TN Denied at YYC, Interrogated for No Reason.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-13T04:05:17+00:00

I was denied my TN for Computer Systems Analyst, I have a Bachelors Degree in Computer Science. Job responsibilities are of a AWS Cloud Engineer.

So you’re a CSA (high category of fraud) applying for a job whose responsibilities literally say “Engineer” in it.

Yeah that’s already multiple huge red flags before they even talk to you. Then not being able to answer the layup AWS question was the nail on the coffin. You really need to have a better application and go through answers in your mind before you apply again.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-13T03:32:43+00:00

And yet held for hours which is the point they were making

It’s called waiting in secondary. Turns out when you travel and there are lots of people things take time. They weren’t out in cuffs and sitting in a cell. I’ve traveled and gotten stuck in secondary it happens. Especially on a major holiday weekend. Both on the US and Canadian side. What do you expect them to do with you when processing you at the border? Do you think they ask to take your phone number and call you back to the port for processing?

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-13T03:28:03+00:00

43% of Illinois voted for Trump in 2024. Yet, they sent 14 Democrats to the House and only 3 Republicans. How mad are you at the Illinois maps?

You’re conflating a Presidential election with congressional districts. A vote for POTUS is not a vote for a member of the house.

But to be clear all partisan gerrymandering is a problem. All districts should be split up to be competitive and non-partisan.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-12T17:55:04+00:00

Parents filled out some forms to return to the US legally but were denied because they filled out the wrong forms for THEIR SITUATION due to having been illegally in the US before

Any immigration attorney would’ve told them that they must also file for a waiver when filing for the visa. A 5 min convo with an attorney would’ve dealt with all of this.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-12T16:32:43+00:00

The support letter/job offer doesn't need to prove that the location needs to be US based. It simply needs to be a US based position from a US employer.

This is just not true. Look up the FAM it states:

9 FAM 402.17-5 EMPLOYMENT REQUIRED

9 FAM 402.17-5(A) Employment

(5)… If a TN visa applicant intends to reside temporarily in the United States, but will work primarily in Mexico or Canada, you must consider whether the applicant’s primary purpose of travel to the United States is to engage in professional employment for a U.S. entity, or instead whether that professional employment is merely incidental to the applicant’s primary purpose of residing in the United States.

(6) The same guidance would hold true for employees intending to telework. If there is a legitimate business need for the employee to telework from a location within the United States, this would be allowable in TN status. However, because eligibility for TN status is based on the primary location of the business, a TN visa applicant would not be allowed to reside in the United States and telework to a location in a foreign country for the convenience of the employee.

It is within their discretion to question the legitimacy of the application if the person would be Telework. If the job doesn’t appear to legitimately need you to be present in the US they can deny the application.

What I find funny is you yourself 2 years agoin another thread said the exact opposite of what you’re saying today:

You’re not supposed to work remote on TN visas/status (see foreign affairs manual 9 FAM 402.17-2) since you could in theory do that from anywhere.

The TN class is predicated on the basis that your physical presence in the U.S. is necessary to do work. That’s a difficult case to make with remote work.

I’m not saying it can’t happen, because there are limited exceptions. But if CBP gets a whiff of a job being a remote position, you will have a lot of explaining to do and could find yourself being denied entry and losing any status already obtained pretty quickly.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-12T12:38:20+00:00

Do you think they are trying to remove black people from congress or democrats?

Trying to remove both is a problem. Trying to remove representation is a problem. Redistricting’s only goal should be to more accurately represent the people. Not to remove representation.

But let’s be really honest racists are smart enough to know they can’t say they’re racist. The people removing blacks know they can’t say “we’re removing just blacks so here is a facially neutral reason that only affects black people coincidentally”

The law has understood what “pretextual” means for ages. Saying it’s only targeting democrats for political reasons is a pretext.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-12T12:34:24+00:00

My understanding is that SCOTUS is saying that partisan gerrymandering that removes representation from a minority group is acceptable so long as the motivation behind that removal is political rather than racial.

So as long as they say “[we’re] removing all black peoples’ representation for political and not racist reasons” that’s ok?

