Introduction

Background

1.1 The Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for enforcing the removal of foreign nationals found inadmissible to Canada. Examples include failed asylum claimants, visitors who overstay their visas, or those with criminality. Failed asylum claimants make up the largest share of those ordered to leave each year.

1.2 In the 2018–19 fiscal year, the agency spent about $34 million on its removal program. To support its enforcement role, the agency receives decisions from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. For example, it relies on both to promptly share their decisions on asylum claims or applications for permanent residence, so that it knows if a removal order must be enforced.

1.3 Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires the agency to remove as soon as possible all inadmissible foreign nationals who are subject to enforceable removal orders^{Definition i}. How quickly each removal is carried out can vary from days to years, depending on the circumstances of each case. The Canada Border Services Agency prioritizes the timely removal of criminals and aims to remove failed asylum claimants within 1 year of a final negative decision. Generally, the longer it takes to enforce a removal order, the greater the cost and effort involved.

1.4 Individuals subject to a removal order are entitled to a range of legal recourses and may seek appeal or judicial review of the removal order or any other decision affecting their removal, including requesting a stay of the removal. Only when all available recourses have been waived or exhausted can the removal order be enforced. A removal order may be enforced in 2 ways: voluntary compliance or removal by the agency. For both, the person concerned must meet with an agency officer to make arrangements and to confirm departure from Canada. Because of the lack of exit controls, the agency will not know if an individual left the country voluntarily without confirming departure.

1.5 Even when all available legal recourses are exhausted, the agency may still face difficulties and delays in enforcing a removal without a valid travel document, such as a passport. Certain countries may be reluctant or refuse to support the return of their nationals and may be slow or uncooperative in providing travel documents. Also, a foreign national may be medically unfit to travel. Except for criminals, the agency cannot remove individuals to countries or regions where local conditions are considered too dangerous because of circumstances like war or natural disasters. At the time of the audit, Canada had suspended removals to 15 countries, including Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, and Iraq.

1.6 Canada received increasingly high numbers of asylum claims: about 50,000 in 2017; 55,000 in 2018; and 64,000 in 2019. According to historical rates of asylum claim refusal, the Canada Border Services Agency expects that the number of removal orders it will need to enforce will increase in the coming years. The federal government provided $36 million in additional funding over 3 years—starting in the 2019–20 fiscal year—to help the agency keep pace with this projected increase in cases requiring removal.

Focus of the audit

1.7 This audit focused on whether the Canada Border Services Agency removed individuals ordered to leave Canada as soon as possible. We also examined the coordination of information shared by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, an independent tribunal, and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, which supports the agency’s monitoring and enforcement of removal orders. Various case circumstances are outside the agency’s control and can delay removal. Our audit work accounted for these delays and focused on the processing of removal orders while they were enforceable and under the agency’s control.

1.8 This audit is important because the timely removal of foreign nationals who are found inadmissible protects the integrity and fairness of Canada’s immigration system. It is also one of the most effective ways to deter those who might otherwise seek to abuse the system. In the case of criminals, timely removal protects the safety and security of Canadians. It is important to note that the agency may detain foreign nationals who it believes pose a risk or danger to the public. Continued detention or release is under the authority of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The examination of immigration detention was outside of the scope of this audit.

1.9 More details about the audit objective, scope, approach, and criteria are in About the Audit at the end of this report.

Findings, Recommendations, and Responses

Overall message

1.10 Overall, we found that the Canada Border Services Agency’s approach to managing removal cases had not led to the timely removal of foreign nationals from Canada. Despite a recent increase in removals, about 50,000 enforceable cases had continued to accumulate in the agency’s inventory. In two thirds of these cases, the agency did not know the whereabouts of the individuals. Most of the accumulated cases had been enforceable for several years.

1.11 We found that poor data quality resulted in cases missing from the agency’s removal inventories. Because of delays in processing data received from federal partners, the agency did not have the information it needed to track the status of removal orders. Among cases with enforceable orders, we found that many were inactive or stalled because of poor case management, even some that were considered high priority. Furthermore, many cases we examined were stalled because of missing travel documents, such as passports—yet little was done to obtain these documents.

