Review of the Immigration Control
Officer Network – Final Report
Executive Summary
The Immigration Control Officer (ICO) Network was established in 1989 as an element of the immigration control strategy, which aimed at better protecting the integrity of the refugee determination process and the immigration program as a whole. ICOs were created to be key players in promoting and enhancing international cooperation to counter illegal migration. ICOs were to provide advice and assistance to airlines and local authorities and to gather information for immigration intelligence purposes. They were also to contribute to the interception of improperly documented travellers and to monitor organized smuggling networks.
The ICO Network performs an important function in the immigration process. ICOs are located abroad and are an integral part of the screening, identification and interception of undocumented or improperly documented persons trying to enter Canada. To perform this role, ICOs are involved in a number of activities including interdiction; gathering and analysis of intelligence; intelligence reporting; and liaison. Within the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) structure, ICOs have a functional reporting relationship with the Enforcement Branch. From an operational perspective, they report through their program manager to the International Region (IR).
In performing their duties, ICOs work closely with immigration program managers, visa officers, other departmental officers, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) liaison officers, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, other Canadian officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, airlines and other governments. These organizations are involved in the gathering and sharing of intelligence, and direct and indirect interdiction. The ICO Network is involved in training the airlines and their staff in overseas control and interdiction. It also works with local, national and international law enforcement agencies.
A review was undertaken to provide senior managers with independent and factual information on and analysis of the way the ICO Network is working and to recommend solutions to identifiable problems.
The ICO Network has grown since its inception as a control and enforcement liaison officers network in 1989 with 10 positions, to 34 ICO positions and nine de facto ICO positions abroad. The Network has achieved significant results, including the following:
- improved relationships with other countries facing similar immigration issues;
- reduced the number of inappropriately documented passengers to Canada;
- decreased the number of illegal entries to Canada (while there are no factual data to support this statement, it has been confirmed by CIC staff and representatives of many of the countries analysed);
- collaborated with other countries to deliver some of the airline training and to conduct interdiction activities;
- participated in joint operations (such as Operation Foresight) with Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States to reduce inappropriately documented arrivals; and
- developed an intelligence reporting structure and respected intelligence reports.
Many of these results were realized during Program Review and its associated resource cuts, with very limited resources at Headquarters.
Review issues, findings and related recommendations are briefly described below. For a detailed description of each finding and recommendation, please refer to section 3.0, Findings.
Management Framework (Section 3.1)
The current management framework does not clearly describe the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders in the ICO Network (IR, the Enforcement Branch and the Case Management Branch) and is not fully supported by the stakeholders. As a result, a management framework describing key responsibilities of each stakeholder has been developed and put forward for consideration.
Recommendation 1
The management framework described in this report should be adopted. Once agreement is reached, a communication plan should be developed to ensure all stakeholders are informed of and understand the management framework.
Roles and Responsibilities (Section 3.2)
ICOs’ roles and responsibilities have expanded since the position’s inception. The extent to which ICOs are involved in ICO-related activities (interdiction, intelligence and reporting, liaison) varies significantly from mission to mission. Some ICOs spend as little as 35 percent of their total time on ICO-related activities; others spend as much as 100 percent. Other activities that ICOs have been involved in include the following:
- visa applicant processing and security screening;
- organized crime intelligence and reporting; and
- fraud investigations.
While it is important to allow program managers the flexibility to allocate resources to meet local needs, it is also important that the raison d’être of an ICO, who is trained and assigned to a location, is not lost.
Recommendation 2
A generic ICO job description should be developed, along the lines set out in this report, to include a baseline percentage of the ICO’s dedication to this function. The proposed management framework must hold the program manager or ICO accountable for any deviation from the baseline percentage. Once the job description is approved, a communication strategy should be developed to ensure that all stakeholders are informed of and understand the operating principle and job description of the ICO.
Visa Processing and Security Screening (Section 3.2.2)
Visa processing and security screening activities are clearly not ICO activities. They specifically form part of the visa officer’s job description. In some instances, ICOs are consistently used to conduct routine visa processing interviews, while in other instances, security screening for immigrant and visitor processing has been centralized within the ICO unit. While it is important for program managers to retain some flexibility to allocate resources according to fluctuating priorities, it should not be the norm for ICOs to be used in this way. The ongoing use of ICOs for these activities is inconsistent with the intent of the ICO function.
