Canadian Citizen removed with 5 year ban - unique situation

[kehills 217]

For starters, the officer falsely claimed the OP was to receive a salary. You seem to have a stark lack of attention to the details of the matter. Why would the officer need to falsey assert a salary that did not exist?

The OP has not waived their right to a hearing and will get one.

Or maybe the OP, webman, actually said this to the border patrol agent, and just got around to telling it to us in the same way:

The police dept paid my friends company for the work and I got payment as a consultant.

(Emphasis mine.) Admitting he was paid for the work he was doing for the friend, said he was paid while he was in Canada, but since it's now crossing the border, it's volunteering? Mmm no wonder the folks at the border said "no, oh hell no."

Now the OP wants the police department and his friend to admit that they hired and paid him to do work, and wanted him to come into the country illegally. That's going to go so well for everyone,...

Edited June 18, 2014 by kehills

[Caryh 5,206]

For starters, the officer falsely claimed the OP was to receive a salary. You seem to have a stark lack of attention to the details of the matter. Why would the officer need to falsey assert a salary that did not exist?

The OP has not waived their right to a hearing and will get one.

The officer accused him of denying getting a salary, the OP signed a confession that he was to receive a salary. Officers offered the OP the option of being arrested and taken before a judge, OP signed confession and accepted 5 year ban as punishment, and if he looks in those papers, I'm quite sure he was waiving his hearing, just as any paying of a fine does. Look at any speeding ticket, you'll see the language is always there to, and I'm fairly certain these officers were not born yesterday and failed to include the waiving a right to a hearing clause. This type of thing has been complained about many times, by many people who have been stopped at the border and denied entry based on suspicion of doing something illegal. Yes they cry, yes they gain sympathy, but I've never heard of a case being overturned or even getting a follow up hearing because they waive the right to one.

[aaron2020 11,651]

For starters, the officer falsely claimed the OP was to receive a salary. You seem to have a stark lack of attention to the details of the matter. Why would the officer need to falsey assert a salary that did not exist?

The OP has not waived their right to a hearing and will get one.

You keep stating the OP has not waived his right to a hearing and he will get one.

You have been asked how.

Please answer that question.

How does the OP go about getting this hearing?

[Caryh 5,206]

You keep stating the OP has not waived his right to a hearing and he will get one.

You have been asked how.

Please answer that question.

How does the OP go about getting this hearing?

exactly. He's not even in the country, and banned from entering even if they did not include the standard waiving a hearing clause.

[BBCC 16]

How does the OP go about getting this hearing?

Do you mean how, physically? I don't have the contact information.

His attorney will proceed with this. He shouldn't do so without legal representation. Given how complicated his circumstances have become, it wouldn't make sense to pursue this pro se.

Did the statement he sign explicitly waive the right to a hearing? If so, I am not aware of it.

Edited June 18, 2014 by BBCC

[Caryh 5,206]

Do you mean how, physically? I don't have the contact information.

His attorney will proceed with this. He shouldn't do so without legal representation. Given how complicated his circumstances have become, it wouldn't make sense to pursue this pro se.

Did the statement he sign explicitly waive the right to a hearing? If so, I am not aware of it.

So you're just playing dumb now?

[aaron2020 11,651]

Do you mean how, physically? I don't have the contact information.

His attorney will proceed with this. He shouldn't do so without legal representation. Given how complicated his circumstances have become, it wouldn't make sense to pursue this pro se.

Did the statement he sign explicitly waive the right to a hearing? If so, I am not aware of it.

Essentially, you got nothing to back up what you said.

You know of no way for him to get a hearing.

By your own admission, you don't know if he gave up his right to a hearing in the statement that he signed. (FYI - he did because as Caryh has already pointed out and to which you erroneously disagreed with - he was given an opportunity to see a judge and he declined to be on his merry way.)

[AtariBaby 17]

OP just as an FYI, I have found the FlyerTalk forums a good source of discussion when it comes to dealing with customs and all. I got a lot of help there when CBP was over the top with someone near and dear to me, regarding an unrelated matter. Just FYI.

[webman 5]

I was crossing the border to help my friend set up his store. This had nothing to do with the police department. The PD work was done 2.5 years ago. I wasn't going to do anything for the pd.

