Border agents doing their job

[Topaz]

Well, if what happen at the Windsor-Detroit border is a example what 2016 is going to be, u have to read about these US guys who tried to bring in Iraq money into Canada. The agents asked if they had any thing to declare, and money over 10,000$ and they said no. DUMB! When the agent opened the back door, there were bank boxes full of Iraq money and then they had some explaining to do. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-tale-of-a-mysterious-mound-of-iraqi-cash-seized-at-the-border-and-the-oddball-cast-thats-fighting-for-it

[Machjo]

Interesting.

I'd run into the CBSA a few weeks ago at YVR with my fiancée and her friend on my return to Canada. Though free to leave Canada, My fiancée was legally obligated to return to attend a CBSA appeal hearing.

While in mainland China, I'd run into problems with my cell phone so had to reset it. As a result, I'd got all of my electronics and baggage checked at secondary. The officer stated they were checking for child pornography. Given that resetting a cell phone would be reason enough to investigate child pornography, fair enough.

However, given that my fiancée was returning to attend a CBSA appeal hearing since the IRB had ruled that on a balance of probabilities my fiancée had not worked illegally in Canada as the CBSA had claimed (the IRB concluding that it was an unsubstantiated case of guilt by association and ethnic profiling), and the CBSA disagreed with the IRB's decision and so appealed, the agent, in spite of the fact that my fiancée's case should have been covered in detail in the CBSA's own database, decided to waste our time reinventing the wheel, asking me when we'd met, how we'd met, where we'd met, through whom we'd met, how I'd met her cousin (i.e. the person through whom we'd met), etc.. I answered each question always adding politely that all of his questions had already been answered in detail at the IRB hearing. I was also quite offended at the accusatory tone in which the questions were asked. It had reminded me of after my fiancée had first won her bond hearing. The CBSA officer had acted most unprofessionally in trying to discourage me from paying her bond, saying that the CBSA had irrefutable evidence that she had worked illegally in Canada. We'd later learnt at the admissibility hearing that the CBSA had nothing more than two uncorroborated police officers' statements and a CBSA statement (much of the latter having been proved false at the bond hearing). Add to that the police officers' statements themselves never accused her of anything and that the CBSA had tried to suppress any witness statement, of which the IRB had taken note in deciding in my fiancée's favour. The appeal seems to be based on the idea that officers' statements should not be challenged and that the decision should have been based on the officers' uncorroborated statements alone and that it is unreasonable to expect officers to obtain witness statements just because witnesses are present. Given that even the police statements never actually accused her of anything, the accusation was actually based on a CBSA officer's mere interpretation of the police officers' statements and her interview notes, with that officer's notes themselves having been proved false at the bond hearing.

Given that I knew that he'd have to check his database anyway, I was asking myself if refusing to answer his questions and just refer him to his database would accelerate the process, but chose not to take the risk of it backfiring, so I answered but always informing him that it should all be in his database already anyway.

My fiancée had more guts than I did. She just told the agent interviewing her that her main reason for returning to Canada was to attend the CBSA's own appeal hearing and that if he wants to refuse her entry, then she wants his name and CBSA ID number to pass on to hEr lawyer in Canada. He backed right off her and left her alone after that.

Now I understand why she was just sitting on a bench waiting for me and wondering what was taking me so long. I can learn a lot from her on how to speak to authority.

Them again, she'd managed over 500 factory workers under her in the past, so that probably gave her plenty of experience in dealing with matters of authority.

[Smallc]

However, given that my fiancée was returning to attend a CBSA appeal hearing since the IRB had ruled that on a balance of probabilities my fiancée had not worked illegally in Canada as the CBSA had claimed (the IRB concluding that it was an unsubstantiated case of guilt by association and ethnic profiling), and the CBSA disagreed with the IRB's decision and so appealed, the agent, in spite of the fact that my fiancée's case should have been covered in detail in the CBSA's own database, decided to waste our time reinventing the wheel, asking me when we'd met, how we'd met, where we'd met, through whom we'd met, how I'd met her cousin (i.e. the person through whom we'd met), etc.. I answered each question always adding politely that all of his questions had already been answered in detail at the IRB hearing.

They were testing the story for legitimacy. They can't just go by your file. This is common practice and there's nothing wrong with it. You were wrong to 'politely' keep reminding them that they could find the information in the file. They aren't idiots. I'd probably use a tone with you in that case too.

[Machjo]

They were testing the story for legitimacy. They can't just go by your file. This is common practice and there's nothing wrong with it. You were wrong to 'politely' keep reminding them that they could find the information in the file. They aren't idiots. I'd probably use a tone with you in that case too.

How does asking questions which would already have been asked in the minutes detail over the course of days at an IRB hearing increase the legitimacy of our story? All I could see was redundancy, which to me shows time-wasting. I won't label anyone an idiot, but to not just look it up does seem to show lack of familiarity with his own database. If you have it, use it, and save everyone some time in the process.

[Smallc]

How does asking questions which would already have been asked in the minutes detail over the course of days at an IRB hearing increase the legitimacy of our story?

They're testing you, ensuring that the details of the story are correct. It's normal practice.

[bush_cheney2004]

They're testing you, ensuring that the details of the story are correct. It's normal practice.

Yes....Border Crossing 101. What does any of this have to do with the exciting OP (Iraqi dinars)?