2 (Alternatives to detention) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-11-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Alternatives to detention", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Conditions for IRPA Section 34 Cases (BSF798)] unless the person is already subject to\nconditions imposed under the IRPA by the Immigration Division (ID) (for further information, see\nENF 8 Deposits and guarantees). Officers may also consult with their local Community Liaison\nOfficer (CLO) in accordance with ENF 34 Alternatives to detention.\nThe person may also be placed on conditions by a delegated CBSA official at any time during\ntheir sentence prior to the issuance or execution of a warrant (i.e., arrest) unless the person is\nalready subject to conditions imposed by the ID. In such cases, the officer has no authority to\nvary or supersede an order previously issued by the ID. The ID retains jurisdiction with respect\nto the variation of previous terms and conditions imposed by the Board. In circumstances where\nan officer believes that previously imposed conditions by the ID are no longer required or are\ninsufficient to ensure compliance, but may not necessarily require that the person be re-arrested\nfirst, officers will refer the file to Hearings articulating the need to amend the existing conditions\nand request that a Hearings Officer make a request to the ID to vary the order.\nFor further information and guidance on Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program tools available\nunder the ATD Program and assessment of alternatives to detention, refer to ENF 34\nAlternatives to detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 11.2 (Alternatives to detention) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-11-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 11.3", + "marginal_note": "Procedures where detention under the IRPA is determined to be necessary", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.3 Procedures where detention under the IRPA is determined to be necessary\nfollowing completion of the person’s custodial sentence\nIf it is determined that detention under the IRPA is warranted following the completion of the\nperson’s sentence, the CBSA officer will need to file an unexecuted warrant for arrest (BSF499)\nand a Section A59 Order to Deliver Inmate (BSF498) with the institutional Chief of Sentence\nManagement. This ensures that the provincial correctional services or CSC are made aware\nthat an inmate serving sentence is subject to enforcement action under the IRPA, and that the\ninmate is to be arrested by a designated official under the IRPA upon completion of their\nsentence.\nCBSA officers must then liaise with correctional services to monitor the offender’s detention\nstatus to ensure that on the day that the inmate is eligible for release from criminal detention\n(i.e., custodial sentence ends), an official designated under the IRPA meets the inmate in order\nto execute the immigration warrant and effect the arrest under A55.\nNote: Should the IRPA process change during the time of the sentence following the issuance\nof a warrant, officers must cancel the original warrant and re-issue the warrant under the correct\nIRPA process. For example, where the original warrant was issued for an admissibility hearing\nbut the hearing has taken place and a removal order has been issued, the original warrant shall\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n23\n2020-03-16\nbe cancelled and a new warrant issued for removal. In this circumstance, a new A59 Order will\nalso need to be completed.\nFollowing an arrest, the officer must also complete all required forms, including a Notice of\nArrest (BSF561), which outlines the circumstances of the arrest and factors that led to their\ndecision to recommend continued detention. In addition, an Order for Detention form (BSF304)\nshall be completed and left with the authority (correctional services) responsible for housing the\nperson. Officers should refer to ENF 7 Investigations and arrests, ENF 20 Detention and ENF", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 11.3 (Procedures where detention under the IRPA is determined to be necessary)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-34", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 34", + "marginal_note": "Alternatives to detention for more detailed procedural guidance.", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "34 Alternatives to detention for more detailed procedural guidance.\nWhere applicable, and depending on an officer’s assessment of detention placement, CBSA\nmay need to arrange for the transfer of the person to another detention facility (provincial\ncorrectional facility or an immigration holding centre) upon completion of the person’s sentence,\nin accordance with CBSA policy and regionally established procedures. It is to be noted that\nfederal correctional service facilities do not house individuals who are on immigration\nhold only. Officers should refer to ENF 20 Detention for further procedural details.\nCBSA will also need to send notice to the ID without delay so that a detention review is\nscheduled (BSF524). If the person is not released within 48 hours of their arrest by a CBSA\nofficer, the person is required to have a detention review before the ID.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 34 (Alternatives to detention for more detailed procedural guidance.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-11-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 11.4", + "marginal_note": "Summary of steps to be completed where detention under the IRPA is", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.4 Summary of steps to be completed where detention under the IRPA is\ndetermined to be necessary following completion of the person’s custodial\nsentence\nThe following is a summary of required steps and forms to be completed where detention under\nthe IRPA is determined to be necessary following completion of the person’s custodial\nsentence:\nPrior to completion of the sentence:\n Unexecuted warrant for arrest (BSF499) and A59 Order to Deliver Inmate (BSF498)\nissued and left with detaining authority (Sentence Management at correctional facility);\n Federal offenders subject to a removal order: ensure that CSC has been notified of an\nexisting removal order and copy of removal order is provided if necessary.\nOnce person has completed custodial sentence:\n Execute warrant on day sentence is completed (includes conditional releases);\n Arrest and detention forms completed as required (see ENF 7 Investigations and arrests\nand ENF 20 Detention for further details).\n Arrange transfer to provincial facility or IHC as appropriate based on detention\nplacement assessment;\n Order for Detention form (BSF304) issued and left with institution; and\n Send notification and request for detention review to the ID.\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n24\n2020-03-16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 11.4 (Summary of steps to be completed where detention under the IRPA is)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-12-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 12", + "marginal_note": "Impact of removal orders on Federal conditional releases under the", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12 Impact of removal orders on Federal conditional releases under the\nCCRA\nOfficers should be aware that under the provisions of the CCRA, the issuance of a removal\norder against a non-citizen federal offender may impact their eligibility for certain types of\nconditional releases.\nPursuant to subsection 128(4) of the CCRA, a permanent resident or foreign national is not\neligible for day parole or an unescorted temporary absence (UTA) before their full parole\neligibility date if they are subject to a removal order issued under the IRPA.\nUnder this provision, if a removal order is issued against the person serving a sentence after\nday parole is granted, the day parole or UTA becomes inoperative and the offender shall be re-\nincarcerated by CSC. It should be noted, however, that this does not apply once the full\neligibility date has passed.\nOfficers should recognize that delays in the timely execution of appropriate enforcement action\nunder A44 [including delays in referring a case to an MD for a review under A44(2) and/or the ID\nfor an admissibility hearing] could have an adverse impact on CBSA’s ability to effectively\nmanage and offset risks posed by permanent residents and foreign nationals serving a federal\nsentence as the person could be granted conditional release by the PBC prior to the issuance of\na removal order.\nIn situations where a removal order is stayed under A50(a), A66(b), or A114(1)(b) of the IRPA,\nthe non-citizen becomes eligible for day parole or UTA under subsection 128(6) of the CCRA. In\nsuch cases, it is the CBSA officer’s responsibility to advise CSC of the change by providing the\nChief of Sentence Management with a copy of the stay order. For further details regarding stays\nof removal, see ENF 10 Removals.\nNotification to CSC for federal offenders", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 12 (Impact of removal orders on Federal conditional releases under the) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-12-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 12", + "marginal_note": "Impact of removal orders on Federal conditional releases under the", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "To ensure that CSC has all relevant information they require to enforce their mandate under the\nCCRA, CBSA officials must notify CSC when a removal order has been issued against the\nperson in accordance with established procedures. In most cases, this will be achieved through\ncommunication by CBSA to Sentence Management of the correctional institution where the\nperson is incarcerated.\nCBSA officials are also responsible for ensuring that documents required by CSC though the\ninformation sharing agreement have been completed and provided to the appropriate CSC\nofficials in Sentence Management and that all relevant systems updates (e.g., OMS) have been\ncompleted after a removal order has been issued to a federal offender.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 12 (Impact of removal orders on Federal conditional releases under the) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Removal of persons who are detained", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13 Procedure: Removal of persons who are detained\nIt is important for officers to be aware that a person serving a sentence in Canada, including a\nconditional sentence order being served in the community, is subject to a stay of removal under\nA50(b) of the IRPA and cannot be removed until the sentence is complete.\nOfficers can remove detained persons from Canada who:\n are in CBSA custody after being arrested and detained under A55 for removal from\nCanada upon completion of a custodial sentence at an institution under the authority\nof A59 at the end of their custodial sentence; or\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n25\n2020-03-16\n have been detained pursuant to A81 and ordered released under A82.4 for their\ndeparture from Canada.\nIn addition, officers should ensure that regionally established procedures are followed when a\nperson under a removal order is serving a sentence in a correctional institution or other\ndetention facility.\nFor further information on removal of detained persons, see ENF 10 Removals.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 13 (Procedure: Removal of persons who are detained)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-14-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 14", + "marginal_note": "Cases where the person was sentenced prior to the enactment of", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14 Cases where the person was sentenced prior to the enactment of\nthe IRPA\nThe transitional provisions in the IRPA govern cases where the person was sentenced prior to\nits enactment (June 28, 2002) when the former Immigration Act, 1976, was in force. For\nindividuals sentenced after the coming into force of the IRPA, the provisions of the CCRA will\napply, and the presence of a removal order will render the non-citizen ineligible for UTA or day\nparole until the full parole eligibility date.\nThe transitional provisions create a parallel system for offenders who were sentenced prior to\nthe coming into force of the IRPA and the date of sentence will determine the legislative\nprovisions and procedures that apply to persons under IRPA enforcement action who are\nserving a federal sentence.\nFor example, where a person was sentenced prior to June 28, 2002 (i.e., pre-IRPA), they are\neligible for conditional release whether or not they are subject to a removal order.\nConversely, where a person was sentenced on or after June 28, 2002, they are ineligible for\nday parole conditional release until the date of full parole eligibility if they are subject to a\nremoval order. However the person is eligible for day parole conditional release if they are not\nsubject to a removal order before reaching their full parole eligibility date.\nUnder the Transitional provisions:\n An order issued by a Deputy Minister under subsection 105(1) of the former Act (the\n1976 Immigration Act) continues to be in force and the review of reasons for continued\ndetention shall be made under the IRPA (R323);\n Inmates subject to subsection 105(1) orders under the former Immigration Act are eligible\nfor consideration of day parole, including accelerated day parole or a UTA. If conditional", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 14 (Cases where the person was sentenced prior to the enactment of) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-14-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 14", + "marginal_note": "Cases where the person was sentenced prior to the enactment of", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "release is granted by the PBC, the subsection 105(1) order and the Warrant of arrest\nprevent the inmate from being released on day parole or UTA before a detention review\nis conducted by the ID;\n A warrant for arrest and detention made under the former Act is a warrant for arrest and\ndetention made under the IRPA [R325(1)];\n If an inmate subject to an order under subsection 105(1) of the former Immigration Act is\nordered released by the ID, the subsection 105(1) order is lifted and is no longer valid. If\ndetention is maintained, the detention review will be conducted under the\nprovisions of the IRPA [R322(1)].\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n26\n2020-03-16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 14 (Cases where the person was sentenced prior to the enactment of) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-15-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Case examples", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15 Case examples\nThe following scenarios are some examples to illustrate case assessments and recommended\nnext steps for managing cases where the permanent resident or foreign national is serving a\nsentence.\nScenario 1\nNotification is received from CSC that a person serving sentence at a federal correctional facility\nhas been granted bail pending an appeal of their conviction and sentence by a provincial court\nof appeal. The person is already the subject of a removal order issued based on the conviction\nunder appeal. A warrant for arrest under A55 and a section A59 Order to Deliver Inmate have\nalready been issued and filed with CSC Sentence Management by CBSA officials.\nNext steps:\nPrior to executing the warrant, assess risk to determine whether person should be arrested and\ndetained under the IRPA or placed on conditions, including the posting of deposits or\nguarantees. Obtain bail conditions from courts or through CSC to review conditions. Where\ncontinued detention is warranted under the IRPA, execute A55 warrant and complete required\narrest and detention steps, including arrangements for transfer to provincial facility or IHC and\nsend request for detention review to the ID. If determined that release on conditions under the\nIRPA is warranted, ensure that any conditions imposed do not conflict with bail conditions\nimposed by the court.\nScenario 2\nA person is serving a three-year sentence at a federal correctional facility for aggravated\nassault. An investigation confirms that the person is a permanent resident of Canada and that\nenforcement action is warranted based on inadmissibility for serious criminality. A report under\nA44(1) is issued and referred for admissibility hearing by the MD under A44(2).\nNext steps:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 15 (Case examples) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-15-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Case examples", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Assess risk to determine whether person should be detained under IRPA or placed on\nconditions following the completion of their custodial sentence. Where IRPA detention is\nwarranted and depending on the end of sentence expiry and anticipated schedule for\nadmissibility hearing, issue warrant for arrest (for admissibility hearing) and section A59 Order\nto Deliver Inmate. If admissibility hearing concludes before end of sentence and a removal order\nis made at an admissibility hearing, cancel the previous/unexecuted warrant for admissibility\nhearing and issue a new warrant for arrest (for removal) and new section A59 Order to Deliver\nInmate and provide to CSC Sentence Management. Notify CSC of the removal order and\nprovide required documentation. Monitor risk and conduct a further risk assessment closer to\nthe person’s release from serving sentence.\nNote: Where there are no time constraints and the admissibility hearing is anticipated to\nconclude well before end of sentence, officers should defer issuance of warrant and A59, until\nthe admissibility hearing has concluded to avoid having to issue multiple warrants.\nScenario 3\nA person is serving a two-year sentence at a federal correctional facility for fraud. The person is\nissued a deportation order for serious criminality while serving sentence. Prior to the person’s\nENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n27\n2020-03-16\nstatutory release date, CBSA is advised by CSC that the person has been granted conditional\nrelease by the PBC.\nAn initial evaluation of the file leads an officer to determine that detention under IRPA will not be\nnecessary upon completion of the person’s sentence, taking into account that the fact that the\nperson will be subject to parole supervision until their warrant expiry date and that the prospect", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 15 (Case examples) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-15-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Case examples", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "of obtaining a travel document to effect removal is low. An officer determines that the permanent\nresident does not pose a danger to the public and that flight risk concerns can be offset with\nappropriate conditions. The person is not currently subject to any prior conditions of release\nunder the IRPA.\nNext steps:\nIt is recommended that no immigration warrant be issued and that CBSA consider placement of\npermanent resident on IRPA conditions (possibly including posting of bonds/guarantees) prior to\ncompletion of the sentence and release from court hold. CBSA will monitor compliance with\nconditions and continue appropriate enforcement action following the person’s release from\ncourt hold.\nScenario 4:\nA federal offender is serving a sentence for a second-degree murder conviction from 1978 (i.e.,\npre-IRPA). The person is the subject of a deportation order issued under the former Immigration\nAct of 1976. CBSA is advised that the person has become eligible for conditional release under\nthe CCRA and has applied for release on an unescorted temporary absence (UTA).\nNext steps:\nThis case falls under the transitional provisions. CBSA should conduct an assessment of the\nrisks before determining next steps. If it is determined that the person constitutes a high flight\nrisk or danger to the public under IRPA and that continued detention under the IRPA is\nwarranted, CBSA should follow the steps in section 11.3 of this manual chapter, ‘Procedures\nwhere detention under the IRPA is determined to be necessary following completion of the\nperson’s custodial sentence’. This means that the issuance of a warrant for arrest (for removal)\nand a section A59 Order to Deliver Inmate will need to be issued each time the person becomes", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 15 (Case examples) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-22-15-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-22", + "act_short": "ENF 22", + "act_name": "ENF 22 — ENF 22", + "section": "ENF 22 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Case examples", + "part": "ENF 22", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "eligible for release on UTA. Each time the person is granted a UTA by the PBC, a CBSA officer\nwill need to execute the warrant and request a detention review from the ID each time a UTA is\ngranted.\nScenario 5\nA foreign national who is under a removal order issued after June 28, 2002 is serving a federal\nsentence. An A59 Order to Deliver Inmate and warrant for arrest have already been issued by\nCBSA and provided to CSC Sentence Management. After serving 1/3 of their sentence, the\noffender is transferred to a correctional facility outside the jurisdiction/province of the CBSA\noffice monitoring the file.\nNext steps:\nNotify the regional CBSA office handling cases from the destination jurisdiction/province of the\ntransfer. Ensure appropriate file transfer for continued monitoring by the new CBSA office.\nNotify the parole officer (CSC) in the new jurisdiction of the immigration hold (i.e. warrant for\narrest and section A59 Order to Deliver Inmate) and provide the contact information for the\nCBSA office now assigned to the file.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2020-03-16", + "current_to": "2020-03-16", + "citation": "ENF 22, s. 15 (Case examples) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf22-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.9", + "marginal_note": "Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under the former Immigration", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.9 Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under the former Immigration\nAct, 1976 .............................................................................................................. 31\n7.10 Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under IRPA ........................ 32\n7.11 Recording determination of obligations under A28 ................................................ 35\n7.12 Certificate of departure (IMM 0056B) when an order is not yet in force.................... 35\n7.13 Permanent Resident Cards ................................................................................ 36", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.9 (Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under the former Immigration)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "Overview: A31(3) travel documents; IAD processes; overseas decisions and their effect at a", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8 Overview: A31(3) travel documents; IAD processes; overseas decisions and their effect at a\nPOE ......................................................................................................................... 37\n8.1 A31(3) Travel documents ................................................................................... 37\n8.2 IAD appeal requirements .................................................................................... 39\n8.3 Decisions made overseas on loss of PR status and their effect at a Port of Entry ......... 40\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 3", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 8 (Overview: A31(3) travel documents; IAD processes; overseas decisions and their effect at a)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports on permanent residents and", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9 In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports on permanent residents and\npersons claiming to be permanent residents .................................................................. 42\nAppendix A Supreme Court of Canada decision in Baker v. M.C.I. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 ........ 44\nAppendix B Strengthening decisions / guidelines on taking notes ...................................... 48\nAppendix C Declaration ............................................................................................... 50\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 4\nUpdates to chapter\nListing by date:\n2015-01-23\nThis chapter has been updated as follows:\n Section 6.5 has been revised to include additional criteria for permanent residents to\nmeet residency obligations while working abroad.\n2005-11-25\nChanges were made to reflect the transition from CIC to the CBSA.\n Section 4 under Instruments and delegations clarifies the roles of respective ministers in\nthe administration of IRPA.\n The coming into force of R259 is addressed in 3.2.\n Transitional provisions were deleted from section 3.1, 7.13 and 8.1.\n Modification of section 7.7 on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to clarify intent\nwas made.\n Clarification to section 7.8 on examination of permanent residents at ports of entry was\nmade.\n2004-11-17\nSection 7.7 has been updated to address the effects of a recently made favourable\nhumanitarian and compassionate decision on a residency determination as well as the\ncircumstances of adults who left Canada as children in order to accompany their parents.\nThere were also minor modifications to the last two bullets under “Extent of non-compliance”\n(at section 7.7) to omit the age of the client in those circumstances.\n2003-09-02", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports on permanent residents and) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports on permanent residents and", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Chapter ENF 23, entitled Loss of Permanent Resident Status, has been updated and is now\navailable on CIC explore.\nThe amendments that were made clarify the circumstances in which voluntary relinquishment\nmay be considered. They also provide more detailed procedures for POEs and inland offices\nwhen processing voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident (PR) status.\nAmong the changes to this chapter, the highlights include:\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 5\n Section 5 has been updated to provide departmental policy on voluntary relinquishment\nof PR status.\n Section 7.8 provides guidance on examining a permanent resident at a Port of Entry.\n Section 7.9 explains the consequences of a voluntary relinquishment under the former\nAct and when the person should be considered a foreign national.\n Section 7.10 provides the guidelines for voluntary relinquishment of PR status under\nIRPA including the guidelines to follow in writing up an A44(1) report for non-compliance\nprior to allowing relinquishment. This section also provides guidelines for cases where a\nperson withdraws their declaration of voluntary relinquishment. Guidance is also provided\nfor the exceptional circumstances where voluntary relinquishment is allowed despite\ncompliance to A28.\n Section 7.11 explains where to record the determination of obligations under A28 in\nFOSS.\n Section 7.12 explains the guidelines to follow as per a certificate of departure when an\norder is not yet in force.\n Section 7.13 refers to the previous section 7.8 entitled Permanent Resident Card, to\nwhich no amendments have been made.\n Section 9 has been updated to provide guidance about the issue and authority of seizing\npermanent resident documents.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 6", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports on permanent residents and) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter explains:\n when and why determinations of permanent resident status are required;\n the factors to be considered when making a determination relating to permanent resident\nstatus;\n what to do if a permanent resident is determined to have complied with the residency\nobligation contained within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA);\n what to do if a permanent resident is determined not to have complied with the residency\nobligation in IRPA; and\n what to do if a permanent resident wishes to relinquish their status.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nIRPA establishes a residency obligation with respect to each five-year period after permanent\nresident status has been granted.\nThe provisions governing the residency obligation intend:\n to prescribe clear and objective, yet flexible, rules and criteria for establishing and\ndetermining compliance with the residency obligation provisions of IRPA;\n to assist decision-makers in assessing fundamental factors related to determinations of\nresidency status, as well as enhance transparency and consistency in decision making;\nand\n to prescribe rules for calculating days of physical presence in Canada to determine\ncompliance with the residency obligation under A28.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Statutory provisions of IRPA", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 Statutory provisions of IRPA\nPermanent resident: A person who has acquired permanent resident\nstatus and has not subsequently lost that status under A46.\nA2(1)\nEnter and remain: A permanent resident of Canada has the right to\nenter and remain in Canada, subject to the provisions of the IRPA.\nA27\nResidency obligation: A permanent resident must comply with a\nresidency obligation with respect to every five-year period (i.e. 730\nA28(1), A28(2)(a)\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 7\ndays/5 years test).\nPhysical presence: Calculating days physically present in Canada. A28(2)(a)(i)\nAccompanying a Canadian citizen spouse or common-law partner or\nparent.\nA28(2)(a)(ii)\nEmployed abroad, on a full-time basis, by a Canadian business or in\nthe public service of Canada or of a province.\nA28(2)(a)(iii)\nAccompanying a Canadian permanent resident spouse or common-\nlaw partner or parent abroad and who is employed on a full- time basis\nby a Canadian business or in the public service of Canada or of a\nprovince.\nA28(2)(a)(iv)\nPermanent residents for less than 5 years: How to assess\ncompliance with the residency obligation in those cases where the person\nconcerned has been a permanent resident for less than 5 years.\nA28(2)(b)(i)\nPermanent residents for 5 years or more: How to assess compliance\nwith the residency obligation in those cases where the person concerned\nhas been a permanent resident for five years or more.\nA28(2)(b)(ii)\nHumanitarian and Compassionate Considerations (H&C):\nWhen determining whether a permanent resident (PR) has complied with\nthe residency obligation with respect to being “physically present in\nCanada” for 730 days within a 5 five year period, an officer must\nconsider H&C grounds (including the best interests of a child directly", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3.1 (Statutory provisions of IRPA) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Statutory provisions of IRPA", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "affected by such a determination) prior to making a determination that\nthe person has lost their permanent resident status.\nWhen an officer determines that humanitarian and compassionate\nconsiderations relating to a permanent resident justify the retention of\npermanent resident status, then such a determination will overcome any\nbreach of the residency obligation made before the H&C determination.\nA28(2)(c)\nA31(3) Travel document - “R” is the category coding that will be\nused on counterfoils involving permanent residents and\nA31(3)\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 8\n“residency obligation” decisions made overseas: Permanent\nresidents being issued with an A31(3) travel document will have, as a\ngeneral indicator of the category of case, the alpha letter “R” notated on\nthe counterfoil. Note: some currently used “category of case” codes\ninclude: “T” = students; “E” = temporary workers; and “V” = visitors).\nA31(3) Travel document “R-1” counterfoil coding: Permanent\nresidents, without a permanent resident card, who comply with\nthe residency obligation: In those cases where an overseas applicant\nfor an A31(3) travel document is issued with an A31(3) travel document,\nand an officer overseas has made a determination that the permanent\nresident has complied with the residency obligation (A31(3)(a)), the\ncounterfoil coding is “R-1.”\nA31(3)(a)\nA31(3) Travel document “RC-1” counterfoil coding: Permanent\nresidents without a permanent resident card / positive H&C case: In\nthose cases where an overseas applicant for an A31(3) travel document\nis issued with an A31(3) travel document, and an officer overseas has\nmade a determination under A28(2)(c) on the basis of H&C\nconsiderations, counterfoil coding is “RC-1.”\nA31(3)(b)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3.1 (Statutory provisions of IRPA) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Statutory provisions of IRPA", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A31(3) Travel document “RX-1” counterfoil coding: Permanent\nresidents without a permanent resident card / Decision made\noverseas that the permanent resident has not complied with the\nresidency obligation / A63(4)appeal: In those cases where an\noverseas applicant for an A31(3) travel document is issued with an\nA31(3) travel document, and an officer overseas is satisfied that the\npermanent resident was physically present in Canada at least once within\nthe 365 days before the examination (A31(3)(c)), and the applicant has\nappealed or may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) under\nA63(4), the counterfoil coding is “RX-1.”\nA31(3)(c)\nA31(3) Travel document “RA-1” counterfoil coding: Permanent\nresidents without a permanent resident card / Decision made\noverseas that the permanent resident has not complied with the\nresidency obligation; and has not been physically present in\nCanada at least once within the 365 days before the examination\n/ A63(4) appeal / IAD orders the presence of the permanent\nresident: In those cases where an officer overseas issues an A31(3)\ntravel document as a consequence of a permanent resident appeal to the\nImmigration Appeal Division (IAD), and a resultant IAD order that the\npermanent resident physically appear at the hearing, the counterfoil\nA175(2)\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 9\ncoding is “RA- 1.”\nInadmissibility for failing to comply with A27(2) or A28. A41(b)\nInadmissibility report based on non-compliance under A41(b). A44(1)\nPermanent Resident Card: The Immigration and Refugee Protection\nAct (IRPA) provides that a permanent resident shall be provided with a\ndocument indicating their status in Canada.\nA31(1)\nGeneral Presumptions - unless an officer determines otherwise -", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3.1 (Statutory provisions of IRPA) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Statutory provisions of IRPA", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A person in possession of permanent resident card is presumed to have\npermanent resident (PR) status.\nA person who is outside Canada and who does not present a permanent\nresident card is presumed not to have permanent resident (PR) status.\nA31(2)(a) and (b)\nLoss of PR Status: When permanent resident status is lost. A46(1)(a), (b), (c)\nand (d)\nRight to Appeal Removal Order: A permanent resident may appeal to\nthe Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) against a decision at an\nexamination or admissibility hearing to make a removal order against\nthem.\nA63(3)\nRight of Appeal Residency Obligation: A permanent resident may\nappeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) against a decision made\noutside of Canada on the residency obligation underA28.\nA63(4)\nRemoval order made by the Immigration Appeal Division: If the\nImmigration Appeal Division dismisses an appeal made under A63(4) and\nthe permanent resident is in Canada, it shall make a removal order.\nA69(3)\nImmigration Appeal Division (IAD) jurisdiction:\nThe Immigration Appeal Division, in any proceeding before it, (a) must,\nin the case of an appeal under A63(4), hold a hearing.\nA175(1)(a)\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 10\nPresence of permanent resident at an IAD Hearing: In the case of\nan appeal by a permanent resident under A63(4), the Immigration\nAppeal Division may, after considering submissions from the Minister and\nthe permanent resident and if satisfied that the presence of the\npermanent resident at the hearing is necessary, order the permanent\nresident to physically appear at the hearing, in which case an officer shall\nissue a travel document for that purpose.\nA175(2)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3.1 (Statutory provisions of IRPA) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "Regulatory provisions of IRPA", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.2 Regulatory provisions of IRPA\nDefinition of a common-law partner R1(1) and (2)\nDefinition of a dependent child R2\nDefinition of guardianship R2\nDefinition of a Canadian business R61(1)\nCanadian business does not include . . . - in the context of a\npermanent resident’s residency obligation under the Act (IRPA).\nR61(2)\nEmployment outside Canada, in the context of a permanent\nresident’s residency obligation [for the purposes of\nsubparagraphs A28(2)(a)(iii) and (iv)].\nR61(3)\nAccompanying (ordinarily residing with) a Canadian citizen or\npermanent resident spouse or common-law partner or parent\noverseas\nR61(4)\nObligation of an accompanied permanent resident to maintain\ntheir residency obligation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection\nAct(IRPA).\nR61(5)\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 11\nDefinition of a child [for the purposes of subparagraphs A28(2)(a)(ii)\nand (iv)].\nR61(6)\nCalculation residency obligation\nThe five-year period does not include any day after:\nA44(1) on the grounds that the\npermanent resident has failed to comply with the residency obligation;\nor\nhas failed to comply with the residency obligation,\nunless the permanent resident is subsequently determined to have\ncomplied.\nR62(1) and (2)\nPermanent Resident Card: The permanent resident card provided or\nissued by the Department, remains at all times the property of Her\nMajesty in right of Canada and must be returned to the Department on\nthe Department’s request.\nR53(2)\nPeriods of validity - Permanent Resident (PR) Cards: Permanent\nresident cards are generally valid for five years.\nExceptions: A permanent resident card is valid for one year from the\ndate of issue if the permanent resident at the time of issue:\nprocess as set out in paragraphA46(1)(b) (final", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3.2 (Regulatory provisions of IRPA) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "Regulatory provisions of IRPA", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "determination of a decision made outside Canada);\nfiling an appeal from the decision has not expired or, if an appeal is\nfiled, there has been no final determination of the appeal; or\nunder A44(2) (for an admissibility hearing) and the period for filing an\nappeal (to the IAD) from any decision of the Immigration Division has\nnot expired or, if an appeal is filed, there has been no final\ndetermination of the appeal.\nR54(1)\nR54(2)\nRenewal and Revocation of Permanent Resident Cards R59(2)\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 12\nn the revocation of the previously issued PR card;\nstolen or destroyed; or if the permanent resident becomes a Canadian\ncitizen, loses permanent resident status or is deceased.\nR60(a)\nOther Regulatory Provisions Transportation Regulations\nThe permanent resident card is included in a list of prescribed\ndocuments in R259(f) of the Transportation Regulations that oblige\ntransportation companies to request the permanent resident card before\nboarding passengers who claim to be permanent residents.\nRemoval Orders/Returning Resident Permits\nReturning Resident Permits:\nR328(2): Any period spent outside of Canada within the five years\npreceding the coming into force of this section [referring to R328 of\ntheImmigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)], by a permanent\nresident holding a returning resident permit is considered to be a period\nspent in Canada for the purpose of satisfying the residency obligation\nunder A28 if that period is included in the five-year period referred to in\nthat section.\nR328(3) Any period spent outside of Canada within the two years\nimmediately following the coming into force of this section [referring to\nR328 of theImmigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)], by a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3.2 (Regulatory provisions of IRPA) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "Regulatory provisions of IRPA", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "permanent resident holding a returning resident permit is considered to\nbe a period spent in Canada for the purpose of satisfying the residency\nobligation under A28 if that period is included in the five-year period\nreferred to in that section.\nR328(2) and (3)\nThese subsections of the Regulations came into force on 31 December\n2003. It refers to the necessity to have a travel document pursuant\ntoA31(3) and a permanent resident card.\nR259(a) and R259(f)\nR365(3)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3.2 (Regulatory provisions of IRPA) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3.3", + "marginal_note": "Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) Rules", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.3 Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) Rules\nImmigration Appeal Division Rules\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 13\nDefinitions Rule 1\nAppeals from Removal Orders Made at Examination Rule 7\nAppeal Record (for appeals under Rule 7) Rule 8\nAppeals of Decisions Made outside Canada on the Residency Obligation Rule 9\nAppeal Record (for appeals under Rule 9) Rule 10\nStay of Removal Rule 26\nReturn to Canada for a Hearing Rule 46", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3.3 (Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) Rules)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3.4", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.4 Forms\nThe forms required are shown in the following table.\nForm name Form\nnumber\nCertificate of Departure IMM 0056B\nImmigrant Visa and Record of Landing IMM 1000B\nConfiscated or Voluntarily Surrender CIC’s or CIIR’s (IMM 1000B) IMM 1342B\nQuestionnaire: Determination of Permanent Resident Status IMM 5511B\nDeclaration—Voluntary Relinquishment of Permanent Resident Status IMM 5538B\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 14\nDeclaration—Relinquishment of Permanent Resident Status When the\nResidency Obligation is Met\nIMM 5539B", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3.4 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Instruments and delegations\nPursuant to A6(1) and A6(2), the Minister has designated persons or classes of persons as\nofficers to carry out any purpose of any provision, legislative or regulatory, and has specified\nthe powers and duties of the officers so designated. These delegations and designations may\nbe found in IL 3.\nThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (C&I) is responsible for the administration of the\nAct and for assessments of the residency obligation. Officers of CIC and the CBSA are\ndesignated to carry out this assessment.\nThe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the\nadministration of IRPA as it relates to\na. the examination at ports of entry;\nb. the enforcement of the Act, including arrest, detention and removal;\nc. the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of the Act and inadmissibility on\ngrounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; and\nd. determinations under subsections A34(2), A35(2) and A37(2).\nThe Minister of PSEP is responsible for A44 reports and the authority to write and review\nreports is delegated to officers of CIC and the CBSA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5 Departmental policy\nPolicies related to assessments of compliance with the residency obligation [A28] are the\nresponsibility of CIC.\nIRPA establishes a residency obligation with respect to each five-year period after the\ngranting of permanent resident status.\nThe Act also specifies situations where time spent outside of Canada can be deemed to be\ntime spent in Canada for the purpose of retaining permanent resident status.\nThe provisions governing the residency obligation are based primarily on the requirement of\n“physical presence” in Canada or on prescribed linkages to Canada, which include\nemployment with a prescribed Canadian institution operating outside of Canada.\nThe Act also prescribes circumstances wherein permanent resident spouses, common-law\npartners and children can maintain their status while accompanying abroad a Canadian\ncitizen; or another permanent resident who complies with their own residency obligation and\nwho is employed, on a full-time basis, with a prescribed Canadian institution.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 15\nNo specific provisions exist to exempt students from the residency obligation provisions.\nUnder the Immigration Act (IA), it was practice to allow persons to voluntarily relinquish\npermanent resident status when they declared they had ceased to be a permanent resident in\naccordance with the criteria in S. 24 (they had remained outside of Canada with the intention\nof abandoning Canada as their place of permanent residence).\nUnlike the Immigration Act, the criteria in IRPA for loss of status require that an officer\nconduct a determination on the residency obligation under A28 before loss of status can\noccur. Outside of Canada, the loss of status occurs when the appeal period of 60 days", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 5 (Departmental policy) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "expires, in the case of a person who does not challenge a negative residency obligation\ndetermination (A46(1)(b)). At POEs or inland, loss of status occurs when the period of 30\ndays to file an appeal against the removal order expires and the order comes into force\n(A46(1)(c), A49(1)(c)).\nIn addition, the Department has decided to allow voluntary relinquishment of permanent\nresident status in limited circumstances. This may be permitted in situations where an\nindividual does not meet the residency obligation but is only seeking to enter Canada as a\ntemporary resident or where a person has to abandon permanent resident status in order to\naccept employment for a foreign government, including a diplomatic posting, or where such\nvoluntary relinquishment is necessary in order to qualify for status in another country. This\npermission is not to be used in cases where permanent residents are subject to a report\nunder A44(1) that may be or has been referred to the IRB for an admissibility hearing on\nmatters other than the residency obligation criteria [A28].\nOnce a determination is made that a person has lost permanent resident status due to\nprevious voluntary surrender of the Record of Landing (IMM 1000) (i.e. signing an IMM 1342B\nunder the previous Immigration Act), voluntary relinquishment under IRPA, or a\ndetermination under A28 and the appeal period has expired, or a waiver of appeal rights has\nbeen signed following a negative A28 determination, made abroad they are no longer\npermanent residents for all purposes under IRPA.\nWhen an officer believes a permanent resident has failed to comply with their A28 residency\nobligation, then that officer should report the permanent resident under the provisions of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 5 (Departmental policy) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "A44(1) and recommend issuance of a departure order. IMM 5511B: \"Questionnaire:\nDetermination of permanent resident status\" has been developed specifically to assist officers\nin making permanent resident residency obligation decisions keeping in mind that the\nquestionnaire alone is not sufficient to determine compliance with the residency obligation, as\na detailed interview including examining humanitarian and compasionate criteria A28(2)(c) is\nneeded. Furthermore, the officer cannot seize the person’s documents (such as the IMM\n1000, Immigrant Visa and Record of Landing and the IMM 5292B, for example), despite the\nwriting of a an A44(1) report and the issuance of a removal order, unless the officer believes\nthere are reasonable grounds to do so in accordance with section A140. The rationale behind\nthis is that the person has a right to appeal the removal order, and until final determination of\nstatus, they remain a permanent resident and are the lawful owner of said documents.\nIt is recognized that in some cases where the person is willing to provide information in order\nto assist the officer in determining compliance with the residency obligation, the officer and/or\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 16\nthe person may need time to gather information/documentation. Therefore, when an\nexamining officer at a Port of Entry (POE) , requires further information/documentation from a\npermanent resident (to enable the officer to make a decision on compliance or non-\ncompliance with the residency obligation), and where the person is willing to submit this\ninformation on a later date, the officer may ask the person to come back on another day for\nfurther evaluation. This is similar to an adjournment as in A23 but is not a formal", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 5 (Departmental policy) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-5-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "adjournment, since the person is not obligated to come back and A23 cannot apply to a\npermanent resident. An officer cannot impose conditions as stated in A23 and R43 on a\npermanent resident for whom a final determination of loss of status has not been rendered.\nSpecifically, pursuant to A28(2), a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation\nprovisions if, for at least 730 days with respect to every five-year period, the permanent\nresident is physically present in Canada, or:\n is outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law\npartner or, in the case of a child, their parent;\n is outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the public\nservice of Canada or of a province;\n is outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or common-\nlaw partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a full-time\nbasis by a Canadian business or in the public service of Canada or of a province;\n is referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance; or\n humanitarian and compassionate considerations, taking into account the best interests of\na child directly affected by the determination, justify the retention of the permanent\nresident status and overcome any breach of the residency obligation prior to\ndetermination.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 5 (Departmental policy) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-6-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Accompanying outside of Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Accompanying outside of Canada\nA28(2)(a)(ii) and A28(2)(a)(iv) provides that each day a permanent resident is outside of\nCanada, accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse, common-law partner or, in the case of a\nchild, parent with whom he or she ordinarily resides, is deemed a day of physical presence in\nCanada. Each day a permanent resident is outside Canada, accompanying a spouse, common-\nlaw partner or, in the case of a child, parent who is also a permanent resident and with whom\nhe or she ordinarily resides, is also deemed a day of physical presence in Canada provided the\nspouse, common-law partner or parent of the other permanent resident is employed on a full-\ntime basis by a Canadian business or in the public service of Canada or of a province.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 6.1 (Accompanying outside of Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-6-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Canadian business", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Canadian business\nThe definition applies to both large and small businesses, and includes:\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 17\n federally or provincially incorporated businesses which have an ongoing operation in\nCanada;\n other enterprises that have an ongoing operation in Canada, are capable of generating\nrevenue, are carried out in anticipation of profit and in which a majority of voting or\nownership interests is held by Canadian citizens, permanent residents or Canadian\nbusinesses;\n enterprises which have been created by the laws of Canada or a province.\nNote: It does not include businesses that have been created primarily for the purpose of\nallowing a permanent resident to satisfy his or her residency obligation while residing outside\nof Canada R61(2).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 6.2 (Canadian business)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-6-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Child", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.3 Child\nFor the purposes of A28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv), child is defined as a child of a Canadian citizen or\npermanent resident, including an adopted child, who is not and has never been a spouse or\ncommon-law partner and is less than 22 years of age.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 6.3 (Child)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-6-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 6.4", + "marginal_note": "Day", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.4 Day\nFor the purpose of calculating the number of days to comply with the residency obligation\nin A28(2)(a), a day includes a full day or any part of a day that a permanent resident is\nphysically present in Canada. Any part of a day spent in Canada, or otherwise in compliance\nwith A28(2)(a), is to be counted as one full day for the purpose of calculating the 730 days in\na five-year period.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 6.4 (Day)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-6-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Employment outside of Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.5 Employment outside of Canada\nThe regulations enable permanent residents to comply with the residency obligations while\nworking abroad, provided that:\n they are under contract to, or are full-time employees of a Canadian business or in the\npublic service, where the assignment is controlled from the head office of a Canadian\nbusiness or public institution in Canada;\n they are assigned on a full-time basis as a term of their employment or contract, to a\nposition outside Canada with that business, an affiliated enterprise or a client;\n they maintain a connection to a Canadian business;\n the are assigned on a temporary basis to the work assignment; and\n they will continue working for the employer, in Canada, after the assignment.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 18", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 6.5 (Employment outside of Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "The residency obligation under IRPA", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 The residency obligation under IRPA\nThe four principal ways that permanent residents can meet the residency obligation under\nIRPA are by:\n physical presence in Canada;\n accompanying abroad (that is, ordinarily residing with) a spouse or common-law partner\nor parent who is a Canadian citizen;\n being employed abroad, on a full-time basis, by a prescribed “Canadian business” or in\nthe public service of Canada or of a province; or\n accompanying abroad (that is, ordinarily residing with) a Canadian permanent resident\nspouse or common-law partner or parent, who is also outside of Canada and who is\nemployed, on a full- time basis, by a prescribed “Canadian business” or in the public\nservice of Canada or of a province.\nOfficers are advised to first assess the cumulative number of days physically present in\nCanada A28(2)(a)(i) in order to determine if the permanent resident has acquired 730 days\nphysical presence in the preceding 5-year period.\nIf the number of days physically present is still less than 730 days, officers may then count,\nand include, any other days that may qualify in any of the remaining three categories\nidentified above; for example, the permanent resident may have accompanied a Canadian\ncitizen spouse abroad.\nIf the combined total of days is still less than 730 days, the residency obligation may still be\nmet if there are humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the permanent\nresident, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the\ndetermination, that justify retention of permanent resident status.\nRefer to A28(2)(c) and section 7.7 below.\nNote: A28(2)(b) and A31(3) provide that the onus rests with the permanent resident to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.1 (The residency obligation under IRPA) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "The residency obligation under IRPA", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "provide information and evidence to satisfy an officer that the residency obligation has\nbeen/will be met.\nPut simply, this means that the permanent resident bears the full responsibility of\ndemonstrating - with supporting documentation as considered necessary by an officer - that\nthey were physically present in Canada for the required number of days or that they have\notherwise met (or will be able to meet) the residency obligation as prescribed in the Act.\nThe permanent resident also bears the onus of presenting documentation that is credible, in\nthe opinion of an officer, to support any assertion(s) made by the permanent resident, or that\nmay have been made on behalf of that permanent resident. There is no one document that\ncan categorically establish a permanent resident’s physical presence in Canada.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 19", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.1 (The residency obligation under IRPA) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Calculating days physically present in Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Calculating days physically present in Canada\nThe residency obligation contained within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is\nbased primarily on “physical presence” requirements or prescribed linkages - while outside\nCanada - to prescribed Canadian employers or to Canadian citizens; and/or to Canadian\npermanent residents who reside abroad and are employed, on a full-time basis, by a\nprescribed Canadian employer.\nThis is substantially different from earlier immigration legislation requirements as previously,\nretaining permanent resident status was largely dependent on a demonstration of a person’s\n“intent” not to abandon Canada as their place of permanent residence.\nThe most direct way a permanent resident can show that they have fulfilled their residency\nobligation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) is to demonstrate that\nthey were physically present in Canada for the specified minimum number of days (that is,\n730 days within the previous 5 year period immediately preceding examination) pursuant\nto A28(2)(a)(i).\nIf a permanent resident can establish having met this 730 day in a five-year period\nrequirement, then it is not necessary to examine or assess any other factor concerning the\nreasons for any absence from Canada during the five-year period under examination: the\npermanent resident will have complied with the residency obligation contained within the Act.\nIt is to be noted, R62(1), R62(2) – The five-year period does not include any day after:\n a report is prepared under A44(1) on the grounds that the permanent resident has failed\nto comply with the residency obligation; or\n a decision is made outside of Canada that the permanent resident has failed to comply\nwith the residency obligation,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.2 (Calculating days physically present in Canada) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Calculating days physically present in Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "unless the permanent resident is subsequently determined to have complied.\nIn cases involving permanent residents who may hold a “Returning Resident Permit” under\nprevious immigration legislation, or who may hold an unexpired “Returning Resident Permit,”\ntransitional provisions contained within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provide\nthat the time period covered by such a permit is applicable to the five-year period. Put\nsimply, this means that the time period covered by such a permit shall be counted as time\nspent in Canada for the purposes of satisfying the residency obligation contained within\nthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act R328(2) and R328(3).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.2 (Calculating days physically present in Canada) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Persons who have had permanent resident status less than five", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3 Persons who have had permanent resident status less than five\nyears\nA28(2)(b)(i) provides that if a person has been a permanent resident for less than five years,\nthey must demonstrate, at examination, that they will be able to meet the residency\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 20\nobligation in respect of the five-year period immediately after they became a permanent\nresident.\nIn these situations, officers should adhere to the following procedure:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.3 (Persons who have had permanent resident status less than five)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Calculate the number of days of physical presence in Canada commencing from the date", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Calculate the number of days of physical presence in Canada commencing from the date\nthat the person became a permanent resident.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 1 (Calculate the number of days of physical presence in Canada commencing from the date)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "If 730 days remain in the five-year period following the date that the person became a", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. If 730 days remain in the five-year period following the date that the person became a\npermanent resident, then that person cannot be found to have failed to comply with the\nresidency obligation contained within the Act.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 2 (If 730 days remain in the five-year period following the date that the person became a)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "If there is less than 730 days remaining in the five-year period, count the number of", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. If there is less than 730 days remaining in the five-year period, count the number of\ndays remaining and add them to the number of days calculated in step #1; that is, add\nto the “number of days physical presence in Canada” as calculated in step #1.\nIf this resultant number equals or exceeds 730 days, the permanent resident complies with\nthe residency obligation in IRPA. Nevertheless, in these cases, officers should inform the\nperson of the possibility of losing their permanent residency in the event that the person does\nnot meet the 730-day threshold at some future time.\nWhen officers inform persons on such matters, an entry to this effect should be made in the\nField Operational Support System (FOSS) or the Computer-Assisted Immigration Processing\nSystem (CAIPS), as appropriate, based on whether the officer is overseas or in Canada.\nNote: A conclusion that a permanent resident has not fulfilled their residency obligation can\nbe made only after an assessment of any H&C factors that have been submitted for\nconsideration. [A28(2)(c)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3 (If there is less than 730 days remaining in the five-year period, count the number of)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Employment outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4 Employment outside Canada\nIn addition to being physically present in Canada, a permanent resident may satisfy the\nresidency obligation if they are (or were) employed, on a full-time basis, outside of Canada by\na prescribed “Canadian business” or in the public service of Canada or of a province\nA28(2)(a)(iii).\nIn certain situations the total of 730 days can be accumulated by accompanying a Canadian\npermanent resident abroad who is (or was) employed on a full-time basis outside of Canada\nby a prescribed “Canadian business” or in the public service of Canada or of a province\nA28(2)(a)(iv).\nRegulation R61(1) defines a “Canadian business” as:\na) a corporation that is incorporated under the laws of Canada or of a province and that has\nan ongoing operation in Canada;\nb) an enterprise, other than a corporation described in paragraph (a), that has an ongoing\noperation in Canada and\n(i) that is capable of generating revenue and is carried out in anticipation of profit,\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 21\nand\n(ii) in which a majority of voting or ownership interests is held by Canadian citizens,\npermanent residents, or Canadian businesses as defined in this subsection; or\nc) an organization or enterprise created by the laws of Canada or a province.\nFor greater certainty, a Canadian business does not include a business that serves primarily\nto allow a permanent resident to meet their residency obligation while residing outside\nCanada A61(2).\nWhen determining if an employer meets the definition of a “Canadian business,” or whether\nthe permanent resident is in the public service of Canada or of a province, officers are\nencouraged to ask permanent residents to provide one or more of the documents shown", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.4 (Employment outside Canada) (part 1 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Employment outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "below, as considered necessary by the officer. In many cases, a letter of declaration from a\nCanadian business employer (containing information described as follows) could serve to\nprovide sufficient evidence to enable an officer to make a determination on compliance with\nA28(2)(a)(iii) requirements. However, where an employers’ letter of declaration does not, in\nthe officer’s opinion, satisfactorily address or include the information necessary to make a\ndetermination, additional supporting documentation will be required.\nR61(1)(a): Any corporation that has been federally or provincially\nincorporated would satisfy the definition providing that the business has\nan ongoing operation in Canada.\nSuggested Information and Documentary Evidence:\nA letter of declaration signed by an authorized officer of the “Canadian business” employer/\ncontractor that states the position and title of the signing officer and indicates the following:\n that the said business is incorporated under the laws of Canada or a particular province,\nas applicable;\n that the business has an ongoing operation in Canada; and the name and style under\nwhich the business is operating in Canada, for example, doing business as: [business\nname];\n the nature of the business, length of time in operation in Canada and number of\nemployees in Canada;\n details of the permanent resident’s assignment or contract abroad; such as,\no duration of the assignment; confirmation that the permanent resident is a full-\ntime employee of the “Canadian business” working abroad on a full-time basis as\na term of their employment or that the person is on contract working on a full-\ntime basis abroad as a term of their contract;\no a description or copy of the position profile regarding the assignment or contract\nabroad;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.4 (Employment outside Canada) (part 2 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Employment outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " details about the nature of the relationship between the Canadian business and the\nbusiness abroad, indicating if the employment is with the Canadian business’s office\nabroad, an affiliated enterprise or a client; and\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 22\n confirmation that the “Canadian business” has not been created primarily for the purpose\nof allowing a permanent resident to satisfy their residency obligation while residing\noutside Canada.\nAdditional supporting documentary evidence may include, as applicable:\n Articles of Incorporation;\n Business license(s);\n Corporate annual report(s);\n Corporate Canadian Income Tax Notice of Assessment;\n Financial statement(s);\n A copy of the Employee Assignment Agreement or Contract;\n A copy of any agreement or arrangement between the “Canadian business” and the\nbusiness or client abroad concerning the permanent resident’s assignment to that client\nor business.\nR61(1)(b): An enterprise may be a legal entity other than a corporation.\nExamples include a proprietorship, partnership, joint-partnership, etcetera. Many small\nbusinesses and professional businesses, such as law and engineering firms and some banks,\nmay be included in this category. Some banks and other financial institutions could also be\ndescribed in R61(1)(a). In order to qualify under this definition, these businesses must also\nhave an ongoing operation in Canada that is capable of generating revenue and is carried out\nin anticipation of profit. Canadian citizens, permanent residents or Canadian businesses must\nhold the majority of voting or ownership interests in the business.\nSuggested information and documentary evidence:\nA letter of declaration signed by an authorized officer of the “Canadian business” employer/", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.4 (Employment outside Canada) (part 3 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Employment outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "contractor that states the position and/or title of the signing officer and indicates the\nfollowing:\n whether the said business is a proprietorship, partnership, joint partnership, etc., as\napplicable;\n the name, citizenship and residency status of the proprietor, or, in the case partnerships,\neach partner;\n a breakdown of voting or ownership interests of each partner in the business;\n that the business has an ongoing operation in Canada; and the name and style under\nwhich the business is operating in Canada, for example, doing business as: [business\nname];\n the nature of the business, length of time in operation in Canada and number of\nemployees in Canada;\n details of the permanent resident’s assignment or contract abroad such as the duration\nof the assignment; confirmation that the permanent resident is a full-time employee of\nthe “Canadian business” working abroad on a full-time basis as a term of their\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 23\nemployment or that the person is on contract working on a full-time basis abroad as a\nterm of their contract; a description or copy of the position profile regarding the\nassignment or contract abroad;\n details about the nature of the relationship between the Canadian business and the\nbusiness abroad indicating if the employment is with the Canadian business’s office\nabroad, an affiliated enterprise or a client; and\n confirmation that the “Canadian business” has not been created primarily for the purpose\nof allowing a permanent resident to satisfy their residency obligation while residing\noutside of Canada.\nAdditional supporting documentary evidence may include, as applicable:\n Partnership agreement(s);\n Business license(s);\n Canadian Income Tax Notice of Assessment for the business;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.4 (Employment outside Canada) (part 4 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-4-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Employment outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Financial statement(s);\n A copy of the Employee Assignment Agreement or Contract;\n A copy of any agreement or arrangement between the “Canadian business” and the\nbusiness or client abroad concerning the permanent resident’s assignment to that\nbusiness or client.\nR61(1)(c): An organization or enterprise that is created by the laws of\nCanada or a province.\nExamples may include crown corporations, municipal bodies, certain agencies, universities,\nhospitals, etcetera. These organizations do not necessarily operate in anticipation of profit or\nare not necessarily capable of generating revenue.\nSuggested information and documentary evidence:\nA letter of declaration signed by an authorized officer of the “Canadian business” employer/\ncontractor that states the position and title of the signing officer and indicates the following:\n that the said business has been created by the laws of Canada or a particular province;\n the name and style under which the business is operating in Canada, for example, doing\nbusiness as: [business name];\n the nature of the business, length of time in operation in Canada and number of\nemployees in Canada;\n details of the permanent resident’s assignment or contract abroad such as duration of\nthe assignment; confirmation that the permanent resident is a full-time employee of the\n“Canadian business” working abroad on a full-time basis as a term of their employment\nor that the person is on contract working on a full-time basis abroad as a term of their\ncontract; a description or copy of the position profile regarding the assignment or\ncontract abroad;\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 24\n details about the nature of the relationship between the Canadian business and the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.4 (Employment outside Canada) (part 5 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-4-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Employment outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "business abroad indicating if the employment is with the Canadian business’s office\nabroad, an affiliated enterprise or a client; and\n confirmation that the “Canadian business” has not been created primarily for the purpose\nof allowing a permanent resident to satisfy their residency obligation while residing\noutside of Canada.\nAdditional supporting documentary evidence may include, as applicable:\n Articles of Association;\n Articles of Incorporation;\n Business license(s);\n Annual report(s);\n Financial statement(s);\n A copy of the Employee Assignment Agreement or Contract;\n A copy of any agreement or arrangement between the “Canadian business” and the\nbusiness or client abroad concerning the permanent resident’s assignment to that client\nor business.\nNote: The aforementioned listings of Canadian employer documentation are not meant to be\nall encompassing nor exhaustive. Consequently, officers are encouraged to ask permanent\nresidents to provide such documentation as an officer deems necessary in order to make a\ndetermination that a permanent resident is (or was) employed, on a full-time basis, by a\nprescribed “Canadian business” or in the public service of Canada or of a province.\nR61(3): Determining if permanent residents are employed on a full-time basis by\na prescribed Canadian business\nWhen determining if permanent residents are “employed on a full-time basis” by a\nprescribed “Canadian business,” officers are encouraged to ask permanent residents to\nprovide such information, documentation and/or evidence - as is considered necessary by the\nofficer - to satisfy the officer that the permanent resident’s employment abroad complies\nwith:\n(a) the R61(3) regulatory provisions pertaining to qualifying criteria for employment abroad;\nand", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.4 (Employment outside Canada) (part 6 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-4-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Employment outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(b) the R61(1) definition of a “Canadian business”.\nSuggested information and documentary evidence:\n A letter of declaration and, as considered necessary by the officer, supporting\ndocumentation from the Canadian government body or “Canadian business”\nemployer/contractor – as the case may be - indicating compliance with the\ndefinitions/provisions of regulations R61(1) and R61(3).\n See also preceding manual guidelines pertaining to examining information and\ndocumentary evidence under sub-headings R61(1)(a), (b) and (c).\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 25\nAdditional supporting documentary evidence may include:\n pay statement(s);\n Canadian Income Tax Notice of Assessment;\n T4 slips;\n proof that the permanent resident is (or was) working abroad on a full-time basis;\n details and particulars concerning the assignment, secondment, contract or whatever\nother name might be given to that document, if such document exists, that requires (or\nrequired) the permanent resident to work abroad (in those cases where a copy of the\ndocument is not specific in itself);\n the duration of the above referred to assignment, secondment or contract (as\nappropriate).\nDays worked abroad for a prescribed Canadian employer are to be added to the number of\ndays of physical presence in Canada in order to determine if the combined number of days\nequals or exceeds the 730-day threshold.\nNote: A28(2)(b) and A31(3) provide that the onus rests with the permanent resident to\nprovide information and evidence to satisfy an officer that the residency obligation has been\nmet.\nNote: This includes demonstrating that the permanent resident’s employment abroad is (or\nwas) in compliance with regulatory description R61(3) concerning qualifying criteria for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.4 (Employment outside Canada) (part 7 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-4-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Employment outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "employment abroad; and the R61(1) definition of a “Canadian business”.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.4 (Employment outside Canada) (part 8 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5 Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada\nR61(4) provides that each day a permanent resident is outside Canada accompanying (that\nis, ordinarily residing with) a Canadian citizen constitutes a day of physical presence in\nCanada, provided that the Canadian citizen they are accompanying is a spouse or common-\nlaw partner or parent.\nIn the case of a permanent resident outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen, it is\nnot necessary to determine who is accompanying whom, nor is it necessary to determine for\nwhat purpose. In other words, under A28(2)(a)(ii) and R61(4), as long as a permanent\nresident is accompanying a Canadian citizen, the intent and purpose of their absences are not\nrelevant as the residency obligation is met.\nFor the purposes of A28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv), R61(6) defines a “child” as being a child of a\nparent referred to in those subparagraphs, who has not and has never been a spouse or\ncommon- law partner and is less than 22 years of age.\nNote: The provisions respecting the age of a “child” apply equally to both permanent resident\nchildren of Canadian citizens and permanent resident children of permanent residents.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 26", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.5 (Accompanying a Canadian citizen outside Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Accompanying a permanent resident outside Canada", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6 Accompanying a permanent resident outside Canada\nIn accordance with R61(5), and in connection with A28(2)(a)(iv), a permanent resident\ncomplies with the residency obligation so long as the permanent resident they are\naccompanying is their spouse or common-law partner or parent and that spouse or common-\nlaw partner or parent is in compliance with their residency obligation.\nPut another way, an accompanying permanent resident may only count days of physical\npresence in Canada – while accompanying another permanent resident – if the permanent\nresident they are accompanying meets the prescribed conditions as specified in A28(2)(a)(iv);\nand that permanent resident is in compliance with their own residency obligation.\nR1(1) defines “common-law partner” to mean, in relation to a person, an individual who is\ncohabiting with the person in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at\nleast one year. R1(2) provides “Interpretation – common-law partner.”\nSpouse is not defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.\nSPOUSE, as defined by the Merriam-Webster’s on-line Collegiate Dictionary, means a married\nperson: to be precise, [HUSBAND], [WIFE].\nFor the purposes of A28(2)(a)(ii) and (iv), R61(6) defines a “child” as being a child of a\nparent referred to in those subparagraphs, who has not and has never been a spouse or\ncommon- law partner and is less than 22 years of age.\nNote: The provisions respecting the age of a “child” apply equally to both permanent resident\nchildren of Canadian citizens and permanent resident children of permanent residents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.6 (Accompanying a permanent resident outside Canada)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate determinations", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7 Humanitarian and compassionate determinations\nA28 provisions require the consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors before\nmaking a determination that may lead to a loss of permanent resident status.\nSpecifically, A28(2)(c) provides that when an officer determines that humanitarian and\ncompassionate considerations relating to a permanent resident justify the retention of\npermanent resident status, then such a determination will overcome any breach of the\nresidency obligation made before the determination.\nAccordingly, each decision-maker involved in a residency obligation determination case\nshould, as part of the decision-making process, assess any humanitarian and compassionate\nfactors brought to their attention to determine whether such factors justify retention of\npermanent resident status, notwithstanding a breach of A28.\nNote: The best interests of a child directly affected by the determination must also be\nconsidered when assessing humanitarian and compassionate factors; and as a result, may\njustify the retention of permanent resident status.\nOfficers should consider whether sufficient humanitarian and compassionate factors have\nbeen brought to an officer’s attention to justify the retention of permanent resident status\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 27\nbefore making a decision that there has been a failure to comply with the residency\nobligation. Officers should remember that the onus is on the permanent resident to satisfy an\nofficer that there are grounds to justify retention of status. Officers are not required to satisfy\nthe permanent resident that such grounds do not exist. Officers should consider the\nobjectives of the Act and that paragraph A28(2)(c) exists to allow flexibility for approving", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.7 (Humanitarian and compassionate determinations) (part 1 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate determinations", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "deserving cases not anticipated in the legislation.\nFor more information within this section, see:\n Humanitarian and compassion (H&C) grounds;\n Unusual and undeserved hardship;\n Disproportionate hardship;\n Factors for consideration;\n Effects of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Baker v. M.C.I.\nHumanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds\nA28(2)(c) provides the flexibility for allowing the retention of permanent resident status, in\ndeserving cases, under circumstances that were not anticipated in the legislation.\nA positive decision on retaining permanent resident status, based on humanitarian and\ncompassionate grounds, is an exceptional response to a particular set of circumstances.\nAn examination of humanitarian and compassionate factors includes an evaluation of reasons\ngiven and supporting evidence of events and circumstances that have occurred in the five-\nyear period immediately preceding an examination.\nWhile “intent” is no longer the determinative factor that it was under the previous act, the\napplicant’s intent can be taken into consideration as an element of humanitarian and\ncompassionate assessment.\nThe permanent resident bears the onus of satisfying the decision-maker that there are\ncompelling H&C factors in their individual circumstances that justify retention of permanent\nresident status.\nThe permanent resident also bears the onus of explaining why they were not able to comply\nwith the residency obligation and the extent of any hardship that the loss of permanent\nresident status may cause to the individual or family members who would be directly affected\nby the decision. The resulting hardship from loss of status may be unusual and undeserved,\nor disproportionate.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.7 (Humanitarian and compassionate determinations) (part 2 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-7-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate determinations", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The following definitions are not meant as “absolute rules;” rather, they are an attempt to\nprovide guidance to decision-makers when they exercise their discretion in determining\nwhether sufficient H&C considerations exist to justify the retention of permanent resident\nstatus.\nUnusual and undeserved hardship\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 28\nThe hardship (of losing permanent resident status) that the permanent resident would face\nshould be, in most cases, unusual. In other words, a hardship not anticipated by the Act; and\nthis hardship should be, in most cases, the result of circumstances beyond the permanent\nresident’s control.\nDisproportionate hardship\nHumanitarian and compassionate grounds may exist in cases that would not meet the\n“unusual and undeserved” criteria but would be met where the hardship would have a\ndisproportionate impact on the permanent resident due to personal circumstances.\nMinors who left in order to accompany parents\nUnder the former Immigration Act, if a child under 18 years of age left Canada with their\nparents and, after becoming an adult, sought to re-enter Canada as a permanent resident,\njurisprudence dictated that the person could not have formed the intent to abandon Canada\nas a child and therefore retained permanent resident status.\nIn IRPA, intent to abandon is no longer the test for retaining permanent resident status.\nTherefore, the inability to form “intent” no longer results in automatic retention of permanent\nresident status. The new test requires that humanitarian and compassionate considerations\nbe taken into account. Although the reasons for leaving and remaining outside Canada may\nbe considerations, the fact that a minor did not have the intention to abandon Canada or left", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.7 (Humanitarian and compassionate determinations) (part 3 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-7-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate determinations", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "as a dependent is not determinative.\nFactors for consideration\nThe range of factors to be considered can not be restricted by these guidelines. Officers are\nobliged to consider all the information presented by a permanent resident.\nHumanitarian and compassionate factors must be reviewed on a case by case basis.\nPermanent residents are free to make submissions on any aspect of their personal\ncircumstances that they feel would warrant retention of their permanent resident status.\nThe following are examples of the kinds of factors or combinations of factors that an officer\nmight consider in determining whether humanitarian and compassionate grounds justify the\nretention of permanent resident status. Officers are to examine circumstances and events\nthat occurred in the last five-year period which led to the permanent resident’s breach of the\nresidency obligation. As required byA28(2)(c), officers are also to take into account the best\ninterests of a child directly affected by the determination and the degree of hardship that may\nbe caused because of a loss of permanent resident status.\nExamples of factors to weigh and consider:\n Extent of non-compliance\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 29\no How many “days of physical presence in Canada” within the five-year period\nunder examination, has the permanent resident spent in Canada?\no Was the permanent resident outside of Canada for more than three years in the\nlast five-year period because of a medical condition or the medical condition of a\nclose family member?\no Could alternative arrangements for the care of the family member have been\nmade or was it the permanent resident’s choice to remain outside Canada?\no Circumstances beyond the permanent resident’s control: Are the circumstances", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.7 (Humanitarian and compassionate determinations) (part 4 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-7-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate determinations", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "that led to the permanent resident remaining outside of Canada compelling and\nbeyond their control?\no Was the permanent resident prevented from returning to Canada; and if so, by\nwhom and by what event?\no Is the permanent resident now returning to Canada at the earliest possible\nopportunity?\no Did the permanent resident leave Canada as a child accompanying a parent?\no Is the permanent resident who left as a dependent child or family member\nreturning at the earliest opportunity?\no Is the permanent resident dependent on the parent they are accompanying\nbecause of a mental or physical disability?\n Establishment in and outside Canada:\no Is the permanent resident a citizen or permanent resident of a country other than\nCanada?\no Has the permanent resident taken steps to establish any permanence in a\ncountry other than Canada; or the country they resided in immediately before\nbecoming a permanent resident of Canada (that is, any third country status)?\no To what degree has the permanent resident established in Canada?\no What linkages and ties has the permanent resident maintained in Canada?\n Presence and degree of consequential hardship:\no A loss of permanent resident status will have the consequence of either having to\nvoluntarily leave or be removed from Canada. The removal of a status-less\nperson may have an impact on family members who do have the legal right to\nremain in Canada (for example, Canadian citizens and/or permanent residents).\nOfficers should consider the person’s degree of hardship in relation to personal\ncircumstances (that is, impact on family members, especially children).\nEffects of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Baker v. M.C.I.:\nAlthough the “Baker case” did not specifically concern an appeal based on an A28 residency", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.7 (Humanitarian and compassionate determinations) (part 5 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-7-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate determinations", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "obligation determination, it does pertain to administative law principles and how humanitarian\nand compassionate factors are to be applied and given consideration.\nOfficers involved in assessing humanitarian and compassionate factors are therefore to\nremain cognizant of the issues that were raised in the “Baker case” and the resultant\n“Summary of issues and impact on Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)” as outlined\nin Appendix A, Supreme Court of Canada decision in BAKER v. M.C.I.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 30\nSee also Appendix B, “Strengthening decisions/ Guidelines on taking notes;” and the manual\nsection entitled “Principles of administrative law” contained within IP 5, Immigrant\napplications in Canada made on humanitarian or compassionate grounds.\nOnus rests with the permanent resident\nAs indicated throughout this manual chapter, the onus rests with the permanent resident to\nprovide the necessary information and evidence to satisfy an officer that they are in\ncompliance with the legislation. An officer, when deciding whether a permanent resident\ncomplies with A28(2)(a)(iv), may address, inter alia, the following factors:\n whether the permanent resident is a bona fide spouse or common-law partner or child of\nthe person they are accompanying abroad;\n whether the permanent resident normally resides with the person they are accompanying\nabroad;\n whether the person the permanent resident is accompanying is a Canadian citizen or a\npermanent resident of Canada; and\n if the person concerned is accompanying a permanent resident, whether that permanent\nresident is in compliance with their own residency obligation.\nDocumentation and information presented by a permanent resident that may be considered", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.7 (Humanitarian and compassionate determinations) (part 6 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-7-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate determinations", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "by an officer may include, inter alia: a marriage license; a child’s birth certificate or baptismal\ndocument; adoption or guardianship documents; school and/or employment records; passport\nand/or other travel documents or documentation; employment letters; such other\ndocumentation from a permanent resident being accompanied – as considered necessary by\nan officer - to confirm that the permanent resident being accompanied is in compliance with\ntheir own residency obligation.\nNote: The above list is not meant to be all encompassing nor exhaustive. Officers may ask\npermanent residents to provide such documentation, as an officer deems necessary in the\ncircumstances, to allow for a determination to be made with respect to the residency\nobligation provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.\nThe effect of a recently made favourable humanitarian and\ncompassionate decision\nOfficers will sometimes make residency determinations for permanent residents who were the\nsubject of favourable decisions under A28(2)(c) for humanitarian and compassionate reasons\nin the recent past, either by an officer or the Immigration Appeal Division of the IRB. In this\nsituation, officers are required to exercise their statutory authority and render independent\ndecisions. However, officers should be mindful that the intent of the legislation was to enable\npersons to retain permanent resident status where it is determined that, having regard to all\ncircumstances, retention of status is warranted. Therefore, unless circumstances have\nchanged significantly or new information is available, it would not be consistent with the\nintent of the legislation for these clients to receive a negative determination.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 31", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.7 (Humanitarian and compassionate determinations) (part 7 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.8", + "marginal_note": "Examining permanent residents at a POE", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.8 Examining permanent residents at a POE\nWhen a permanent resident appears at a POE for examination, the officer must confirm that\nthe person is a permanent resident. Officers must remain cognizant of the fact that the Act\ngives permanent residents of Canada the right to enter Canada at a port of entry once it is\nestablished that a person is a permanent resident, regardless of non-compliance with the\nresidency obligation in A28 or the presence of other grounds of inadmissibility.\nPort of entry (POE) officers can refuse entry to a permanent resident only when the person\nhas already lost the status in accordance with the provisions of A46 (such as when a final\ndetermination has been made that they have failed to comply with the residency obligations\nor when a removal order comes into force). In other words, once a permanent resident’s\nstatus is established, the person may enter Canada by right and the immigration examination\nunder IRPA concludes.\nIf an officer has concerns that a permanent resident has not complied with the residency\nobligation ofA28, the officer should advise the permanent resident when the examination is\nconcluded that they are authorized to enter Canada; however the permanent resident may\nwish to answer additional questions so the officer may determine whether their concerns are\nwell founded or not.\nIn cases where:\n permanent resident status is established;\n the permanent resident refuses to provide any further information and enters Canada;\nand\n the officer believes, on a balance of probabilities that the person is in non-compliance\nwith the residency obligation,\nofficers may report the person, pursuant to A44(1). if there is sufficient evidence to support\nan inadmissibility allegation. In the absence of sufficient evidence to support the writing of an\ninadmissibility report, officers may enter any available information into FOSS (date of entry,\nlast country of embarkation, current address in Canada etc.).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.8 (Examining permanent residents at a POE)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.9", + "marginal_note": "Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under the", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.9 Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under the\nformer Immigration Act, 1976\nWhere a person signed an IMM 1342B under the former IA, the person may be treated as a\nforeign national, if:\n they formally signed a document [usually an IMM 1342B - Confiscated or Voluntarily\nSurrendered (IMM 1000B) form] voluntarily declaring abandonment of Canada as his/her\nplace of permanent residence(this is normally indicated by FOSS NCB code “10” : vol\nrelinq of status);\n they are now seeking to enter or remain in Canada as a temporary resident; and\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 32\n they acknowledge that in signing the IMM 1342B, they were relinquishing permanent\nresident status. This should be recorded in the officer’s notes and retained on the file.