ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½

“Something that I’ve thought of repetitively in this process is that if I am to return, it’s not to the same country that I left,â€� Jenkel said in an interview with The Canadian Press. 

Jenkel came to Canada in August 2022 to visit the man who is now their fiancé. Jenkel said that for the first two months his health was fine, but eventually his epilepsy brought on “pretty bad� seizures. 

“I started taking care of him and kind of lost track of time because nobody else was taking care of him at the time,� Jenkel said.

Canadian visitor visas expire after six months, and a visitor who stays longer can be deported.

Facing removal, Jenkel applied to have a pre-removal risk assessment heard by an immigration officer. During these hearings, applicants need to demonstrate that there is a risk of real harm if they are removed from Canada. Jenkel was self-represented at the hearing.

They said the officer decided they did not bring forward enough evidence that their removal to the U.S. would result in irreparable harm. 

Jenkel, now represented by Smith Immigration Law — a ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½-based immigration law firm specializing in helping LGBTQ+ clients, applied for a stay of removal arguing that the officer made an error by relying on outdated information about the U.S. 

According to Justice Julie Blackhawk’s decision, the immigration officer based the removal order on the most recent U.S. National Documentation Package used by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated Jan. 31, 2024. 

These packages are reference guides for countries that contain information on a variety of topics about a country including its human rights record, demographics and how sexual minorities are treated. 

Before this year, the U.S. National Documentation Package had been updated annually since 2018 based on publicly available information. 

The Immigration and Refugee Board website says that updates to these packages may be delayed “in periods of rapid change and/or uncertainty.�

“One of our arguments that we said at the hearing was that because of the notoriety of everything that President (Donald) Trump has done with respect to the trans and non-binary community. Angel had assumed that the officer would be aware of how much the country conditions had changed just in the space of a matter of a year,â€� lawyer Adrienne Smith said.

“So, it was shocking that the officer had not considered the whole period from January 2024 until they made a decision on the (pre-removal risk assessment) application when that is really the whole period that caused Angel to make that risk assessment.�

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has not yet responded with a comment as requested.

Just hours after being sworn back into office in January, Trump signed an executive order to only recognize two genders in the U.S. — male and female. The order had ramifications across the country, including the removal of what Trump calls “gender ideology” from all federal government websites, the end to reporting statistics on transgender people who are incarcerated and a decision by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to delete lessons on how to make schools supportive environments for transgender and non-binary students.

“My state’s one of the only states that’s still protecting trans people so who knows how long that’s even going to last when things are going as crazy as they’re going,â€� Jenkel said, referencing the assassination of Minnesota Democratic house speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband last month.

“Then on top of that, all of my family lives in the South for the most part. Like, I just have my grandpa and my uncle in Minnesota and a friend that is willing to help me out if I end up there.�

Justice Blackhawk says in her decision that “it was not reasonable� for the officer to rely on the current National Documentation Package “given the public’s general awareness of the evolving situation in the U.S.�

For a stay of removal to be approved the applicant, in this case Jenkel, needs to show that being deported would cause irreparable harm.

Blackhawk says that Jenkel’s case satisfies all these criteria due to the use of old information in the removal order, risk to their fiancé in losing a primary caregiver and little risk to the Canadian public if Jenkel stays in the country. 

Sarah Mikhail, Jenkel’s other lawyer, said that immigration officers have a responsibility to be “well-versed� on the country conditions they may be sending someone back to. 

“This onus is actually higher when the applicant is self-represented, that they are well knowledgeable of the conditions in the country of origin,� Mikhail said. 

“From the record and the officer’s decision, it was clear that they didn’t necessarily demonstrate that they were considering the conditions that Angel would be returned back to and that was the difference.â€�

Jenkel can now stay in Canada until a judicial review of the removal decision is complete. If that result finds in their favour, Jenkel’s application to stay in Canada will be reopened and reviewed by a different officer. 

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 17, 2025.