1.12 We also found that the agency did not know the whereabouts of a large number of foreign nationals who were subject to enforceable removal orders. It issued immigration warrants for their arrest but seldom completed the annual investigations to locate those with criminality.

Ensuring the timely removal of foreign nationals ordered to leave Canada

1.13 The Canada Border Services Agency tracks removal orders through a national inventory (Exhibit 1.1). The removals process is complex and the number of cases in each of these inventories shifts continuously as people progress toward status in Canada (such as permanent residency) or removal. For example, a case starts in the monitoring inventory when an individual makes an asylum claim, then moves to the stay inventory if the claim is rejected and the person applies to Federal Court to review the decision. If the review is denied, the removal order becomes enforceable and the case moves to the working inventory. If the person fails to appear for a removal proceeding and cannot be located before the agency can enforce the removal, the case moves to the wanted inventory and the agency issues an immigration warrant for arrest.

1.14 To manage its removal program, the agency has established priorities. All criminals are the top priority for removal. Failed asylum claimants who entered Canada between official ports of entry also became a top priority in 2018. However, almost all of these claims were waiting for a decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada or were at various stages of recourse at the time of the audit. Other failed asylum claimants are the next priority for removal, followed by other inadmissible foreign nationals, such as visitors who overstay their visas.

1.15 The agency faces a number of challenges to timely removal: Individuals may abscond, fail to provide the information needed to establish their true identity, or have specific medical needs. Moreover, some countries may be slow to issue travel documents or uncooperative about accepting the return of their nationals. The agency cannot control other countries’ actions, but it can make requests and encourage foreign officials to provide travel documents.

1.16 A removal can occur only after all legal recourses have been waived or exhausted, which can take months or years. In the case of failed asylum claimants, those who are not removed within 1 year of a final negative decision on their claim are eligible for a pre-removal risk assessment, in which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada considers the dangers applicants may face if removed from Canada. Most claimants apply for these assessments, which take about 10 months on average to complete. About 95% of the applications are denied, so the removal orders become enforceable again.

Few inadmissible foreign nationals were removed as soon as possible

1.17 We found that the Canada Border Services Agency removed few of the foreign nationals in Canada who were subject to enforceable removal orders. Despite a recent increase in removals, the level of enforceable removal orders remained largely unchanged, even for priority cases. Failed asylum claimants accounted for most of the cases in the agency’s inventory. Most orders had been enforceable for several years.

1.18 The analysis supporting this finding discusses the following topics:

• Persistent accumulation of removal orders
• Overall target
• Few incentives for voluntary returns

1.19 This finding matters because the timely removal of foreign nationals with no legal right to be in Canada supports the integrity and fairness of Canada’s immigration system. Timely removal can also deter those who might seek to abuse the system. In the case of criminals, timely removal is important to protect public safety.

1.20 Our recommendations in this area of examination appear at paragraphs 1.26 and 1.29.

Persistent accumulation of removal orders

1.21 The accumulation of enforceable removal orders has been an ongoing issue for the Canada Border Services Agency. In April 2019, we determined that there were about 50,000 individuals with enforceable removal orders. Two thirds of these—34,700 cases in the wanted inventory—involved individuals whose whereabouts were unknown. The remaining 15,300 cases in the working inventory were for individuals whose whereabouts were known to the agency. Most orders had been enforceable for years, including criminal cases^{Definition ii} and failed asylum claimants (Exhibit 1.2).

1.22 Not all of the 15,300 cases within the working inventory were ready for removal, because of various impediments such as the need to obtain travel documents. The agency identified close to 3,200 cases in its working inventory that were actionable, meaning they had no known impediment to advancing to removal. However, because of poor data quality, we found that actionable cases were not reliably identified—some cases were wrongly flagged as actionable, while many more cases were actionable (no impediments) but were not flagged.

1.23 We found that while the agency confirmed the removal of about 9,500 foreign nationals in the 2018–19 fiscal year (as shown in Exhibit 1.2), about 2,800 had been refused entry at the border and had not yet entered Canada. This means that the agency removed 6,700 cases from its working or wanted inventories that fiscal year, making little impact on their levels.