\nIf all of the above conditions are met, the officer may treat the person as a foreign national.\nWhere a person maintains they signed an IMM 1342B and there is no record in FOSS or no\npaper documentation to support their claim, an officer should conduct a determination on the\nresidency obligation under A28 or follow the procedures for voluntary relinquishment below if\napplicable.\nAll other persons who were landed under the former IA and who did not lose their status\npursuant to A24(1)(b) of the former IA as a result of a removal order should be treated as\npermanent residents under IRPA, subject to the residency obligation stated in A28.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.9 (Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-10-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.10 Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under\nIRPA\nThe following section provides guidance on the procedures to follow in the limited\ncircumstances when a permanent resident may be allowed to relinquish status voluntarily.\nPerson applying to enter or remain in Canada as a temporary resident\nand who does not meet the residency obligation\nAs mentioned above, the officer shall first determine if the person is a permanent resident or\nnot. In the event that the person does not meet the residency obligations (A28) but still\nwishes to enter as a foreign national, and the person clearly states the intention of\nrelinquishing permanent resident status, the officer may proceed with the writing of the\nreport under A44(1), using the guidelines below.\nA44(1) report and voluntary relinquishment\nWhere a person does not meet the residency obligation, an A44(1) report should be\nprepared A41(b) for A28. Once a report is prepared, the provisions of R62(1)(a) take effect so\nthat any time spent in Canada subsequent to the report will not count as days towards the\nresidency obligation under paragraph A28(2) in the event the person rescinds their\ndeclaration within 30 days.\nProvided the person has made it clear from the beginning and throughout the examination\nthat they are only interested in temporary resident status, and the person truly and\nvoluntarily wishes to relinquish status, the officer may allow the person to complete\nform IMM 5538B – Declaration: Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status. A\ncopy of the IMM 5538B should be sent to the Query Response Centre (QRC) to be stored on\nmicrofiche. This procedure is not to be used in any situation where the person indicates at", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.10 (Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under) (part 1 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-10-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "any time a desire to be considered a permanent resident, even if they subsequently maintain\nthey no longer wish to be a permanent resident.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 33\nThe officer must first determine if the person has fulfilled the residency obligation (A28). Once\nthe officer has established that the person does not meet the residency obligation, the officer\nallows the person the opportunity to make submissions on humanitarian and compassionate\nconsiderations, which may lead the officer to determine that the person remains a permanent\nresident despite non-compliance with the residency obligation. If the person declines to\nproduce any evidence of compliance, if the person does not wish to make submissions on\nhumanitarian and compassionate grounds at the time of the examination, or if the person’s\nsubmissions are not sufficient to overcome the officer’s decision that the person has not\nfulfilled the residency obligation, then the officer may allow the person to sign a voluntary\nrelinquishment.\nThe officer must personally provide counselling to the person on the significance of the\ndeclaration and should ensure that the person fully comprehends the content of the\ndeclaration. The officer should further counsel the person to ensure that they understand that\nif they withdraw the declaration within 30 days, a departure order may be issued and they\nwould have a right to appeal that order.\nDuring counselling, the officer must provide, in writing, the full CIC address where the person\nis to send the notice to withdraw relinquishment of permanent resident status. The officer\nmust clearly note on file that the person did not wish to produce or produced insufficient", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.10 (Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under) (part 2 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-10-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "evidence or submissions to allow the officer to conclude that the person satisfies A28, despite\nnon-compliance with residency obligations. Details of the evaluation of humanitarian and\ncompassionate grounds can be found in section 7.7 above.\nOnce the A44(1) report and the IMM 5538B are completed, they must be given to the\nMinister’s delegate for review. The Minister’s delegate may either dispose of the A44(1) report\nat that time by coding the disposition “14” (no further action) or, alternatively, the Minister’s\ndelegate may hold the report in abeyance for final disposition for a period of 37 days (30 days\nduring which the person may withdraw the IMM 5538B declaration, plus 7 days for delivery).\nIf the 37 days pass without a withdrawal, the report may then be disposed of with code “14”\n(no further action).\nIn either case, the Minister’s delegate must keep in mind that if the person were to withdraw\ntheir declaration relinquishing status, a removal order should be issued. Therefore, the\nMinister’s delegate’s notes on file should clearly demonstrate that the person was duly\ninformed that a removal order could be issued against them in the event of a determination of\npermanent residency status due to withdrawal of the declaration of relinquishment.\nEssentially, the Minister’s delegate should record in their notes that it is their decision that,\nbased on the information available at the time of the review of the A44(1) report, such an\norder is to be issued if the person should withdraw their declaration within the 30 days during\nwhich this is allowed.\nAn NCB with code “10” for relinquishment of status is to be entered at the time of entering\nthe A44(1) report disposition.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 34", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.10 (Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under) (part 3 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-10-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Withdrawal of IMM 5538B – Declaration—Voluntary relinquishment of\npermanent resident status\nIf the person subsequently withdraws the voluntary relinquishment within the 30-day period,\nthey have already been given the opportunity to make humanitarian and compassionate\nsubmissions. Therefore, any additional evidence relating to the residency obligation and\nhumanitarian and compassionate considerations A28(2)(c); Section 7.7 above] must be\nconsidered by the Minister’s delegate before it is determined that the report remains well\nfounded and before proceeding to issue a departure order. File notes should reflect that the\nconsiderations of A28(2) were assessed before the final decision. Consequently, the Minister’s\ndelegate is to review the file as if the person had refused to sign a voluntary relinquishment\nat the original determination in which the officer had determined a non-compliance to the\nresidency obligation.\nIf no additional information is received with the notice of withdrawal of the declaration, then\nthe Minister’s delegate should refer to the officer’s original notes and decision of non-\ncompliance. Consequently, the A44(1) report should be reviewed and the Minister’s delegate\nenters in FOSS the disposition of a removal order. The Minister’s delegate shall issue said\nremoval order and send a copy to the person. The person must be advised that it is possible\nto appeal the removal order. If, at the initial examination which led to the relinquishment, an\nA44(1) report was prepared by the examining officer but the MD disposition was “no further\naction”, the Minister’s delegate should amend this report and change the MD disposition to\nreflect the appropriate removal order.\nAs long as the officer’s examination and notes are thorough and complete, there is no need to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.10 (Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under) (part 4 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-10-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "send a further invitation to the person for submissions for the consideration humanitarian and\ncompassionate grounds since the person has already been given a full opportunity to make\nsuch submissions to the officer prior to being allowed to sign the declaration of voluntary\nrelinquishment.\nIf the client withdraws the declaration at a CIC other than the initial POE where the person\nsigned the declaration, the CIC that received the withdrawal notice shall ensure that they\nhave the person’s complete address, and that they send a copy of the withdrawal and any\nsubmissions regarding residency obligations and humanitarian and compassionate\nconsiderations to the Minister’s delegate who reviewed the report at the intial POE. The\nMinister’s delegate will issue a decision and inform the client.\nIn the event that the person has left Canada and sends the notice to withdraw the voluntary\nrelinquishment to a Canadian visa office abroad, the officer at the visa office shall clearly note\nthis in FOSS by entering and NCB “code 01: watch for” and shall put in all relevant notes and\nobservations stating that the person has given notice of withdrawal of voluntarily\nrelinquishment. Furthermore, the visa office shall advise the Minister’s delegate (who received\nthe initial report and entered the disposition of no further action) of the notice of withdrawal\nby the person at a visa office abroad. These procedures will allow the next POE officer in front\nof whom this person arrives to understand the circumstances that led to the writing of a\nreport under A44(1) for non-compliance of the residency obligations, but for which no\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 35\nremoval order was issued, since such an order cannot be issued while the permanent resident", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.10 (Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under) (part 5 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-10-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "is abroad and counselling regarding the appeals rights cannot be given.\nWhere a copy of the IMM 5538B has already been forwarded to QRC, the Minister’s delegate\nis responsible for informing QRC of the withdrawal and returning it to the local file.\nPerson satisfies the residency obligation in A28 but wishes to relinquish\nstatus for other reasons\nAs mentioned in section 5 above, in exceptional circumstances, a person may be allowed to\nvoluntarily relinquish their status, despite satisfying the residency obligation in A28, for the\nfollowing reasons:\n they have to relinquish permanent resident status in order to accept employment for a\nforeign government, including a diplomatic posting; or\n it is necessary in order to qualify for status in another country.\nWhen a person approaches CIC and requests to relinquish their status, they may be allowed\nto complete the IMM 5539B (Declaration: Relinquishment of Permanent Resident\nStatus/Residency Obligation Met) provided they are truly voluntarily relinquishing their status\nand fully understand the consequences. The person can then be treated as a foreign national.\nA copy of the IMM 5539B should be sent to the QRC to be stored on microfiche.\nOfficers should always conduct an interview in person when accepting voluntary\nrelinquishment of permanent resident status. This procedure is not to be used in lieu of\ncompleting a residency obligation determination for persons who might satisfy the residency\nobligation in A28 and where they are only seeking to come to Canada temporarily.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.10 (Voluntary relinquishment of permanent resident status under) (part 6 of 6)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.11", + "marginal_note": "Recording determination of obligations under A28", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.11 Recording determination of obligations under A28\nAt visa posts, all determinations made under A28 are to be recorded in CAIPS. At POE and\ninland CIC offices, all decisions are to be entered in FOSS as FDE – PR - PERMANENT\nRESIDENT DETERMINATION.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.11 (Recording determination of obligations under A28)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.12", + "marginal_note": "Certificate of departure (IMM 0056B) when an order is not yet in", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.12 Certificate of departure (IMM 0056B) when an order is not yet in\nforce\nIf a negative determination under A28 is made and a removal order has been issued, the loss\nof status becomes effective upon completion of the appeal period of 30 days if no appeal is\nmade.\nIf the person wishes to leave Canada before the order comes into force\nunder A49(1)(b) (prior to the 30-day appeal period), the following steps should be taken:\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 36\n The officer must ensure that the person concerned is aware of the fact that the removal\norder is not yet in force and understands the implications. The officer should obtain a\nstatutory declaration indicating that the person concerned understands and declares the\nfollowing:\no the officer has made a negative determination on their permanent resident\nstatus;\no the criteria for this determination (A28);\no they agree with the officer's conclusions;\no they are aware of their right to appeal this decision to the IAD;\no they have no intention to appeal the decision. (A sample statutory declaration is\nfound in Appendix C.)\n The officer should obtain an address or facsimile number for serving the Certificate of\nDeparture (IMM 0056B) which will be completed and sent to the person concerned once\nthe removal order becomes enforceable after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period\nunder A49(1)(b). The person concerned will not have signed the IMM 0056B as they will\nhave left Canada prior to their order becoming enforceable. If the officer obtains a\nstatutory declaration, the address or facsimile number for service could be noted in the\ndeclaration.\n The officer should ensure that an NCB in FOSS contains detailed notes explaining the\ncircumstances. FOSS notes should indicate:\no that the person wanted to leave Canada voluntarily;\no their reasons for leaving;\no whether a statutory declaration was obtained;\no whether the statutory declaration was translated;\no where and when the IMM 0056B should be sent.\n The officer should follow up the case and mail or fax the IMM 0056B to the address or fax\nnumber provided by the person concerned after the removal order has come into force\nunder A49(1)(b).\n Should the person return to Canada before the end of the period, the Certificate of\nDeparture (IMM 0056B) should not be issued and the order comes into force at the end\nof the appeal period.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.12 (Certificate of departure (IMM 0056B) when an order is not yet in)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-13-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.13", + "marginal_note": "Permanent Resident Cards", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.13 Permanent Resident Cards\nThe IRPA provides that permanent residents of Canada shall be issued with a document\nindicating their status (A31).\nThe Regulations define the term “status document,” by designating the permanent resident\ncard as the document issued to permanent residents to indicate their status under the IRPA\n(R53).\nThe requirement in A31(1) to provide permanent residents and protected persons with a\ndocument indicating their status is new in immigration law, as is the presumption that a\nperson in possession of such a document is a permanent resident, unless an officer\ndetermines otherwise.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 37\nAlso new is the presumption that a person outside Canada, and who is not in possession of a\npermanent resident document, is presumed not to have permanent resident status A31(2)(b).\nOfficers should note that although the absence of a card creates a presumption that a person\nis not a permanent resident, officers should still complete an assessment to determine if the\nperson concerned has the requisite number of “days present in Canada” that would justify\nretention of permanent resident status.\nUnder the previous Act, the Department provided permanent residents with proof of landing\nin the form of an immigrant visa and “Record of Landing” (form: IMM 1000B). Legally, the\nIMM 1000B served only as evidence of the fact of landing (that is, lawful permission to live in\nCanada permanently), as possession of a “Record of Landing” was not regarded as\npresumptive proof of status.\nPermanent resident cards will be provided or issued in Canada (R55); they will not be\nprovided or issued outside of Canada.\nPermanent residents outside Canada, who are not in possession of a status document, may", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.13 (Permanent Resident Cards) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-7-13-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 7.13", + "marginal_note": "Permanent Resident Cards", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "be issued a travel document under the provisions of A31(3). An A31(3) travel document\nserves as a temporary travel document for permanent residents outside Canada who are\nwithout a permanent resident card and require a document to allow for travel back to Canada.\nOfficers should revoke permanent resident cards under the following\ncircumstances:\n The permanent resident becomes a Canadian citizen A46(1)(a)/R60(a);\n Under A46(1)(b), on “final determination” of a decision made outside Canada that a\npermanent resident has lost their permanent resident status for failing to comply with\nthe residency obligation under A28;\n When a removal order made against the holder of a permanent resident card comes into\nforce A46(1)(c);\n A final determination under A109, where the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the\nImmigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has vacated a person’s protected status;\n A final determination under A114(3), where a pre-removal risk assessment has vacated a\nperson’s protected status.\nSee also ENF 1, Inadmissibility; and ENF 27, Permanent Resident Cards.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 7.13 (Permanent Resident Cards) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "A31(3) Travel documents", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 A31(3) Travel documents\nAn officer outside Canada may issue a travel document in four circumstances:\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 38", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 8.1 (A31(3) Travel documents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "After an examination, an officer overseas determines that a permanent resident has", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. After an examination, an officer overseas determines that a permanent resident has\ncomplied with the residency obligation under A28. The permanent resident has lost or is\notherwise unable to use their IMM 1000B for travel back to Canada before December 31,\n2003 and the permanent resident is not in possession of a permanent resident card\n[A31(3)(a)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 1 (After an examination, an officer overseas determines that a permanent resident has)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "After an examination, an officer overseas determines that a permanent resident has", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. After an examination, an officer overseas determines that a permanent resident has\nfailed to comply with the residency obligation under A28. The officer, however, has\ndetermined that the humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors overcome the\nbreach of the residency obligation and justify the retention of permanent resident status\nA31(3)(b).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 2 (After an examination, an officer overseas determines that a permanent resident has)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "After an examination, an officer overseas has arrived at a decision that a permanent", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. After an examination, an officer overseas has arrived at a decision that a permanent\nresident has failed to comply with the residency obligation under A28. The permanent\nresident is not in possession of a permanent resident card. The officer is satisfied that the\npermanent resident was physically present in Canada at least once within the 365 days\nbefore the examination. An appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) filed\nunder A63(4) has not been finally determined or the period for making such an appeal\nhas not yet expired A31(3)(c).\nNote: IAD Rule 12 – In the case of a permanent resident who wants to appeal a\ndecision made outside Canada concerning the residency obligation, the IAD must\nreceive the notice of appeal no later than 60 days after the appellant received the\nwritten reasons for the decision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 3 (After an examination, an officer overseas has arrived at a decision that a permanent)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "After an examination, an officer overseas has arrived at a decision that a permanent", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. After an examination, an officer overseas has arrived at a decision that a permanent\nresident has failed to comply with the residency obligation under A28. The permanent\nresident is not in possession of a permanent resident card. The officer is not satisfied that\nthe permanent resident was physically present in Canada at least once within the 365\ndays before the examination. The permanent resident has filed an appeal with the\nImmigration Appeal Division (IAD) [under A63(4)], within the prescribed time period,\nand the IAD has ordered the presence of the permanent resident in Canada to attend at\ntheir appeal hearing A175(2).\nFurther, on item No. 4 above, and pursuant to A175(2), when an appellant is not eligible for a\ntravel document under A31(3), they must make an application to the IAD requesting that\nthey be allowed to return to Canada for their hearing [IAD Rule 46(1)]. Applications must be\nfiled with the IAD and the Minister no later than 60 days after the notice of appeal is filed.\nIf the IAD is satisfied that the presence of the permanent resident at the hearing is\nnecessary, they will order that the permanent resident physically appear at the hearing.\nWhere the IAD has ordered that the appellant be physically present, an officer shall issue a\ntravel document for that purpose pursuant toA175(2).\nIt is to be noted that, regarding the validity period of an A31(3) travel document, this will be\nset by the officer overseas approving the case. Generally, the validity of an A31(3) travel\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 39\ndocument will be short; for example, between 1-3 months range. However, it is also\nrecognized that there might be good reason for the validity period to be longer.\nAccordingly, the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) will not prevent\nlonger periods of validity if an officer overseas deems same warranted. Notwithstanding this,\nofficers should remain cognizant that the purpose of the A31(3) travel document is to\nfacilitate travel to Canada; it is not intended to serve as a document to guarantee\nthe ability of a permanent resident to return to Canada for an extended period in the\nfuture.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 4 (After an examination, an officer overseas has arrived at a decision that a permanent)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "IAD appeal requirements", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 IAD appeal requirements\nPermanent residents may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) against a decision\nmade outside Canada on the residency obligation under A28 [A63(4)]\nIAD Rule 9 requires:\n That the notice of appeal be filed with the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) registry\noffice for the region in Canada where the appellant last resided;\n The written reasons for the residency obligation - non-compliance decision must be filed\nwith the notice of appeal;\n If the appellant wants to return to Canada for the hearing of the appeal, they must\nindicate it on the notice of appeal;\n Appellants have 60 days after they receive the written reasons for the decision to file a\nnotice of appeal and the written reasons with the IRB registry office.\nIt is important to note that a permanent resident does not lose their status\nunder A46(1)(b) until there is a \"final determination\" of the decision made outside Canada\nthat they have failed to comply with the residency obligation under A28. Permanent residents\nare not “finally determined” to have lost their permanent resident status until the right of\nappeal has been exhausted.\nNote: If a permanent resident does not submit an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division\n(IAD) within the time period allowed for the filing of such an appeal (relating to permanent\nresidents who want to appeal a decision made outside Canada that they have failed to comply\nwith the residency obligation under A28), then the decision made outside Canada will become\na final determination, in accordance with A46(1)(b), once the time period for filing such an\nappeal has expired. Officers overseas will inform permanent residents of this information by\nway of a “residency determination – refusal letter.”\nNote: The consequence of this determination will be that the permanent resident loses their\npermanent resident status and will no longer be considered a permanent resident of Canada.\nFurthermore, they will no longer be accorded any of the rights of a permanent resident of\nCanada, including the right of entry as provided for in A19(2) of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act.\nSee also OP 10, Permanent residency status determination.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 40", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 8.2 (IAD appeal requirements)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-8-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Decisions made overseas on loss of PR status and their effect at a", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3 Decisions made overseas on loss of PR status and their effect at a\nPort of Entry\nIf an overseas A28 non-compliance decision has been made, then a record of it should exist in\nthe Field Operational Support System (FOSS).\nThis is because the officer overseas will have completed a “Permanent Resident\nDetermination” input screen on the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System\n(CAIPS). As CAIPS information is routinely uploaded to FOSS, this will effectively give officers\nthe information they require on matters relating to an overseas A28 non-compliance decision.\nIt is important to note that it will not be necessary for POE officers to\nwrite A44(1) inadmissibility reports on permanent residents who arrive at the POE and have\nbeen determined outside Canada to have failed to comply with the residency obligation under\nA28. This is because under A69(3), the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) has the authority\nto make a removal order, without need of an A44(1) inadmissibility report, where\nan A63(4) appeal is dismissed and the permanent resident is in Canada.\nIt should be noted that in A31(3)(c) travel document cases, a permanent resident will have\n60 days to file a notice of appeal with the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD Rule 9). This\nmeans that some holders of A31(3) travel documents (and some IMM 1000B holders, at least\nuntil 31 December 2003) may well arrive at a port of entry without having yet filed their\nnotice to appeal.\nTherefore, in all cases involving an overseas A28 non-compliance decision, the approach to be\nmaintained is that POE officers will conduct a Field Operational Support System (FOSS) query\nto check and confirm the status of the permanent resident’s appeal notification; also, to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 8.3 (Decisions made overseas on loss of PR status and their effect at a) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-8-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Decisions made overseas on loss of PR status and their effect at a", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "confirm that the permanent resident is still within the 60-day time period within which an\nappeal may be filed.\nIf the 60-\nday appeal\nperiod\nhas/has\nnot\nelapsed:\nThe officer will: Note:\nIf the 60-\nday appeal\nperiod has\nelapsed\nInform the person of the fact and advise\nthem that they no longer hold\npermanent resident status.\nThis is due to the fact that if a\npermanent resident does not submit an\nappeal to the Immigration Appeal\nDivision (IAD) within the time period\nallowed for the filing of such an appeal\n(relating to permanent residents who\nPermanent residents who arrive at\nthe POE, and have been determined\noutside Canada to have failed to\ncomply with the residency obligation\nunder A28, will generally know of\nthis “loss of status” information\nalready as overseas officers make\nmention of this in their “residency\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 41\nwant to appeal a decision made outside\nCanada that they have failed to comply\nwith the residency obligation\nunder A28), then the decision made\noutside Canada will become a final\ndetermination, in accordance\nwith A46(1)(b), once the time period for\nfiling an appeal has expired.\nConsequently, such persons will be\nconsidered foreign nationals whether at\na port of entry or inland.\nSee also OP 10.\ndetermination refusal letter.”\nIf the 60-\nday appeal\nperiod has\nnot elapsed\n1. allow the permanent resident to enter\nCanada during the 60-day appeal\nperiod, even if the permanent resident\nhas not yet filed their notice of appeal.\n2. confirm, in FOSS, the date the\npermanent resident was the recipient of\na decision made outside Canada that\nthey had not complied with the\nresidency obligation under A28;\n3. update FOSS, if known, with either\nan address or a contact address in\nCanada where the permanent resident", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 8.3 (Decisions made overseas on loss of PR status and their effect at a) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-8-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Decisions made overseas on loss of PR status and their effect at a", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "may be contacted for all matters\nrelating to their IAD hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 8.3 (Decisions made overseas on loss of PR status and their effect at a) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Notify the appropriate Hearings office", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Notify the appropriate Hearings office\nof the permanent residents arrival, and\nconvey address/ contact information, if\navailable.\nHearings offices should monitor the file\nfrom then on to determine if a notice of\nappeal is filed. When a notice of appeal\nis received, the Hearings office will:\n(a) ensure that the FOSS and NCMS\nAppeals screens are completed\npromptly; and\n(b) enter any motions or applications\nassociated with the appeal in the FOSS\nMotions screen.\nIf an appeal is not filed within the 60-\nday period allowed for the filing of an\nappeal, FOSS is to be updated by the\nHearings office with appropriate\nremarks; and the case file referred to\nthe appropriate Investigations office for\nfollow-up and investigation to locate the\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 42\nperson.\nFailure to appear at an appeal hearing\nIf an appellant fails to appear for their appeal, Hearings officers should ask the Immigration\nAppeal Division (IAD) to dismiss the appeal. Where an appellant was determined to have\nfailed to comply with the residency obligation outside of Canada, Hearings officers should ask\nthat the IAD issue the appropriate removal order in absentia. It is extremely important, from\nthe standpoint of program integrity, that appeals not be declared abandoned in cases where\npersons have returned to Canada and fail to appear for their appeal. Hearings officers should\nmaintain a position such that the issuance of a removal order is preferable to having the\nappeal declared abandoned.\nDismissed appeals – type of removal order\nA69(3) requires that if the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismisses an appeal made\nunder A63(4), and the permanent resident is in Canada, it shall make a removal order.\nThe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not specify what type of removal order\nshould be issued by the IAD. For that reason, Hearings officers should request that the IAD\nissue a departure order (for failure to comply with the residency obligation) so as to ensure\nconsistency with “in Canada” determinations involving failure to comply with the residency\nobligation.\nSee also ENF 19.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 4 (Notify the appropriate Hearings office)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9 In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports\non permanent residents and persons claiming to be permanent\nresidents\nWhere an officer concludes that a person who claims to be a permanent resident is not a\npermanent resident, or has lost their permanent resident status, and for that reason decides\nto report the person under the provisions of A44(1), the officer – depending on the\ncircumstances – shall cite as grounds for the report, either:\n(a) that the person is a permanent resident in Canada who is, in the officer’s opinion,\ninadmissible pursuant to A41(b) because the person failed to comply with the residency\nobligation of A28; or\n(b) in the case of a person who is unable to present any evidence of permanent resident\nstatus, that the person is a foreign national in Canada who has not been authorized to enter\nand who is, in the officer’s opinion, inadmissible pursuant to A41(a) because the person has\nfailed to comply with a requirement of the Act; specifically, the requirement of A20(1)(a) that\nevery foreign national who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish, to become a\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 43\npermanent resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations\n. . . .\nThe A44(1) inadmissibility report should then be transmitted to a Minister’s delegate.\nFurthermore, the officer cannot seize the person’s documents, such as the Immigration Visa,\nConfirmation of Permanent Residence or Record of Landing (IMM1000), despite the writing of\nan A44(1) report and the issuance of a removal order unless the officer believes there are\nreasonable grounds to do so in accordance with A140. The rationale behind this is that the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 1 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "person has a right to appeal the removal order and, until final determination of status, they\nremain a permanent resident and lawful owner of said documents.\nSee also ENF 1, ENF 2, ENF 5 and ENF 6.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 44\nAppendix A Supreme Court of Canada decision in Baker v.\nM.C.I. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817\nSee also IP 5.\nThe following summarizes the issues and impact on Citizenship and Immigration Canada\n(CIC) as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of BAKER, an appeal\nagainst a negative decision on an application for permanent residence made in Canada on\nH&C grounds.\nCase details\n In 1981, Ms. Baker came to Canada as a visitor. She worked illegally for the next\neleven years as a domestic worker.\n In December 1992, a deportation order was issued against her for working illegally\nand overstaying visitor status.\n In January 1993, an H&C application was submitted. Factors put forward included\nMs. Baker’s medical condition, lack of medical treatment in country of origin, and the\neffect of deportation on four Canadian-born children (born 1985; twins in 1989;\n1992).\n In April 1994, Ms. Baker was advised of the negative H&C decision by letter stating\nthat there were insufficient H&C grounds to warrant processing from within Canada.\nAccording to procedures, no written reasons were given.\n Upon request by Ms. Baker’s counsel, the immigration officer’s notes were provided.\n In May 1994, Ms. Baker was directed to report for removal in mid-June.\n In June 1994, the Federal Court – Trial Division (FCTD) stayed the deportation order\npending disposition of an application for leave to commence judicial review.\n In June 1995, the Federal Court – Trial Division (FCTD) dismissed the application for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 2 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "judicial review and certified one question: “Given that the Immigration Act does not\nexpressly incorporate the language of Canada’s international obligations with respect\nto the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, must federal immigration\nauthorities treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in\nassessing an applicant under s.114(2) of the Immigration Act?”\n In November 1996, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the Trial\nDivision and held that the question was not properly before the Court and that the\ncertified question be answered in the negative.\n In November 1998, the appeal was heard before the Supreme Court of Canada.\n(Note: Once before the Supreme Court, there is no limitation to address only a\ncertified question. The Court may consider all aspects of an appeal lying within its\njurisdiction.)\n In July 1999, the Supreme Court released the decision in the case of Baker. The appeal\nwas allowed on the grounds of violation of the principles of fairness owing to a\nreasonable apprehension of bias and because the exercise of discretion was\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 45\nunreasonable. The matter was returned to the Minister for redetermination by a different\nimmigration officer.\nCourt's reasons for deciding to return for redetermination\nThe following excerpts from the Court's decision explain some of the rationale for deciding to\nreturn the application for redetermination by another officer:\nThe notes of Officer L. in relation to the consideration of ‘‘H&C factors” reads as follows:\n“The PC is a paranoid schizophrenic and on welfare. She has no qualifications other than as\na domestic. She has FOUR CHILDREN IN JAMAICA AND ANOTHER FOUR BORN HERE. She", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 3 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "will, of course, be a tremendous strain on our social welfare systems for (probably) the\nrest of her life. There are no H&C factors other than her FOUR CANADIAN-BORN\nCHILDREN. So we let her stay because of that? I am of the opinion that Canada can no\nlonger afford this type of generosity.”\nIn my opinion, the approach taken to the children's interests shows that this decision was\nunreasonable in the sense contemplated in Southam, supra. The officer was completely\ndismissive of the interests of Ms. Baker's children.\nAs I will outline in detail in the paragraphs that follow, I believe that the failure to give serious\nweight and consideration to the interests of the children constitutes an unreasonable exercise\nof the decision conferred by the section, notwithstanding the important deference that should\nbe given to the decision of the immigration officer.\nProfessor Dyzenhaus has articulated the concept of 'deference as respect' as follows:\ndeference as respect requires not submission but a respectful attention to the reasons offered\nor which could be offered in support of a decision [D. Dyzenhaus, \"The Politics of Deference:\nJudicial Review and Democracy\", in M. Taggart, ed., The Province of Administrative Law\n(1997), 279, at p. 286].\nThe reasons of the immigration officer show that his decision was inconsistent with the values\nunderlying the grant of discretion. They therefore cannot stand up to the somewhat probing\nexamination required by the standard of reasonableness.\nEmphasis on the rights, interests, and needs of children and special attention to childhood are\nimportant values that should be considered in reasonably interpreting the 'humanitarian' and\n'compassionate' considerations that guide the exercise of the discretion.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 4 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "I conclude that because the reasons for this decision do not indicate that it was made in a\nmanner which was alive, attentive, or sensitive to the interests of Ms. Baker's children, and\ndid not consider them as an important factor in making the decision, it was an unreasonable\nexercise of the power conferred by the legislation, and must, therefore, be overturned.\nIn addition, the reasons for decision failed to give sufficient weight or consideration to the\nhardship that a return to Jamaica might cause Ms. Baker, given the fact that she had been in\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 46\nCanada for 12 years, was ill and might not be able to obtain treatment in Jamaica, and would\nnecessarily be separated from at least some of her children.\nTherefore, both because there was a violation of the principles of procedural fairness owing to\na reasonable apprehension of bias, and because the exercise of the H&C discretion was\nunreasonable, I would allow this appeal.\nWhy the Baker decision was not upheld\nThe Court concluded that the officer’s decision in the case of Baker was unreasonable.\nThe officer’s notes pertaining to the Canadian-born children were completely dismissive of\ntheir interests or needs. Failure to give serious weight and consideration to the interests of\nthe children constituted an unreasonable exercise of discretion.\nSpecifically, the Court stated: “... the reasons for this decision do not indicate that it was\nmade in a manner which was alive, attentive, or sensitive to the interests of Ms. Baker’s\nchildren, and did not consider them as an important factor in making the decision ...”\nAlso, the comments made in the notes to file gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 5 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "on the part of the immigration officer as they did not disclose the existence of an open mind\nor a weighing of the particular circumstances of the case, free from stereotyping.\nThe statements made by the officer gave the impression that the decision was made, not on\nthe evidence before him, but because Ms. Baker was a single mother with several children\nand she had been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness.\nThe use of capital letters highlighting the number of children suggested this was a reason for\nmaking the negative decision. Comments about the [immigration] “system” and Canada’s\n“generosity” reflected the officer’s frustration and a lack of impartiality.\nAs reflected in the officer’s notes, inattention to the interests of the children and his lack of\nimpartiality led the Court to find that, in the circumstances of the case, his exercise of\ndiscretion could not be upheld as it was an unreasonable decision.\nSummary of issues and impact on CIC\nThe following summarizes the issues and the impact of the decision on CIC:\n Participatory rights (right to an interview) – There is no general requirement to hold\ninterviews prior to making H&C decisions. There is no requirement for Canadian born\nchildren to receive separate notices of H&C decision-making nor a separate opportunity\nto make their own submissions.\n Appropriateness of H&C guidelines – The Court noted that the guidelines in immigration\nmanual chapter IE 9 (in effect at the time Ms. Baker’s application was refused), were\nconsistent with the approach that decisions must consider humanitarian and\ncompassionate values. The principles underlying the IE 9 guidelines have been expanded\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 47", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 6 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "in the current version of the immigration manual chapter dealing with H&C applications\n(IP 5).\n Consideration of children’s interests – While the best interests of children must always be\ntaken into account as an important factor that is given substantial weight, this does not\nmean that they will outweigh other factors of the case. There may be grounds for\nrefusing an H&C application even after considering the best interests of children.\n Written reasons for decision and impact on note-taking – The issue of written reasons for\ndecision is dealt with extensively in OM IP 00-07– Providing Written Reasons –\nHumanitarian or Compassionate (H&C) Decisions. The Court’s willingness to accept notes\nto file as reasons for decision does not mean that note-taking practices have to change\nor become more elaborate. Adhering to the principles of note-taking as set out in\nimmigration manual chapter IP 5, Section 9 is all that is required.\n Appropriate standard of review for discretionary H&C decisions:\nReasonableness simpliciter – The rule of administrative law relating to review of\ndiscretionary decisions has traditionally been on limited grounds, such as decisions made\nin bad faith or for improper purpose or where irrelevant considerations were used or,\nfrom time to time, if the decision was considered “unreasonable”. Discretion must be\nexercised in a manner that is within a reasonable interpretation of the statute, in\naccordance with general principles of rule of law and administrative law governing\ndiscretion, reflective of the fundamental values of Canadian society and consistent with\nthe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.\n The Court concluded that significant deference should be accorded to immigration officers", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 7 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "exercising discretionary H&C authority; however, the standard of reviewing H&C\ndecisions should be reasonableness simpliciter. This means that decisions must be\nsupported by reasons that can withstand a somewhat probing examination; that is, there\nmust be a solid foundation of evidence and conclusions drawn must be logical.\n Certified question: Canada’s international obligations – Although Canada may be a\nsignatory to international treaties and conventions, they are not part of Canadian law\nunless they have been implemented by statute; they have no direct application within\nCanadian law. They may, however, help inform the context of statutory interpretation\nand judicial review. In the instance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is an\nindicator of the importance of considering the interests of children when making H&C\ndecisions.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 48\nAppendix B Strengthening decisions / guidelines on taking\nnotes\nBe objective: record facts, not your opinions or interpretation of the facts.\nBe clear and concise: use common language and avoid jargon.\nUse complete words: avoid extraneous comments.\nNotes should contain:\n how the decision was made (for example, the decision was based on a paper file review\nor an interview);\n the exact time period being examined;\n if an interpreter was used, include the name of the interpreter and relationship to the\nperson concerned, language of interpretation and instructions given to the interpreter;\n summary of correspondence and communication;\n contents of all non-routine correspondence, form numbers of routine correspondence\nsent and summary of any telephone conversations. FOSS and CAIPS notes should\nrepresent a complete record of all action taken in the case - there should be no", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 8 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "information that appears only on the paper file.\nDescription of the interview\nNotes should include:\n who was present;\n the person’s disposition;\n any significant occurrences, if applicable;\n the duration of the interview.\nOfficers’ notes should be dated and initialed\nGuidelines on Reasons for decisions:\n all the factors considered in making the decision, both positive and negative, should be\nrecorded;\n the thought process should be explained and no assumptions made. The gap between\nthe facts listed and the decision should be filled in. It is possible to divide the facts into\ntwo categories: compelling reasons for H&C grounds, including a finding of hardship; and\nthose facts that were not considered to be justifiable reasons and do not favour a finding\nof hardship. Some facts will be more important than others;\n absolute statements like there is no evidence or there would be no hardship should be\navoided; usually what is meant is that there is insufficient evidence or insufficient\nhardship;\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 49\n neutral terms should be used; for example, it is preferable to say, he states rather than\nhe claims or he admitted;\n where possible, strong comments on the credibility of the information should be avoided;\nfor example, if an officer were to use the phrase I am not satisfied instead of the phrase\nI do not believe, it is less contentious and keeps the onus on the person concerned to\nsatisfy an officer;\n officers should comment on evidence rather than drawing any inference from it;\n officers’ notes should be written in simple, straightforward and dispassionate language;\n officers should record how the person concerned was given the opportunity to be heard;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 9 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "that is, how the permanent resident was provided with an opportunity to satisfy an\nofficer that there were H&C considerations in relation to the case.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 50\nAppendix C Declaration\nDECLARATION\nCANADA\nProvince of\nProvince de\nCity of\nVille de\nIn the matter of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and in the matter of\nConcernant la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés et concernant\nI Je, soussigné(e)(Full name)(Nom au complet)\nof , de\nsolemnly declare that déclare solennellement que\nAcknowledgement of decision\nI, understand that the Minister’s delegate has determined that I have not complied with the\nrequirements of the residency obligation under section A28 of the Immigration and Refugee\nProtection Act (IRPA). I further understand that a departure order has been issued to me\npursuant to section A228(2) of IRPA and, if I do not file an appeal to the Immigration Appeal\nDivision (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board pursuant to section A63(3), I will cease\nto be a permanent resident in accordance with section A46(1)(c) of IRPA.\nLoss of residency criteria\nPursuant to subsection A28(2), a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation\nprovisions with respect to a five-year period if, for at least 730 days in that five-year period,\nthe permanent resident is physically present in Canada, or:\ni) is outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is his or her spouse or common-\nlaw partner or is a child accompanying a parent;\nii) is outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the public\nservice of Canada or of a province;\niii) is an accompanying spouse, common-law partner or child of a permanent resident who is", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 10 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "outside Canada and is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the public\nservice of Canada or of a province;\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 51\n(iv) is outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or common-\nlaw partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a full-time basis by\na Canadian business or in the public service of Canada or of a province; or\n(v) is referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance.\nRegulation\nR328. (1) A person who was a permanent resident immediately before the coming into force\nof this section is a permanent resident under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.\n(2) Any period spent outside Canada within the five years preceding the coming into force of\nthis section by a permanent resident holding a returning resident permit is considered to be a\nperiod spent in Canada for the purpose of satisfying the residency obligation under section 28\nof theImmigration and Refugee Protection Act if that period is included in the five-year period\nreferred to in that section.\n(3) Any period spent outside Canada within the two years immediately following the coming\ninto force of this section by a permanent resident holding a returning resident permit is\nconsidered to be a period spent in Canada for the purpose of satisfying the residency\nobligation under section A28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act if that period is\nincluded in the five year period referred to in that section.\nLoss of status\nSubsection A46(1)(c) reads:\nA46(1) A person loses permanent resident status:\n(c) when a removal order made against them comes into force\nAppeal rights\nA63(3) A permanent resident or a protected person may appeal to the Immigration Appeal", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 11 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-23-9-p12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-23", + "act_short": "ENF 23", + "act_name": "ENF 23 — Loss of permanent resident status", + "section": "ENF 23 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports", + "part": "Loss of permanent resident status", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Division against a decision at an examination or admissibility hearing to make a removal\norder against them.\nI, understand that pursuant to section A63(3) of the IRPA, I have a right to appeal the\ndecision to issue a removal order against me to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the\nIRB.\nSOLEMN DECLARATION\nI, of the city of, , in the province of , Canada SOLEMLY DECLARE THAT:\nI agree with the Minister’s delegate’s decision that I have not met the residency obligation\nunder section A28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).\nI understand that as a consequence of this decision I have been issued a departure order.\nENF 23 Loss of permanent resident status\n2015-01-23 52\nI am fully aware of my appeal rights pursuant to section A63(3) of the IRPA and I will not be\nsubmitting an appeal to the IAD. I fully understand that if I do not appeal the decision I will\nno longer have the right to enter Canada or remain as a permanent resident without first\nobtaining a permanent resident visa.\nI am signing this declaration of my own volition, not due to force or the influence of any other\nperson and, I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and\nknowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath.\nDeponent\nDeclared before me at\nin the city of\nin the province of , Canada\nthis day of ,\nMinister’s Delegate\nInterpreter's declaration\nI, ___________________________________, solemnly declare that I have faithfully and\naccurately interpreted in the _______________________ language the information provided\nabove. I make this declaration conscientiously believing it to be truth and knowing that it is of\nthe same force and effect as if made under oath.\nSignature of Interpreter ___________________________", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2015-01-23", + "current_to": "2015-01-23", + "citation": "ENF 23, s. 9 (In-Canada procedures pertaining to A44(1) reports: Reports) (part 12 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf23-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.11", + "marginal_note": "Highest priority: Cases involving security and criminality issues – Exclusions under", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.11 Highest priority: Cases involving security and criminality issues – Exclusions under\narticles 1F(a), 1F(b), and 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention ................................ ....................... 19\n5.12 Exclusion under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention ................................ ................... 20\n5.13 Exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention ................................ ................... 21\n5.14 Exclusion under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention ................................ ................... 24\n5.15 Means of defence applicable to article 1F of the Refugee Convention................................ ..26\n5.16 Intervention strategy for exclusion cases................................ ................................ ......... 28", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.11 (Highest priority: Cases involving security and criminality issues – Exclusions under)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-17-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.17", + "marginal_note": "First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.17 First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of\nPSEP ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 29\n5.18 Second priority: Cases where the outcome will have a very great impact on the integrity of the\nprogram ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 29\n5.19 Strategy to adopt in second-priority cases ................................ ................................ ....... 30\n5.20 Cases involving a single individual (and family) ................................ ................................ 30\n5.21 Strategy to adopt in cases involving a single individual ................................ ...................... 30\n5.22 Third priority: Credibility cases whose impact on the program is minimal .............................. 31\n5.23 Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention................................ .............. 31\n5.24 Strategy to adopt in cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention ................................ 33\n5.25 Other cases involving credibility, identity, or nexus issues ................................ .................. 33\n5.26 Strategy to adopt in cases involving credibility, identity, and nexus issues ............................ 33\n5.27 Disclosure of personal information from the refugee claim of a third party ............................ 34\n5.28 Notice of Constitutional Question................................ ................................ ................... 34\n6 Cessation ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 34", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.17 (First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of) (part 1 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-17-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.17", + "marginal_note": "First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Against whom an application for cessation is made ................................ ............................ 35\n6.2 Nature of an application for cessation ................................ ................................ .............. 35\n6.3 Role of the hearings officer ................................ ................................ ............................. 36\n6.4 Procedural Requirements: RPDR ................................ ................................ .................... 37\n6.5 Paragraph A108(1)(a): The person has voluntarily reavailed themselves of the protection of their\ncountry of nationality................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 37\n6.6 Paragraph A108(1)(b): The person has voluntarily re-acquired their nationality ....................... 40\n6.7 Paragraph A108(1)(c): The person has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of\nthe country of that new nationality................................ ................................ ......................... 40\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 3\n6.8 Paragraph A108(1)(d): The person has voluntarily become re-established in the country that the\nperson left or remained outside of and in respect of which the person claimed refugee protection in\nCanada ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 41\n6.9 Paragraph A108(1)(e): The reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased\nto exist. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 41", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.17 (First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of) (part 2 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-17-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.17", + "marginal_note": "First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.10 Subsection A108(4): Exception to paragraph A108(1)(e) ................................ ................... 43\n6.11 Multiple cessation grounds including paragraph A108(1)(e): The temporal aspect ................. 43\n6.12 Consequences of cessation of refugee protection ................................ ............................ 44\n6.13 Cessation within a refugee hearing ................................ ................................ ................ 45\n7 Vacation................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 45\n7.1 Direct vs. indirect misrepresentation ................................ ................................ ................ 45\n7.2 Misrepresentation or withholding material facts................................ ................................ ..46\n7.3 Relevant matter ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 46\n7.4 Application to vacate ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 46\n7.5 Rejection of application – Subsection A109(2) ................................ ................................ ...47\n7.6 New evidence ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 47\n7.7 Allowance of an application: Subsection A109(3) ................................ ............................... 48\n7.8 Exclusion in the context of a vacation application ................................ ............................... 49\n8 Procedure: Roles and responsibilities ................................ ................................ .................... 50", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.17 (First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of) (part 3 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-17-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.17", + "marginal_note": "First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 Hearings officers representing the Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC........................... 50\n8.2 Roles and responsibilities of hearings officers at RPD hearings................................ ............ 50\n8.3 Role of hearings officers in preparing a case ................................ ................................ ..... 51\n9 Procedure: Maintaining the integrity of the program at the RPD ................................ ................. 52\n9.1 File triage and assessment................................ ................................ ............................. 52\n9.2 Investigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 54\n9.3 Five country conference (FCC) checks................................ ................................ ............. 54\n9.4 Interpol checks ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 54\n9.5 Front-end security screening (FESS) refugee protection claimants who made a claim at a port of\nentry or at a CBSA or IRCC inland office ................................ ................................ ................ 55\n9.6 Potential intervention ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 55\n9.7 Special cases of verification with foreign authorities ................................ ........................... 56\n9.8 Intervention in person ................................ ................................ ................................ ....56\n9.9 Intervention by filing documents and submissions ................................ .............................. 57", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.17 (First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of) (part 4 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-17-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.17", + "marginal_note": "First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.10 Review of reasons for RPD decisions................................ ................................ ............. 57\n9.11 Appeal to RAD ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 57\n9.12 Application for judicial review ................................ ................................ ........................ 57\n9.13 Operational procedures for interventions ................................ ................................ ......... 57\n9.14 Operational procedures for vacation or cessation proceedings ................................ ........... 59\nAppendix A: List of the principal conventions concerning human rights to which Canada is a signatory\n................................................................................................................................................................. 61\nAppendix B: Case law on exclusions pursuant to article 1F of the Refugee Convention..................... 63\nAppendix C: Case law for exclusion under article 1E of the Refugee Convention ............................. 79\nAppendix D: List of useful websites ................................ ................................ .......................... 85\nAppendix E: National directive to hearings officers regarding credibility and program integrity\ninterventions policy statement ................................ ................................ ................................ .87\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 4\nUpdates to chapter\nListing by date\n2016-03-18\nThe following changes have been made to the chapter:\n Section 1 was changed to reflect Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)’s\nReview and Interventions Pilot.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.17 (First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of) (part 5 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-17-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.17", + "marginal_note": "First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Section 2 was changed to reflect the new triage system for refugee claims.\n Section 3.1 was amended to add the legislative changes from the Protecting Canada’ s\nImmigration Systems Act (PCISA) and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act (BRRA).\n Section 3.2 was changed to reflect the changes to the Refugee Protection Division\nRules (RPDR).\n Section 3.3 was amended to reflect the changes to forms used for refugee claim intake.\n Section 3.4 was added to provide definitions.\n Sections 5.1 and 5.2 have been amended to reflect the changes to the RPDR.\n Section 5.3 was changed to reflect the distribution of cases between IRCC and CBSA.\n Section 5.5 was amended to include factors for 1F(a) and 1F(b) exclusion and additional factors\nfor 1F(b) to reflect recent case law.\n Section 5.6 was amended to reflect the recent legislative changes that affect the eligibility of\nclaims.\n Section 5.7 was added to provide guidance on suspension procedures before and after a case\nhas been referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). Information on highest priority cases\nwas moved to section 5.11.\n Section 5.8 was added to provide information on the resumption of eligibility processing. 1F(a)\nexclusion was moved to section 5.12.\n Section 5.9 has been added to include details on how extradition affects refugee protection\nclaimants and Convention refugees. Information on 1F(b) exclusion was moved to section 5.13.\n Section 5.10 was added to include a list of factors to consider when determining whether to\nintervene or proceed to an admissibility hearing. Information on 1F(c) exclusion was moved to\nsection 5.14.\n Section 5.11 was changed to reflect high priority cases (previously section 5.7) and was amended\nto include information on the consolidated grounds.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.17 (First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of) (part 6 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-17-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.17", + "marginal_note": "First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Section 5.12 (previously section 5.8) provides information on 1F(a) exclusion.\n Section 5.13 (previously section 5.9) was amended to reflect jurisprudence and to further clarify\nArticle 1F(b) exclusion concepts.\n Section 5.14 (previously section 5.10) was amended to further clarify Article 1F(c).\n Section 5.15 was amended to reflect current policy regarding means of defence applicable to\nArticle 1F.\n Section 5.17 (previously section 5.12) was amended to include the triage process for RPD\nrequests for Minister’s intervention.\n Section 5.18 was previously 5.13\n Section 5.19 was previously 5.14\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 5\n Section 5.23 (previously 5.18) was amended to reflect recent case law in country shopping and\nright of return for Article 1E cases.\n Section 5.24 (previously 5.19) was amended to include IRCC’s handling of credibility cases.\n Section 5.25 (previously 5.20) was amended to include links to reference papers on credibility\nand nexus issues.\n Section 5.27 (previously 5.22) was changed to reflect changes to the RPDR.\n Section 5.28 was added to provide information concerning Constitutional questions (Charter\nchallenges).\n Sections 6 to 6.13 were added and changed to provide guidance on cessation grounds\n(previously section 8.6).\n Sections 7 to 7.8 were changed to provide guidance on vacation applications (previously\nsection 8.5).\n Section 8.2 (previously sections 7.1 and 7.5) was amended to reflect the elimination of the\nRefugee Protection Officer (RPO).\n Section 9.1 (previously sections 8.1) was been amended to reflect the distribution of intervention\ncases between IRCC and the CBSA and to give an explanation of how the triage system works.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.17 (First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of) (part 7 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-17-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.17", + "marginal_note": "First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Sections 9.2 to 9.7 (previously section 8.2) were added and amended to include reference to\ncriminal and security checks, Five Country Conference (FCC) checks, Interpol checks, Front End\nSecurity Screening (FESS) and visa office requests.\n Section 9.8 was previously 8.3.\n Section 9.9 was previously 8.4.\n Section 9.10 was previously 8.7\n Section 9.11 was added to reflect the Refugee Appeal Division.\n Section 9.12 was previously 8.8.\n Section 9.13 was previously 8.9.\n Section 9.14 was previously 8.10.\n Appendix A was amended to include hyperlinks to all conventions.\n Appendix B was amended and updated to reflect current case law on 1F exclusions.\n Appendix C was amended to reflect current case law on 1E exclusions.\n Appendix D was amended to include hyperlinks to all websites.\n Appendix E was added to reflect the National Directive to Hearings Officers.\n2005-12-02\nChanges made to reflect transition from IRCC to the CBSA. The term \"delegated officer\" was replaced\nwith \"Minister's delegate\" throughout the text. References to \"departmental policy\" were eliminated.\nReferences to IRCC and CBSA officers and the C&I Minister and the PSEP Minister were made where\nappropriate, and other minor changes were made.\n2004-04-26\nSection 5.22 has been added to reflect recent jurisprudence and to clarify procedures concerning the\ndisclosure of personal information from the refugee claim of a third party in the context of a proceeding\nbefore the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 6", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.17 (First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests intervention from the Minister of) (part 8 of 8)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThis chapter deals with the priorities, strategies, and procedures that surround interventions in the\nrefugee protection determination process and cessations and vacations at the Refugee Protection\nDivision (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Since interventions, cessations, and\nvacations are an important instrument for ensuring the integrity of the program, it is essential that a clear\nand understandable framework be established for them.\nWith the introduction of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) Ministerial Reviews and\nInterventions pilot project in October 2012, senior immigration officers are delegated to effect reviews and\ninterventions at the IRB. IRCC ministerial interventions are restricted to cases involving program integrity\nand credibility as well as cases where exclusion pursuant to article 1E of the United Nations Convention\nand Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) arises.\nThe Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) will continue to intervene in cases involving serious\ncriminality, security concerns, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or acts contrary to the purposes and\nprinciples of the United Nations (UN). The CBSA will be responsible for hybrid cases (i.e., where there are\ncombined program integrity/credibility issues and criminality or security concerns). Where the case is\ndetermined to be a hybrid case and, due to various circumstances, where the Minister of Public Safety\nand Emergency Preparedness (PSEP) elects not to pursue the case on the grounds of criminality or\nsecurity, the CBSA has made a comittment to IRCC to go forward on credibility or program integrity\ngrounds where warranted. The CBSA also has responsibility for detention cases, all arguments under the\nCharter of the United Nations (UN Charter), and designated foreign nationals.\nThis chapter provides guidance for hearings officers and all officers who process refugee protection\nclaims.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe Ministerial Intervention Program has the following objectives:\n ensure that individuals who are major criminals or who are compromising national security do not\nenjoy the benefit of Canada’s protection;\n ensure that the Refugee Protection Program is fair and that protection is offered to those\nindividuals who need it;\n help ensure the integrity of the refugee protection determination system;\n provide as much information as possible to the IRB in cases involving refugee protection\nclaimants;\n foster the development of expertise concerning international instruments and case law pertaining\nto refugees; and\n develop durable partnerships with internal, external, national, and international partners who\nshare the same objectives.\nIRCC and the CBSA have in place a joint triage system to ensure that there is no duplication of work and\nthat all claims are screened for possible intervention. Three triage centres have been set up to perform\nthe joint triage process as follows:\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 7\n CBSA Montréal triages all claims for the Atlantic, Quebec and Northern Ontario Regions;\n IRCC Toronto triages all claims for the Greater Toronto Area and the Southern Ontario Region;\nand\n CBSA Vancouver triages all claims for the Prairies and Pacific Regions.\nIRCC and CBSA refugee intake officers are required to scan all intake documents, including the Basis of\nClaim (BOC) form, the appropriate IMM008 form, the Schedule A form, and officer notes, if applicable,\nand send them through the electronic sharing folder to the triage office closest to where the RPD hearing\nwill be held. Once CBSA and IRCC officers have access to the Global Case Management", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Program objectives) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "System (GCMS), all these documents will be downloaded in GCMS instead of being sent through the\nelectronic sharing folder.\nIntake officers should flag cases of interest for possible intervention through the Field Operational Support\nSystem (FOSS) and GCMS. For more details on the triage process, refer to section 9.2 of this manual\nchapter.\nNote: The priorities and strategies stated in section 5.4 of this manual chapter have been established by\nnational consensus and reflect the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),\nwhich are to promote justice and security by denying access to Canadian territory to persons, including\nrefugee protection claimants, who are security risks or serious criminals.\nWith these priorities, hearings officers can clearly identify cases that require their attention, where they\nmust take action on a priority basis. The strategies will guide hearings officers in dealing with various\ntypes of cases and will standardize interventions at the national level while preserving the integrity of the\nintervention program.\nThe procedures identified in section 9 of this manual chapter concern the internal operational perspective\non case management. These procedures have the following objectives:\n reduce case preparation time;\n standardize regional practices;\n facilitate the exchange of information among the regions; and\n ensure more effective monitoring of operational case management while maintaining the highest\nlevel of quality.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Program objectives) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and Regulations\nNote: References to the IRPA appear in the text with an “A” prefix, followed by the section number.\nReferences to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) appear with an “R” prefix,\nfollowed by the section number.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "The IRPA", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 The IRPA\nSection A3 specifies the objectives of the Act with respect to refugees. Some of these objectives are to\n fulfil Canada’s international legal obligations with respect to refugees;\n grant fair consideration to those who come to Canada claiming persecution;\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 8\n protect the health and safety of Canadians;\n maintain the security of Canadian society; and\n promote international justice and security by denying access to Canadian territory to persons,\nincluding claimants, who are security risks or serious criminals.\nAccording to section A3, the Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that complies with\ninternational human rights instruments to which Canada is signatory. See Appendix A for a list of\ninternational instruments on human rights to which Canada is a signatory.\nTable 1 below summarizes the provisions of the IRPA that are applicable to refugees and to persons in\nneed of protection in the context of interventions led by the CBSA.\nTable 1: Legislative provisions concerning the protection of refugees\nFor information on Refer to section(s)\nThe right of the Minister of PSEP or IRCC to intervene at the RPD A170\nDefinition of refugee protection A95(1)\nDefinition of protected person A95(2)\nDefinition of person in need of protection A97\nDefinition of Convention Refugee A96\nExclusion from the definition of refugee or of person in need of protection A98\nApplication for refugee protection A99\nEligibility of refugee protection claim A100 and A102\nGrounds of ineligibility A101\nSuspension of a refugee protection claim by the RPD A103\nNotice of ineligibility at the RPD A104\nExtradition procedure A105\nUndocumented claimants A106\nDetermination on refugee claims by the RPD A107(1)\nNo credible basis A107(2)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3.1 (The IRPA) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "The IRPA", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Determination of manifestly unfounded refugee claims (MUC) by the RPD A107.1\nCessation of refugee protection A108, A40.1\nVacation of refugee protection A109, A40(1)(c)\nDesignated countries of origin by Minister (DCO) A109.1\nAppeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) from the RPD A110\nLoss of permanent resident status A46\nInadmissibility standard of proof A33\nInadmissibility for security reasons A34\nInadmissibility for violation of human or international rights A35\nInadmissibility for serious criminality A36\nInadmissibility for organized criminality A37\nInadmissibility report A44\nAdmissibility hearing by the Immigration Division A45, A172 and A173\nPre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) A112 to A116\nThe IRPA deals with the IRB in Part 4, sections A151 to A186 inclusively. Table 2 below summarizes the\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 9\nprovisions applicable in relation to CBSA ministerial reviews and interventions.\nTable 2: Legislative provisions concerning the IRB\nFor information on Refer to section(s)\nComposition of the IRB A151 to A156\nHead office and staff A157 and A158\nChairperson of the IRB A159 and A160\nOperation of the IRB A161\nJurisdiction of the IRB A162\nComposition of panels A163\nPresence of the parties A164\nPower of inquiry A165\nHearings of the IRB A166\nCounsel and representation A167\nAbandonment A168\nDecisions A169\nOperation of the RPD A170\nDisciplinary actions A176 and A177", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3.1 (The IRPA) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3.2", + "marginal_note": "Rules of the IRB concerning the RPD", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.2 Rules of the IRB concerning the RPD\nThe IRB is responsible for writing its own rules of procedure for its various sections. A copy of the\nRefugee Protection Division Rules (RPDR) is available at the following link: http://lois-\nlaws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012-256/index.html.\nFor information on Refer to Rule(s)\nDefinitions 1\nConduct of a hearing 10\nApplications to vacate or cease refugee protection 12, 55 and 64\nDisclosure of personal information 21\nAllowing a claim without a hearing 23\nExclusion, inadmissibility and ineligibility 26, 27, 28\nIntervention by the Minister 29\nDocuments and disclosure 31 to 43\nApplications 49 to 56\nDecisions 67, 68\nNote: Hearings officers must be familiar with the RPDR, reference documents, the Chairperson’ s\nGuidelines, and the practice notices that are available on the IRB website.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3.2 (Rules of the IRB concerning the RPD)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3.3", + "marginal_note": "Forms required", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.3 Forms required\nForm number Form title\nIMM 5354B Request for Consideration of Minister’s Intervention\nIMM 0008E Generic Application Form for Canada\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 10\nIMM 0008E Schedule 12 Additional Information – Refugee Claimants Inside Canada\nIMM 5669E Schedule A Background / Declaration\nBSF 701 Refugee Claim Triage Form\nRPD.02.01 Basis of Claim Form\nBSF 529 Notification of ineligible claim – Subsection A104(1)\nBSF 528 Notification of suspension – Subsection A103(1)\nBSF 527 Notification of redetermination of eligibility – Subsection A103(2)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3.3 (Forms required)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3.4", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.4 Definitions\nEvidence The IRB has broader powers regarding the admission of evidence than regular\ncourts, since it is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. During\nthe process, the IRB member may receive and base a decision on evidence the\nmember considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances, even if the strict\nrules of evidence have not been met.\nDesignated country of\norigin (DCO)\nDCOs are countries designated under subsection A109.1(1) by the Minister that\ndo not normally produce refugees but do respect human rights and offer state\nprotection. The current list of DCOs can be found at Designated countries of\norigin\nDesignated foreign\nnational (DFN)\nA DFN is a person that the Minister may designate, pursuant to section A20.1\nhaving regard to the public interest, as an irregular arrival in Canada.\nBalance of probabilities Balance of probabilities means that it is more probable than not, or more likely\nthan not, that the alleged facts have occurred or are true.\nBurden of proof Burden of proof is the onus of establishing a fact or facts in dispute between\nparties.\nRes judicata / issue\nestoppel\nRes judicata / issue estoppel is a matter that is already judicially decided. If the\nissue actually and directly in dispute has been adjudicated on, it cannot be\nlitigated again. However, a prior judgment between the same parties is not\nstrictly res judicata because it is based on a different cause of action and\noperates as an estoppel only in regard to matters actually at issue.\nManifestly unfounded\nclaim (MUC)\nRPD decision makers have the obligation to identify in their decisions that a\nparticular claim is manifestly unfounded if they are of the opinion that the basis\nof the claim was clearly fraudulent (A107.1). Individuals whose claim is\nidentified as manifestly unfounded do not have the right to appeal to the RAD\npursuant to subparagraph 110(2)(c).\nStandard of proof Standard of proof is the degree to which the decision maker must be satisfied.\nFor example, the standard of proof for article 1F of the Refugee Convention is\n“serious reasons for considering,” which is lower than “the balance of\nprobabilities.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3.4 (Definitions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4.1", + "marginal_note": "Members of the IRB: Powers and authorities", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.1 Members of the IRB: Powers and authorities\nMembers of the IRB have the powers and authority of a commissioner and may do anything they consider\nnecessary to provide a full and proper hearing [A165]. This includes the power to receive in evidence any\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 11\nrelevant information, whether adverse or not, and to question the refugee protection claimant about any\nmatter concerning their application.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4.1 (Members of the IRB: Powers and authorities)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4.2", + "marginal_note": "The right of the Ministers of PSEP and IRCC to appear before the", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.2 The right of the Ministers of PSEP and IRCC to appear before the\nRPD\nThe Ministers of PSEP and IRCC have the right to be represented in all matters before the RPD, to\nproduce evidence, question witnesses, and make representations [A170]. The Ministers of PSEP and\nIRCC may exercise these rights by appearing in person at hearings or by filing evidence or written\nrepresentations with the RPD if the panel authorizes filing of representations.\nIn representing the Minister, hearings officers must abide by the provisions of the RPDR, in particular\nregarding intervention notices and the time limit for disclosing evidence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4.2 (The right of the Ministers of PSEP and IRCC to appear before the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4.3", + "marginal_note": "Authority of the hearings officer during a ministerial intervention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.3 Authority of the hearings officer during a ministerial intervention\nHearings officers have delegated authority to represent the Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC, as\nthe case may be, at hearings before the IRB (refer to IL3, Designation of Officers and Delegation of\nAuthority).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4.3 (Authority of the hearings officer during a ministerial intervention)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4.4", + "marginal_note": "Finding of ineligibility: Powers delegated to the Immigration", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.4 Finding of ineligibility: Powers delegated to the Immigration\nDivision or to the Minister\nThe IRPA allows the Immigration Division or the Minister of PSEP, as the case may be, to make a\ndetermination of inadmissibility on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious\ncriminality, or organized criminality. Such a ruling results in the refugee protection claim becoming\nineligible [A101].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4.4 (Finding of ineligibility: Powers delegated to the Immigration)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.1", + "marginal_note": "Hearings at the RPD: Regular hearing", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.1 Hearings at the RPD: Regular hearing\nSection A170 stipulates that the RPD shall dispose of any matter before it by holding a hearing. Hearings\nbefore the IRB are conducted before a single membe,r unless the Chairperson thinks it necessary to form\na panel of three members [A163].\nA person applying for refugee protection may be represented by counsel [A167].\nA person claiming refugee protection is also entitled to an interpreter and may choose to have the hearing\nconducted in English or French (rules 17 and 19 of the RPDR).\nThe RPD must notify the Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC, as the case may be, of any matter\nbefore it and must give the relevant Minister an opportunity to produce evidence, to question witnesses,\nand to make representations in accordance with section A170 and rule 25 of the RPDR.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 12", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.1 (Hearings at the RPD: Regular hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.2", + "marginal_note": "Expedited process without a hearing", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.2 Expedited process without a hearing\nAccording to section A170, the RPD may allow a claim for refugee protection without holding a hearing if\nthe Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC, as the case may be, has not notified the RPD of the\nintention to intervene within the time limit prescribed by rule 23 of the RPDR. In such cases, a case\nmanagement officer will conduct an interview with the claimant and will submit a recommendation to the\nmember. However, given the short timeframes, it is expected to be a rare occurrence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.2 (Expedited process without a hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.3", + "marginal_note": "Nature of the refugee protection determination process", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.3 Nature of the refugee protection determination process\nWhen a ministerial intervention takes place, the refugee determination hearing changes from non-\nadversarial to adversarial. The hearings officer attends and conducts a thorough examination of the\nrefugee protection claim based on specific information contained in the CBSA’s or IRCC’s file in order to\nprovide the panel with a maximum amount of information. If a rigorous examination of the claim reveals\nreasonable grounds for opposing a refugee protection claim, the hearings officer objects to the claim on\nbehalf of the Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC, as the case may be. If the examination does not\nreveal arguments giving rise to opposition on the relevant Minister’s part, the hearings officer has the\nlatitude to withdraw from the case or to make representations accordingly.\nWhere the case is determined to be a hybrid case and the Minister of PSEP elects not to pursue the case\non grounds of criminality or security, the CBSA has made a comittment to IRCC to go forward on\ncredibility or program integrity grounds where warranted.\nIn addition to hybrid cases, special cases, including those dealing with Canadian Charter of Rights and\nFreedoms (Charter) arguments, all cases involving detainees, irregular arrivals (DFNs), international\nfugitives, high-profile cases, and cases with a security/criminality nexus will be handled by the CBSA.\nShould disagreements arise regarding the handling of a particular case, the case will default to the CBSA\nuntil resolution can be reached.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.3 (Nature of the refugee protection determination process)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.4", + "marginal_note": "CBSA priorities and strategies for hearings at the RPD", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.4 CBSA priorities and strategies for hearings at the RPD\nWhen evaluating and sorting files, officers must keep the following priorities in mind to determine and\ndistribute their workload:\nTable 3: CBSA priorities and strategies for ministerial intervention cases\nPriority Type of case Strategy (type of intervention)\nFirst priority\n Cases involving security\nand criminality issues\n Cases in which a member\nof the RPD requests the\nintervention of the Minister\nof PSEP\nCases where there may be a\nfinding of\n 1F(a) exclusions\n 1F(b) exclusions\n 1F(c) exclusions\n(see sections 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 and\n5.15 below)\n Consider the option of\nobtaining an ineligibility\nruling leading to\ninadmissibility over the\nintervention option\n Intervention in person\n Intervention in person or\nby filing documents\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 13\nSecond priority\n Cases where the outcome\nwould have a very great\nimpact on the integrity of\nthe program\n Cases that establish a\nnew trend in the\nmovement of persons that\naffect a large population of\nrefugee protection\nclaimants and that involve\nmisrepresentation or fraud\n Cases that involve a single\nindividual with a particular\nprofile\n Intervention in person in\nthe initial cases and\nintervention by filing of\ndocuments thereafter, if\ncircumstances permit\n Intervention in person,\napart from exceptional\ncases\nThird priority\n Credibility cases that\ninvolve program integrity\nconsiderations but have\nless of an impact on the\nprogram as a whole\n 1E exclusions and other\ncredibility cases (see\nsection 5.18 below)\n Intervention by filing of\ndocuments, apart from\nexceptional cases\nThe following is to be considered\nin choosing the type of\nintervention:\n complexity and credibility\nof the evidence;\n need to obtain testimonies\nand to cross-examine; and\n impact of the decision on\nfuture cases.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.4 (CBSA priorities and strategies for hearings at the RPD)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.5", + "marginal_note": "Criteria for evaluating cases", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.5 Criteria for evaluating cases\nTo help officers determine the relevance of an intervention, certain criteria have to be evaluated. The\nfollowing tables contain indicators that help officers to evaluate cases and to make the most informed\ndecision possible regarding the appropriateness of making an intervention, whether by filing of documents\nor in person.\nTable 4: Factors to consider in cases not involving exclusion grounds set out in article 1F of the\nRefugee Convention\nIndividual factors Factors that influence the\nprogram\nFactors that influence illegal\nmovements and smugglers ’\nnetworks\nThe identity or nationality of the\nclaimant is cast into doubt (e.g.,\nseizure of documents in the mail,\nchecking of fingerprints) or there\nare multiple identities.\nThe intervention will not unduly\ndelay the determination process.\nThe application for protection has\nresulted from human trafficking.\nThere are false statements or\ncontradictory statements regarding\nThe country of nationality is one of\nthe 10 most important source\nThe application for protection has\nresulted from the use of a\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 14\nimportant aspects of the claim\n(e.g., declaration at port of entry,\nvisa application).\ncountries for refugees in Canada\nor is increasing in importance at an\naccelerated rate.\ndangerous or unconventional\nmeans of transportation to reach\nCanada.\nThere is a question of status in a\nsafe third country (e.g., visitor\nauthorization renewed for several\nyears).\nIn the region, the acceptance rate\nis higher than the national rate,\nand there is an explanation (e.g,\ndifferent profile of claimants in the\nregion compared to the rest of the\ncountry).\nThere is the possibility of removal. The issues to be resolved are\ncommon to a particular group of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.5 (Criteria for evaluating cases) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.5", + "marginal_note": "Criteria for evaluating cases", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "claimants (e.g., arrival en masse of\nclaimants all alleging the same\nreasons).\nThere are other immigration\napplications in process that would\nallow the claimant to remain in\nCanada (e.g., sponsorship\napplication).\nThe application for protection\ncomes from an individual from a\ncountry that is exempt from the\nobligation to obtain a Canadian\nvisitor visa.\nThe claimant has a criminal record\nin Canada.\nThe CBSA has a policy on the\nbasis for the claim.\nThere are no acceptable\nidentification documents with no\nreasonable justification (e.g., the\nperson had status in a third\ncountry and had to submit\nidentification documents to obtain\nstatus).\nA question of legal interpretation is\nraised that might lead to an\napplication for judicial review (e.g.,\ninterpretation of a legislative\nprovision).\nThere are sensitive, high-profile\nissues (e.g., child abduction case\npublicized in the media).\nThe information provided by the\nintervention mechanism will help\nprovide additional details\nconcerning the claim.