I actually wonder. This really is the interpretation of the law, and of course we have a board member....
Now, with all due respect, the statute itself uses the word “inadmissibility”, and once again, the drafting of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act merged the two words “removal” and “inadmissibility”. So if you look at subsection 64(1), it says, “No appeal may be made to the IAD by a foreign national...permanent resident if [they] have been found inadmissible...”.
“Inadmissible” is the phrase that is used to mean both trying to enter Canada and also being removed from Canada. That's part of what happened at the drafting of IRPA: a merging of those two words into one: inadmissibility on grounds of security, violating human rights, serious criminality, or organized criminality. Serious criminality is defined as being punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of two years.