Monday, February 28, 2011

Red Light Cameras Illegal and Dangerous

California criminal defense attorneys aggressively try to get red light cameras thrown out as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said that a criminal defendant has a right to confront his accuser, but when have you ever heard of a camera manufacturer employee showing up to testify at a red light camera ticket trial?

Is it "Big Brother" out of control and out of sight?

The Supreme Court said that we have a right to privacy that emanates from the penumbra’ of the Bill of Rights yet now we drive and are being watched by Big Brother Light Camera Company.

Red light citations should be illegal. They are also very dangerous. Five studies noted by the National Motorists Association show proof that the red light cameras actually increase the incidence of accidents at intersections.

A study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council concluded: “After cameras were installed, rear-end crashes increased for the entire six-jurisdiction study area… After controlling for time and traffic volume at each intersection, rear-end crash rates increased by an average of 27% for the entire study area.”

DUI lawyers run into this issue in Drunk Driving Accident Defense cases.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Video of one of California's Premier San Diego DUI & DMV Attorneys in acdtion

To vigorously defend your California DUI case and afford you the best opportunity to seriously move forward with your life and ability to drive, research DUI lawyers the same weekend you arrested.



Retaining one of the Superb DUI attorneys ranked "10" out of "10" will increase the likelihood of minimization or avoidance of any jail time.



In San Diego County California, premier DUI defense lawyers research and investigate all San Diego drunk driving cases to make sure folks' legal rights are protected and San Diego DUI police officers complied with San Diego protocol.



When your San Diego DUI criminal attorney successfully identifies an illegal action or improper conduct by the San Diego county officer, it may be a basis for for San Diego DUI case dismissal.



Video of one of California's Premier San Diego DUI & DMV Attorneys



Click on this list of all

"Superb"-rated

San Diego DUI defense lawyers. Some also are California DUI Lawyers Association "Specialists."

Saturday, February 26, 2011

First, right step now - Check out ONLINE SAN DIEGO DUI Survey

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller speaks at Strategies in Handling DUI Cases seminars, at the DUI & Drug Defense seminar at the San Diego Bar Building, at the North San Diego County Bar Association's Drunk Driving - DMV seminars, and at the Public Defender's Office DMV - DUI Training seminars. His DMV - DUI work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders' materials. Since 1983, DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller has actively defended these cases. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is in Good Standing with the State Bar (#114305).



Take the first, right step right now:


* Submit the ONLINE SAN DIEGO DUI Survey

at this FREE DUI consultation & evaluation center



"Superb"-rated

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller recognized by the California DUI Lawyers Association as specializing in California DUI and DMV law.



San Diego DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only DMV - DUI attorney who was the featured Speaker at 7 DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last several years. At an 8th seminar, attorney Mueller lectured at the

Annual DUI Seminar

in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. At a 9th seminar, San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller spoke at the prestigious California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

. California criminal defense lawyers in attendance spoke highly of lawyer Rick Mueller to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association.


San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is known in the legal community as the "DMV Guru".


Attorney Mueller is the only San Diego DUI Editorial Consultant for the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law. Known as California's bible for DUI defense, the book features key DUI defense materials of San Diego DUI attorney Rick Mueller.


San Diego drunk driving lawyer Rick Mueller is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association. Attorney Mueller's a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.


Quality San Diego DMV - DUI legal representation: 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI

Friday, February 25, 2011

California Drunk Driving Law books - Comprehensive References to the Law of DUI in California That Premier DUI Criminal Defense Attorneys Use!

What are the materials a competent DUI Criminal Defense Attorney in California must have? For starters...

(1) California Drunk Driving Law: A Comprehensive Reference to the Law of Drunk Driving in California. March 2001 Edition

California Drunk Driving Law can be purchased here.

Here's what attorneys say:

California Drunk Driving Law never lets me down. It's complete, it's comprehensive and it covers the important details... -- Barry Simons, DUI Defense Attorney, Laguna Beach, California

“Absolutely the best drunk driving book in the state... -- Grace Suarez, California Public Defender, San Francisco, California

“California Drunk Driving Law ... also deals with themes not confined to just DUI litigation... -- Michael (Captain Motion) Kennedy, DUI Attorney in California

Rick Mueller is San Diego County's Editorial Consultant for California Drunk Driving Law, the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law.

(2) Another must DUI book is Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests by California DUI Lawyers Association President & Specialist Donald Bartell and Mary McMurray. Click here to purchase at Amazon.com.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Don Bartell becomes President of California DUI Lawyers Association, is the Best DUI Attorney in California & Author of Drunk Driving Book! Congrats!

Congratulations to Big Don! Don Bartell becomes President of California DUI Lawyers Association, is the Best DUI Attorney in California & Author of "Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests". This is a best-selling A to Z DUI book with the nuts & bolts a California criminal defense lawyer has to master, including voir dire, cross-examination of cop & expert, plus scientific materials to help educate a jury a person accused of Drunk Driving is not just entitled to a fair trial but to a not guilty verdict!

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

MADD gives out DUI award to Chula Vista San Diego County Cop

MADD loves to help cops get promotions. Many DUI cops in San Diego California arrest as many people as they can.

Why? Don't you think promotion is tied to performance? And if a city's cop gets the most DUI arrests for the year, MADD gives them an Award. Attorneys think it promotes a tad bit of bias. Some lawyer suspect worse.

