As I understand what happened she had an expired visa, tried to enter the US at the Canada-US border and was denied entry then flew to Mexico and tried to enter the US at the Mexico-US border despite the fact that she still had an expired visa and was denied entry at the Canada-US border. That's a no no and that is why she was arrested. It wasn't random.
EDIT: Downvote this all you want. It makes ZERO difference to whether what I said was true or not.
If you have already been refused entry to USA, it is extremely important that you abide by the instructions and do not attempt to return until you are legally allowed to do so. At this point, it is pointless to argue with US Customs and Border Protection about their decision to refuse you entry, and you should instead focus on how you can get pre-approved for re-entry by contacting a US immigration attorney. If you attempt to re-enter the US at another Port of Entry after previously being turned away, not only will you be denied entrance once again but you also risk being banned from the country for an extensive amount of time.
That’s not what the article says. She had a valid visa, but was denied entry and the visa revoked because they thought it was “shady” that the visa had been approved after an initial denial. Later, after getting a new job in the states, she flew to Mexico to go to the San Diego immigration office to re-apply since that’s where she had applied before.
That was disingenuous of her, and it raised all sorts of flags. Justify it all you want, but she tried to game her entry, that part is obvious. Why wouldn't you re-apply at the same place you were refused? Come on, put your thinking cap on …
The other part is that the article mentions that she shouldn't have applied for the visa at either spot on the border but at the consulate,
The officer I spoke to was kind but told me that, due to my previous issues, I needed to apply for my visa through the consulate. I told her I hadn’t been aware I needed to apply that way, but had no problem doing it.
So reapplying from where she got refused is still the wrong advice.
It does not appear she was doing anything illegal or fishy like you pointed out. She was just getting her work visa renewed at the San Ysidro Port of Entry along the mexico boarder, which she has done successfully before in the past. You do this by crossing into mexico and then crossing back.
Mooney moved to Los Angeles in summer 2024, working on her business with a three-year work visa, which she applied for successfully by entering the U.S. from Mexico. She was trying to do the same thing after her first visa was unexpectedly revoked in November.
Len Saunders, an immigration lawyer based in Blaine, Wash., told Global News that he is not Mooney’s lawyer but he did speak to her a few weeks ago after being referred by a fellow client.
He said he is familiar with the San Ysidro Port of Entry and has referred clients who are in that area to cross into Mexico and then come back in order to get their visas renewed.
“When she told me she was going there, I advised her not to, only because of the current political climate,” he said.
Saunders said Mooney told him she had been to that border crossing before and everything was fine and she was confident about getting the visa.
TBH, what what Canadians need to be talking about is why a Canadian citizen was detained for the extended amount of time she was. This should not have happened at all period. No matter what the circumstances.
I wouldn't have taken my now valid visa, flown to Mexico, and tried there. I'd have gone back to the original port of entry where I was denied, gone inside, and presented my now valid visa but that's just me.
She is NOT the victim. She was denied entry then tried again at another border crossing. There is more to this story than the I'm the victim back of hand on forehead story that's being pushed.
The US is a police state. It has been a police state for years. If you FA and FO then you FO.
I'm not sure if you've ever tried immigrating between the US and Canada, but it is absolutely valid to apply for visas and work permits at a port of entry. It does not matter which country you arrive from - there is no requirement that you must enter from your home country.
It also does not matter if you've been previously denied. Denial is not a conviction, and the US is happy to take your money for you to apply again. Especially if you have a new job that may change the circumstances.
None of what she did was shady - at all. It's super common. And legal. And the worst thing that should have happened is a denial of entry.
I've done so many times, and in today's political climate, if one is informed, it's not a stretch that they will look for any excuse. Don't be so naive.
If by "today's political climate," you mean the sudden and illegal actions the president of the USA has ordered and USA's ICE has carried out, then I don't disagree with you. I wouldn't have done what she did. But I also don't blame her for being detained. We have to admit that this is lunacy! And I'm glad that she has been vocal, so people can understand that this isn't just a crackdown on illegal crossings.
Agreed! But what, we think, doesn't matter. I still stand by my comment that she was being disingenuous and regardless of what port of entry you apply at, there will be questions about your travel trail and other deets.
The officers have a great deal of discretion, so one officer may differ from another as to whom they let through.
I think that the issue was that she was at a land border crossing. They couldn't just put her on a plane and send her home. They put her into the system and it took them two weeks to deport her.
In hindsight it was foolish, but not illegal. She should have received a "no" and maybe "we say no because of a previous entry denial." And then she would have turned around and flown back to BC (a few hundred dollars poorer, but not in chains).
If you have already been refused entry to USA, it is extremely important that you abide by the instructions and do not attempt to return until you are legally allowed to do so. At this point, it is pointless to argue with US Customs and Border Protection about their decision to refuse you entry, and you should instead focus on how you can get pre-approved for re-entry by contacting a US immigration attorney. If you attempt to re-enter the US at another Port of Entry after previously being turned away, not only will you be denied entrance once again but you also risk being banned from the country for an extensive amount of time.
I suspect that the fact that she was at a land border crossing played into what happened. They couldn't just put her on a plane and fly her back. They had to move her to where they could put her on a plane so she was put into the meat grinder with everyone else being deported.
You've linked some sage advice. I've found immigration to be a crapshoot - mostly depending on how the immigration officer was feeling that day.
Rereading the article (admittedly from her side of things), the revocation of her visa seems unfair. But ultimately that's for the immigration officer to decide.
However, if she was using a land entry, it means she had to "flagpole" - leave the US for Mexico and return. Canadians don't need to apply for a visa to visit Mexico (nor the US, only to work). So why wasn't she given the option to head to the Tijuana airport on her own dime?
It just feels like someone wanted to be unnecessarily cruel. According to this woman's story, the officer mentioned her work with hemp products. Maybe the guy had some personal anger problems.
edit: I'm upvoting you, btw. Here to learn and share. Not sure who's downvoting you.
I thought she flagpoled in Canada, was denied, then tried to overfly the US to Mexico and enter from there. That would raise red flags for me if I was CBP. Once you're denied entry doing anything other than getting that denial cleared up before going back to the border is silly.
I think that how they treated her was unfair (as is the way that they treat everyone in that situation) but I think she got herself in that situation. The two are not mutually exclusive.