So worked up you keep repeating yourself? t still doesn't make it true. Ill type slowly so you can follow along...
CBSA can issue a 1 year exclusion summarily. The record of that order can be used forever to deny entry essentially creating a permanent exclusion. Did you get that bit...pretty cool eh? That 1 year exclusion maybe isn't such a sweet deal after all.
An immigration hearing is a different thing and is done by...wait for it...Citizenship and Immigration Canada (note that is not CBSA) and the judge can issue anything from a 1 year exclusion to a permanent ban and also a fine or imprisonment prior to deportation. Neat huh...the judge has a lot more power than the CBSA officer...who would have imagined that?
Now here is where you may get really confused...there is a permanent record of the hearing (including the reason and the outcome) logged in the CBSA computer and this can be used as a reason for denial of entry forever so even if she has 'won' she has lost because the record is there and it can be used against her. Asking for a hearing, even though she won, maybe wasn't such a good deal either it would seem.
Now if she had been given the option to voluntarily leave and/or cancel her visa and she had chosen that option there would be no record of an exclusion and no record of a hearing and she could have theoretically re-entered Canada the next day without an issue.
My guess is they did not offer this option because CBSA has determined she is undesirable and wanted that record logged into the system probably with some notes attached instructing officers to deny entry in the future.
In the end I highly doubt she will ever get back into Canada other than for the appeal hearing which resolves all of Canada's problems with her. It also means we didn't spend a fortune on investigating or having a criminal trial or holding her in jail. BTW if there was a trial the charges would be logged into the CBSA system and could be used to exclude her on all future attempts to enter.
Are you getting the idea yet? She is now in the system and that record can be used to deny entry forever.
False. Her husband had told me that when they'd returned, he'd informed the border agent of the appeal hearing. The officer grilled him with 1001 questions on it, and finally let them through.
The next day, he'd sent the CBSA an e-mail to complain about the CBSA officer wasting his time and making redundant work for himself by asking all those questions when he'd have to verify everything in the system anyway.
He got a return e-mail to arrange a time for a phone call and a representative called him him to investigate.
That's when the person clarified the myth that border agents have an all-knowing system. All the officer would have seen about my friend in the database would have been that she faced a pending appeal hearing. It would not have indicated the charge or even any ruling in my friend's favour. I presume that after the appeal is over, that will be deleted too.
On the one hand, rightfully so so as to avoid CBSA officers thinking themselves above the law.
On the other hand, that's precisely why the police should have collected more evidence before charging her.
Sure the evidence collected after the charge and presented at the hearing showed her to be innocent on a balance of probabilities of having worked in Canada. However, had the police investigated before charging her, they could have discovered not only her innocence of the suspicion against her but of any other crime or immigration violation of which she could have been guilty and of which they did not suspect her, whether she could have been an innocent witness to a crime and could have helped police, or been an innocent victim of a crime.
So again, I agree with removing a ruling in favour of an accused from the database. But then again, that's why it's so important to collect evidence beforehand. She was intercepted in the course of a human trafficking investigation. That was a good reason to investigate her, but the police never did that.
Now though she is innocent of human trafficking, that's just luck. The police never investigated and so did not know she was innocent of human trafficking. The police had erroneously presumed her innocent of human trafficking. And no, there is no contradiction there. That she was innocent did not excuse the police from presuming her innocent under the circumstances. They did not know she was innocent and so should have investigated.
The worst part is telegraphing their ignorance. In the hypothetical scenario that she had been guilty of human traficking, the charge of working in Canada without a visa would have revealed to her that the police truly were clueless.
Perhaps his past should come under a microscope as he is probably a sex offender of some sort.
Who? The judge in the OP?
Unless there is something else that the OP doesn't mention, I see nothing in the OP to lead one to believe he's a sex offender. Of course he could be. Anyone could be. But I see no indication i n the OP to raise the probability for him here. It seems more a case of ignorance on his part.