The statutory authorities to remove and to review appeals of removal assigned in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) exist in a complicated, interweaving relationship with the legal power to sentence held by judges of the criminal court. Judges do not retain the legal authority to decide on removal. Judges do, however, hold the jurisdiction to consider deportation at sentencing. The practice of judicial jurisdiction in turn has potentially significant effects for subsequent practices of jurisdiction under the IRPA, including where judges use their legal power to apply sentences protecting permanent residents from removal and/or losing their right of appeal. Despite these important jurisdictional connections, how judicial authority to consider deportation is enacted has not received scholarly examination. This paper draws from an analysis of case law and interviews to address this gap, tracing how judges practice their jurisdiction when sentencing permanent residents.
