I successfully argued that a bicycle incident occurred outside Canada does not result criminally inadmissible to Canada, nor it constitutes “misrepresentation”. After reviewing my written argument, IRCC agreed, and the initial finding of my client inadmissible to Canada was removed. His permanent residence application under CEC was approved.
I prepared my client’s Express Entry registration and permanent residence (PR) application. He provided police certificates from two counties he had lived. Both certificates were clear with no criminal history.
When he received a procedure fairness letter from the IRCC determining that he was criminally inadmissible, as such he was disqualified from becoming a permanent resident, he panicked and rather confused.
Why IRCC Found my client Criminally Inadmissible even though his Police Certificate was clear and show no criminal history?
Many do not know that IRCC also conducts their own background check on each applicant applying for permanent residence. This means that even if one had obtained a clear police certificate, it does not guarantee that one would pass the final background check.
This is because that,
It turned out to be, after conducting their own background check, IRCC found that, while my client was working in another country, he was once stopped by police while riding his bicycle because the police believed that he was under influence of alcohol. My client was let go after being ticketed and fined. He later paid the fine and put all these behind. He explained to me that he never brought it up with me because he had long forgotten this incident.
After assisting him obtaining all records of the incident, he learned that, in addition to paying the fine, he was obligated to appear at the local court and admit fault. The judge would decide whether to impose more punishment, such as community service. Because he did not appear at the court, so the case was still pending.
I advised him to make a trip there asap and tie the lose end. Do whatever it takes to resolve the pending case. And he did.
Now it’s my job to find the remedy for the damage it casued to his Canadian PR application.
To tackle cases like this. I first go to IPRA Division 4 of the Part 1 Inadmissibility. Under Article 36 of the IRPA, grounds for criminal inadmissibility are categorized as Serious criminality and Criminality. Since my client was considered committing an act outside Canada, the crucial argument would be, if it was committed in Canada, would that incident constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament.
No breath-testing was done at the scene. Police’s suspicion was validated by my client own confession, admitting that he had had a can of bear before getting on his bicycle. Police gave him an oral warning and a ticket, then let him go at the scene. There was no paper record indicating my client’s alcohol level at the time of the stopping. And no charges such as DUI was laid.
After numerous hours of research in criminal laws in Canada and the occurring country, reading through hundreds of pages court decisions of similar cases, I conducted a written submission that,
The response to the procedural fairness letter and the well-illustrated comparison chart were submitted to the IRCC in the summer of 2022, and in record time, the IRCC agreed, set aside the initial determination, and granted my client the permanent residence status.
PanGu Immigration Consulting is a Vancouver-based immigration firm. We represent clients on immigration, refugee, and citizenship matters across Canada and internationally.
The founder, Meina Du, is a regulated Canadian immigration consultant (RCIC). She has helped many clients achieve their immigration goals. We provide immigration services in English, 中文 (Chinese) and Español (Spanish)