In a troubling revelation that raises significant questions about Canada’s deportation system, a convicted criminal immigrant ordered removed from the country in 2017 remains on Canadian soil seven years later, despite being deemed a threat to public safety. The case highlights alarming inefficiencies in how Canada manages the deportation of non-citizens found guilty of serious crimes.
Zine El Abidine Oukil, an Algerian citizen who arrived in Canada in 2005, was ordered deported after accumulating multiple criminal convictions including theft, assault, uttering threats, and violations of court orders. The Federal Court recently rejected his latest appeal to stay in the country, with Justice Sébastien Grammond emphasizing that Oukil “has shown a persistent pattern of disrespect for Canadian laws.”
The case represents a stark example of what critics call a “revolving door” in Canada’s immigration enforcement system. Despite being deemed inadmissible due to “serious criminality” – a designation that should trigger prompt removal – bureaucratic delays, legal challenges, and administrative bottlenecks have allowed Oukil to remain in Canada years beyond his deportation order.
“The system appears to be failing at its most fundamental task – removing individuals who pose a demonstrated risk to Canadians,” says immigration policy analyst Margaret Chen. “When someone with multiple convictions can remain in the country for seven years after being ordered deported, it suggests serious structural problems.”
According to Canada Border Services Agency data, thousands of individuals ordered deported remain in Canada, with many cases involving serious criminal histories. The backlog has grown significantly in recent years, challenging the government’s ability to enforce its own immigration decisions.
Justice Grammond’s ruling was particularly noteworthy for its directness, stating that Oukil’s “persistent pattern of disrespect for Canadian laws” and his “refusal to acknowledge his wrongdoing” made him an unsuitable candidate for humanitarian consideration. The court rejected arguments that deporting him would cause undue hardship.
Immigration experts note that such cases create a complex dilemma for Canadian authorities. “There’s a delicate balance between enforcing deportation orders and respecting legal rights to appeal,” explains Dr. Amrita Singh, professor of immigration law at York University. “However, when the process extends for years, it undermines public confidence in the immigration system and raises legitimate security concerns.”
The delay in Oukil’s case stems from multiple factors, including challenges in securing travel documents from his home country of Algeria, pandemic-related disruptions to deportation procedures, and a series of legal appeals through various administrative tribunals.
Political leaders have increasingly called for reforms to streamline the deportation process for individuals convicted of serious crimes. Conservative critics argue the current system prioritizes procedural protections over public safety, while government officials maintain that each case requires thorough due process review.
For communities affected by crimes committed by individuals awaiting deportation, these delays represent more than administrative inefficiency – they pose real safety concerns. “When someone has repeatedly demonstrated disregard for our laws and faces no meaningful consequences, it sends a troubling message,” notes former border security official James Thompson.
The Oukil case raises a critical question for Canadian society: How can we maintain a fair immigration system that respects legal rights while ensuring timely enforcement of deportation orders for those who pose a genuine risk to public safety?