Overall target

1.24 In October 2018, the Canada Border Services Agency established a target of 10,000 removals for the 2018–19 fiscal year. This was part of a new strategy to increase the number of removals. The agency also set higher targets for the next few years, aiming for 15,500 by 2022. However, setting an overall target did little on its own to help the agency manage cases accumulating in its inventories. In fact, even though the agency came close to meeting its target of 10,000 removals in the 2018–19 fiscal year, an increase from previous years, the number of accumulated cases in its working and wanted inventories remained largely unchanged.

1.25 Also, it is important to note that focusing on an overall target does not address the risk or complexity of the cases in its inventories. Nor does it help ensure that those found inadmissible are removed as soon as possible. It should also be noted that the agency has other performance measures for removals but has not specified how they align with this target.

1.26 Recommendation. The Canada Border Services Agency should continue to refine its strategy to ensure the timely removal of new and accumulated removal orders, particularly for high-priority cases. To support these efforts, the agency should regularly track the timeliness of its removals against performance targets.

The agency’s response. Agreed. The Canada Border Services Agency agrees that it should continue to refine its existing strategies to further ensure the timely removal of those found inadmissible to Canada, particularly of those persons found inadmissible on the most serious grounds, the agency’s established highest-priority category for removals. The agency achieved its highest number of removals in 4 years in the 2018–19 fiscal year, as a result of focused efforts to increase removals. This included the implementation of a number of activities: a whole-of-government engagement approach to securing timelier issuance of travel documents from foreign governments, regulatory amendments to allow the agency to confirm the departure status of those believed to have left Canada, the creation of increased reporting capability to better allow the agency to monitor how long cases have been in its inventories, and increased national coordination of the program. Building on this success, the agency will complete a removals plan by the second quarter of the 2020–21 fiscal year to both increase the number of removals and better track the timely removal of individuals from Canada, focusing on high-priority cases. This plan will include additional data quality assurance controls.

Few incentives for voluntary returns

1.27 To meet its international commitments to facilitate safe, orderly, and regular migration, Canada agreed to promote voluntary returns. In 2012, the Canada Border Services Agency piloted a voluntary return program for failed asylum claimants. But the agency discontinued the program after 3 years when an internal evaluation found that it did not speed up the removal of failed claimants as intended. In 2019, the federal government funded the development of a new voluntary removal program. This was expected to begin in April 2020, after we had completed our audit.

1.28 We note that many countries, mostly in Europe, offer assistance programs that promote the voluntary return of foreign nationals to their countries of origin. Some operate through independent third parties and are not limited to failed asylum claimants. All recognize that voluntary returns are preferred to enforced removals, are more cost-effective, and facilitate rapid departures.

1.29 Recommendation. The Canada Border Services Agency should continue to explore options to encourage voluntary returns and assist the departure of foreign nationals to their countries of origin in line with Canada’s international commitments to promote safe and orderly migration.

The agency’s response. Agreed. While the immigration continuum is predicated on the expectation that individuals who no longer have status in the country, or who have been found inadmissible, will abide by our laws and leave Canada voluntarily, the reality is that a significant number of people fail to do so. The Canada Border Services Agency strongly encourages voluntary compliance and has been working over the past year to establish initiatives designed to support this outcome. This includes both a dedicated information line open to the public to allow individuals to seek information on their removal process and a Departure Incentive Program pilot for which the agency has already completed an examination of international voluntary compliance models in order to design a Canadian version. The agency is committed to implementing these initiatives to encourage voluntary compliance with removals. The agency will implement these initiatives by the fourth quarter of the 2020–21 fiscal year.

Many cases were inactive, sometimes for years

1.30 We found that poor data quality impaired the Canada Border Services Agency’s ability to enforce the removal of inadmissible people from Canada as soon as possible. Without a reliable inventory of removal orders, the agency could not effectively prioritize removals according to risk and complexity. We also found cases in which the agency was unaware that removal orders had been issued.