Recommendation 3
ICOs should not be involved in routine visa processing activities, including selection interviews and security screening.
Organized Crime Activities (Section 3.2.3)
(section removed)
Recommendation 4
(section removed).
Fraud Investigations (Section 3.2.4)
Fraud-related activities are currently being undertaken by ICOs. These activities range from telephone inquiries to physical visits to locations to investigate the accuracy of information supplied by clients. While the activity is important, it is often time consuming. The question is not whether the activity should be undertaken, but rather who should do it. It is not apparent that the skill sets and approaches required for this work have been developed by the Department or are embodied in the ICOs at this time.
Recommendation 5
The Department should develop an anti-fraud policy and strategy that would include the following components:
(section removed)
Once developed, the policy and strategy will define the Department’s position on fraud and how the Department intends to fulfil its role (the definition will include a description of the role of mission resources as part of the overall strategy).
Assignment of ICOs (Section 3.3)
The allocation process for ICO locations should be reviewed to clearly determine the Enforcement Program expectations for each location. This should be done on an annual basis based on a proper situational analysis.
Recommendation 6
The Enforcement Branch, in consultation with IR and the Case Management Branch, should undertake a strategic analysis, including threat and risk assessment, of all missions to determine the allocation and program requirements on a location-by-location basis.
Planning and Reporting (Section 3.4)
The present International Region Immigration Management Plan (IRIMP) planning process does not allow sufficient detail and precision to maintain accountability for the Enforcement Program. The plans do not have a clear link between what was planned last year, what was achieved this year and what is planned for the upcoming year. The plans are also not prepared with consistent performance information.
Recommendation 7
A systematic reporting of performance against expectations, apart from the personnel appraisal process, should be undertaken. To do so, an analysis of expectations should be completed on a mission-by-mission basis by the Enforcement Branch, IR, the Case Management Branch, program managers and ICOs. Plans should allow for accountability by explicitly stating expectations and, in some cases, performance indicators. This planning process should be built into the next annual planning process—the IRIMP—if it is deemed the appropriate vehicle.
Personnel Selection Process (Section 3.5)
The personnel selection process has evolved over the past several years. One of the positive developments is the involvement of the Enforcement Branch and program managers in establishing the requirements for ICOs.
Recommendation 8
The current role of IR in the selection process should be preserved, and the Enforcement Branch, the Case Management Branch and immigration program managers should be engaged early to continue to provide specific criteria (for skills and characteristics) to IR for ICOs on a mission-by-mission basis. In turn, the Enforcement Branch and the Case Management Branch should hold IR accountable for the delivery of its programs, based on the expectations agreed to during the annual planning process.
De Facto ICOs (Section 3.6)
There are currently nine de facto ICO positions. (section removed)
Recommendation 9
Within the Enforcement Branch planning process for each mission, an approach should be developed to ensure all officers engaged in interdiction, intelligence, reporting and liaison are included in the assessment of the delivery structure. If ICO work is deemed necessary and appropriate for the location, IR, the Enforcement Branch, the Case Management Branch and the program manager should determine expectations for the mission.
Overlap in ICO Postings (Section 3.7)
(section removed).
Recommendation 10
(section removed)
Support to Airlines (Section 3.8)
ICOs provide varied support to airlines, including responses to telephone inquiries, for which ICOs are continually on call. A number of issues arise as a result of this service. First, it places personal demands on the ICO. Second, (section removed).
Recommendation 11
The Enforcement Branch should consider the use of a call centre approach to provide support to the airlines. This study should involve the airlines, ICOs and IR, and could consist of partnerships with other countries.
Roles of ICO Assistants (Section 3.9)
The role of ICO assistants varies significantly from mission to mission. Since many ICO assistants (section removed).
Recommendation 12
(section removed).
As noted, each finding and issue is discussed in detail in section 3.0.
- Date Modified:
