Author: Joel Sandaluk
Over the past 18 months, my views about immigration and customs enforcement at the Canada-U.S. border have evolved considerably.
In early 2025, as the second Trump administration began implementing significant changes to U.S. immigration policy, I initially believed that the increased scrutiny many travellers were experiencing at the border could largely be explained by changing travel patterns. Because fewer people were entering the United States from Canada, officers would naturally have more time to scrutinize each traveller. I believed that what felt like an increasingly aggressive approach might simply have been the result of more time being devoted to each inspection.
What has changed at the Canada-US Border?
As U.S. immigration policy has developed, however, my view on this matter has changed. Immigration enforcement in the United States has become increasingly aggressive and, in some respects, punitive. In my view, there has also been a significant institutional/cultural shift toward enforcement.
My practice is to counsel clients to approach border crossings cautiously and deliberately. Most importantly, travellers should answer questions openly and honestly, even when they are concerned that a truthful answer may make their admission more difficult.
What NOT to do at the border
Over the years, many people have told me about the bad advice they received when preparing to cross an international border. One of the worst examples is deceptively simple:
“Just tell them you’re coming on vacation.”
This advice is sometimes given to people whose actual purpose of travel is business-related, such as attending a trade show, participating in meetings or speaking at an event. Similar advice might be given to a student planning a short internship or other activity in either Canada or the United States.
In my experience, it is always better to be transparent about your intended activities.
There is a particular irony in concealing one’s legitimate visitor activities. Depending on the circumstances, the activity itself may be permissible without obtaining a work or study permit. However, misrepresenting the purpose of a trip can create a serious immigration problem that might otherwise never have existed.
Travellers should therefore never assume that concealing information from a border officer is safer than explaining the circumstances accurately.
ALWAYS be honest and open with officers are a port of entry
Another piece of bad advice that is regularly recounted to me is that travellers do not need to disclose previous criminal charges if those charges were ultimately withdrawn or dismissed, or if the individual was later pardoned or received a record suspension.
This is dangerous and irresponsible advice.
The precise wording of the officer’s questions is important. There is an important distinction between being asked whether you have been convicted of an offence and whether you have ever been arrested or charged.
A person who was arrested or charged but subsequently acquitted, or whose charge was withdrawn or dismissed, was still arrested or charged. The subsequent disposition does not change that historical fact.
I sometimes explain this to clients by saying that an acquittal or pardon is not a time machine, at least in an immigration context. What happened subsequently may be extremely important to the legal consequences of the incident, but travellers must still accurately answer the actual question being asked.
If things are going badly, you can ask to withdraw your application for admission
Travellers do not necessarily need to wait for a border officer to suggest that they withdraw an application for admission.
If it becomes apparent during a traveller’s examination at a port of entry that admission is unlikely, it may be appropriate to ask whether the officer would allow the traveller to withdraw their application for admission.
In some circumstances, withdrawing allows the traveller to leave, obtain the documentation or legal advice necessary to address the officer’s concerns before returning better prepared. This is often preferable to pressing ahead when the traveller is unable to satisfactorily address an issue that has arisen during the examination.
Withdrawal is not appropriate or available in every situation, and it does not erase what occurred at the border. However, where it is available, it can provide an opportunity to step back and properly prepare to address the issue before attempting to enter again.
Never go shopping for a more favourable Port-of-Entry
After being refused admission, people are sometimes tempted to simply travel to another port of entry and try again, hoping that the next officer will take a more favourable view of their application.
In my experience, this is almost always a mistake. Attempting to enter at another port of entry immediately after a refusal can create the appearance of forum (or port-of-entry) shopping.
Rather than immediately trying another border crossing, it is generally better to understand why admission was refused and determine how that concern can properly be addressed.
That may require additional documentary evidence explaining the purpose of travel, clarification of the applicable immigration policy, or a legal submission addressing an inadmissibility issue.
Once the problem has been addressed, there can also be value in returning to the same port of entry rather than creating the appearance that the traveller is simply searching for a different officer willing to reach a different conclusion.
The objective should not be to find an easier border crossing. It should be to address the issue that caused the refusal.
It is always prudent to confront your legal issues directly
If you have something in your history that you believe may make it difficult to enter Canada or the United States, it is always better to understand the issue before arriving at the border.
Issues may include a previous arrest or criminal charge, even if you were ultimately acquitted or the charge was withdrawn. They may also include a previous refusal of admission, concerns about your intended employment or business activities, an immigration violation, or another negative interaction with border authorities.
An experienced lawyer can make a real difference
Solid legal advice can help identify the problem and determine how best to address it before it results in a refusal. Sometimes the solution is relatively straightforward: better documentary evidence, a clearer explanation of your proposed activities, or a proper understanding of the immigration law and policy governing the situation.
In other cases, a more formal legal solution may be necessary.
If admission has already been refused, an immigration lawyer can assess whether the refusal can and should be challenged in Federal Court, or whether the better approach is to make a new application that directly addresses the officer’s concerns.
Where a person is inadmissible, possible solutions may include an application for a waiver of inadmissibility or, in the Canadian context, a Temporary Resident Permit, depending on the circumstances. Where a person has been permitted to withdraw an application for admission, counsel may instead recommend preparing a detailed port-of-entry package supported by documentary evidence addressing the concerns raised during the previous examination.
The important point is not to treat a difficult border encounter as something that can simply be avoided on the next attempt. Understand the problem, address it directly and return prepared.
Contact Mamann Sandaluk LLP
Whether you have already experienced a difficult interaction at a Canadian or U.S. port of entry, or you are concerned that an issue in your personal history could create problems the next time you travel, contact Mamann Sandaluk LLP to speak with one of our immigration lawyers. We can assess what happened, identify the immigration or admissibility issue, and help you prepare before you return to the border.