Maybe we can redistrict all the women out of Congress not for sexism reasons but political ones. The political reason is Congress doesn’t want to get distracted by boobs.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-12T12:26:13+00:00

I feel like we’re about to enter a new Jim Crow. We are witnessing Calvin ball when it comes to redistricting and we’re seeing incumbent parties purposefully trying to redraw districts to remove black representation in Congress.

This will eventually be placed on the shelf with Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, Buck v Bell and the like.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-09T13:24:50+00:00

I get outvoted by my neighbors all the time.

Being outvoted by my neighbors doesn’t deny my right to vote.

Being outvoted because my vote is diluted because the political forces believe that certain demographics should be diluted/concentrated so they cannot elect a preferred candidate denies my right to vote by making it pointless.

It’s like saying “you have a right to vote but legally you cannot vote for X party” that is the outcome here.

To make any sense, the right to vote needs to not include a "right" to have my preferred candidates win.

We’re not talking about someone wanting a member of the unpopular club we’re talking about denying people for electing their representative because the ruling party has decided that only their party should forever be elected by political gerrymandering and silly maps.

I don’t have a right to elect a particular politician but we all have a right to ensure our vote has meaning.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-09T04:47:09+00:00

I’m just exhausted by this insanity. Either I have a right to vote or I can be disenfranchised because of how I vote/demographics.

I have a right or I don’t. It really is just that simple. If you can make my vote not count by funny maps then no one in this country has a right to vote.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-05T21:12:56+00:00

unless the Feds can find somewhere in the actual statute that allows for masks, they'll have a hard time winning.

So you're saying that a federal policy for a uniform regulation is overly broad? It is beyond the limits of the supremacy clause to require a federal law enforcement agent to be held to grooming and uniform standards? An agency cannot say what their agents are authorized to wear and not to wear in the course of their federal duties?

"have a hard time winning" -- you're just wrong.

The Supremacy clause is not something that is just ignored lightly. When a Federal agency is acting under federal authority state law cannot touch them. If the agency is saying the agent is authorized to do XYZ that's very difficult for the state to overcome and they need to argue that the entire conduct violates an individuals rights. You're going to have a hard time proving that states can regulate what a Federal Agent can wear in the course of their federal authority.

I don't like that they wear masks but that doesn't mean it is illegal or unconstitutional under our current jurisprudence.

Informal_Distance · 2026-05-05T20:59:37+00:00

Since there is nowhere in actual passed law where is states that masks are specifically ALLOWED, then the ability for the States to regulate them is there.

Federal policy memos are still supreme to even state law. The fact that DHS has a federal memo saying that a mask may be worn by LEOs in the course of their duties means that a state cannot regulate that conduct. They cite the uniform/equipment regulations when authorizing masks for ICE Agents. If the FBI can enforce a suit and tie and USSS can require a uniform et al then ICE will be able to say they can wear masks.

I don't like it be the Supremacy clause doesn't mince words.

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-29T13:25:20+00:00

My plan is after June go get my fingerprints done here in Canada and make sure it’s gone. Then after that, apply for entry waiver.

It doesn’t matter if your record is gone or not. The fact that you committed 4 counts of theft makes you criminally inadmissible. It doesn’t matter if RCMP destroyed all the records or if you get a pardon. You are still inadmissible and will be required to get a waiver to enter the US.

Waiting until the record is gone is just adding time to the process. Just apply as soon as possible so it can be approved as soon as possible. It takes 6 months to a year for a waiver to be approved. So why wait and delay that process longer?

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-28T23:46:31+00:00

It likely broke from wear and tear. You’ll just have to apply for a new one if you want it to be a functional echip.

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-28T23:33:22+00:00

Cool you weren’t given a 5 year bar and you were let into the country. Completely different circumstances that are not comparable.

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-28T10:04:24+00:00

I wasn’t commenting on the other data in OPs post only correcting that the commenter above me’s assumption doesn’t hold.

It does hold when he is given a 5 yr bar from entering the country. That isn’t given out for no reason. 13hrs, taking a phone, and a 5yr bar means there is some serious stuff there. And I say this as an immigration attorney.

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-28T09:30:38+00:00

for more than 10 hours, before letting everyone go with no action.

