How do we tolerate lack of oversight at the CBSA?

[Machjo]

From my recent experiences with the CBSA, I was shocked to find that a CBSA officer can essentially charge a foreign national with any offense, write anything he wants in his statement, be assured that he his word will not require any corroborating proof, and that the accused, not having the right to the presumption of innocence but only the balance of provavilities, must then fight against a false statement to prove his innocence to avoid extradition.

How can Canadians tolerate such a travesty of due process just because the accused is not a foreign national?

Essentially a CBSA officer could have an argument with his wife and decide to take it out on an unsuspecting random foreign national at the stroke of a pen or the stoke of a keyboard.

[drummindiver]

Arrests: How and why

CBSA officers can arrest foreign nationals and permanent residents who are suspected of breaching IRPA.

CBSA officers must have a warrant to arrest a permanent resident or a person who is found to be in need of Canada's protection. CBSA may arrest a foreign national with or without a warrant.

All immigration warrants are entered into the Canada-wide Canadian Police Information Centre database. The CBSA operates its own Warrant Response Centre seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to carry out its immigration enforcement mandate.

What is your argument?
The police may do the exact same thing to anybody. It is then their choice to fight the charge or plead. It's the way it works

Your argument about a CBSA officer arresting someone due to a fight with their spouse seems far reaching.

[Machjo]

Arrests: How and why

CBSA officers can arrest foreign nationals and permanent residents who are suspected of breaching IRPA.

CBSA officers must have a warrant to arrest a permanent resident or a person who is found to be in need of Canada's protection. CBSA may arrest a foreign national with or without a warrant.

All immigration warrants are entered into the Canada-wide Canadian Police Information Centre database. The CBSA operates its own Warrant Response Centre seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to carry out its immigration enforcement mandate.

What is your argument?

The police may do the exact same thing to anybody. It is then their choice to fight the charge or plead. It's the way it works

Your argument about a CBSA officer arresting someone due to a fight with their spouse seems far reaching.

I'm going through it right now.

My fiancée (who is technically a tourist in Canada) and I are presently fighting her extradition on false charges (essentially for simply having been at the wrong place at the wrong time), and even her lawyer is convinced that she will eventually win, part of the reason being that the CBSA had detained her on no evidence and worse yet, official CBSA statements that have since been proven false among other reasons!

The police arrested my fiancée for working in Canada without proper documentation yet not even so much as offered my fiancée to collect evidence at her request! The CBSA had accepted her transfer into its custody along with the police statements alone without any corroborating evidence, and based on that alone, detained her for extradition without so much as informing her of her right to retain and instruct counsel! I'd found her a lawyer.

Her lawyer had arranged for a bond hearing and it was found that the CBSA officer's statements that my fiancée did not know my family name, that she did not know where I lived, and that she could not name a local tourist attraction were false! and so allowed me to pay bond (on condition that she sign in at the local CBSA office twice weekly).

We eventually received the official police and CBSA statements in the mail. They had confirmed (albeit not in so many words) that the police had made no effort to collect evidence, and arrested my fiancée to transfer into CBSA custody and that the CBSA had authorized her detention for extradition for working in Canada without proper documentation.

The transcript of the interrogation questions (recorded in English) revealed questions that were irrelevant to the charge against my fiancée and with so many major grammatical and spelling errors on the part of the interrogator as to make it difficult for me to understand the precise meaning of the text! As if that was not bad enough, the part I could understand had identified me as my fiancée's fiancé and my correct phone number, but no attempt on the part of the interrogator to contact me as a potential alibi. In addition to this, I myself could confirm at least three statements in the transcript that I myself knew for an absolute fact to be false (and which had been proven to be false at the bond heating!).

We finally had an admissibility hearing at the IRB (for which we had to travel out of town) only to find that the CBSA hearings officer (essentially the equivalent of their lawyer) had not even had the courtesy to plan for the hearing! At the hearing, she'd asked my fiancée why she did not know my family name and where I lived and why she could not name any local tourist attraction, to which my fiancée reminded her that the judge had already accepted at the bond hearing that those statements had been proven incorrect! She'd asked my fiancée why the police officer who had intercepted her (and who could not attend the hearing for questionning at my fiancée's lawyer's request for some reason) had written what he'd written (but she had reworded it). My fiancée blew up in anger stating that first off, the CBSA was now contradicting its own original statement; and secondly, that my fiancée herself wants to know the answer to that question and requested again that the officer be present for questionning at the next hearing precisely so as to clarify that question! The judge had to remind my fiancée to control her anger as her temper rose against the CBSA hearings officer!