\nTable 5: Particular factors to consider\nType of case Particular factors\nCases that establish a new trend\nin the movement of persons that\naffect a large population of refugee\nprotection claimants and that\ninvolve misrepresentation, fraud,\nor human trafficking\n The number of refugee protection claims that are part of the\nmovement\n The documentary evidence available on the subject\n The existence of precedents in other regions\nVacation of a refugee protection\nclaim [A109]\n The nature and importance of the false declarations or withholding\nof facts, taking the circumstances of the case into account\n Does there remain enough evidence, among the pieces of\nevidence considered at the time of the initial decision, to justify\nretaining refugee protection? [A109(2)]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.5 (Criteria for evaluating cases) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.5", + "marginal_note": "Criteria for evaluating cases", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 15\nCessation of refugee protection\n[A108]\nWhether or not there is prima facie evidence to support one of the\ncircumstances for cessation under subsection A108(1)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.5 (Criteria for evaluating cases) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.6", + "marginal_note": "Finding of ineligibility", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.6 Finding of ineligibility\nBefore determining whether an intervention is appropriate, it is imperative to determine whether the\nindividual is or might be the subject of a finding of ineligibility.\nThe IRPA allows the Immigration Division or the Minister of PSEP, as the case may be, to make a finding\nof inadmissibility on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, or\norganized criminality that causes the refugee protection claim to be ineligible [A101].\nIn the case of inadmissibility for serious criminality, the refugee claim will only be ineligible if it concerns\nconviction\n in Canada for an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of\nimprisonment of at least ten years; or\n outside of Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under an Act\nof Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years.\nSections A33 to A37 describe in detail the reasons for inadmissibility that result in a refugee claim being\nineligible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, or organized\ncriminality [A101(1)(f) and A101(2)].\nOfficers must keep the following factors in mind:\n the standard of proof at the Immigration Division for a finding of inadmissibility is reasonable\ngrounds for believing that the facts in question have occurred, are occurring, or may occur [A33]\nThe Federal Court of Appeal has found that the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard\nrequires something more than mere suspicion, but less than the standard applicable in civil\nmatters of proof on the balance of probabilities. It is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility\nbased on credible evidence [Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.6 (Finding of ineligibility) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.6", + "marginal_note": "Finding of ineligibility", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "[2005] 2 S.C.R. 100. par 114].\nThis is a lower standard than the criminal standard of reasonable doubt. It is a bona fide belief in\na serious possibility based on credible evidence; and\n beginning with Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 2 F.C. 306,\nthe standard of proof at the RPD regarding exclusion under article 1F of the Refugee Convention\nis “serious reasons for considering”, which is equivalent to “reasonable grounds for believing.”\nThe Refugee Convention can be found at the UNHCR site.\nConsequently, a person does not have to have been convicted of a crime by a court for an exclusion\nclause to apply. The clause may also apply where a person has been found not guilty by a court due to\ninsufficient evidence (the standard is higher in criminal cases in a number of countries) or for other\nreasons, if it is possible to reach the standard of “reasonable grounds for believing.”\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 16\nA refugee protection claimant who has been found inadmissible in or outside of Canada on grounds of\nsecurity, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, or organized criminality [A112(3)(a)\nand A112(3)(b)] or a claimant who has been refused protection under article 1F of the Refugee\nConvention [A112(3)(c)] may not obtain refugee status at the time of the PRRA in either case but may\nbenefit from a stay of the removal order [A114(1)(b) and A112(3)]. See PP 3, Pre-removal risk\nassessment.\nFailed refugee protection claimants are subject to a one-year bar (or three-year bar if the claimant is a\nnational from a DCO) on a PRRA following the final decision on their claim. However, vacated or\nexcluded claims are not subject to the PRRA bar [A112(2)(b.1)]. See PP 3, Pre-removal risk assessment", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.6 (Finding of ineligibility) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.6", + "marginal_note": "Finding of ineligibility", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "for further information.\nNote: If an officer thinks that a claimant may be inadmissible on security or serious criminality grounds,\nwhich would render the claim ineligible, and the officer determines it is better to pursue the admissibility\nhearing route (versus exclusion), the officer must follow the appropriate procedure. See ENF 5, Writing\nsubsection A44(1) Reports and ENF 6, Review of reports under A44(1).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.6 (Finding of ineligibility) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.7", + "marginal_note": "Suspension", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.7 Suspension\nPursuant to section A103, a claim is suspended when a subsection 44(1) report has been referred to an\nadmissibility hearing on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality,\norganized criminality, or outstanding, serious criminal charges in Canada (refer to form BSF 528).\nSuspension before a claim is referred to the RPD\nThere are two circumstances where an officer can suspend the processing of a claim and delay the\neligibility decision, which is made typically within three working days.\nThe officer shall suspend the eligibility of the person’s claim if\na) a report has been referred for a determination, at an admissibility hearing, of whether the person\nis inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality,\nor organized criminality; or\nb) the officer considers it necessary to wait for a decision of a court with respect to a claimant who is\ncharged with an offence under an Act of Parliament that is punishable by a maximum term of\nimprisonment of at least 10 years [A100(2)].\nSuspension after a claim is referred to the RPD\nSimilar to suspension prior to referral to the RPD, section A103 requires the RPD to suspend proceedings\nwhen notified by an officer that the case has been referred to the Immigration Division to decide whether\nthe claimant is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious\ncriminality, or organized criminality.\nSuspension after the claim is referred to the RPD is required if the claimant is charged with an offence\npunishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years and the officer considers it necessary\nto wait for the court’s decision.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 17", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.7 (Suspension)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.8", + "marginal_note": "Resumption of eligibility processing", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.8 Resumption of eligibility processing\nIf the Immigration Division determines that the person is inadmissible based on security, violating human\nor international rights, serious criminality, or organized criminality, then the claim should be determined\nineligible, and the RPD should be notified accordingly [A104 and BSF 529].\nHowever, if the Immigration Division determines that the person is not inadmissible based on security,\nviolating human or international rights, serious criminality, or organized criminality, the Minister’s delegate\nshould make a determination of eligibility and notify the RPD accordingly [A103 and BSF 527].\nIf the Minister is considering filing or has already filed an appeal pursuant to subsection A63(5), the officer\nshould notify the RPD.\nIn summary, if the\n application for refugee protection has been referred to the RPD [A100], and if a report pursuant to\nsubsection A44(1) has been prepared and is referred to the Immigration Division for an\nadmissibility hearing, a notice pursuant to section A103 will inform the RPD that the claim for\nrefugee protection before them is suspended until a determination is made by the Immigration\nDivision;\n Immigration Division makes a finding of inadmissibility, section A104 provides that the\nproceedings before the RPD are terminated; consequently, the refugee claim is not eligible, and\nany proceedings before the RPD are thus terminated as though they never took place; or\n Immigration Division does not make a finding of inadmissibility, the refugee protection claim is\ncontinued on notice that the claim is eligible [A103], and the normal process for dealing with the\nclaim at the RPD continues. An officer shall reassess the case and determine whether an\nintervention is justified.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.8 (Resumption of eligibility processing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.9", + "marginal_note": "Extradition", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.9 Extradition\nIf an officer comes across a case that involves extradition procedures, the Case Management Branch at\nIRCC National Headquarters must be contacted.\nSubsection 105(1) suspension if proceeding under Extradition Act\nThe RPD and the RAD shall not commence or shall suspend consideration of any matter concerning a\nperson against whom an authority to proceed has been issued under section 15 of the Extradition Act\nwith respect to an offence that is equivalent to an offence under Canadian law that is punishable under an\nAct of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, until a final decision under the\nExtradition Act with respect to the discharge or surrender of the person has been made.\nSubsection A105(2) continuation if discharged under Extradition Act\nIf the person is finally discharged under the Extradition Act, the proceedings of the applicable division\nmay be commenced or continued as though there had not been any proceedings under that Act.\nSubsection A105(3) rejection if surrendered under Extradition Act\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 18\nIf the person is ordered surrendered by the Minister of Justice under the Extradition Act and the offence\nfor which the person was committed by the judge under section 29 of that Act is punishable under an Act\nof Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, the order of surrender is deemed\nto be a rejection of a claim for refugee protection based on article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention.\nIf the person was already a Convention refugee or a protected person before extradition was requested,\nthe Minister of Justice, in deciding whether to issue the surrender order, must consider whether the\nconditions which led to the conferral of refugee status still exist.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.9 (Extradition) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.9", + "marginal_note": "Extradition", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The relevant time for considering the person’s ongoing entitlement to refugee protection and, therefore,\nprotection against refoulement and any change of conditions in the requesting state for the purposes of\nparagraph 44(1)(b) of the Extradtion Act is the time at which surrender is sought.\nIf a person is ordered surrendered under the Extradition Act, they are considered rejected based on\narticle 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention. Refer to Németh v. Canada (Justice) 2010 SCC 56 [2010] 3\nSCR 281 and Gavrila v. Canada (Justice), 2010 SCC 57, [2010] 3 SCR 342.\nNote: Pursuant to paragraph A112(2)(a), persons under an authority to proceed issued under section 15\nof the Extradition Act are not eligible for a PRRA.\nSubsection A105(4) final decision\nThe deemed rejection referred to in subsection A105(3) may not be appealed and is not subject to judicial\nreview except to the extent that a judicial review of the order of surrender is provided for under the\nExtradition Act.\nSubsection A105(5) Limit if no previous claim\nIf the person has not made a claim for refugee protection before the order of surrender referred to in\nsubsection A105(3), the person may not do so before the surrender.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.9 (Extradition) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.10", + "marginal_note": "Deciding on process – intervention or admissibility hearing", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.10 Deciding on process – intervention or admissibility hearing\nWhen determining whether or not to pursue an intervention at the RPD to exclude an individual from\nrefugee protection or to have the claim suspended under subsection A103(1) and referred to the\nImmigration Division for an admissibility hearing, officers may consider the following factors:\nIntervention at the RPD leading to\nexclusion pursuant to\narticle 1F(b) of the Refugee\nConvention\nSuspension of consideration of the\nclaim and referral to the Immigration\nDivision for an admissibility hearing\nBurden of proof The burden of proof always rests\nwith the Minister.\nThe burden of proof rests with the\nperson concerned when the person has\nnot been legally authorized to enter\nCanada and with the Minister when\nentry was authorizied [A45(d)].\nElements to be proven To establish complicity, the To establish complicity pursuant to\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 19\nindividual must have made a\nknowing and significant contribution\nto the crime or criminal purpose of\nthe group alleged to have committed\nthe crime.\nparagraph A35(1)(a), it must be\nestablished that the individual\nvoluntarily made a knowing and\nsignificant contribution to the crime or\ncriminal purpose of the group alleged to\nhave committed the crime.\nClassified information Ex parte hearings are not available. Ex parte hearings are available in order\nto present classified information to the\ndecision maker.\nSerious criminality in\nCanada\nInterventions are not available for in-\nCanada convictions. The offence\nmust have taken place outside of\nCanada.\nPursuant to paragraph A36(1)(a), the\noffence must be punishable by a term of\nimprisonment of 10 years in order for\nthe claim to be ineligible [A101(2)(a)].\nSerious criminality\noutside of Canada\nThe crime must be described in\narticle 1F(b) of the Refugee\nConvention.\nPursuant to paragraph A36(1)(a), the\noffence must be punishable by a term of\nimprisonment of 10 years in order for\nthe claim to be ineligible [A101(2)(a)].\nPRRA The individual is ineligible to make a\nclaim but is eligible for a full PRRA.\nRestricted PRRAs are restricted to\nsection A97 only.\nNote: Hearings officers must keep in mind that they may intervene at the RPD and seek exclusion, even\nif the Immigration Division has determined that there is no basis for a finding of inadmissibility.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.10 (Deciding on process – intervention or admissibility hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.11", + "marginal_note": "Highest priority: Cases involving security and criminality issues –", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.11 Highest priority: Cases involving security and criminality issues –\nExclusions under articles 1F(a), 1F(b), and 1F(c) of the Refugee\nConvention\nThe IRPA grants protection on the following three grounds, which are known as the consolidated\ngrounds:\n well-founded fear of persecution based on a Refugee Convention ground [A96];\n danger of torture [A97(1)(a)]; and\n risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment [A97(1)(b)].\nWhile recognizing the need to protect refugees, the Refugee Convention contains provisions under which\npersons who might otherwise be eligible for refugee status are excluded from the protection offered by\nthis status. The provisions of the Refugee Convention on exclusions have been incorporated into\nsection A98.\nSection A98 reads as follows:\nA person referred to in article 1E or F of the Refugee Convention is not a Convention refugee or a\nperson in need of protection.\nArticle 1F of the Refugee Convention is included as a schedule to the IRPA and reads as follows:\nThe provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 20\nserious reasons for considering that:\n(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined\nin the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;\n(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his\nadmission to that country as a refugee;\n(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.\nNo balancing required\nOnce it has been determined that an exclusion clause applies, there is no need to consider if the person\nis a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, and there is no requirement to balance the\nnature of the exclusion with the degree of persecution feared.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.11 (Highest priority: Cases involving security and criminality issues –)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-12-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.12", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.12 Exclusion under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention\nNote: For an in-depth analysis of exclusion under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention, refer to\nENF 18, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.\nIn the matter of Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40, the Supreme Court of\nCanada (SCC) ruled that membership in an organization with a limited, brutal purpose is no longer\nsufficient for an individual to be excluded from refugee protection under section 1F(a) of the Refugee\nConvention.\nThe SCC established that an individual will be excluded from refugee protection under article 1F(a) of the\nRefugee Convention for complicity in international crimes if there are serious reasons for considering that\nthe individual voluntarily made a knowing and significant contribution to the crime or criminal purpose of\nthe group alleged to have committed the crime; this is also known as the contribution-based test.\nThe SCC indicated that other forms of liability, such as aiding and abetting and command/superior\nresponsibility, continue to be operative, and pre-Ezokola jurisprudence pertaining to these concepts\nshould continue to be used for this purpose.\nThe SCC also indicated that the guidance to apply the contribution-based test can be found in a number\nof factors, namely\n(i) the size and nature of the organization, including a limited, brutal purpose organization;\n(ii) the part of the organization with which the refugee claimant was most directly concerned;\n(iii) the refugee claimant’s duties and activities within the organization;\n(iv) the refugee claimant’s position or rank in the organization;\n(v) the length of time the refugee claimant was in the organization, particularly after acquiring\nknowledge of the group’s crime or criminal purpose; and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.12 (Exclusion under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-12-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.12", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 21\n(vi) the method by which the refugee claimant was recruited and what kind of opportunitythey had\nto leave the organization.\nMost of these factors were already being applied by the IRB prior to Ezokola, either directly (factors i and iv–\nvi) or indirectly (factor ii), but factor iii is new and should be given due attention.\nNote: The contribution-based test to establish complicity as proposed by the SCC in Ezokola must also\nbe applied in the context of evaluating inadmissibility pursuant to paragraph A35(1)(a).\nWhen presenting arguments related to exclusions pursuant to article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention or\nparagraph A35(1)(a), the hearings officer must show how an individual meets the contribution-based test\nas established in Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration). For case law pertaining to\narticle 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention, refer to Appendix B of this manual chapter.\nNote: The SCC decision on Ezokola does not impact evaluation of inadmissibility pursuant to\nsubsections A34(1) and A37(1) or paragraphs A35(1)(b) and A35(1)(c). Ezokola has also no impact on\nhow membership under paragraphs A34(1)(f) or A37(1)(a) is evaluated.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.12 (Exclusion under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.13", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.13 Exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention\nThe primary purpose of this provision is to protect the population of the host country from a person who\nhas committed a serious non-political crime before being admitted to Canada. This provision relates to\nthe IRPA's objective of protecting Canadians and denying access to Canadian territory to serious\ncriminals.\nNote: Exclusions under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention concern the commission of a crime. It is\nnot necessary for the claimant to have been convicted of a serious non-political crime. All that is\nnecessary is that there be serious reasons for believing that the person has committed such a\ncrime.\nSee Appendix B for case law on exclusions under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.13 (Exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Concept of serious non-political crime", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Concept of serious non-political crime\nIn order to successfully intervene in cases of exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention,\nhearings officers must clearly articulate the definition of a serious non-political crime.\nAccording to paragraph 155 of the UNHCR Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for\nDetermining Refugee Status,\n“What constitutes a ‘serious’ non-political crime for the purposes of this exclusion clause is\ndifficult to define, especially since the term ‘crime’ has different connotations in different legal\nsystems. In some countries, the word ‘crime’ denotes only offences of a serious character. In\nother countries, it may comprise anything from petty larceny to murder. In the present context,\nhowever, a ‘serious’ crime must be a capital crime or a very grave punishable act. Minor offences\npunishable by moderate sentences are not grounds for exclusion under article 1F(b) of the\nRefugee Convention, even if technically referred to as ‘crimes’ in the penal law of the country\nconcerned.”\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 22\nIn the context of the IRPA, the term “serious crime” is understood to mean an indictable offence under the\nCriminal Code of Canada (including mixed offences). “Serious crimes” are defined as serious by\ncomparing the acts or omissions alleged against the claimant to Canada’s criminal law. Offences that\nlead to at least 10 or more years of imprisonment are considered “serious crimes,” but lesser penalties\nmay qualify, depending on the circumstances and nature of the crime committed (see Jayasekara v.\nCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FCA 404, which establishes that, where a\nmaximum sentence of ten years or more could have been imposed had the crime been committed in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Concept of serious non-political crime) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Concept of serious non-political crime", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Canada, the crime will generally be considered serious).\nThe presumption of the seriousness of a crime may be rebutted by the following factors:\n the elements of the crime, the mode of prosecution, the penalty prescribed, the facts, and the\nmitigating and aggravating circumstances underlying the conviction;\n any mitigating factors; and\n the gravity of the crime, had it been committed in Canada.\nFor detailed analysis on the above factors, refer to Jayasekara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration), 2008 FCA 404, [2009] 4 F.C.R. 164.\nThe Federal Court of Appeal decisions in Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FCA 324\nand in Feimi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FCA 325 determined that\nrehabilitation and current danger are not relevant considerations in applying exclusions for serious\ncriminality under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention. The following certified question was answered\nnegatively by the court in Febles:\nWhen applying article 1F(b) of theRefugee Convention, is it relevant for the RPD of the IRB to\nconsider the fact that the refugee claimant has been rehabilitated since the commission of the\ncrime at issue?\nThe court found the argument that a crime may be considered as less serious years after its commission\nbecause the claimant is rehabilitated and is no longer a danger is inconsistent with the court’s reasoning\nin Jayasekara. Justice Létourneau determined that, although the presumption of seriousness may be\nrebutted (by the factors above), there is no balancing of factors extraneous to the facts and\ncircumstances underlying the conviction, such as the risk of persecution in the state of origin. In Febles,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Concept of serious non-political crime) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Concept of serious non-political crime", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "the Federal Court of Appeal found that rehabilitation is an extraneous factor and is not to be balanced\nagainst the presumed seriousness of the crime.\nNote: This decision was upheld by the SCC. In Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014\nSCC 68, at paragraph 62, the SCC also commented that “while consideratioin of whether a maximum\nsentence of ten years or more could have been imposed had the crime been committed in Canada is a\nuseful guideline, and while crimes attracting a maximum sentence of ten years or more in Canada will\ngenerally be sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion, the ten-year rule should not be applied in a\nmechanistic, decontextualized, or unjust manner”\nThe decision to invoke the exclusion clause or not depends on the seriousness of the offence committed.\nApplication of the exclusion clause is warranted in the case of offences that directly or indirectly affect a\nperson’s physical integrity and also offences such as fabrication of false passports, impersonation, and\nwhite-collar crimes. The CBSA policy is to exclude all individuals who are serious criminals in order to\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 23\npromote security and international justice. Where a hearings officer determines that sufficient evidence\nexists to raise the question of exclusion, and this evidence may allow the RPD to make a finding of\nexclusion, the hearings officer must intervene in the case.\nNote: Officers may refer to ENF 2, Evaluating Inadmissibility for additional information.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Concept of serious non-political crime) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Concept of political crime", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Concept of political crime\nFor a crime to be considered political, it must have been committed during political troubles in a struggle\nto overthrow the government. Also, there must be a relationship between the crime committed and\nattainment of the desired goal. The political aspect of the offence must be more important than the non-\npolitical crime aspect. However, an exception to this interpretation is made where the nature of the crime\nis completely disproportionate to the goal that is sought or where the act is barbarous or atrocious.\nThere are offences that are clearly political in nature. These may include treason, espionage,\nmembership in a prohibited political party, or election fraud. However, there are also common offences\nthat have been committed with a clear political motivation. If the political character of the offence\noutweighs the character of a common crime, the offence should be treated as a political offence.\nElements of a political crime\nThe two parts to the test for determining whether an offence is of a political nature are the\n1. political objective; and\n2. nexus between the objective and the alleged crime.\n The crime must be committed in the course of and incidental to a violent political disturbance.\nTherefore, a certain level of violence must exist.\n The nature and purpose of the offence requires examination. An officer should consider if\npersonal reasons or gain were the objective or if there were genuine political motives.\n The political element should outweigh the common, law character of the offence.\n An officer should consider whether the crime was aimed against a civilian, military, or\ngovernment target and whether or not indiscriminate killing or injuring of the public occurred.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Concept of political crime)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Concept of complicity in a non-political crime", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Concept of complicity in a non-political crime\nA person may be excluded from the definition of Convention refugee if it is established that the person\nwas complicit in a serious non-political crime.\nNote: The SCC decision in Ezokola applies equally to articles 1F(a) and 1F(b) of the Refugee\nConvention.\nFor additional information on complicity in the context of exclusions, refer to ENF 18 War Crimes and\nCrimes Against Humanity and section 7.2 and Appendix B of this manual chapter.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3 (Concept of complicity in a non-political crime)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Extradition", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Extradition\nIf a person who applies for refugee protection is the subject of an originating order made under section 15\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 24\nof the Extradition Act for a foreign offence punishable under an Act of Parliament by a maximum term of\nimprisonment of at least ten years, the RPD shall not commence or shall suspend consideration of the\nmatter until such time as a final ruling on the extradition application is made [A105(1)].\nIf a person is ordered surendered under the scheme of the Extradition Act for an offence contemplated in\nsubsection A105(1), that person’s refugee protection application is treated like a refusal of a refugee\nprotection application, based on article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention [A105(3)].\nIf, however, a person is discharged under the Extradition Act, the matter will be continued at the RPD\n[A105(2)].\n5. Special case of the abduction or removal of a child from custody in contravention of a custody\norder\nIn cases where children accompanied by a single parent make a refugee protection claim—the other\nparent having remained in the country of nationality or being located elsewhere—it is important to\nestablish whether the child was abducted or removed from custody in contravention of a custody order.\nSee the provisions concerning the abduction of children in sections 280 to 286 of the Criminal Code.\nTo determine whether a child has been abducted or removed from the custody of a parent, and whether it\nis necessary to invoke exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention, officers must consider\nthe following factors:\n the marital status of the parents;\n the age of majority in the country of nationality;\n the need to obtain the consent of both parents or of the legal guardian for the child to travel", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4 (Extradition) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Extradition", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "outside of the country of nationality;\n consent by the parent or guardian;\n a custody order in favour of the other parent;\n a credible defence (see section 285 of the Criminal Code), namely that the acts were necessary\nto protect the child from imminent danger or to allow the parent to flee imminent danger; and\n communication between the child and the other parent since the child’s arrival in Canada.\nOfficers must contact and work in collaboration with provincial child protection agencies in cases of\nabduction or cases where the parent outside of Canada wishes to appear as a witness in the case.\nFor additional information on children making refugee protection claims, refer to Processing in-Canada\nclaims for refugee protection of minors and vulnerable persons.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4 (Extradition) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.14", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.14 Exclusion under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention\nArticle 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention concerns acts that are contrary to the purposes and principles of\nthe United Nations. Given that articles 1F(a) and 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention also apply in many\ncases, this provision is applied rarely.\nAlthough debate regarding the use of article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention persists, the following\nconclusions on its application can be drawn:\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 25\nApplication of article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.14 (Exclusion under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "The acts committed must be criminal in nature.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. The acts committed must be criminal in nature.\n3. Article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention includes acts committed in the country of refuge and the\ncountry of origin.\n4. Applies to acts committed by individuals in the exercise of government functions and individuals\nwith no connection to government.\nDevelopments in international law and a conservative approach by the SCC have led article 1F(c) of the\nRefugee Convention to have a limited application. Leading cases in this area include:\n Bazargan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1996), 205 N.R. 282.\n Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1998) 1 S.C.R. 982.\n Bitaraf v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2004) FC 898.\n El Hayek v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2005) FC 835.\n Islam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immgration), (2010) FC 71.\n Zrig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immgration), (2003) FCA 178.\n Harb v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2003) FCA 39.\nNote: The purposes and principles of the United Nations are stated in the preamble of the Refugee\nConvention and in articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter.\nArticle 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention applies to acts that constitute very serious and repetitive\nviolations of human rights. Acts that may be considered to be contrary to the purposes and\nprinciples of the United Nations include international kidnapping, torture, hostage-taking,\nenforced disappearances, and apartheid. These crimes may be committed in Canada after the\nperson’s arrival or in another country before the person’s arrival.\nIn Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, the SCC\nestablished the following:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (The acts committed must be criminal in nature.) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "The acts committed must be criminal in nature.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " drug trafficking is not included in exclusions under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention;\n exclusions under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention apply to senior government officials and\nto individuals who have no connection to government;\n exclusions under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention apply to individuals who have been\nconvicted and to persons who have committed a crime but have not been convicted.\nThe SCC also established that application of article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention in exclusions does\nnot require a weighing of exclusion and inclusion factors (i.e., evaluating the nature of the crime against\nthe degree of persecution to which the perpetrator might be exposed).\nNote: The information on complicity and the means of defence referred to below in the context of\nexclusions under article 1F of the Refugee Convention also applies to exclusions under article 1F(c) of\nthe Refugee Convention (see Appendix B for more information).\nIn Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the SCC set out two categories of\nacts that fall within exclusions under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 26\nFirst category\nThe existence of a widely accepted international agreement or a United Nations Resolution, which\ndeclares that the commission of certain acts is contrary to the purposes and principles of the United\nNations.\nSimilarly, other sources of international law may be relevant in a court's determination of whether an act\nfalls within article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention. For example, determinations by the International\nCourt of Justice may be compelling.\nSecond category\nIncludes acts that a court characterizes as serious, sustained, and systemic violations of fundamental", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (The acts committed must be criminal in nature.) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "The acts committed must be criminal in nature.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "human rights constituting persecution.\nThis second category was also described by the SCC as including any act whereby an international\ninstrument has indicated that it is a violation of fundamental human rights.\nThe types of activities which are against the principles and purposes of the United Nations are outlined in\ninternational jurisprudence.\nNote: For case law on exclusions under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention, see Appendix B.\nMost cases involving article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention have pertained to either terrorist activities or\nhuman rights violations. A recent case by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom also added that\nattacks against peacekeeping operations mandated by the United Nations amount to acts against the\npurposes and principles of the United Nations in the case of Al-Sirri and DD v. Secretary of State for the\nHome Department [2012] UKSC 54.1", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (The acts committed must be criminal in nature.) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.15", + "marginal_note": "Means of defence applicable to article 1F of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.15 Means of defence applicable to article 1F of the Refugee\nConvention\nThe burden of proof with respect to defences lies with the person concerned, meaning the defence has to\nbe raised and proven by that person.\nOf all the possible defences in both criminal and immigration/refugee law, such as mistake of law, self\ndefence or intoxication, superior orders and duress have been raised most often.\na) Duress\nIn order for the defence of duress to be successful, the claimant must show to have been in danger of\nimminent harm and the harm feared must be on a balance greater than the harm inflicted. The claimant\nmust have acted necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat and must not be responsible for their\nown predicament. The remorse that the claimant now feels is not relevant.\n1 http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0036_Judgment.pdf\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 27\nb) Defence of superior orders\nThe defence of superior orders rests on the notion that the position held required the individual to follow\norders from the government or a superior officer. Although this defence may be used in a criminal\nprosecution to argue for a lighter sentence, it is not relevant for the purposes of the IRPA and cannot\novercome inadmissibility pursuant to paragraph A35(1)(a) or article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention,\nexcept in the narrow case of war crimes (in which case it needs to be shown by the person concerned\nthat committing a war crime was not manifestly unlawful, which is a difficult test to meet).\nc) Prosecution versus persecution\nA common defence raised in cases of exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention is that the\nclaimant alleges that the criminal charges they are facing in the country of nationality are a form of\npersecution. That is, the claimant alleges that the charges were fabricated by the authorities in the\ncountry of alleged persecution.\nWhen assessing persecution as a means of defence, the hearings officer should be aware of the\nconsiderations below.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.15 (Means of defence applicable to article 1F of the Refugee)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "The Federal Court of Appeal and the SCC have stated that, in the absence of evidence to the", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. The Federal Court of Appeal and the SCC have stated that, in the absence of evidence to the\ncontrary, Canadian tribunals must assume that a fair and independent judicial process has taken\nplace in the foreign country.\n2. In the context of extradition matters, the SCC held that the courts may intervene if the decision to\nsurrender a fugitive for trial in a foreign country would, in the particular circumstances, violate the\nprinciples of fundamental justice pursuant to section 7 of the Charter. An example of an\nexceptional circumstance would be extradition to potential death penalty. However, to surrender a\nperson to be tried for a crime the person is alleged to have committed in the foreign country in the\nabsence of exceptional circumstances does not violate the principles of fundamental justice. In\nthe absence of exceptional circumstances, Canadian courts must assume that the person will be\ngiven a fair trial in the foreign country.\n Republic of Argentina v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536 at 558.\n3. In the context of the refugee determination process and in the absence of proof by the refugee\nclaimant, Canadian tribunals must assume a fair trial has taken place. The notion of a fair trial in a\nfair and independent judicial system must make allowance for the self-correcting mechanisms\nwithin the system (e.g., the trial judge’s control over the excesses of the participants and the\ncontrol of the appellate courts over any errors of the trial judge).\nIn all but the most extraordinary circumstances, the events leading up to a prosecution and trial in\na free and independent foreign judicial system must be taken to be merged into the judicial\nprocess and not open to review by a Canadian tribunal. Extraordinary circumstances would be", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (The Federal Court of Appeal and the SCC have stated that, in the absence of evidence to the) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "The Federal Court of Appeal and the SCC have stated that, in the absence of evidence to the", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "those that tend to impeach the total system of prosecution, jury selection, or judging, not\nindiscretions or illegalities by individual participants, which, even if proven, are subject to\ncorrection by the process itself.\nThe application of the principle of fundamental justice in the context of the refugee determination\nprocess was sanctioned by the SCC in Ward.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 28\n Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Satiacum, [1989] F.C.J. No. 505\n(F.C.A.), cited with approval in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2. S.C.R. 689 at\npage 725.\nFor additional details on means of defence, see section 7.4 of ENF 18, War Crimes and Crimes Against\nHumanity.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (The Federal Court of Appeal and the SCC have stated that, in the absence of evidence to the) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-16-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.16", + "marginal_note": "Intervention strategy for exclusion cases", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.16 Intervention strategy for exclusion cases\nAs per subrule 29(2) of the RPDR, hearings officers have the option to intervene in writing, in person, or\nboth.\nThe preferred approach is for the hearings officers to intervene in person, particularly for the more\ncontentious cases. The concern about paper-based interventions is the quality and scope of evidence\ntesting that may take place in the absence of a hearings officer. While RPD members can and should\nquestion the claimant about the exclusion material filed by the Minister, the member’s primary role is that\nof an impartial decision maker.\nHearings officers are much better placed to conduct probing examinations that test all of the evidence put\nbefore the decision maker. Hearings officers appear in an adversarial role at an RPD hearing and\nscrutinise and challenge the evidence in a way that RPD members may be reluctant to do, given their role\nas indepenendent decision makers.\nDepending on circumstances, paper-based intervention by filing evidence and submissions may be\nappropriate. Case law is clear that the Minister does not need to participate at the hearing in order for the\nRPD to make an exclusion finding [Arica v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995),\n182 NR 392 (FCA)]. To this end, hearings officers must assess whether or not their presence at the\nhearing will be beneficial to the determination process.\nIf it is determined that intervention by way of filing of documents is the appropriate action, it is absolutely\nnecessary that the hearings officer who is assigned to the case follows the decision very closely. If the\noutcome is not satisfactory and if it is possible to appeal the decision, a determination will have to be", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.16 (Intervention strategy for exclusion cases) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-16-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.16", + "marginal_note": "Intervention strategy for exclusion cases", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "made as to whether it is appropriate for the Minister to file an appeal to the RAD or an application for\nleave and judicial review.\nThe hearings officer’s task is to\n ensure that the RPD member, in dealing with matters that lie outside of the member’s specialized\npurview, is informed about the terms specific to the Department (e.g., GCMS, FOSS, CAIPS,\ndocuments of the United States [U.S.] Immigration and Naturalization Service), and the contents\nof the documents produced by the hearings officer; and\n question the claimant about the grounds for exclusion and, where necessary, about credibility\nand/or program integrity.\nNote: If the member thinks that there is sufficient evidence to support application of the exclusion clause,\nthe member may make a determination without hearing the inclusion evidence.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 29", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.16 (Intervention strategy for exclusion cases) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.17", + "marginal_note": "First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.17 First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests\nintervention from the Minister of PSEP\nSince the RPD may or, in some cases, must inform the Minister of PSEP of matters pertaining to\nexclusion and certain inadmissibilities (rules 26 and 28 of the RPDR), it is important that officers take the\npanel’s requests for intervention into account and be available to help ensure the proper conduct of the\nhearing in accordance with the member’s instructions.\nThe RPD “Red letters” will be faxed to the triage centre closest to the claimant’s address, and the triage\ncentre will fax them to the appropriate hearings office, where it will be determined whether an intervention\nis warranted.\nNote: The Minister has 14 days after receipt of the notice to respond to exclusion issues and 20 days\nafter receipt to respond to a notice of possible inadmissibility or ineligibility before the RPD must fix a date\nfor the hearing or resume a hearing that was suspended.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.17 (First priority: Cases where a member of the RPD requests)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.18", + "marginal_note": "Second priority: Cases where the outcome will have a very great", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.18 Second priority: Cases where the outcome will have a very great\nimpact on the integrity of the program\nAs discussed in section 5.3 of this manual chapter, pursuant to the R&I pilot, IRCC senior immigration\nofficers can intervene on program integrity grounds, unless the case is a hybrid case, the claimant is or\nwas detained or is an irregular arrival (DFN), or Charter arguments are involved.\nSecond priority cases are cases that\n establish a new trend in the movement of persons;\n affect a large population of refugee protection claimants; and\n involve misrepresentation, fraud, or human trafficking.\nSince the arrival of very large numbers of refugee protection claimants with particular ties (nationality,\nethnicity, religion, etc.) may lead to the establishment of precedents at the IRB, it is important to identify\nclearly and to monitor these types of cases.\nNote: Cases giving rise to monitoring in this context are cases where certain indications suggest that\nspecific groups of persons are not genuine refugees. Refer to section 5.5, Criteria for evaluating cases.\nMembership in a group of individuals does not in itself justify intervention. What is important is to identify\ngroups of individuals who are using the refugee protection determination process in a fraudulent way in\norder to ensure that the RPD is aware of the fraud and argue that the claim should be rejected as\nmanifestly unfounded. Individuals whose claims are rejected and determined by the RPD to have no\ncredible basis or to be manifestly unfounded do not have acess to the RAD. [A110(2)(c)]\nNote: The individuals in question may come from the same region or have employed the same network of\nsmugglers and allege persecution, while the CBSA or IRCC may have information suggesting that these\nclaims are based on false declarations (i.e., they are not actually members of a political or religious\ngroup).\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 30\nThe objective in monitoring these types of cases is to ensure that those who are fleeing persecution\nbenefit from due process in a timely fashion and to offer refugee protection to those who have a well-\nfounded fear of persecution by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social\ngroup, or political opinion and to those who are at risk of torture or cruel and unusual punishment.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.18 (Second priority: Cases where the outcome will have a very great)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-19", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.19", + "marginal_note": "Strategy to adopt in second-priority cases", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.19 Strategy to adopt in second-priority cases\nSince these cases may have a major impact on the integrity of the program, it is imperative to intervene\nwhen the initial refugee protection claims are made.\nIn case of a mass arrival, it is important to develop expertise regarding the country concerned and the\nalleged events. Regions must consult the documentation centre of the IRB to obtain the available\ninformation on relevant topics, and the hearings officer must determine whether additional research is\nnecessary to add to the evidence to support the CBSA’s position.\nNote: The preferred approach is intervention in person, for the initial cases at least. However, depending\non circumstances, intervention by filing evidence and submissions may be appropriate in specific cases.\nHearings officers must assess whether or not their attendance at the hearing will be beneficial to the\ndetermination process.\nIf it is determined that intervention by filing of documents is the appropriate action, it is absolutely\nnecessary that hearings officers follow the decisions very closely. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the\nteam leaders will have to determine whether intervention in the hearing room is required for future cases.\nNote: If an undesirable precedent is created, it is often difficult to reverse it.\nIf the presence of a hearings officer at the hearing is determined to be essential, the results are\nsatisfactory, and a trend has developed, the team lead must determine whether attendance to\nsubsequent cases continues to be necessary to attain the desired objectives.\nIt is up to the regions to monitor the decisions and to inform National Headquarters and other partners of\nthe results obtained.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.19 (Strategy to adopt in second-priority cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-20", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.20", + "marginal_note": "Cases involving a single individual (and family)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.20 Cases involving a single individual (and family)\nDue to the particular profile of a case, there are compelling considerations in favour of intervention by the\nCBSA.\nNote: In this type of case, the final outcome of a decision has a very serious impact on the entire program\nand may affect subsequent refugee claims.\nThese cases may involve interpretation of a legislative provision, case law, or doctrine. They may also be\nsensitive cases likely to attract special attention from the media.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.20 (Cases involving a single individual (and family))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-21", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.21", + "marginal_note": "Strategy to adopt in cases involving a single individual", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.21 Strategy to adopt in cases involving a single individual\nIntervention in person should be the preferred strategy, apart from exceptional cases.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 31", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.21 (Strategy to adopt in cases involving a single individual)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.22", + "marginal_note": "Third priority: Credibility cases whose impact on the program is", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.22 Third priority: Credibility cases whose impact on the program is\nminimal\nThird-priority cases are credibility cases that involve program integrity considerations but have less of an\nimpact on the program as a whole. As discussed in section 5.3 of this manual chapter, IRCC senior\nimmigration officers intervene in RPD hearings on grounds of credibility and program integrity, unless the\ncase is hybrid, the claimant is or was detained, the claimant is an irregular arrival, or Charter arguments\nare made.\nFor more information, see section 5.22 (exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention) and\nsection 5.24 below (other cases involving credibility, identity, or nexus issues).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.22 (Third priority: Credibility cases whose impact on the program is)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-23-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.23", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.23 Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention\nSection A98 excludes persons referred to in article 1E of the Refugee Convention as follows:\n“This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of\nthe country in which he is taking residence as having the rights and obligations which are\nattached to the possession of the nationality of that country.”\nSince the person seeking refugee protection already enjoys the protection of another country, Canada\nhas no responsibility to protect the person. This provision prevents people who already enjoy a\npermanent right of asylum from “asylum shopping” in other countries.\nThere is no precise definition of the rights and obligations mentioned in this section. However, it can be\nsaid that the exclusion clause will apply if the status of the person applying for refugee protection is\nsubstantially similar to that of a person having the nationality of the country in question.\nIn particular, the person must enjoy protection against refoulement or expulsion for crimes that are not\nserious and must have a right to return to the country of residence.\nOther rights, such as the right to work, be educated, return, have access to social services, or be free to\ncirculate within the country may also be associated with the possession of nationality.\nIn some countries, people who have status similar to that of a permanent resident in Canada may satisfy\nthe criteria of article 1E of the Refugee Convention. Some countries issue temporary visas with an\nautomatic extension option and no discretion of the government or of a public servant if an application is\nmade for them. These applications are often for spouses of nationals, for children of nationals, or for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.23 (Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-23-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.23", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "persons who have been within the national territory for a very long time and whose status is not\nprecarious. This type of status may also bring the exclusion clause into play, depending on\ncircumstances.\nNote: Students or temporary workers are not usually included in this class, unless they can establish a\nstatus that is stable or automatically renewable without any discretion of the government or of a public\nservant.\nCountry shopping\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 32\nThe Federal Court has held that article 1E of the Refugee Convention can be applied to persons who\ncome to Canada when asylum shopping or to persons who take deliberate actions that are intended to\nresult in not being able to return to the country where they already have refugee status. For example, not\nrenewing a visa that could easily have been renewed [Shahpari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmgration), F.C.T.D., IMM-2327-97, April 3, 1998]. For each case, the hearings officer should consider if\nthe individual intentionally allowed their status to expire in the country in question.\nOnus and the right of return\nIn Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), (F.C.T.D.) and Shahpari v.\nCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immgration), the court speaks to the issue of right of return. The\ncourt has gone as far as to say that there is an onus on the claimant to renew their status, if it is\nrenewable, in the country under article 1E of the Refugee Convention. In Shahpari, the court held that\nonce the Minister submits evidence to the effect that an applicant can return to a given country, the onus\nthen shifts to the applicant to show that they cannot.\nIn Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Zeng, 2010 FCA 118, Justice Layden-Stevenson", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.23 (Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-23-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.23", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "concluded that it is permissible for the RPD to consider an individual’s status in a third country upon\narrival in Canada and thereafter, up until and including the date of the hearing before the RPD in order to\ndetermine whether the individual should be excluded under article 1E of the Refugee Convention. She\nalso concluded that it is permissible for the RPD, in assessing whether article 1E of the Refugee\nConvention applies, to consider what steps the individual took or did not take to cause or fail to prevent\nthe loss of status in a third country.\nThe test is to be applied in determinations under article 1E of the Refugee Convention is as follows:\na) Considering all of the relevant factors up to the date of the hearing, does the claimant have status\nsubstantially similar to that of the nationals in a third country? If the answer is yes, the claimant is\nexcluded.\nb) If the answer to a) is no, the next question is whether the claimant previously had such status and\nlost it or had access to such status and failed to acquire it. If the answer is no, the claimant is not\nexcluded.\nc) If the answer to b) is yes, the RPD must consider and balance various factors, including but not\nlimited to the reason for the loss of status (voluntary or involuntary), the ability of the claimant to\nreturn to the third country, the risk the claimant would face in the third country, Canada’s\ninternational obligations, and all other relevant facts.\nIt will be for the RPD to weigh the factors and arrive at a determination as to whether the exclusion will\napply, given the particular circumstances of the case at hand.\n Shahpari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immgration), 1998 CanLII 7678 (FC).\n Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) M.C.I. (1995), 103 F.T.R 241, 32", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.23 (Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-23-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.23", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Imm. L.R. (2d) 135 (F.C.T.D.).\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Zeng, 2010 FCA 118 (CanLII).\nSee Appendix C for additional case law on exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee Convention.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 33", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.23 (Exclusion cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-24", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.24", + "marginal_note": "Strategy to adopt in cases under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.24 Strategy to adopt in cases under article 1E of the Refugee\nConvention\nThese cases are of lesser importance because of their limited impact on the integrity of the program.\nIntervention by filing of documents and submissions is the preferred method for intervening in these\ncases. However, in some exceptional cases, it is appropriate to intervene in person.\nAs discussed in section 5.3 of this manual chapter, IRCC senior immigration officers handle the majority\nof cases under article 1E of the Refugee Convention. A CBSA hearings officer should only intervene in\ncases where hybrid grounds were identified at triage, e.g., where the claimant is or was detained, or is an\nirregular arrival (DFN), or where Charter arguments are being made.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.24 (Strategy to adopt in cases under article 1E of the Refugee)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-25", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.25", + "marginal_note": "Other cases involving credibility, identity, or nexus issues", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.25 Other cases involving credibility, identity, or nexus issues\nThe final outcome of these cases will have only a limited impact in the sense that it will only affect the\nrefugee claimant and the family, not the integrity of the program itself. In other words, the import of the\ndecisions in these cases is limited.\nThese cases may involve some of the following situations:\n multiple or fraudulent identities;\n fraudulent declarations in the claim for refugee protection;\n a refugee protection claim for reasons that cannot be associated with the definition of a\nConvention refugee or of a person in need of protection;\n a prolonged stay in a country that is a signatory to the Refugee Convention without a claim being\nmade for refugee protection;\n an application for a Canadian visa from outside of Canada for reasons that contradict the reasons\ncontained in the form submitted to the IRB;\n previous contradictory declarations;\n rejected refugee claims of family members;\n a denunciation;\n seizure of documents in the mail.\nFor more information on credibility, refer to the IRB reference paper, Assessment of Credibility in Claims\nfor Refugee Protection, and for nexus issues, refer to Interpretation of the Convention Refugee Definition\nin the Case Law.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.25 (Other cases involving credibility, identity, or nexus issues)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-26", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.26", + "marginal_note": "Strategy to adopt in cases involving credibility, identity, and nexus", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.26 Strategy to adopt in cases involving credibility, identity, and nexus\nissues\nIn these cases, most interventions are done by filing documents and making written submissions because\nthese cases do not involve general program integrity issues. In some cases, an intervention in person\nmay be appropriate.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 34", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.26 (Strategy to adopt in cases involving credibility, identity, and nexus)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-27", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.27", + "marginal_note": "Disclosure of personal information from the refugee claim of a", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.27 Disclosure of personal information from the refugee claim of a\nthird party\nIn support of an intervention in a refugee claim or an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection,\nthe Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC, as the case may be, may wish to introduce to the IRB as\nevidence personal information from the refugee claim of a third party.\nGenerally, personal information (as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act) of a third party cannot be\ndisclosed without that party’s consent (section 8 of the Privacy Act). However, rule 21 of the RPDR gives\nthe RPD the authority to disclose information from another claim, including personal information protected\nby the Privacy Act.\nIf the Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC, as a party to the claim concerned (rule 1 of the RPDR),\nwishes information from the claim of a third party to be disclosed pursuant to rule 21 of the RPDR, they\nmust make an application to the RPD to allow that disclosure, as per rule 49 of the RPDR and subject to\nrule 50 of the RPDR.\nIn determining whether to allow the disclosure of information from another claim, the RPD must, as per\nrule 21 of the RPDR, consider if, as per\n1. subrule 21(1) of the RPDR, the information to be disclosed involves “similar questions of fact or if\nthe information is otherwise relevant”; and\n2. subrule 21(5) of the RPDR, whether or not a serious possibility exists that the disclosure of the\ninformation concerned would “endanger the life, liberty or security of any person or is likely to\ncause an injustice.”\nIn light of these requirements, the Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC, as the case may be, should\nconsider, prior to making an application for disclosure, whether or not the conditions set out in rule 21 of\nthe RPDR are likely to be met. If the Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC believes that the\ninformation concerned does meet the relevancy criteria and that there is no serious possibility that the\ndisclosure of said information would endanger the life, liberty or security of any person, the Minister of\nPSEP or the Minister of IRCC should proceed with an application to have the information disclosed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.27 (Disclosure of personal information from the refugee claim of a)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5-28", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5.28", + "marginal_note": "Notice of Constitutional Question", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.28 Notice of Constitutional Question\nConstitutional challenges are governed by rule 66 of the RPDR, which complies with the requirements of\nsection 57 of the Federal Courts Act. A party wanting to challenge the constitutional validity, applicability\nor operability of a statutory provision must prepare a Notice of Constitutional Question (Notice) and then\nprovide the original to the RPD and copies to the other party, the Attorney General of Canada and the\nAttorney General of every province and territory in Canada.\nThe Notice must be received by the recipients no later than 10 days before the date on which the\nconstitutional question is to be argued. It must contain the information listed in subrule 66(2) of the RPDR;\nthis information is similar to the information contained in Form 69 of the Federal Courts Rules (1998),\nentitled “Notice of Constitutional Question.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5.28 (Notice of Constitutional Question)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Cessation", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Cessation\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 35\nThe Minister's participation in the refugee determination process is not limited to intervening in the\nhearing of a refugee claim. When information comes to the attention of the Minister that a protected\nperson (see subsection A95(2) for precise definition) may no longer require protection for one of the\ngrounds set out in subsection A108(1), the Minister may bring an application to the RPD for a\ndetermination that refugee protection has ceased.\nLike interventions, cessation is a means for the Minister to maintain the integrity of the refugee\ndetermination process.\nIRCC is responsible for the development and oversight of policies with respect to the cessation of refugee\nprotection.\nThe CBSA is responsible for administering the operational delivery of cessation policies; specifically,\nCBSA hearings officers are responsible for filing applications for cessation and representing the Minister\nof IRCC before the RPD.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6 (Cessation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Against whom an application for cessation is made", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1 Against whom an application for cessation is made\nThe Minister may make an application to cease refugee protection, regardless of the process under which\nrefugee protection was conferred [A95(2)] in the following circumstances:\na) overseas selection process (or resettlement from overseas) [A95(1)(a] in which officers should\ncontact Inland Enforcement Operations if they are uncertain as to whether or not a person was\nconferred refugee protection overseas;\nb) determination of a refugee claim by the RPD or the RAD [A95(1)(b)]; and\nc) when the Minister allows, with the exception of persons described in subsection A112(3), an\napplication for protection (PRRA) [A95(1)(c)].\nWhen an individual has obtained Canadian citizenship, an application for cessation against them shall not\nbe pursued so long as they maintain their Canadian citizenship.\nUnless there is an exceptional circumstance (e.g., an individual is referred to the Immigration Division for\none of the grounds enumerated under sections A34 to A37), when a protected person is a permanent\nresident an application for cessation against them should not be pursued solely under the cessation\nground A108(1)(e) (as any such application would not have an appreciable effect).\nWhen a protected person is a foreign national, an application for cessation against them may be pursued\nsolely under the cessation ground outlined in paragraph A108(1)(e).\nNote: When an investigation for possible cessation is ongoing, the information should be uploaded in the\nsystems (FOSS, NCMS, GCMS) by writing the following: “Ongoing Cessation Investigation.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.1 (Against whom an application for cessation is made)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.2", + "marginal_note": "Nature of an application for cessation", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.2 Nature of an application for cessation\nCessation proceedings are adversarial, and the burden of proof rests with the Minister to show why the\nperson has ceased to be a protected person. The standard of proof required for the Minister to discharge\ntheir burden is a balance of probabilities.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 36", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.2 (Nature of an application for cessation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Role of the hearings officer", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.3 Role of the hearings officer\nHearings officers are the Minister’s representative in cessation proceedings. After reviewing the\nsupporting evidence of a case, the hearings officer will assess whether prima facie evidence exists to\nsupport one of the grounds for cessation set out in subsection A108(1).\nNote: The UNHCR Handbook stipulates at paragraph 116 that “cessation clauses are negative in\ncharacter and are exhaustively enumerated. They should, therefore, be interpreted restrictively, and no\nother reasons may be adduced by way of analogy to justify the withdrawal of refugee status” [Silvia\nOlvera Romero v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 2014 FC 671, par. 39; UNHCR, Note on the\nCessation Clauses, EC/47/SC/CRP.30, Standing Committee, 30 May 1977, para. 8].\nAt paragraph 106 in Olvera Romero v. Minister (C&I) 2014 FC 671, Justice Strickland stated that the\nhearings officer’s discretion (whether or not to make an application to cease refugee protection) was\nlimited to a consideration of whether the factors listed in ENF 24 (Note: this updated version of ENF 24\nhas removed the list of these factors) and the information gathered led to a reasonable, fact-based belief\nthat any of the cessation criteria outlined in paragraphs A108(1)(a) to A108(1)(d) had been met. Justice\nStickland held that, if this was so, the hearings officer was obliged to make the cessation application.\nJustice Strickland clearly stated that the hearings officer has no discretion to consider factors beyond\nthose related to paragraphs A108(1)(a) to A108(1)(d), including humanitarian and compassionate factors,\nwhich are specifically addressed by section A25.\nNote that the facts specific to Olvera Romero did not include consideration of paragraph A108(1)(e),", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.3 (Role of the hearings officer) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Role of the hearings officer", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "which may explain why Justice Strickland did not include that paragraph in her explanation of the scope\nof a hearings officer’s discretion. In Bermudez v. Minister (C&I) 2015 FC 639, Justice Mosley certified the\nfollowing question:\n“Does the CBSA hearings officer, or the hearings officer as the Minister’s delegate, have the discretion to\nconsider factors other than those set out in subsection A108(1), including H&C considerations and the\nbest interests of a child, when deciding whether to make a cessation application pursuant to\nsubsection A108(2) in respect of a permanent resident?”\nUntil the Federal Court of Appeal rules on this matter, it is the Minister’s position that hearings officers do\nnot have discretion to consider factors beyond those related to grounds set out in subsection A108(1).\nIn certain circumstances, the hearings officer may deem it necessary to gather additional information prior\nto submitting an application for cessation. This may include inviting the person concerned for an\ninterview. The additional information sought must relate to facts that are relevant to the grounds for\ncessation set out in subsection A108(1). Justice Strickland in Olvera Romero at paragrahp 78 stated that\nit would be prudent for CBSA officers to advise individuals that the purpose of their questions is to inform\na potential cessation application, which would permit the person concerned to contemporaneously\nprovide a verbal response with any relevant information, which could, potentially, have the effect of\ncausing the hearings officer to determine that there was no factual basis for believing that any of the\nsubsection A108(1) criteria has been met and exercising their discretion not to proceed with the cessation\napplication.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.3 (Role of the hearings officer) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Role of the hearings officer", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "At paragraph 79 in Olvera Romero, Justice Strickland held that while a duty of fairness is owed by the\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 37\nhearings officer, the content of that duty did not require that notice and an opportunity to make\nsubmissions be given prior to the decision to make the cessation application. However, in Bermudez v.\nMinister (C&I) 2015 FC 639, at paragraph 35, Justice Mosley contradicted Justice Strickland’s position by\nstating that, in his view, the duty of fairness required that the person concerned be given an opportunity to\npresent full submissions as to why the application to the RPD should not be made. This conflict at the\nFederal Court level has not been addressed by the Federal Court of Appeal at the time of this update to\nENF 24. Until this conflict is resolved by the Federal Court of Appeal, the Minister prefers the position\narticulated in Olvera Romero.\nWriting in the context of paragraph A108(1)(a), Justice Heneghan, in Balouch v. Minister (PSEP) 2015 FC\n765, at paragraph 19, held that she was not persuaded that the issue of risk is relevant in a cessation\nhearing. Justice Heneghan certified the following question:\n“When deciding whether to allow an application by the Minister for cessation of refugee status pursuant to\nparagraph A108(1)(a), based on past actions, can the Board allow the Minister’s application without\naddressing whether the person is at risk of persecution upon return to their country of nationality at the\ntime of the cessation hearing?”\nUntil the Federal Court of Appeal rules on this matter, it is the Minister’s position that no forward-looking\nrisk assessment is conducted at a cessation hearing for paragraphs A108(1)(a) to A108(1)(d), nor is it a", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.3 (Role of the hearings officer) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-3-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.3", + "marginal_note": "Role of the hearings officer", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "factor when a hearings officer determines whether to make an application to cease refugee protection\nunder paragraphs A108(1)(a) to A108(1)(d). According to the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR\nHandbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951\nConvention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (UNHCR Handbook), and the\nIRPA, cessation does not require a forward-looking assessment of risk, since an alternative means of\nprotection has been demonstrated by the individual’s actions [A108(1)(a) to A108(1)(d)] or the reasons for\nwhich the person sought refugee protection no longer exist [A108(1)(e)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.3 (Role of the hearings officer) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.4", + "marginal_note": "Procedural Requirements: RPDR", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.4 Procedural Requirements: RPDR\nWhen the evidence establishes a prima facie case for one of the grounds enumerated in\nsubsection A108(1), the Minister should submit an application for cessation to the RPD in accordance\nwith rule 64 of the RPDR. This rule sets out the content of the application, including the decision the\nMinister wants the RPD to make and the reasons why the RPD should make that decision.\nThe Minister must provide the protected person with a copy of the application and the RPD Registry with\na written statement indicating how and when it was provided to the protected person (subrule 64(3) of the\nRPDR). If the Minister is unable to provide a copy of the application to the protected person as per rule 39\nof the RPDR, the Minister can bring to the RPD an application under rule 40 of the RPDR for permission\nto provide the document in another way or to be excused from providing the document. The RPD must\nnot allow the application unless the Minister has made reasonable efforts to provide the protected person\nwith the application (subrule 40(3) of the RPDR).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.4 (Procedural Requirements: RPDR)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.5", + "marginal_note": "Paragraph A108(1)(a): The person has voluntarily reavailed", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.5 Paragraph A108(1)(a): The person has voluntarily reavailed\nthemselves of the protection of their country of nationality\nThe Federal Court has relied on the UNHCR Handbook to provide interpretive guidance as to the\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 38\nmeaning of reavailment [Li v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2015 FC 459; Siddiqui v.\nCitizenship and Immigration, 2015 FC 329; Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v.\nBashir, 2015 FC 51; Makeen v. Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-1862-14 (unreported); Nsende v.\nCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2008 FC 531; Cabrera Cadena v. Canada (Public\nSafety and Emergency Preparedness) 2012 FC 67].\nNote: The terms “nationality” and “citizenship” are synonymous for the purposes of the cessation\nprovisions in subsection A108(1).\nHearings officers should consider the three requirements below, as outlined in paragraph 119 of the\nUNHCR Handbook, when deciding whether to apply to cease refugee protection under\nparagraph A108(1)(a).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.5 (Paragraph A108(1)(a): The person has voluntarily reavailed)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Voluntariness: The person must act voluntarily.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Voluntariness: The person must act voluntarily.\nIf the protected person does not act voluntarily, they will not cease to be a protected person. For example,\nif a protected person is instructed by an authority to perform against their will an act that could be\ninterpreted as reavailment, they will not cease to be a protected person for obeying such instruction\n[UNHCR Handbook, paragraph 120]. Voluntariness should be measured by whether or not the protected\nperson was compelled to act by circumstances beyond their control. Circumstances should be\nexceptional to compel the protected person to act without regard for their own safety and well-being and\ndisregard for potential consequences. In the absence of exceptional circumstances beyond the protected\nperson’s control that compel the protected person to act, the protected person’s actions should be\nconsidered voluntary.\n2. Intention: The person must intend by their action to reavail themselves of the protection of the\ncountry of their nationality.\nThe intent of the protected person must be considered in order to determine whether the act was\nundertaken for the purpose of obtaining protection. Consideration should be given to actual reavailment of\nprotection compared to occasional and incidental contact with national authorities. Every case must be\nassessed on its own merits and on the basis of the particular actions undertaken by the protected person.\nSpeaking in the context of reavailment outside of one’s country of nationality, the UNHCR guidelines from\n1999, “The Cessation Clauses: Guidelines on their Application” (UNHCR Guidelines), state that the\nprotection obtained is the diplomatic protection by the country of nationality of the protected person. This", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Voluntariness: The person must act voluntarily.) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Voluntariness: The person must act voluntarily.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "protection relates to the actions that a State is entitled to undertake in relation to other States in order to\nobtain redress for its nationals. Diplomatic protection may also include consular assistance. However\n“most ordinary contacts with diplomatic missions for the purpose of certification of academic documents,\nor for the purpose of obtaining copies of birth, marital, and other records, are not considered as acts\nwhich carry the intention of re-availment of the protection of the country of origin” (UNHCR Guidelines,\nparagraph 10).\nApplications by refugees for the issuance or extension of national passports will normally imply an\nintention to entrust the protection of their interests to, or to re-establish normal relations with, their country\nof nationality. This implication may, however, be rebutted by the refugee. The key issue is the purpose or\nreason for which the passport was obtained or renewed (UNHCR Guidelines, paragraph 10). In Canada\n(Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Bashir, 2015 FC 51, the Federal Court found that the\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 39\nRPD acknowledged there was a presumption of intention to reavail (because Mr. Bashir obtained a\nnational passport), but the explanations provided were sufficient to rebut that presumption; in Li v.\nMinister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2015 FC 459, the Federal Court upheld the RPD finding that Mr.\nLi had not rebutted the presumption of re-availment.\nThe Federal Court, in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Bashir, 2015 FC 51,\nsuggested that obtaining a national passport without actually travelling to the country of nationality is not\nlikely sufficient to cease refugee protection, however each case must be assessed on the basis of its own", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Voluntariness: The person must act voluntarily.) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Voluntariness: The person must act voluntarily.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "circumstances as the Federal Court added that this is not to imply that a refugee who does not intend to\nuse their passport to travel to their country of nationality could never be found to have had the intention of\nreavailing themselves of the protection of their country of nationality. In Bashir, the Federal Court held\nthat it was open to the RPD, in light of the evidence, to conclude that, by renewing his passport with the\nintention to use it to travel to a third country to see his parents, the refugee did not intend to reavail\nhimself of the protection of Pakistan and that it is difficult to see how the renewal of a national status for\nthe purpose of submitting it to IRCC to finalize the permanent residence process can been seen as\nreavailing himself of the protection of Pakistan. In the Federal Court’s view, the RPD has a mandate to\nassess the refugee’s motivation in order to determine whether he intended to reavail himself of the\nprotection of his country of nationality when he renewed his national passport for the purpose of\ntravelling.\nThe Federal Court, in Makeen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1862-14 (unreported),\nendorsed the view that it is doubtful that the renewal of a passport on its own is sufficient to establish an\nintention to reavail. In Makeen, the Federal Court upheld the RPD’s decision allowing the Minister’s\napplication for cessation under paragraph A108(1)(a). The RPD concluded that by renewing his passport\nand returning to his country of nationality on two occasions, Mr. Makeen had voluntarily reavailed himself\nof the protection of Sri Lanka. The RPD found that Mr. Makeen had not provided any credible and\ncompelling reasons for renewing his national passport and returning to Sri Lanka.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Voluntariness: The person must act voluntarily.) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Voluntariness: The person must act voluntarily.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "In Siddiqui v. Citizenship and Immigration, 2015 FC 329, when considering whether the applicant had the\nintention to reavail himself of the protection of his country of nationality, the Federal Court stated that the\napplicant’s first trip back to Afghanistan to visit his sick father cannot be sufficient alone to justifiy\nreavailment. However, the Federal Court confirmed the RPD decision to cease his refugee protection, as\nthe applicant had subsquently travelled back to Afghanistan for businesss reasons.\nRefugee protection for minor children can be ceased along with their parents’, but intention must still be\nassessed. The parents’ intention to reavail will form the requisite intent for a minor child to reavail, as a\nminor child cannot form an intention that is different from their parents’. There must be further analysis\nundertaken to determine whether an older child is capable of forming an intention that is different from\ntheir parents’ [Cabrera Cadena v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 FC 67,\nparagraph 31]. Such analysis can occur in interviews or by examination in the hearing room.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Voluntariness: The person must act voluntarily.) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Reavailment: The person must actually obtain such protection.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Reavailment: The person must actually obtain such protection.\nAccording to the UNHCR Handbook, a protected person who has requested protection from theircountry\nof nationality has only “reavailed” when protection has been granted. The most frequent case of\n“reavailment of protection” will be where the refugee wishes to return to their country of nationality. They\nwill not cease to be a refugee merely by applying for repatriation. On the other hand, obtaining an entry\npermit or a national passport for the purposes of returning is, in the absence of proof to the contrary,\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 40\nconsidered terminating refugee status [UNHCR Handbook, paragraph 122]. The presumption applies to a\nrefugee who is still outside of their country [Cabrera Cadena v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness), 2012 FC 67, para.24].\nNote: In general, obtaining a national passport on its own is insufficient for the hearings officer to file an\napplication for cessation under paragraph A108(1)(a). The actions undertaken by the protected person,\nincluding the reasons for obtaining the passport, should be examined closely to determine if other\ncircumstances or facts exist to support an application under paragraph A108(1)(a).\nEl Kaissi v. Canada (MCI) 2011 FC 1234; Shanmugarajah v. Canada (MEI), [1992] F.C.J. No 583; and\nRibeiro v. Canada (MCI) 2005 FC 1363 are decisions related to reavailment in the event of pressing\nneed, such as taking care of a parent.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3 (Reavailment: The person must actually obtain such protection.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.6", + "marginal_note": "Paragraph A108(1)(b): The person has voluntarily re-acquired their", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.6 Paragraph A108(1)(b): The person has voluntarily re-acquired their\nnationality.\nParagraph 126 of the UNHCR Handbook instructs that this provision applies in situations where a\nprotected person, having lost the nationality of the country in respect of which a well-founded fear was\nrecognized, voluntarily reacquires that nationality.\nOfficers should consider the following, as outlined in paragraph 128 of the UNHCR Handbook, when\ndeciding whether to apply to cease refugee protection under paragraph 108(1)(b):\n reacquisition of nationality must be voluntary; and\n there is an act of reacquisition of citizenship that is truly indicative of a normalization of relations\nbetween the refugee and the state of origin; the refugee must have the desire to establish normal\nrelations with their country of nationality or to benefit from the advantages of the nationality of\ntheir country.\nThe reacquisition of nationality must be voluntary. The granting of nationality by operation of law or by\ndecree does not imply voluntary reacquisition, unless the nationality has been expressly or impliedly\naccepted. The “mere possibility of reacquiring the lost nationality by exercising a right of option [is not]\nsufficient to put an end to refugee status, unless this option has actually been exercised. However, where\nthe laws give an option to reject the attribution of nationality and the refugee, with full knowledge of the\noption, does not exercise it, then the refugee could be deemed to have voluntarily reacquired the former\nnationality” [UNHCR Guidelines, paragraph 14], unless they are able to invoke special reasons showing\nthat it was not in fact their intention to reacquire their former nationality [UNHCR Handbook, paragraph\n128].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.6 (Paragraph A108(1)(b): The person has voluntarily re-acquired their)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.7", + "marginal_note": "Paragraph A108(1)(c): The person has acquired a new nationality", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.7 Paragraph A108(1)(c): The person has acquired a new nationality\nand enjoys the protection of the country of that new nationality.\nThis requirement, as outlined in paragraph 130 of the UNHCR Handbook, extends from the phrase “and\nenjoys the protection of the country of that new nationality.” Nationality is restricted to citizenship and\ndoes not include permanent resident status.\nTwo conditions must be met when considering this ground:\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 41\n The person has acquired a new nationality, usually after being found to be a refugee in Canada\nagainst another country. For example, a citizen of country A is found to be a refugee in Canada\nand subsequently obtains citizenship from country B.\n The person enjoys the protection of the country of that new nationality. For example, the person\nenjoys, in practice, fundamental rights that result from holding that nationality, including the right\nof non-refoulement.\nThe possession of a passport of another country is insufficient evidence if the bearer is not considered a\nnational of that country. In assessing whether a protected person is a national of another country, the\napplicable law and actual administrative practice of that country must be taken into consideration.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.7 (Paragraph A108(1)(c): The person has acquired a new nationality)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.8", + "marginal_note": "Paragraph A108(1)(d): The person has voluntarily become re-", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.8 Paragraph A108(1)(d): The person has voluntarily become re-\nestablished in the country that the person left or remained outside of\nand in respect of which the person claimed refugee protection in\nCanada.\nA protected person must voluntarily return to become re-established in their country of origin or former\nhabitual residence. A protected person voluntarily re-establishes themselves in the country of origin or\nformer habitual residence when the intent of the return is to permanently reside there (UNHCR\nHandbook, paragraph 134).\nTemporary returns may, however, constitute re-establishment under paragraph 108(1)(d) if such visits are\nprolonged and frequent with evidence of attachment. It can be argued that a regular presence in the state\nof origin for a significant part of the year is prima facie-inconsistent with a continued need for protection.\nThere are no defined criteria as to when a person could be considered re-established. The length of stay\nis only one possible factor in determining re-establishment. The protected person’s sense of commitment\nin regard to the stay in the country of origin or former habitual residence should be considered. If the\nprotected person remained and held a normal livelihood and performed obligations of a normal citizen,\nthen cessation may be warranted, regardless of the duration of the stay, given that this is indicative of a\nnormalization of relations with the country.\nRe-establishment was addressed in the following decisions: X (Re), 2011 CanLII 100748 (CA IRB) and X\n(Re), 2011 CanLII 100780 (CA IRB).\nA cessation application should be considered in absentia when the protected person has returned to their\ncountry of origin or former habitual residence and evidence indicates the person left Canada to become\nre-established in their country of origin or former habitual residence. However, this does not remove the\nobligation to serve the application to cease refugee protection in accordance with subrule 64(3) of the\nRPDR.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.8 (Paragraph A108(1)(d): The person has voluntarily become re-)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.9", + "marginal_note": "Paragraph A108(1)(e): The reasons for which the person sought", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.9 Paragraph A108(1)(e): The reasons for which the person sought\nrefugee protection have ceased to exist.\nThis provision is based on consideration that protection is no longer justified because the reasons for a\nperson becoming a protected person have ceased to exist. Often, this will be the case due to changes in\ncountry conditions where persecution was feared.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 42\nIn Winifred v. Canada (MCI), 2011 FC 827, the Federal Court outlined the following conditions that must\nbe met before invoking paragraph A108(1)(e) on the ground that changes in country condition occurred:\n the change must be of substantial political significance;\n there must be reason to believe that the substantial political change is truly effective; and\n the change of circumstances must be shown to be durable.