Post-Permit Tracking: Canada Does Not Routinely Monitor Migrants

Canadian immigration officials have confirmed that the government does not run ongoing tracking of people after approving their study or work permits. That policy—reiterated this year by officials in the Liberal immigration department—means there is no routine follow-up to check where permit holders are living, studying, or working once the documents are issued.

This stance contrasts with the United States, where agencies rely on several program-based systems to monitor specific groups before and after approvals, though tracking there is also not constant or universal.

Policy landscape: Canada vs United States

• Canada: Officials say that after approval there’s no built-in monitoring of permit holders unless they become part of an investigation or an enforcement action. If you hold a Canadian study or work permit and follow the rules, the government does not check your day-to-day whereabouts. This approach reduces state surveillance and ongoing administrative burden, but it limits the government’s ability to measure compliance or detect overstays.

• United States: Tracking is more layered and program-based:

  • Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services use the I-94 record to log a traveler’s arrival, status, and authorized stay. The CBP I-94 arrival/departure record allows officers to verify entry and expected departure dates.
  • For international students and exchange visitors, SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) records school enrollment, program changes, and other status updates to help ensure compliance.
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement runs “Alternatives to Detention” for some migrants released from custody while they await court hearings. Tools include the SmartLINK app and GPS ankle monitors. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, as of April 2024 nearly 780,000 migrants had been monitored through SmartLINK. Many are moved off monitoring before their cases finish, producing gaps in data on where people go next.
  • USCIS now collects social media usernames on several application forms to enhance security checks; this expansion—set to grow in 2025—aims to strengthen vetting during adjudication rather than provide continuous post-approval monitoring.
  • ICE can request personal data from state agencies (for example, DMV records), though sharing rules vary widely by state.

Practical impacts for students, workers, and families

The Canada vs United States divide affects planning, compliance, and the daily experience of migrants:

• In Canada, the absence of ongoing surveillance means:
  • Fewer touchpoints with authorities after approval, which can lower stress and reduce administrative burden.
  • Blind spots for schools, employers, and provinces that may struggle to confirm whether a permit holder is still studying or working as expected.
  • Policymakers rely on audits, tips, and targeted actions rather than routine tracking.

• In the United States, expect more structured checks tied to the type of status:
  • Students in SEVIS must report school transfers, address changes, and any drop below full-time study.
  • Workers on specific visas may face site visits by fraud detection units.
  • People in alternatives-to-detention programs may be required to check in through SmartLINK or attend regular appointments until monitoring ends.

Key differences at a glance

• Canada: No routine tracking after approval of study or work permits, except in enforcement cases.
• United States: Targeted tracking for specific groups/programs—e.g., SEVIS for students; alternatives-to-detention monitoring for some noncitizens.
• I-94: Logs entries and exits in the U.S., creating a basic timeline of lawful stay.
• Monitoring gaps: U.S. monitoring often ends before cases conclude, leaving gaps on subsequent outcomes.

Neither country runs continuous, long-term tracking of all permit holders. Most people experience light-touch systems unless they are students, in proceedings, or part of an enforcement case.

What migrants should do

• Keep documents current and follow program-specific reporting rules.
• In the U.S.:
  • Review your I-94 and correct errors promptly.
  • Ensure your school’s Designated School Official updates SEVIS for any changes if you’re studying.
  • If in an alternative-to-detention program, follow check-in instructions and keep contact details current.
• In Canada:
  • Retain records that show you’re meeting permit conditions, since audits and targeted checks can still occur without routine tracking.

Responsibilities for employers and schools

• Canadian employers: Fewer automatic alerts if a worker leaves a job or changes plans—this may require stronger internal record-keeping and contract terms.
• U.S. employers: May face site visits or data requests when sponsoring workers.
• U.S. schools: Have clear reporting duties under SEVIS.
• Canadian institutions: Rely more on internal controls and periodic government reviews.

Privacy, cost, and policy questions

• Maintaining national systems to monitor millions of people in real time is expensive and complex.
  • Canada’s lighter approach reduces cost and data collection, but limits program measurement.
  • The U.S. invests in targeted systems that track certain populations at key moments—but once a person leaves those systems, tracking often fades.
• Civil liberties groups warn that expanded data collection (e.g., social media records) and ankle monitors can be intrusive, and still fail to provide clear long-term outcomes.
• Advocates call for better transparency: publish clear numbers on who is monitored, for how long, and with what outcomes.
• Researchers urge public reporting on overstays, status compliance, and long-term results, while protecting personal data.

Takeaways

• Most migrants follow the rules. Even without constant tracking, compliance often remains high due to support from schools, employers, and communities.
• When systems fail, both countries tend to use targeted enforcement rather than blanket surveillance.
• Bottom line:
  • Canada does not run routine tracking after approving study or work permits.
  • The United States uses program-specific tools like the I-94, SEVIS, SmartLINK, and sometimes GPS monitors—each approach leaving data gaps.
• Applicants should plan for the rules that apply to their status, keep records in order, and ask program officers or school officials when in doubt.