The CBSA hearings officer asked my fiancée why the other foreign nationals she was with had a lot of money and expensive clothing, to which again my fiancée burst in anger asking how she was responsible for knowing what other people own, not to mention that it's normal for tourists to carry more money on them. Strangely enough, I don't remember any mention of expensive clothing before this! Did the CBSA hearings officer just decide to add that to the story for effect?! Plus my fiancée could clearly identify the source of her money!

The CBSA hearings officer, presumably to try to trip my fiancée, then asked at one point why she said she had few friends in Canada but that her affidavit stated that she had many, to which the judge himself had to intervene to remind the CBSA hearings officer that the affidavit was referring to friends abroad, not Canada!

The CBSA hearings officer kept asking such irrelevant and insensitive questions for hours until by the end of it my fiancée was enraged to the point of headache and exhaustion, and later depression by the end of the day. Was the CBSA's strategy just to harass her with irrelevant and irreverent questions just to waste her time figuring that if they can't extradite her, then maybe they could waste taxpayers' money to make the process itself a punishment in its own right?

The CBSA hearings officer's performance was so disorganized that even the interpreter felt compelled to confide in us just how disorganized that officer's performance had been.

We have at least one more hearing soon, but we are debating whether we should sue.

Even if we decide that it is not worth suing for financial reasons, we still want to do something to ensure others don't go through this.

After the latest hearing, my fiancée tearfully asked me how it was that in a country reputed for respecting human rights, that the police and CBSA appear to be able to state anything they want with no need for proof with their word being accepted as gospel, and that they can detain a person before their statements are verified to in fact be correct?!

She again asked that the officer who made the claims appear to defend them, but that request was denied. Luckily, the statements are so disorganized and contradictory that even with the hearings structure stacked in favour of the CBSA, her lawyer is satisfied that she will win.

I have no answer but am in shock at the seemingly total lack of checks and balances within the CBSA's evidence-collection and corroboration processes and the apparent lack of competence on the part of the local police and the CBSA on so many levels! If the CBSA is that disorganized and incompetent, how can anyone trust anything they say? How can the CBSA ensure the protection of the principle of the presumption of innocence and of due process and Canada's reputation as a defender of due process?

Sure we'll win this case, but the process itself is a punishment given the cost in time, money, emotions, and uncertainty involved.

What I recounted above is not even half of the story.

Additionally, given how the errors, contradictions, and incompetence flowed through the police officer to the CBSA interrogator to the hearings officer, I cannot accept that the incompetence of some bad apples ate to blame but rather that it is a result of the CBSA's structure itself.

[ReeferMadness]

After the latest hearing, my fiancée tearfully asked me how it was that in a country reputed for respecting human rights, that the police and CBSA appear to be able to state anything they want with no need for proof with their word being accepted as gospel, and that they can detain a person before their statements are verified to in fact be correct?!

It sounds like you and your fiancee have had a harrowing experience.

The answer to her question is no country is just one thing. Canada has always had its share of xenophobes. Since 911, it's been much easier for leaders like Harper, who really don't like or trust the common folk, to use that fear to put in rules allowing police and border guards to do pretty much as they please.

If you're fortunate enough to live in a riding that is not "represented" (a term a use very loosely) by a Conservative MP, you could try taking your case to an MP.

Or, if your case is really as cut and dried as you make it sound, you could try taking it to the media. To be blunt, I would not do that if your fiancee is from a Muslim country or looks/sounds like she might be from a Muslim country.

Good luck.

[Machjo]

Thanks, Reefer madness

She's Chinese, which comes with its own bag of Canadian prejudices. I'd considered the media and haven't ruled it out yet, but she is so exhausted from this that she is still not sure whether she wants to go that route. The other option would be to sue the CBSA, but then we'll have to look at the pros and cons of that, and then I think there is a three month window. How convebient. Law and order, but not for the CBSA eh. How do they hire these incomoetents?!

[Moonlight Graham]

Machjo,

You keep using the term "extradition", incorrectly as I see it. "Extradition" is a specific legal term that is very different from "removal" or barred entry into Canada. Extradition is defined as: "to hand over (a person accused or convicted of a crime) to the jurisdiction of the foreign state in which the crime was committed".

Also, CBSA officers must follow the law according to IRPA. You probably don't have as much a problem with the CBSA as you do with IRPA. Foreigners do not have the right to enter Canada. CBSA officers can deny entry and/or can remove a foreigner from Canada if the visitor is in violation of IRPA, or has reason to suspect they are. A foreigner entering Canada is not "innocent until proven guilty". Canada's safety cannot be maintained if dangerous visitors are allowed to walk around Canada just because a CBSA officer cannot proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law that a foreigner is in violation of IRPA. In a perfect world it would be nice if the system was more fair for visitors but it's not practically possible to have court cases and court appeals etc. on the country's dime for every foreigner who wants to enter Canada but is denied.