\nFactors which assist in determining whether there has been a significant, effective, and durable political\nor social change include democratic elections, significant reforms to the legal and social structures of the\nstate, amnesties, repealing of repressive laws, dismantling of repressive security forces, and an overall\ngeneral respect for human rights. Additional examples include\n genocide in a country after which the international community has intervened;\n prolonged war that has come to an end; and\n persecution of a particular group ends due to a change in regime.\nIn Youssef v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), the Federal Court provides some\nguidance as to how the above-mentioned conditions may not always be applicable in the\nparagraph A108(1)(e) context.\nMs. Youssef was granted refugee status on the grounds that she feared her violent and abusive husband.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.9 (Paragraph A108(1)(e): The reasons for which the person sought) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.9", + "marginal_note": "Paragraph A108(1)(e): The reasons for which the person sought", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Ms. Youssef subsequently tried to include her husband in her application for permanent residence. She\ntold both IRCC and the RPD at her cessation hearing that her husband had changed, her children needed\nhim, and he had acknowledged that he was wrong.\nThe Minister of IRCC filed a cessation application on the grounds that the reasons for which the RPD\ngranted refugee status to Ms. Youssef, namely her fear of her husband, had ceased to exist. The RPD\nagreed and allowed the application.\nIn Youssef, the Federal Court concluded that a change of circumstance is a question of fact and that\nthere is no separate, legal test by which any alleged change in circumstances must be measured. The\nuse of words such as “meaningful,” “effective,” or “durable” is only helpful, Justice Teitelbaum says, if one\nkeeps clearly in mind that the only question, and therefore the only test, is one derived from the definition\nof Convention Refugee in section A2: does the claimant now have a well-founded fear of persecution? At\nparagraph 21, Justice Teitelbaum concluded the following: “Whether the situation is a political change of\ncircumstances in one’s country of origin or simply a change in the personal circumstances of an individual\nfor which that individual claimed refugee status, as it is a question of fact, the Board could conclude, on\nthe evidence before it, that the ‘original’ fear the applicant had no longer exists.”\nAt paragraph 22, Justice Teitelbaum stated the following: “When an application is made… for a\ndetermination of cessation of refugee status, the burden to show that there is a cessation of refugee\nstatus rests on the Minister. That is, the evidence that must be brought before the Board, by the Minister,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.9 (Paragraph A108(1)(e): The reasons for which the person sought) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-9-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.9", + "marginal_note": "Paragraph A108(1)(e): The reasons for which the person sought", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "in a [cessation] application, to ‘satisfy its burden of proof’ is not always the same. It depends on the\nparticular circumstances.”\nIn circumstances such as in Youssef, when dealing with a change in personal circumstances of an\nindividual’s previously abusive husband, the burden to show that the husband has changed and that the\nchange is a durable change does not rest with the Minister. Justice Teitelbaum stated at paragraph 31\nthat it is impossible for the IRB to determine how “durable” the “change of circumstances” is in a case\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 43\nsuch as Youssef, and that it is sufficient that the IRB be satisfied that the “change of circumstances” is\nsignificant and effective.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.9 (Paragraph A108(1)(e): The reasons for which the person sought) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.10", + "marginal_note": "Subsection A108(4): Exception to paragraph A108(1)(e)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.10 Subsection A108(4): Exception to paragraph A108(1)(e)\nArticle 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention provides for an exception to the ground expressed under\nparagraph A108(1)(e), when a protected person is “able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of\nprevious persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality.”\nParagraph 136 of the UNHCR Handbook states that the exception reflects a general humanitarian\nprinciple that those who have “suffered under atrocious forms of persecution should not be expected to\nrepatriate.” For example, the RPD may grant a person who has been tortured by the authorities of their\ncountry of nationality the exception of having compelling reasons for not wanting to return to their country.\nThis concept is incorporated in Canada’s domestic legislation at subsection A108(4). The Federal Court\nof Appeal noted the exceptional circumstances envisaged by subsection 2(3) of the Immigration Act, now\nsubsection A108(4), would apply to only a minority [M.E.I. v. Obstoj, [1992] 2 F.C. 739 (C.A.)]. The\nprinciples developed in the case law relating to subsection 2(3) of the former Immigration Act are\napplicable to subsection A108(4).\nThe decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Belouadah (2013-05-10 IMM-10536-\n12) outlines the procedure RPD members must follow when determining whether to use the exception of\ncompelling reasons under subsection A108(4) in the context of a refugee hearing.Members must\n acknowledge that the person was at some point in time a Convention refugee [A96] or a person in\nneed of protection [A97];\n come to the conclusion that paragraph A108(1)(e) applies since there is a change in country\nconditions; and\n determine, once the two steps above have been completed, if compelling reasons exist to warrant\nthe retention of protected person status pursuant to subsection A108(4).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.10 (Subsection A108(4): Exception to paragraph A108(1)(e))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.11", + "marginal_note": "Multiple cessation grounds including paragraph A108(1)(e): The", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.11 Multiple cessation grounds including paragraph A108(1)(e): The\ntemporal aspect\nOnce an officer is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for one of the cessation grounds set out in\nsubsection A108(1), the officer is not required to, but may, conduct a further investigation or assessment\nas to whether a prima facie case exists for any of the other grounds set out in subsection A108(1).\nWhen there are multiple cessation clauses, and one of those clauses is paragraph A108(1)(e) and the\nother(s) is/are one or more of paragraphs A108(1)(a), A108(1)(b), or A108(1)(d), then a temporal aspect\ncomes into play (Note: paragraph 108(1)(c) has been intentionally excluded from consideration). The\napplication of the temporal aspect is as follows:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.11 (Multiple cessation grounds including paragraph A108(1)(e): The)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "When a prima facie case has been identified on the grounds set out in paragraph A108(1)(a),", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. When a prima facie case has been identified on the grounds set out in paragraph A108(1)(a),\nA108(1)(b), or A108(1)(d), and the officer does not know whether there is a prima facie case for\nparagraph A108(1)(e), then the officer is not required to conduct an assessment for a possible\ncase on the ground set out in paragraph A108(1)(e). In this circumstance, the officer should bring\nan application to the RPD on the ground(s) identified. In this circumstance, it is up to the person\nconcerned to raise any possible ground for cessation set out in paragraph A108(1)(e). The RPD\nhas the jurisdiction to decide on the applicability of any possible grounds set out in\nparagraph A108(1)(e) and on the temporal aspect of the ground set out in paragraph A108(1)(e),\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 44\nshould it be raised by the person concerned. If the RPD decision that any ground set out in\nparagraph A108(1)(e) occurred prior to the other ground(s), is well reasoned and justified, then\nthe Minister will be satisfied, should the IRB find cessation only on the basis of\nparagraph A108(1)(e).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (When a prima facie case has been identified on the grounds set out in paragraph A108(1)(a),)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "When a prima facie case has been identified on a ground set out in paragraph A108(1)(a),", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. When a prima facie case has been identified on a ground set out in paragraph A108(1)(a),\nA108(1)(b), or A108(1)(d) and (e), but the officer does not know if the ground set out in\nparagraph A108(1)(e) occurred first, then the officer is not required to conduct an assessment on\nthe temporal nature of the ground set out in paragraph A108(1)(e). In this circumstance, the\nofficer should bring an application to the RPD on all the grounds identified. The RPD has the\njurisdiction to decide on the applicability of paragraph A108(1)(e) and on the temporal aspect of\nthe ground set out in paragraph A108(1)(e). If the RPD decision that the ground set out in\nparagraph A108(1)(e) occurred prior to the other ground(s) is well reasoned and justified, then the\nMinister will be satisfied, should the IRB find cessation only on the basis of paragraph A108(1)(e).\n3. When a prima facie case has been identified on a ground set out in paragraph A108(1)(e), and\nthe officer knows that it occurred prior to the other ground(s) for cessation, which has/have been\nidentified under paragraphs A108(1)(a), A108(1)(b), or A108(1)(c), then the officer should not\nbring forward an application for cessation to the RPD. This is only when the officer has such\nknowledge.\nThe rationale behind this position is that a prior change in country conditions or personal circumstance,\nas the case may be, which led to the conclusion that the reasons for which the person sought refugee\nprotection have ceased to exist, would by necessary implication be the basis for the person concerned\nhaving later re-availed themselves of the protection of the country against which they had claimed\nrefugee protection, reacquired their nationality, or re-established themselves in this country.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (When a prima facie case has been identified on a ground set out in paragraph A108(1)(a),)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-12-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.12", + "marginal_note": "Consequences of cessation of refugee protection", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.12 Consequences of cessation of refugee protection\nLoss of permanent residence and inadmissibility\nOn June 28, 2012, the IRPA was amended to provide for the loss of permanent resident status by\noperation of law when protected person status is lost as a result of a final determination by the RPD\nunder subsection A108(2) that refugee protection has ceased for the reasons outlined in\nparagraphs A108(1)(a) to A108(1)(d) [A46(1)(c.1)]. In Silvia Olvera Romero v. Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration 2014 FC 671, par. 130, the Federal Court stated that \"the fact that the applicant was granted\nrefugee protection and permanent residency status at a time when the disputed provisions [A46(1)(c.1)]\nwere not in effect does not mean that new legislation would not apply to her. Further, while the facts that\nmay underlie the RPD's determination occurred before the subject amendments came into force, this\nwould not, in my view, change their effect\" (see also Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC\n459).\nAll persons who lose their permanent resident status under paragraph A46(1)(c.1) are, therefore, foreign\nnationals for the purposes of the admissibility provisions set out in section A40.1.\nSubsection A40.1(1) states that a foreign national is inadmissible on a final determination by the RPD for\nany of the grounds cited in subsection A108(1) [A40.1(1)]. It is the Minister’s position that\nsubsection A40.1(1) applies to foreign nationals who were ceased under paragraphs A108(1)(a) to\nA108(1)(e) as well as to foreign nationals who were former PRs who lost their permanent resident status\nunder paragraph A46(1)(c.1) as a consequence of being ceased under paragraphs A108(1)(a) to\nA108(1)(d). Consequently, a removal order for inadmissibility under section 40.1 need only make", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.12 (Consequences of cessation of refugee protection) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-12-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.12", + "marginal_note": "Consequences of cessation of refugee protection", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "reference to subsection 40.1(1).\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 45\nParagraph R228(1)(b.1) establishes that a departure order is the appropriate removal order when a\nforeign national is inadmissible under subsection A40.1(1) on grounds of the cessation of refugee\nprotection.\nVarious bars\nBecause cessation is considered a rejection of the claim for refugee protection (see subsection A108(1)),\nthe one-year Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations bar under paragraph A25(1.2)(c) and the\none- or three-year Pre-Removal Risk Assessment bar—depending whether or not the foreign national is\nfrom a designated country of origin—under paragraph A112(2)(b.1) apply.\nA decision of the RPD allowing or rejecting a cessation application by the Minister cannot be appealed to\nthe RAD pursuant to paragraph A110(2)(e).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.12 (Consequences of cessation of refugee protection) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6.13", + "marginal_note": "Cessation within a refugee hearing", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.13 Cessation within a refugee hearing\nThe grounds for cessation set out in subsection A108(1) can be invoked in the context of a refugee\nhearing as well as of an application to cease a person’s protected status.\nThe following are examples of when paragraph A108(1)(e) would apply in a refugee hearing context:\n A person had a well-founded fear of persecution at the time of fleeing their country and/or at the\ntime of making their refugee claim, but the reasons for which the person sought refugee\nprotection have ceased to exist prior to the conclusion of the RPD hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6.13 (Cessation within a refugee hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Vacation", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7 Vacation\nPursuant to subsection A109(1), the RPD may, on application by the Minister, vacate a decision to allow\na claim for refugee protection if it finds that the decision was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly\nmisrepresenting or withholding material facts.\nIn Bayat v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999, FCA 9354 [Imm 338-95], the Federal\nCourt upheld the order of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) (now the RPD) to\nvacate the Convention refugee status of Mr. Bayat and his family, who had been determined to be\nConvention refugees by a visa officer.\nBy PRRA under section A114\nThe Minister of IRCC has the authority to annul or set aside a decision to allow a PRRA application that\nwas obtained as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts on a\nrelevant matter. The authority to vacate a decision is contained in subsection A114(3). When a PRRA\ndecision is vacated, the decision is nullified, and the application for protection is deemed to have been\nrejected at the time of the decision to vacate [A114(4)] (refer to PP3).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7 (Vacation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Direct vs. indirect misrepresentation", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Direct vs. indirect misrepresentation\nSection A109 includes misrepresentations made by one claimant on behalf of all of the members of their\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 46\nfamily.\nWang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1059, in the context of an appeal\nfrom an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision, the court found that indirectly misrepresenting means\nmisrepresentation by another person.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.1 (Direct vs. indirect misrepresentation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Misrepresentation or withholding material facts", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 Misrepresentation or withholding material facts\nThe concept of \"misrepresentation of a material fact\" is broader than simple fraud or fraudulent means. It\nincludes both intentional and unintentional concealment or suppression of facts. Where a\nmisrepresentation has the effect of “averting further inquiries,” it can be said to be material.\n Canada (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) v. Brooks, [1974] S.C.R. 850 at 873.\n Mohammed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 3 FC 299.\n Nur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 636.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Pearce, 2006 FC 492.\nThe court held that whether or not the respondent had the intellectual capacity to understand or the\nintention to misrepresent the facts or withhold material facts is not relevant. Withholding material facts\noccurs when certain facts are omitted in the application for refugee protection.\nThe case of Khamsei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1981] 1 F.C. 222 (Fed. C.A.)\naddressed the question of material misrepresentation as follows:\n“Materiality, in my opinion, is a question of fact. But that does not mean that there must be direct\nevidence that, but for the misrepresentation, the visa would not have been granted. The fact of\nmateriality may be inferred.”\nIn Singh Chahil v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1214, the court stated the\nissue of identity is fundamental to a refugee claim.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.2 (Misrepresentation or withholding material facts)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Relevant matter", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3 Relevant matter\nA relevant matter is a fact that, if not disclosed, could result in an error in the administration of the IRPA in\nrelation to granting Convention refugee protection.\nIn Zheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 619, the court found that the\nmisrepresentation of the claimant’s original entry to Canada by using a valid passport issued by the\nCommonwealth of Dominica was a misrepresentation of fact on a relevant issue because its disclosure\nwould reasonably have called for the original panel to examine whether or not the Commonwealth of\nDominica was a country of reference.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.3 (Relevant matter)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Application to vacate", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4 Application to vacate\nThe application to vacate must be in writing and must follow the format outlined in rules 50 and 64 of the\nRPDR.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 47\nFor general principles applying to vacation, see Wahab v. Canada (MCI), 2006 FC 1554.\nA vacation application is adversarial, and the burden of proof rests on the Minister to show why the\nperson's refugee protection should be vacated according to Nur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration), 2005 FC 636.\nStandard of proof\nThe Minister’s application has to create a prima facie case for the RPD to grant the application. The\nburden then shifts to the respondent to rebut the Minister’s case. The standard of proof required to create\na prima facie case is a balance of probabilities. A prima facie case is one in which the Minister’s evidence\nwould reasonably allow the conclusion that the Minister seeks and, in fact, compels such a conclusion if\nthe claimant produces no evidence to rebut it.\n Haji-Dodi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1996] IMM-2908-94, F.C.J. No.\n438.\nThe Minister sought to call the respondent as a witness to support the application to vacate. The\nrespondent’s counsel objected that the respondent was not a compellable witness and that he had been\ngiven no notice that he would be called to testify. The court held that the tribunal did not err in law in\ndetermining that the respondent should not be compelled to testify in circumstances where no evidence\nhad been presented at the hearing by the Minister, and the documentary evidence presented in support\nof the vacation application in advance of the hearing was not entirely satisfactory. In other words, the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.4 (Application to vacate) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Application to vacate", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Minister’s materials must establish a prima facie case to which the respondent might be expected to reply.\nIf the Minister’s application does not establish a prima facie case, the hearings officer may not be allowed\nto question the respondent. However, if counsel for the respondent calls their client as a witness, the\nhearings officer will be in a position to question. Finally, if counsel for the respondent does not call the\nrespondent to rebut, the hearings officer can rest the Minister’s case based on the documentation filed in\nthe application.\nNote: If the person is a Canadian citizen, before taking any actions, the hearings officer is to contact the\nCase Management Branch at IRCC, Citizenship Unit, via email to coordinate the approach for these\ncases.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.4 (Application to vacate) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Rejection of application – Subsection A109(2)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5 Rejection of application – Subsection A109(2)\nThe RPD may reject the application if it is satisfied that other sufficient evidence was considered at the\ntime of the first refugee determination to justify refugee protection.\nThe application to vacate is a two-step process (see Shahzad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration), 2011 FC 905). The RPD must decide if\n1. the misrepresentation is material; and\n2. there is any untainted evidence from the first hearing that would justify refugee protection.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.5 (Rejection of application – Subsection A109(2))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "New evidence", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6 New evidence\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 48\nNew evidence is excluded from the vacation hearing. The claimant cannot introduce new evidence to\nsupport the refugee claim but can introduce evidence to rebut the Minister’s evidence.\nThe principle of new evidence was articulated in the Federal Court of Appeal decisions of\nCoomaraswamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 153, [2002] 4 FC 501\nand Annalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 281. When attempting to\nestablish that a claimant made misrepresentations at the refugee determination hearing, the Minister may\nadduce evidence at the vacation hearing that was not before the IRB at the initial hearing, and the\nclaimant may present new evidence in an attempt to persuade the IRB that they did not make the\nmisrepresentations according to Waraich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC\n1257 and Gunasingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 181.\nAccording to Thambipillai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-5279-98,\nJuly 22, 1999), the Minister can introduce evidence which was available at the time of the first hearing but\nof which the Minister was not aware during that hearing (for instance, CSIS reports that have become\navailable after the original hearing).\nThe Minister can also introduce and rely on new developments in areas of law to be considered during\nthe vacation hearing, such as new jurisprudence in the area of exclusion [Duraisamy v. Canada (Minister\nof Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-6216-99, November 24, 2000)].\nIn Sethi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1178 (CanLII) and Bortey v.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.6 (New evidence) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "New evidence", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 190, the Federal Court held that the RPD\nmust determine if any of the evidence cited in support of the original positive decision is left “untainted.”\nThis refers to situations where there has been a misrepresentation or withholding of material facts by the\nperson concerned, but there is sufficient evidence remaining from the original hearing after the\nmisrepresentations or omissions have been subtracted to justify continued refugee protection.\nIn Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Fouodji, 2005, FC 1327, the Federal Court\ndetermined that the RPD failed to observe a principle of natural justice and proceedural fairness by failing\nto provide adequate reasons to support its decision to reject the Minister’s application to vacate. “The\npanel did not set out clearly and explicitly what part of the remaining evidence filed before the first panel\nremained credible and why it was credible”. “In fact, the evidence relied on by the member involves the\nsituation of women in Cameroon in general and does not relate to the respondent in particular. Without\nevidence relating to the respondent in particular, the IRB could not in this way find a reason to justify\nallowing the respondent’s refugee claim. According to subsection A109(2), the existence of documentary\nevidence regarding the general situation of a country is not in itself sufficient to justify a person’s refugee\nprotection.”\nIt should be noted that the Minister and the person concerned do not have a right to appeal a rejected\napplication to the RAD pursuant to paragraph A110(2)(f).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.6 (New evidence) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Allowance of an application: Subsection A109(3)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7 Allowance of an application: Subsection A109(3)\nIf the application is allowed, the claim of the person is deemed rejected, and the decision that led to the\nconferral of refugee protection is nullified.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 49\nThe effect of vacating a refugee claim and the consequent nullification of refugee protection would render\na claimant ineligible, under paragraph A101(1)(b), to make a further claim.\nPursuant to paragraph A46(1)(d), vacation of refugee protection also leads to a loss of permanent\nresident status.\nIn order to effect the removal of the person concerned, a subsection A44(1) report is written as follows:\n Subsection 40(1) misrepresentation – A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible\nfor misrepresentation.\n Paragraph 40(1)(c) misrepresentation – A permanent resident or a foreign national is\ninadmissible for misrepresentation on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow their\nclaim for refugee protection or application for protection.\n Pursuant to subsection A40(2), a permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for\nmisrepresentation for five years.\n A Minister’s delegate has the authority to issue a deportation order under paragraph R228(1)(b)\nfor this allegation in the case of a foreign national.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.7 (Allowance of an application: Subsection A109(3))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7.8", + "marginal_note": "Exclusion in the context of a vacation application", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.8 Exclusion in the context of a vacation application\nAn assessment of evidence that may exclude a refugee claimant from protection pursuant to articles E\nand F of the Refugee Convention is part of any hearing determining whether a person is a Convention\nrefugee. This means that the decision maker considering the application to vacate may consider any new\nevidence adduced by either the Minister or the individual in order to determine whether article 1F of the\nRefugee Convention applies.\nRefer to: Thambipillai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 8413 (F.C.);\nMahdi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1995), 191 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.); Aleman v.\nCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FC 710; and Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration) v. Yaqoob, 2005 FC 1017.\nIn the case of Aleman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 710, the court held\nthat the vacation panel was clearly entitled to consider the new evidence regarding the alleged crimes\nagainst humanity of the applicant (a member of the Salvadoran army), which was not before the original\npanel. The panel must be able to establish whether or not the applicant would have been excluded from\nConvention refugee status under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention, had he revealed such evidence\nat the original hearing.\nOnce the RPD concludes that the applicant is excluded under article 1F or 1E of the Refugee Convention,\nthe remaining evidence does not have to be examined with regard to the application of subsection\nA109(2), since the RPD cannot grant refugee protection to an individual described in section A98.\nAlso refer to Parvanta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1146 (CanLII)\nconcerning vacation and exclusion under article 1E of the Refugee Convention and Frias v. Canada\n(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 753 for exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee\nConvention.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 50", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7.8 (Exclusion in the context of a vacation application)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "Procedure: Roles and responsibilities", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8 Procedure: Roles and responsibilities\nIRCC is responsible for ministerial interventions involving program integrity and credibility issues as well\nas for cases where exclusion under article 1E of the Refugee Convention arises.\nThe CBSA continues to intervene in cases that involve serious criminality and security concerns and is\nresponsible for hybrid cases (i.e., combined program integrity/credibility issues and criminality or security\nconcerns). Where a case is determined to be a hybrid case, and the Minister of PSEP elects not to\npursue the criminality or security ground, the CBSA has made a comittment to IRCC to go forward on\ngrounds of credibility or program integrity.\nRefer to Appendix E for the national directive regarding credibility and program integrity interventions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 8 (Procedure: Roles and responsibilities)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Hearings officers representing the Minister of PSEP or the Minister", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1 Hearings officers representing the Minister of PSEP or the Minister\nof IRCC\nHearings officers represent the Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC in hearings before all divisions of\nthe IRB.\nIn this capacity, hearings officers\n are in direct contact with counsel and clients;\n are the representatives of the Minister; and\n must show professionalism at all times, in particular in their telephone manner, their written\ncorrespondence, their conduct at hearings, and all other interactions with the public.\nNote: Professionalism shall be exhibited by preparing adequately for cases and by treating all\nparticipants at a hearing, including claimants, members, counsel, witnesses, interpreters, and observers,\nwith dignity and respect.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 8.1 (Hearings officers representing the Minister of PSEP or the Minister)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Roles and responsibilities of hearings officers at RPD hearings", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2 Roles and responsibilities of hearings officers at RPD hearings\nThe hearings officer is responsible for presenting evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and defending\nthe position of the Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC, as the case may be, in arguments relating to\njurisdictional matters or questions raised by the Charter.\nThe hearings officer may address questions that concern the merits of the refugee protection claim, but\nthis task is normally left to the RPD member.\nClaimants are more likely to be cooperative if they are not frightened and confused. Refugee hearings are\nusually non-adversarial; however, when the Minister intervenes, the hearing may become adversarial.\nIn performing their responsibilities, hearings officers have a duty to treat all parties, including the claimant,\nwith respect. This includes\n showing sensitivity, especially towards claimants, many of whom have had traumatic\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 51\nexperiences, including torture or rape;\n obtaining the relevant facts and bringing forward arguments (such steps are perfectly compatible\nwith respectful and sensitive communication);\n adopting a moderate and respectful tone and being aware of body language that may be\nperceived as aggressive;\n considering carefully if any questions concerning sensitive points are really necessary before\nasking them; and\n monitoring the claimant’s reaction to the questions posed and, if the claimant seems to be\ndistressed, considering modifying the approach in order to make the claimant more comfortable.\nWhen making comments, the hearings officer must respect the dignity of the refugee claimant by avoiding\n sarcasm or insults;\n references to aspects that are not relevant to the case; and\n a condescending tone.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 8.2 (Roles and responsibilities of hearings officers at RPD hearings)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Role of hearings officers in preparing a case", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3 Role of hearings officers in preparing a case\nIn preparing a case, a hearings officer must\n research and gather evidence pertaining to the exclusion ground, credibility, or program\nintegrity issue; this may involve contacting visa offices overseas, requesting an inland\ninvestigation, searching the internet for particular groups, and/or determining jurisprudence\nrelating to the exclusion issue, etc.;\n ensure that all documents on which the Minister intends to rely during the hearing are\ndisclosed to all parties pursuant to the RPDR.\n ensure that all documents on which the RPD and counsel intend to rely have been disclosed\nto the hearings officer; the hearings officer should request the RPD exhibit list before the\nhearing and check it closely to ensure that the hearings officer has all the documents;\n review all documents pertaining to the claim and take note of inconsistencies; and\n plan the issues to be addressed in cross examination and determine potential witnesses.\nThe hearings officer has a duty to determine if there are any particularly sensitive issues. For example,\nthe claimant may\n allege having been tortured;\n have been a witness to a massacre; or\n have been detained in a place where torture was practised or have been in contact with\nmilitary forces accused of systematic rape.\nWhere a pre-hearing conference is held, there is an opportunity to reduce the number of sensitive issues\nthat will have to be dealt with at the hearing.\nHearings officers should read the IRB’s Chairperson’s Guidelines, which provide guidance on child\nrefugee claimants, detained claimants, and vulnerable persons. The Chairperson’s Guidelines are\navailable at the following link: http://www.irb-\ncisr.gc.ca/Eng/brdcom/references/pol/guidir/Pages/index.aspx.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 52\nNote: Hearings officers should be aware that behaviour that seems off-putting may have rational\nexplanations. For example, post-traumatic stress disorder or cultural differences may account for some\nbehaviours.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 8.3 (Role of hearings officers in preparing a case)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "File triage and assessment", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1 File triage and assessment\nIRCC and CBSA refugee intake officers are required to scan all intake documents, including the Basis of\nClaim form, the appropriate IMM 0008 form, Schedule A, and officer notes, if applicable, and send them\nthrough the electronic sharing folder to the triage office closest to where the RPD hearing will be held.\nOnce CBSA and IRCC officers have access to GCMS, all the aforementionned documents will be\ndownloaded in GCMS instead of sending them through the electroninc sharing folder.\nPort of entry, CBSA inland and IRCC refugee intake officers should flag and note in FOSS/GCMS any\npotential cases which may warrant an intervention by the Minister.\nTriage offices to review all claims for possible intervention have been set up in Vancouver (CBSA),\nMontréal (CBSA), and Toronto (IRCC).\nIRCC and the CBSA have developed the following list of triggers or screening criteria for cases to be\nreferred for potential intervention:\nReferrals to IRCC\n possible status in a third country (exclusion under article 1E of the Refugee Convention);\n multiple nationalities;\n possible multiple identities;\n high-profile case with no criminality or security issues;\n previous Canadian immigration history (e.g., adverse, visa-related information; previous\nmisrepresentation);\n migration trends (officers must will be told which trends to look for, as this will vary over time);\n claim initiated more than 6 months after entry to Canada;\n claimant was subject to a Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) exception at intake; or\n file was transferred for other reasons (e.g., major discrepancy, contraditions in dates provided,\nstory changes between port of entry and basis of claim forms).\nReferrals to the CBSA\n an indication of criminality;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.1 (File triage and assessment) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "File triage and assessment", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " an indication of participation in or membership in a group that has engaged in espionage,\nsubversion of a government, or terrorism;\n an indication of involvement in war crimes or crimes against humanity;\n an indication of organized criminality (i.e., human smuggling or human trafficking);\n present or past detention of the claimant;\n an irregular arrival designation (DFN);\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 53\n Charter challenges; or\n hybrid cases.\nOnce the electronic file containing the refugee intake documents is sent to the triage centre, the file\nreview is conducted to identify potential invervention by the CBSA or IRCC. The triage workflow is as\nfollows:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.1 (File triage and assessment) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Receive the initial refugee claim intake documents.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Receive the initial refugee claim intake documents.\n2. Prioritize case (e.g., designated country of origin vs. non-designated country of origin; detained\nvs. non-detained; port of entry vs. inland).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Receive the initial refugee claim intake documents.)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Record findings on the Triage Checklist and in NCMS/GCMS.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Record findings on the Triage Checklist and in NCMS/GCMS.\n5. Refer to the CBSA or IRCC R&I Unit, retain for further review within own department, or put away\n(i.e., no further action required).\nWhen the claim is made at the port of entry, the claimant will have 15 days to send the completed basis of\nclaim form to the IRB. Once the IRB receives this form, they will send a copy of the completed basis of\nclaim form to the appropriate triage centre for screening.\nCases determined to have program integrity and/or credibility issues or exclusion grounds under\narticle 1E of the Refugee Convention will be referred to the appropriate IRCC R&I office via the managed\nsecure file transfer (MSFT) for further review and potential intervention.\nAll identified cases excluded under article 1F of the Refugee Convention (i.e., serious criminality, war\ncrimes, crimes against humanity, acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations), all\ntypes of criminality, irregular arrivals, Charter challenges, security (i.e., subversion, terrorism), organized\ncrime (i.e., human smuggling or trafficking), and detained and/or hybrid cases (i.e., combined program\nintegrity/credibility issues and security/criminality) will be referred to the appropriate CBSA hearings office\nvia the MSFT within five (5) calendar days of receipt for further review for intervention.\nIf the triage centre does not identify potential exclusion or program/credibility issues, the case will be\nclosed and put away. The triage staff will make the appropriate entries in NCMS and will send the paper\nfile to the appropriate IRCC or CBSA inland office.\nIf additional documents, including port of entry basis of claim forms and amended basis of claim forms,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4 (Record findings on the Triage Checklist and in NCMS/GCMS.) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Record findings on the Triage Checklist and in NCMS/GCMS.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "are received by the triage centre after the triage is completed, and no intervention grounds were\npreviously identified, another triage will be conducted. An additional triage checklist will be completed and\nsent, along with the new document(s), to the appropriate IRCC R&I Office or the appropriate CBSA\nhearings office if the new information leads to a referral for possible intervention.\nOnce a file is referred to a hearings office for possible intervention, the hearings officer should review the\ntriage checklist and the reasons for the referral to determine if the file contains information that might\nrequire further investigation and/or if there is sufficient information on file to warrant filing an intervention.\nSection 5.5 and Tables 4 and 5 of this manual chapter list factors to consider for each type of case, but\nthis is not an exhaustive list. Pursuant to rule 29 of the RPDR, if the Minister wishes to intervene in a\nclaim, the Minister must provide both the claimant and the RPD with the notice to intervene and must\nindicate the following:\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 54\na) the purpose of the Minister’s intervention;\nb) whether the Minister will intervene in person, in writing, or both; and\nc) contact information for the Minister’s representative (hearings officer).\nIf the hearings officer is of the opinion that an exclusion clause applies, the notice of intervention must\ninclude the facts and law on which the Minister relies. All documents provided in the notice of intervention\nmust be received no later than 10 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing.\nIf the hearings officer, after reviewing the case, is of the opinion that the refugee protection claim does not", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4 (Record findings on the Triage Checklist and in NCMS/GCMS.) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Record findings on the Triage Checklist and in NCMS/GCMS.", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "require intervention or other action, the reasons for non-participation should be noted, and NCMS and\nGCMS should be updated accordingly. The claim will follow the normal course at the RPD for\ndetermination of the right to refugee protection without ministerial participation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4 (Record findings on the Triage Checklist and in NCMS/GCMS.) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Investigation", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2 Investigation\nIf information has to be checked, officers or investigators may undertake verifications before determining\nif an intervention is required. These verifications are useful for adding to the information already on file or\nfor confirming or refuting certain facts. The result of the investigation will determine if an intervention is\nnecessary to pursue the case.\n Criminal and security checks\nCriminal, security, and medical checks are completed for all refugee claimants at the time of their arrival\nin Canada and at the triage centre that reviewed the claim. Criminal checks include\n CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) check; and\n NCIC (National Crime Information Center) check.\nNote: After receiving a file from the triage center, if further checks are necessary, the hearings officer\nshould request these checks, notate the file accordingly, and place the results on file.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.2 (Investigation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Five country conference (FCC) checks", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3 Five country conference (FCC) checks\nUnder the High Value Data Sharing Protocol, IRCC and the CBSA exchange biometric and biographical\ninformation with FCC partners: Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. In certain\nsituations, IRCC and CBSA officers may submit a request to have a client’s fingerprints searched against\nthe immigration fingerprint holds of an FCC partner country. Requests may be sent when there are\nreasonable grounds to believe that a refugee claimant may have come into contact with an FCC partner\ncountry and where confirmation of that contact would have an impact on any proceedings carried out\nunder the IRPA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.3 (Five country conference (FCC) checks)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.4", + "marginal_note": "Interpol checks", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.4 Interpol checks\nInterpol checks are conducted when there is a suspicion that the claimant has been involved in criminal\nactivity in another country. To request Interpol checks in the country of alleged persecution, the approval\nof a supervisor is required.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 55\nInterpol requests are sent to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), who supply criminal\ninformation obtained through the Interpol network. When the RCMP advises that a refugee claimant has\nbeen identified as having a criminal history, additional information on foreign charges, criminal statute\ninterpretations, and penalties related to the offence should also be requested from the liaison officer at\nthe visa office in the relevant country.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.4 (Interpol checks)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.5", + "marginal_note": "Front-end security screening (FESS) refugee protection claimants", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.5 Front-end security screening (FESS) refugee protection claimants\nwho made a claim at a port of entry or at a CBSA or IRCC inland office\nThe purpose of the FESS program is to strengthen the integrity of the refugee determination process and\nenhance public security by identifying and filtering potential security cases from the refugee claimant\nstream as early as possible.\nAt ports of entry, security screening is requested via the Refugee Monitoring screen in FOSS. Once\nentered, the information is stored in FOSS and sent to screening partners. At CBSA and IRCC inland\noffices, the security screening request is sent via GCMS.\n The National Security Screening Division (NSSD) of the CBSA conducts security screening on all\nrefugee claimants over the age of 18 for inadmissibility pursuant to sections A34, A35 and/or A37.\n The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) screens all refugee protection claimants over\nthe age of 18, pursuant to section 13 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, for\nindividuals who may pose threats to the security of Canada.\nNote: CSIS does not screen applications with respect to a person’s admissibility to Canada.\nNote: The RPD will be notified via interface with FOSS that security screening is completed and that the\ncase can proceed to a hearing.\nIf no adverse information is discovered, the NSSD will complete the Refugee Monitoring screen\naccordingly, and the RPD can proceed with the hearing.\nIf the NSSD collects sufficient adverse information to support inadmissibility pursuant to sections A34,\nA35 and/or A37, the NSSD will contact the relevant hearings office by email to advise that a\nrecommendation is forthcoming.\nThe RPD monitors FESS for all claimants and will not proceed to a hearing if FESS has not been\ncompleted. If FESS is not completed six months after the file was referred to the RPD, the RPD will\nschedule a hearing with due notification to the CBSA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.5 (Front-end security screening (FESS) refugee protection claimants)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.6", + "marginal_note": "Potential intervention", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.6 Potential intervention\nIt is at this stage that the hearings officer should consider if an intervention is warranted and whether or\nnot to submit a change date and time (CDT) application to the IRB to postpone the hearing.\nVisa office requests\nAt the triage centres, all claims undergo a GCMS check to determine if the claimant has applied for or\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 56\nreceived status under another application under the IRPA (e.g., a temporary resident visa [TRV]). If a\nTRV was issued by a visa office abroad, the triage centre may print a report containing pertinent\ninformation from the application.\nIf the original application is required, the hearings officer should send an email to the visa office specifying\nthe need for a copy of the application. The message must not include any personal information identifying\nthe claimant. It should be formatted as follows:\nRequest for IC3 information: TRP V970100012 issued on 02Jan03\nProvide details of temporary resident visa request for subject and forward a copy of the temporary\nresident visa application by fax to (your name and fax number).\nAll other information relating to immigration matters should be obtained through the liaison officer at the\nappropriate visa office. Files at visa offices are retained for two years.\nNote: All liaison officer related assistance requests must be directed to the International Network\nSection (INS). For urgent matters, the hearings officer may contact a liaison officer directly and copy INS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.6 (Potential intervention)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.7", + "marginal_note": "Special cases of verification with foreign authorities", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.7 Special cases of verification with foreign authorities\nOfficers and investigators must always keep in mind the importance of not disclosing personal information\nto the authorities of the country of nationality or of any other country where there is an allegation of\npersecution or mistreatment. Secure checking mechanisms that do not compromise the safety of the\nclaimant or the claimant’s family must be used, since disclosure of information to the authorities of the\ncountry of nationality may lead to the creation of refugees sur place.\nWhen making contact with foreign authorities, it is important not to disclose the fact that the claimant is\napplying for refugee protection in Canada; that the claimant is presently in Canada; the claimant’s name,\naddress, and telephone number; etc., unless the claimant has expressly consented to such disclosure or\nthis information is provided to authorities of a country where there is no allegation of persecution.\nWhere possible, officers are urged to ask the claimant to sign a declaration authorizing the disclosure of\npersonal information. Some foreign authorities require such authorization before they will share personal\ninformation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.7 (Special cases of verification with foreign authorities)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.8", + "marginal_note": "Intervention in person", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.8 Intervention in person\nParagraph A170(e) gives the Minister of PSEP the right, without restricting rightful intervention in\nexclusion cases, to present evidence, question witnesses, and make representations in all cases. In\ncases that are identified as requiring the presence of a hearings officer (to represent the Minister of\nPSEP), the hearings officer is not restricted and may present any evidence, reply to any argument,\nquestion witnesses, and make representation deemed to be useful.\nHearings officers must serve notice of the intention to intervene by sending a notice of intervention no\nlater than 10 days before the date fixed for the hearing, in accordance with rule 29 of the RPDR and by\ndisclosing the evidence no later than 10 days before the hearing date (rule 29 of the RPDR) or 5 days\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 57\nbefore the hearing if responding to a document filed by a party or the RPD (subrule 34(3) of the RPDR).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.8 (Intervention in person)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.9", + "marginal_note": "Intervention by filing documents and submissions", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.9 Intervention by filing documents and submissions\nSection A170 gives the Minister of PSEP the right to present evidence, question witnesses and make\nrepresentations in all cases, without restriction. This right implies that the Minister of PSEP may choose to\npresent evidence and representations in writing by filing documents in accordance with the requirements\nof subrule 29(2) of the RPDR.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.9 (Intervention by filing documents and submissions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.10", + "marginal_note": "Review of reasons for RPD decisions", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.10 Review of reasons for RPD decisions\nOfficers may review the RPD’s written reasons to determine whether or not an appeal to the RAD or an\napplication for leave and judicial review should be requested. In cases where a refugee protection claim\nhas been granted, and written reasons have not been provided, officers must send a request for written\nreasons to the RPD registry within 10 days of receiving the notice of decision (rule 67 of the RPDR).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.10 (Review of reasons for RPD decisions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.11", + "marginal_note": "Appeal to RAD", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.11 Appeal to RAD\nThe Minister may appeal RPD decisions to the RAD if there is reason to believe that there was an error in\nlaw, fact, or mixed law and fact. However, pursuant to subsection A110(2), certain decisions may not be\nappealed to the RAD, including decisions of the RPD rejecting the Minister’s application to vacate or\ncease a claim.\nRefer to ENF 26 for RAD procedures.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.11 (Appeal to RAD)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.12", + "marginal_note": "Application for judicial review", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.12 Application for judicial review\nThe Minister of PSEP or the Minister of IRCC, as the case may be, may file an applicaton for leave and\njudicial review of RPD decisions to the Federal Court and to the Federal Court of Appeal under certain\nconditions.\nNote: Officers who think that a decision should be the subject of a judicial review must follow the\nprocedure set out in ENF 9, Judicial Review.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.12 (Application for judicial review)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.13", + "marginal_note": "Operational procedures for interventions", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.13 Operational procedures for interventions\nIn all ministerial intervention cases, officers must follow the procedures indicated below to ensure\ncomplete follow-up of the case and proper conduct of the intervention.\nTable 7: Operational procedures for interventions\nStage Action", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.13 (Operational procedures for interventions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Determine whether a finding of", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Determine whether a finding of\nineligibility is possible.\n Issue a report under A44 and refer it.\n Notify the RPD for suspension of the hearing, in accordance with\nsection A103.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 58", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Determine whether a finding of)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Determine whether an", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Determine whether an\nintervention is required.\n Identify priorities.\n If the case is not excluded under article 1F of the Refugee\nConvention, assess the criteria of Section 5.5, Tables 4 and 5.\n Will the intervention be in person or by filing of documents?\n Send a notice of intervention to the RPD and to the claimant\n(counsel for the claimant), in accordance with rule 29 of the RPDR.\n If an exclusion clause applies, give the notice required by\nsubrule 29(3) of the RPDR.\n Make a disclosure of the evidence at least 10 days before the date\nset for the hearing, in accordance with rule 34 of the RPDR.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Determine whether an)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "If necessary, assign the case", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. If necessary, assign the case\nto an investigator to obtain\nadditional evidence.\n Ensure databases have been checked (e.g., CPIC, CAIPS,\nFOSS/GCMS, NCMS).\n Check for a criminal record (e.g., Interpol, fingerprints).\n Check status outside of Canada (e.g., USINS, embassies, foreign\nauthorities, FCC partners, liaison officers).\n Appraise documents.\n Conduct an additional interview.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3 (If necessary, assign the case)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Determine whether an arrest", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Determine whether an arrest\nat the hearing is necessary.\n Have an arrest warrant issued.\n Notify IRB security personnel in advance of the intention to proceed\nwith an arrest.\n Notify the detention centre in advance of the intention to proceed\nwith an arrest.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4 (Determine whether an arrest)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Determine whether witnesses", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Determine whether witnesses\n(ordinary or expert) are\nnecessary.\n Fulfill the conditions of rule 44 of the RPDR.\n Determine if there is a need to obtain an IRB summons to appear,\nin accordance with rule 45 of the RPDR, and/or an arrest warrant,\nin accordance with rule 47 of the RPDR", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5 (Determine whether witnesses)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "If necessary, make a request", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6. If necessary, make a request\nfor written reasons in accordance\nwith rule 67 of the RPDR.\n Review the decision and evaluate the possibility of filing an appeal\nto the RAD or an applicaton for leave and judicial review to the\nFederal Court.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6 (If necessary, make a request)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Review the written reasons for", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7. Review the written reasons for\nthe decision and assess the\npossibility of filing an appeal to\nthe RAD.\n Discuss the case with local management and then contact the\nLitigation Management Unit at the CBSA to receive their\nconcurrence regarding cases that are being considered for RAD\nappeal.\n Refer to ENF 9 for procedures related to applications for leave and\njudical review.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 7 (Review the written reasons for)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 8", + "marginal_note": "Enter data in the various", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8. Enter data in the various\nsystems at every stage of the\nintervention.\n Ensure date has been entered in FOSS, NCMS, and regional\nsystems.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 8 (Enter data in the various)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "Follow up on cases that", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9. Follow up on cases that\nestablish a new trend in the\nmovement of persons that affect\n Inform the regional intelligence service of the trend.\n Draw up a list of cases that are part of the movement, including the\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 59\na large population of refugee\nprotection claimants and that\ninvolve misrepresentation, fraud,\nor human trafficking.\nfile numbers included on the list.\n Notify the Monitoring, Analysis and Country Assessment Unit in the\nRefugees Branch at IRCC and the Hearings Unit of the\nEnforcement and Intelligence Programs Directorate at the CBSA.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9 (Follow up on cases that)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-9-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 9.14", + "marginal_note": "Operational procedures for vacation or cessation proceedings", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.14 Operational procedures for vacation or cessation proceedings\nIn all vacation or cessation cases, officers must follow the procedures indicated below to ensure complete\nfollow-up of the case and proper conduct of the intervention.\nTable 8: Operational procedures for vacation or cessation proceedings\nStage Action", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 9.14 (Operational procedures for vacation or cessation proceedings)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Determine whether a vacation", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Determine whether a vacation\nor cessation is\n Identify the priorities.\n If the case is not excluded under article 1F of the Refugee\nConvention, assess the criteria listed in section 5.5, Table 5.\n Send an application to vacate or cease to the RPD and to the\nclaimant (counsel for the claimant), in accordance with rule 64 of\nthe RPDR.\n Disclose evidence at least 10 days before the date set for the\nhearing, in accordance with rule 34 of the RPDR.\n If an exclusion clause applies, give the notice required by rule 29\nof the RPDR.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Determine whether a vacation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "If necessary, have the case", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. If necessary, have the case\nassigned to an investigator in\norder to obtain evidence.\n Check databases (e.g., CPIC, CAIPS, FCC, FOSS/GCMS).\n Check criminal record (e.g., Interpol, fingerprints).\n Check status outside of Canada (e.g., USINS, embassies, foreign\nauthorities, liaison officers).\n Appraise the documents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (If necessary, have the case)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Determine whether an arrest", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Determine whether an arrest\nat the hearing is necessary.\n Have an arrest warrant issued.\n Notify IRB security personnel in advance of the intention to\nproceed with an arrest.\n Notify the detention centre in advance of the intention to proceed\nwith an arrest.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3 (Determine whether an arrest)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Determine whether witnesses", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Determine whether witnesses\n(ordinary or expert) are\nnecessary.\n Fulfil the conditions of rule 44 of the RPDR.\n Determine if there is a need to obtain an IRB summons to appear,\nin accordance with rule 45 of the RPDR, and/or an arrest warrant,\nin accordance with rule 47 of the RPDR.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4 (Determine whether witnesses)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Review the written reasons for", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Review the written reasons for\nthe decision and assess the\npossibility to file an application\nfor leave and judicial review of\n Inform the Litigation Management Unit of the cases that deserv e\nmore in-depth analysis for possible judicial review.\n Refer to ENF 9 for procedures related to applications for leave\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 60\nthe decision. and judicial review.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 5 (Review the written reasons for)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Enter data in the various", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6. Enter data in the various\nsystems at every stage in the\napplication for vacation or\ncessation of the refugee claim.\n Ensure data has been entered in FOSS or GCMS and in NCMS\nand the regional systems.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 61\nAppendix A: List of the principal conventions concerning\nhuman rights to which Canada is a signatory\nRefugee law\n United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees\nLaws on women\n United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women\n Convention on the Political Rights of Women\n Convention on the Nationality of Married Women\nLaws on children\n Convention on the Rights of the Child\n Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in\narmed conflict\n Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of\nChildren, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography\n Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (No. 182)\nTorture, slavery, and forced labour\n Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment\n Slavery Convention\n Protocol amending the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on September 25, 1926\n Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and\nPractices Similar to Slavery\n Forced Labour Convention\n Abolition of Forced Labour Convention\nEconomic, civil, and political rights\n International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights\n International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights\n Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights\nHumanitarian law\n Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed\nForces in the Field", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6 (Enter data in the various) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Enter data in the various", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked\nMembers of Armed Forces at Sea\n Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War\n Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 62\n Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection\nof the Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)\n Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection\nof the Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)\n Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, Which\nMay Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects\nMiscellaneous\n International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination\n Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness\n Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide\n The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court\n United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the protocols thereto\no Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and\nChildren, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized\nCrime\no Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the\nUnited Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime\n Refugee Protection and Human Trafficking, Selected Legal Reference Materials, First Edition –\nDecember 2008, Protection Policy and Legal Advice Section, Division of International Protection\nServices, UNHCR\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 63", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6 (Enter data in the various) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-6-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Enter data in the various", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Appendix B: Case law on exclusions pursuant to article 1F of\nthe Refugee Convention", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 6 (Enter data in the various) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention: Crimes against peace, war crimes, and", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention: Crimes against peace, war crimes, and\ncrimes against humanity\nIn order to define crimes under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention, decision makers should refer to\ninternational instruments as well as other sources. Canadian courts generally rely on the Charter of the\nInternational Military Tribunal, the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the\nInternational Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal\nCourt as well as the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals.\nWhere a claimant has not personally committed a crime, but has had a role in aiding, instigating, or\ncounselling someone else to commit a war crime or crime against humanity, the claimant may be held\nresponsible as an accomplice and may be excluded from refugee protection. An accomplice is as guilty\nas the person who committed the crime. Canadian courts have defined complicity as\n being present at an international crime if combined with authority (also known as command\nresponsibility/superior orders);\n voluntary, significant, and knowing contribution; and\n aiding and abetting.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention: Crimes against peace, war crimes, and)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1.1", + "marginal_note": "SCC decision in Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1.1 SCC decision in Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40\nThe SCC ruling in the matter of Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40 has\nreformulated the legal test by which to assess complicity in the context of exclusions that were previously\nestablished in Ramirez2 as follows:\n eliminated complicity by association;\n eliminated the assumption that membership in an organization with a limited, brutal purpose\nmakes an individual complicit in the crime the group is alleged to have committed; and\n added one new factor to the existing list of factors to be considered when assessing complicity\n(see section 1.3 below).\nThe SCC proposes that a contribution-based test be used when assessing complicity in the context of\nexclusions pursuant to article 1F of the Refugee Convention. This test requires that there are serious\nreasons for considering that the individual made a voluntary, knowing, and significant contribution to the\ncrime or criminal purpose of the group alleged to have committed the crime.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1.1 (SCC decision in Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1.2", + "marginal_note": "Key components of the contribution-based test for complicity", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1.2 Key components of the contribution-based test for complicity\n Voluntary contribution to the crime or criminal purpose: Decision makers are to consider the\nmethod of recruitment by the organization and any opportunity the claimant has had to\n2 Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1992] 2 F.C. 306 (C.A.) is the seminal decision\naddressing complicity in the context of exclusion.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 64\ndisassociate from the organization. The requirement to show that the contribution was voluntary\ncovers the defense of duress. The contribution to the crime or criminal purpose must be\nvoluntarily made; it cannot be made under duress.\n Significant3 contribution to the group’s crime or criminal purpose: The mere association factor is\nreplaced with a culpable complicity factor when an individual makes a significant contribution to\nthe crime or criminal purpose of a group. The degree of contribution must be carefully assessed\nto prevent an unreasonable extension of criminal participation in international criminal law.\n Knowing contribution to the crime or criminal purpose: The individual must be aware of the\ngroup’s crime or criminal purpose and aware that their conduct will assist in the furtherance of the\ncrime or criminal purpose.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1.2 (Key components of the contribution-based test for complicity)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1.3", + "marginal_note": "Revised factors to be applied when assessing complicity in the context of exclusions", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1.3 Revised factors to be applied when assessing complicity in the context of exclusions\n The size and nature of the organization\n The part of the organization with which the refugee claimant was most directly concerned (looks\nnew, but already applied in practice)\n The refugee claimant’s duties and activities within the organization (new)\n The refugee claimant’s position or rank in the organization\n The length of time the refugee claimant was in the organization, particularly after acquiring\nknowledge of the group’s crime or criminal purpose\n The method by which the refugee claimant was recruited and the refugee claimant’s opportunity\nto leave the organization\nNote: The SCC has made it clear that the above factors are not necessarily exhaustive and are not given\nthe same weight in each case. The focus of the assessment must remain on the individual’s contribution\nto the crime or criminal purpose, and any viable defences should be taken into account. The weight of\neach factor will depend on the context of the case at hand.\nNote: In applying the new test, the focus must always remain on the individual’s voluntary, significant,\nand knowing contribution to the crime or criminal purpose.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1.3 (Revised factors to be applied when assessing complicity in the context of exclusions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1.4", + "marginal_note": "What does this mean in the context of exclusions?", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1.4 What does this mean in the context of exclusions?\nIn its decision on Ezokola, the SCC eliminated guilt by association, and, as a result, being a member of\nan organization with a limited, brutal purpose no longer leads automatically to exclusion from refugee\nprotection. Decision makers must now establish a nexus between the refugee claimant and the crime or\ncriminal purpose of the group [para. 9, 30] to exclude the claimant from refugee protection.\nWhile the new contribution-based test for complicity set out in Ezokola replaces the former personal and\nknowing participation test, it does not replace other potential modes of partial liability for the commission\nof international crimes such as aiding and abetting, inciting, ordering, commanding, or having superior\nresponsibility, etc., as set out in international instruments.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1.4 (What does this mean in the context of exclusions?)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1.5", + "marginal_note": "Relevant case law following Ezokola", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1.5 Relevant case law following Ezokola\n3 The Court has not defined “significant” in this context, but it should be assessed in the context of each individual\ncase.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 65\n1.5.1 Organizations with a limited, brutal purpose\nFollowing the SCC decision on Ezokola, individiduals can no longer be excluded from refugee\nprotection simply because they were associated with an organization with a limited, brutal\npurpose. Instead, decision makers have to show that the individual made a significant, voluntary,\nknowing contribution to the crime or criminal purpose of the organization. That is, the claimant’s\nconduct and role within the organization must be carefully established on an individualized basis\nto show that the contribution was voluntarily made and had a significant impact on the crime or\ncriminal purpose of the group.\nJurisprudence with respect to the nature of an organization remains relevant, since establishing\nthat an organization has a limited, brutal purpose may assist decision makers in assessing the\nfactors related to the size and nature of the organization. The link between the contribution and\nthe criminal purpose will be easier to establish.\nThe following cases remain relevant when assessing complicity using the factors established by\nthe SCC in Ezokola:\n Rutayisire v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1168, par. 35.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Hajialikhani, [1999] 1 FC 181,\npar. 24.\n Yogo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 90.\n1.5.2 Non-brutal organizations\nNon-brutal organizations are entities that have a legitimate purpose but have committed war\ncrimes or crimes against humanity outside of their main function.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1.5 (Relevant case law following Ezokola) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1.5", + "marginal_note": "Relevant case law following Ezokola", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Complicity in non-brutal organizations must be established on a voluntary, knowing, and\nsignificant contribution to the crime or criminal purpose of the group alleged to have committed\nthe crime.\nThe cases below on identifying non-brutal organizations remain relevant in establishing complicity\nfor the purpose of exclusion, as part of the aiding and abetting type of involvement, which should\ntheoretically apply and be captured by the contribution-based test established by the SCC in\nEzokola.\nPlease see the following cases as examples of handing over persons as a form of aiding\nand abetting:\n Sulemana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1995) F.T.R. 53.\n Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), IMM-2170-93.\n Januario v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 527.\n Gracias-Luna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 812.\n Guardado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2344-97.\n Yang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1372-98.\n Villegas Lumocso v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 905.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 66\nPlease see the following cases as examples of providing information about persons as a\nform of aiding and abetting:\n Bamlaku v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-846-9.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Bazargan, F.C.A., no. A-400-95.\n Shakarabi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1371-97.\n Albuja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 2 F.C. 538.\n Sumaida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 3 F.C. 66.\n Hovaiz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2012-01.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1.5 (Relevant case law following Ezokola) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1.5", + "marginal_note": "Relevant case law following Ezokola", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Lalaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4779-99.\n Goncalves v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 806.\n Harb v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCA 39.\n Alwan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 807.\n Salami v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-6023-02.\n Diab v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), IMM-3162-93.\n Kathiravel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 680.\n Uriol Castro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1190, 27 October 2011.\nPlease see the following cases as examples of providing support functions as a form of\naiding and abetting:\n Bukumba v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 93.\n Carrasco v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 436.\n Zadeh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), IMM-3077-94.\n Cibaric v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1078-95.\n Fletes v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 83 F.T.R. 49.\n Penate v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C. 79.\n Guardado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2344-97.\n Aguilar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4491-99.\n Rojas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 394.\n Mupenzi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1304.\n Mata Mazima v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 698.\n Nsika v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1026.\n \"Mr. MJS\" v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 293.\n Kamanzi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1261.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1.5 (Relevant case law following Ezokola) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-5-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1.5", + "marginal_note": "Relevant case law following Ezokola", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Please see the following cases as examples of increasing the efficiency of an organization\nas a form of aiding and abetting:\n Torkchin v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), A-159-92.\n Alza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3657-94.\n Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-541-00.\n Ordonez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2821-99.\n Salgado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2463-05.\n Aguilar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4491-99.\n Chitrakar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 888.\n Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 867.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 67\n Hernandez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1170.\n Kuruparan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 745.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1.5 (Relevant case law following Ezokola) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention – Serious, non-political crimes", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention – Serious, non-political crimes\nIn Zrig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCA 178, the court summarized its\nreading of the general purposes of article 1F of the Refugee Convention and article 1F(b) of the Refugee\nConvention in particular as ensuring that the\n perpetrators of international crimes or acts contrary to certain international standards will be\nunable to claim the right of asylum;\n perpetrators of ordinary crimes committed for fundamentally political purposes can find refuge in\na foreign country;\n right of asylum is not used by the perpetrators of serious, ordinary crimes in order to escape the\nordinary course of local justice; and\n country of refuge can protect its own people by closing its borders to criminals whom it regards as\nundesirable because of the seriousness of the ordinary crimes which it suspects such criminals of\nhaving committed. (para.119)\nIn Canada for a crime to be considered serious in the context of exclusion under article 1F(b) of the\nRefugee Convention, it must be a capital crime or a very grave, punishable act.\nThe notion of what is to be considered a serious crime is to be considered in relation to the criminal law\nsystem of the country of refuge rather than the country of origin.\n Zrig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCA 178.\n Lai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 125.\n Jayasekara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FCA 404.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Li, 2010 FCA 75.\nIn addition to examining the Criminal Code of Canada regarding the seriousness of the crime, it is also\npermissible to canvas international instruments that deal with the subject matter of the crime in question.\n Kovacs v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1473 (child abduction).\n Jayasekara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FCA 404. (drug trafficking\nthat makes reference to legislation of other western countries).\nNote: Decision makers may consider as evidence the criminal charges and convictions in a foreign\ncountry; however, they should be cautious when doing so [Biro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration), 2007 FC 776 and Arevalo Pineda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010\nFC 454].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention – Serious, non-political crimes)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.1", + "marginal_note": "Federal Court of Appeal decision in Jayasekara", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.1 Federal Court of Appeal decision in Jayasekara\nThere is a strong tendency to consider any crime, the equivalent of which carries a maximum penalty of\nat least ten years in Canadian criminal law as a serious crime, even though the actual sentence imposed\nin the country in which the crime was committed may be considerably less than the maximum penalty,\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 68\nhad the crime been committed in Canada, the application of the methodology adopted in Jayasekara v.\nCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC238/2008 FCA 404 may rebut this\npresumption.\nIn Jayasekara, the Federal Court of Appeal established that in interpreting article 1F(b) of the Refugee\nConvention with respect to seriousness of a crime, an evaluation of the following factors should be\nconsidered:\n the elements of the crime;\n the mode of prosecution;\n the penalty prescribed;\n the facts; and\n the mitigating and aggravating circumstances underlying the conviction.\nSince 2010, the Federal Court has dealt mostly with the application of of the methodology adopted by the\nFederal Court of Appeal in Jayasekara.\nNote: In Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC, the SCC provided the following\ncomments: “The Federal Court of Appeal in Chan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),\n[2000] 4 F.C. 390 (C.A.) and Jayasekara has taken the view that where a maximum sentence of ten years\nor more could have been imposed, had the crime been committed in Canada, the crime will generally be\nconsidered serious. I agree. However, this generalization should not be understood as a rigid\npresumption that is impossible to rebut. Where a provision of the Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.1 (Federal Court of Appeal decision in Jayasekara) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.1", + "marginal_note": "Federal Court of Appeal decision in Jayasekara", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "c. C-46, has a large sentencing range, the upper end being ten years or more and the lower end being\nquite low, a claimant whose crime would fall at the less serious end of the range in Canada should not be\npresumptively excluded. Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention is designed to exclude only those\nwhose crimes are serious. The UNHCR has suggested that a presumption of serious crime might be\nraised by evidence of commission of any of the following offences: homicide, rape, child molesting,\nwounding, arson, drugs trafficking, and armed robbery (G. S. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International\nLaw (3rd ed. 2007), at p. 179). These are good examples of crimes that are sufficiently serious to\npresumptively warrant exclusion from refugee protection. However, as indicated, the presumption may be\nrebutted in a particular case. While consideration of whether a maximum sentence of ten years or more\ncould have been imposed had the crime been committed in Canada is a useful guideline, and crimes\nattracting a maximum sentence of ten years or more in Canada will generally be sufficiently serious to\nwarrant exclusion; the ten-year rule should not be applied in a mechanistic, decontextualized, or unjust\nmanner.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.1 (Federal Court of Appeal decision in Jayasekara) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.2", + "marginal_note": "Mode of prosecution", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.2 Mode of prosecution\nThe Federal Court has held that the mode of prosecution relates to the choice made by a foreign\nprosecutor in deciding to proceed in the case of hybrid offences, with the more serious offence(s) in\nquestion by way of indictment or with the less serious offence(s) by laying a charge using a summary or\nmisdemeanour offence with the implication that going ahead with the less serious charge is a factor in\nfavour of the asylum seeker. The cases below dealt with minor sexual offences in the U.S., resulting in\nthe persons not being excluded in Canada, as these offences did not meet the threshold of serious\ncriminality.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lopez Velasco, 2011 FC 627.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 69\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ammar, 2011 FC 1094.\n Vucaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 381.\nFor an example where exclusion was upheld, refer to\n Hernandez Gomez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 271. (weapons\noffences in the U.S.)\nOn the other hand, if an offence is committed outside of Canada, but the behaviour amounts to a hybrid\noffence in Canada of which the summary variation has a maximum penalty much higher than other\nsummary offences in Canada, such as the offence of sexual interference, a person can be excluded\npursuant to article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raina, 2012 FC 618.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.2 (Mode of prosecution)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.3", + "marginal_note": "Penalty prescribed", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.3 Penalty prescribed\nDecision makers should not take into account the cumulative effect of the penalties that could be\nimposed for all of the offences committed by a person.\n Vucaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 381.\nMaximum penalties that can be imposed for the commission of an offence with a mandatory minimum\nsentence should not be taken into consideration in the assessment of what constitutes a serious crime.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nwobi, 2014 FC 520.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.3 (Penalty prescribed)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.4", + "marginal_note": "Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.4 Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)\nThe aggravating and mitigating circumstances go to the nature of the crime committed, not what might be\nlater considered as factors to be taken into account in determining whether the offender has been\nrehabilitated.\n Rojas Camacho v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 789.\nNote: It is important for the decision maker to actually consider these contextual factors in a meaningful\nway and reflect how the competing factors have been assessed and weighed in determining if a crime\nwas serious for the purpose of exclusion pursuant to article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention. It is not\nenough for the decision maker to simply list the factors and then state a conclusion.\n Aguilar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 959.\n Mohamad Jawad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 232.\n Poggio Guerrero v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 384. (drug\ntrafficking in the U.S.)\n Valdespino Partida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 359. (theft in\nthe U.S.)\n Vucaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 381. (drug trafficking in the\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 70\nU.S.)\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nwobi, 2014 FC 520. (drug trafficking in\nGermany and killing in Nigeria)\n2.4.1 Mitigating factors\nA constraint short of duress may be a relevant mitigating factor in assessing the seriousness of\nthe crime committed.\n Jayasekara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), para.45.\nHowever, a full defence such as duress goes beyond being a mitigating factor and negates\nliability under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.4 (Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.4", + "marginal_note": "Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Guerra Diaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 FC.\nThe claimant’s admission of guilt, a favourable plea bargain and a troubled childhood may be\nrelevant mitigating factors.\n Gudima v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 382.\nThe claimant’s age and lack of previous convictions, the limited amount of drugs, and the fact that\nthe substance contained methamphetamine as opposed to pure methamphetamine along with the\nclaimant’s refugee status and life in a marginalized neighbourhood may be relevant mitigating\nfactors.\n Shire v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 97.\nThe claimant’s addiction to painkillers, resulting from an injury sustained during a criminal gang\nfight, the claimant’s cooperation with authorities, their role as an instrumental key witness for the\nCrown, the lack of weapons involved in the drug trafficking offence, and the absence of serious\ninjury resulting from the offence may be relevant mitigating factors.\n Vucaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 381.\nMitigating circumstances are only relevant if they directly relate to the commission of the offence\nat that time and not to issues related to the character of the refugee claimant after the\ncommission of the offence. To this end, the seriousness of a crime is to be assessed at the time\nthe crime was committed.\nRehabilitation and current lack of dangerousness are irrelevant considerations in determining if a\nperson should be excluded under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention and do not need to be\ntaken into account. In other words, the seriousness of the crime is not to be balanced against\nfactors that are extraneous to the commission of the offence, such as current dangerousness,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.4 (Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.4", + "marginal_note": "Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "expiation, or rehabilitation. Only factors related to the commission of the criminal offences can be\nconsidered.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 71\n Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68.\nNote: Rehabilitation is not taken into account and is not balanced against the presumed\nseriousness of the crime arising from the fact that, if committed in Cananda, the crime is\npunishable by at least ten years imprisonment.\n Rojas Camacho v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 789. (drug\ntrafficking in the U.S.)\n Hernandez Febles v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1103.\n(assault with a deadly weapon in the U.S.)\n Martinez Cuero v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 191. (drug\ntrafficking in the U.S)\n Feimi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 262. (murder in\nGreece)\n Poggio Guerrero v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 384.(drug\ntrafficking in the U.S.)\n Cho v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 45. (various serious\ncrimes in Korea as a member of a gang)\n Ospina Velasquez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 273.\n(armed robbery and drug offences in the U.S.)\n Valdespino Partida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 359.\n Sanchez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC. (This case also\nmakes it clear that a change in legislation in Canada making an offence more or less\nserious later than at the time it was committed is not relevant for this proposition, but what\nis relevant is that the seriousness of the crime is measured at the time of refugee\ndetermination; this was confirmed on appeal in Sanchez v. Canada (Minister of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.4 (Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-4-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.4", + "marginal_note": "Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Citizenship and Immigration) 2014 FCA 157.)\nWhen assessing seriousness of a crime in the context of exclusions under article 1F(b) of the\nRefugee Convention, the fact that the person is not a danger to the security of Canada after\narrival is also not to be taken into account.\n Hernandez Febles v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1103.\n Feimi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 262.\nThe court also indicates that serving a sentence in the country where the crime was committed is\nnot conclusive.\n Rojas Camacho v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 789.\n Abu Ganem v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1147.\n(manslaughter in Israel)\n Radi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 16. (domestic assault\nin the U.S.)\n Cho v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 45.\n Ospina Velasquez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 273.\nConduct after the conviction that sheds light on the Jayasekara factors, such as probation and\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 72\nparole violations related to the offence in question, are relevant factors to be considered in the\ncontext of article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention.\n Chernikov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 FC 649. (drunk\ndriving causing bodily harm in the U.S.)