Sixty Days in a Detention Centre. No Lawyer. No Plan.
Our client was a 34-year-old man who had been detained by CBSA for two months when he first contacted us. He had been arrested following an expired work permit — a lapse that had occurred during a period of severe personal hardship. CBSA had opposed release at two prior detention reviews, arguing he was a flight risk.
He had no legal representation at either of those reviews. By the time we were retained, a third review was days away.
Immigration Detention Is Indefinite — and It Escalates
Unlike the criminal system, immigration detention in Canada has no defined maximum duration. CBSA continues to seek continued detention at regular review hearings, and each failed release attempt creates a precedent the tribunal uses to justify continued detention. With two prior refusals on the record, our client's situation was worsening, not improving.
His employer had offered to hold his position, but only briefly. His common-law Canadian partner was managing their household alone. The practical and personal cost of continued detention was compounding daily.
A Release Plan the Adjudicator Could Approve
The Immigration Division has specific criteria for release: the detained person must demonstrate they are not a danger to the public, and that conditions can be crafted sufficient to address any flight risk concerns. The legal test for release is not "no risk" — it is "manageable risk."
Our strategy was to build an airtight release plan that left the adjudicator with no reasonable basis to maintain detention. We identified and prepared two bond sureties: his partner and his employer. We negotiated specific, structured release conditions. We assembled documentary evidence of his stable life in Canada: lease, employment records, relationship history, and community ties.
Flight Risk Is a Legal Standard, Not a Feeling
CBSA's prior arguments had relied on the general proposition that his expired permit and failure to self-report made him an ongoing risk of absconding. We challenged this characterization directly. The jurisprudence on immigration detention is clear: detention must be justified based on specific, individualized evidence — not generalizations about status or profile.
We introduced evidence that our client had, in fact, taken steps to regularize his status before his arrest and that his failure to self-report was not willful. We also emphasized the sureties' specific knowledge of their obligations and their demonstrated ability to supervise compliance with conditions.
Release Ordered. Home That Evening.
The adjudicator ordered release on a substantial bond, with conditions including regular reporting and surrender of travel documents. Our client walked out of the detention centre that afternoon.
Within 90 days, with our assistance, he filed for status restoration and a new work permit application. He is currently employed and maintaining his immigration conditions.