The statement from the pd is to help my case in getting the waiver and a TN visa to work in the US because this is what was told to me that I need to do. Since I'm not able to go and help him and the waiver process takes awhile, I will be needed again to do work for the PD in the future. So, I might as well get a statement from the chief saying that they need me to go there and do some work for them.

I love how people make assumptions and try to make me look bad and that I'm trying to get others in trouble.

Or maybe the OP, webman, actually said this to the border patrol agent, and just got around to telling it to us in the same way:

(Emphasis mine.) Admitting he was paid for the work he was doing for the friend, said he was paid while he was in Canada, but since it's now crossing the border, it's volunteering? Mmm no wonder the folks at the border said "no, oh hell no."

Now the OP wants the police department and his friend to admit that they hired and paid him to do work, and wanted him to come into the country illegally. That's going to go so well for everyone,...

Thank you, I will look it up.

OP just as an FYI, I have found the FlyerTalk forums a good source of discussion when it comes to dealing with customs and all. I got a lot of help there when CBP was over the top with someone near and dear to me, regarding an unrelated matter. Just FYI.

[webman 5]

From what the CBP officer told me, I had no right to a hearing because I'm not a USC.

The only way I would get heard in court in this matter was if they decided to convict me and I was arrested and transported to a holding facility and then brought in front of a federal judge. The CBP told me they were doing me a favor by not convicting me and letting me return to Canada freely. So, if I was going to be uncooperative and do things to give them a reason to arrest me and send me to court (which I'm sure would have made the situation a lot worse), I elected to be polite, answer their questions truthfully, and remain quiet and seated in the same place until they released me.

Essentially, you got nothing to back up what you said.

You know of no way for him to get a hearing.

By your own admission, you don't know if he gave up his right to a hearing in the statement that he signed. (FYI - he did because as Caryh has already pointed out and to which you erroneously disagreed with - he was given an opportunity to see a judge and he declined to be on his merry way.)

[aaron2020 11,651]

From what the CBP officer told me, I had no right to a hearing because I'm not a USC.

The only way I would get heard in court in this matter was if they decided to convict me and I was arrested and transported to a holding facility and then brought in front of a federal judge. The CBP told me they were doing me a favor by not convicting me and letting me return to Canada freely. So, if I was going to be uncooperative and do things to give them a reason to arrest me and send me to court (which I'm sure would have made the situation a lot worse), I elected to be polite, answer their questions truthfully, and remain quiet and seated in the same place until they released me.

You had the right to go in front of a judge for a hearing and you choose to forgo one.

You left out the part where you voluntarily signed a confession and giving up your right to be heard in front of the judge in exchange for a ban and release back into Canada.

Edited June 18, 2014 by aaron2020

[BBCC 16]

So you're just playing dumb now?

No. I sincerely apologize. I have missed the context of your question.

[Mark88 184]

You left out the part where you voluntarily signed a confession and giving up your right to be heard in front of the judge in exchange for a ban and release back into Canada.

I think that's what it ultimately will come down to in this case.

webman, you can hire a lawyer and pay the $6K (or more) he thinks you might have a chance, but you admitted, confessed and signed it all in writing.

[webman 5]

If I didn't sign the statement the CBP officer told me that it would be recorded that I was uncooperative, and then put in a holding cell and transported for 2.5 hours to Bangor Me and wait to see a Judge. In the meantime my car would of been impounded. Going in front of a judge as a criminal in handcuffs with a statement from the CBP saying I was uncooperative and they were willing to let me go back to Canada but instead decided to go in front of a judge certainly wouldn't of helped my case. Furthermore I had no right to council since I'm not a USC and would of had to plead my own case which I wasn't prepared for. I strongly believe my chances are a lot better peacefully going back to Canada, obtaining a lawyer, and going through the waiver process.

You are very arrogant and really don't think before you post. If you were in my situation you would have done the same!

You had the right to go in front of a judge for a hearing and you choose to forgo one.


You left out the part where you voluntarily signed a confession and giving up your right to be heard in front of the judge in exchange for a ban and release back into Canada.

[BBCC 16]

Essentially, you got nothing to back up what you said.

You know of no way for him to get a hearing.

By your own admission, you don't know if he gave up his right to a hearing in the statement that he signed. (FYI - he did because as Caryh has already pointed out and to which you erroneously disagreed with - he was given an opportunity to see a judge and he declined to be on his merry way.)

This makes no sense at all. Why would he not have the right to start with an administrative hearing? And then proceed to a court after that? What do you feel I am missing?