1.31 Case management weaknesses resulted in significant periods of inactivity in thousands of cases in the agency’s working inventory. Many cases we examined were also stalled because officers had done little to overcome impediments like missing travel documents.

1.32 We also found significant periods of inactivity among cases of foreign nationals whose whereabouts were unknown. Although the agency issued immigration warrants, we found that most cases had been inactive for at least 3 years. The agency had not investigated the majority of cases as required to determine whether the individuals could be located.

1.33 The analysis supporting this finding discusses the following topics:

• Poor data quality
• Case management deficiencies
• Wanted cases not investigated

1.34 This finding matters because the federal government has made significant investments over the past decade to improve the efficiency of the asylum system, including removals. To remove inadmissible foreign nationals as soon as possible, the agency needs accurate information about all orders issued and timely access to all decisions that might affect a removal order. These elements must be supported by sound case management practices.

1.35 Our recommendation in this area of examination appears at paragraph 1.46.

Poor data quality

1.36 We found that significant data integrity issues impaired the Canada Border Services Agency’s ability to know which removal orders to enforce. For example, we reviewed all removal orders issued over the period of our audit and identified 1,536 that were missing from the agency’s national removal inventory and were not being monitored for enforcement. This was largely because of errors made by immigration and agency officers when they entered the orders into the immigration database. Among these missing orders, we found 16 that were enforceable. Some had come into force years earlier, yet the agency was not aware of them. We found no errors with the agency’s entry of removal orders issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

1.37 Poor data quality also delayed the enforcement of removal orders. Using representative sampling, we determined that about 900 cases were stalled—some for months—because of breakdowns in the update of cases with Federal Court decisions. On the basis of this result, we estimated that poor data quality likely compromised the timely enforcement of another 1,400 cases decided by the Federal Court. System interface failures in receiving data or the late entry of decisions caused most of these delays. The agency is responsible for resolving system interface issues; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is responsible for ensuring the timely entry of these court decisions by Department of Justice Canada officials.

1.38 We also found cases filed in the wrong inventories and others that contained inaccurate information. For example, through sampling, we determined that more than 500 cases in the working inventory were not enforceable and that close to 200 rejected asylum claims had not yet been moved to the working inventory for enforcement. We observed cases in the working inventory that had been identified as having the necessary travel documents when they were actually missing and cases flagged as missing travel documents when the documents were on file.

1.39 Despite recent initiatives, the agency did not have a sound data quality program in place to ensure that the information in its removal inventories was accurate. Its continued reliance on paper files to process removals also compromised data integrity. For example, we observed cases in which officials added important items to paper files—such as valid travel documents or review decisions—without updating the electronic files. This prevented the agency from properly tracking cases for enforcement.

Case management deficiencies

1.40 Despite its mandate to enforce removal orders as soon as possible, we found that the Canada Border Services Agency did not effectively monitor enforceable cases in its working inventory to make sure they were advancing toward removal. A case can sit inactive during the removal process for many valid reasons: Waiting for requested travel documents is one example. However, using representative sampling, we determined that there were thousands of inactive cases in the agency’s working inventory with no explanation.

1.41 For example, we estimated that about 1,500 cases had been inactive for at least 2 years. Most had not been worked on for several years. Agency officials confirmed that most of the cases we examined should have been worked on but had been overlooked. On the basis of an additional sample, we estimated that close to 150 cases involving serious criminals were also inactive because of poor case management practices, such as not assigning cases to officers or not taking action to obtain travel documents. Periods of inactivity in the cases we examined averaged 4 years. Serious criminals are those convicted of crimes punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more or who, in the opinion of the officer, pose a threat to the public or individuals.

1.42 The agency aims to remove most failed asylum claimants within 1 year of a final decision on their claim, but the majority were not removed within that time. We found that the agency did not effectively prioritize their removal, as cases often sat inactive, with no explanation on file. In a representative sample of cases that were not removed within 1 year, we found that about 1 in 5 cases were delayed simply because they were not assigned to an officer. On the basis of this sample, we estimated that about 1,200 cases for failed claimants experienced avoidable delays, extending the removal process.