\n2.4.2 Aggravating factors\nThe harm caused to the victim or society, the use of a weapon, and the fact that the crime is\ncommitted by an organized criminal group could be relevant aggravating factors to be considered.\n Jayasekara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)\nAggravating factors include habitual criminal conduct as well as possible psychological harm to\nvictims.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.4 (Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-4-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.4", + "marginal_note": "Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Poggio Guerrero v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2012 FC 384.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raina 2012 FC 618. (sexual offences\nin New Zealand)\n Gamboa Micolta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 FC 367.\n(burglary and evading arrest in the U.S.)\n Gudima v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 FC 382. (assault in the\nU.S.)\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Pierre 2013 FC 810. (burglary in the\nU.S.)\n Unachukwu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2014 FC 199. (spousal\nassault in the U.S.)\nAggravating factors also include absconding from the jurisdiction where the crime was committed.\n Gamboa Micolta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 367.\n Unachukwu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 199. (spousal\nassault in the U.S.)\nNote: In paragraph 44 of Jayasekara, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that “no balancing is\nrequired with factors extraneous to the facts and cirumstances underlying the conviction, such as\nthe risk of persecution in the state of origin.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.4 (Aggravating and mitigating circumstances (including rehabilitation)) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.5", + "marginal_note": "Examples of serious crimes (in addition to the ones mentioned above in the context", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.5 Examples of serious crimes (in addition to the ones mentioned above in the context\nof other issues under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention\nMurder\n Feimi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 262.\n A.C. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1500.\nDrug Trafficking\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 73\n Rojas Camacho v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 789.\n Martinez Cuero v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 191.\n Poggio Guerrero v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 384.\n Malouf v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), A-19-95.\n Chan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), A-294-99.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Maan, 2005 FC 1682.\n Garcia Médina v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 62.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Jan, 2006 FC 40.\n Garcia Rodriguez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 462.\n Jayasekara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FCA 404.\n Chawah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 324.\n Betancour v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 767.\nAssault\n Hernandez Febles v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1103.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nyari, 2002 FCT 979.\n Nava Flores v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1147.\nSexual Assault\n Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4967-94.\nBombing\n Gil v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (C.A.), [1995] 1 FC 508.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.5 (Examples of serious crimes (in addition to the ones mentioned above in the context) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.5", + "marginal_note": "Examples of serious crimes (in addition to the ones mentioned above in the context", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Coup d’états, including activities such as delivering weapons and seizing radio and TV stations\n Gregorio v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1447-98.\nKidnapping\n Taleb v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM -1449-98.\nSabotage\n Vergara c. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 474.\nArmed Robbery\n Ospina Velasquez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 273.\n Vergara c. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 474.\n Sharma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 289.\nArson\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 74\n Zrig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2001 FCT 1043.\nTerrorist Acts\n Zrig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2003 FCA 178.\nChild Abduction\n Kovacs v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 FC 1473.\n Paris Montoya v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 FC 1674.\nMiscellaneous\n Cho v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 FC 45. (various serious crimes in\nKorea as a member of a gang)\n Valdespino Partida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 FC 359.\n Sanchez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 FC. (This case also makes it\nclear that a change in legislation in Canada making an offence more or less serious later than at\nthe time it was committed is not relevant for this proposition, but what is relevant is that the\nseriousness of the crime is measured at the time of refugee determination; this was confirmed on\nappeal in Sanchez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2014 FCA 157.)\nEconomic crimes, which can also be crimes under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.5 (Examples of serious crimes (in addition to the ones mentioned above in the context) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.5", + "marginal_note": "Examples of serious crimes (in addition to the ones mentioned above in the context", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Simkovic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 113. (tax evasion in\nSlovakia)\n Xie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 250. (embezzlement)\n Lai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 125. (smuggling, tax evation\nand offering bribes)\n Florea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1472. (customs smuggling)\n Vlad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 172. (taking bribes)\n Rudyak v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1141. (usury)\n Iliev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 395; Hany Zeng v. Canada\n(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2008 FC 956; Xu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigration), 2005 FC 970; Codas Martin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),\n2007 FC 994; Noha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 683 (fraud)\n Ivanov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1210\n Farkas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 277 (theft involving large\namounts of money)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.5 (Examples of serious crimes (in addition to the ones mentioned above in the context) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.6", + "marginal_note": "Foreign convictions and charges", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.6 Foreign convictions and charges\nDecision makers can rely on a foreign conviction, as long there is no challenge to the integrity of the\napplicant’s conviction or the judicial system of the foreign country.\n Abu Ganem v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1147.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 75\nIf the judicial system in question is allegedly corrupt, a decision maker can go behind the record of\nconviction.\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Toktok, 2013 FC 1150. (writing a false\ncheque in Turkey; the non-exclusion finding was upheld)\n Biro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), F.C, IMM-5574-06, July 26, 2007. (This\ncase dealt with assessing fairness of a foreign criminal process for determination as to whether a\ncrime was committed.)\n Florea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), F.C.T.D., IMM- 5443-04, November 3,\n2005. (This case dealt with pardon and civil fines in the context of criminal proceedings.)\nNote: The fact that charges were dismissed in a foreign jurisdiction by itself does not mean that a serious\ncrime was not committed. If this is the case, the decision maker can rely on other evidence, as well as the\nevidence adduced in the criminal trial, that did not result in a conviction.\nTo assess if exclusion pursuant to article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention applies, the following factors\nshould be taken into consideration:\n whether the dismissal was for technical legal reasons; and\n the country in which the charges that did not lead to a conviction were laid.\no Arevalo Pineda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 454.\n(sexual assault in the U.S.)\no Naranjo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1127. (money\nlaundering in the U.S.)\no Radi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 16.\nAn allegation whereby a police report referred to trafficking in drugs, but a later criminal conviction was for\nthe reduced charge of possession, combined with a short period of probation, was held not to be a\nserious offence.\n Mohamad Jawad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 232. (drug\npossession; the exclusion finding was overruled)\n Simkovic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 113.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.6 (Foreign convictions and charges)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-7-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.7", + "marginal_note": "Political crime", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.7 Political crime\nIn Gil v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (C.A.), [1995] 1 F.C. 508, the Federal Court of\nAppeal held that, for a crime to be characterized as political and, therefore, to fall outside the scope of\narticle 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention, it must meet a two-pronged incidence test as follows:\n1. the existence of a political disturbance related to a struggle to modify or abolish either a\ngovernment or a government policy; and\n2. a rational nexus between the crime committed and the potential accomplishment of the political\nobjective sought.\nThe Court of Appeal considered and rejected the notion of balancing the seriousness of the persecution\nthe claimant is likely to suffer against the gravity of the crime they committed.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 76\nIn Gil, the court upheld a tribunal decision to exclude an individual who had been involved five or six times\nin placing Molotov cocktails in crowded business premises owned by wealthy supporters of the Khomeini\ngovernment in Iran and by members of local revolutionary committees.\nThe court noted that violent acts committed randomly for political purposes may not be regarded as\npolitical acts, due to the lack of a causal connection between the crime committed and the alleged\npolitical end. The court also stressed that violent acts committed against unarmed civilians, which\ninevitably result in the death or serious injury of civilians, are completely disproportionate to the legitimate\npolitical objective sought, regardless of what that is.\nThe court states that, while the political offence exception occurs in both extradition and refugee law,\nthere are substantial differences between the two systems, as a result of which these considerations", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.7 (Political crime) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-7-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.7", + "marginal_note": "Political crime", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "“would seem to point to a need for even greater caution in characterizing a crime as political for the\npurposes of applying article 1F(b) [of the Refugee Convention] than for the purpose of denying\nextradition” (Gil v. Canada).\nAfter considering in detail the extradition law of other countries, the court decided that the incidence test\nfrom extradition law was also the most appropriate to assess the political offence exception in refugee\nlaw. In applying this test to the facts of the case, the court was of the opinion that there was no objective\nrational connection between injuring the commercial interests of certain wealthy supporters of the regime\nand any realistic goal of forcing the regime itself to fall or change its ways or politics. This nexus was too\ntenuous to justify the kind of indiscriminate violence the refugee claimant admitted to (Gil v. Canada).\nIn Durango v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1081, the court found that the\npolitical offence exception did not apply in this case because the crime was not committed in Colombia,\nwhere the political activities took place, but in the country of refuge. In addition, there was no evidence\nthat the person actually had engaged in political activities when returning to Colombia with a false\npassport that had been obtained in the U.S.\nA.C. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1500 involved the killing of the\npresident of Bangladesh in the early seventies as part of an attempt to overthrow the government and\nalso the killing of his family and entourage. The political defence exemption was found to be not\napplicable, but it is not clear whether this decision was based on only the lack of proportionality or also\nthe lack of nexus (see also A. Kaushal and C. Dauvergne4).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.7 (Political crime) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-7-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.7", + "marginal_note": "Political crime", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Other cases where the claimant was unable to convince a court that their criminal activities fit the political\noffence exception, primarily by already failing this first part of the test, which was said not to apply,\ninclude the following:\n Gregorio v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1447-98. (during a coup d’état\nin Venezuala)\n Taleb v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1449-98. (kidnapping of a\nterrorist for the FBI in exchange for 2 million dollars and U.S. citizenship)\n Vergara c. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 474. (armed robbery and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.7 (Political crime) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "A. Kaushal and C. Dauvergne, “The Grow ing Culture of Exclusion: Trends in Canadian", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 A. Kaushal and C. Dauvergne, “The Grow ing Culture of Exclusion: Trends in Canadian\nRefugee Exclusions”, Metropolis British Columbia, Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Diversity\n(2011) [http://mbc.metropolis.net/assets/uploads/files/w p/2011/WP11-06.pdf]\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 77\nacts of sabotage against the Chilean government as a member of the communist party)\n Sharma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 289. (involvement in\narmed robberies in Nepal as a member of the communist party)\n Zrig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1043. (arson committed as\npart of the political goal of establishing a fundamentalist government in Tunisia)\n Lai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 125. (economic crimes, such\nas fraud, smuggling, and tax evasion, in China)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 4 (A. Kaushal and C. Dauvergne, “The Grow ing Culture of Exclusion: Trends in Canadian)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.8", + "marginal_note": "Completion and length of a sentence when considering exclusion under 1F(b)", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.8 Completion and length of a sentence when considering exclusion under 1F(b)\nIn Jaysekara, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that serving a sentence for a serious crime prior to\ncoming to Canada does not exclude the application of article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention (para. 57).\nIn Nava Flores v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1147, the Federal Court\nupheld the RPD’s decision to exclude a refugee claimant under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention,\neven though he had completed his sentence for the crime in question (paras. 54 and 58). See also\n Arevaldo Pineda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 454;\n Chawal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 324; and\n Shire v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 97.\nIn Jaysekara, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed that if the length or completion of a sentence is\nconsidered in the context of exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention, it should not be\nconsidered in isolation for the following reasons:\n There are a number of reasons why a lenient sentence may actually be imposed in the country\nwhere the crime was committed, even for a serious crime. The sentence, however, would not\ndiminish the seriousness of the crime committed.\n On the other hand, in some countries, a person may be subjected to substantial prison terms for\nbehaviour that is not considered criminal in Canada (para. 41, Jaysekara FCA 404.).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.8 (Completion and length of a sentence when considering exclusion under 1F(b))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2.9", + "marginal_note": "Complicity", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2.9 Complicity\nNote: The legal test established by the SCC in Ezokola also applies to establishing complicity pursuant to\nexclusions under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2.9 (Complicity)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention – Acts contrary to the purposes and", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 Article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention – Acts contrary to the purposes and\nprinciples of the United Nations\nArticle 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention only applies to acts that amount to sustained, systematic, and\nserious violations of human rights or acts of terrorism, forced disappearance, torture, hostage taking, and\napartheid. Exclusion under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention applies to acts committed in or\noutside of Canada, whether these persons were private individuals or acting with government authority.\nDrug trafficking is not an activity captured by article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention.\nNote: The legal test established by the SCC in Ezokola also applies to establishing complicity pursuant to\nexclusions under article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 78\nNote: For applicable case law, refer to section 5.14 of this manual chapter.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 79\nAppendix C: Case law for exclusion under article 1E of the\nRefugee Convention", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 3 (Article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention – Acts contrary to the purposes and)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Article 1E of the Refugee Convention – Recognition by competent authorities", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 Article 1E of the Refugee Convention – Recognition by competent authorities\nPursuant to the definition of “Convention refugee” in section A96, the applicability of the Refugee\nConvention is subject to article 1E of the Refugee Convention, which reads as follows:\n“E. This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of\nthe country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are\nattached to the possession of the nationality of that country.”\nThe purpose of article 1E of the Refugee Convention is to exclude persons who do not require the\nprotection of refugee status. Therefore, it supports the purposes of the IRPA by limiting refugee claims to\nthose who clearly face the threat of persecution.\n Kroon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), Imm. L.R. (2d) 164 (F.C.T.D.)\nat 167-168.\nThe rationale for the enactment of article 1E of the Refugee Convention in 1951 was to exclude refugees\nand expellees of German ethnic origin in the Federal Republic of Germany, who, by virtue of article 116 of\nthe Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, were treated as German nationals. The reason for\nexcluding these persons was that the signatories to the Convention considered they should be the\nresponsibility of Germany.\n Atle Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law, Vol. 1, Sijthoff-Leyden, 1966,\npp. 267–270.\n James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Toronto: Butterworths, 1991, pp. 211-212.\nIn order to be excluded under article 1E of the Refugee Convention, the person must have a status in\nanother country that is in no way inferior to that of Convention refugee (Grahl-Madsen, supra, p. 270).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Article 1E of the Refugee Convention – Recognition by competent authorities) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Article 1E of the Refugee Convention – Recognition by competent authorities", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983, p. 58\nArticle 1E of the Refugee Convention requires the RPD to engage in an analysis of the rights and\nobligations of the refugee claimant in the successor state. The IRB must determine whether the claimant\nenjoys the same rights as a national, which depends on the country of residence.\n Mahdi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 311, 86\nF.T.R. 307 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 199 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.).\n Hamdan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.T.D., IMM-1346-96, March 27,\n1997).\nThe following rights are considered rights for the purposes of article 1E of the Refugee Convention:\n the right to return;\n the right to work freely without restrictions;\n the right to study; and\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 80\n the right to full access to social services in the country of residence.\no Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1995), 103 F.T.R 241, 32\nImm. L.R. (2d) 135 (F.C.T.D.).\no Mahdi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1994) 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 311,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 1 (Article 1E of the Refugee Convention – Recognition by competent authorities) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-86-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 86", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 307 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 199 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.).", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "86 F.T.R. 307 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 199 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.).\no Hassanzadeh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-707-\n95, August 23, 1996).\no Hamdan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-1346-96,\nMarch 27, 1997).\no Kamana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-5998-98,\nSeptember 22, 1999).\nIf a person comes to Canada directly from a third country where this person has received a form of\nunconditional protection or the right to stay, and the person has not abandoned the protection of that\ncountry, article 1E of the Refugee Convention does apply to that person.\n Hurt v. Canada (Minister of Manpower and Immigration), [1978] 2 F.C. 340 (F.C.A.).\n Mahdi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1994), 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 311, 86\nF.T.R. 307 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 199 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.).\n Hadissi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-5210-94, March 29,\n1996).\n Mohamed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-2248-96, April 7,\n1997).\n Wassiq v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1996), 112 F.T.R. 143, 33 Imm.\nL.R. (2d) 238 (F.C.T.D.).\n Kanesharan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1996), 35 Imm. L.R. (2d) 185,\n120 F.T.R. 67 (F.C.T.D.).\n Shahpari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-2327-97, April 3,\n1998).\n Agha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-4282-99, January 12,\n2001).\n Nepete v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-4471-99, January 11,\n2002).\n Hakizimana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-1327-02,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 86 (F.T.R. 307 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 199 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.).) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-86-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 86", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 307 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 199 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.).", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "February 26, 2003).\n Vifansi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-2366-02, March 17,\n2003).\n Hassanzadeh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-3545-03,\nDecember 18, 2003).\n Choezom v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-1420-04,\nSeptember 30, 2004).\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),v. Manoharan (F.C.T.D., IMM-5617-04, August\n22, 2005).\n Murcia Romero v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-3370-05,\nApril 21, 2006).\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)v Choovak (Choubak), (F.C.T.D., IMM-3462-05,\nApril 26, 2006).\n Parvanta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-266-06, September\n27, 2006).\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 81\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tajdini, (F.C., IMM-1270-06, March 1, 2007).\n Parshottam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C., IMM-192-07, January 15,\n2008).\n Binyamin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C., IMM-2018-07, February 28,\n2008).\n Parshottam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FCA, A-73-08, November 14,\n2008).\n Zeng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FC, IMM-4183-08, May 8, 2009). (also\nas to timing of the status in the other country)\n Udeh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FC, IMM-02-09, August 13, 2009).\n Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FC, IMM-585-08, August 24, 2009).\n Mai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FC, 1155-09, February 22, 2010).\n Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Zeng, (FCA, A-275-09, May 10, 2010). (also", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 86 (F.T.R. 307 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 199 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.).) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-86-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 86", + "marginal_note": "F.T.R. 307 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 199 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.).", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "as to timing of the status in the other country)\n Zhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FC, IMM-3909-10, March 9, 2011).\nArticle 1E of the Refugee Convention may be applied to persons who come to Canada when asylum\nshopping or persons who take actions that are intended to result in them not being able to return to the\ncountry where they have refugee status.\n Mohamed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-2248-96, April 7,\n1997).\n Wassiq v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1996), 112 F.T.R. 143, 33 Imm.\nL.R. (2d) 238 (F.C.T.D.).\n Shahpari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D., IMM-2327-97, April 3,\n1998).\nEvidence must be presented to show the rights a permanent resident possesses in the country of\nresidence and must be similar if not the same as the rights of nationals in that country. In order for\narticle 1E of the Refugee Convention to be invoked, the rights enjoyed cannot be conditional on certain\nevents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 86 (F.T.R. 307 (F.C.T.D.), affirmed, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1, 199 N.R. 170 (F.C.A.).) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee\nConvention\nIn Olschewski v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), (FCTD, A-1424-92, October 20, 1993), the judge\nmerely stated that the exclusion clause under article E of the Refugee Convention did not apply to the\nclaimant, who had lost the citizenship of the USSR when he emigrated to Israel but had the right to\nreapply for citizenship of the Ukraine, although it was not clear if he was able to return.\nIn Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahdi, Roon Abdikarim (F.C.A., no. A-632-94),\n(supra), the Federal Court, Trial Division, overruled the CRDD decision excluding a person from Somalia\nwho was in possession of a U.S. residency card, based on exclusion on the ground set out in article 1E of\nthe Refugee Convention, because the CRDD, while stating that the claimant had most of the rights\nenjoyed by citizens, did not inquire whether the right to return was extinguished by the fact that she had\ngiven up her residency in the U.S. The case is presently under appeal as the result of certification.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 82\nIn Kroon v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3161-93) (supra), the\nCRDD decision excluding a person who was a national of Russia but had residency in Estonia was\nupheld. The judge indicated that exclusion under article 1E of the Refugee Convention should be not be\nconfined to those cases where applicants have moved from their own country of nationality to seek\nrefugee status in another country, where they then reside with essentially similar rights to those of\nnationals of the second country.\nThe court found that, in this case, the person would have a status comparable to that of Estonian", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 1 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "nationals and consistent with international conventions and treaties relating to rights and obligations of\nindividuals. It also held that the person could be expected to be restored to his rights of residency in\nEstonia as a registered non-citizen and that, upon his return within a reasonable time, he would be\nentitled to apply for citizenship and, in the meantime, had a right to remain there with rights similar to\nmost enjoyed by citizens.\nIn Shamlou (supra), the CRDD decision to exclude a person from Iran who had permanent resident status\nin Mexico and who had been convicted of attempted sexual battery in the U.S. after a guilty plea, based\non articles 1E and 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention, was upheld by the court. In agreeing with the CRDD\non the exclusion under article 1E of the Refugee Convention, the judge relied on Hathaway (supra),\nWaldman (Lorne Waldman, Immigration Law and Practice, vol. 1, Toronto: Butterworths Canada Ltd.,\n1992), and the UNHCR Handbook for the parameters of article E of the Refugee Convention and referred\nto the Olschewski (supra), Kroon (supra), Hurt (supra), and Mahdi (supra) cases regarding the rights and\nobligations for nationals. The court accepted Waldman's criteria for this exclusion clause as the rights to\nreturn, to work freely without restrictions, to study, and to full access to social services in the country of\nresidence. With respect to the assertion that the claimant had lost his permanent resident status as the\nresult of the operation of Mexican law, the decision indicated that, since there was no conclusive\nevidence to that effect, it was not unreasonable for the CRDD to exclude the person.\nThe Mahdi (supra) case was decided as a result of certification of a judgment of the Federal Court, Trial", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 2 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Division, which had overturned a CRDD decision excluding a Somalian person who had been granted\npermanent resident status in the U.S. and who had returned to Somalia and had then come to Canada in\norder to claim refugee status. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Trial Division judge\nprimarily as a result of the peculiar factual situation. The court indicated that this was not a case where a\nperson had voluntarily renounced the protection of one country in order to seek refuge elsewhere. The\nevidence did not show that the person had left the U.S. for Somalia with the intention of coming to\nCanada. In these circumstances, the person was not precluded from claiming refugee status in Canada,\nas she still had good reasons to fear persecution in Somalia.\nWith respect to the question of whether the person was still recognized as a permanent resident by the\ncompetent authorities of the U.S., the court held that the evidence that showed that there was a possibility\nthat U.S. authorities would no longer recognize her as a permanent resident and would, therefore, deny\nher the right to return should be taken into account in deciding if it would be established, on a balance of\nprobabilities, that the U.S. authorities still recognized her as a permanent resident.\nIn Hadissi (supra), the CRDD decision excluding a person who was a permanent resident of the U.S. and\nwho had come to Canada to claim refugee status, based on article 1E of the Refugee Convention, was\nupheld by the court. Hadissi argued that she had abandoned her permanent resident status and that she\nhad no right to entry to the U.S. The court decided that there was no evidence that she had lost her status", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 3 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "in the U.S. Based on Mahdi (supra) (both the Federal Court, Trial Division, and the Federal Court of\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 83\nAppeal), the court found that the CRDD had not made a reviewable error based on the evidence before it\nin which more weight was given to the Minister's evidence than to the hearsay evidence of the applicant.\nIn Wassiq (supra), the CRDD decision to exclude a person from Afghanistan who had obtained refugee\nstatus in Germany, but whose travel documents from Germany had expired, was overturned. As a result\nof the expired travel documents and the inability under German law to renew them, the person’s\nresidency permit had also expired. The finding of the CRDD that Germany should have assumed\nresponsibility was not sufficient for the application of exclusion under article 1E of the Refugee\nConvention if, in fact, Germany did not allow the person to return.\nIn Hassanzadeh (supra), the decision whereby a person who was living in Austria, where he was allowed\nto work and return, was excluded on the basis of exclusion on the ground set out in article 1E of the\nRefugee Convention was upheld by the court. The argument used by the applicant that, in order to\ncontinue to be able to work in Austria, he was required to have a valid passport from his home country\nwas rejected, as there was no evidence of that assertion, and the onus was on the applicant to prove his\nstatement. Mahdi (supra) does not apply in these circumstances.\nIn Kanesharan (supra), the CRDD decision excluding a person who had temporary status in the U.K.,\nbased on exclusion under article 1E of the Refugee Convention, was overturned by the Federal Court,\nTrial Division. The court found that a person such as the applicant, who had temporary status in the U.K.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 4 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "but was in a situation where the Home Office reserved the right to remove him to his country of nationality\nshould prevailing circumstances change significantly in a positive manner, was eligible to remain after\nhaving been on exceptional leave for four years and on renewal for three years, and had the right to make\ntrips to and from the U.K., does not have the rights envisaged by exclusion under article 1E of the\nRefugee Convention.\nHamdan (supra) resulted in a CRDD decision excluding a person who, in the Philippines, had the rights to\nreturn to that country and to study and who received a stipend from the UNHCR (as a result, the right to\nwork was not material in this case). The right to social services was not clear on the evidence based on\nexclusion under article 1E of the Refugee Convention. The CRDD decision was overruled by the court on\nthe basis that it was not necessary to determine whether the above criteria (from Shamlou, supra) were\nfulfilled. What had to be determined was whether the person had all rights and obligations of citizens in\nthe country of residence, which can change depending on the country of residence. In this case,\naccording to the court, it would appear critical that the applicant had neither the right to work nor the right\nto receive social services. The court also found that the CRDD had applied the wrong standard, namely\nwhether the Philippines was a safe haven and not whether the applicant had the rights and obligations of\ncitizens.\nIn Mohamed (supra), the court upheld the CRDD decision excluding a person on the ground set out in\narticle 1E of the Refugee Convention to a person who originated from Somalia and who had permanent\nresident status in Sweden until April 12, 1997. The evidence indicated that permanent residents in", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 5 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Sweden have the same rights as permanent residents in Canada, that the certificate of permanent\nresidency is automatically renewed if the person is still in Sweden, and that, if the person abandons\nSweden as their place of residency, their status lapses on the date that the certificate is up for renewal.\nThe court dismissed the application from the bench so that the applicants could return to Sweden in time\nto renew their certificate. The court indicated that, although the applicants arrived in Canada with no\nstatus (they were still waiting on their application for refugee status, which was rejected, but instead\nbecame permanent residents after arriving in Canada), the critical time for the question of their status was\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 84\nat the CRDD hearing, at which time the applicants had permanent resident status in Sweden. The court\nalso raised the concern of asylum shopping, where a person voluntarily abandons a legal status in a\ncountry that has provided protection and goes to another country. This is not what the Refugee\nConvention intends.\nIn Shahpari (supra), the Federal Court, Trial Division, upheld a CRDD decision involving exclusion under\narticle 1E of the Refugee Convention, where a person from Iran was given a carte de résident in France\nin 1991, valid for ten years, came to Canada in 1994 after first obtaining a French exit/re-entry visa, and,\nupon arriving in Canada, destroyed this visa. The court held that, in cases of exclusion under article E of\nthe Refugee Convention, the onus is on the government, but the onus shifts to the applicant to show why\nthe clause should not apply in circumstances where the government has put forward a prima facie case", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 6 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "that the exclusion clause applies. Expiration of the visa, the impossibility to renew it outside of France,\nand the destruction thereof are not sufficient reasons to discharge the shifted onus on the applicant. The\ncourt also indicated that exclusion under article 1E of the Refugee Convention will be given broad\napplication against claimants who are engaged in asylum shopping.\nIn Agha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-4282-99, January 12, 2001, Nadon J.),\nthe court concluded that the IRB did consider the factual situation regarding the possibility of the applicant\nreturning to the U.S., as his permanent residence status was still active. In doing so, the court departed\nfrom the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Mahdi and followed Jerome J.'s decision in Hadissi. The\ncourt also confirmed the principle stated in Shahpari (Rothstein J.), i.e., once the Minister submits\nevidence to the effect that an applicant can return to a given country, the onus shifts to the applicant to\nshow that they cannot. The judicial review was dismissed. Nadon J. made no comments in his reasons as\nto a possible certification.\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 85\nAppendix D: List of useful websites\nFederal agencies Addresses\nForeign Affairs, Trade and Development\nCanada (DFATD)\nhttp://www.international.gc.ca/international/index.aspx\nImmigration and Refugee Board (IRB) http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/Pages/index.aspx\nDepartment of Justice Canada http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/\nRoyal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca\nPrincipal international organizations\nAmnesty International www.amnesty.ca\nUnited Nations High Commissioner for\nRefugees (UNHCR)\nDocuments concerning the guidelines for\napplying exclusion and cessation clauses are", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 7 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "found at this address as well as the Handbook on\nProcedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee\nStatus.\nhttp://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home\nUnited Nations Organization (UNO) www.un.org\nUnited Nations Relief and Works Agency for\nPalestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)\nhttp://www.unrwa.org/\nCase law\nImmigration and Refugee Board (IRB) http://www.irb-\ncisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/decisions/pages/index.aspx\nFederal Court of Canada http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/site/fc-cf/en/nav.do\nFederal Court of Appeal http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/en/0/ann.do\nSupreme Court of Canada (SCC) www.scc-csc.gc.ca\nInternational law\nInternational Court of Justice www.icj-cij.org\nInternational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda www.ictr.org\nTreaties of the United Nations http://treaties.un.org/Home.aspx?lang=en\nOther organizations\nAustralian Refugee Review Tribunal www.rrt.gov.au\nCanadian Council for Refugees http://ccrweb.ca/en/home\nEuropean Council on Refugees and Exiles www.ecre.org\nU.S. Committee for Refugees www.refugees.org\nU.S. Department of Justice www.usdoj.gov\nU.S. Department of State www.state.gov\nU.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis\nThe situation in countries\nImmigration and Refugee Board, Responses to\nInformation Requests\nhttp://www.irb-\ncisr.gc.ca/Eng/ResRec/RirRdi/Pages/index.aspx\nU.S. Department of State Report on Human\nRights Practices\nhttp://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/\nGeographic maps\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 86\nNational Geographic http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/ind\nex.html\nTexas Tech University Map Collection http://www.lib.ttu.edu/maps/\nENF 24 Ministerial interventions\n2016-03-18 87\nAppendix E: National directive to hearings officers regarding", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 8 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "credibility and program integrity interventions policy statement\nThe CBSA Inland Enforcement Program is mandated to ensure that the safety and security of Canada is\nnot compromised by individuals who are non-compliant with the IRPA, including investigations; arrests;\ndetentions, as required; and removals.\nThe Hearings Program consists of hearings officers appearing before the RPD on behalf of the Minister of\nIRCC or the Minister of PSEP when intervening in a refugee claim made by a foreign national.\nThis policy addresses the significant decrease in participation of hearings officers in credibility and\nprogram integrity interventions by the coming into force of the IRPA, as amended by the Balanced\nRefugee Reform Act (BRRA) and the Protecting Canada’s Immigration Systems Act (PCISA).\nThe purpose of this directive is to inform all regions of the CBSA hearings officers’ grounds for\nintervention before the RPD.\nCBSA hearings officers will continue to intervene in cases involving security and criminality, such as those\ninvolved in crimes against humanity, war crimes, and serious non-political crimes under article 1F of the\nRefugee Convention.\nInterventions based solely on credibility, program integrity or article 1E of the Refugee Convention will\ntemporarily fall under the responsibility of the Minister of IRCC and should be referred to the new IRCC\nReview and Intervention (R&I) office in Toronto. The IRCC pilot project has been established as a result\nof the coming into force of the amended IRPA and will be in place until 2015. IRCC senior immigration\nofficers are located in satellite offices in Vancouver, Montréal, and the main R&I office in Toronto.\nThe Minister of PSEP will intervene in cases involving credibility, program integrity issues, and exclusion", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 9 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-24-2-p10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-24", + "act_short": "ENF 24", + "act_name": "ENF 24 — ENF 24", + "section": "ENF 24 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee", + "part": "ENF 24", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "under article 1E of the Refugee Convention only in the following circumstances:\n hybrid cases (combined security or serious criminality and credibility/program integrity issues);\n detained cases;\n constitutional challenges;\n mass arrival cases; and\n people smuggling/human trafficking cases.\nHowever, if a hybrid case is referred to CBSA Hearings and results in a determination that no intervention\nis warranted under article 1F of the Refugee Convention, CBSA Hearings will maintain carriage of the file\nand may intervene solely on program integrity or credibility grounds.\nConsiderations\nThe Minister is bound by the new RPDR, and hearings officers should familiarize themselves with the\nRPDR and follow them accordingly.\nThis national directive is effective immediately, and ENF 24 has been updated accordingly.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2016-03-18", + "current_to": "2016-03-18", + "citation": "ENF 24, s. 2 (Case summaries related to exclusions under article 1E of the Refugee) (part 10 of 10)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf24-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR ............................ 6", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR ............................ 6\n6. Ministerial responsibility ............................................................................................ 9\n7. CBSA hearings officer role and responsibilities ......................................................... 9\n7.1. Delegated ministerial responsibility ................................................................................. 9\n7.2. Professional conduct as Minister’s delegate ................................................................... 9\n7.3. Consultation/Concurrence from Litigation Management ................................................. 9\n8. The Refugee Appeal Division ................................................................................... 10\n8.1. Who can appeal to the RAD & grounds of appeal ......................................................... 10\n8.2. Deadlines to file and perfect an appeal ......................................................................... 10\n8.3. When you cannot appeal to the RAD ............................................................................ 10\n8.4. Role of the RAD and Apellant’s onus ............................................................................ 11\n8.5. Composition of panel ..................................................................................................... 12\n8.6. Powers and authorities of RAD members ..................................................................... 12\n8.7. Paper-based appeals ..................................................................................................... 12\n8.8. RPD Record ................................................................................................................... 13", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 5 (Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR ............................ 6) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR ............................ 6", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.9. Holding a hearing ........................................................................................................... 13\n8.10. Decisions at RAD ........................................................................................................... 14\n8.11. Sending a matter back to the RPD for re-determination ............................................... 15\n9. Policy ........................................................................................................................ 16\n9.1. Priorities established by IRCC that may trigger an appeal from the Minister ................ 16\n9.2. Distribution of workload between CBSA and IRCC ....................................................... 16\n10. Other Procedural Matters before the RAD ............................................................... 17\n10.1. Parties ............................................................................................................................ 17\n10.2. Other Participants .......................................................................................................... 17\n10.3. UNHCR participation ..................................................................................................... 17\n10.4. Application by an interested person to participate ......................................................... 17\n10.5. Language of the appeal ................................................................................................. 17\n10.6. Proceedings in the absence of the public ...................................................................... 18\n10.7. Right to counsel ............................................................................................................. 18", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 5 (Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR ............................ 6) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR ............................ 6", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.8. Designated representative ............................................................................................. 18\n10.9. Interpreters .................................................................................................................... 19\n10.10. Observers ...................................................................................................................... 19\n10.11. Witnesses ...................................................................................................................... 19\n10.12. Conferences .................................................................................................................. 20\n10.13. Conference to fix a date................................................................................................. 20\n10.14. Joining or separating appeals ........................................................................................ 20\n10.15. Notice of Constitutional Question .................................................................................. 20\n10.16. Abandoned proceeding.................................................................................................. 21\n10.17. Withdrawal of an appeal ................................................................................................ 21\n10.18. Reinstate a withdrawn appeal ....................................................................................... 21\n10.19. Communicating with the RAD ........................................................................................ 21\n10.20. Change of contact information ....................................................................................... 22", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 5 (Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR ............................ 6) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-5-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR ............................ 6", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.21. Documents ..................................................................................................................... 22\n10.22. Judicial Review of a RAD decision ................................................................................ 23", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 5 (Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR ............................ 6) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-11-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of the appeal ... 23", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11. Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of the appeal ... 23\n11.1. Minister’s intervention .................................................................................................... 24\n11.2. Reply to Minister’s intervention ...................................................................................... 25\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 3\n12. Rules applicable to appeals made by the Minister .................................................... 26\n12.1. Response to the Minister’s appeal ................................................................................ 27\n12.2. Minister’s reply to the respondent’s response to the Minister’s appeal ......................... 28\n12.3. Minister’s additional documents and/or submissions .................................................... 29\n13. Applications (application, response, reply) .............................................................. 29\n13.1. Application ..................................................................................................................... 30\n13.2. Responding to a written application ............................................................................... 30\n13.3. Reply to a written response to an application ................................................................ 30\n13.4. Application to change the location of a hearing ............................................................. 31\n13.5. Application to change the date or time of a hearing ...................................................... 31\n13.6. Application for an extension of time (person who is the subject of the appeal) ............ 31", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 11 (Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of the appeal ... 23) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-11-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of the appeal ... 23", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.7. Application for an extension of time (Minister) .............................................................. 31\n14. Department Policy - Officer safety and security ....................................................... 32\n14.1. Perceived threats ........................................................................................................... 32\n14.2. Incident report writing .................................................................................................... 32\nAppendices ....................................................................................................................... 33\nNote: The Minister of Immimgration, Refugees & Citizenship Canada (IRCC) remains the\nMinister of Citizenship & Immigration in the appended templates until such time as the\nMinistry’s name is officially changed to the Ministry of Immigration, Refugees & Citizenship\nCanada.\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 4", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 11 (Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of the appeal ... 23) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this manual chapter is about", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. What this manual chapter is about\nThis manual chapter outlines the legislation, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)\ndepartmental policy and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) rules pertaining to\nappeals and interventions at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the IRB.\nIn addition, this manual chapter identifies the role and responsibilities of a CBSA hearings\nofficer as the delegate of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada\n(IRCC) or Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PS) for RAD appeals\nand interventions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 1 (What this manual chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Program objectives\nThe RAD considers appeals against decisions of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)\nthat have either allowed or rejected claims for refugee protection. It is an error-driven\nexercise. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) gives certain refugee\nclaimants (some refugee claimants do not have access to the RAD) and the Minister the\nopportunity to appeal an RPD decision based on error in law, in fact or in mixed law and\nfact.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Coming into force", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Coming into force\nThe RAD came into force on December 15, 2012 (see Statutory Instruments/2012-94).\nNote: A drafting error in the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act that allowed certain\ncategories of asylum claimants from the previous system to appeal to the RAD has been\ncorrected. This change came into effect on June 26, 2013 with Royal Assent for the\nEconomic Action Plan Act 2013, Part I (EAPA). Pursuant to section 167 of the EAPA, asylum\nclaimants who were referred to the IRB between August 15, 2012 and December 14, 2012\nand whose claims had not been decided by the RPD as of June 26, 2013 do not have\naccess to the RAD. Those claimants whose claims were referred to the IRB between August\n15, 2012 and December 14, 2012 and their claims had been decided by the RPD before\nJune 26, 2013 are entitled to access the RAD.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 3 (Coming into force)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Definitions\nNote: References to IRPA appear in the text with an \"A\" prefix followed by the section number.\nReferences to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) appear with a “R”\nprefix followed by the section number.\nDesignated Country of Origin\n(DCO)\nCountries designated by the Minister under A109.1. The\ncurrent list of DCOs can be found at\nhttp://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/reform-safe.asp\nOn July 23rd, 2015 the Federal Court (2015 FC 892) found the\nrestriction under A110(2)(d.1) unconstitutional. Since that date\nclaimants from DCO countries have had a right to appeal to\nthe RAD.\nNote that the IRB considered failed claimants deemed to have\nreceived their RPD decision by July 8, 2015 (15 days before\nthe FC decision) to be within the time limit to file an appeal at\nthe RAD.\nDesignated Foreign Nationals A DFN is a foreign national – other than a foreign national\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 5\n(DFN) referred to in A19 – who is part of a group that has been\ndesignated as an irregular arrival under A20.1(1) unless, on\narrival, the foreign national holds the visa or other document\nrequired under the regulations and, on examination, the officer\nis satisfied the foreign national is not inadmissible [A20.1(2)].\nA designation may be made under IRPA A20.1.(1) regarding\nan arrival in Canada of a group of persons retroactively to\nMarch 31, 2009 [Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act\n(Related Provisions 2012, c.17) s.81].\nA claimant who is a DFN has no right of appeal to the RAD\n[A110(2)(a)].\nException to the Safe Third\nCountry Agreement\nPersons arriving at a Canadian land border port of entry from\nthe United States (US) who make a claim for refugee", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 4 (Definitions) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "protection may have their claim determined by the IRB if they\nmeet at least one of the exceptions to the Safe Third Country\nAgreement. The Agreement was signed between Canada and\nthe US dated December 5, 2002 and came into effect on\nDecember 29, 2004. These exceptions are outlined in\nregulations made under A102(1)(c).\nThere is no right of appeal to the RAD when an exception to\nthe safe third country agreement applies to the claimant\n[A110(2)(d)].\nNo Credible Basis (NCB) The RPD must state in its reasons for the decision that there is\nno credible basis for the claim if it is of the opinion that there\nwas no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have\nmade a favourable decision [A107(2)].\nThere is no right of appeal to the RAD for RPD decisions that\nhave NCB [A110(2)(c)].\nManifestly Unfounded Claim\n(MUC)\nThe RPD must state in its reasons for the decision that the\nclaim is manifestly unfounded if it is of the opinion that the\nclaim is clearly fraudulent [A107.1].\nThere is no right of appeal to the RAD for a MUC [A110(2)(c)].\nVacation\nThe RPD may vacate a decision to allow a claim, if on\napplication by the Minister, the RPD finds that the decision\nwas obtained as a result of directly or indirectly\nmisrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a\nrelevant matter. If the application is allowed, the claim will be\ndeemed to be rejected and the decision that led to the\nconferral of refugee protection will be nullified.\nThere is no right of appeal to the RAD for a decision of the\nRPD allowing or rejecting an application by the Minister to\nvacate a decision allowing a refugee protection claim\n[A110(2)(f)].\nCessation On application by the Minister the RPD may determine that the\nrefugee protection referred to in A95(1) has ceased for any of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 4 (Definitions) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-4-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "the reasons described in A108(1). If the application is allowed,\nthe claim of the person is deemed to be rejected [A108(2),\n108(3)].\nThere is no right of appeal to the RAD for a decision of the\nRPD allowing or rejecting an application by the Minister for a\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 6\ndetermination that refugee protection has ceased [A110(2)(e)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 4 (Definitions) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR\nThe tables below summarize the provisions of the IRPA, IRPR and the RAD Rules\n(RADR) that are applicable to refugees and to persons in need of protection in the\ncontext of CBSA-led appeals and interventions before the RAD.\nTable 1: Legislative provisions concerning the protection of refugees\nFor information on: Refer to section(s):\nDefinitions A2\nObjectives A3\nDesignation – human smuggling or other irregular arrival A20.1\nConferral of refugee protection A95(1)\nDefinition of protected person A95(2) and A97\nDefinition of Convention refugee A96\nDefinition of person in need of protection A97\nExclusion from the definition of Convention refugee or from the\ndefinition of person in need of protection\nA98\nClaim for refugee protection A99\nEligibility of refugee protection claim A100 and A102\nIneligibility of refugee protection claim A101\nSuspension of a refugee protection claim by the RPD A103\nNotice of ineligibility A104\nExtradition procedure A105\nCredibility of claimant A106\nDeterminiation on refugee claims by the RPD A107\nNo credible basis A107(2)\nManifestly unfounded refugee protection claim (MUC) A107.1\nCessation of refugee protection by the RPD A108\nVacation of refugee protection by the RPD A109\nDesignated countries of origin (DCO) A109.1\nTable 2: IRPA provisions concerning or impacting the RAD\nFor information on: Refer to section(s):\nAppeal to RAD A110\nDecision of the RAD A111\nRegulations A111.1\nComposition of the IRB / Head Office and Staff / Duties of\nChairperson\nA151 to A160\nFunctioning of the IRB A161\nJurisdiction of each Division of the IRB A162\nComposition of panels A163\nPresence of parties A164\nPowers of a commissioner A165\nProceedings – all Divisions A166\nCounsel and representation A167", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 5 (Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR) (part 1 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Abandonment and abuse of process A168\nDecisions and reasons A169\nNo reopening of claim or application when RAD or the Federal\nCourt has made a final determination\nA170.2\nRAD Proceedings A171\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 7\nNo reopening of appeal when Federal Court has made a final\ndetermination\nA171.1\nRemedial and disciplinary measures A176 to A186\nTransitional provision: pending or in progress applications,\nproceedings or matters under former Act are now governed by\nthe new Act upon coming into force\nA190\nTransitional provision: decision by RPD from a hearing\ncommenced by the CRDD is not subject to appeal under A110\nA194\nTransitional provision: decision by CRDD made before coming\ninto force of A195 is not subject to an appeal under A110\nA195\nLeave for judicial review (JR) A72\nMinister’s right to make an application for leave to commence an\napplication for JR of any RAD decision whether or not the Minister\ntook part in the RPD proceedings\nA73\nBalanced Refugee Reform Act (Related Provision: 2010, c.8,\ns.33, as amended by Related Provision 2012, c.17, s.66: refugee\nprotection claim referred\nRP 33\nRelated Provision: 2010, c.8, s.36, as amended by Related\nProvision 2012, c.17, s.68: no appeal\nRP 36\nRelated Provision: 2010, c.8, s.37, as amended by Related\nProvision 2012, c.17, s.68: decision set aside in judicial review\nRP 37\nNote: The Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) was the administrative tribunal\nresponsible for determining refugee claims under Canada’s previous Immigration Act. The\nCRDD was replaced by the RPD upon the coming into force of IRPA in June 2002.\nTable 3: RADR & IRPR provisions concerning the RAD\nFor Information on: Refer to section(s)\nDefinitions RADR 1", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 5 (Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR) (part 2 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Coming into force RADR 69\nRules applicable to RAD appeals made by a person who is\nthe subject of an appeal\nFiling an appeal RADR 2(1)\nContent of notice of appeal RADR 2(3)\nTime limit for notice of appeal RADR 2(4), IRPR\n159.91\nPerfecting the appeal RADR 3(1) and (2)\nContent of the appellant’s record RADR 3(3) and (4)\nTime limit for appellant’s record RADR 3(5), IRPR\n159.91\nIntervention by the Minister RADR 4(1)\nContent of notice of intervention RADR 4(2)\nMinister’s intervention record (optional) RADR 4(3) and (4)\nProof of service RADR 4(5)\nReply to Minister’s intervention RADR 5\nExtension of time to file or perfect RADR 6\nDecision without further notice RADR 7\nRules applicable to RAD appeals made by the Minister\nFiling an appeal RADR 8(1)\nContent of the notice of appeal RADR 8(2)\nProof of service RADR 8(3)\nTime Limit for notice of appeal RADR 8(4)\nPerfecting the appeal RADR 9(1)\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 8\nContent of appellant’s record (optional) RADR 9(2), (3)\nProof of service RADR 9(4)\nTime limit RADR 9(5)\nResponse to the Minister’s appeal RADR 10(1)\nContent of notice of intent to respond RADR 10(2)\nContent of respondents record RADR 10(3), (4)\nProof of service RADR 10(5)\nTime Limit RADR 10(6)\nMinister’s reply RADR 11(1)\nReply record (optional) RADR11(2), (3)\nProof of service RADR 11(4)\nExtension of time RADR 12\nDecision without further notice RADR 13\nRules applicable to all RAD appeals\nCommunicating with the RAD RADR 14 & 15\nCounsel of Record RADR 16 - 20\nRPD record RADR 21\nLanguage of the appeal RADR 22\nDesignated Representative RADR 23\nSpecialized Knowledge RADR 24\nNotice of Constitutional Question RADR 25\nConferences RADR 26\nDocuments – Form and Language RADR 27 & 28", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 5 (Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR) (part 3 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-5-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Documents – Documents or submissions not previously provided RADR 29\nDocuments – Providing a document RADR 30 - 32\nDocuments – Application if unable to provide a document RADR 33\nDocuments – Proof document was provided RADR 34\nDocuments – When document received by RAD or other recipient RADR 35\nApplications (application, response, reply) RADR 36 to 39\nJoining or separating appeals RADR 40 & 41\nProceeding conducted in public (requires application) RADR 42\nAssignment of three member panel & notice to UNHCR RADR 43(1)\nProviding documents to UNHCR / UNHCR notice to RAD\nregarding intention to provide written submissions\nRADR 43(2) & (3)\nRules applicable to UNHCR and interested persons RADR 44 to 46\nWithdrawal RADR 47\nReinstating a withdrawn appeal RADR 48\nReopening an appeal RADR 49\nDecisions RADR 50 & 51\nGeneral provisions concerning RAD powers\nNo applicable rule RADR 52\nPowers of RAD RADR 53\nFailure to follow rules RADR 54\nRules applicable to RAD appeals for which a hearing is held\nFixing a date for a hearing RADR 55\nNotice to appear RADR 56\nConduct of a hearing RADR 57\nPerson who is the subject of an appeal in custody RADR 58\nInterpreters RADR 59\nObservers RADR 60\nWitnesses RADR 61 to 65\nChanging the location of a hearing RADR 66\nChanging the date or time of a hearing RADR 67\nAbandonment RADR 68\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 9\nNote: Hearings officers must be familiar with the IRB Rules, applicable reference documents,\nthe Chairperson’s Guidelines, and the practice notices that are available on the IRB Web\nsite.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 5 (Tables showing applicable provisions in IRPA, IRPR and RADR) (part 4 of 4)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Ministerial responsibility", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6. Ministerial responsibility\nOn July 1, 2015 the Governor General in Council made an order outlining the ministerial\nresponsibilities as they pertain to A110 and A171 (RAD appeals and proceedings) in\nStatutory Instrument/2015-52. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency\nPreparedness (Minister of PS) and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship\nCanada (Minister of IRCC) (then the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) were both\ngiven the ministerial responsibilities under A110 and A171 however the Minister of PS\nwas only given this responsibility with respect to those matters for which he or she is\nresponsible under the Act.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 6 (Ministerial responsibility)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Delegated ministerial responsibility", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1. Delegated ministerial responsibility\nIn January 2015 the Minister of IRCC (then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)\ndelegated the ministerial responsibilities pertaining to A110 and A171 specifically\nA110(1), A110(1.1), A110(3), A171(a), A171(a.1), A171(a.4) and A171(a.5) to, inter alia,\nCBSA hearings officers. For more information on the other positions delegated ministerial\nresponsibilities pertaining to the RAD please refer to the most recent instrument of\ndelegation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 7.1 (Delegated ministerial responsibility)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Professional conduct as Minister’s delegate", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2. Professional conduct as Minister’s delegate\nIn the capacity as the Minister’s delegate, a hearings officer\n(a) is a firm advocate of the Minister's position;\n(b) should always be aware that he/she is speaking and acting on behalf of the Minister,\nand that the positions and actions taken should reflect IRCC and CBSA departmental\npolicy;\n(c) should always be professional and respect decorum, as well as maintain\nprofessionalism in his/her telephone manner, written correspondence, conduct at\nhearings and all interactions with the public;\n(d) should exhibit professionalism by adequately preparing for cases;\n(e) should treat all persons with whom he/she interacts with dignity and respect.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 7.2 (Professional conduct as Minister’s delegate)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Consultation/Concurrence from Litigation Management", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3. Consultation/Concurrence from Litigation Management\nA CBSA hearings officer must seek approval from his/her manager prior to filing and\nperfecting appeals on behalf of the Minister.\nFor some cases, litigation mangement (CBSA or IRCC) at national headquarters must be\nconsulted or concur with the appeal filed to the RAD (see Appendix 1).\nNote: When consulting with or requesting concurrence from litigation management via email,\nthe Hearings manager should copy the CBSA Programs and Operations units responsible\nfor hearings at national headquarters via Hearings-Audiences-Programs@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 10", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 7.3 (Consultation/Concurrence from Litigation Management)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Who can appeal to the RAD & grounds of appeal", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1. Who can appeal to the RAD & grounds of appeal\nA person or the Minister may file and perfect an appeal against an RPD decision which\nhas allowed or rejected the person’s claim for refugee protection provided the\nenumerated restrictions do not apply (see section below: When you cannot appeal to the\nRAD).\nAn appeal may be brought to the RAD, when restrictions do not apply, on the grounds\nthat the RPD committed an error of law, of fact or of mixed law and fact. [A110(1)]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.1 (Who can appeal to the RAD & grounds of appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Deadlines to file and perfect an appeal", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2. Deadlines to file and perfect an appeal\nA110(2.1) requires that an appeal must be filed and perfected within the time limits set\nout in the Regulations. Pursuant to A111.1(1)(d), regulations may include provisions\nrespecting time limits for the filing and perfecting of an appeal under A110(2.1).\nPursuant to R159.91(1)(a), the time limit for a person or the Minister to file an appeal to\nthe RAD against a decision of the RPD is 15 days after the day on which the person or\nthe Minister receives written reasons for the decision.\nPursuant to R159.91(1)(b), the time limit for a person or the Minister to perfect an appeal\nis 30 days after the day on which the person or the Minister receives written reas ons for\nthe decision.\nR159.91(2) provides that if the appeal cannot be filed within the time limit set out in\nR159.91(1)(a) or perfected within the time limit set out in R159.91(1)(b), the RAD may, for\nreasons of fairness and natural justice, extend each of those time limits by the number of\ndays that is necessary in the circumstances.\nRADR 35(3) provides that when a time limit for providing a document ends on a day that\nis not a working day, the time limit is extended to the next working day. RADR 1 defines\n“working day” as not including Saturdays, Sundays or other days on which the IRB offices\nare closed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.2 (Deadlines to file and perfect an appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "When you cannot appeal to the RAD", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3. When you cannot appeal to the RAD\nNo appeal to the RAD may be made in the following situations:\n a decision of the RPD in respect of a claim made by a designated foreign national\n[A110(2)(a)];\n a determination by the RPD that a claim was withdrawn or abandoned [A110(2)(b)];\n a decision of the RPD rejecting a claim that states that the claim has no credible\nbasis or is manifestly unfounded [A110(2)(c)];\n a decision of the RPD in respect of a claim that was referred based on an exception\nto the Safe Third Country Agreement [A110(2)(d)];\n a decision of the RPD in respect of the Minister’s application for a determination that\nrefugee protection has ceased [A110(2)(e)];\n a decision of the RPD in respect of the Minister’s application to vacate a decision to\nallow a claim for refugee protection [A110(2)(f)];\n a notice provided by an officer under A104;\n the claim has been deemed rejected because of an order of surrender under the\nExtradition Act [A105];\n a decision of the RPD following a hearing that had been commenced by the CRDD\n[A194];\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 11\n a decision of the CRDD made before December 15, 2012 [A195];\n a decision of the RPD in respect of a claim that was referred before August 15, 2012\n[Related Provision – 2010, c.8, s.36, as amended by 2012, c.17, s.68] and if any\nsuch decision is set aside by the Federal Court in a judicial review, the\nredetermination of that decision by a member of the RPD appointed under A169.1\n[Related Provision 2010, c.8, s.37, as amended by 2012, c.17, s.68]; and\n a decision of the RPD in respect of a claim that was referred after August 14, 2012\nbut before December 15, 2012, if the decision takes effect after June 26, 2013 [s.167", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.3 (When you cannot appeal to the RAD) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "When you cannot appeal to the RAD", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "of the Economic Action Plan Act 2013, Part I] and any such decision is set aside in\njudicial review, the redetermination of that decision by a member of the RPD\nappointed under A169.1 [s.168 of the BIA].\nNote: Where a decision of the RPD may be appealed to the RAD, this right of appea l must be\nexhausted before making an application to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial\nreview.\nNote: The RAD does not have jurisdiction to reopen an appeal it has decided and with respect\nto which the Federal Court has made a final decision [A171.1].\nNote: On July 23rd, 2015 the Federal Court (2015 FC 892) found the restriction under\nA110(2)(d.1) unconstitutional. Since that date claimants from DCO countries have had a\nright to appeal to the RAD.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.3 (When you cannot appeal to the RAD) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Role of the RAD and Apellant’s onus", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4. Role of the RAD and Apellant’s onus\nAccording to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)\nv. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93 (Huruglica) the RAD is a safety net intended to catch all\nmistakes made by the RPD. Its role, therefore, is to correct where the RPD is wrong in\nlaw, in fact or in fact and law.\nThe FCA stated that the RAD is first to carefully consider the RPD decision, then carry\nout its own analysis of the record to determine whether, as submitted by the appellant,\nthe RPD erred, and then to provide a final determination – confirm, set aside and\nsubstitute its own determination, or refer the matter back to the RPD.\nThe FCA determined that with respect to questions of law and findings of fact or mixed\nfact and law that do not raise an issue of credibility of oral evidence the RAD is to review\nthe RPD decision by applying a standard of correctness. The FCA did not speak to which\nstandard should apply to findings of fact or mixed fact and law that do raise an issue of\ncredibility of oral evidence.\nIn a decision that predates Huruglica, the Federal Court in Dhillon v. Canada (Citizenship\nand Immigration), 2015 FC 321 (Dhillon) stated that the RAD’s authority to substitute its\ndecision with that of the RPD does not entail a duty to speculate as to what might have\nbeen a better approach to a failed refugee claimant’s appeal. Nor may the RAD find that\nthe claim should have been accepted based on risks that were not raised by the claimant\nin the first place. It is the appellant’s responsibility, not the RAD’s, to establish that the\nRPD erred in a way that justifies the intervention of the RAD. It is not the RAD’s function\nto supplement the weaknesses of an appeal before it or to come up with ideas that might", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.4 (Role of the RAD and Apellant’s onus) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Role of the RAD and Apellant’s onus", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "assist appellants in succeeding with their appeal.\nIn a decision that postdates Huruglica the Federal Court in Murugesu v. Canada (Minister\nof Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 819 (Murugesu) followed Dhillon and the obiter\ncomments made by Justice Gleeson in Ghauri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and\nImmigraiton), 2016 FC 548 holding that appellants before the RAD who fail to specify\nwhere and how the RPD erred do so at their peril. The Federal Court noted that RADR\n3(3)(g) places the onus on the appellant to identify in their Memorandum the errors that\nare the grounds of the appeal and the location of the errors in the RPD’s decision or in\nthe audio or other electronic recording of the RPD hearing.\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 12", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.4 (Role of the RAD and Apellant’s onus) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Composition of panel", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5. Composition of panel\nAppeals to the RAD are reviewed and decided by a single member unless the\nChairperson is of the opinion that a panel of three members should be constituted [A163].\nIf the Chairperson orders a proceeding to be conducted by a three member panel, the\nRAD must without delay notify the parties in writing. This notice includes the Minister\n(even if the Minister has not intervened in the appeal) and the United Nations High\nCommissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) [RADR 43].\nA decision made by a three-member panel is binding on the RPD and on single member\npanels of the RAD [A171(c)]. This will create consistency of decisions and contribute to a\nrobust refugee protection adjuducative strategy.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.5 (Composition of panel)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Powers and authorities of RAD members", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.6. Powers and authorities of RAD members\nMembers of the RAD have the powers and authority of a commissioner appointed under\npart I of the Inquiries Act, and may do any other thing they consider necessary to provide\na full and proper hearing [A165].\nThe powers and authority of a commissioner appointed under Part 1 of the Inquiries Act\ninclude the power of summoning before them witnesses, and if requiring the witness to\ngive evidence, orally or in writing under oath or, if entitled, by affirmation under solemn\ndeclaration, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioner deems\nrequisite to the full investigation of the matters into which the commissioner is appointed\nto examine (see section 4, Inquiries Act). The commissioner has the same power to\nenforce the attendance of a witness and to compel the witness to give evidence as is\nvested in any court of record in civil cases (see seection 5, Inquiries Act).\nThe RAD member is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence [A171(a.2)]\nand may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceeding and\nconsidered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances [A171(a.3)].\nThe RAD member may take notice of any facts that may be judicially noticed and of any\nother generally recognized facts and any information or opinion that is within his or her\nspecialized knowledge [A171(b)]. Before using any information or opinion that is within\nthe RAD member’s specialized knowledge the RAD member must notify the parties and\ngive them an opportunity to make representations on the reliability and use of the\ninformation or opinion and provide evidence in support of their representations [RADR\n24].\nIn the absence of a provision in the RADR dealing with a matter raised during the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.6 (Powers and authorities of RAD members) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "Powers and authorities of RAD members", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "proceedings, the RAD member may do whatever is necessary to deal with the matter\n[RADR 52].\nThe RAD member may, after giving the parties notice and an opportunity to object, (a) act\non his or her own initiative, without a party having to make an application or request to\nthe RAD; (b) change a requirement of a rule; (c) excuse a person from a requirement of a\nrule; and (d) extend a time limit, before or after the time limit has expired, or shorten it if\nthe time limit has not expired [RADR 53].\nFailure to follow any requirement in the RADR does not make the proceedings invalid\nunless proceedings are declared invalid by the RAD member [RADR 54].\nThe RAD, similar to all divisions of the IRB, has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction in\nrespect of proceedings brought before it under the IRPA to hear and determine all\nquestions of law and fact, including questions of jurisdiction [A162(1)].\nThe RAD, similar to all divisions of the IRB, shall deal with all proceedings be fore it as\ninformally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and\nnatural justice permit [A162(2)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.6 (Powers and authorities of RAD members) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.7", + "marginal_note": "Paper-based appeals", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.7. Paper-based appeals\nPursuant to A110(3), subject to the provisions set out in A110(3.1), A110(4) and A110(6)\nthe RAD must proceed without a hearing on the basis of the record of the proceedings of\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 13\nthe RPD and may accept any documentary evidence and written submissions from the\nMinister and the person who is the subject of the appeal (and when the matter is heard\nby a panel of three members then also written submissions by the UNHCR representative\nand any other person described in the RADR).\nA110(4) restricts the evidence which the person who is the subject of the appeal may\npresent. He or she is only allowed to present evidence that arose after the rejection of\nhis/her claim, that was not reasonably available or that he/she could not reasonably have\nbeen expected in the circumstances to have presented at the time of the rejection.\nA110(4) does not apply to the Minister.\nThe FCA in Minister of Citizenship & Immigration v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96 (Singh) stated\nthat the explicit provisions in A110(4) are inescapable and leave no room for discretion\non the part of the RAD. Hence, evidence submitted under A110(3) by an appel lant who is\nthe subject of the appeal must meet one of the three categories set out under A110(4).\nFurther, the FCA in Singh stated that the Raza factors (credibility, relevance, newness\nand materiality) (see Raza v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, 2007 FCA 385) apply\nto the assessment under A110(4) as they do in the context of Pre-Removal Risk\nAssessments with an adaptation of the materiality criterion – the new evidence does not\nneed to be determiniative in and of itself so long as it may have an impact on the RAD’s\noverall assessment of the RPD’s decision.\nNote: A110(5) states that A110(4) does not apply in respect of evidence that is presented in\nresponse to evidence presented by the Minister.\nRADR 3(3)(c) provides that the person who is the subject of the appeal may file any\ndocument that the RPD refused to accept as evidence, during or after the hearing, if he\nor she wants to rely on the documents in his or her appeal. RADR 10(3)(c) provides that\nthe person who is the subject of an appeal in response to a Minister’s appeal may\nprovide any documentary evidence that he or she wants to rely on in the appeal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.7 (Paper-based appeals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.8", + "marginal_note": "RPD Record", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.8. RPD Record\nThe RAD must without delay provide a copy of the notice of appeal to the RPD after the\nappeal is perfected [RADR 21(1)]. The RPD must prepare a record and provide it to the\nRAD no later than 10 days after the day on which the RPD receives the notice of appeal\n[RADR 21(2)].\nRADR 21(3) sets out what must be included in the RPD record:\n(a) the notice of decision and written reasons for the decision that is being appealed;\n(b) the Basis of Claim Form as defined in the Refugee Protection Division Rules and any\nchanges or additions to it;\n(c) all documentary evidence that the RPD accepted as evidence, during or after the\nhearing;\n(d) any written representations made during or after the hearing but before the decision\nbeing appealed was made; and\n(e) any audio or other electronic recording of the hearing.\nIf the Minister did not take part in the proceedings relating to the decision being appealed,\nthe RAD must provide a copy of the RPD record to the Minister as soon as the RAD\nreceives it [RADR 21(4)].\nNote: The IRB interprets “take part in the proceedings” to mean intervention in any form (in\nperson or in writing only).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.8 (RPD Record)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-9-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Holding a hearing", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.9. Holding a hearing\nPursuant to A110(6), the RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, documentary evidence\ndisclosed at the RAD (beyond the RPD record) (a) raises a serious issue with respect to\nthe credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, (b) is central to the decision\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 14\nwith respect to the refugee protection claim, and (c) if accepted, would justify allowing or\nrejecting the refugee protection claim.\nThe FCA in Singh made it clear that the RAD’s discretion on whether to hold a hearing is\nlimited in that these three requirements in A110(6) must be present.\nAccording to A171(a) the RAD must give notice of any hearing to both the Minister and\nthe person who is the subject of the appeal. This notice must be in writing and provide\nthe date, time and location fixed for the hearing and the issues that will be raised at the\nhearing [RADR 56(1)].\nThe date fixed for the hearing must not be earlier than 10 days after the day which the\nperson who is the subject of the appeal and the Minister receive the notice, unless they\nconsent to an earlier date [RADR 56(2)].\nA hearing is restricted to matters relating to the issues provided with the notice to appear\nunless the RAD considers that other issues have been raised by statements made by the\nperson who is the subject of an appeal or by a witness during the hearing [RADR 57(1)].\nA171(a.1) provides that when a hearing is held the RAD must give the person who is the\nsubject of the appeal and the Minister the opportunity to present evidence, question\nwitnesses and make submissions.\nWhen a hearing is held, unless the RAD orders otherwise, any witness, including the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.9 (Holding a hearing) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-9-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.9", + "marginal_note": "Holding a hearing", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "person who is the subject of an appeal, will be questioned first by the appellant, then by\nany other party, then by the appellant in reply, and then by the RAD [RADR 57(2)].\nNote: When the Minister intervenes in an appeal and is seeking exclusion under article 1F or\n1E of the Refugee Convention (not previously dealt with at the RPD), the Minister’s counsel\nshould make an application to the RAD to allow the Minister’s counsel to start the questioning\non exclusion followed by the appellant’s counsel and finishing with the Minister’s counsel in\nreply. This will allow the exclusion issue to be fully canvassed by the Minister who has the\nonus of establishing exclusion.\nThe RAD may limit the questioning of witnesses, including the person who is the subject\nof an appeal, taking into account the nature and complexity of the issues and the\nrelevance of the questions [RADR 57(3)].\nWhere a hearing is held, the RAD may, in its discretion, conduct the hearing in the\npresence of, or by means of live telecommunication with, the person who is the subject of\nthe appeal [A164].\nThe RAD may order a person who holds the person who is the subject of the appeal in\ncustody to bring the person to a proceeding at a location specified by the RAD [RADR\n58].\nRepresentations must be made orally at the end of the hearing unless the RAD orders\notherwise [RADR 57(4)]. After all the evidence has been heard, the RAD must set time\nlimits for representations, taking into account the complexity of the issues and the amount\nof relevant evidence heard and indicate what issues need to be addressed in the\nrepresentations [RADR 57(5)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.9 (Holding a hearing) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-10-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.10", + "marginal_note": "Decisions at RAD", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.10. Decisions at RAD\nThe RAD has the authority to (a) confirm the determination of the RPD, (b) set aside the\ndetermination of the RPD and substitute a determination that, in its opinion, should have\nbeen made; or (c) refer the matter to the RPD for re-determination, giving direction to the\nRPD that it considers appropriate [A111].\nOther than an interlocutory decision, a decision made by the RAD must be rendered in\nwriting [A169(c)] and reasons for the decision must be given [A169(b)].\nWhen the RAD makes a decision, other than an interlocutory decision, the RAD must\nprovide in writing a notice of decision to the person who is the subject of the appeal, to\nthe Minister and the RPD. It must also provide a notice of the decision to the UNHCR and\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 15\nto any interested person, if they provided written submissions in the appeal [RADR\n50(1)].\nThe RAD must provide written reasons for the decision, together with the notice of\ndecision if a hearing was not held or was held and the decision and reasons were not\ngiven orally at the hearing. [RADR 50(2)].\nIf the person who is the subject of the appeal or the Minister request written reasons for a\ndecision within 10 days of notification of the decision, or in the circumstances set out in\nthe RADR, the RAD must provide written reasons [A169(e)]. The RADR require that a\nrequest for written reasons for a decision must be made in writing [RADR 50(3)].\nOther than an interlocutory decision, the decision takes effect in accordance with the\nRADR [A169(a)]. A decision, other than an interlocutory decision, made by a single RAD\nmember takes effect (a) if made in writing, when the RAD member signs and dates the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.10 (Decisions at RAD) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-10-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.10", + "marginal_note": "Decisions at RAD", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "reasons for the decision; and (b) if given orally at a hearing, when the RAD member\nstates the decision and gives the reasons [RADR 51(1)].\nA decision, other than an interlocutory decision, made by a panel of three RAD members\ntakes effect (a) if made in writing, when all three RAD members sign and date their\nreasons for the decision; and (b) if given orally at a hearing, when all three RAD\nmembers state their decision and give their reasons [RADR 51(2)].\nUnless a hearing is held the RAD must make a decision within the time limits set out in\nthe regulations [A110(3.1)]. IRPR 159.92(1) provides that, except where a hearing is held\nunder A110(6), the time limit for the RAD to make a decision on an appeal is 90 days\nafter the day on which the appeal is perfected. If it is not possible for the RAD to render\nits decision within 90 days after the appeal is perfected, the decision must be made as\nsoon as feasible after that time limit [IRPR 159.92(2)].\nWhere an appeal is brought by the person who is the subject of the appeal, and unless a\nhearing is held, the RAD may, without further notice to the appellant and the Minister,\ndecide an appeal on the basis of the materials provided (a) if a period of 15 days has\npassed since the day on which the Minister received the appellant’s record, or the time\nlimit for perfecting the appeal set out in the IRPR has expired; or (b) if the appellant’s\nreply record has been provided or the time for providing it has expired [RADR 7].\nWhere an appeal is brought by the Minister, unless a hearing is held, the RAD may,\nwithout futher notice to the parties, decide an appeal on the basis of the materials\nprovided (a) if a period of 15 days has passed since the day on which the Minister", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.10 (Decisions at RAD) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-10-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.10", + "marginal_note": "Decisions at RAD", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "received the respondent’s record, or the time limit for providing the respondent’s record\nhas expired; or (b) if the Minister’s reply has been provided [RADR 13].