CBSA officers must make decisions based on the law in order to protect the security of the country. I'm sorry that you've obviously been negatively affected by a CBSA decision, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. I suggest contacting your MP if you have a concern with the law of the land.

[Machjo]

You're right, wrong wording. Removal order.

If a person is a criminal wanted in his country, INTERPOL would know about it and would certainly pass the information on to the CBSA. Beyond that it's not up to a grumpy officer to detain someone at his whim and fancy especially when the evidence was readily available.

[Machjo]

And as I'd mentioned elsewhere, a little evidence collection would have saved the CBSA a whole lot of money in hearings Snr lawyers, not to mention that we are at least exploring the possibility of suing the CBSA for negligence.

To write false statements into a oerson's record is even worse than just turning them away at the airport. It is equivalent to a cop lying and saying he saw the man with a gun when he didn't.

[Michael Hardner]

Mahjo - the CBSA experience reflects a general phenomenon whereby government has become more complicated, less responsive and more insular while the press ignores the situation and the people don't care.

I encourage you to publish your findings here, and on social media to get people interested. That being said, it seems clear that the CBSA officers are given a ton of discretion, and therefore the ability to make mistakes. When mistakes happen, these people tend to close ranks among themselves. What is the appeal / complaint process ? Is it public ? Have you explored that ?

[Canada_First]

And this person is not a threat why? Because you say so? Sorry but if Canada deems this person a security risk it does so with good reason I'm sure. Canada let's almost anyone in as we're a bunch if bleeding heart liberals.

Is this like a met off the Internet type thing? Meet people the old fashioned way maybe? I wouldn't become too involved with a foreign national. Could be using you just to get citizenship. Could be trying to spy on Canada for Chinese masters. Who knows.

[Machjo]

Mahjo - the CBSA experience reflects a general phenomenon whereby government has become more complicated, less responsive and more insular while the press ignores the situation and the people don't care.I encourage you to publish your findings here, and on social media to get people interested. That being said, it seems clear that the CBSA officers are given a ton of discretion, and therefore the ability to make mistakes. When mistakes happen, these people tend to close ranks among themselves. What is the appeal / complaint process ? Is it public ? Have you explored that ?

Our lawyer made it clear from the beginning that the tables were stacked against my fiancée due to the system. For example, she can't compel the accusing officers to take the stand to defend their own statements. Luckily for us, we have proof of negligence on the part of the police and the CBSA which should help the case. IRB is closed-doors. We've considered media, but not right now. She's too stressed about everything.

Another big point in our favour is that the official statement claims that it all started as a human trafficking investigation yet absolutely no effort was made to collect evidence and the CBSA's official statement itself confirms that they never pursued the collection of evidence even after my fiancée requested that they do!!!

Even her lawyer raised her eyebrows at the fact that the police made no effort to collect evidence even when she asked them to do so when it was supposedly a human trafficking investigation! No video. No picture. No witness statement (and there were witnesses to ask!). No DNA! Nothing!

[Michael Hardner]

And this person is not a threat why? Because you say so? Sorry but if Canada deems this person a security risk it does so with good reason I'm sure. Canada let's almost anyone in as we're a bunch if bleeding heart liberals.

Did you miss the fact that this is his fianceé ? Do you trust some random border guard's hunches and misstatements over what this poster says ?

[Michael Hardner]

Our lawyer made it clear from the beginning that the tables were stacked against my fiancée due to the system. For example, she can't compel the accusing officers to take the stand to defend their own statements.

You should try to write a solid article with cites, I think. Research the process, and post links to the process. I think most would find it odd that there's no appeal process, and that agents aren't bound to explain themselves.

Another big point in our favour is that the official statement claims that it all started as a human trafficking investigation yet absolutely no effort was made to collect evidence and the CBSA's official statement itself confirms that they never pursued the collection of evidence even after my fiancée requested that they do!!!

Sorry - what ? She was questioned at a border point - how is that a "human trafficking investigation" ?

[Machjo]

And this person is not a threat why? Because you say so? Sorry but if Canada deems this person a security risk it does so with good reason I'm sure. Canada let's almost anyone in as we're a bunch if bleeding heart liberals.

Is this like a met off the Internet type thing? Meet people the old fashioned way maybe? I wouldn't become too involved with a foreign national. Could be using you just to get citizenship. Could be trying to spy on Canada for Chinese masters. Who knows.

Paranoid!

1. Met her through her cousin for dinner. Started off as a friendship.

2. She is not interested in Canadian citizenship. We'be always intended to settle in Hong Kong. I'd lived in China before.

4. Though she has business savvy, she certainly does not possess the skills to be an effective Chinese spy in Cabada, I h

work in no sensitive field security-wise, and my father's security clearance is over 20 years old and expired recently. I'm sure it's probably all public knowledge by now and outdated to boot.