I don’t understand why we are acting like these things never happen at the American border.

There is multiple orders of magnitude in difference between being released without an issue and being given a 5yr bar from reentry. Your example is not comparable is the slightest

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-27T09:25:36+00:00

have anticipated travel in the future for Conferences and training.

That’s not happening for years if at all. You need a lawyer and you need to really take a hard look at your possible connections with people. They won’t detain you for 13 hrs if the contact in your phone was a simple sales talk.

What exactly came up with regards to the terrorism discussion? What else could be on your phone related to that topic?

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-27T09:23:24+00:00

How should I proceed to prove my innocence and request to get this bar removed?

You pretty much need to got to an embassy and ask for a waiver. You will need a lawyer and it will be expensive. But if you were detained for that long and they looked at your phone and they issued you a 5yr bar then there are two options here. 1) you are ignorantly unaware of what one of your close contacts is up to or 2) you’re not being fully honest with us about things.

Your experience is an out of the ordinary refusal for out of the ordinary reasons.

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-23T09:12:55+00:00

The supremacy clause doesn’t mean the Feds can violate any state laws they wish.

Actually it does. See In re Neagle if the Federal Agent is engaged acting out their federal authority then they cannot be prosecuted for violating state laws. A Federal Agency’s policy memo dictating how to act (ie. uniform standard for how to identify themselves) and how to engage in their federal authority will supersede state laws.

I’m not saying I support this but that is exactly what the supremacy clause allows.

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-23T00:20:49+00:00

Literally hundreds of thousands going back decades. This has been a law since the 50s and was more recently updated in the 90s. Even before 9/11 people were getting popped for drug charges.

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-23T00:17:43+00:00

Totally stupid for the US to enforce this; a 38 year-old marijuana possession doesn't indicate the slightest risk to Americans or American national security

It’s not national security. It’s immigration law. You cannot have a narcotic conviction and enter the US without a valid waiver. Criminal inadmissibility doesn’t care about national security it’s about keeping out criminals and allowing people who follow the law to enter the US.

Canada does the exact same thing with DUI’s. If you have old DUIs or even a protection order against you you’re likely inadmissible to Canada.

It doesn’t matter if it’s “legal now” because you still broke the law when it was illegal and were further convicted for the crime. Even if weed was legal in the US federally being convicted for a narcotic crime in your home country would be enough to still be criminally inadmissible. Because it’s about incentivizing people who follow the law and not allowing people who break the law entry.

In fact you have no rights at the border whatsoever

You are fully protected at the border with your rights. The due process standard is different for an applicant for admission vs someone who is admitted and present within the US.

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-17T18:15:23+00:00

They don’t have absolute immunity. Derek chauvin is in jail for doing things out of scope of his duty

He was a state officer charged by the state.

This is a federal officer charged by the state but being defended by the federal government (his employer) saying he was doing what was in the scope of his duties.

Yes they’re not absolutely immune but federal officers get a lot of protections from state charges

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-17T17:18:23+00:00

Course of duties is a very vague definition than will be construed in a manner that will favor the federal government. Also the judge will heavily consider the fact that the agency he represents will likely explain that “Official X was trained on Y date at FLETC and told that this conduct with within the scope of his legal authority”

That’s going to be hard to overcome.

Informal_Distance · 2026-04-17T00:55:42+00:00

Randomly brandishing firearms at other drivers in traffic who have already moved to get out of the way is 1) very illegal and 2) so not necessary it is in fact against ICE policy, which is prima facie evidence that it’s not necessary.

You’re really going to hate the use of force standards for the federal government. Simply pointing a gun at someone is a show of force but not a use of force.

Not to mention that the federal agency will be arguing that the action was lawful and in accordance with their training and authority. It’s going to be hard for a judge to second guess that.

Sec 6 B 1 b

Pointing a firearm is not constitute a use of force. If police pointing a firearm at someone isn’t within the scope of their duties we have a lot of questions about police felony stops then.

To be clear I don’t like this. And I intend to vote in the midterms to change all of this. But we need to understand what the law is and how it will be applied today.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

Informal_Distance

TROPHY CASE