\nThe RPD does not have jurisdiction to reopen, on any ground (including failure to\nobserve a principle of natural justice), a claim for refugee protection, an application for\nprotection or an application for cessation or vacation, in respect of which the RAD or the\nFederal Court, as the case may be, has made a final determination [A170.2].\nAt any time before the Federal Court has made a final determination in respect of an\nappeal that has been decided or declared abandoned, the appellant may make an\napplication to the RAD to reopen the appeal [RADR 49]. RADR 49(2) through to 49(9) set\nout the rules in respect of an application to reopen an appeal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.10 (Decisions at RAD) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-8-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 8.11", + "marginal_note": "Sending a matter back to the RPD for re-determination", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.11. Sending a matter back to the RPD for re-determination\nAfter considering the appeal, the RAD may refer the matter to the RPD for re-\ndetermination, giving the direction to the RPD that it considers appropriate [A111(1)(c)].\nIn order for the RAD to send a matter back to the RPD for re-determination the RAD must\nbe of the opinion that (a) the RPD decision is wrong in law, in fact or in mixed law and\nfact, and (b) the RAD member cannot make a decision to either confirm the RPD\ndetermination or to set aside the RPD determination and substitute his/her own decision\nwithout hearing evidence that was presented to the RPD [A111(2)].\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 16\nThe FCA in Huruglica noted that this possibility acknowledges the fact that in some cases\nwhere oral testimony is critical or determinative in the opinion of the RAD, the RAD may\nnot be in a position to confirm or substitute its own determination to that of the RPD. The\nFCA stated that there may be cases where the RPD enjoys a meaningful advantage over\nthe RAD in making findings of fact or mixed fact and law – because they require an\nassessment of the credibility or weight to be given to the oral evidence it hears and that\nthe RAD may exercise restraint in substituting its own decision. The FCA stated that in\neach case the RAD ought to determine whether the RPD truly benefited from an\nadvantageous position, and if so, whether the RAD can nevertheless make a final\ndecision in respect of the refugee claim.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 8.11 (Sending a matter back to the RPD for re-determination)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "Priorities established by IRCC that may trigger an appeal from the Minister", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1. Priorities established by IRCC that may trigger an appeal from the Minister\nThe following cases should be reviewed and considered for appeal to the RAD:\n Cases that were subject to an intervention at the RPD.\n Cases where the final outcome may establish a precedent that may impact the\nintegrity of the program.\n Cases that may affect the assessment of subsequent refugee claims at the RPD and\nRAD. (For example, the RPD gives protection to a French citizen or the RPD creates\na new particular social group in relation to the Convention Refugee definition ).\n Cases that involve an oral hearing because these cases would involve new evidence\nand may raise credibility concerns.\n Cases that will be assessed by a three member panel of the RAD as a decision of a\nthree member panel will have precedential value for the RPD and fo r all decisions of\nthe RAD.\n Cases where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or a\nthird party has notified the parties of the intention to provide written submissions.\n Cases where new information is received after the RPD decision.\n Cases where claimant has made an application for a re-opening of a recent negative\ndecision that has been granted by the respective Division, either under RPD Rule 62\nor RAD Rule 49.\n Cases selected at random.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 9.1 (Priorities established by IRCC that may trigger an appeal from the Minister)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Distribution of workload between CBSA and IRCC", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2. Distribution of workload between CBSA and IRCC\nWith the introduction of the Reviews & Interventions (R&I) pilot project, IRCC Senior\nImmigration Officers (SIO) are responsible for appeals and interventions at RAD for\ncases involving (i) credibility, (ii) program integrity and (iii) exclusion under article 1\nsection E of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee\nConvention).\nCBSA hearings officers are responsible for appeals and interventions at RAD for cases\ninvolving (i) possible exclusion under article 1, section F of the Refugee Convention, (ii)\nwhere the claimant is or was in detention in Canada, (iii) where the claimant is a\ndesignated foreign national, (iv) in which a constitutional question is raised, and (v) a\ncombination of SIO responsibilities as well as CBSA hearings officer responsibilities.\nNote: Where a case is determined to be a hybrid case (having SIO and CBSA hearings officer\nresponsibilities) and the hearings officer elects not to pursue exclusion under article 1F of the\nRefugee Convention the hearings officer is required, in accordance with the commitment\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 17\nmade by CBSA to IRCC, to consider intervention with respect to credibility, program integrity\nand/or article 1E and where it is warranted to pursue the same.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 9.2 (Distribution of workload between CBSA and IRCC)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.1", + "marginal_note": "Parties", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.1. Parties\nRADR 1 defines a party to mean (a) in the case of an appeal by the person who is the\nsubject of an appeal, the person and, if the Minister intervenes in the appeal, the Minister,\nand (b) in the case of an appeal by the Minister, the Minister and the person wh o is the\nsubject of the appeal.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.1 (Parties)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.2", + "marginal_note": "Other Participants", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.2. Other Participants\nThe UNHCR or other interested persons may participate in appeals that are held before\nthree member RAD panels [RADR 45 & 46].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.2 (Other Participants)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.3", + "marginal_note": "UNHCR participation", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.3. UNHCR participation\nThe UNHCR must notify the RAD in writing of its intention to provide written submissions\nin an appeal conducted by a three-member panel [RADR 45(1)]. The UNHCR must\nprovide its written submissions within 10 days after the day of providing its notice of\nintention [RADR 45(3)]. The requirements for UNHCR written submissions are set out in\nRADR 45(4) & 45(5).\nThe RAD must provide a copy of the UNHCR’s written submissions to the person who is\nthe subject of the appeal and to the Minister without delay. [RADR 45(6)]\nRADR 45(7) to 45(12) set out the requirements for providing a written response to the\nUNHCR’s written submissions. A written response must be received by its recipients no\nlater than 7 days after the day on which the person who is the subject of the appeal or the\nMinister, as the case may be, receives the UNHCR’s written submissions [RADR 45(12)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.3 (UNHCR participation)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.4", + "marginal_note": "Application by an interested person to participate", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.4. Application by an interested person to participate\nAny person, other than the UNHCR, may make an application to the RAD to be allowed\nto participate in an appeal conducted by a three-member panel [RADR 46(1)]. RADR\n46(2) and 46(3) set out the requirements for the application.\nRADR 46(4) to 46(7) set out the requirements for a response to the application. The\nresponse must be received no later than 10 days after the day on which the application is\nreceived [RADR 46(7)].\nRADR 46(8) and 46(9) provide requirements for the notification of the decision on the\napplication and documents the RAD is required to provide the interested person.\nRADR 46(10) to 46(13) provide requirements for the interested person’s written\nsubmissions. RADR 46(14) to 46(19) set out the requirements for the response to the\nwritten submissions. The response must be received no later than 7 days after the day on\nwhich the interested person’s written submissions are received [RADR 46(19)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.4 (Application by an interested person to participate)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.5", + "marginal_note": "Language of the appeal", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.5. Language of the appeal\nA person who is the subject of an appeal must choose English or French as the language\nof the appeal. The person must indicate the language in the notice of appeal if they are\nthe appellant or in the notice of intent to respond if they are the respondent [RADR 22(1)].\nWhen the Minister is the appellant the language of the appeal is the language that was\nchosen by the subject of the appeal in the RPD proceedings relating to the decision that\nis being appealed [RADR 22(2)].\nThe person who is the subject of the appeal may change the language by providing\nnotice to the RAD and the Minister in writing without delay and if a date has been fixed for\na hearing then no later than 20 days before that date [RADR 22(3)].\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 18", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.5 (Language of the appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.6", + "marginal_note": "Proceedings in the absence of the public", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.6. Proceedings in the absence of the public\nProceedings before the RAD must be held in the absence of the public [A166(c)].\nA person may make a written application to the RAD to have the proceeding conducted in\npublic in accordance with RADR 42(2) to 42(5). For the purposes of RADR 42 the\nMinister is considered to be a party to the proceeding even if the Minister has not yet\nintervened in the appeal. The content of the application is set out under RADR 42(4).\nIf a hearing date has been fixed, an oral application for a proceeding to be held in public\nmust not be allowed unless the person, with reasonable effort, could not have made a\nwritten application before that date [RADR42(3)].\nThe requirements for a response to the application are set out in RADR 46(6) to 46(9).\nThe content of a response to the application is set out in RADR 42(6). If the Minister\nresponds to a written application, the response must be accompanied by a notice of\nintervention in accordance with RADR 4(2), if one was not previously provided [RADR\n42(7)]. According to RADR 42(12) the RAD must specify the time limit within which a\nresponse is to be provided.\nPursuant to RADR 42(13), the RAD may take any measure it considers necessary to\nensure the confidentiality of the proceeding in respect of the application. Accordin gly, the\nRAD may provide a summary of the response instead of a copy to the applicant [RADR\n42(9) and 49(13)]. RADR 42(14) sets out requirements where the RAD takes certain\nmeasures to ensure the confidentiality of the proceeding.\nRADR 42(10) to 42(12) set out requirements for replying to the response. RADR 42(15)\nrequires the RAD to notify the applicant and the parties of its decision on the application\nand provide reasons for the decision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.6 (Proceedings in the absence of the public)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.7", + "marginal_note": "Right to counsel", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.7. Right to counsel\nThe Minister and the person who is the subject of the appeal may, at their own expense,\nbe represented by legal or other counsel [A167]. The RADR includes provisions\nregarding notice requirements for when counsel is retained after providing a notice of\nappeal or notice of intent to respond, as the case may be, by the person who is the\nsubject of the appeal [RADR 16(1)], the effect of limitations on counsel’s retainer [RADR\n18(2)], changes to counsel’s contact information [RADR 16(2) and 16(3)], and removal of\ncounsel of record [RADR 19 and 20].\nRADR 18(1) states that counsel becomes counsel of record for the person who is the\nsubject of the appeal as soon as he/she provides on behalf of the person who is the\nsubject of the appeal a notice of appeal or a notice of intent to respond, as the case may\nbe, or as soon as a person becomes counsel after the person provided notice.\nRADR 31(4) states that a document to be provided to a person must be provided to the\nperson’s counsel of record if the person has counsel of record. If the person does not\nhave counsel of record the document must be provided to the person.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.7 (Right to counsel)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.8", + "marginal_note": "Designated representative", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.8. Designated representative\nThe RAD shall designate a person to represent any person who is under 18 years of age\nor is unable (in the opinion of the RAD) to appreciate the nature of the proceedings\n[A167(2)].\nIf the RPD designated a representative for the person who is the subject of the appeal in\nthe RPD proceeding relating to the decision being appealed, the representative is\ndeemed to have been designated by the RAD unless the RAD orders otherwise [RADR\n23(1)].\nIf the RPD did not designate a representative for the person who is the subject of the\nappeal and counsel for a party believes that the RAD should designate a representative\nbecause the person is under 18 years of age or is unable to appreciate the nature of the\nproceedings, counsel must without delay notify the RAD in writing [RADR23(2)]. The duty\nof counsel to notify does not apply in the case of a person under 18 years of age whose\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 19\nappeal is joined with the appeal of their parent or legal guardian (who is over the age of\n18) [RADR23(3)]. RADR 23(4) sets out the requirements for the notice to designate a\nrepresentative.\nRADR 23(5) to 23(11) set out rules related to the designation of a representative, the\nlength of the designation, termination of the delegation and responsibilities of the\nrepresentative.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.8 (Designated representative)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.9", + "marginal_note": "Interpreters", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.9. Interpreters\nIf the person who is the subject of an appeal needs an interpreter, he or she must\nindicate the language and dialect, if any, in their appellant’s record or respondent’s record\n(depending on the position they take in the appeal) [RADR 59(1)]. A person who is the\nsubject of an appeal may change the language and dialect, if any, or if they had not\nindicated that an interpreter was needed, they may do so by notifying the RAD in writing\nand indicating the language and dialect, if any. The notice must be received no later than\n20 days before the date fixed for the hearing [RADR 59(2)]. If any party’s witness needs\nan interpreter for a hearing, the party must notify the RAD in writing and specify the\nlanguage and dialect, if any. The notice must be received no later than 20 days before\nthe date fixed for the hearing [RADR 59(3)]. The interpreter must take an oath or make a\nsolemn affirmation to interpret accurately [RADR 59(4)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.9 (Interpreters)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.10", + "marginal_note": "Observers", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.10. Observers\nAn application to have a proceeding conducted in public under RADR 42 is not necessary\nin the following cases:\n(a) The observer is the UNHCR or a member of the staff of the IRB; or\n(b) The person who is the subject of an appeal consents to or requests the presence of\nan observer (other than a representative of the press or other media of\ncommunication) at the proceeding [RADR 60(1)].\nThe RAD must allow the attendance of an observer unless, in the opinion of the RAD, the\nobserver’s attendance is likely to impede the proceeding [RADR 60(2)].\nThe RAD may take any measure it considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of\nthe proceeding despite the presence of an observer [RADR 60(3)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.10 (Observers)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-11-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.11", + "marginal_note": "Witnesses", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.11. Witnesses\nIf a party wants to call a witness, the party must provide witness information in writing to\nany other party and to the RAD [RADR 61(1)]. The witness information provided to the\nRAD must be accompanied by proof that it was provided to any other party [RADR 61(2)].\nThe documents that are to be provided in relation to witness information must be\nreceived by the recipients no later than 20 days before the date fixed for the hearing\n[RADR 61(3)]. If the witness information is not provided, the witness must not testify at\nthe hearing unless the RAD allows them to testify [RADR 61(4)].\nAccording to RADR 61(1), the party must provide the following witness information:\n(a) the witness’s contact information;\n(b) a brief statement of the purpose and substance of the witness’s testimony or, in the\ncase of an expert witness, the expert witness’s brief signed summary of the testimony\nto be given;\n(c) the time needed for the witness’s testimony;\n(d) the party’s relationship to the witness;\n(e) in the case of an expert witness, a description of the expert witness’s qualifications;\nand\n(f) whether the party wants the witness to testify by means of live telecommunication.\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 20\nAccording to RADR 61(5) in deciding whether to allow a witness to testify, the RAD must\nconsider any relevant factors including (a) the relevance and probative value of the\nproposed testimony and (b) the reason why the witness information was not provided.\nA party who wants the RAD to order a person to testify at a hearing must make a request\nto the RAD for a summons (either orally or in writing) [RADR 62(1)].\nRADR 62(2) sets out that the RAD must consider any relevant factors in deciding whether", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.11 (Witnesses) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-11-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.11", + "marginal_note": "Witnesses", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "to issue a summons including (a) the necessity of the testimony to a full and proper\nhearing; (b) the person’s ability to give that testimony; and (c) whether the person has\nagreed to be summoned as a witness.\nRADR 62(3), 63 and 64 set out requirements for using a summons, cancelling a\nsummons and requesting the issuance of an arrest warrant for a person who does not\nobey the summons.\nRADR 65 provides that if the RAD excludes a witness from a hearing room, no person\nmay communicate to the witness any evidence given while the witness was excluded\nunless allowed to do so by the RAD or until the witness has finished testifying.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.11 (Witnesses) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.12", + "marginal_note": "Conferences", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.12. Conferences\nThe RAD may require the parties to participate at a conference to discuss issues,\nrelevant facts and any other matter in order to make the appeal more fair and more\nefficient [RADR 26(1)]. At or before the conference, the RAD may require the parties to\ngive any information or provide any document [RADR 26(2)]. The RAD must make a\nwritten record of any decision and agreements made at the conference [RADR 26(3)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.12 (Conferences)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.13", + "marginal_note": "Conference to fix a date", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.13. Conference to fix a date\nThe RAD may require the parties to participate in a scheduling conference or otherwise\ngive information to help the RAD fix a date for a hearing [RADR 55].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.13 (Conference to fix a date)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.14", + "marginal_note": "Joining or separating appeals", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.14. Joining or separating appeals\nThe RAD must join any appeal of decisions on claims that were joined at the time that the\nRPD decided the claims [RADR 40]. In addition, a party may make an application to the\nRAD to join or separate appeals [RADR 41(1) & (2)]. The requirements for the application\nare set out in RADR 41(3) and 41(4). The RAD must consider any relevant factors in\ndeciding the application to join or separate appeals including whether (a) the appeals\ninvolve similar questions of fact or law; (b) allowing the application would promote the\nefficient administration of the RAD’s work; and (c) allowing the application would likely\ncause an injustice [RADR 41(5)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.14 (Joining or separating appeals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.15", + "marginal_note": "Notice of Constitutional Question", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.15. Notice of Constitutional Question\nA party who wants to challenge the constitutional validity, applicability or operability of a\nlegislative provision must complete a notice of constitutional question [RADR 25(1)]. The\ndocuments provided under RADR 25 must be received by their recipients at the same\ntime as the RAD receives the appellant’s record, respondent’s record or the reply record,\nas the case may be [RADR 25(4)]. The RAD must not make a decision on the\nconstitutional question until at least 10 days after the day on which it receives the notice\nof constitutional question [RADR 25(5)].\nAccording to RADR 25(2) the notice must be completed as set out in Form 69 of the\nFederal Court Rules or any other form that includes:\n(a) the party’s name;\n(b) the RAD file number;\n(c) the specific legislative provision that is being challenged;\n(d) the material facts relied on to support the constitutional challenge; and\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 21\n(e) a summary of the legal argument to be made in support of the constitutional\nchallenge\nAccording to RADR 25(3) the party must provide:\n(a) a copy of the notice to the Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of\neach province of Canada, in accordance with section 57 of the Federal Court Act;\n(b) a copy of the notice to the Minister even if the Minister has not yet intervened in the\nappeal;\n(c) a copy of the notice to the UNHCR, if the UNHCR has provided notice of its intention\nto provide written submissions and any interested person (defined as having had\ntheir application to participate in the appeal granted [RADR 1]);\n(d) the original of the notice to the RAD along with proof that copies were provided as set\nout above.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.15 (Notice of Constitutional Question)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.16", + "marginal_note": "Abandoned proceeding", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.16. Abandoned proceeding\nThe RAD may determine that a proceeding before it has been abandoned if the RAD is of\nthe opinion that the applicant is in default in the proceedings, including by failing to\nappear for a hearing, to provide information required by the RAD or to communicate with\nthe RAD after being requested to do so [A168(1)]. In determining whether an appeal has\nbeen abandoned after a hearing date has been fixed, the RAD must give the appellant an\nopportunity to explain why the appeal should not be declared abandoned in accordance\nwith RADR 68. RADR 68(2) sets out the factors the RAD must consider in deciding if the\nappeal should be declared abandoned. RADR 68(3) to (5) set out the requirements for\nproviding medical reasons. RADR 68(6) provides that if the RAD decides not to declare\nthe appeal abandoned, it must start or continue the proceedings without delay.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.16 (Abandoned proceeding)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.17", + "marginal_note": "Withdrawal of an appeal", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.17. Withdrawal of an appeal\nThe RAD may refuse to allow an applicant to withdraw from a proceeding if it is of the\nopinion that the withdrawal would be an abuse of process under its rules [A168(2)]. A\nwithdrawal of an appeal is an abuse of process if it would likely have a negative effect on\nthe RAD’s integrity [RADR 47(1)].\nIf the requirements set out in RADR 7 or 13, as the case may be, have not been met then\nwithdrawal is not an abuse of process [RADR 47(1)] and can be done by notice in writing\nto the RAD [RADR 47(2)]. Use Template notice of withdrawal of appeal RADR 47(2).doc.\nIf the requirements in RADR 7 or 13, as the case may be, have been met then the\napplicant must make an application to the RAD in accordance with RADR 37 [RADR\n47(3)]. Use Template application to withdraw an appeal RADR 47(3).doc.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.17 (Withdrawal of an appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.18", + "marginal_note": "Reinstate a withdrawn appeal", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.18. Reinstate a withdrawn appeal\nAn appellant may apply to the RAD to reinstate a withdrawn appeal [RADR 48(1)]. RADR\n48(2) and 48(3) set out the requirements for the application. RADR 48(4) to 48(6) set out\nthe factors the RAD must consider in deciding the application (including that the\napplication must not be allowed unless it establishes that there was a failure to observe a\nprinciple of natural justice or it is otherwise in the interests of justice to allow the\napplication).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.18 (Reinstate a withdrawn appeal)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-19", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.19", + "marginal_note": "Communicating with the RAD", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.19. Communicating with the RAD\nAll communications with the RAD must be directed to the registry office specified by the\nRAD [RADR 14].\nContact information for RAD registries\nEastern Region\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 22\nMontréal\nGuy-Favreau Complex\n200 René-Lévesque Blvd. West\nEast Tower, Room 102\nMontréal, QUE H2Z 1X4\nTelephone: 514-283-7733 or 1-866-626-8719\nFax : 514-496-6629\nCentral Region\nToronto", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.19 (Communicating with the RAD)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-74", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 74", + "marginal_note": "Victoria St., Suite 400", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "74 Victoria St., Suite 400\nToronto, ON M5C 3C7\nTelephone: 416-954-1000 or 1-866-790-0581\nFax: 416-496-1511\nWestern Region\nVancouver\n300 West Georgia St., Suite 1600\nVancouver, BC V6B 6C9\nTelephone: 604-666-5946 or 1-866-787-7472\nFax: 604-666-9870", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 74 (Victoria St., Suite 400)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-20", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.20", + "marginal_note": "Change of contact information", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.20. Change of contact information\nIf the contact information of a person who is the subject of an appeal changes, such\nperson must without delay provide the changes in writing to the RAD and to the Minister\n[RADR 15].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.20 (Change of contact information)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-21-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.21", + "marginal_note": "Documents", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.21. Documents\nRADR 27 and 28 set out the requirements for the form and language of documents.\nRADR 29(1) to (4) set out the rules for documents or written submissions not previously\nprovided by the person who is the subject of the appeal.\nRADR 30 to 35 set out the rules for providing a document. RADR 31 provides\nrequirements for providing documents to the RAD, RPD, the Minister and to any other\nperson. RADR 32 provides that a document may be provided by hand, regular or\nregistered mail, courier, fax (if the document is no more than 20 pages, unless the\nrecipient consents to receiving more than 20 pages), and by email or other electronic\nmeans if the RAD allows. If the party is unable to provide a document in a way required\nby RADR 32 a party may apply to the RAD to be allowed to provide the document in\nanother way or to be excused from providing the document [RADR 33].\nRADR 35(1) sets out that a document provided to the RAD or the RPD is considered to\nbe received on the day on which the document is date-stamped by that division. RADR\n35(2) sets out that a document provided by regular mail other than to the RAD or to the\nRPD is considered to be received seven days after the day on which it was mailed. If the\nseventh day is not a working day, the document is considered to be received on the next\nworking day.\nRADR 35(3) provides that when the time limit for providing a document ends on a day\nthat is not a working day, the time limit is extended to the next working day.\nPursuant to RADR 31(4), any document to be provided to the person who is the subject\nof the appeal must be provided to the person’s counsel if the person has counsel of\nrecord. If the person does not have counsel of record the document must be provided to\nthe person.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.21 (Documents) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-21-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.21", + "marginal_note": "Documents", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "RADR 18(1) provides, subject to a limitation on counsel’s retainer, that as soon as\ncounsel for a person who is the subject of an appeal provides on behalf of the person a\nnotice of appeal or a notice of intent to respond, as the case may be, or as soon as a\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 23\nsomeone becomes counsel after the person provided notice, the counsel becomes\ncounsel of record for the person.\nRADR 34(1) sets out what the RAD requires when establishing proof that a document\nwas provided:\n(a) an acknowledgment of receipt signed by the recipient or a statement of service, if th e\ndocument was provided by hand;\n(b) a confirmation of receipt if the document was provided by registered mail, courier, fax\n(note the 20 page limit under RADR 32(d)) or email (note this method of delivery\nrequires the RAD’s approval RADR 32(e)) or other electronic means (note this\nmethod of delivery requires the RAD’s approval RADR 32(e));\n(c) a statement of service if the document was provided by regular mail.\nPursuant to RADR 34(2) “statement of service” rerferred to above consists of a written\nstatement, signed by the person who provided the document, which includes the person’s\nname and a statement of how and when the document was provided.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.21 (Documents) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-10-22", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 10.22", + "marginal_note": "Judicial Review of a RAD decision", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10.22. Judicial Review of a RAD decision\nThe Minister may make an application for leave and judicial review with respect to any\ndecision of the RAD, whether or not the Minister took part in the proceedings before the\nRPD or the RAD [A73].\nTherefore, in the event the RAD makes a decision contrary to the one that was sought by\nthe Minister, and an HO, in consultation with his/her supervisor, believes that an\napplication for leave and judicial review of the decision is warranted, the RAD decision\nshould be immediately brought to the attention of Litigation Management (IRCC and\nCBSA).\nThe procedure for a HO recommendation to Litigation Management (LMD/LMU) for the\nfiling of a judicial review (JR) of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) will\nbe followed for judicial review recommendations of RPD and RAD decisions. The\nprocedure as set out in ENF 9 – Judicial Review\n(http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf09-eng.pdf) must be followed.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 10.22 (Judicial Review of a RAD decision)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-11-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11. Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of\nthe appeal\nTo file an appeal the person who is the subject of the appeal must provide three copies of\na written notice of appeal to the RAD [RADR 2(1)]. The RAD must then provide a copy of\nthe notice of appeal to the Minister without delay [RADR 2(2)]. The notice of appeal must\nbe received by the RAD within the time limit for filing an appeal set out in the regulations\n[RADR 2(4)].\nAccording to RADR 2(3) the notice of appeal must include the following:\n(a) The name and telephone number of the appellant (in this case the person who is the\nsubject of the appeal) and an address where documents can be provided to the\nappellant;\n(b) If represented by counsel, counsel’s contact information and any limitations on\ncounsel’s retainer (see RADR 18(2));\n(c) The identification number given by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to\nthe appellant;\n(d) The RPD’s file number, the date of the notice of decision relating to the decision\nbeing appealed and the date that they received the written reasons for the decision;\n(e) The language – English or French – chosen by the appellant as the language of the\nappeal; and\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 24\n(f) The representative’s contact information if the RPD has designated a representative\nfor the appellant in the proceedings relating to the decision being appealed, and any\nproposed change in representative.\nTo perfect an appeal, the appellant must provide two copies of the appellant’s record\n[RADR 3(1)]. The RAD must then provide a copy of the appellant’s record to the Minister\nwithout delay [RADR 3(2)]. The appellant’s record must be received by the RAD within", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 11 (Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-11-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "the time limit for perfecting an appeal set out in the regulations [RADR 3(5)].\nAccording to RADR 3(3) the content of the appellant’s record must include the following,\non consecutively numbered pages, in the following order:\n(a) The notice of decision and written reasons for the RPD decision that the appellant is\nappealing;\n(b) All or part of the transcript of the RPD hearing if the appellant wants to rely on the\ntranscript in the appeal, together with a declaration, signed by the tanscriber, that\nincludes the transcriber’s name and a statement that the transcript is accurate;\n(c) Any documents that the RPD refused to accept as evidence, during or after the\nhearing, if the appellant wants to rely on the documents in the appeal;\n(d) A written statement indicating\ni. Whether the appellant is relying on any evidence referred to in A110(4);\nii. Whether the appellant is requesting that a hearing be held under A110(6),\nand if so, whether the appellant is making an application under RADR 66 to\nchange the location of the hearing; and\niii. The langauge and dialect, if any, to be interpreted, if the RAD decides that a\nhearing is necessary and the appellant needs an interpreter;\n(e) Any documentary evidence that the appellant wants to rely on in the appeal;\n(f) Any law, case law or other legal authority that the appellant wants to rely on in the\nappeal; and\n(g) A memorandum (limited to no more than 30 pages long if typewritten on one side or\n15 pages if typewritten on both sides – RADR 3(4)) that includes full and detailed\nsubmissions regarding\ni. The errors that are the grounds of the appeal;\nii. Where the errors are located in the written reasons for the RPD’s decision\nthat the appellant is appealing or in the transcript or in any audio or other", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 11 (Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-11-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "electronic recording of the RPD hearing;\niii. How any documentary evidence referred to in paragraph (e) meets the\nrequirements of A110(4) and how that evidence relates to the appellant,\niv. The decision the appellant wants the RAD to make; and\nv. Why the RAD should hold a hearing under A110(6) if the appellant is\nrequesting that a hearing be held.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 11 (Rules applicable to appeals made by the person who is the subject of) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-11-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Minister’s intervention", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.1. Minister’s intervention\nAccording to A171(a.4) the Minister may intervene in an appeal brought by the person\nwho is the subject of the appeal at any time before the RAD makes a decision but only\nafter giving notice to the RAD and the appellant. To intervene the Minister must provide a\nwritten notice of intervention to the appellant (the person who is the subject of the appeal)\nand the RAD together with any documentary evidence the Minister wants to rely on in the\nappeal [RADR 4(1)]. Use Template notice of intervention RADR 4(1)&(2).doc.\nPursuant to RADR 7(a), unless a hearing is held under A110(6) the RAD can render its\ndecision without further notice to the Minister provided a period of 15 days has passed\nsince the day on which the Minister received the appellant’s record or the time limit for\nperfecting the appeal set out in the IRPR has expired. It is therefore strongly\nrecommended that the notice of intervention is filed within the 15 day period described in\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 25\nRADR 7(a). Additional documentary evidence or written submissions may be provided at\nany time before a decision is rendered [RADR 29(5)].\nNote: To avoid missing an opportunity to intervene in an appeal it is important\nto keep in mind that according to RADR 7, the RAD can make a decision as\nearly as 15 days after the appellant’s record is filed.\nAccording to RADR 4(2) the content of the Minister’s notice of intervention is to include\nthe following:\n(a) Counsel’s contact information;\n(b) The identification number given by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to\nthe appellant;\n(c) The appellant’s name, the RPD file number, the date of the notice of decision relating", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 11.1 (Minister’s intervention) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-11-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Minister’s intervention", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "to the decision being appealed and the date that the Minister received the written\nreasons for the decision;\n(d) Whether the Minister is relying on any documentary evidence referred to in A110(3)\nand the relevance of that evidence; and\n(e) Whether the Minister is requesting that a hearing be held under A110(6) and if so,\nwhy the RAD should hold a hearing and whether the Minister is making an\napplication under RADR 66 to change the location of the hearing.\nIn addition to the documents provided along with the notice of intervention (as referred to\nin RADR 4(1)) the Minister may provide an intervention record first to the appellant and\nthen to the RAD [RADR 4(3)]. Use Template intervention record RADR 4(3).doc.\nAccording to RADR 4(3) the content of the Minister’s intervention record is to include the\nfollowing, on consecutively numbered pages, in the following order:\n(a) All or part of the transcript of the RPD hearing if the Minister wants to rely on the\ntranscript in the appeal and the transcript was not provided with the appellant’s\nrecord, together with a declaration, signed by the tanscriber, that includes the\ntranscriber’s name and a statement that the transcript is accurate;\n(b) Any law, case law or other legal authority that the Minister wants to rely on in the\nappeal;\n(c) A memorandum (limited to no more than 30 pages long if typewritten on one side or\n15 pages if typewritten on both sides – RADR 4(4)) that includes full and detailed\nsubmissions regarding\ni. The grounds on which the Minister is contesting the appeal; and\nii. The decision the Minister wants the RAD to make.\nAny documents being provided to the RAD by the Minister when intervening in an appeal\nmust be accompanied by proof that the documents were provided to the appellant [RADR\n4(5)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 11.1 (Minister’s intervention) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-11-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 11.1", + "marginal_note": "Minister’s intervention", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Note: The IRB has confirmed that it is not necessary to provide anything more than a citation\nfor any Canadian jurisprudence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 11.1 (Minister’s intervention) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-11-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 11.2", + "marginal_note": "Reply to Minister’s intervention", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11.2. Reply to Minister’s intervention\nThe appellant may choose to reply to the Minister’s intervention. To do so , the appellant\nmust provide a reply record first to the Minister and then to the RAD [RADR 5(1)]. The\nreply record provided to the RAD must be accompanied by proof that it was provided to\nthe Minister [ RADR 5(4)]. The reply record must be received by the RAD no later than 15\ndays after the day on which the appellant receives the Minister’s notice of intervention,\nthe Minister’s intervention record, or any additional documents provided by the Minister,\nas the case may be [ RADR 5(5)].\nAccording to RADR 5(2) the content of the appellant’s reply record is to include the\nfollowing, on consecutively numbered pages, in the following order:\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 26\n(a) All or part of the transcript of the RPD hearing if the appellant wants to rely on the\ntranscript to support the reply and the transcript was not provided with the appellant’s\nrecord or by the Minister, together with a declaration, signed by the transcriber, that\nincludes the transcriber’s name and a statement that the transcript is accurate;\n(b) Any documentary evidence that the appellant wants to rely on to support the reply\nand that was not provided with the appellant’s record or by the Minister;\n(c) Any law, case law or other legal authority that the appellant wants to rely on to\nsupport the reply and that was not provided with the appellant’s record or by the\nMinister; and\n(d) A memorandum (limited to no more than 30 pages long if typewritten on one side or\n15 pages if typewritten on both sides – RADR 5(3)) that includes full and detailed\nsubmissions regarding\ni. Only the grounds raised by the Minister;\nii. How any documentary evidence referred to in paragraph (b) meets the\nrequirements of A110(4) or A110(5) and how that evidence relates to the\nappellant; and\niii. Why the RAD should hold a hearing under A110(6) if the appellant is\nrequesting that a hearing be held and the appellant did not include such a\nrequest in the appellant’s record, and if the appellant is requesting a hearing,\nwhether the appellant is making an application under RADR 66 to change the\nlocation of the hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 11.2 (Reply to Minister’s intervention)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-12-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 12", + "marginal_note": "Rules applicable to appeals made by the Minister", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12. Rules applicable to appeals made by the Minister\nAccording to A110(1) an appeal to the RAD may be made by the Minister based on a\nquestion of law, of fact or of mixed law and fact.\nA110(1.1) permits the Minister to satisfy any requirement respecting the manner in which\nan appeal is to be filed and perfected by submitting a notice of appeal and any supporting\ndocuments. Use Template Notice of appeal RADR 8.doc to file the notice of appeal.\nRADR 8(1) provides that for the Minister to file an appeal in accordance with A110(1.1 )\nthe Minister must provide first to the person who is the subject of the appeal, a written\nnotice of appeal, and then to the RAD, two copies of the written notice of appeal. When\nproviding the notice of appeal to the RAD the Minister must also provide pro of that the\nnotice of appeal was provided to the person who is the subject of the appeal [RADR\n8(3)].The Minister’s notice of appeal must be received by the RAD within the time limit for\nfiling an appeal set out in the regulations [RADR 8(4)].\nAccording to RADR 8(2) the content of the Minister’s notice of appeal is to include the\nfollowing:\n(a) Counsel’s contact information;\n(b) The name of the person who is the subject of the appeal and the identification\nnumber given by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to that person;\n(c) The RPD file number, the date of the notice of decision relating to the decision being\nappealed and the date that the Minister received the written reasons for the decision.\nNote: It is highly recommended that the notice of appeal be delivered by registered mail to the\nperson who is the subject of the appeal at least 48 hours before the end of the time limit to file\nan appeal.\nTo perfect an appeal in accordance with A110(1.1) the Minister must provide any", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 12 (Rules applicable to appeals made by the Minister) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-12-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 12", + "marginal_note": "Rules applicable to appeals made by the Minister", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "supporting documents that the Minister wants to rely on in the appeal, first to the person\nwho is the subject of the appeal and then to the RAD [RADR 9(1)]. When providing the\ndocuments to the RAD the Minister must also provide proof that the documents were\nprovided to the person who is the subject of the appeal [RADR 9(4)]. The supporting\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 27\ndocuments must be received by the RAD within the time limit for perfecting an appeal set\nout in the regulations [RADR 9(5)].\nAs soon as the Minister submits any supporting documents (e.g. evidence or\nsubmissions) subsequent to the notice of appeal, the appeal is perfected. If nothing is\nfiled to perfect the appeal within the time limit for perfecting an appeal described in IRPR\n159.91(1)(b) the RAD may determine that the appeal has been abandoned in accordance\nwith A168(1).\nIn addition to the documents referred to in RADR 9(1) the Minister may provide an\nappellant’s record first to the person who is the subject of the appeal and then to the RAD\n[RADR 9(2)]. The appellant’s record must be received by the RAD within the time limit for\nperfecting an appeal set out in the regulations [RADR 9(5)]. There is no mandatory\nrequirement for the Minister to file an appellant’s record. When an appellant record is\nneeded use Template appellants record RADR 9.doc with the same style of cause as in\nthe notice of appeal.\nAccording to RADR 9(2) the content of the Minister’s appellant’s record is to include the\nfollowing, on consecutively numbered pages, in the following order:\n(a) The notice of decision and written reasons for the RPD decision that the Minister is\nappealing;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 12 (Rules applicable to appeals made by the Minister) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-12-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 12", + "marginal_note": "Rules applicable to appeals made by the Minister", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(b) All or part of the transcript of the RPD hearing if the Minister wants to rely on the\ntranscript in the appeal, together with a declaration, signed by the tanscriber, that\nincludes the transcriber’s name and a statement that the transcript is accurate;\n(c) Any documents that the RPD refused to accept as evidence, during or after the\nhearing, if the Minister wants to rely on the document in the appeal;\n(d) A written statement indicating\ni. Whether the Minister is relying on any documentary evidence referred to in\nA110(3) and the relevance of that evidence; and\nii. Whether the Minister is requesting that a hearing be held under A110(6) and\nif so, why the RAD should hold a hearing and whether the Minister is making\nan application under RADR 66 to change the location of the hearing;\n(e) Any law, case law or other legal authority that the Minister wants to rely on in the\nappeal;\n(f) A memorandum (limited to no more than 30 pages long if typewritten on one side or\n15 pages if typewritten on both sides – RADR 9(3)) that includes full and detailed\nsubmissions regarding\ni. The errors that are the grounds of the appeal,\nii. Where the errors are located in the written reasons for the RPD’s decision\nthat the Minister is appealing or in the transcript or in any audio or other\nelectronic recording of the RPD hearing, and\niii. The decision the Minister wants the RAD to make.\nNote: The IRB has confirmed that it is not necessary to provide anything more than a citation\nfor any Canadian jurisprudence.\nNote: If any additional documents or submissions are provided after the appeal is perfected this\nwill not change the date when the appeal is considered perfected.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 12 (Rules applicable to appeals made by the Minister) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-12-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Response to the Minister’s appeal", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1. Response to the Minister’s appeal\nThe person who is the subject of the appeal may respond to the Minister’ appeal by\nproviding first to the Minister and then to the RAD, a written notice of intent to respond,\ntogether with the respondent’s record [RADR10(1)]. These documents must be received\nby the RAD no later than 15 days after (a) the day on which the respondent receives any\nsupporting documents or (b) if the RAD allows an application for an extension of time to\nperfect the appeal under RADR 12, the day on which the respondent is notified of the\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 28\ndecision to allow the extension of time [RADR 10(6)]. The notice of intent to respond and\nthe respondent’s record must be provided to the RAD along with proof that they were\nprovided to the Minister [RADR 10(5)].\nAccording to RADR 10(2) the content of the respondent’s notice of intent to respond is to\ninclude the following:\n(a) The respondent’s name, telephone number and an address where documents can be\nprovided to the respondent;\n(b) If represented by counsel, counsel’s contact information and any limitations on\ncounsel’s retainer (see RADR 18(2));\n(c) The identification number given by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to\nthe respondent;\n(d) The RPD file number and the date of the notice of decision relating to the decision\nbeing appealed;\n(e) The language – English or French – chosen by the respondent as the language of\nthe appeal; and\n(f) The representative’s contact information if the RPD has designated a representative\nfor them in the proceedings relating to the decision being appealed, and any\nproposed change in representative.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 12.1 (Response to the Minister’s appeal) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-12-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Response to the Minister’s appeal", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "According to RADR 10(3) the content of the respondent’s record is to include the\nfollowing, on consecutively numbered pages, in the following order:\n(a) All or part of the transcript of the RPD hearing if the respondent wants to rely on the\ntranscript in the appeal and the transcript was not provided with the appellant’s\nrecord, together with a declaration, signed by the tanscriber, that includes the\ntranscriber’s name and a statement that the transcript is accurate;\n(b) A written statement indicating\ni. Whether the respondent is requesting that a hearing be held under A110(6)\nand if so, whether the respondent is making an application under RADR 66\nto change the location of the hearing; and\nii. The language and dialect, if any, to be interpreted, if the RAD decides that a\nhearing is necessary and the respondent needs an interpreter;\n(c) Any documentary evidence that the respondent wants to rely on in the appeal;\n(d) Any law, case law or other legal authority that the respondent wants to rely on in the\nappeal;\n(e) A memorandum (limited to no more than 30 pages long if typewritten on one side or\n15 pages if typewritten on both sides – RADR 10(4)) that includes full and detailed\nsubmissions regarding\ni. The grounds on which the respondent is contesting the appeal;\nii. The decision the respondent wants the RAD to make; and\niii. Why the RAD should hold a hearing under A110(6) if the respondent is\nrequesting that a hearing be held.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 12.1 (Response to the Minister’s appeal) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-12-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Minister’s reply to the respondent’s response to the Minister’s appeal", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2. Minister’s reply to the respondent’s response to the Minister’s appeal\nThe Minister may reply to a response made by the respondent to the Minister’s appeal.\nTo do so the Minister must provide, first to the respondent and then to the RAD, any\ndocumentary evidence that the Minister wants to rely on to support the reply and that was\nnot provided at the time that the appeal was perfected or with the respondent’s record\n[RAR11(1)]. Use Template reply (subrule 11(1) RADR 11(1).doc and the same style of\ncause as used for the appellant’s record.\nIn addition to the documents referred to in RADR 11(1) the Minister may also provide a\nreply record, first to the respondent and then the RAD [RADR 11(2)]. Use Template reply\nrecord RADR 11(2).doc. The documentary evidence and the reply record, if any, must be\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 29\nprovided to the RAD along with proof that the documentary evidence and the reply\nrecord, if any, were provided to the respondent [RADR 11(4)].\nNo time limit is set out in RADR 11 as to when the Minister must provide a reply however\nconsideration should be given to RADR 13 which states that unless a hearing is held\nunder A110(6), the RAD may, without further notice to the parties, decide an appeal on\nthe basis of the materials provided (a) if a period of 15 days has passed since the day on\nwhich the Minister received the respondent’s record, or the time limit for providing it set\nout in RADR 10(6) has expired.\nAccording to RADR 11(2) the content of the Minister’s reply record is to include the\nfollowing, on consecutively numbered pages, in the following order:\n(a) All or part of the transcript of the RPD hearing if the Minister wants to rely on the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 12.2 (Minister’s reply to the respondent’s response to the Minister’s appeal) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-12-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Minister’s reply to the respondent’s response to the Minister’s appeal", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "transcript to support the reply and the transcript was not provided with the appellant’s\nrecord, if any, or the respondent’s record, together with a declaration, signed by the\ntranscriber, that includes the transcriber’s name and a statement that the transcript is\naccurate;\n(b) Any law, case law or other legal authority that the Minister wants to rely on to support\nthe reply and that was not provided with the appellant’s record, if any, or the\nrespondent’s record; and\n(c) A memorandum (limited to no more than 30 pages long if typewritten on one side or\n15 pages if typewritten on both sides – RADR 11(3)) that includes full and detailed\nsubmissions regarding\ni. Only the grounds raised by the respondent; and\nii. Why the RAD should hold a hearing under A110(6) if the Minister is\nrequesting that a hearing be held and the Minister did not include such a\nrequest in the appellant’s record, if any, and if the Minister is requesting a\nhearing, whether the Minister is making an application under RADR 66 to\nchange the location of the hearing.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 12.2 (Minister’s reply to the respondent’s response to the Minister’s appeal) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "Minister’s additional documents and/or submissions", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3. Minister’s additional documents and/or submissions\nThe Minister may provide documentary evidence or written submissions at any time prior\nto the RAD rendering a decision [A171(a.5); RADR 29(5)]. At the time of the filing of the\nMinister’s appellant’s record, if the HO is aware or expects that additional evidence or\nsubmissions may be provided in the future, it is recommended that the HO indicate so in\nthe Minister’s appellant’s record.\nAccording to RADR 29(7), the respondent may reply to the Minister’s additional\ndocuments or submissions within the time limits as set out in RADR 5, which is 15 days\nfrom receipt of the Minister’s additional documents or written submissions.\nNote: Any additional documents or submissions that are provided after an appeal has been\nperfected does not change the date the appeal is perfected.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 12.3 (Minister’s additional documents and/or submissions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 13", + "marginal_note": "Applications (application, response, reply)", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13. Applications (application, response, reply)\nUnless provided otherwise in the RADR:\n a party who wants the RAD to make a decision on any matter in a proceeding ,\nincluding the procedure to be followed, must make an application to the RAD in\naccordance with RADR 37 [RADR 36(a)].\n a party who wants to respond to the application must respond in accordance\nwith RADR 38 [RADR 36(b)].\n a party who wants to reply to a response must reply in accordance with RADR\n39 [RADR 36(c)].\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 30", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 13 (Applications (application, response, reply))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-13-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "Application", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1. Application\nUnless provided otherwise by the RADR, an application must be made in writing and\nwithout delay [RADR 37(1)]. Use Template application RADR 37.doc and indicate\nwhether the Minister is the appellant or intervenor and whether the person who is the\nsubject of the appeal is the appellant or respondent. If a hearing date has been fixed, the\nRAD must not allow a party to make an application orally at the hearing unless the party,\nwith reasonable effort, could not have made a written application before that date [RADR\n37(2)].\nUnless the RADR provide otherwise, in a written application, a party must (a) state the\ndecision the party wants the RAD to make; (b) give reasons why the RAD should make\nthe decision; and (c) if there is another party and the views of that party are known, state\nwhether the other party agrees to the application [RADR 37(3)].\nUnless the RADR provide otherwise, any evidence that the party wants the RAD to\nconsider with a written application must be given in an affidavit or statutory declaration\nthat accompanies the application [RADR 37(4)].\nA party who makes a written application must provide (a) to any other party, a copy of the\napplication and a copy of any affidavit or statuory declaration; and (b) to the RAD, the\noriginal application and the original of any affidavit or statutory declaration, together with\nproof that a copy was provided to any other party [RADR 37(5)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 13.1 (Application)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-13-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "Responding to a written application", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.2. Responding to a written application\nA response to a written application must be in writing (use Template response to\napplication RADR 38.doc indicating whether the Minister is the appellant or intervenor\nand whether the person who is the subject of the appeal is the appellant or respondent)\nand (a) state the decision the party wants the RAD to make; and (b) give reasons why the\nRAD should make that decision [RADR 38(1)].\nAny evidence that a party wants the RAD to consider with the written response must be\ngiven in an affidavit or statutory declaration that accompanies the response [RADR\n38(2)]. However, unless the RAD requires it, an affidavit or statutory declaration is not\nrequired if the party who made the application was not required to give evidence in an\naffidavit or statutory declaration with their application [RADR 38(2)].\nThe party responding to a written application must provide (a) to the other party, a copy\nof the response and a copy of any affidavit or statuory declaration; and (b) to the RAD,\nthe original response and the original of any affidavit or statutory declaration, together\nwith proof that a copy was provided to the other party [RADR 38(3)]. The documents\nprovided under RADR 38(3) must be received by their recipients no later than seven days\nafter the day on which the party receives the copy of the application [RADR 38(4)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 13.2 (Responding to a written application)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-13-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "Reply to a written response to an application", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.3. Reply to a written response to an application\nA reply to a written response to an application must be in writing [RADR 39(1)]. Use\nTemplate reply to a response to an application RADR 39.doc.\nAny evidence that the party wants the RAD to consider with the reply must be given in an\naffidavit or statutory declaration. However, unless the RAD requires it, an affidavit or\nstatutory declaration is not required if the party was not required to give evidence in an\naffidavit or statutory declaration with their application [RADR 39(2)].\nA party who replies must provide (a) to the other party, a copy of the reply and a copy of\nany affidavit or statutory declaration; and (b) to the RAD, the original reply and the\noriginal of any affidavit or statutory declaration [RADR 39(3)]. The documents provided\nunder RADR 39(3) must be received by their recipients no later than five days after the\nday on which the party receives the copy of the response [RADR 39(4)].\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 31", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 13.3 (Reply to a written response to an application)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-13-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 13.4", + "marginal_note": "Application to change the location of a hearing", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.4. Application to change the location of a hearing\nA party may make an application to the RAD to change the location of a hearing [RADR\n66(1)]. The requirement for the application are set out in RADR 66(2) and 66(3). RADR\n66(4) sets out the factors for the RAD to consider when deciding the application.\nUnless a party receives a decision from the RAD allowing the application, the party must\nappear for the hearing at the location fixed and be ready to start or continue the hearing\n[RADR 66(5)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 13.4 (Application to change the location of a hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-13-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 13.5", + "marginal_note": "Application to change the date or time of a hearing", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.5. Application to change the date or time of a hearing\nA party may make an application to the RAD to change the date or time fixed for a\nhearing [RADR 67(1)]. The requirements for the application are set out in RADR 67(2),\n(4), (7), (8) and (9). RADR 67(5) and 67(6) set out the factors for the RAD to consider\nwhen deciding the application.\nUnless a party receives a decision from the RAD allowing the application, the party must\nappear for the hearing at the date and time fixed and be ready to start or continue the\nhearing [RADR 67(10)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 13.5 (Application to change the date or time of a hearing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-13-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 13.6", + "marginal_note": "Application for an extension of time (person who is the subject of the appeal)", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.6. Application for an extension of time (person who is the subject of the appeal)\nA person who is the subject of the appeal may make an application to the RAD to extend\nthe time to file or perfect an appeal. Such person must do so in accordance with RADR\n37 with the exception that the person must provide the RAD the original and a copy of the\napplication [RADR 6(1)]. The RAD must provide a copy of an application to the Minister\nwithout delay [RADR 6(2)]. The content of the person’s application is set out in RADR\n6(3).\nAn application by a person who is the subject of an appeal to extend the time to file an\nappeal must be accompanied by three copies of a written notice of appeal [RADR 6(4)].\nAn application by a person who is the subject of an appeal to extend the time to perfect\nan appeal must be accompanied by two copies of the appellant’s record [RADR 6(5)].\nA person who is the subject of an appeal may make an application to the RAD for an\nextension of time to reply to a Minister’s intervention in accordance with RADR 37 [RADR\n6(6)].\nA person who is the subject of an appeal may make an application to the RAD for an\nextension of time to respond to an appeal brought by the Minister in accordance with\nRADR 37 [RADR 12(4)]. The contents of the application to extend the time to respond to\nan appeal brought by the Minister are set out in RADR 12(5).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 13.6 (Application for an extension of time (person who is the subject of the appeal))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-13-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 13.7", + "marginal_note": "Application for an extension of time (Minister)", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.7. Application for an extension of time (Minister)\nThe Minister may make an application to the RAD to extend the time to file or perfect an\nappeal. The Minister must do so in accordance with RADR 37 [RADR 12(1)].\nAn application by the Minister to extend the time to file an appeal must be accompanied\nby two copies of a written notice of appeal [RADR 12(2)].\nAn application by the Minister to extend the time to perfect an appeal must be\naccompanied by any supporting documents, and an appellant’s record, if any [RADR\n12(3)].\nTo make an application for an extension of time use Template application for extension of\ntime RADR 12.doc and, in accordance with RADR 37(3)(a), provide the following in the\napplication:\n(a) The decision the Minister wants RAD to make (e.g. an extension of time to file and/or\nperfect an appeal);\n(b) The reasons why the RAD should make that decision; and\n(c) If the views of the person who is the subject of the appeal are known, state whether\nhe/she agrees to the application.\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 32\nPursuant to RADR 37(5)(a), a copy of the application or any affidavit or statutory\ndeclaration must be provided to any other party.\nPursuant to RADR 37(5)(b), the Minister must provide the RAD with the original\napplication and the original of any affidavit or statutory declaration, together with proof\nthat a copy of such documents was provided to any other party.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 13.7 (Application for an extension of time (Minister))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-14-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 14.1", + "marginal_note": "Perceived threats", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.1. Perceived threats\nIf a HO perceives a threat to their safety prior to a hearing, they should inform their\nmanager. Managers should contact the IRB and, in consultation with regional security\nmanagers, make arrangements for a risk assessment and the initiation of appropriate\nsecurity measures.\nSituations may arise during a hearing in which a HO feels their personal safety or the\nsafety of others is being compromised. When a HO feels their safety has been\nthreatened, such as in situations of intimidation by witnesses, the uttering of threats or\nother safety concerns, they should immediately remove themselves from the situation\nwhich places their safety at risk and bring the matter to the attention of their manager.\nAny necessary administrative procedures (such as seeking an adjournment or recess)\nmay be dealt with once the safety risk is no longer active.\nIRB procedures for safety and security should help prevent such situations and provide\nguidance for managing them if they do arise.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 14.1 (Perceived threats)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-26-14-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-26", + "act_short": "ENF 26", + "act_name": "ENF 26 — ENF 26", + "section": "ENF 26 s. 14.2", + "marginal_note": "Incident report writing", + "part": "ENF 26", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.2. Incident report writing\nWhere an incident occurs before or during a hearing where a HO feels their safety has\nbeen threatened, they should complete an incident report. Reporting procedures enable\nthe CBSA to make important decisions regarding the safety and security of staff, ongoing\ntraining needs, and the recognition of exemplary performance in difficult situations. See\nENF 7, Investigations and arrests, section 5.12.\nENF 26 Appeals at the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada\n2017-01-31 33\nAppendices\nAPPENDIX 1 – SOP: Concurrence for appeals to the RAD – Form: Recommendation to Appeal\nto RAD\nAPPENDIX 2 – Template Notice of Intervention RADR 4(1)(2)\nAPPENDIX 3 – Template Intervention Record RADR 4(3)\nAPPENDIX 4 – Template Notice of Appeal RADR 8\nAPPENDIX 5 – Template Appellant’s Record RADR 9\nAPPENDIX 6 – Template Reply RADR 11(1)\nAPPENDIX 7 – Template Reply Record RADR 11(2)\nAPPENDIX 8 – Template Application for Extension of Time RADR 12\nAPPENDIX 9 – Template Application RADR 37\nAPPENDIX 10 – Template Response to Application RADR 38\nAPPENDIX 11 – Template Reply to a Response to an Application RADR 39\nAPPENDIX 12 – Template Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal RADR 47(2)\nAPPENDIX 13 – Template Application to Withdraw an Appeal RADR 47(3)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-01-31", + "current_to": "2017-01-31", + "citation": "ENF 26, s. 14.2 (Incident report writing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf26-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1 What this chapter is about\nThe purpose of this chapter is to define the policies and procedures with respect to ministerial danger\nopinion reports.\nThis chapter aims to provide functional guidance and direction to officers, managers and others at\nImmigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)\nwho are involved in the decision-making process and the issuance of danger opinions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2 Program objectives\nThe program objectives for the issuance of danger opinions with respect to protected persons are to\n• protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society; and\n• promote international justice and security by denying access to Canadian territory to protected\npersons who were found inadmissible under section 34, section 35, subsection 36(1) or\nsection 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) on grounds of security, violation\nof human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.\nThe IRPA is to be construed and applied in a manner that\n• furthers the domestic and international interests of Canada; and\n• complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3 The Act and Regulations\nReference should be made to the IRPA and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR)\nfor the full and complete wording of the texts.\nProvision IRPA and IRPR\nA permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security\ngrounds for\nA34(1)\n• engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is\ncontrary to Canada’s interests;\nA34(1)(a)\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 7\n• engaging in or instigating the subv ersion by force of any\ngov ernment;\nA34(1)(b)\n• engaging in an act of subv ersion against a democratic\ngov ernment, institution or process as they are understood in\nCanada;\nA34(1)(b.1)\n• engaging in terrorism; A34(1)(c)\n• being a danger to the security of Canada; A34(1)(d)\n• engaging in acts of v iolence that would or might endanger the\nliv es or safety of persons in Canada; or\nA34(1)(e)\n• being a member of an organization that there are reasonable\ngrounds to believ e engages, has engaged or will engage in acts\nreferred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c).\nA34(1)(f)\nA permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of\nv iolating human or international rights for\nA35(1)\n• committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence\nreferred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and\nWar Crimes Act;\nA35(1)(a)\n• being a prescribed senior official in the serv ice of a gov ernment\nthat, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in\nterrorism, systematic or gross human rights v iolations, or\ngenocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the\nmeaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against\nHumanity and War Crimes Act; or\nA35(1)(b)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "• being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry\ninto or stay in Canada is restricted pursuant to a decision,\nresolution or measure of an international organization of states or\nA35(1)(c)\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 8\nassociation of states, of which Canada is a member, that\nimposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has\nimposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that\norganization or association.\nA permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of\nserious criminality for\nA36(1)\n• hav ing been conv icted in Canada of an offence under an Act of\nParliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at\nleast 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for\nwhich a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been\nimposed;\nA36(1)(a)\n• hav ing been conv icted of an offence outside Canada that, if\ncommitted in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act\nof Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of\nat least 10 years; or\nA36(1)(b)\n• committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place\nwhere it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would\nconstitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a\nmaximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.\nA36(1)(c)\nA permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of\norganized criminality for\nA37(1)\n• being a member of an organization that is believ ed on\nreasonable grounds to be or to hav e been engaged in activ ity\nthat is part of a pattern of criminal activ ity planned and organized\nby a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "commission of an offence punishable under an Act of Parliament\nby way of indictment, or in furtherance of the commission of an\noffence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would\nconstitute such an offence, or engaging in activ ity that is part of\nsuch a pattern; or\nA37(1)(a)\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 9\n• engaging, in the context of transnational crime, in activ ities such\nas people smuggling, trafficking in persons or money laundering.\nA37(1)(b)\nA protected person or a person who is recognized as a Conv ention\nrefugee by another country to which the person may be returned shall not\nbe remov ed from Canada to a country where they would be at risk of\npersecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a\nparticular social group or political opinion or at risk of torture or cruel and\nunusual treatment or punishment.\nA115(1)\nSubsection (1) does not apply in the case of a person\n• who is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality and who\nconstitutes, in the opinion of the Minister, a danger to the public\nin Canada; or\nA115(2)(a)\n• who is inadmissible on grounds of security, v iolating human or\ninternational rights or organized criminality if, in the opinion of the\nMinister, the person should not be allowed to remain in Canada\non the basis of the nature and sev erity of acts committed or of\ndanger to the security of Canada.\nA115(2)(b)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-3-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 3.1", + "marginal_note": "Forms", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3.1 Forms\nThe forms required for requests for danger opinions pursuant to paragraphs A115(2)(a) and (b) are as\nfollows:\nForm title Form number\nDanger Opinion Narrative Report (for paragraph 115(2)(b) and hybrid\ncases only)\nSee Appendix D\nDanger to the Public – Ministerial Opinion Report (for\nparagraph 115(2)(a) cases only)\nIMM 5367B\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 10", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 3.1 (Forms)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4 Instruments and delegations\nPursuant to subsections A6(1) and (2), the Minister of IRCC has delegated persons or a class of persons\nas officers to carry out any purpose of any provision, legislative or regulatory, and has specified the\npowers and duties of the officers so delegated. These delegations may be found in chapter IL 3,\nDesignation of officers and delegation of authority.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-4-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 4.1", + "marginal_note": "Authorities", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.1 Authorities\nThe IRPA authorizes the Minister of IRCC to form an opinion that a person is a danger to the public in\nCanada or to the security of Canada or should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the\nnature and severity of acts committed.\nRefer to chapter IL 3, Designation of officers and delegation of authority, for information on delegated\nauthority to form an opinion, pursuant to paragraph A115(2)(a), that a person is a danger to the public in\nCanada and, pursuant to paragraph A115(2)(b), that a person is a danger to the security of Canada or\nthat a person should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the nature and severity of acts\ncommitted.\nAll requests for danger opinions pursuant to paragraphs A115(2)(a) and (b), as well as complete\ndocumentation, must be sent to the CBSA’s Danger Assessments Section (DAS), which acts as the\ncentralized point of contact, at the following address:\nManager\nDanger Assessments Section\nInland Enforcement Operations and Case Management Division\nCanada Border Services Agency\n191 Laurier Avenue West, 13th floor\nOttawa, ON\nK1A 0L8", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 4.1 (Authorities)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-4-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 4.2", + "marginal_note": "Guidance", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4.2 Guidance\nThe Operational Management and Coordination Branch, IRCC, National Headquarters (NHQ), may be\ncontacted at the following email address for guidance on policy issues regarding opinions on danger to\nthe public in Canada: OMC-GOC-Immigration@cic.gc.ca.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 11\nThe DAS, CBSA, NHQ, may be contacted at the following email address for guidance regarding danger\nto the security of Canada or nature and severity cases under paragraph A115(2)(b) as well as on specific\ncas es regarding danger opinions under paragraph A115(2)(a): CBSA-ASFC_Danger_Assessments-\nEvaluations_De_Danger@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 4.2 (Guidance)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-5-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 5.1", + "marginal_note": "Danger opinion provisions", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.1 Danger opinion provisions\nThe IRPA allows for a danger opinion to be issued in the following situation:\nException to non-refoulement (removal)\nA protected person or a person who is recognized as a Convention refugee by another country to which\nthe person may be returned should not be removed from Canada to a country where they would be at risk\nof persecution, torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, except for a person who is\ninadmissible on grounds of\n• serious criminality and who constitutes, in the opinion of the Minister of IRCC, a danger to the\npublic in Canada [A115(2)(a)]; or\n• security, violating human or international rights or organized criminality if, in the opinion of the\nMinister of IRCC, the person should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the\nnature and severity of acts committed or of danger to the security of Canada [A115(2)(b)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 5.1 (Danger opinion provisions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-5-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 5.2", + "marginal_note": "Removal of Convention refugees or protected persons [A115]", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5.2. Removal of Convention refugees or protected persons [A115]\nUnder the principle of non-refoulement, a protected person or a person who is recognized as a\nConvention refugee by another country to which the person may be returned should not be removed from\nCanada to a country where they would be at risk of\n• persecution for the following reasons:\no race,\no religion,\no nationality,\no membership in a particular social group,\no political opinion;\n• torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 12\nA protected person or a person who is recognized as a Convention refugee by another country to which\nthe person may be returned should not be removed from Canada and returned to their country of alleged\npersecution, except in the following circumstances:\n• it has been determined that the person concerned is described under section A34, section A35,\nsubsection A36(1) or section A37;\n• a removal order was issued;\n• the Minister of IRCC has issued an opinion that the person concerned is a danger to the public in\nCanada [A115(2)(a)], that the person should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of\nthe nature and severity of the acts committed or that the person concerned is a danger to the\nsecurity of Canada [A115(2)(b)].", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 5.2 (Removal of Convention refugees or protected persons [A115])", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6 Definitions\nAct of\nParliament\nLegislative act or statutory law: A bill that has been created or arrived at through\nthe will of the electorate and their elected officials and that has been enacted by\nfederal legislature into law\nConvention\nrefugee\nA person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race,\nreligion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, is\noutside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear,\nunwilling to avail themselves of the protection of each of those countries or, not\nhaving a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual\nresidence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country\nIAD Immigration Appeal Division\nID Immigration Division\nIRB Immigration and Refugee Board\nPerson in\nneed of\nprotection\nA person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality, or, if\nthey do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence\nwould subject them personally to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to\nexist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention against Torture or\nto a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if the\nperson is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themselves of the\nprotection of that country; the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that\ncountry and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country, is not\ninherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 13\ninternational standards, and is not caused by the inability of that country to provide\nadequate health or medical care\nProtected\nperson\nA person on whom refugee protection is conferred and whose claim or application\nhas not subsequently been deemed to be rejected\nRAD Refugee Appeal Division\nRecidivism A tendency to relapse into a habit of criminal activity or behaviour\nRPD Refugee Protection Division", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 6 (Definitions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Identification by a CBSA officer of danger opinion cases", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1 Identification by a CBSA officer of danger opinion cases\nOfficers are responsible for identifying persons who may be recommended for a Minister’s opinion on\ndanger to the public of Canada, on danger to the security of Canada or on the basis of the nature and\nseverity of acts committed. This occurs when a protected person has been found inadmissible under\nsection A34, section A35, subsection A36(1) or section A37 and is the subject of a removal order that is in\nforce. The officer must obtain their manager’s approval before submitting a case to the DAS, CBSA,\nNHQ.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.1 (Identification by a CBSA officer of danger opinion cases)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "When to request the Minister’s opinion", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2 When to request the Minister’s opinion\nAfter removal order [A115(2)(a)]\nThe officer may initiate a request for the Minister’s opinion when\n• a protected person or a person who is recognized as a Convention refugee is found inadmissible\non grounds of serious criminality; and\n• that person constitutes, in the opinion of the officer, a danger to the public in Canada.\nAfter removal order [A115(2)(b)]\nThe officer may initiate a request for the Minister’s opinion when\n• a protected person or a person who is recognized as a Convention refugee is inadmissible on\ngrounds of security, violating human or international rights or organized criminality; and\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 14\n• the person concerned is a person who, in the opinion of the officer, should not be allowed to\nremain in Canada on the basis of the nature and severity of acts committed or of danger to the\nsecurity of Canada.\nOfficers must consult with the DAS of the CBSA for guidance before initiating a request for a danger\nopinion pursuant to paragraph A115(2)(b).\nAfter removal order [A115(2)(a) and (b)]\nIn hybrid cases, the officer should initiate a request for the Minister’s opinion when\n• a protected person or a person who is recognized as a Convention refugee is inadmissible on\ngrounds of security, violating human or international rights, or organized criminality as well as on\ngrounds of serious criminality; and\n• the person concerned is a person who, in the opinion of the officer, constitutes a danger to the\npublic and is a danger to the security of Canada or should not be allowed to remain in Canada on\nthe basis of the nature and severity of acts committed.\nDetained cases\nIn the case of a person who is detained for serious criminality, the officer who initiates a request for the\nMinister’s opinion should do so at least one year prior to the date of the person’s earliest anticipated date\nof release.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.2 (When to request the Minister’s opinion)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "Determinant factors", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3 Determinant factors\nIn determining whether to seek the Minister’s opinion on danger to the public, the officer must examine\nthe seriousness and nature of the offence to ensure that they support the officer’s decision that the\nperson represents an unacceptable risk to the public and is likely to commit offences in the future.\nThe officer must not only consider the conviction and sentence, but also\n• include an analysis of the person’s past and current offences and activities in the\nrecommendation; and\n• indicate that, if the person is considered to be a danger to the public, a request for the Minister’s\nopinion may be initiated.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 15\nIn determining whether to seek the Minister’s opinion on danger to the security of Canada or on the basis\nof the nature and severity of the acts committed, the officer must examine the seriousness and nature of\nthe person’s actions or the actions of the organization of which the person was a member if it is\ndetermined that the person made a contribution to the nefarious activities of the organization.\nIn cases of danger to the security of Canada, the officer will also consider what activities there are\nreasonable grounds to believe the individual may engage in in the future.\nFor all requests pursuant to paragraph A115(2)(b) cases, the officer will submit a request for guidance\nfrom the DAS of the CBSA prior to providing notification to the person concerned that a danger opinion\nwill be sought in their case. Upon receipt of such a request, the DAS will review the information provided\nand complete a pre-assessment to determine if the CBSA should move forward in seeking the Minister’s\nopinion.\nNote: All available and the most up-to-date documentation relevant to the case must be included with the\nrequest for a danger opinion.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.3 (Determinant factors)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Factors", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4 Factors\nCriminal factors\nThe following factors must be considered in the preparation of a danger opinion submission for serious\ncriminality as well as for organized criminality:\n• criminal history and established patterns of violent criminal behaviour or threats of violent\nbehaviour that suggest present and future danger to the public, and evidence to support the\nperson’s pattern of behaviour;\n• convictions for serious offences involving but not limited to violence, weapons, drug trafficking,\nhuman smuggling and trafficking, sexual offences and economic crimes;\n• documents illustrating an escalation of violence or of gravity in the convictions;\n• convictions for actions by the person that caused or might reasonably be expected to have\ncaused death, serious physical or psychological harm or significant property damage;\n• evidence to substantiate the link between the criminal conviction, the likelihood that the person\nwill re-offend and a pattern of increasingly serious criminal activity;\n• police, correctional services or other credible source information indicating that the person\ncontinues to pose a danger to the public;\n• the circumstances of the offence(s) in order to provide insight into the level of risk the person may\npresent to the public;\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 16\n• evidence of rehabilitation on the part of the individual (education or training certificates,\npsychological reports, reports from the parole officer, evidence of employment, etc.);\n• multiple convictions, including serious offences, that could form the basis for a danger opinion;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.4 (Factors) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Factors", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "• a single conviction that may sustain a finding of danger to the public if it is clearly demonstrated\nthat the person poses a present or future risk of danger to the public, as evidenced by the nature\nand circumstances of the offence. The jurisprudence indicates that it is possible to base a danger\nopinion on a single serious conviction when sufficient evidence exists.\nDanger to the security of Canada and the nature and severity of the acts\ncommitted: factors\nThe following are some of the factors that must be considered in the preparation of a danger opinion\nbased on danger to the security of Canada or on the nature and severity of the acts committed:\n• acts committed by the individual or the group, if applicable;\n• activities undertaken by the person in the furtherance of the group’s objectives;\n• the level of involvement of the person in the acts committed by the organization; and\n• the level of threat either direct or indirect that the person presents to the security of Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.4 (Factors) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Procedural fairness", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5 Procedural fairness\nThe decision-making process for a Minister’s opinion must adhere to the principles of procedural fairness.\nThe person concerned must be fully informed of the case and be given a reasonable opportunity to\nrespond to any information the decision maker will use to arrive at a decision. A copy of all\ndocumentation that will be put before the decision maker must be provided to the person concerned.\nExceptionally, information may be used that cannot be disclosed to the person concerned where the\ndisclosure of this information would be injurious to national security or would endanger the safety of any\nperson. In such circumstances, all efforts should be made to provide as much information as possible to\nthe person concerned and to limit the amount of undisclosed information to be considered. Consultation\nwith the DAS, CBSA, is required in such circumstances.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 17", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.5 (Procedural fairness)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Notification letter: intent to seek the Minister’s opinion", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6 Notification letter: intent to seek the Minister’s opinion\nNotification letter\nAs soon as a CBSA manager or supervisor agrees with the officer to seek a Minister’s opinion, the person\nconcerned must be notified by letter. In paragraph A115(2)(b) cases, this happens only after consultation\nwith the DAS at the CBSA, NHQ. The notification letter must be accurate and make reference to the\nappropriate section(s) of the IRPA and should\n• explain the effect of the Minister’s opinion on the person’s ability to remain in Canada;\n• advise the person concerned of the opportunity to make representations or submit any other\nevidence regarding danger, nature and severity of the acts committed, risks upon removal, and\nhumanitarian and compassionate considerations, including written statements from others;\n• confirm that the deadline for the submissions is 15 calendar days from the day that the notice is\nreceived by the person (the 15 days do not include the day on which the letter was issued but do\ninclude the fifteenth day, unless it falls on a holiday or weekend, in which case the deadline is the\nnext working day);\n• include a list and attached copies of some of the material that is expected to form the record that\nmay be forwarded to the Minister’s delegate for making the decision;\n• not include evidence in the danger opinion package that could prejudice a third party, unless the\nsource has authorized disclosure for this purpose (if disclosure has not been authorized, the\ninformation cannot be disclosed to the person concerned);\n• be signed by the CBSA manager or supervisor; and\n• be dated when served or sent to the person concerned.\nSamples of notification letters\n• Appendix A Letter advising the client that the CBSA will seek the Minister’s opinion on the basis", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.6 (Notification letter: intent to seek the Minister’s opinion) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Notification letter: intent to seek the Minister’s opinion", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "of paragraph A115(2)(a)\n• Appendix B Letter advising the client that the CBSA will seek the Minister’s opinion on the basis\nof paragraph A115(2)(b)\n• Appendix C Letter advising the client that the CBSA will seek the Minister’s opinion on the basis\nof paragraphs A115(2)(a) and (b)\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 18\nService of notification letter\nThe notification letter must be served, and an acknowledgment of receipt should be obtained from the\nperson concerned. Service can be either in person or by any mail service that provides acknowledgment\nof receipt (for instance, double registered mail). A copy of the letter should be sent to the person’s\ncounsel, if known.\nIf the person concerned is incarcerated, arrangements must be made for a CBSA officer to serve the\nnotification letter in person and to obtain an acknowledgment of receipt.\nWhen the person concerned does not understand either English or French and requires the services of\nan interpreter at an admissibility hearing, a translation of the notification letter must be provided either\norally or in writing.\nIf the person refuses to sign the acknowledgment of receipt, a note to that effect will be added to the\ndepartmental copy of the notification letter, signed and dated by the serving officer, to establish service.