[Canada_First]

Did you miss the fact that this is his fianceé ? Do you trust some random border guard's hunches and misstatements over what this poster says ?

People lie. I don't swallow everything I read on anonymous internet forums. Was just putting it out as an option. Wasn't stating anything definitive. I'll back off from that narrative.

BTW. I hope you had a good holiday and got some rest. Welcome back.

[Machjo]

You should try to write a solid article with cites, I think. Research the process, and post links to the process. I think most would find it odd that there's no appeal process, and that agents aren't bound to explain themselves.Sorry - what ? She was questioned at a border point - how is that a "human trafficking investigation" ?

No. She was visiting a friend of a friend for lunch at her house. My own knowledge of her time with me proves to me that the claims against her can't be true. As for what has been proven at a hearing already, the official statement that she did not know my last name or where I lived and that she could mention no local tourist spot were proven to be false, not to mention that I don't see how they were relevant to the charges against her even if they had been true!

Add to that that to carry out a human trafficking 'investigation' with no effort to collect evidence even when the accused (of something not even related to the investigation at hand!) requests it to be very suspicious. Were they so incompetent as to not realize that collecting evidence might be a good idea in a human trafficking investigation? Just sayin'!

Or did they collect evidence but hid it?

Or are they so incompetent as to have believed to have collected evidence (i.e. an officer's statement), not actually understanding what evidence is?

Either way, I'm flabbergasted that they came out of a human trafficking investigation without so much as a video from a plainclothed undercover police officer identifying who was selling whom!

In other words, if someone in that house was in fact involved in human trafficking, the police likely did nothing more than detain them for deportation for working illegally in Canada in which case they could come back in a year.

Way to go CBSA! That'll show those human traffickers! Law and order my ass!

Now to be fair to the CBSA, my fiancée witnessed no indication of human trafficking. But then again, since she was there only for lunch, she can't really know for sure.

All the CBSA had as a lead was an ad and a phone number that led to that house with no identifying feature linking the ad to her in any way. For all the CBSA knows it could have been a cruel prank played by a racist neighbour. As far as we can tell, the police never even identified the person to whom the phone number belonged nor the source of the online ad! Would that not have been a basic piece of evidence worth exploring in a human trafficking investigation!? Again, just sayin'.

[Machjo]

People lie.

I totally agree with you.

Though I give a person the benefit of the doubt on an online forum, I'll never act on it. If our roles were reversed, I'd accept my statement with a grain of salt but maybe investigate its possibility.

There are enough news articles online to show that there are problems in the CBSA, any decision you make should be based on those and nor my statements. The only value my statements have in an anonymous online forum is to possible spark a person's curiosity to read more about the CBSA on more reliable sites than this one and then form your beliefs about the CBSA from those and not from this site, this site only serving to lead you to the more reliable sites.

[Machjo]

You should try to write a solid article with cites, I think. Research the process, and post links to the process. I think most would find it odd that there's no appeal process, and that agents aren't bound to explain themselves.Sorry - what ? She was questioned at a border point - how is that a "human trafficking investigation" ?

She was intercepted by the local police at the home of a friend of a friend, then transfered to the CBSA.

[Michael Hardner]

She was intercepted by the local police at the home of a friend of a friend, then transfered to the CBSA.

There must have been some evidence for the raid by the local police then ?

At the very least, your fianceé seems to have made a poor choice of friends. I thought this was an arbitrary assessment AT the border... seems like there may be something more to this.

[Machjo]

There must have been some evidence for the raid by the local police then ?At the very least, your fianceé seems to have made a poor choice of friends. I thought this was an arbitrary assessment AT the border... seems like there may be something more to this.

All she knew was that a friend of a friend (more like an acquaintance) was in town and contacted her on social media. My fiancée was not interested in seeing her but that person had asked for her help to run her some errands (makeup and such). She then invited my fiancée for her birthday and since my fiancée has a reputation as a good cook, asked her to cook her something for her birthday. My fiancée finally agreed.

She was aware that this person might be suffering gambling addiction, which is why she wasn't so interested in seeing her but she finally did that morning anyway out of kindness.

So yes, bad decision on her part, but also reasonably understandable. To be fair, consider how ex-Colonel Russell William's wife, superiors, inferiors, equals, family, friends, the Prime Minister and even the Queen had trusted him and never suspected that he was a serial killer. Did all of those people have bad judgment? Why hold a tourist to a higher standard than the Queen herself who trusted the ex-Colonel as her pilot on at least one iccasion?

[Machjo]

That's why the presumption of innocence exists. Should William's wife, friends and colleagues all have been detained with him by mere association?