Controversial “Pre-Clearance Act” Expands Power of American Border Guards on Canadian Soil

A controversial Canadian bill that expands the powers of U.S. border officers working in pre-clearance zones on Canadian soil was recently given Royal Assent and is set to become law. Championed by Canada’s centrist Liberal Party, Bill C-23—commonly referred to as the Pre-Clearance Act—has been criticized as overly broad, with the potential to open the door to human rights violations.

In May 2017, a national coalition of 43 Canadian civil society organizations called the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group voiced their concerns about Bill C-23 to Parliament. They questioned the purpose of the bill, noting that no evidence has been presented to the public that security measures need to be increased. The ICLMG’s brief and recommendations can be found here.

Broadly speaking, C-23 increases the powers afforded to American border officers working in Canadian pre-clearance zones and eliminates crucial existing restrictions. Key concerns raised by Canadian immigration attorneys include:

• U.S. border guards will be authorized to conduct strip searches and internal cavity searches when Canadian officers are “unable or unwilling” to do so. The broad language used appears to authorize U.S. border officials to conduct these searches even when Canadian officers deem them unnecessary or inappropriate.
• U.S. border guards will be allowed to carry firearms. They have not been permitted to do so in pre-clearance zones under previous legislation.
• Should a Canadian traveler attempt to enter the U.S. but change their mind for any reason, including feelings of discomfort or concern about their interactions with border officials, U.S. officials will be permitted to detain and interrogate them. Previously, the traveler would have been able to withdraw and return to Canada at any time. C-23 also eliminates a provision that barred U.S. border officials from using a citizen’s withdrawal from pre-clearance procedures as “reasonable grounds for suspicion” to detain them or work with Canadian officials to take steps like arresting the traveler.

The above issues are particularly concerning because, although the bill states that U.S. officials must still act in accordance with Canadian laws, it provides no clear legal remedy to travelers whose rights have been violated. Instead, according to the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the bill “provides explicit blanket immunity” to pre-clearance officers, and only allows travelers to hold the U.S. government responsible in cases of property damage, injury, or death. Notably, there is no legal mechanism through which Canadians can hold U.S. officers responsible for discrimination, despite a recent rise in allegations of discrimination at the border. Under Bill C-23, U.S. officers in pre-clearance zones would be “virtually unaccountable,” said Vance Langford, chair of the National Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association.

The full text of the finalized bill is available on the Canadian Parliament’s website.

If you have questions about the provisions or implications of Bill C-23, including how it may affect your ability to enter the U.S. temporarily or permanently, please reach out to us. We look forward to assisting you with your immigration matter.

Pilot program may have lasting effect on L-1 process for Canadians

Will applying for an L-1 visa at the border soon become a thing of the past? If the pilot program starting on April 30, 2018 is any indication, change may be on the horizon.

U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have joined forces to launch a pilot program at the port of entry in Blaine, Washington, estimated to last six months. Currently, a Canadian L-1 applicant may present their petition at any U.S. border crossing for immediate adjudication by a CBP officer. This will no longer be an option at the Blaine, Washington, port of entry for the duration of the pilot program.

Instead, applicants in the Blaine Washington State area will need to submit their L-1 applications (Form I-129 and supporting evidence) for processing at the USCIS California Service Center before CBP can admit them into the U.S. Applicants cannot seek admission in L-1 status until they receive USCIS’s approval. According to USCIS, expedited service will be provided to L-1 applicants affected by the pilot program. The specifics of the process are still being solidified but is projected that a decision -- an approval or Request for Evidence (RFE) -- will be issued within 2-3 business days of receipt. In an effort to accelerate the process, USCIS is expected to have an email address devoted to the processing of these L-1 applications to provide case updates, and it could be possible for admission to be sought upon an email confirmation of approval.

Through the preliminary pilot program, the goal is to develop a strategy that will lessen lengthy process delays and make adjudication for L-1 applications more consistent. Additionally, through the change in process, CBP officers can give their full attention to inspections and admissibility issues instead of dedicating time to on-the-spot adjudications.

Things you should know about the pilot program:

• It is currently for L-1 applications only.
• CBP will continue to allow Canadian L-1 applicants to apply for “on the spot” adjudications at all other ports of entry.

What has yet to be determined:

• Clarification regarding potential changes to the RFE process and response time. Will it decrease the number of superfluous RFEs (as intended)?
• If the pilot program is deemed successful, will this new process be nationally implemented – and how quickly will it happen?
• Will the processes for other types of applications eventually be affected?

Updates will be made as new developments arise and Serotte Reich will be keeping you posted. Questions or concerns? Contact us at 716-854-7525 or http://srwlawyers.com/contact

Travelers beware: CBP can search your electronic device

As the number of border searches of electronic devices performed by United States Customs & Border Protection (CBP) continues to increase, it is imperative that travelers remain informed about the current policies in place.

In January, CBP issued a new 2018 customs directive that clarifies that officers may not to use your device to access information that is solely stored remotely (such as on the cloud) during a basic search. Additionally, without reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior or a national security concern, they should not copy the data on your device or connect it to an external device to analyze the contents. Officers are also instructed to take care not to make changes to the content of your device during a search.

When you cross the border, what can you expect during an inspection performed by a CBP officer? According to Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, officers are free to ask for your cell phone, laptop or tablet -- and your passcode. They can request that you turn over your unlocked phone and refusing to comply will not prevent CBP from confiscating your device. If you do refuse, you could possibly be detained for an indeterminate amount of time while they review and analyze the contents of your device. CBP can also retain your device for further review; they are not required to return it to you before you leave the port of entry.

Although the directive introduced in January includes guidelines for what CBP should or should not do, there is still considerable leeway when it comes to the search and seizure of electronic devices. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to defending civil liberties in the digital world, pointed out in a recent report that this policy is “full of loopholes and vague language” that allows officers to encroach upon travelers’ constitutional rights. As the directive is written, if “reasonable suspicion” exists, CBP officers are permitted conduct what is considered an advanced search. In this case, an officer can connect external equipment to a traveler’s electronic device and review, copy and/or analyze its contents.

If you are alarmed by the potential violation of your privacy while crossing the border, you’re not alone. Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted that “this policy falls far short of what the constitution requires – a search warrant based on probable cause.”

As it stands, here are measures that travelers can take prior to crossing the border in an effort to protect their privacy:

• Review what is on your phone – photos, apps, search histories – before crossing the border, taking into consideration that anything stored on your device is fair game in the event that an officer requests it. Store anything sensitive or private on a secure cloud storage account.
• Only bring what’s necessary with you. If you can avoid traveling without your laptop or tablet, leave it at home.
• Bring a travel-only phone (a blank “burner” phone) or laptop that does not contain any sensitive information.
• Set your phone to airplane mode prior to crossing the border. The new directive instructs CBP to disable network connectivity as they are to avoid intentionally retrieving information that is solely stored remotely. They are supposed to ask you to disable connectivity or do so themselves. Err on the side of caution and change your settings ahead of time.
• Know your rights. Supervisory approval is required in order for a CBP officer to detain your device after you depart the port of entry. A supervisor is also supposed to approve and, if at all possible, be present for an advanced search.
• If you have provided your passcode for an officer to inspect your electronic device, be sure to change it afterword. CBP is directed to delete or destroy passcodes after a search is conducted. However, it is advisable to change all passcodes to ensure that your information stays secure.

For further information:

Visit CBP's official website: https://www.cbp.gov
Find updates from civil liberties advocates:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation: https://www.eff.org
American Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org