\nNote: When service is by mail but the post office is unable to confirm receipt by the person concerned,\nthe request for a danger opinion cannot proceed. A warrant for the person’s arrest for removal should be\nobtained, and the process of obtaining a danger opinion can recommence when the person is arrested.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.6 (Notification letter: intent to seek the Minister’s opinion) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Danger opinion package", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7 Danger opinion package\nFor paragraph A115(2)(a) and (b) requests, if no extension has been granted at the expiration of the\nperiod for receiving submissions, the CBSA regional office should review all danger opinion material to\ndetermine that the package is complete before forwarding it to the CBSA, NHQ.\nThe officer or manager should not summarize or comment on the documents submitted by the person\nconcerned when completing the documentation.\nThe officer should forward copies of all documentation and submissions to the DAS at the CBSA, NHQ\n(see section 4.1). The following is to be included in the danger opinion package:\n• notice to the person concerned and their counsel, if known;\n• acknowledgement of service to the client;\n• all documentation provided to the person concerned; and\n• submissions made by the person concerned or their counsel, if any.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 19\nIn cases where the person concerned is detained, it is imperative that the regional officer clearly identify\nthis information on the cover letter when referring the case to NHQ and that any future changes in\ndetention status be forwarded without delay.\nIn hybrid cases involving both paragraphs A115(2)(a) and (b), the DAS at the CBSA, NHQ, will coordinate\nthe preparation and disclosure of both assessments with IRCC Case Management so that they can be\ndone simultaneously.\nAfter preparing the assessment of the danger to the security of Canada and/or of the nature and severity,\nthe DAS will contact IRCC Case Management at NHQ for them to prepare the assessment of the risks\nassociated with removal and of humanitarian and compassionate considerations prior to disclosure. Once\nboth assessments have been completed, the DAS will provide the package for disclosure to the regional\noffice concerned. See section 7.12.\nNote: A copy of the danger opinion package should be kept in the responsible originating office file.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.7 (Danger opinion package)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-8-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.8", + "marginal_note": "Documentation", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.8 Documentation\nWhen possible, when third parties are involved, certified copies should be made by the issuing authority\nof the original document. Authority to disclose third-party information should be sought where required.\nCopies of original documentation that must be provided to NHQ within the danger opinion package\ninclude\n• the Danger to the Public – Ministerial Opinion Report form [IMM 5367B] in hybrid and\nparagraph 115(2)(a) cases only;\n• the Danger Opinion Narrative Report form, found in Appendix D, in hybrid and\nparagraph 115(2)(b) cases;\n• a section A44 report highlights form [IMM 5051B or IMM 5084B], which details the person’s\ninadmissibility and personal history (employment, family, community involvement, associations,\netc.) in Canada;\n• the person’s Basis of Claim form (BOC) or Personal Information Form (PIF), if applicable;\n• relevant interview notes;\n• decisions from the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB), including available transcripts, exhibits and\nremoval orders or detention reviews;\n• any permanent residence, citizenship, sponsorship or overseas immigration applications;\n• for each offence, police occurrence or observance reports linking the person to criminal activity or\nknown associates, organizations or accomplices, if releasable;\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 20\n• court decisions, pre-sentence reports or the judge’s sentencing remarks, which should determine\nthat the level of risk is consistent with the officer’s recommendation;\n• probation and parole services and Correctional Service Canada documentation addressing\nrehabilitation issues;\n• Correctional Service Canada reports that include information about the crime;", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.8 (Documentation) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-8-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.8", + "marginal_note": "Documentation", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "• an RCMP Summary of Police Information form [C480], which must be obtained by forwarding the\nperson’s fingerprints to the RCMP (after an RCMP Summary of Police Information form is\nobtained, conviction certificates for each conviction are not required);\n• only credible and reliable evidence underlying criminal charges, and not the charges in and of\nthemselves, which can be used in the absence of a criminal conviction, when they indicate a\npattern of negative behaviour;\n• all evidence, whether it be positive or negative to the person concerned;\n• evidence of rehabilitation; information concerning the person’s behaviour during immigration\nproceedings, criminal proceedings and detention;\n• media reports regarding the person, the organization and the offences committed (keeping in\nmind that while media accounts may not be completely accurate, they are of use in demonstrating\nthe impact of the crimes on the community);\n• any other document on file that could be relevant to assessing the danger the person represents\nto the public or to the security of Canada or the nature and severity of the acts committed.\nThe following documentation should not be included:\n• statements that are speculative in nature;\n• information that cannot be sourced; and\n• information relating to charges under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) that have been\nwithdrawn or stayed. Absolute or conditional discharges must be blocked out (refer to\nsection 7.11 below).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.8 (Documentation) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.9", + "marginal_note": "Urgent consideration", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.9 Urgent consideration\nThe officer must clearly indicate the reasons for urgency on the danger package. NHQ will try to ensure\nthat the request is processed as quickly as possible.\nThe officer must provide the following:\n• justification for the request;\n• the date of release from criminal incarceration, if applicable;\n• where and by whom the person is being detained; and\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 21\n• the date on which the person was released by a member of the Immigration Division, if\napplicable.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.9 (Urgent consideration)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Humanitarian and compassionate considerations", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.10 Humanitarian and compassionate considerations\nAny humanitarian and compassionate considerations submitted by the person concerned or their counsel\nmust be considered by the decision maker in subsection A115(2) cases.\nFurther information on humanitarian and compassionate considerations is available in the program\ndelivery instructions on permanent residents.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.10 (Humanitarian and compassionate considerations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.11", + "marginal_note": "The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA)", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.11 The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA)\nAny material references to a person’s record under the YCJA, such as correctional reports and\nsentencing remarks, may be put before the decision maker when forming a danger opinion in the\nfollowing circumstance:\nParagraph 119(2)(i) and subsection 119(9) of the YCJA allow for crimes committed by a young offender\nto be considered if the individual is convicted as an adult three years after the completion of the YCJA\nsentence for summary convictions and five years after the completion of the YCJA sentence for indictable\noffences.\nFor information that does not make up the individual’s criminal record, such as charges that have been\nwithdrawn or stayed, absolute or conditional discharges under the YCJA and convictions that do not fall\nwithin the three- or five-year exception, the officer preparing the danger opinion submission should\n• make a note to file;\n• legibly sign and date the form to indicate that this information was blocked out in order to remove\nany references to material that is non-releasable; and\n• indicate in the letter attached to the package that the information blocked out cannot be provided\nto the decision maker.\nIn the case of a judicial review, the officer may explain in an affidavit why sections were blocked out in\norder to confirm that the material was not put before the decision maker.\nThe person concerned must be provided with a copy of the package that is presented to the Minister’s\ndelegate, including the sections that have been blocked out.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 22\nNote: If officers consider any evidence pertaining to a record under the YCJA to be relevant, they should\nfollow the appropriate procedures pertaining to procedural fairness for including this information.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.11 (The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.12", + "marginal_note": "Disclosure", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.12 Disclosure\nDisclosure prior to ministerial review\nThe CBSA regional office discloses the assessments of the danger to the public, danger to the security of\nCanada or nature and severity of the acts and the risks and humanitarian and compassionate\nconsiderations received from NHQ to the subject and their counsel for written submissions.\nUpon receipt of the disclosure package, the CBSA regional office must\n• advise the DAS when the package is received by them from NHQ;\n• advise the DAS when the package is disclosed to the subject and counsel;\n• provide the DAS with an electronic copy of the disclosure letter that has been signed by the\nperson concerned acknowledging receipt of the disclosure package or with the refusal to sign or\nacknowledge, if applicable;\n• provide the date by which submissions by the subject must be received (15 days); and\n• advise the DAS when they receive submissions (or fail to receive them).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.12 (Disclosure)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.13", + "marginal_note": "Extension requests for submissions", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.13 Extension requests for submissions\nShould the person or counsel retained by the person request an extension of the 15-day period, the\nCBSA regional office will\n• consider the reasons for the request and consult with the DAS, CBSA, NHQ;\n• grant the extension, if it is allowed, for a short period only;\n• acknowledge the request in writing and include it in the danger opinion package; and\n• advise the appropriate section at NHQ of the granted extension request and of the new date\nsubmissions are due.\nIf the request was made after submissions were due and the danger package has already been provided\nto the Minister for decision, advise the client or their counsel that, even though a late submission cannot\nbe refused, there is no guarantee that the submission will be considered, as it may reach the decision\nmaker after a decision has already been made. The DAS, CBSA, NHQ, must be made aware of such\nrequests and will inform the IRCC decision maker, who must always be made aware of such requests.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 23\nAll submissions must be accepted by the local responsible office and referred to the appropriate section\nat NHQ, regardless of whether an extension was granted.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.13 (Extension requests for submissions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.14", + "marginal_note": "Following receipt of submissions", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.14 Following receipt of submissions\nUpon receipt of a submission, the CBSA regional office will forward the following documentation to the\nDAS, CBSA:\n• any submissions made by the subject or their counsel (depending on the size of the material, this\ncan be done electronically or via mail);\n• a copy of the signed disclosure letter sent to the client; and\n• any additional evidence being introduced by the local responsible office that has been disclosed\nto the client.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.14 (Following receipt of submissions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.15", + "marginal_note": "After the Minister’s delegate’s danger opinion decision", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.15 After the Minister’s delegate’s danger opinion decision\nAfter the Minister’s delegate issues an opinion under paragraphs A115(2)(a) and/or (b), a copy of the\ndecision will be sent by IRCC’s Case Management Branch, NHQ, to the DAS, CBSA, NHQ, who will then\nforward the decision to the originating CBSA office for further action.\nThe manager of the originating CBSA office is responsible for notifying the person concerned\nimmediately, in writing, of the decision. Notice should also be provided to the person’s counsel when one\nis on file.\nIf the person is to be removed, the process will require coordination with the local Removals Screening\nUnit.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.15 (After the Minister’s delegate’s danger opinion decision)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-16-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.16", + "marginal_note": "Reconsideration of danger opinion", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.16 Reconsideration of danger opinion\nNote 1: Requests for reconsideration will not stay the processing of a case, including removal. The\nremovals officer is responsible for deciding whether a deferral of removal is appropriate in each case.\nNote 2: Where the subject of a danger opinion pursuant to section A115(2)(a) has obtained a record\nsuspension for the underlying serious criminality conviction(s), please request advice from the CBSA\nDanger Assessments Section (DAS) (CBSA-ASFC_Danger_Assessments-\nEvaluations_De_Danger@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca), who will consult with the IRCC Case Management Branch.\nUpon receipt of a request for reconsideration of a danger opinion, the local CBSA office will forward the\nrequest to the CBSA DAS. A decision maker at the IRCC Case Management Branch will then be\nassigned to make a decision on the request.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 24\nA decision maker will review the request and determine whether to reopen the original danger decision\nbased on whether the request (along with any accompanying submissions) demonstrates one of the\nfollowing:\no New evidence has been submitted that meets all of the following crite ria:\na) Reliable: Is the evidence reliable, considering its source and the circumstances\nin which it came into existence?\nb) Relevance: Is the evidence relevant to the decision type, in the sense that it is\ncapable of proving or disproving a fact that is relevant to the proceeding?\nc) Materiality: Is the evidence material, in the sense that the decision maker may\nhave come to a different conclusion if it had been known?\nd) Newness: Is the evidence new in the sense that it is capable of", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.16 (Reconsideration of danger opinion) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-16-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.16", + "marginal_note": "Reconsideration of danger opinion", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "i. proving the current state of affairs in the country of removal;\nii. proving a fact that was unknown at the time of the original decision;\niii. contradicting a finding of fact made by the original decision maker?\no A principle of natural justice was violated by the original decision maker.\nReopening and reconsidering\nWhere the decision maker decides that a reopening of the original danger opinion is required based on either\nor both of the 2 above assessments, it becomes as though the initial decision was never finalized, and a\nnew decision must therefore be made. This second decision is termed the reconsideration decision.\nBefore the new decision is rendered, the subject of the danger opinion and/or their counsel should be\ninformed of the decision to reconsider, and a further opportunity for submissions should be provided.\nRefusal to reopen and reconsider\nAlternatively, after reviewing the request to reconsider and any new submissions made in support of the\nrequest, the decision maker may deny the request. The decision maker must explain the reasons for\nrefusing to reopen the original decision with regard to the applicant’s submissions and the policy\nguidelines. This may be done in letter format.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.16 (Reconsideration of danger opinion) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.17 Info-alert\nThe Immigration Cases Division, Case Management Branch will enter an info-alert in the Global Case\nManagement System (GCMS) regarding the decision of the Minister’s delegate concerning a request for\na danger opinion or a request for reconsideration.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 25\nAppendix A Letter advising the client that the CBSA will seek\nthe Minister’s opinion on the basis of paragraph A115(2)(a)\nSubject: Notice of intention to seek the opinion of the Minister, pursuant to paragraph 115(2)(a) of the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act, that you are a danger to the public in Canada\n[Person’s name]:\nYou are hereby advised that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) possesses information\nsuggesting you are a person in Canada who is a danger to the public. The CBSA intends to request an\nopinion, pursuant to paragraph 115(2)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), from the\nMinister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), which, if given, will have serious\nconsequences for you.\nIf the Minister is of the opinion that you are a danger to the public in Canada, you may be removed from\nCanada to [list the country or countries here].\nAn assessment will be made of the threat that you pose to the public in Canada. In addition, an\nassessment will be made of the possibility of risk you may face should you be removed from Canada to\nthe country from which you have been determined to be a protected person, the country from which you\ncame to Canada, the country of your permanent residence, the country of your nationality or the country", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 1 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "of your birth as well as of any humanitarian and compassionate considerations. These assessments will\nbe disclosed to you before they are presented to the Minister for decision. The following is a list of some\nof the materials that will be presented to the Minister for consideration, copies of which are included with\nthis letter:\n• [List all pertinent documentary evidence that will be forwarded to the Case Management Branch,\nIRCC, NHQ]\nThe Minister may refer to your refugee claim material, where applicable, and to the most recent and\ncurrent country information available at the Immigration and Refugee Board Documentation Centre. This\ninformation may include the Human Rights Package, the Contextual Package, the Indexed Media Review\nand the Week ly Media Review, which cover the country or countries to which you may be removed. The\nMinister may also use other annually published and publicly available material.\nYou may make any written representations or arguments that you deem necessary and submit any\ndocumentary evidence that you believe to be relevant. All representations, arguments or evidence—\nwhich should address whether you are a danger to the public, the risks you may face if removed from\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 26\nCanada and any humanitarian and compassionate factors—that are to be considered by the Minister\nmust be received by the CBSA at the address noted above on or before the expiration of 15 days from\nthe date you receive this letter. All material must be submitted in either of Canada’s official languages.\nPrior to being presented to the Minister’s delegate for decision, you and/or your counsel will be provided", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 2 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "with the assessment of the danger you may pose to the public, the risks you may face upon removal, and\nhumanitarian and compassionate factors in your case as well as all supporting documentation considered\nin the assessment that has not already been disclosed to you or your counsel. Following receipt of this\ninformation, you will be invited to make further written submissions within a certain time frame. Your\nsubmissions, along with the documents disclosed to you, will be presented to the Minister’s delegate for\ndecision.\nOnce a determination is rendered, pursuant to paragraph 115(2)(a) of the IRPA, you will be informed in\nwriting of the decision of the Minister.\nYours truly,\n[Name of manager or supervisor], CBSA\nEncl.: ___________________________________\nReceipt acknowledged ______________\n[Date]\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 27\nAppendix B Letter advising the client that the CBSA will seek\nthe Minister’s opinion on the basis of paragraph A115(2)(b)\nSubject: Notice of intention to seek the opinion of the Minister pursuant to paragraph 115(2)(b) of the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act\n[Person’s name]:\nYou are hereby advised that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) possesses information\nsuggesting you are a person who should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the nature\nand severity of acts committed or the danger to the security of Canada. The CBSA intends to request an\nopinion, pursuant to paragraph 115(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), from the\nMinister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), which, if given, will have serious\nconsequences for you.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 3 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "If the Minister is of the opinion that you are a person who should not be allowed to remain in Canada on\nthe basis of the nature and severity of acts committed or of the danger to the security of Canada, you may\nbe removed from Canada to [list the country or countries here].\nAn assessment of the nature and severity of acts committed or of the danger to the security of Canada\nwill be made by the CBSA. In addition, an assessment will be made by IRCC of the possibility of risk you\nmay face should you be removed from Canada to the country from which you have been determined to\nbe a protected person, the country from which you came to Canada, the country of your permanent\nresidence, the country of your nationality or the country of your birth as well as of any humanitarian and\ncompassionate considerations. These assessments will be disclosed to you before they are presented to\nthe Minister for decision.\nThe following is a list of some of the materials that will be presented to the Minister for consideration,\ncopies of which are included with this letter:\n• [List all documentary evidence pertinent to danger considerations that will be forwarded to the\nCase Management Branch, IRCC, NHQ]\nThe Minister may refer to your refugee claim material, where applicable, and to the most recent and\ncurrent country information available at the Immigration and Refugee Board Documentation Centre. This\ninformation may include the Human Rights Package, the Contextual Package, the Indexed Media Review\nand the Week ly Media Review, which cover the country or countries to which you may be removed. The\nMinister may also use other annually published and publicly available material.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 4 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "danger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 28\nYou may make any written representations or arguments that you deem necessary and submit any\ndocumentary evidence that you believe to be relevant. All representations, arguments or evidence—\nwhich should address whether you are a person who should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the\nbasis of the nature and severity of acts committed or the danger to the security of Canada, the risks you\nmay face if removed from Canada and any humanitarian and compassionate factors—that are to be\nconsidered by the Minister must be received by the CBSA at the address noted above on or before the\nexpiration of 15 days from the date you receive this letter. All material must be submitted in either of\nCanada’s official languages.\nPrior to being presented to the Minister’s delegate for decision, you and/or your counsel will be provided\nwith the assessment of the danger it is believed you pose to the security of Canada, the nature and\nseverity of the acts committed, the risks you may face upon removal and humanitarian and\ncompassionate factors in your case as well as all supporting documentation considered in the\nassessment that has not already been disclosed to you or your counsel. Following receipt of this\ninformation, you will be invited to make further written submissions within a certain time frame. Your\nsubmissions, along with the documents disclosed to you, will be presented to the Minister’s delegate for\ndecision.\nOnce a determination is rendered pursuant to paragraph 115(2)(b) of the IRPA, you will be informed in\nwriting of the decision of the Minister.\nYours truly,\n[Name of manager or supervisor], CBSA\nEncl.: ___________________________________\nReceipt acknowledged ______________\n[Date]", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 5 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 29\nAppendix C Letter advising the client that the CBSA will seek\nthe Minister’s opinion on the basis of paragraphs A115(2)(a) and\n(b)\nSubject: Notice of intention to seek the opinion of the Minister pursuant to paragraphs 115(2)(a) and (b) of\nthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act\n[Person’s name]:\nYou are hereby advised that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) possesses information\nsuggesting you are a person in Canada who should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of\nthe nature and severity of acts committed, the danger to the security of Canada or the danger to the\npublic. The CBSA intends to request an opinion, pursuant to paragraphs 115(2)(a) and (b) of the\nImmigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and\nCitizenship Canada (IRCC), which, if given, will have serious consequences for you.\nIf the Minister is of the opinion that you are a person who should not be allowed to remain in Canada on\nthe basis of the nature and severity of acts committed, the danger to the security of Canada or the danger\nto the public, you may be removed from Canada to [list the country or countries here].\nAn assessment of the nature and severity of acts committed or the danger to the security of Canada will\nbe prepared by the CBSA. An assessment of the danger to the public, the possibility of risk you may face\nshould you be removed from Canada to the country from which you have been determined to be a\nprotected person, the country from which you came to Canada, the country of your permanent residence,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 6 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "the country of your nationality or the country of your birth as well as of any humanitarian and\ncompassionate considerations will be prepared by IRCC. These assessments will be disclosed to you\nbefore they are presented to the Minister for decision. The following is a list of some of the materials that\nwill be presented to the Minister for consideration, copies of which are included with this letter:\n• [List all documentary evidence pertinent to danger considerations that will be forwarded to the\nCase Management Branch, IRCC, NHQ]\nThe Minister may refer to your refugee claim material, where applicable, and to the most recent and\ncurrent country information available at the Immigration and Refugee Board Documentation Centre. This\ninformation may include the Human Rights Package, the Contextual Package, the Indexed Media Review\nand the Week ly Media Review, which cover the country or countries to which you may be removed. The\nMinister may also use other annually published and publicly available material.\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 30\nYou may make any written representations or arguments that you deem necessary and submit any\ndocumentary evidence that you believe to be relevant. All representations, arguments or evidence—\nwhich should address whether you are a person who should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the\nbasis of the nature and severity of acts committed, the danger to the security of Canada or the danger to\nthe public and the risks you may face if removed from Canada, and any humanitarian and compassionate\nfactors—that are to be considered by the Minister must be received by the CBSA at the address noted", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 7 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "above on or before the expiration of 15 days from the date you received this letter. All material must be\nsubmitted in either of Canada’s official languages.\nPrior to being presented to the Minister’s delegate for decision, you and/or your counsel will be provided\nwith the assessment of the danger it is believed you pose to the security of Canada and the nature and\nseverity of the acts committed as well as the assessment of the danger you may pose to the public, the\nrisks you may face upon removal and humanitarian and compassionate factors in your case as well as all\nsupporting documentation considered in the assessments that has not already been disclosed to you or\nyour counsel. Following receipt of this information, you will be invited to make further written submissions\nwithin a certain time frame. Your submissions, along with the documents disclosed to you, will be\npresented to the Minister’s delegate for decision.\nOnce a determination is rendered, pursuant to paragraphs 115(2)(a) and (b) of the IRPA, you will be\ninformed in writing of the decision of the Minister.\nYours truly,\n[Name of manager or supervisor], CBSA\nEncl.: ___________________________________\nReceipt acknowledged ______________\n[Date]\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 31\nAppendix D Danger Opinion Narrative Report form for use in\nparagraph A115(2)(b) cases and hybrid cases involving\nparagraphs A115(2)(a) and (b)\nDANGER OPINION NARRATIVE REPORT\nTo:\nFrom:\nDate:\nFile #:\nUCI/FOSS ID #:\nFPS #:\nInadmissibility findings:\nDanger opinion sought pursuant to\n115(2)(a)\n115(2)(b) [danger guidance request]\n115(2)(a) and (b) [danger guidance request]\nDETENTION STATUS\nNot detained\nDe tained Detained since:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 8 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "IRPA Next detention review:\nCriminal *fill out section 9\nSECTION 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION\nSurname:\nGiven names: Date of birth:\nAlias(es) or former name(s):\nPlace of birth:\nCitizenship:\nDate of arrival in Canada:\nDate of CR status:\nDate of PR status:\nMarital status:\nNumber of children:\nSECTION 2A RELATIVES IN CANADA\nList all relatives including spouse, common law spouse, children, parents, siblings, etc.\nName Relationship\n1.\n2.\n…\n1.\n2.\n…\nSECTION 2B RELATIVES OUTSIDE OF CANADA\nList relatives including spouse, common law spouse, children, parents, siblings, etc.\nName Relationship\n1.\n2.\n…\n1.\n2.\n…\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 32\nSECTION 3 CRIMINAL HISTORY\nList all offences, disposition and sentence\nDate Charges\nDisposition (withdrawn,\nconvicted, not guilty,\netc.)\nSentence\n1.\n2.\n…\n1.\n2.\n…\n1.\n2.\n…\n1.\n2.\n…\nSECTION 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF INADMISSIBILITY\nList all occurrences with police, role and activities on behalf of the organization, etc.\nSECTION 5 DEGREE OF ESTABLISHMENT\nProvide a brief description of subject’s current and past employment and/or studies, of the assets and liabilities, the\nlevel of education, any trade/skills training, official languages ability, recent or past receipt of social\nassistance/unemployment insurance, of residence, of community involvement/ties, etc.\nSECTION 6 HUMANITARIAN, COMPASSIONATE AND RISK CONSIDERATIONS\nProvide any information on spouse, children, parents, siblings, etc. and the relationship w ith the subject including\nanyone dependent on the subject for financial or emotional support. Is the subject part of a nuclear family relationship?", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 9 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "If there is a child, does the subject play a strong parental role? Is there any indication of drug/alcohol abuse or\ndependence? What hardship, if any, w ould the subject experience if removed to his/her home country? If removed,\nw hat hardship, if any, w ould anyone in Canada experience as a result of the removal? Has the subject been issued a\nw arning letter in the past? If an interview was not conducted, w hat attempts were made to contact the subject?\nSECTION 7 POTENTIAL FOR REHABILITATION\nProvide any information as to w hether the subject has admitted their guilt or participation in the activities during the\ninterview , the testimony or by a guilty plea at trial. Is there an appeal of the conviction or sentence? Is the subject still\nin contact w ith any co-accused or members of the organization? Has the subject attempted to improve their life (i.e.,\nentering a rehabilitation program, upgrading skills/education)? Does the subject have stable/supportive family\nmembers or others w ho are w illing and able to assist in the rehabilitation efforts? Is the subject w orking or is there an\noffer of employment upon release? Has the subject reintegrated or made a plan to reintegrate into the community?\nHas the subject expressed remorse for their actions? Has the subject indicated a desire or need to rehabilitate? Does\nthe offence or do activities seem isolated? Are there outstanding charges? What w as the subject’s attitude or level of\nco-operation w hile detained or at the interview ? Etc.\nSECTION 8 RECOMMENDATION AND DANGER RATIONALE\nProvide information on w hether the offence/activities involved violence. Were there any criminal proceedings or\nconvictions? If so, w hat w as the sentence? Is there a pattern of criminal behaviour and if so, is it escalating? What", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 10 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "w as the impact of the activities on the victim(s), public and society? Has the subject expressed remorse or\nrenounced their activities? Is the subject still involved w ith the organization or its members? What is the likelihood\nof the subject becoming a contributing and law abiding member of society? Are there any removal impediments?\nEtc .\nENF 28 Ministerial opinions on danger to the public, nature and severity of the acts committed and\ndanger to the security of Canada\n2017-11-21 33\nSECTION 9 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INFORMATION\nCase management officer and phone\nnumber: Place of detention:\nFPS number: Day parole eligibility date:\nFull parole eligibility date:\nStatutory release date: Warrant expiry date:\nSECTION 10 LIST OF ATTACHM ENTS\nPlease provide any and all document pertinent to assessing risks, danger to the public, danger to the security of\nCanada and/or nature and severity of the acts committed, such as the PIF, POE notes, CBSA/IRCC interview notes,\nA44 reports, any IRB decisions, transcripts, court decisions, police/correctional services/parole board reports,\nintelligence reports, etc.\nInformation\nPersonal Information Form (PIF) / Basis of Claim form (BOC)\nRefugee Protection Division (RPD) / Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD)\ndecision(s)\nA44 report(s)\nDeportation order(s)\nImmigration Division (ID) – Inadmissibility decision(s)\nImmigration Division (ID) – Inadmissibility transcript (if on file)\nImmigration Division (ID) – Detention review decision(s)\nCourt decision(s)\nInterview notes (specify date and organization responsible):\nList all other documents being provided:\nSECTION 11 PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS\nPlease list any public policy considerations.\nSECTION 12 LITIGATION\nPlease list any ongoing litigation for the subject.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 11 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-28-7-17-p12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-28", + "act_short": "ENF 28", + "act_name": "ENF 28 — Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "section": "ENF 28 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Info-alert", + "part": "Ministerial opinions on danger to the public", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Name of reporting officer: Signature \nDate:\n**THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR CBSA PURPOSES ONLY.\nTO REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO SHARE THIS DOCUMENT, PLEASE\nCONTACT THE MANAGER OF THE CBSA DANGER ASSESSMENTS SECTION.**", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2017-11-21", + "current_to": "2017-11-21", + "citation": "ENF 28, s. 7.17 (Info-alert) (part 12 of 12)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf28-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. What this chapter is about\nThis chapter provides functional direction and guidance to Canada Border Services Agency\n(CBSA) officers, managers and others with regard to the alternative means of examination (AME)\nprograms. These programs were previously referred to as alternate inspection systems (AIS).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 1 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Program objectives", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Program objectives\nAdvanced screening programs and procedures are tools that enhance the orderly flow of low-risk\ntravellers seeking entry into Canada and the United States depending on the AME program. Pre-\nscreening programs such as CANPASS, NEXUS, Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and\nCommercial Driver Registration Program (CDRP) are available to pre-approved citizens and\npermanent residents of Canada or the U.S. Such programs are designed to expedite the entry of\nauthorized persons without having to proceed through the traditional customs and immigration\nexamination process.\nNEXUS programs and FAST stem from the Canada-United States of America Accord on Our\nShared Border (SBA) and are some of the initiatives of the Smart Border Declaration's (SBD) 32-\nPoint Plan. More information about the SBD can be found at the following link:\nhttp://www.dfait.gc.ca/can-am/menu-en.asp?mid=1&cat=10\nThe CANPASS programs are initiatives under the Customs Action Plan (CAP) that are based on\na risk-assessment system that allow customs and immigration to streamline the processing of\nlow-risk travellers and focus resources on higher or unknown risks. More information about the\nCAP can be found at the following link:\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/general/blue_print/menu-e.html", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 2 (Program objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "The Act and Regulations", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. The Act and Regulations\nFor more information about: Refer to: Notes:\nAlternative means of examination R38(a), R38(b), R3 8(g), R38(h) Previously referred to as alternate\ninspection systems (AIS)\nAuthorization to present himself or\nherself in an alternative manner\nSubsection 11.1(1) of the\nCustoms Act\nExamination by officer where\nperson makes an application\nA15(1), R28(a)\nReport on inadmissibility A44(1)\nResidency obligation A28\nExamination by officer A18(1)\nSeizure A140(1) Authority to seize or hold an AME\nmembership card or document\nWhere an application is made in\nwriting\nR28(a) For the purpose of A15(1)\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 3\nA18(1) states:\n18(1) Every person seeking to enter Canada must appear for an examination to\ndetermine whether that person has a right to enter Canada or is or may become\nauthorized to enter and remain in Canada.\nThis requirement is satisfied once the person has been risk assessed by officers of the CBSA\nImmigration Processing Centre (CBSA IPC) and/or the Enrolment Centre (EC). A15(1)\nauthorizes an officer to proceed with an examination where a person makes an application to the\nofficer.\nR28(a) stipulates that a person makes an application in accordance with the Act by submitting an\napplication in writing. R38 provides the legislative authority for an officer to allow a person to be\nexamined by the means indicated as alternative to appearing for an examination by an officer at a\nport of entry (POE) unless otherwise directed.\nThe CBSA customs officers are responsible for rendering decisions on the eligibility of all\napplicants to AME programs. Specifically, subsection 11.1(1) of the Customs Act states that any\nperson may be issued an authorization to present himself or herself in an alternative manner.\nCBSA immigration officers are responsible for determining the admissibility of persons applying\nfor AME programs who are foreign nationals and permanent residents of Canada. Sections A34\nto A42 set the grounds that could make such persons inadmissible to Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 3 (The Act and Regulations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Instruments and delegations", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Instruments and delegations\nThe CBSA’s immigration officers’ role is to ensure that persons applying to participate in an AME\nprogram meet the requirements of the program as they pertain to admissibility to Canada. Such\nprograms are contemplated by A18(1) and R38. The full authority to conduct examinations of\npersons seeking to enter Canada, including those conducted pursuant to section R38, is given to\na range of officials, including POE officers.\nFor more information on the Delegation of Authority and Designation of Officers document, see\nchapter IL 3 at\nhttp://www.ci.gc.ca/Manuals/immigration/il/il3/index_e.asp", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 4 (Instruments and delegations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "Departmental policy", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. Departmental policy\nR38 stipulates that for the purposes of A18(1), a person may be examined by the means\nindicated as alternative to appearing for an examination by an officer at a POE when they have\npreviously been examined and hold an authorization issued under subsection 11.1(1) of the\nCustoms Act.\nThe Presentation of Persons (2003) Regulations under the Customs Act prescribe the classes of\npersons who may be authorized to present themselves in an alternative manner and the\nrequirements and conditions that are to be met before an authorization may be issued.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 5 (Departmental policy)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6. Definitions\nAcronym/Initialism Definition\nAIS Alternate Inspection Systems\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 4\nAME Alternative Means of Examination\nCAP Customs Action Plan\nCBSA Canada Border Services Agency\nCBSA PC Canada Border Serv ices Agency Processing\nCentre (previously referred to as Customs\nProcessing Centre-CPC)\nCBSA IPC Canada Border Serv ices Agency Immigration\nProcessing Centre (previously referred to as\nImmigration Processing Centre-IPC)\nCDRP Commercial Driver Registration Program\nCPIC Canadian Police Information Centre\nFAST Free and Secure Trade\nEC Enrolment Centre\nGEC Global Enrolment Component\nICS Integrated Customs System\nICES Integrated Customs Enforcement System\nIPBM Immigration Ports and Border Management\nDirectorate, Border and Compliance Programs\nDirectorate, Admissibility Branch (CBSA)\nIPIL Integrated Primary Inspection Line\nNCB A FOSS Non-Computer-Based Entry\nNCIC National Crime Information Center (U.S.)\nPIL Primary Inspection Line\nPIRS Police Information Retrieval System\nPOE Port of Entry\nRABC Remote Area Bo rder Crossing—CANPASS\nSBA Shared Border Accord\nSBD Shared Border Declaration\nU.S. CBP United States Customs and Border Protection", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 6 (Definitions)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-6-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview of programs", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6.1. Overview of programs\nCANPASS Private Aircraft\nThe CANPASS Private Aircraft program makes clearing customs and immigration easier for low-\nrisk private aircraft owners and their passengers travelling to Canada from the U.S. Persons who\nfly directly from the U.S. to Canada and land at small airports benefit from this initiative. The\nprogram is open to citizens and permanent residents of the U.S. or Canada.\nFor more information, see\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/canpass/privateair-e.html\nCANPASS Corporate Aircraft\nThe CANPASS Corporate Aircraft program makes clearing customs and immigration easier for\nbusiness travellers, who are citizens or permanent residents of the U.S or Canada, flying to\nCanada from the U.S. on a corporate aircraft. The program is geared towards companies that\nown or operate a corporate aircraft that fly frequently to Canada directly from the U.S. This\nprogram allows access to more airports and provides expedited clearances for low-risk, pre-\nscreened travellers. The corporation can register employees and other individuals who are\nintegral to its business operations. CANPASS corporate flights can land at any airport of entry or\nCANPASS-only airports in Canada at any time during the facility’s hours of operation.\nFor more information, see\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 5\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/canpass/corporateair-e.html\nCANPASS Private Boats\nThe CANPASS Private Boats program streamlines the customs and immigration clearance of\nlow-risk boaters. The program combines a telephone reporting system with a pre-approval permit\nfor recreational boaters.The CANPASS Private Boats permit allows boaters, who have enrolled", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 6.1 (Overview of programs) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-6-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview of programs", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "and been security cleared, the option of calling before they arrive in order to receive clearance to\nenter Canada. Travellers may declare goods by telephone and pay any applicable duties and\ntaxes by credit card. For cash payments, travellers must report to the nearest CBSA cashier. The\nprogram is open to citizens and permanent residents of the U.S. or Canada.\nFor more information, see\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/canpass/canpassprivateboat-e.html\nCANPASS Air\nThe CANPASS Air program is an initiative of the CBSA which facilitates efficient and secure entry\ninto Canada for pre-approved, low-risk air travellers at major international Canadian airports. The\nprogram is open to citizens and permanent residents of the U.S. or Canada who have\ncontinuously resided in Canada or the U.S., or a combination of both countries, for the last three\nconsecutive years. CANPASS Air allows pre-approved travellers to clear customs and\nimmigration by simply looking into a camera that recognizes the iris of their eye as proof of\nidentity. The program permits enforcement activities to be targeted elsewhere.\nFor more information, see\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/canpass/canpassair-e.html\nCANPASS Remote Area Border Crossing\nThe CANPASS Remote Area Border Crossing (RABC) permit is an initiative that allows the\nbearer of a permit to cross the border into Canada at certain remote areas without reporting to a\nPOE, as long as imported goods are declared. Citizens and permanent residents of the U.S. or\nCanada may apply for this permit.\nThe permit is valid for the following locations:\n• from Pigeon River through to and including Lake of the Woods;\n• the Canadian shore of Lake Superior; and\n• Cockburn Island\nFor more information, see\nhttp://www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/rabc.html", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 6.1 (Overview of programs) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-6-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview of programs", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Commercial Driver Registration Program (CDRP)\nIn order to transport goods under the Customs Self Assessment (CSA) option, commercial\ncarriers and drivers must be registered and able to demonstrate a high level of compliance with\nthe laws and regulations administered by the CBSA. CDRP involves a rigorous pre-screening and\napproval process for participants’ registration.\nCitizens and permanent residents of Canada or the U.S. may apply to register with the CDRP.\nProspective CDRP participants are required to provide proof of citizenship or legal permanent\nresidence, a copy of their driver's licence and other detailed personal information. A thorough\nscreening process is conducted using customs, immigration and police databases to determine if\nthe eligibility criteria are met.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 6\nFor more information, see\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/import/programs-e.html\nFree and Secure Trade (FAST)\nThe CBSA and the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Customs and Border\nProtection (U.S. CBP) are working together to end threats to public security and safety, while\nkeeping the border open to the free flow of low-risk, legitimate trade. For that reason, Canada and\nthe U.S. have agreed to align, to the maximum extent possible, the customs commercial\nprograms along the border. This agreement marks the creation of FAST, which is the result of a\nshared objective to enhance safety and security while enhancing the economic prosperity of both\ncountries. The program is open to citizens and permanent residents of the U.S. or Canada.\nFor more information, see\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/import/fast/menu-e.html\nNEXUS Highway\nNEXUS Highway was implemented jointly by the CBSA and U.S. CBP. This program is designed", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 6.1 (Overview of programs) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-6-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview of programs", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "to simplify and expedite land border crossings for pre-approved, low-risk travellers. The program\nis open to citizens and permanent residents of the U.S. or Canada who have continuously resided\nin Canada or the U.S, or a combination of these two countries, for the last three consecutive\nyears.\nNEXUS is harmonized and bi-national, which means that participants will complete only one\nmembership application allowing entry to both Canada and the U.S.\nMembers of the NEXUS Highway program can:\n• use dedicated NEXUS lanes in Canada and the U.S. (where available);\n• benefit from simplified and expedited border cr ossing and entry into Canada and the U.S. as\nthey are not subject to traditional customs and immigration questioning.\nNEXUS members may be subject to an examination at any time.\nFor more information, see\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/nexus/menu-e.html\nNEXUS Air\nIn 2002, Canada and the U.S. announced the creation of a bi-national working group to design\nand implement a NEXUS Air Pilot Project for air travellers. The project was implemented in\nNovember 2004 and is available at the Vancouver International Airport for the duration of the pilot.\nThe CBSA and U.S. CBP have designed NEXUS Air to facilitate passage into Canada and the\nU.S. for pre-approved, low-risk, frequent air travellers. The pilot project uses automated kiosks\nwith iris-recognition biometric technology and is open to citizens and permanent residents of the\nU.S. or Canada who have continuously resided in Canada or the U.S., or a combination of both\ncountries, for the last three consecutive years. Members of NEXUS Air will enter Canada or the\nU.S. without further interaction with customs or immigration officials, unless selected randomly for", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 6.1 (Overview of programs) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-6-1-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 6.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview of programs", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "inspection. NEXUS Air is a bi-national initiative that builds upon the technological innovations of\nCANPASS Air.\nFor more information, see\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/nexus/menu-e.html\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 7\nNEXUS Marine\nThe NEXUS Marine Detroit River Pilot Project serves those persons who often travel between\nCanada and the U.S. using private pleasure boats and is implemented in the Windsor/ Detroit\narea only. The project allows boaters, who have enrolled and been security cleared, the option of\ncalling before they arrive in order to receive clearance to enter Canada and the U.S. Since\nNEXUS Marine is being offered as an extension to the NEXUS Highway program, applicants\nneed only complete one application to be considered for both programs. The pilot project is open\nto citizens and permanent residents of the U.S. or Canada who have continuously resided in\nCanada or the U.S., or a combination of both, for the last three consecutive years.\nNEXUS Marine Pilot Project will be in operation during the 2005 boating season.\nFor more information, see\nhttp://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/nexus/menu-e.html", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 6.1 (Overview of programs) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.1. Overview\nThe CBSA Immigration Processing Centre forms an integral part of the risk assessment process.\nEvery person who applies to a national AME program must be approved by the CBSA Processing\nCentre (Customs) and the CBSA IPC (Immigration). Persons who apply to a bi-national AME\nmust be approved by the CBSA and U.S. CBP. The CBSA IPCs provide security screening of\nAME applicants by completing detailed checks and reviews of various law enforcement\ndatabases. The three CBSA IPCs that operate in Canada are located in Douglas (British\nColumbia), Niagara Falls (Ontario) and Montréal (Québec).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.1 (Overview)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.2", + "marginal_note": "Risk assessment", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.2. Risk assessment\nWhile it is the CBSA immigration officer’s role to ensure that applicants who are foreign nationals\nor permanent residents are admissible to Canada, it is necessary for officers to understand the\ndifferent eligibility criteria of each program in order to make the proper recommendation to the\nCBSA PC. Officers working at the CBSA IPC are responsible for performing the following\nfunctions:\n• Determine admissibility into Canada for non-Canadian citizen applicants;\n• Evaluate and equate criminal offences for appl icants or participants that are not Canadian\ncitizens;\n• Review any immigration violations associated wi th the applicant or participant as found in the\nFOSS records;\n• Provide the CBSA PC with recommendations ba sed on program eligibility criteria when an\nimmigration violation has been associated to an application or other eligibility issues that\nhave come to the attention of the CBSA IPC.\nFor specific program requirements relating to immigration violations, please refer to the\nappropriate AME program located in Appendix A, entitled “Immigration Violations.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.2 (Risk assessment)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.3", + "marginal_note": "FOSS", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.3. FOSS\nCBSA IPC officers will conduct a complete FOSS check of all applicants, including Canadian\ncitizens and permanent residents. The purpose of conducting a FOSS check on all applicants is\nto assist in determining whether the applicant is admissible to Canada and/or to determine if they\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 8\nhave ever had any immigration violations. This includes the review of all FOSS records in the\nform of reports, orders, lookouts and all non-computer-based entries. A complete FOSS check\nmust include a review of the remarks from the history of permanent residents in order to\ndetermine whether any previous criminal convictions or immigration violations exist.\nIn certain circumstances CBSA IPC officers will find evidence that a permanent resident may not\nhave met their residency obligation pursuant to A28. In such circumstances, officers are advised\nto follow the procedures outlined in section 7.5 below entitled “Residency obligation.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.3 (FOSS)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.4", + "marginal_note": "Permanent residents", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.4. Permanent residents\nWhile permanent residents retain the right to enter Canada under the Act, their acceptance into\nan AME program may be affected by various factors including previous immigration legislation\nviolations or criminality. This is especially important for those programs that will not accept\napplicants who have been convicted of an offence or have been found in violation of immigration\nlaw. For example, NEXUS programs have a zero-tolerance policy.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.4 (Permanent residents)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Residency obligation", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.5. Residency obligation\nAs a permanent resident is required under section A28 to reside in Canada for 730 days in a five-\nyear period, unless otherwise exempted under that section, it may become evident during the\nprocessing of their AME application that they have not met their residency obligation. Should an\nofficer of the CBSA IPC encounter such a situation, it will be necessary to conduct further\nexamination of the applicant’s residency history prior to approval of their AME application.\nIn the interim, the CBSA IPC officer should contact the applicant by letter and keep the\napplicant’s file “pending” for a maximum of 90 days. See Appendix B entitled “Letter requesting\nadditional information to determine admissibility and residency” for the initial letter to be sent to\nthe applicant. An NCB should also be entered into FOSS at this time by the CBSA IPC officer\nindicating that a residency determination is required. See Appendix C entitled “Standard format\nof NCB (non-computer-based entries) in FOSS” for more information on standard FOSS remarks.\nIf a response is not received from the applicant within 30 days, the CBSA IPC will change the\nstatus of the file from “pending” to a recommendation of “fail.” The CBSA PC must be advised of\nthe information in order to render a final decision on the application.\nPlease refer to Appendix F entitled “FOSS results form” to view the worksheet used to\ncommunicate the information to the CBSA PC. Depending on the AME program, CBSA IPC\nresults may be entered electronically by using the Global Enrolment Component (GEC) system.\nIf the applicant responds to the letter within 30 days, the CBSA IPC officer will request that the\napplicant provide proof of their residence in order to satisfy the residency requirement. This can", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.5 (Residency obligation) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Residency obligation", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "be done via the telephone and/or in writing by sending supporting documentation by fax. If the\nCBSA IPC officer is satisfied that the applicant has met the residency obligation under A28, the\nofficer will change the status of the file from “pending” to a recommendation of “pass.” The CBSA\nPC will be advised accordingly.\nIf the CBSA IPC officer is not satisfied that the applicant has met the residency obligation and\nadditional information is not required to make this determination, the officer may change the\nstatus of the file from “pending” to a recommendation of “fail” .The CBSA PC must be advised of\nthe information in order to render a final decision on the application. The NCB in FOSS must be\nupdated accordingly.\nIf the CBSA IPC officer is of the opinion that the residency obligation determination requires a\nmore in-depth examination, the officer will send the applicant a second letter; see Appendix D\nentitled “Residency obligation for permanent residents.” This subsequent letter advises the\napplicant to present themselves at the nearest inland office or Canadian Consulate/ Embassy\nabroad for an interview. In such cases, the file will remain in “pending” status until a residency\ndetermination is made.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 9\nCBSA IPC officers may receive a request for a residency obligation determination from the\nEnrolment Centre. See Appendix E entitled “Request for Residency Determination Form” to view\nthis form. If such a request is made by the EC, it will be necessary for the CBSA IPC officer to\ncontact the applicant using the procedures outlined above. Officers of the CBSA IPC will be\nrequired to follow up with the EC to advise them of the outcome of the residency obligation\ndetermination request.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.5 (Residency obligation) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.5", + "marginal_note": "Residency obligation", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "If the applicant is a permanent resident of Canada, but holds citizenship or permanent resident\nstatus in the U.S., the CBSA IPC officer should “pass” the applicant (assuming that the applicant\nis not otherwise inadmissible to Canada). It is not necessary to place these files in “pending”\nstatus since the applicant remains eligible to apply to the program regardless of whether or not\nthey meet their residency obligation in Canada. An NCB “Watch-For” must be added in FOSS to\nensure that the applicant is referred for a secondary examination the first time they use the AME\nprogram. This will provide CBSA Immigration officers with the opportunity to complete a residency\ndetermination during the secondary examination and, if applicable, have the member voluntarily\nrelinquish their Canadian permanent resident status.\nFor further information on loss of permanent resident status, see ENF 23 Loss of permanent\nresident status at:\nhttp://www.ci.gc.ca/Manuals/immigration/enf/enf23/index_e.asp", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.5 (Residency obligation) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.6", + "marginal_note": "Criminality", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.6. Criminality\nOfficers of the CBSA IPC are called upon to review the criminal history of all non-Canadian\napplicants. It is the responsibility of the CBSA IPC officers to determine if applicants are\nadmissible to Canada and to provide a recommendation regarding eligibility, on occasion, to the\nCBSA PC based on the applicable AME program’s criteria.\nThe CBSA PC conducts the initial screening of applicants and subsequently provides the CBSA\nIPC officers with a printout or flags their names for further investigation. These cases can also be\nassigned electronically to the CBSA IPC officers through the Global Enrolment Component (GEC)\ndepending on the program. If information is missing, incomplete or when otherwise required,\nofficers of the CBSA IPC will conduct further database checks.\nAn application is referred or assigned for criminality by the CBSA PC in the following\ncircumstances:\n• Applicant may have a “hit” for CPIC wants, warrants and/or criminal history;\n• Applicant may have a “hit” for NCIC wants, warrants and/or criminal history;\n• Applicant self-disclosed a criminal conviction on the application form for which they have not\nreceived a Canadian pardon.\nCBSA IPC officers will review the applicant’s information and compare this to the criminal history\n“hit” in order to ascertain if the person is admissible to Canada. Chapters ENF 1 and ENF 2 offer\nguidance on the inadmissibility of clients. These chapters are available at:\nhttp://www.ci.gc.ca/Manuals/immigration/enf/enf1/index_e.asp\nhttp://www.ci.gc.ca/Manuals/immigration/enf/enf2/index_e.asp\nIf a CBSA IPC officer is required to obtain further information pertaining to an applicant’s criminal\nhistory, they may contact the applicant by phone or letter in order to determine their admissibility.\nThis letter can be found in Appendix B entitled “Letter requesting additional information to\ndetermine admissibility and residency.” The officer must ensure that privacy legislation is adhered\nto as it relates to third-party information.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 10", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.6 (Criminality)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.7", + "marginal_note": "Pending applications", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.7. Pending applications\nIf an admissibility determination cannot be made due to a lack of information, the CBSA IPC\nofficers will temporarily place their file in “pending” status and contact the applicant. The preferred\nmethod will be by letter requesting the applicant to contact the CBSA IPC to provide further\ninformation. This will mitigate any question of identity involving an applicant whose application is\nwith the CBSA IPC for risk assessment. The applicant are advised that they have 30 days from\nthe date of the letter to respond to the request. This letter is found at Appendix B entitled “Letter\nrequesting additional information to determine admissibility and residency.”", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.7 (Pending applications)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.8", + "marginal_note": "Correspondence to applicants", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.8. Correspondence to applicants\nThe CBSA IPC officers may correspond with applicants for matters arising out of information\nlocated within immigration-related databases. CBSA IPC officers may also communicate with\napplicants in regards to criminal history found in the FOSS, CPIC, and NCIC databases. The\napplicant will be requested in the letter to contact the CBSA IPC by telephone within 30 days of\nthe date on the letter. This letter is found at Appendix B entitled “Letter requesting additional\ninformation to determine admissibility and residency.” The officer must ensure that privacy\nlegislation is adhered to in relation to third party information.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.8 (Correspondence to applicants)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.9", + "marginal_note": "Correspondence from applicants", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.9. Correspondence from applicants\nIf the applicant responds to a request for further information within 30 days of the date of the letter\nand the CBSA IPC officer considers the person inadmissible to Canada, the officer will forward a\nrecommendation of “fail” to the CBSA PC. If an applicant responds within 30 days and a request\nis made for further information, i.e., a police record check, the applicant will be given an additional\n60 days to comply. Any further extensions will be at the discretion of the CBSA IPC officer. If the\napplicant does not respond within the 30-day time limit, the CBSA IPC officer will forward a\nrecommendation of “fail” to the CBSA PC.\nIf the applicant provides sufficient proof, through satisfactory documentation, that they are not\ninadmissible to Canada, a recommendation of “pass” will be made to the CBSA PC.\nIf information exists that an applicant is ineligible for the program but remains admissible to\nCanada, the CBSA PC must be advised of the information in order to render a final decision.\nNote: The applicant is still considered admissible to Canada, but a recommendation of “fail” will be\nprovided to the CBSA PC in terms of eligibility to the program.\nSee Appendix F entitled “FOSS Results Form” to view the worksheet used to communicate the\ninformation to the CBSA PC. Depending on the AME program, the CBSA IPC results may be\nentered electronically by using the Global Enrolment Component system.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.9 (Correspondence from applicants)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.10", + "marginal_note": "Canadian citizens", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.10. Canadian citizens\nIt is important to note the following information pertaining to Canadian citizens.\nWhile Canadian citizens retain the right to enter and remain in Canada under the Act, their\nacceptance into an AME program may be affected by various factors including previous\nimmigration legislation violations or criminality. An applicant who is a Canadian citizen may be\nineligible to participate in certain AME programs as the result of previous immigration violations.\nPlease refer to Appendix A entitled “Immigration violations.”\nIf a criminal or immigration violation history is found in FOSS, it will be the CBSA IPC officer’s\nresponsibility to make a recommendation to the CBSA PC as to the applicant’s eligibility to join\nthe program based on that program’s criteria. See Appendix F entitled “FOSS Results Form” to\nview the worksheet used to communicate the information to the CBSA PC. Depending on the\nAME program, CBSA IPC results may be entered electronically by using the Global Enrolment\nComponent system.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 11\nCBSA IPC officers may not review the criminal history of a Canadian citizen unless that history is\nfound in FOSS.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.10 (Canadian citizens)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.11", + "marginal_note": "Immigration violations", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.11. Immigration violations\nOnce admissibility to Canada has been determined, CBSA IPC officers will further review the\nFOSS database for documented immigration violations. The CBSA IPC officer can refer to\nAppendix A entitled “Immigration violations” as a guide to recommend “fail” or “pass” to the CBSA\nPC based on the program criteria. Please note that admissibility to Canada supersedes all other\nprogram eligibility criteria.\nTo view the worksheet used to communicate the information to the CBSA PC, refer to Appendix F\nentitled “FOSS Results Form.” Depending on the AME program, CBSA IPC results may be\nentered electronically by using the Global Enrolment system.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.11 (Immigration violations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.12", + "marginal_note": "Approved applications", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.12. Approved applications\nIf there are no concerns regarding admissibility or eligibility (i.e., no criminality or immigration\nviolations) during the risk-assessment phase of the process, officers at the CBSA IPC will provide\na recommendation of “pass” to the CBSA PC. See Appendix F entitled “FOSS Results Form” to\nview the worksheet used to communicate the information to the CBSA PC. Depending on the\nAME program, CBSA IPC results may be entered electronically by using the Global Enrolment\nComponent system.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.12 (Approved applications)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-13", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.13", + "marginal_note": "Self-disclosure (Risk assessment phase)", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.13. Self-disclosure (Risk assessment phase)\nPursuant to A11 for foreign nationals and A21 for permanent residents, an applicant must satisfy\nan officer that they are not inadmissible to Canada and that they meet all other requirements\nprovided in the aforementioned sections of the Act. Situations may occur where an applicant\ndiscloses previous violations or other inadmissibility grounds on their application form, in\nresponse to a letter or over the phone during the risk assessment phase.\nOfficers may obtain information from an applicant that does not affect admissibility although the\ndisclosure will affect their eligibility into the AME program. In these situations, a recommendation\nof “fail” in terms of the believed ineligibility should be forwarded to the CBSA PC. See Appendix\nF entitled “FOSS Results Form” to view the worksheet used to communicate the information to\nthe CBSA PC. Depending on the AME program, the CBSA IPC results may be entered\nelectronically by using the Global Enrolment Component system.\nSee “Self-disclosure by applicant at interview (Enrolment phase)” in section 8.2 below..", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.13 (Self-disclosure (Risk assessment phase))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-14", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.14", + "marginal_note": "Denied applications", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.14. Denied applications\nIf upon review of the security-screening information, an officer determines that an applicant is\ninadmissible to Canada, the CBSA IPC officer will forward a recommendation of “fail” to the\nCBSA PC for the final determination of eligibility to the AME program. Officers may encounter\nsituations in which the applicant is admissible to Canada but has previously been in violation of\nimmigration law or has been convicted of an offence that does not affect their admissibility. In\nsuch circumstances, the applicant may still be ineligible for the AME program for which they have\napplied. Please refer to Appendix F entitled “FOSS Results Form” to view the worksheet used to\ncommunicate the information to the CBSA PC. Depending on the AME program, the CBSA PC\nresults may be entered electronically by using the Global Enrolment Component system.\nIt is the CBSA IPC officer’s responsibility to ensure that an NCB (General) is entered into FOSS\nreflecting the recommendation to the CBSA PC that an applicant be refused into the program.\nThis will ensure that border officials are aware of the circumstances involving the denial of an\napplicant into any AME program. Refer to section 7.16 entitled “Non-computer-based entries\n(NCB) in FOSS” below for more detail.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 12\nClients may seek redress by requesting a review from the CBSA Customs where applications\nhave been refused.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.14 (Denied applications)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.15", + "marginal_note": "Rehabilitation counselling", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.15. Rehabilitation counselling\nAny applicant who is denied membership into an AME program (except for NEXUS programs) as\na result of criminality should be counselled to seek rehabilitation, if eligible, from a Canadian\nConsulate abroad or upon entry into Canada at a POE. However, applicants applying to the\nFAST and/or CDRP programs may apply to the designated rehabilitation centre that has been\nestablished for that purpose in Niagara Falls.\nThe contact information for the Criminal Rehabilitation Processing Centre has been provided in\nAppendix G for your convenience.\nFor more information on criminal rehabilitation, consult the chapter ENF 14:\nhttp://www.ci.gc.ca/Manuals/index_e.asp", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.15 (Rehabilitation counselling)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.16", + "marginal_note": "Non-computer-based entries (NCB) in FOSS", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.16. Non-computer-based entries (NCB) in FOSS\nThe use of an NCB is particularly important when an applicant has been refused membership into\nan AME program for inadmissibility. Should the CBSA IPC officer’s determination be based on\ninformation provided by law enforcement databases or any other source including self-\ndisclosure, it is imperative that an NCB be placed in FOSS. An NCB should also be placed in\nFOSS for those persons who are potentially inadmissible based on the above-noted sources of\ninformation and if they have not responded to a request by the CBSA IPC for further information.\nAn enforcement NCB should only be used in the case of inadmissibility or other urgent requests\nto intercept a person seeking entry. It is recommended that a “General Information” NCB be used\nin all other cases.\nPlease refer to Appendix C entitled “Standard format of NCB (non-computer-based entries) in\nFOSS” for more information on standard FOSS remarks.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.16 (Non-computer-based entries (NCB) in FOSS)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-17", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.17", + "marginal_note": "Additional risk assessment at the CBSA IPC", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.17. Additional risk assessment at the CBSA IPC\nWhen an applicant discloses information at the EC interview that is not on the original application,\nor an error is discovered on the application (i.e., incorrect date of birth, name spelled incorrectly,\nmaiden name not listed, etc.), the interviewing officer will suspend the process. The EC officer\nmust forward the new and/or corrected information to the CBSA PC where the information will\nverified a second time against the databases. Once the CBSA PC officer completes the security\nchecks, the new and/or corrected information will be referred to the CBSA IPC for reassessment.\nSee Appendix H entitled “AME Security Review Form” for more information.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.17 (Additional risk assessment at the CBSA IPC)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-7-18", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 7.18", + "marginal_note": "Yearly review", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7.18. Yearly review\nYearly risk assessments will be conducted for members of all AME programs to ensure that they\ncontinue to be admissible to Canada and eligible to participate in the programs. The CBSA PC\nwill refer the membership information to the CBSA IPC for FOSS checks and if applicable, for\nCPIC/NCIC reviews. If information is discovered during the yearly risk assessment that may affect\nadmissibility and/or eligibility, the officers will advise the CBSA PC of their findings and make the\nappropriate recommendation.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 13", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 7.18 (Yearly review)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Overview", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1. Overview\nECs are unique in that they offer a chance for officers of the CBSA and U.S. CBP, as applicable,\nto work in shared offices. The location of ECs varies depending on the program, though they are\ngenerally located at or in close proximity to POEs at both land borders and airports.\nAt the enrolment phase, the applicant will be required to have a digital photo of their face taken\nfor their membership card. This image will be stored in secure government databases.\nDepending on the program, the applicant will be required to submit fingerprints which will be used\nto assess risk. Finally, the applicant will be provided with training on the relevant technology and\nprogram terms and conditions.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 8.1 (Overview)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-8-2-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Interview process", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2. Interview process\nApplicants who have met the screening criteria established by the pertinent agencies will be\ncontacted regarding the next stage of the process. This phase of the process requires applicants,\nif applicable, to present themselves at the EC where they will be interviewed by an officer of the\nCBSA and/or U.S. CBP depending on the specific AME program.\nNote: Face-to-face interviews are not required for all AME programs.\nInterview scheduling\nEach program’s local working groups determine how interviews are best scheduled, based on a\nnumber of factors including client volumes, availability of resources, number of computer\nterminals, and the maximum number of clients the EC is able to accommodate at once. Walk-ins\nas well as scheduled interviews should be considered. The designation of Canada and/or U.S.\ndays may also be contemplated in order to clear a backlog.\nInterviewing applicants and guidelines\nWhen interviewing an applicant at the EC, it is important for officers to be aware that, prior to the\napplicant’s arrival, a thorough screening process has been conducted, including verification of\nFOSS, CPIC, PIRS, ICES, NCIC and other U.S. databases (depending on the AME program), .\nCBSA EC immigration officers will not be able to verify databases at the EC. Applicants will be\ninterviewed by officials of the CBSA and U.S. CBP depending on the program. Typically, CBSA\nEC immigration officers will interview applicants who are not Canadian citizens (i.e., U.S. citizens\nand resident aliens and Canadian permanent residents). CBSA EC immigration officers will verify,\nthrough questioning and the review of information, the applicant’s identity, citizenship, permanent\nresident status, residency, purpose of travel to Canada, intentions while in Canada, personal", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 8.2 (Interview process) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-8-2-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Interview process", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "history including employment ties to Canada if any, health, and criminality.\nThe interview provides the appropriate agencies with an opportunity to review with the applicant\nall the information provided up to this stage and to make a final determination on their:\n• admissibility to both countries as appropriate;\n• eligibility for the individual program for which an application has been submitted.\nFor further information on examination procedures, see ENF 4 at\nhttp://www.ci.gc.ca/Manuals/immigration/enf/enf4/index_e.asp\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 14\nSelf-disclosure by applicant at interview (enrolment phase)\nSituations may occur where the security risk assessment of an applicant does not yield the\nexistence of any violation, criminal conviction or other criminal offence, but during the interview,\nthe applicant voluntarily discloses a previous violation, criminal conviction or criminal offence.\nWhere the existence of the violation, conviction or other criminal offence would affect the\napplicant’s eligibility, based on the eligibility criteria for the program, an additional security risk\nassessment will be performed searching for a documented record of the violation, conviction or\nother criminal offence.\nSee Appendix H entitled “AME Security Review Form” to communicate the information to the\nCBSA PC.\nPermanent resident determinations\nDuring the enrolment interview, it may come to the attention of the EC CBSA immigration officer\nthat a permanent resident of Canada may not meet the residency obligation pursuant to A28. In\nthese cases, since the EC officer is not in the position to perform such a lengthy interview, the\nofficer will follow the guidelines below.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 8.2 (Interview process) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-8-2-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Interview process", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The officer will explain to the applicant that membership in the program cannot be completed until\ntheir Canadian permanent residency obligation status has been determined by an immigration\nofficer.\nThe CBSA immigration officer will complete the Request for Residency Determination form and\nfax it to the appropriate CBSA IPC which processed their application. See Appendix E entitled\n“Request for Residency Determination Form.”\nThe status of the applicant’s membership should remain in \"pending\" status until the CBSA IPC\nadvises the EC to proceed with the interview or to change the status to \"fail.\" To ensure an\nappropriate follow-up, the EC officer will advise the applicant that a letter will be mailed to them\nby the CBSA IPC. See section 7.5 entitled “Residency obligation” for more information on the\nCBSA IPC’s role and responsibilities in residency obligation determinations.\nThe EC CBSA immigration officer will counsel the applicant on the type of information that they\nwill need to send to the IPC and/or for their status determination interview.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 8.2 (Interview process) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Additional risk assessment at the EC", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3. Additional risk assessment at the EC\nEvery applicant is required to provide true and complete information on their application including\nany conviction for which they have not received a pardon. It is important to note that the eligibility\ncriteria for AME programs stipulate that membership will not be granted to those who have a\ncriminal conviction where no pardon has been granted or where the person has not been deemed\nrehabilitated pursuant to the Act. Persons applying to AME programs, with the exception of\nNEXUS programs, may be granted membership if they have been deemed rehabilitated by a\nCIC/CBSA immigration officer.\nAdditional risk assessments should not be performed by the EC officers as all criminal records\nand customs and immigration background checks have already been completed by the\nprocessing centres. In the event that new information is obtained on an applicant that was not\npreviously disclosed or was not discovered by the processing centres, the following procedure\nmust be followed for CBSA EC immigration officers:\nThe CBSA EC immigration officer must contact the CBSA PC and notify the U.S. CBP at the EC\nthat an additional risk assessment is required. The officer will then contact the CBSA IPC by fax\nadvising them of the disclosure or discovery of additional information. Please refer to Appendix H\nentitled “AME Security Review Form.”\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 15\nThe officer will advise the applicant that they must conduct further checks before final approval\ninto the AME program may be granted and that the CBSA PC will contact them in writing with\ntheir decision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 8.3 (Additional risk assessment at the EC)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-8-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Biometrics", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4. Biometrics\nIndividuals wishing to join certain AME programs are required to submit biometric information for\nthe purpose of security screening during enrolment and/or to confirm identity at passage. Please\nconsult the table below for the biometrics requirements of each program.\n• PROGRAM: • BIOMETRICS:\n• NEXUS HIGHWAY • TWO INDEX FINGERPRINTS/ PHOTO /\nDISCRETIONARY FULL SET OF\nFINGERPRINTS\n• NEXUS AIR • IRIS/ PHOTO/ TWO INDEX FINGERPRINTS/\nDISCRETIONARY FULL SET OF\nFINGERPRINTS\n• NEXUS MARINE • TWO INDEX FINGERPRINTS/ PHOTO /\nDISCRETIONARY FULL SET OF\nFINGERPRINTS\n• FAST • TWO INDEX FINGERPRINTS/ MANDATORY\nFULL SET OF FINGERPRINTS/ PHOTO\n• CDRP • PHOTO\n• CANPASS AIR • IRIS / PHOTO/ DISCRETIONARY FULL SET\nOF FINGERPRINTS\n• CANPASS RABC • NONE\n• CANPASS: PRIVATE AIR, CORPORATE AIR,\nPRIVATE BOAT\n• NONE", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 8.4 (Biometrics)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-8-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Membership counselling", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5. Membership counselling\nOnce approved, members should receive information and clarification of any questions they may\nhave about the relevant program. These instructions may involve a demonstration of the\nappropriate technology of the program, including the use of the kiosk or a proximity card.\nAll new participants to any program should be briefed on the major components of the program\nas they relate to their needs. EC officers will provide the following:\n• The program’s Participant Guide; with particular emphasis on:\n♦ membership rights and obligations. This would include the obligation to carry proof of\ncitizenship and permanent resident status;\n• Other government departments’ requirements;\n• Other travel documents that may be required, including work and study permits;\n• Currency reporting obligations.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 8.5 (Membership counselling)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-8-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 8.6", + "marginal_note": "The membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.6. The membership card\nThe card is a trigger for accessing the relevant program’s database. It does not have any\nprivileged, personal or financial information on it.\nMember must be aware that lost or stolen membership cards are to be reported immediately to\none of the government partners.\nThe membership card is not an official travel document.\nApproved applicants are issued the appropriate identification card. This card remains the property\nof the Canadian and U.S. governments.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 8.6 (The membership card)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "Passage", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9. Passage\nParticipation in these programs shall not be authorized for the purpose of circumventing the\nprovisions of the Act or its Regulations. Members seeking entry into Canada or the U.S. may be\nsubject to a random immigration examination at the discretion of an officer. CBSA immigration\nofficers will rigorously enforce the Act and its Regulations when a violation is encountered during\na secondary examination. Further, any documentation issued under the provisions of the AME\nprograms will not replace the requirement for the member to have in their possession official\ntravel documents demonstrating their citizenship, resident status or other status obtained from\nCIC, the CBSA immigration or the U.S. CBP.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9 (Passage)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.1", + "marginal_note": "Technology at passage", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.1. Technology at passage\nA wide variety of technology exists to assist CBSA and U.S. CBP officers in the risk assessment\nof AME program members seeking entry into Canada and the U.S.\nMembers seeking entry into Canada or the U.S. by land using a dedicated lane are required to\npresent their program-specific membership card.\nFor the FAST program, PIL officers are required to swipe the member’s card through a magnetic\nstrip reader which validates the member’s status. Proximity technology is used by FAST\nmembers entering the U.S.\nIn the case of the NEXUS Highway program, members present their card to a proximity reader\n(where the technology is available) so that a PIL officer may verify their identity and confirm\nmembership status.\nWhen travelling by air, members of the CANPASS Air or NEXUS Air program seeking entry into\nCanada or the U.S. use automated kiosks to capture their iris in order to confirm their identity by\ncomparing it to information contained within the secure database. These programs utilize the\nphoto capture found on the membership card as a secondary method of identification.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.1 (Technology at passage)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.2", + "marginal_note": "Referrals", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.2. Referrals\nThough it has been shown that there are few customs or immigration program violations by AME\nmembers, it is necessary to have checks and balances in place. These measures have been\ncreated to ensure compliance and integrity with the programs, government laws and regulations.\nViolations will result in definitive sanctions.\nAME program members are advised at the interview that each agency involved in the program\nretains the right to randomly refer members for further inspection.\nThe Participant’s Guide of each program also states that anytime a member enters the U.S. or\nCanada, border officials of their respective country may perform a full inspection.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 17\nReferrals and CBSA immigration secondary examination\nAny intentional violation of any of the program’s terms and conditions, violation of law or new\nenforcement action taken against a member will warrant a mandatory referral.\nExample: Mandatory referrals to CBSA immigration secondary examination include:\nA member who is travelling on expired immigration status documents;\nThe member’s name is an exact match on the FOSS enforcement database.\nProcedures for mandatory referrals also apply for all other referrals, including selective and\nrandom referrals.\nAny violation of AME program rules that is discovered at the time of passage at the POE must be\ndocumented and sent to the CBSA PC. Members found in violation of an AME program may be\nfaced with sanctions ranging from a verbal warning at the time of passage followed by a letter,\nmembership suspension, and even membership cancellation depending on the specific program.\nSee the procedures for the specific AME program for the necessary reporting mechanisms when\na program violation occurs.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.2 (Referrals)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of participant membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9.3. Seizure of participant membership card\nIf during a secondary examination a CBSA immigration officer is of the opinion that a person is\ninadmissible to Canada, the officer may seize the person’s membership card pursuant to\nsubsection A140(1), fill out the IMM 5265 \"Notice of Seizure,\" and provide a copy to that person.\nWhen a CBSA immigration officer seizes a membership card, they are to send an e-mail to their\nimmediate supervisor and to the applicable CBSA IPC. The e-mail should contain the section of\nthe Act that was used to determine inadmissibility, the client’s FOSS number, the date of the\nseizure, the client’s membership card number and the officer's name and badge number.\nThe officer’s supervisor will then be responsible to advise the CBSA superintendent at the POE of\nthe seizure information. This must be done in writing, accompanied by the membership card.\nThis process has been created in order to have the membership privileges suspended or revoked\nby the CBSA Customs and to ensure that they update their appropriate databases. Where\nmemberships have been suspended or revoked, clients may seek redress by requesting a review\nfrom the CBSA Customs.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 18\nAppendix A Immigration violations\nThe following chart is to be used by CBSA IPC officers when reviewing applicant information.\nOnce admissibility to Canada has been determined, CBSA IPC officers will further review the\nFOSS database for documented immigration violations. CBSA IPC officers are asked to use this\neligibility matrix to provide a recommendation of “pass” or “fail” based on the following criteria:\nNote: Admissibility to Canada supersedes all other program eligibility criteria.\n• Program • Eligibility criteria: Immigration\nviolations", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.3 (Seizure of participant membership card) (part 1 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of participant membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "• NEXUS • Clients may be eligible to participate in the\nNEXUS program if no documented immigration\nviolation appears on their FOSS record. (See\nsection What “documented immigration\nviolation” means below.)\n• CANPASS Corporate Air\n• CANPASS Private Air\n• CANPASS Boat\n• CANPASS Air\n• FAST\n• CDRP\n• Clients may be eligible to participate in these\nprograms if three or more years have elapsed\nsince the final disposition date of the\ndocumented immigration violation. (See section\nWhat “the final disposition date means below.)\nWhat “documented immigration violation” means:\nAn inadmissibility report has been transmitted to the Minister under A44(1) and the Minister or the\nMinister’s delegate is of the opinion that the report is well-founded and a removal order has been\nmade.\nException A40(2)(a): The definition of an immigration violation also includes a determination of\ninadmissibility for misrepresentation that is made outside Canada in which case, a permanent\nresident or foreign national continues to be inadmissible for a period of two years. In these cases,\nthe final disposition date is the date of the final determination of inadmissibility under A40(1).\nNote: An inadmissibility report and a conditional removal order made with respect to a refugee claim will\nnot be considered as an immigration violation if the refugee claim was successful. Where criminality\nwas recorded at the time of the report, the assessment on the recommendation will be based on the\ncriminality.\nWritten proof of one of the following under immigration law:\n• Human smuggling and trafficking;\n• Offences related to documents;\n• General offences;\n• Proceeds of crime;\n• Officers authorized to enforce the Act;\n• Ticketable Offences;\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 19", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.3 (Seizure of participant membership card) (part 2 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of participant membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "• Collection of debts due to Her Majesty.\nWhat “the final disposition date” means:\nThe date on which the removal order has been made, whether or not this removal order is\nenforceable pursuant to A48.\nException A40(2)(a): The definition of an immigration violation also includes a determination of\ninadmissibility for misrepresentation that is made outside Canada in which case a permanent\nresident or foreign national continues to be inadmissible for a period of two years. In these cases,\nthe final disposition date is the date of the final determination of inadmissibility made pursuant to\nA40 (1).