1.43 We also found significant periods of inactivity in the majority of cases needing travel documents. The agency had identified about 3,400 cases that lacked the travel documents needed for removing foreign nationals—about one quarter of the cases in its working inventory. Using representative sampling, we determined that little or no action had been taken to obtain the documents in about half of these cases. The agency has a specialized unit to engage priority countries, primarily through embassies and missions abroad, to obtain travel documents, but few of the cases we examined were referred to this unit. We note that the unit’s work may help influence the issue of travel documents for other removal cases.

Wanted cases not investigated

1.44 As part of its case management practices, when the Canada Border Services Agency can no longer locate an individual with an enforceable removal order, it issues an immigration warrant and moves the case into its wanted inventory. Warrants help engage law enforcement partners, who can arrest these individuals if found. As of April 2019, there were about 34,700 cases in the agency’s wanted inventory. Of these, 2,800 involved individuals with criminality.

1.45 Agency policy requires officers to investigate criminal cases annually and failed asylum cases every 3 years. During these investigations, officers look for new information that could help locate the missing individuals. However, we found that most cases were inactive for several years. Using representative sampling, we determined that at least 70% of all criminal cases were not reviewed annually, and 75% of all failed asylum cases were not reviewed every 3 years as required. Agency officials confirmed that cases in its wanted inventory are generally considered a low risk to public safety and are not an agency priority.

1.46 Recommendation. The Canada Border Services Agency should improve the integrity of its data and case management practices, so that it can better manage its removals program. Specifically, it should

• further check the accuracy of its removal inventory database with respect to both the status of individual cases and the makeup of its inventory
• establish a clear triage process for assigning and initiating action on removal cases according to current status and expected next steps and ensure that cases progress toward removal as soon as possible
• improve its data interface with partners, so that it knows when decisions have been made that affect the status of removal orders
• in conjunction with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, establish a process to ensure that any new information entering the database is accurate and timely

The agency’s response. Agreed. The Canada Border Services Agency is committed to focusing its inland enforcement resources on removing people in a timely manner, while continuing to prioritize the most serious cases. In conjunction with increased funding provided for the program in Budget 2019, the agency has established a multi-year removals strategy. This strategy will lead to the implementation of an enhanced triage method to improve case identification and to ensure cases are processed in a timely and efficient manner on the basis of removal priorities. In 2019, the agency developed the ability to report more accurately on the length of time cases are in its removal system and will further refine this capacity to ensure the length of time is reflected in processes used to assign cases to agency officers. The agency will also conduct reviews of multiple removal inventories in order to identify and correct data integrity challenges. The agency will also work with its partners to ensure the timely and accurate input of information in support of removals, whether through system upgrades or additional training measures during the 2020–21 fiscal year.

The department’s response. Agreed. Where Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is implicated, it is committed to working with the Canada Border Services Agency to ensure accurate and timely data entry, including by the Department of Justice Canada, to assist the agency in managing its removal program as well as to deliver on the department’s program integrity and quality assurance objectives.

We are doing this by building on the monitoring, oversight, and compliance regime that was developed and implemented in response to the 2019 spring report of the Auditor General of Canada, Report 2—Processing of Asylum Claims, which focused on asylum and related enforcement processes. This monitoring regime was launched in September 2019 and has been identifying delayed or improper data entry to department and agency field operations managers for corrective action on a monthly basis. Since November 2019, the related monthly asylum monitoring report also includes a section on incomplete removal orders to ensure that any issues, including the one identified in this report, are addressed by the appropriate organization. In addition, we are committed to developing and implementing an oversight mechanism to monitor litigation data entry, including by the Department of Justice Canada. This will ensure that data entry is timely and that accurate information is available in the removal inventory.

Conclusion

1.47 We concluded that the Canada Border Services Agency did not remove the majority of individuals who were subject to enforceable removal orders as soon as possible to protect the integrity of the immigration system and maintain public safety. Poor data quality and case management weaknesses resulted in avoidable delays for thousands of cases. Deficiencies in information sharing with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada also delayed cases. We did not find issues with the information shared by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.