ImmReps · ImmReps

[requester]

[requester]

This site does not collect a UCI, an application number, or an upload.

  • Free to read
  • No membership
  • Official releases
  • Independent of IRCC

Provenance

A-number
A-2025-13310
Date
Source type
ImmReps
Institution
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Package
A-2025-13310 Part 1 (pages 247-248)
Checked

Official page: IRCC: Access to information and privacy

OCR best-effort from ATIP image [requester] 247-248 of part1.

Record

Archived: June 3, 2025 10:30:06 AM From: Immigration Representatives / Représentants immigration (RCC) Sent: [requester] To: [requester] Ce: Immigration Representatives / Représentants immigration RCC) Subject: [requester] Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Good day, Thank you for contacting the Immigration Representatives [requester] note that this mailbox is intended for general guidance and does not provide responses to case-specific inquiries but have provided the following information as guidance. If you have case specific questions about a file, you are encouraged to submit the [RCC Web form. Please see our response to your question. CBSA ports of entry are no longer receiving applications from flagpolers. Flagpoling is defined as when foreign nationals, who hold temporary resident status in Canada, leave Canada and after a visit to the United States or St. Pierre and Miquelon, re-enter for the purpose of obtaining immigration services at a port of entry. ‘As a result, a foreign national seeking a work permit at a port of entry after a visit to the U.S or St. Pierre and Miquelon may not be able to apply for a work permit if they have valid visitor authorization in Canada from a previous visit. Clients who hold a valid U.S visa are not exempt and would be flagpoling upon returning to Canada after a visit to the United States fan applicant is asked about unauthorized work, they must provide a truthful answer. Ultimately, the assessment of individual factors rests with the individual CBSA officer who will make the final decision on granting entry. Thank you kindly, [requester] From: [requester] Sent: [requester] To: Immigration Representatives / Représentants immigration (IRCC) <[requester email]> Subject: [requester] CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Government of [requester] not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ATTENTION: Ce courriel provient de I'extérieur du gouvernement du [requester] cliquez pas sur les liens et n’ouvrez pas les pieces jointes sauf si vous reconnaissez l'expéditeur et sachez que le contenu est sir. Hello 200251

Could you please clarify if'an applicant who applies to restore their status as a Visitor after losing their status as a work permit hokler and subsequently goes for flagpole to obtain a PNP-based work permit after receiving the Visitor Record could be denied entry to Canada by CBSA? The applicant holds a valid U.S. visa. Scenario 1: The applicant forgot to extend their work permit on time, resulting in one week of unauthorized work before applying for restoration. This was disclosed in the application. Scenario 2: The applicant had no unauthorized work. | understand that a flagpole may no longer be an option, but | would like to understand how CBSA would handle an applicant in this scenario, Can a flagpole lead to denied entry, considering the above scenarios? Your clarification on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

ovo2s2

Back to the library · IRCC records and ATIP