\nNote: Where a report is still before the Minister's delegate under A44(2) or has been referred to the\nImmigration Division, the eligibility determination must be put on hold until the outcome of the\ninadmissibility hearing is known. If a removal order is under appeal to the IAD or the subject of judicial\nreview before the courts, the eligibility recommendation will be negative, i.e., fail.\nTo determine the final disposition date of any immigration violation included in “Part 3\nEnforcement” of the Act relating to:\n• Human smuggling and trafficking;\n• Offence related to documents;\n• General offences;\n• Proceeds of crime;\n• Officers authorized to enforce the Act;\n• Ticketable offences;\n• Collection of debts due to Her Majesty;\nrefer the case to the AME Travellers’ Programs, Immigration Ports and Border Management,\nBorder and Compliance Programs Directorate, Admissibility—CBSA at: ais@cic.gc.ca\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 20\nAppendix B Letter requesting addi tional information to determine\nadmissibility and residency\nPERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL\nThis letter is for the eyes of the addressee only. If you have received this correspondence", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.3 (Seizure of participant membership card) (part 3 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-3-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of participant membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "in error, please immediately return to the address listed at the bottom.\nDate\nFILE NUMBER: «Canpass_ID_Number»\nDear «Given_Names» «Surname» :\nYour application to participate in the {{FAST/NEXUS/CANPASS}} program has been received at\nthe Canadian Processing Centre.\nIn order to proceed with the verification of your application, we require additional information to:\ndetermine your admissibility to Canada.\nensure that you are in compliance with the residency obligation under the Immigration and\nRefugee Protection Act if you are a permanent resident of Canada.\nWe ask that you contact us within 30 days from the date of this letter to discuss your application.\nYou may reach our Processing Centre at (area code) (telephone number) from Monday to Friday\n08:00 to 16:00 (your time zone) only.\nIf you don't reply within 30 days from the date of this letter, we will have insufficient information to\nprocess your application. Consequently, we will recommend that your application be denied. In\nthat event, if you wish to re-apply, another application and processing fee will be required.\nSincerely,\nOfficer,\n(Address of applicable processing centre)\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 21\nAppendix C Standard format of NCB entries into FOSS\nStandard FOSS remark for an immigration violation\n“Application for XXXXXXX program—Recommend fail to CBSA PC for immigration violation\ncriteria.”\n• Detailed information regarding the immigration vi olation may be provided to assist in future\nenquiries.\nStandard FOSS remark for criminality/ inadmissibility\n“Application for XXXXXXX program—Recommend fail to CBSA PC for the following offence.”\n• Detailed offence information should be entered.\nNote: The general information NCB may be created in FOSS for an applicant who has been deemed", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.3 (Seizure of participant membership card) (part 4 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-3-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of participant membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "rehabilitated. The applicant may or may not be approved into an AME program depending on the\neligibility criteria. It is important to record this type of information in FOSS should the person commit a\nsubsequent offence thereby becoming inadmissible to Canada.\nStandard FOSS remark for no response as a result of request for information\n“Application for XXXXXXX program – Recommend fail to the CBSA PC for failure to respond to a\nrequest for information.”\n• Limited information relating to the nature of the request should follow.\nStandard FOSS remark for a request for residency obligation determination\n“Application for XXXXXXX program—Recommend examination for residency obligation.��\n• Indicate time and place where PR has been refe rred for further examination if applicable.\n• Provide details as to information that has led to the decision to defer for residency obligation\ndetermination.\n• Include detailed notes on the contact informatio n of the officer who requested the residency\ndetermination. This will facilitate contacting that officer once the determination has been\ncompleted.\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 22\nAppendix D Residency obligation for permanent residents\nPERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL:\nThis letter is for the eyes of the addressee only. If you have received this correspondence\nin error, please immediately return to the address listed at the bottom.\nDate\nFILE NUMBER: « ID_Number»\nDear «Given_Names» «Surname» :\nYour application to participate in the XXXXXXX has been received at the Processing Office.\nUnder subsection 28(2) of the the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident\nof Canada must comply with the residency obligation with respect to every five-year period.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.3 (Seizure of participant membership card) (part 5 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-3-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of participant membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Based on the information you have provided on your application and the information that is\navailable to us in our database, your permanent resident status must be determined before we\nproceed with your application.\nIn order to have your Canadian permanent resident status determined by an immigration officer,\nyou must present yourself for examination. If you reside in Canada please call 1-888-242-2100 to\nfind the location of the nearest Canadian Immigration Centre. If you reside in the United States,\nyou must present yourself to the nearest Canadian Consulate in the United States. There is an\nenclosed list of Canadian Consulates in the United States for your reference.\nYou must bring proof of your residency for the last 5 years to the scheduled interview with an\nimmigration officer. Documentation you may be asked to provide includes utility bills in your\nname, receipts of purchases in Canada, bank statements showing transactions at Canadian\nInstitutions. This list is not exhaustive and an immigration officer may ask you for further\ndocumentation. This information must satisfy the immigration officer that you have complied with\nthe residency requirements as set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.\nFailure to present yourself for an examination within 60 days from the date of this letter\nmay result in the refusal of your application in the above-noted program.\nPlease note that if you seek re-entry into Canada at any time during this process, you may be\nasked to address your residency obligation.\nShould you require clarification on this matter, please contact me at the number below.\nSincerely,\nOfficer,\nCanada Border Services Agency\n(Address/phone number of the originating CBSA IPC)\nCANADA REPRESENTATIVES LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.3 (Seizure of participant membership card) (part 6 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-3-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of participant membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "ENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 23\nWashington, D.C.\nThe Embassy of Canada\n501 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.\nWashington, D.C.\n20001-2114, USA\nTel: (202) 682-1740 Fax: (202) 682-7701\ne-mail: wshdc.outpack@dfait-maeci.gc.ca\nWeb site:\nhttp://www.canadianembassy.org/\nhomepage/index-en.asp\nTerritory: Eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware,\nMaryland, and Virginia, District of Columbia\nNew\nYork\nConsulate General of Canada\n1251 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY\n10020-1175, USA\nTel: (212) 596-1628 Fax: (212) 596-1793\ne-mail: cngny-td@dfait-maeci.gc.ca\nWeb site: http://www.can-am.gc.ca/new_york\nTerritory: Southern New York State,\nConnecticut, New Jersey (other: Bermuda)\nSeattle\nConsulate General of Canada\n412 Plaza 600 Building\nSixth Avenue and Stewart Street\nSeattle, WA\n98101-1286, USA\nTel: (206) 443-1777 Fax: (206) 443-9735\ne-mail: seatl-gr@dfait-maeci.gc.ca\nWeb site: http://www.can-am.gc.ca/seattle\nTerritory: Washington State, Alaska, Idaho,\nOregon\nBuffalo\nThe Consulate General of Canada\nHSBC Center, Suite 3000\nBuffalo, NY\n14203-2884, USA\nTel: (716) 858-9500 Fax: (716) 858-9562\ne-mail: bfalo-td@dfait-maeci.gc.ca\nWeb site: http://www.can-am.gc.ca/buffalo\nTerritory: Western, Central and Upstate New\nYork State, Western and Central Pennsylvania,\nWest Virginia\nDetroit\nConsulate General of Canada\n600 Renaissance Center, Suite 1100\nDetroit, MI\n48243-1798, USA\nTel: (313) 567-2340 Fax: (313) 567-2164\ne-mail: dtrot@dfait-maeci.gc.ca\nWeb site: http://www.can-am.gc.ca/detroit\nImmigration Inquires\nTel: (313) 567-2085 Fax: (313) 567-2125\ne-mail: dtrot-im@dfait-maeci.gc.ca\nTerritory: Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio\nLos Angeles\nConsulate General of Canada\n550 South Hope Street, 9\nth Floor\nLos Angeles, CA\n90071-2627, USA\nTel: (213) 346-2700 Fax: (213) 346-2767", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.3 (Seizure of participant membership card) (part 7 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-3-p8", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of participant membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "e-mail: lngls-td@dfait-maeci.gc.ca\nWeb site: http://www.dfait-\nmaeci.gc.ca/los_angeles/\nTerritory: California, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada,\nUtah\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 24\nAppendix E Request for Residency Determination Form\nAME Residency Determination\nEC Location:\nOfficer Name:\nTelephone number:\nApplicant Information\nDate of Examination (yyyy-mm-dd):\nCurrent Address:\nCity Province/State Postal/zip code\nSurname:\nGiven Name(s):\nClient Identification:\nFOSS Identification:\nDate of Birth (yyyy-mm-dd):\nCountry of Birth:\nBackground/ Synopsis of interview:\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 25\nAppendix F FOSS Results Form\nFOSS Results\nAlternative Means of Examination Programs\nNote: This form is to be used to communicate FOSS results for programs that have not\nbeen incorporated into GEC.\nSurname: ______________________\nGiven Name(s): ______________________\nDate of Birth: _____________________\nWhat program is the person applying for?\nCDRP\nFAST\nCANPASS Private Aircraft\nCANPASS Corporate Aircraft\nCANPASS Private Boat\nIs the applicant admissible to Canada?\nYes\nNo\nPass\nFail\nFOSS # _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _\n_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _\nComments: (includes type(s) and description of violation(s), date(s) and location(s) of violation(s))\n______________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________________________________\n______________________________________________\n___________________ ____ __ / _____ / _______\nCBSA (immigration) Officer Day Month Year\nPersonal Information", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.3 (Seizure of participant membership card) (part 8 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-29-9-3-p9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-29", + "act_short": "ENF 29", + "act_name": "ENF 29 — ENF 29", + "section": "ENF 29 s. 9.3", + "marginal_note": "Seizure of participant membership card", + "part": "ENF 29", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "Recommendation\nCPC #:\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 26\nAppendix G Contact information fo r the Criminal Rehabilitation\nProcessing Centre\nCriminal Rehabilitation Processing Centre\nCanada Border Services Agency\n6080 McLeod Road, Unit 10\nNiagara Falls, Ontario, Canada\nL2G 7T4\n(905) 354-4687\nENF 29 Alternative Means of Examination Programs\n2005-06-17 27\nAppendix H AME SECURITY REVIEW FORM\nAME SECURITY REVIEW FORM\nSECURITY REVIEW FORM\nCBSA Processing Centre\nMontréal, Québec Fax: 514-283-4604\nNiagara Falls, Ontario Fax: 905-354-2332\nDouglas, British Columbia Fax: 604-535-7215\nDATE:\nCLIENT NUMBER:\nLAST NAME (First 3 letters only):\nThis AME application requires further security checks. During the interview process, the following\nconcerns/discrepancies (i.e., criminality, wrong DOB, name misspelled, etc.) were discovered:\n_____________________________________________________________________________\n_____________________________________________________________________________\n_____________________________________________________________________________\n_____________________________________________________________________________\n____________________________\nPlease identify any previous FOSS worksheet number and then forward these documents to\nIntelligence and Contraband for further security checks.\n***PREVIOUS FOSS WORKSHEET # _______________________***\nI & C Security:\nPlease conduct an additional NCIC query on this subject based on the information provided\nabove. It is also requested that you conduct an NCIC query on the following state(s) and advise\nany results.\nNote: If there are no U.S. States indicated below, then only a standard NCIC check is required.\nNCIC Requested State(s) Query 1/\n2/ 3/\nEnrolment Centre (Immigration) Officer", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2005-06-17", + "current_to": "2005-06-17", + "citation": "ENF 29, s. 9.3 (Seizure of participant membership card) (part 9 of 9)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf29-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Presenting the alternatives to detention assessment at detention reviews .............. 28", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15. Presenting the alternatives to detention assessment at detention reviews .............. 28\n16. Privacy and information-sharing ............................................................................... 28", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 15 (Presenting the alternatives to detention assessment at detention reviews .............. 28)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-16-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 16.2", + "marginal_note": "Requesting sensitive information from the community case management and", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.2. Requesting sensitive information from the community case management and\nsupervision service provider ....................................................................................... 29\n3", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 16.2 (Requesting sensitive information from the community case management and)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-1-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 1.1", + "marginal_note": "Listing by date", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1.1. Listing by date\n2023-10-26\nSubstantive revisions were made to improve the flow of the manual and to reflect\nupdated procedures, including the following:\n Updated definitions section.\n Sections 3.0 to 6.0 are new and include Program Objectives, Acts and\nRegulations, Forms and Publications, and Departmental Policy. The forms were\nformally in Annex A.\n Updated information on identity cases under 8.2.2.Revised information on risk\noffset 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5, particularly around the role of the Community Liaison\nOfficer.\n Updated information under section 9.0 vulnerable persons, including\nvulnerabilities to be considered.\n Revised information under section 11.\n Revisions were made to section 12, 12.4.2, 12.4.4, 12.4.5, 12.6 and 12.6.1.\n New section added under 12.5.3 for CCMS transfers.\n New section added under 12.5.5 for the use of interpreters.\n Reference to Voice Reporting as an ATD option has been removed.\n Revised Community Liaison Roles and Responsibilities under section 13.\n New section for jurisprudence.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 1.1 (Listing by date)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "What this chapter is about", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. What this chapter is about\nThis chapter describes t he elements of the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program and\nprovides information and guidance on how the tools available under the ATD Program should\nbe used.\nThis chapter is meant to be read in conjunction with\n• ENF 3 Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews\n• ENF 7 Immigration Investigations and IPRA s.55 Arrests/Detention\n• ENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees\n• ENF 20 Detentions\n• ENF 22 Persons serving a sentence\n4\nRequests for clarification, questions and comments in relation to this manual should be\naddressed to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) Alternatives to Detention Unit,\nIntelligence and Enforcement Branch’s generic mailbox at CBSA.Alternatives_to_Detention-\nSolutions_de_rechange_de_detentions.ASFC@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 2 (What this chapter is about)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Definitions\nAlternative to\ndetention\nAn alternative to detention is defined as one of the conditions that may\nbe imposed on an individual to offset a risk they represent to the\nenforcement objectives and the mandate of the CBSA by either an\nofficer or a Member of the Immigration Division (ID) of the Immigration\nand Refugee Board (IRB).\nCase closure Case closure happens when an individual enrol led in an ATD no\nlonger requires community based support (for example, a change in\nthe individual’s risk level or circumstances where the individual has\nother support mechanisms, the individual has been compliant after\nalready being de -escalated or the individual is removed from the\ncountry).\nCommunity case\nmanagement and\nsupervision (CCMS)\nThe CCMS program provides in -community support to individuals in\norder to manage and mitigate risk. CCMS promotes detention\navoidance or detention release for people who lack a bondsperson or\nrequire support in addition to a bondsperson to mitigate risk upon\nrelease into the community. The CBSA has entered into contracted\npartnerships with third-party service providers to support individuals in\nthe community.\nDeposit The payment of a sum of money by a person to the Receiver\nGeneral for Canada for compliance with the conditions imposed on\nthe person concerned and their release from detention. See ENF 8\nDeposits and Guarantees.\nDetention review See ENF 3 Admissibility, Hearings and Detention Reviews.\nElectronic\nmonitoring (EM)\nEM is the use of a global positioning system (GPS), radio -frequency\n(RF) system or both to monitor individuals in the community. The EM\nmonitoring system is built on real-time location data, which is collected\nand analysed in a central facility and reported to regional staff to", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 3 (Definitions) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Definitions", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "pursue for enforcement, as deemed appropriate.\nGuarantee A guarantee is a written enforceable undertaking by a third party\n(the guarantor) that the person concerned will abide by the\nconditions imposed by a CBSA or IRCC officer or the Immigration\nDivision and to forfeit or pay a sum of money to the Crown if the\nperson concerned breaches any conditions. The guarantor and the\n5\nperson concerned must both agree to the conditions. They are also\ncalled “performance bonds”. See ENF 8 Deposits and Guarantees.\nIn-person reporting In-person reporting is a condition imposed on individuals where they\nare required to physically appear at a specified place and make\nthemselves known to an official. Usually, this means attending a\nCBSA inland enforcement office and checking in with a CBSA staff\nmember, who verifies the individual’s identity and records their\nattendance in the system.\nService provider A service provider provides CCMS services on behalf of the CBSA to\neligible individuals and engages in discussions with the Community\nLiaison Officer (CLO), pertaining to individuals enrolled in CCMS\nservices.\nWithdrawal of\nsupervision\nWithdrawal of supervision is a decision made by the CCMS service\nprovider to the CLO or CBSA management when the provider is of the\nopinion that the individual can no longer be managed in the community\n(that is, when the individual is no longer willing to comply with the\nrequirements of the program).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 3 (Definitions) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "Program Objectives", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. Program Objectives\nThe ATD Program encompasses all conditions that can be imposed to manage and mitigate the\nrisk posed by an individual in relation to the enforcement objectives of the Immigration an d\nRefugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the CBSA’s mandate. The ATD Program provides officers\nand the Immigration and R efugee Board (IRB) with tools and programs that enable them to\nmanage individuals released into the community more effectively.\nThe ATD Program is a mechanism to protect the integrity of Canada’s immigration detention\nsystem by ensuring individuals are treated fairly and in accordance with the overarching principle\nthat detention is a measure of last resort, and the decision to detain or release an individual is\nbased on the risk they present.\nThe CLO is the ATD subject matter expert. They provide a centralized approach for the ATD\nprogram.\n6", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 4 (Program Objectives)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 5", + "marginal_note": "The Acts and Regulations", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "5. The Acts and Regulations\nOfficers should be familiar with the legislative and regulatory authorities that surround the use of\nATDs contained in the IRPA and its Regulations. The following are referenced authorities that\nofficers should be familiar with:\nAuthorities Sections\nof\nIRPA/IRPR\nRelease - officer\nAn officer may order the release from detention of a permanent resident or a\nforeign national before the first detention review by the Immigration Division if\nthe officer is of the opinion that the reasons for the detention no longer exist.\nThe officer may impose any conditions, including the payment of a deposit or\nthe posting of a guarantee for compliance with the conditions, that the officer\nconsiders necessary.\nA56(1)\nRelease – Immigration Division, Conditions\nIf the Immigration Division orders the release of a permanent resident or a\nforeign national, it may impose any conditions that it considers necessary,\nincluding the payment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee for compliance\nwith the conditions.\nA58(3)\nOther factors\nIf it is determined that there are grounds for detention, the following factors\nshall be considered before a decision is made on detention or release:\n the existence of alternatives to detention\nR248(e)", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 5 (The Acts and Regulations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 6", + "marginal_note": "Forms and Publications", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "6. Forms and Publications\nThe ATD forms reflect the following: male, female and an unspecified options. The unspecified\nidentifier is an option that may be chosen by individuals who do not identify exclusively as male,\nfemale, as well as two -spirit individuals. However, some ATD forms will require an individual’s\ngender in order to ensure their safety and well-being through the ATD continuum.\nForm Title - CBSA Form\nNumber\nCommunity Case Management and Supervision Referral BSF801\nCommunity Case Management and Supervision - Supervision Agreement BSF802\nCommunity Case Management and Supervision Privacy Notice BSF803\nConsent to Share Location with the CBSA BSF804\nCommunity Case Management and Supervision Case Summary BSF805\n7\nCommunity Case Management and Supervision (CCMS) Change of\nConditions\nBSF806\nCommunity Case Management and Supervision Report of Non-Compliance BSF807\nClient Profile Set Up (Electronic Monitoring) BSF808\nClient Instructions (Electronic Monitoring) BSF809\nForm Title - Toronto Bail Program\nBail Program Supervision Contract\nAgreement of Supervision: Crim\nAgreement of Supervision: Holding Centre\nGraduation Request\nInterview Results\nWithdraw Supervision Letter Template\nThe ATD forms must be uploaded within seven business days into the Global Case Management\nSystem (GCMS) and in accordance with the Alternatives to Detention Forms Upload\nProcedures. The forms and assessment should also be placed on the individuals’ physical file.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 6 (Forms and Publications)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 7", + "marginal_note": "Departmental Policy", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "7. Departmental Policy\nThe CBSA has established tools and programs that enable officers to more effectively release\nindividuals into the community, while achieving balanced enforcement outcomes. The ATD\nprogram provides risk-based, nationally consistent programming to individuals deemed suitable\nfor release from detention.\nIn addition to the options of releasing an individual on reporting conditions (e.g., in -person\nreporting), cash deposit, or with a bond and/or guarantee upon the establishment of a suitable\nbondsperson, the ATD program also includes the option of:\n A national Community Case Management and Supervision (CCMS) program that\nmitigates risk factors in a manner that aligns in -community support services with\nindividuals’ needs.\n An Electronic Monitoring (EM) program that uses global positioning satellites, cellular and\nradio frequency technology to monitor an individual’s whereabouts.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 7 (Departmental Policy)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-8-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 8.1", + "marginal_note": "Risk identification for ATD Considerations", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.1. Risk identification for ATD Considerations\nRisk identification is an evaluation of the information available at the time of the assessment.\nInformation can be obtained through an interview and should include evidence available that\nmay help predict future behaviour.\n8\nRisks related to the objectives of the IRPA can generally be categorized in the following ways:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 8.1 (Risk identification for ATD Considerations)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "As described in paragraphs A3(1)(h) and A3(2)(g) risk to public safety is related to the", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. As described in paragraphs A3(1)(h) and A3(2)(g) risk to public safety is related to the\nobjectives of the IRPA. Public safety is the top priority f or the CBSA. When consequences\nassociated with public safety risks are significant, an officer may, where appropriate, impose\nconditions that they consider necessary, and the conditions must minimize the risk and be\nproportional to the risk (Mawut: 2022 FC 415, paragraph 35) for the purpose of release or\ndetention avoidance.\n2. Risk to program integrity is also a key consideration in regards to risk identification. These\nrisks relate to a negative impact on achieving all oth er objectives of the IRPA. The acceptable\ndegree of risk depends on the specific circumstances and is discussed further below.\nAt this stage, the focus is on identifying information that will be considered during the risk\nanalysis.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 1 (As described in paragraphs A3(1)(h) and A3(2)(g) risk to public safety is related to the)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-8-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 8.2", + "marginal_note": "Conducting the risk analysis", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.2. Conducting the risk analysis\nOnce all the available information on potential risks has been gathered, officers must analyze\nthe information to determine what weight should be given. The following factors and q uestions\nassist in determining the weight to be given:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 8.2 (Conducting the risk analysis)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?\na. Greater weight should be given to information that is believed to be unbiased and fully\ndescribes the behaviour or circumstances.\n2. How likely is it that the risk will impact the CBSA’s enforcement mandate or IRPA objective?\na. Greater weight should be given to information that directly relates to the objectives of\nthe IRPA. For example, a history of failing to appear for immigration proceedings or to\nappear before the Court for criminal matters should be given more weight than failure\nto appear for regulatory (traffic) proceedings.\nUsing the information gathered, officers consider the prescribed factors, as identified in sections\n244 to 247 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), as well as some\nadditional factors discussed below, as they relate to the grounds f or detention. Where the\nindividual is subject to conditions under the Criminal Code of Canada, care should be taken to\nensure that the conditions imposed under the IRPA are not contradictory. Officers should be\naware of the specific details of any criminal conditions and should considered this as part of the\nrisk analysis.\nOfficers should reference ENF 7 for factors to be considered by an officer before, during and\nafter arrest/detention.\n9\n8.2.1. Flight risk\nIndividuals who pose a risk of not appearing for proceedings (Unlikely to Appear) may be more\nlikely to appear than not after the imposition of conditions, taking into account the factors in\nsection R245 and parag raphs R248(b), (c) and (d) as well as any other relevant factors, such\nas:\n• Objective assessment of their chances of gaining durable status in Canada.\n• Existence of strong ties to a community in Canada.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 1 (How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": " Strong ties are a factor in favour of release if the ties are to a person or people\nwho can influence the person to appear for proceedings.\n Strong ties are a factor against release if the person or people have shown not to\nhave a positive influence and, t herefore, become a strong pull factor motivating\nthe individual not to appear for removal.\n• Access to sufficient financial means, which may provide an increased ability to abscond.\n• Use of false identity documents and aliases to evade detection from the authorities.\n• Previous attempts to hide their presence in Canada.\n• Lack of credibility, as demonstrated in dealings with immigration or police officials.\n• Co-operation of the individual.\n If an individual is uncooperative with the CBSA, this is a strong indicator that the\nindividual is unlikely to comply with imposed conditions.\n8.2.2. Identity\nParagraph 58(1)(d) of the IRPA provides that delegated officials may issue an opinion to the\nImmigration Division with respect to the establishing of identity of the foreign national, which the\nImmigration Division must consider during a detention review. This opinion must be documented\nusing the BSF510 form. In regions with Immigration Holding Centres (IHCs) the foreign national\ncould be detained at the IHC until their identity is established.\nEstablishing identity is a two-way street, in that both the Minister and the foreign national must\nwork together in an effort to establish the foreign nationals identity. The Immigration Division’s\nsupervisory jurisdiction on the issue of identity is limited to examining whether the Minister is\nconducting an ongoing investigation, in good faith, and the foreign national is cooperating with\nthe Minister in an effort to establish the foreign national’s identity.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 1 (How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-1-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The Federal Court of Appeal in Brown (2020 FCA 130, paragraph 99) states the following:\n“ Detention cannot be ordered on the basis of non-cooperation alone—to do so would be\ncontrary to sections 7 and 9. But where the impasse in effecting removal is disputed identity\nand the detainee has refused to cooperate in confirming their identity, delays in removal\ncannot count against the Minister. Release in these circumstances would encourage\ndetainees to be less than forthcoming. Where a detainee is uncooperative, detention\ncannot be classified as indefinite because it is within the detainee’s control to change their\ndestiny.\n10\nEstablishing the identity of an individual remains the cornerstone to the Canadian Immigration\nSystem (Singh: 2004 FC 1634, paragraph 38) and the non-confirmation of identity under the Act\nis still a ground for detention.\nThe CBSA must have enough reliable, accurate and comprehensive information to effectively\nassess the risk posed by an individual , if released. If the CBSA does not have sufficient\ninformation, release on the basis of ATDs is generally not appropriate until the CBSA is able to,\nbased on a balance of p robabilities, feel sufficiently comfortable that the information on file is\nenough to predict risk.\n8.2.3. Danger\nIndividuals who are detained for danger to the public should have their risk mitigated, so the risk\nof serious harm to the public is signi ficantly reduced by the conditions being imposed. Factors\nto be assessed include the following:\n• assessment related to present or future danger based on prior history;\n• positive danger opinion from the Minister;\n• association with criminal organizations, including people smuggling and human trafficking", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 1 (How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-1-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(membership is not required, just association; a criminal record is not required either)\n• convictions in Canada for offences involving violence or drug trafficking\n• charges or convictions outside Canada involving violence or drugs trafficking\n• age of convictions must be considered, as the more time that has passed since the\nconvictions the lesser the risk, taking into account efforts by the individual to rehabilitate,\nincluding any associated factors, such as substance addiction;\n• parole, probation and bail decisions (where available) serve as good references when\nevaluating the level of danger, and may include risk assessment and related supervision\nconditions in the area of criminal history, institutional/custodial behavior, and community\nreintegration potential, etc.\n CBSA’s assessment may take into consideration third party criminal justice\nagency information from a non-immigration perspective, and strengthen decision-\nmaking pertaining to the conditions recommended to manage risk. Where\npossible, CBSA’s conditions should respect any active parole, probation and bail\ndecisions to ensure consistency in the management of individuals risk to public\nsafety.\n• nature of the risk posed\n For example, if an individual presents a very likely risk of serious harm to the\npublic, the risk should be significantly reduced by the conditions being imposed. If\nthe risk posed to the public is based on predictive factors and is more general in\nnature, the imposed conditions should reasonably be expected to reduce the\ngeneral risk posed.\n11\n8.2.4. Mental health concerns\nThe risk posed by individuals with mental health concerns depends largely on the available\ntreatment options and the individual’s ability and willingness to participate in the treatment. The", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 1 (How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-1-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "history of the individual’s compliance with previous treatment is a good indicator of future\ncompliance. However, the individual’s history is only one factor to be considered, and should be\nassessed against their current ability and willingness to participate in treatment.\nThe National Risk Assessment for Detention (NRAD) form is used to determine the appropriate\nplacement of individuals in detention. Many of the factors identified and analyzed in the NRAD\nform are likely relevant to a risk analysis for alternatives to detention; however, the analysis of\nrisks for purpo ses of alternatives to detention must be done separately from the NRAD form\ndecision.\nFor more information on risk analysis and the use of the NRAD form, see ENF 20.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 1 (How reliable, accurate and comprehensive is the information?) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-8-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 8.3", + "marginal_note": "Risk offset", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.3. Risk offset\nRisk offset describes the degree to which the condition that is im posed is expected to minimize\nthe risk posed. Identifying conditions that effectively reduce the specific risk or risks posed is the\nintended outcome of this phase of the eligibility assessment of an ATD.\nA condition imposed as a risk offset should:\n• minimize the likelihood of the risk impacting the enforcement outcome;\n• minimize the risk of harm to the public;\n• address specific negative behaviours of the individual;\n• be reasonable and proportional to the risk.\nATD options may be combined together to offset risk. ATD options are at the disposal of CBSA\nofficers to leverage while imposing conditions on individuals that they consider necessary in light\nof the facts and circumstances before them. The imposed conditions must minimize risk and be\nproportional to the risk. For CCMS and EM, a suitability assessment must be conducted. For\nEM, concurrence from regional management is required.\nFurthermore, the ATD program options are at the disposal of the Hearings Officer to leverage in\nconsultation with the CLO and the Inland Enforcement Officer while making recommendations\nof release during detention reviews before an Immigration Division Member of the IRB.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 8.3 (Risk offset)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-8-4-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Evaluation of residual risk", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.4. Evaluation of residual risk\nResidual risk is the level of risk that remains if it is decided that an individual be placed on\nconditions. It is either acceptable residual risk (the risk has been sufficiently mitigated) or\nunacceptable residual risk (the risk has not been sufficiently mitigated). When an officer (CLO,\nInland Enforcement Officer, Border Services Officer) is considering release, or when a Hearings\n12\nOfficer is making submissions on a release plan to the IRB, the residual risk posed by the\nindividual, after conditions are imposed, is the primary consideration.\n What is acceptable or unacceptable in any given case depends on the unique facts of\nthe case. Therefore, a case-by-case analysis is required. It is important for officers to\nremember that if an individual is a flight risk, but poses no other risks, only those\nconditions that minimize their risk of absconding should be imposed. Similarly, if an\nindividual poses a risk to public safety, only the least onerous conditions to address that\nspecific risk should be imposed.\nWhen deciding if the residual risk is acceptable for individuals who are unlikely to appear, the\nofficer should be evaluating, on a balance of probabilities , whether the individual is more likely\nto appear than not.\nWhen deciding if the residual risk is acceptable for an individual who is detained for identity, the\nofficer must evaluate the risk of the individual not appearing and the possible danger to the public\nthe individual poses, taking into account the ri sks inherent in not being satisfied with the\nindividual’s identity. Additionally, the officer must be satisfied that the ability to continue the\ninvestigation into the individual’s identity is not negatively impacted by releasing the individual\non the conditions available.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 8.4 (Evaluation of residual risk) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-8-4-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 8.4", + "marginal_note": "Evaluation of residual risk", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "For an individual who presents as a danger to the public, the residual risk must be very low. The\nIRPA prioritizes the safety of the public and, therefore, any risk posed must be minimal, taking\ninto account all of the individual circumstances.\nIf the residual risk is acceptable, in the officer’s opinion, they may decide to release prior to the\n48 hour detention review or present the release options to the Hearings Officer for the detention\nreview.\nIf the residual risk is unacceptable, in the officer’s opinion, taking into account the factors in\nparagraphs R248(a) to (d), they should proceed with making a recommendation for continued\ndetention to the authorized reviewing manager or the Hearings Officer for the detention review,\nas appropriate.\nENF 3 Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews provides guidance on evaluating residual\nrisk at detention reviews.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 8.4 (Evaluation of residual risk) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-8-5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 8.5", + "marginal_note": "Documenting the decision", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "8.5. Documenting the decision\nOfficers are required to document their assessment of ATDs and the reasons for the\nrecommendation to continue detention or support release on ATDs. The written assessment of\nATDs must contain the salient facts and must include, at a minimum\n• the information that was available at the time the assessment was made;\n• factors used to determine the weight given to the information;\n13\n• the risks identified;\n• for a recommendation to continue detention, the factors in paragraphs R248(a) to (d) that\nweighed in favour of detention, when balanced against the risk offset provided by the\navailable ATDs;\n• for a recommendation to release on the basis of ATDs, the risk offset provided by the ATDs;\n• justification for any recommendation that is an exception to the guidelines provided in this\nmanual or other operational guidance.\nFor every assessment completed, all details must be entered into the relevant case management\nsystems (i.e., National Case Management System, GCMS, etc.). The BSF forms and\nassessment must be uploaded into GCMS in accordance with the Alternatives to Detention Form\nUpload Procedures and placed on the individuals’ physical file.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 8.5 (Documenting the decision)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-9", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 9", + "marginal_note": "Vulnerable persons", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "9. Vulnerable persons\nSome vulnerable persons have an increased risk, based on their vulnerability. For the purposes\nof immigration detention, vulnerable persons include but are not limited:\n pregnant women and nursing mothers;\n minors (under 18 years of age);\n persons suffering from a severe medical condition or disability;\n persons suffering from restricted mobility;\n persons with a suspected or known mental illness (including suicide and self harm);\n victims of human trafficking;\n persons who may face hardship for sexual or gender based reasons or who may be\nvictims or survivors of gender-based violence.\nIt is recognized that detention has a greater impact on vulnerable persons, and detention should\nbe minimized to the extent possible for such groups. Risk toler ance may be influenced by\nvulnerability factors. Each case needs to be assessed on its case -specific factors to determine\nif release is a viable option. If the individual has been identified on the National Risk Assessment\nfor Detention or through an IHC doctor assessment as a vulnerable person, the assessment and,\nif applicable, a referral to a CCMS Service Provider must be completed by the CLO within 72\nhours of the vulnerability being noted and the decisions documented as per section 8.5 of this\nmanual.\nSee ENF 20 Detentions for more information regarding vulnerable persons.\n14", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 9 (Vulnerable persons)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-10", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 10", + "marginal_note": "Minors", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "10. Minors\nSee ENF 20 Detentions for guidance on the factors to be considered when a case involves a\nminor child. This includes detention decisions related to parents and legal guardians of minors\nwhen the minor is affected.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 10 (Minors)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-11", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 11", + "marginal_note": "Use of Alternatives to Detention Program tools at ports of", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "11. Use of Alternatives to Detention Program tools at ports of\nentry\nThe assessment process for ATDs is the same at ports of entry (POE) as it is for inland cases.\nMost POE detentions are for a very short amount of time, and the grounds for detention are\nusually related to a high or unknown risk. These factors usually weigh heavily in favour of\ndetention. However, this does not preclude the officer’s responsibility to assess and consider\nATDs in all cases where detention may be continued.\nAll officers arresting and/or detaining under section A55 of the IRPA, including officers at th e\nPOE, are required to consider available ATDs. This i ncludes officers detaining on entry under\nA55(3). Border Services Officers could leverage, where necessary and appropriate, deposits\nand guarantees as ATDs when imposing conditions under POE authorities. Please refer to ENF8\nfor additional information on Deposits and Guarantees.\nIn instances where the POE examination has ended and ATDs are not available at the time of\narrest/detention under A55, the designated officer (e.g., Border Services Officer) that made the\ndecision to arrest and detain under A55 may refer the case to the CLO at the inland office that\nwill take carriage of the file, for further assessment of available ATDs.\nBorder Services Officers should ensure persons with disabilities are entitled to the same services\nas any other person, in accordance with the People Processing Manual Part One, Chapter Four\n– Awareness Issues.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 11 (Use of Alternatives to Detention Program tools at ports of)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12", + "marginal_note": "Alternatives to Detention", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12. Alternatives to Detention\nVarious ATDs are available and must be reasonably considered prior to immigration detention\nand while the individual remains in immigration detention. The officer should consider the\nindividual’s immigration history and potential risk against the maximum risk that can be\nmitigated through each ATD. Accessibility to ATDs may differ between POE and inland\nenforcement offices. The availability of ATDs may be impacted by the time of day of the arrest\nas some require involvement from third parties (e.g., guarantor or service provider).\n15", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12 (Alternatives to Detention)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.1", + "marginal_note": "Imposition of Conditions under 56(1)", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.1. Imposition of Conditions under 56(1)\nIRPA allows for general conditions to be imposed on individuals when the Minister orders the\nrelease of an individual. General conditions can be imposed with or without any additional\nconditions, such as payment of deposits, or in addition to other types of conditions (e.g.\ndeposits, community supervision, in-person reporting, etc.). It is important to note that release\nsolely on conditions equates to ATDs.\nThe following are commonly imposed conditions that are appropriate in a majority of cases where\nrelease from detention is being contemplated:\nCondition Risk mitigation\nKeep the CBSA\nupdated with a\ncurrent address\nA current address allows the CBSA to locate the individual if they\nfail to comply with conditions or requirements, including removal.\nA current address is likely to provide investigative leads if the\nindividual fails to comply.\nReport criminal\ncharges and\nconvictions\nCriminal charges and convictions are indicators that an\nindividual may pose a danger to the public, which is a primary\nconcern for the CBSA.\nCooperate with\nobtaining an identity\nor travel document\nThe lack of an identity or travel document is often the sole\nimpediment to removal for many individuals. Obtaining an\nidentity or travel document can take a long time, and the sooner\nthe process begins, the more likely the timely removal of the\nperson will take place if it becomes necessary.\nOther conditions,\nincluding those listed\non the BSF821 form\n(Acknowledgement\nof Conditions)\nAn officer may impose any other condition that they consider\nnecessary in order to address risk specific to each individual\nprovided the condition is proportional to the risk ; however, the\nofficer must be able to articulate why specific conditions are\nbeing imposed and they cannot be unreasonable or amount to\nde facto detention.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.1 (Imposition of Conditions under 56(1))", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.2", + "marginal_note": "Issuance of deposits and guarantees", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.2. Issuance of deposits and guarantees\nDeposits and guarantees are tools intended to provide some assurances that an individual will\ncomply with conditions imposed. Deposits and guarantees are discussed in ENF 8 Deposits and\nGuarantees.\n16", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.2 (Issuance of deposits and guarantees)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.3", + "marginal_note": "In-person reporting", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.3. In-person reporting\nIn-person reporting is intended to keep the individual connected with the CBSA through regular\nface-to-face interactions. Regular reporting allows the CBSA to obtain updates on information\nrelevant to the administration and/or enforcemen t of IRPA and allows the individual to ask\nquestions of the CBSA in relation to their immigration enforcement proceedings.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.3 (In-person reporting)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.4", + "marginal_note": "Remote Reporting", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.4. Remote Reporting\nWith the decommissioning of Voice Reporting System and the delay in implementing its\nreplacement, on a case-by-case basis, an individual may be permitted to report remotely via\ntelephone. An individual should only be considered for this option if they cannot physically report\nin-person (e.g., geographical location – individual lives in Whitehorse, or mobility issues).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.4 (Remote Reporting)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-5-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Community Case Management and Supervision", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.5. Community Case Management and Supervision\nLike all other ATD options, the CCMS program is intended for individuals under the immigration\ncontinuum, who are cooperative with the CBSA in working towards furthering their enforcement\nproceedings, including effecting their removal from Canada. CCMS provides released\nindividuals with services in the community that mitigate and manage the risk they pose through\ncase management and pro -social t reatment options. CCMS is delivered by existing non -\ngovernmental organizations and community organizations contracted by the CBSA to provide\nthese services.\nCCMS service providers conduct an eligibility assessment of detained individuals referred to\nthem by the CLO and provide the results of the eligibility assessment to the CLO. If the service\nprovider accepts an individual into the program and CCMS is imposed as a condition by either\nthe CBSA or the IRB order for release, the CCMS service provider will enrol the individual in the\nappropriate program and services, and will monitor the individual as they participate in the\nprogram.\nCCMS services are primarily focused on mitigating and managing the risk of non -compliance\nassociated with vulnerabilities such as physical health, mental health , substance abuse,\naddictions and behavioral issues. Additionally, the CCMS service provider can refer individuals\nto existing community resources that provide housing and shelter assistance as well as child\nand family services.\nFor a limited number of individuals who present a high flight risk or dange r to the public, CCMS\nservice providers have community residential facilities that individuals can be released to, under\nstrict conditions and subject to very close monitoring. Individuals released to these facilities are", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.5 (Community Case Management and Supervision) (part 1 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-5-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Community Case Management and Supervision", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "required to reside in the facility, follow facility rules and participate in any programmes deemed\nnecessary to mitigate and manage the risk the individual poses.\n17\nCCMS service providers report any violations of conditions to the CLO who will then consider all\nof the information and consult impacted areas, as required, when determining an appropriate\nresolution.\n12.5.1. Description of CCMS services\nCCMS is intended to address factors that are likely to impact the individual’s ability to maintain\na stable community living situation. The underlying premise is that an individual who is stable in\nthe community is more likely to comply with imposed IRPA requirements and conditions.\nThe following CCMS service s assist individuals in becoming and remaining stable in the\ncommunity:\nService Description\nCase management Every individual enrolled in CCMS receives case management services.\nThe CCMS service provider performs an assessment to determine the\nappropriate nature and frequency of case management services. At a\nminimum, the individual is required to report to the C CMS service\nprovider at regular intervals to update on changes to their living situation,\ndaily activities (such as work and school) and any specific issues that\ncould impact compliance with the imposed conditions.\nLinks to health\nsupport\nIndividuals who have a serious medical condition that require significant\nongoing treatment may be eligible to receive support from the CCMS\nservice provider in arranging and managing their treatment in the\nabsence of a support system of their own.\nMental health\nassistance\nIndividuals with mental health issues that are likely to impact their\ncompliance with conditions may have treatment options available to\nthem that are designed to support and encourage compliance with IRPA", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.5 (Community Case Management and Supervision) (part 2 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-5-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Community Case Management and Supervision", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "requirements and imposed conditions. These services may be provided\nby program operators available through the CCMS service provider or\nsubcontracted by the CCMS service provider.\nAddiction and\nsubstance abuse\ncounselling and\nsupport\nIndividuals whose ability to comply with conditions is impacted by\naddiction may be eligible to participate in counselling and/or treatment\nprograms designed to minimize the impact of their addiction and assist\nwith maintaining stability in the community. These outcomes are\nexpected to suppo rt the individual’s ability to comply with imposed\nconditions.\n18\nInformation\nregarding housing\nand employment\nIndividuals who are eligible to work in Canada may be eligible to receive\nassistance from the CCMS service provider in accessing local\nemployment resources. Employment provides stability in the community\nas well as a legitimate source of funds to live on, both of which contribute\nto the individual being more likely to comply with imposed conditions.\nIndividuals who are or anticipate having difficulty finding a stable\nresidence may be eligible to receive assistance from the CCMS service\nprovider in accessing local housing resources. A stable residential\naddress is one of the strongest contributors to a n individual complying\nwith conditions.\nInformation\nregarding child-\nrelated or family\nneeds\nIndividuals with child -care needs may be eligible to receive assistance\nfrom the CCMS service provider in accessing local resources. A stable\ncommunity and family situation both contribute to an increased likelihood\nof compliance.\nMandatory\nresidency\nIndividuals who require close supervision may be eligible to be placed\ninto residential facilities operated by the CCMS service provider. These", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.5 (Community Case Management and Supervision) (part 3 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-5-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Community Case Management and Supervision", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "facilities closely monitor the individual’s behavior and report any\nconcerns or violations of curfews or other conditions to the CBSA\nimmediately. Individuals may receive treatment services in some of\nthese facilities and be escorted to appointments and treatment programs\nby the CCMS service provider when necessary.\nTo maintain the integrity of the CCMS program and ensure resources are used most\neffectively, below are guidelines on individuals that should not be considered for enrolment\nin CCMS.\nExamples may include, but are not limited to:\n Protected persons (including Convention Refugees) who have lost their Permanent\nResident status due to serious criminality. CBSA cannot enforce the removal order.\n Protected persons (including Convention Refugees) who have lost their Permanent\nResident status due to criminality, but for whom a Danger Opinion is not being sought.\nCBSA cannot enforce the removal order.\n Permanent Residents who have applied for, or have been granted an Immigration\nAppeal Division (IAD) stay. They remain Permanent Residents.\n Eligible refugee claimant who are eligible for services and programs through settlement\nprofessionals.\n12.5.2. Referral to the CCMS service provider\nAt any time throughout the enforcement continuum, an officer, including an arresting officer, the\nHearings Officer and a CLO, may form the opinion that the risk the individual presents could be\n19\nmitigated or managed by one of the services available through the CCMS service provider. The\nCLO, as the ATD subject matter expert, will conduct an assessment to determine if the individual\nshould be recommended for an ATD. This includes the completion of all relevant BSF forms, in\naccordance with risk offset strategies and ATD program objectives.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.5 (Community Case Management and Supervision) (part 4 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-5-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Community Case Management and Supervision", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "The decision to refer an individual for an eligibility assessment by the CCMS service provider\nshould take into account these factors:\n• Expected removal timeline:\n CCMS is intended to provide risk mitigation over a period of time, as part of a case\nmanagement process. If the individual is being removed within a few weeks or\nless, CCMS is likely not appropriate, as the assessment and enrolment process\nmay take some time.\n• Stability of the individual in detention:\n In the event an individual has medical or mental health concerns that have\ncontributed to their detention, these issues must be stabilized while in detention to\na point that the individual can effectively participate in the assessment process.\n• Risk level of the individual:\n If the risk level of the individual is so high that release on even the strictest\nconditions is only plausible far into the future, an assessment should not be\nrequested. The relevance of an assessment by the CCMS service p rovider\ndiminishes over time and should be done only when there is a realistic possibility\nof release.\nIn most instances, the decision to refer an individual for an eligibility assessment rests solely\nwith the CLO. When a CCMS service provider has comprehensive knowledge of CBSA\nenforcement operations, referrals to the CCMS program may also be initiated through outside\nparties, such as the individual themselves, counsel or another party associated with the\nindividual (only available through the Tor onto Bail Program or by the Immigration Division) .\nThese may be directed to the CLO for referral or to the CCMS service provider themselves. The\nCLO, in conjunction with the CCMS service provider, will review the request and take appropriate", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.5 (Community Case Management and Supervision) (part 5 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-5-p6", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Community Case Management and Supervision", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "action. Once reviewed by the CLO, the CCMS provider may undertake an eligibility assessment\nof an outside referral following notification to the CLO. For Member directed referrals, the CLO\nwill send the referral to the service provider on behalf of the IRB, regardless of whether or not\nthe CLO is in agreement of the referral. The CLO should refrain from providing their opinion on\na individual’s suitability when submitting the CCMS Supervision Referral Form for Member\ndirected referrals.\nIf an IRB Member directs the CBSA to refer the individual to the service provider for a CCMS\neligibility assessment, the CLO must articulate a chronological immigration history of the\nindividual on the CCMS Supervision Referral Form and forward it to the service provider so that\nthey can conduct th e eligibility assessment. The CCMS Supervision Referral Form must also\narticulate that it is a member directed referral.\n20\nIn the instance of a CLO referral, the referral must include all of the salient facts that the CBSA\nhas available to assist the CCMS service provider in assessing the individual for services and\ntreatment.. In completing the assessment, the CLO must conduct a comprehensive file and\nsystems review, that may include speaking with the Inland Enforcement Officer, Removals\nOfficer, Hearings Officer, and Detention Liaison Officer or IHC staff when necessary. The\nassessment process by the CLO should include an interview with the detainee in order to\ndetermine ATD eligibility. The CLO should not initiate simultaneous CCMS referrals.\n12.5.3. CCMS Regional Transfer\nTransfers of actual or potential CCMS participants are permitted for all intervention levels\nprovided that several logistical steps are performed prior to doing so. Whenever possible,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.5 (Community Case Management and Supervision) (part 6 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-5-p7", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.5", + "marginal_note": "Community Case Management and Supervision", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "CCMS transfers should be planned and set-up two to three working days prior to the actual\ntransfer date to address outliers and ensure a smooth transfer.\nCCMS transfers can occur in the following scenarios for which the list is non-exhaustive:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.5 (Community Case Management and Supervision) (part 7 of 7)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "An individual is enrolled in CCMS with a service provider and wishes to move to another", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. An individual is enrolled in CCMS with a service provider and wishes to move to another\nregion to improve ATD program outcomes. For example, moving to a city where they\nhave deeper ties to the community (family, close friend, etc.). The goal in this scenario\nis to improve ATD program outcomes and better prepare the participant for success\nduring the programs de-escalation stage.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 1 (An individual is enrolled in CCMS with a service provider and wishes to move to another)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "An individual is in detention, is not enrolled in the ATD program, has few or no ties to", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. An individual is in detention, is not enrolled in the ATD program, has few or no ties to\nthe community in their originating region, but has strong ties in another region where the\nCCMS program is available.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 2 (An individual is in detention, is not enrolled in the ATD program, has few or no ties to)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "An individual is in detention, is not enrolled in the ATD program, and the CBSA regional", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. An individual is in detention, is not enrolled in the ATD program, and the CBSA regional\nboundary does not align with the service provider regional boundary (e.g. Hamilton is in\nGreater Toronto Area Region for the CBSA but in Southern Ontario Region for the\nservice provider).", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 3 (An individual is in detention, is not enrolled in the ATD program, and the CBSA regional)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 4", + "marginal_note": "An individual is in detention, is not enrolled in the ATD program, and when no sufficient", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "4. An individual is in detention, is not enrolled in the ATD program, and when no sufficient\nhigh intervention programming is available in the originating region. For example, a\nsituation where no beds are available in the originating region where the case is, but are\navailable in another.\nIt is important to note that all costs associated with CCMS transfers are the responsibility of the\ntwo regions involved. Costs incurred by the regions may include, but are not limited to: fleet\nvehicle use and gasoline, bus/train/airplane tickets for the individual being transferred, officer\nsalary and any overtime incurred, and meal per diems for longer escorted transfers. Please\nrefer to the CCMS Regional Transfer Guidelines for additional details.\n12.5.4. Assessment by the CCMS service provider\nUpon receipt of a referral, the CCMS service provider performs an initial review of the information\nand contacts the CLO with a plan to complete the eligibility assessment. When necessary, the\n21\nCLO assists the CCMS service provider in gathering additional information that may be required\nin setting up interviews with the individual.\nThe CCMS service provider interviews the individual in person or remotely, if necessary, using\nthe services of an interpreter, as required. The service provider provides the results of the\neligibility assessment to the CLO as soon as it is completed and within the timelines outlined in\nthe CCMS service providers statement of work.\nThe completed assessment is reviewed by the CLO and can be used in subsequent detention\nreviews by the Hearings Officer, as appropriate. The eligibility assessment provides the CBSA\nwith sufficient information related to a proposed release plan for presentation to the IRB.\n12.5.5. CCMS Use of Interpreters\nThe CBSA has access to interpreters through a list of accredited and security cleared\ninterpreters maintained by IRCC.\nCCMS service providers can access (and use) the interpreters list to assist in service delivery\nduring the following phases:", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 4 (An individual is in detention, is not enrolled in the ATD program, and when no sufficient)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 1", + "marginal_note": "Referral and Assessment: the service provider is required, at the request of the CBSA", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "1. Referral and Assessment: the service provider is required, at the request of the CBSA\nand/or the IRB to assess individuals for ATD CCMS enrolment. This will include an\ninterview, which may be undertaken in person or via telephone.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 1 (Referral and Assessment: the service provider is required, at the request of the CBSA)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 2", + "marginal_note": "Enrolment: once released by the IRB, the service provider will meet with the individual", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "2. Enrolment: once released by the IRB, the service provider will meet with the individual\nto enrol them in ATD CCMS Program. This includes discussing the terms and\nconditions of release and any service provider-related rules for programming.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 2 (Enrolment: once released by the IRB, the service provider will meet with the individual)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-3-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Case Management: the service provider is required to meet with the individual while", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "3. Case Management: the service provider is required to meet with the individual while\nthey are released into the community to discuss programming, verify attendance, etc.\n12.5.6. Enrolment with the CCMS service provider\nOnce enrolment with a CCMS service provider has been imposed as a condition of release by\nthe CBSA or the IRB, the CLO makes arrangements with the CCMS service provider to enrol\nthe individual. In most cases, the individual is released from the detention facility with a direction\nto report to the CCMS service provider at a scheduled time.\nHigh-risk individuals may be transported to the CCMS service provider office or residential facility\nby the CBSA or contracted guard service for enrolment, when deemed necessary. The CBSA or\nthe contracted guard service can only transport individuals who have their release conditions\nexplicitly worded that release is contingent upon enrolment.\nAt the enrolment appointment, the CCMS case worker reviews the release conditions imposed\nand the particulars of the individual’s case to develop an appropriate program of reporting and\ncommunity services that collectively mitigates risk factors present. They further explain what is\nrequired of the individual to participate in the CCMS program. The specific services and\n22\nprograms that the individual is subject to, as part of their participation in the CCMS program, are\ndocumented within the Agreement of Supervision or the Supervision Contract initiated between\nthe CCMS service provider and the individual. This document (BSF802) is sent to the CLO using\nCanada Post Connect and is to be placed on the individual’s file, in accordance with the CCMS\nstatement of work. All relevant information is put into the NCMS. Within seven business days,", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 3 (Case Management: the service provider is required to meet with the individual while) (part 1 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-3-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Case Management: the service provider is required to meet with the individual while", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "the CLO will upload the ATD forms into GCMS as per the ATD Form Upload Procedures.\n12.5.7. Monitoring and enforcement by CCMS service provider and CBSA\nOnce the individual has been enrolled into the CCMS program, the CCMS service provider has\nregular and ongoing interactions with the individual to ensure that the individual is abiding by the\nrequirements of the program and their release conditions. Over the course of their participation\nin the program, the CCMS service provider, in accordance with the parameters of their statement\nof work, provides the CLO with any new information received from the individual that may be of\ninterest to the CBSA in the ongoing administration of the program.\nOn a regular schedule, the CCMS service provider will review the services the individual is\nenrolled in and provide the CLO with a recommendation to maintain the current services or\nmodify them, in accordance with the CCMS service providers statement of work . In general,\nindividuals enrolled in the CCMS program are expected to gradually require less support from\nthe CCMS service provider, to the point where they can remain stable in the community without\nsupport from the CCMS service provider.\nIf the CCMS service provider becomes a ware that the individual is not abiding by the\nrequirements of the CCMS program or other conditions of their release, the CCMS service\nprovider must contact the CLO with the details. The CLO, in conjunction with the service\nprovider, will have a discussion to determine the appropriate response. Depending on the nature\nand severity of the violation, the history of the individual and the risk level of the individual, more\nrestrictive conditions may be imposed, withdrawal of supervision may be undertaken, and the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 3 (Case Management: the service provider is required to meet with the individual while) (part 2 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-3-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 3", + "marginal_note": "Case Management: the service provider is required to meet with the individual while", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "case may be referred for investigation and further enforcement action.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 3 (Case Management: the service provider is required to meet with the individual while) (part 3 of 3)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-6-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.6", + "marginal_note": "Electronic monitoring", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "12.6. Electronic monitoring\nThe National Electronic Monitoring Program (NEMP) is an ATD option and is currently operated\nthrough a partnership with Correctional Service Canada (CSC) . A Memorandum of\nUnderstanding with CSC facilitates the provision of monitoring services, software profile\nmanagement and inventory services.\nEM involves attaching a bracelet -type device to an individual’s ankle which allows continuous\nmonitoring of the individual’s location when released in the community. The bracelet is securely\nattached and should only be removed in cases of medical necessity, unless otherwise directed\nby the CBSA or IRB.\n23\nEM is intended to be used in conjunction with CCMS, a deposit or guarantee, or both for\nindividuals who present a high risk if released into the community, but whose predicted length of\ndetention favours release. Individuals on EM usually have restrictions on places and times that\nthey can be in the community. Compliance with these conditions is monitored at all times by staff\nin the National Monitoring Centre, operated by CSC. Any violation of EM conditions is reported\nimmediately to the CBSA for review and action, as required.\n12.6.1. Enrolment\nOnce an individual has an EM condition imposed by the IRB or CBSA, the enrolment process is\ninitiated by regional CBSA staff. EM enrolment is a two -step process: installation of the ankle\nmonitor on the individual and installation of the Radio Frequency (RF) modem in the individual’s\nresidence. The installation of the EM monitoring device takes approximately 60 minutes and is\ndone by a CBSA inland enforcement officer.\nBefore the individual’s release from detention, the officer performs an assessment of the\nproposed residence and tests the functioning of the RF unit and the ankle monitor at the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.6 (Electronic monitoring) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-12-6-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 12.6", + "marginal_note": "Electronic monitoring", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "proposed residence by verifying the operation of the units with the CSC National Monitoring\nCentre. After verifying the equipment is functioning correctly, officers explain to the individual the\nterms and conditions of their participation in the NEMP and installs the ankle monitor. The officer\nreviews and shares a copy of the NEMP Client Handbook, which has their EM assigned client\nnumber listed on the cover page. The officer should also pr ovide the client with a copy of the\nNEMP – Charging Instructions document.\nEnrolment in the NEMP program is undertaken in English and French only, so an interpreter may\nbe necessary to assist the individual in following enrolment instructions.\nWhen an individual is successfully enrolled, they are provided with detailed written instructions\non how to remain compliant with NEMP requirements and the particular conditions associated\nwith their participation on the program. They are also provided with a handbook that provides\ntips, troubleshooting and contact information for assistance.\n12.6.2. Monitoring and enforcement\nIndividuals on EM are monitored by the CSC National Monitoring Centre, in conjunction with the\nCBSA. Any breach or non-compliance is referred to the region for immediate action. All functions\nrelated to monitoring and enforce ment are undertaken in accordance with NEMP policies and\nguidelines and are governed by the established Memorandum of Understanding between both\ndepartments.\n24", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 12.6 (Electronic monitoring) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-13-1-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "Community liaison officer", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.1. Community liaison officer\nThe role of the CLO is to provide a centralized approach for the ATD program. All CBSA regions\nhave dedicated CLOs to ensure the effective and ongoing use of ATDs, in accordance with\nprogram objectives, national policies and guidelines. The CLO is the subject matter expert in all\nregions for ATDs and are primarily responsible for the assessment, referral and case\nmanagement of ATD individuals. . While the CLO is not the primary file holder for specific cases,\nthey must be made aware of all new detention cases. They may be informed about detaine es\nthrough inclusion on arrest and detention emails, and may review the Notice of Arrest and\nDetention, or where applicable, converse with the arresting officer to discuss which ATD options\nare suitable based on the individual’s immigration history, abilit y to acquire travel documents,\nties to Canada, period of time since last incident with the CBSA or the criminal justice system\nand vulnerabilities.\nIt is the CLO’s responsibility to conduct an initial assessment to determine if the individual should\nbe recommended for an ATD, in accordance with case management risk mitigation strategies\nand ATD program objectives. The assessment process by the CLO should include an interview\nwith the detainee in order to determine ATD eligibility. All individuals for whom detention was\nordered and continued past the seven day detention review will be assigned for an ATD\nassessment by the CLO to ensure all individuals have an ATD assessment prior to the 30 -day\ndetention review. The CLO is the sole point of contact in the region for the CCMS service\nprovider. On a monthly basis, the CLO will review the individuals’ file to determine if they should", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 13.1 (Community liaison officer) (part 1 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-13-1-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 13.1", + "marginal_note": "Community liaison officer", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "be considered for de-escalation and/or graduation from the CCMS program, and recommend\namended conditions for consideration by the IRB.\nAt the three (3) month mark of EM participation OR as new information comes to light that\ndiminishes the need1 for EM use, the CLO must initiate a case review for EM participants. This\ncan be done alone or with the assistance of the regional EM response unit.\n If the case was not recommended for de-escalation by the CLO at the three (3) month\nmark, the CLO is to review the case every thirty (30) days thereafter or as new\ninformation becomes available that diminishes the need for EM use.\nThe CLO’s are regional program officers with the delegated authorities under the IRPA to make\ndecisions. Despite this authority, they are not expected to make decisions on detention, release\nor the imposition of conditions. Rather, they provide functional advice and guidance, as required,\non the imposition of ATD condition to Inland Enforcement Officers, Border Services Officers and\nHearings Officers in the management of their cases and the execution of their work. The CLO\nmay, in conjunction with Inland Enforcement Officers and CCMS service providers , monitor\nindividuals released into the community to assess their continued compliance w ith the ATD\nProgram.\n1 Examples of information include but are not limited to: solidified travel documents; new family and/or kin has\ncome forward to vouch for the participant; a history of compliance with the program.\n25", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 13.1 (Community liaison officer) (part 2 of 2)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-13-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 13.2", + "marginal_note": "CSC National Monitoring Centre", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.2. CSC National Monitoring Centre\nThe CSC National Monitoring Centre monitors the status of individuals enrolled in EM 24 hours\nper day and seven days per week and immediately notifies the CBSA of any violations of EM\nconditions. The CSC National Monitoring Centre also confirms the successful installation and\napplication of EM equipment during enrolment and provides technical support to CBSA officers\nresponsible for managing individuals on EM.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 13.2 (CSC National Monitoring Centre)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-13-3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 13.3", + "marginal_note": "CCMS service provider", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "13.3. CCMS service provider\nThe CCMS service provider writes an eligibility assessment for individuals referred to them that\ndescribes the services and support available that are expected to mitigate and manage the\nindividual’s risk in the community. Once the individual is enrolled in CCMS programming, the\nCCMS service provider monitors the individual and provides case management services.\nInformation regarding changes in circumstances and violations is reported to the CLO for review\nand action, if required.\nThe CCMS service provider must ensure the necessary services and programs are available in\nthe service locations listed in the statement of work and fulfill the reporti ng and administrative\nobligations outlined in the statement of work. The CCMS service provider must provide qualified,\nsecurity-cleared staff to perform case management functions, as specified in the statement of\nwork.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 13.3 (CCMS service provider)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-14-0-p1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 14.0", + "marginal_note": "Jurisprudence", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "14.0. Jurisprudence\nThe CLO is required to write comprehensive notes to file based on the assessment they\nconduct, including a recommendation for an ATD if applicable, because these\nrecommendations could be put forward by the Hearings Officers during a detention review\nbefore the IRB.\nThe Federal Court in Mawut (Citation: 2021 FC 1155) stated the following:\n[35] As a practical matter, the Minister’s representative should review the file and start\nfrom the premise that disclosure is the rule and withholding information, the\nexception. As the Federal Court of Appeal noted in Brown, at paragraph 142, the duty\nto disclose “is not unlimited” and is “tempered by the requirement that the information\nbe relevant.” Relevance should be assessed according to the principles set out\nabove. An assessment of relevance, however, cannot be based on the Minister’s\nrepresentative’s opinion as to what avenues the detainee’s counsel should pursue, or\nthe idea that the evidence already disclosed is overwhelming with respect to a\nparticular issue or sufficient to justify detention.\n26\n[36] Given the nature of detention reviews, the Minister’s duty to disclose is a\ncontinuing one. Therefore, as the situation evolves, the weight of each section 248\nfactor may vary. Nevertheless, information should not be withheld simply because the\nMinister’s representative believes that information may only become relevant at a\nlater stage.\n[37] Adherence to the foregoing principles should go a long way towards preventing\ndisputes regarding the scope of disclosure. Should an issue nonetheless arise, it\nshould be brought before the ID.\nIt is important to note that the CBSA has the obligation to demonstrate the IRB Members", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 14.0 (Jurisprudence) (part 1 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-14-0-p2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 14.0", + "marginal_note": "Jurisprudence", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "that it is being diligent in considering ATDs for vulnerable individuals. The Federal Court in\nLee (Citation: 2022 FC 383) stated the following:\n[68] As counsel for Ms. Lee properly emphasizes, there is a heightened obligation on\nthe part of the ID to consider alternatives to detention for vulnerable persons such as\npersons with mental illness (a point I will return to below). Related to this is a heightened\nonus on the Minister to justify the detention of such persons, as reflected in paragraph\n3.1.15 of the Guideline. Consequently, as the Guideline also notes, a member\nshould “actively question” the steps that the Minister has taken to make an alternative\nto detention available when the person concerned is a vulnerable person. I am not\npersuaded that the ID erred in failing to do this in the last detention review. That being\nsaid, there has now been a material change in circumstances with the March 14, 2022,\nOrder of Justice Ahmed granting an interlocutory stay of Ms. Lee’s removal. Given this,\nI fully expect the question of whether the CBSA is being diligent in identifying and\nsupporting alternatives to detention to be front and centre at the next detention review.\nIt is noteworthy that the CBSA has a heightened obligation to consider ATDs when detention\nbecomes lengthy. The Federal Court in Ahmed (Citation: 2015 FC 876) stated the following:\n[34] Nevertheless, given the finding that Mr. Ahmed’s detention is indefinite, both the\nBoard and the Minister ar e under a heightened obligation to consider alternatives to\ndetention, specifically release upon conditions. The National Parole Board previously\ndetermined that Mr. Ahmed could be released subject to stringent conditions. It is open\nto the Board to require a psychological assessment as a condition of release (Canada", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 14.0 (Jurisprudence) (part 2 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-14-0-p3", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 14.0", + "marginal_note": "Jurisprudence", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Romans, 2005 FC 435 at para 74). Counsel\nfor Mr. Ahmed informed the Court that she has initiated the process to update the\nMinister’s Danger Opinion. These are all considerations that should be at the forefront\nwhen Mr. Ahmed’s detention is next reviewed on July 24, 2015.\nIt is important to note that ATDs need not be perfect. Rather, they need only be proportional\nto the individual’s risk profile. The Federal Court in Hamdan (Citation: 2019 FC 1129) stated\nthe following:\n27\n[97] Some final comments are in order regarding the specifics of the 25\nconditions. First, there could of course have been more safeguards placed within them\nin a perfect world. But as pointed out above, perfection is not the standard to be\nattained in a reasonableness review, and thus alternatives to detention need not\nbe perfect (Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Berisha, 2012 FC\n1100 at para 85). Rather, they need only be proportionate and attainable, which these\nconditions were.\nIt is noteworthy that the “virtually eliminate” test is vi rtually impossible to meet and could\nprevent release whenever a detainee is a danger to the public. The Federal Court in Mawut\n(Citation: 2022 FC 415) stated the following:\n[35] I wish to add that in reaching this conclusion, I have not found it necessary to rely\non the idea that the conditions of release must “virtually eliminate” any danger to the\npublic posed by Mr. Mawut. The phrase “virtually eliminate” finds its or igin in Canada\n(Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Lunyamila, 2016 FC 1199, [2017] 3\nFCR 428 [Lunyamila], and was mentioned in subsequent cases. It is not always easy\nto reduce a complex decision -making process to a few words. Taken too literally, the", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 14.0 (Jurisprudence) (part 3 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-14-0-p4", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 14.0", + "marginal_note": "Jurisprudence", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "“virtually eliminate” test is virtually impossible to meet and could foreclose release\nwhenever a detainee is a danger to the public. This, however, is not what is\ncontemplated by section 58 of the Act and section 248 of the Regulations, nor by the\ndecision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Brown. In the context of bail, which shares a\npreventive purpose with immigration detention, conditions must “minimize’ or\n“attenuate” risk and be “proportional to the risk”: R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14, at paragraphs\n84, 85 and 89. I also note that in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)\nv Ali, 2018 FC 552, at paragraph 47, a decision rendered after Lunyamila, the test in\nthe context of immigration detention was described as “any conditions of release [must\nbe] sufficiently robust to ensure that the general public will not be exposed to any\nmaterial risk of harm” . Whatever the best manner to formulate the test, it was clearly\nnot met in this case. The basic conditions imposed by the ID do not attenuate in any\nway, and are not proportional to the risk posed by Mr. Mawut.\nIt is of paramount importance to note that EM only monitors an individual’s whereabouts, not\nhis activities, who he talks to and what he says. Therefore, a human supervision component is\nvital. The Federal Court in Bruzzese (Citation: 2014 FC 230) stated the following:\n[78] Finally, I have also come to the conclusion that ID members could reasonably find\nthat t he GPS monitoring was not sufficient to overcome the shortcomings of the\nbondspersons offered by the Applicant. There is no doubt that such a device, in\ncombination with appropriate bondspersons, can sometimes provide an acceptable\nalternative to detention. In the case at bar, however, there were good reasons to find that", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 14.0 (Jurisprudence) (part 4 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-14-0-p5", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 14.0", + "marginal_note": "Jurisprudence", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "it would not be sufficient to offset the concerns with respect to danger to the public. First\nof all, Mr Bruzzese did not present the ID members with a comprehensive proposal\nwhereby any risk of flight could allegedly be managed, as was done in Tursunbayev. It\nappears that the bracelet used by the proposed company could be cut with a simple pair\n28\nof scissors, that it might take six hours to notify the authorities should the system breaks\ndown, and that the monitoring would discontinue should the monthly bill not be paid.\nMaybe more importantly, the system would only control Mr Bruzzese’s location, not his\nactivities, who he talks to and what he says. The GPS, therefore, might conceivably be\nan alternative to detention as far as the flight risk is concerned, but it would not be sufficient\nto ensure that Mr Bruzzese is not involved in the criminal activities of the ‘Ndrangheta,\neither in Canada or abroad.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 14.0 (Jurisprudence) (part 5 of 5)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-15", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 15", + "marginal_note": "Presenting the alternatives to detention assessment at", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "15. Presenting the alternatives to detention assessment at\ndetention reviews\nThe results of an ATD eligibility assessment is used by Hearings Officers when making\nsubmissions to the IRB on the residual risk posed by an individual if released. This may include\nthe assessment by the CCMS service provider, if enrolment in CCMS is being proposed. In\ngeneral, Hearings Officers make submissions on whether the factors in paragraphs R248(a) to\n(d) weigh in favour of detention or release, taking into account the residual risk after the available\nATDs are considered.\nSee ENF 3 Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews for more information on the factors for\nconsideration and procedures at detention reviews.\nIf the CBSA has not referred the case to the CCMS servi ce provider and does not intend to in\nthe foreseeable future, the Hearings Officer should provide a brief explanation of that decision.\nIf the IRB requests that the individual be referred to the CCMS service provider for eligibility\nassessment, the CLO must do so.\nWhen making submissions on the wording of the conditions for CCMS and EM, the Hearings\nOfficer should propose language that allow the CCMS service provider and the CBSA the latitude\nnecessary to manage the person effectively while released. The proposed wording of the\nconditions should authorize the CBSA to modify or cancel the conditions imposed by the IRB\nrelated to CCMS and EM.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 15 (Presenting the alternatives to detention assessment at)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-16", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 16", + "marginal_note": "Privacy and information-sharing", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16. Privacy and information-sharing\nInformation collected under the ATD Program can only be disclosed under the provisions of the\nPrivacy Act . See CBSA guidelines of information -sharing for details. In general, collected\ninformation can be shared under paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act if it is shared for a use\nconsistent with the purpose it was collected for. Information related to alternatives to detention\nis collected for the purpose of administering and enforcing the IRPA.\n29", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 16 (Privacy and information-sharing)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-16-1", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 16.1", + "marginal_note": "Community case management and supervision Privacy Notice form", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.1. Community case management and supervision Privacy Notice form\nThe CBSA is authorized to share information necessary for the assessment and participation\nin CCMS with the CCMS service provider, without the consent of the individual, as prescribed\nin paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act. However, the individual must be notified that their\ninformation is being shared. The CCMS Privacy Notice form (BSF803) notifies the individual\nthat their information may be provided to the CCMS service provider to start the eligibility\nassessment process and as needed, if enrolled. The sharing and use of information must be\nconveyed to the individual by the CLO, using an interpreter, if required, before the individual’s\ninformation is shared outside the CBSA.\nThe BSF803 form must be uploaded in accordance with section 8.5. – Documenting the\nDecision.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 16.1 (Community case management and supervision Privacy Notice form)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + }, + { + "id": "enf-34-16-2", + "doc_type": "memorandum", + "act_code": "ENF-34", + "act_short": "ENF 34", + "act_name": "ENF 34 — Alternatives to prosecution", + "section": "ENF 34 s. 16.2", + "marginal_note": "Requesting sensitive information from the community case", + "part": "Alternatives to prosecution", + "division": "", + "heading": "", + "text": "16.2. Requesting sensitive information from the community case\nmanagement and supervision service provider\nWhile enrolled in CCMS, individuals may provide sensitive information, such as health and\nmental health information, to the CCMS service provider. The CBSA does not have routine\naccess to this information. The CLO can only request sensitive information from the CCMS\nservice provider if it is required to protect the health or safety of the individual, CBSA staff or the\npublic.\nAll requests for information from the CCMS service provider must be submitted by the CLO. The\nCLO will ensure that the requested information meets the requirements of the above policy and\nother applicable policies, regulations and legislation.", + "history": "", + "last_amended": "2023-10-26", + "current_to": "2023-10-26", + "citation": "ENF 34, s. 16.2 (Requesting sensitive information from the community case)", + "source_url": "https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf34-eng.pdf" + } +] \ No newline at end of file