Case Study "Lisa"

You are retained by Lisa who has just been detained by CBSA. Lisa came to Canada seeking refugee protection, but her claim was terminated in 2015 due to a finding under 5.34(1)f) of the IRPA that she is inadmissible for membership in a group that subverted a government by force. In 2018, Lisa's PRRA was refused and then she was called in by CBSA for removal and did not show up. She has been in Canada without status ever since. Yesterday she was arrested by CBSA and is awaiting her 48-hour detention review. Lisa has been living with her partner of six years and together they have a three-year-old daughter for whom Lisa is the primary caregiver.

Question 12 (1 point)

After being retained you call the CBSA Hearings Officer to see if they will consider releasing Lisa in light of her minor daughter. The Officer tells you that CBSA has no jurisdiction to release Lisa before her 48-hour detention review. ls this correct?

a) No, CBSA has jurisdiction to release a detainee before the 48-hour detention review: b) CBSA can only release Lisa before the 48-hour detention review if a bondsperson comes forward willing to put up a bond of $7500 and over. c) No. CBSA has jurisdiction to order a detainee released any time no matter how long the detention has been. d) Yes. only the Immigration Division can order release.

Question 13 (1 point)

Based on what we know, which of these S.248 factors favor Lisa's release? a) S.248(a) b) S.248(b) c) S.248(f) d) None of the above

Question 14 (1 point)

Lisa's partner is willing to act as a bondsperson and put up a large bond. Lisa also has an aunt who is a long-time Canadian citizen but who Lisa feels embarrassed to ask to be a bondsperson and/or supervise release. Lisa tells you that she will ask her aunt if you think it will really help secure release. What is your advice? a) it is not necessary - Lisa has no criminal record and so the large bond from her partner will suffice. b) it is advisable - Lisa's partner is the closest person to her and they were together at the time Lisa didn't report for removal, and so may not be trusted to ensure compliance. c) tis advisable - In light of what is at stake, Lisa should put forward as many good potential bondspersons as possible, particularly if the only hesitation to ask is embarrassment. d) B & C

Question 15 (1 point) Lisa has new evidence of risk in her country that has never been considered. What kind of risk assessment is she now eligible for? a) She is eligible for a s.97 PRRA that will automatically stay her removal order. b) She is PRRA-barred but can submit a deferral request. c) She is eligible for a s.97 PRRA that will not automatically stay her removal. d) She is eligible for a ss. 96 and 97 PRRA that will automatically stay her removal order.

Question 16 (1 point) Can Lisa apply for an H&C? a) Yes b) Yes, because she is exempted from the PRRA-bar because she has a young child, c) No. because of her s.34(1) inadmissibility. d) No, because she is subject to a removal order