200 DUI police enforcement employees in California will get what MADD calls "a prestigious award".

On March 26, 2011, the DUI award ceremony at the Hyatt Regency in Sacramento will feature San Diego County's Chula Vista Officer Alicia Chudy. She will receive the “California State MADD Hero Award” for her work in DUI cases and preventing accidents.

In 2010, Chula Vista Police Department arrested about 650 Calfifornia DUI / drunk drivers. Chudy got 85 California DUI drivers, the most there. The DUI star had her hand in 30 California DUI coordinated operations including California DUI checkpoints, California DUI saturation patrols and DUI probation stakeouts. She spearheaded approval of a $269,574 anti-California DUI drunk driving grant to continue prevention operations during deep budget cuts. She trained other DUI patrol officers about new laws to score more California DUI arrests. Check back for her promotion status, attorneys believe.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Nassau County closed its crime laboratory in New York after it was discovered that police knew examiners made inaccurate measurements in drug cases

Nassau County closed its crime laboratory in New York after it was discovered that police supervisors were aware examiners made inaccurate measurements in drug cases.

About nine thousand drug cases over the past three years are being checked for signs of errors after a spot check last week of nine cases involving ketamine, or Ecstasy, showed 6 were inaccurately analyzed.

Police knew problems with Ecstasy testing leading to the closing of the entire lab.

The lab also tested BAC in DUI cases.

An independent lab will be used for future analysis.

Criminal Defense lawyers and DUI attorneys are making motions questioning whether their clients received fair treatment, and asking that convictions be reversed.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Ways for DUI defense attorney to attack retrograde extrapolation for Jack

Ways for a DUI defense attorney to attack retrograde extrapolation in NBA Player Jarrett Jack case.

Jack registered a .079 at 5:38 a.m., 90 minutes after the traffic stop so DUI prosecuting lawyers will try to say he was higher at time of driving. Click here to see why that should not work.

He was stopped in his Mercedes-Benz around 4 a.m. for speeding - 66 in a 45 mph zone, defense lawyers are told.

Because the police department's Intoxilyzer was not working, Jack was given the breath estimator test at the Gwinnett County Jail.

"In general, alcohol dissipates from the system at approximately .02 grams per hour," one assuming cop there claims. "Therefore, he would have been over the limit of .08 at the time of the driving infraction." Folks can be charged with DUI-less safe if .05% and higher combined with bad driving: e.g. speeding &/or weaving.

New York Yankees Pitcher Joba Chamberlain's DUI Video shows he did pretty well on the drunk or sobriety tests!

It's always fun to see which New York Yankees get in what trouble. This time, Joba Chamberlain's DUI video takes the cake.

As the commenters clearly indicated, field sobriety tests - in New York or California - become a technicality.

In DUI court, cops are asked how the accused did on the FST's but once they smell alcohol and see the driving, plus one's physical symptoms, they're prepared to say if the person is DUI or not.

Then once the accused blows .08% or above, they're still gonna get arrested even if he or she passes the acrobatics or gymnastics (which they never do).

If the cop though the person was driving in a manner that could be described as impaired or drunk, the bowling ball's rolling.

In this video, you can bet his attorney showed how the Yankees pitcher probably passed seventy percent of the field coordination tests!

He didn't do so good heel to toe coming back, at least in a straight line, but once you test yourself completely sober, you see how difficult it is, lawyers accurately maintain.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

No-brainer online California DUI Lawyer Survey and Consultation

here

You, your friends and your family know you definitely could use the services of a top San Diego DUI attorney "Specialist" (per California DUI Lawyers Association). There's only three around town who have this specialization by CDLA.

Why not fight your San Diego drunk driving case?

This particular

Superb-("10" out of "10") rated

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer offers complete and professional assistance for both the criminal DUI and quasi-civil/administrative DMV cases from beginning to end.

Reasons to consider San Diego County's Attorney Specialist in DUI and DMV Law now

.



No-brainer online California DUI Lawyer Survey and Consultation

at San Diego's online DUI survey

.


Saturday, February 19, 2011

Take a correct step today with this ONLINE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA DUI Survey

Get er done with a

"Superb"-rated

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller awarded a Specialist position by the California DUI Lawyers Association as specializing in DUI law.



Take a correct step today with this ONLINE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA DUI Survey

at this FREE DUI consultation & STRATEGY center



Top-notch San Diego DMV - DUI legal representation: 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI
(1-800-843-5293)


4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500

San Diego, CA 92122

(619) 218 - 2997 portable/voice mail

Friday, February 18, 2011

13 California drivers had their cars taken away when they showed up for a DUI COURT-ORDERED MADD meeting - what is this world coming to?!

Trying to fulfill their DUI probation, 13 out of 171 drivers had their cars taken away when they showed up for COURT-ORDERED MADD meeting. Who's mad now? Without DMV or the DUI court giving the person a restriction to drive to something required to be done. Ironic? Sad? Sick?

This idiotic waste of taxpayer money happened at El Cajon Court in San Diego County, so why is the La Mesa Police Department spearheading this stupid DUI license checkpoint sting operation, attorneys question?

“Our main focus was to identify those drivers who continue to drive even after having their license suspended as the result of a prior DUI arrest,” posted embarassed Sgt. Peter Andersson (avoiding direct media contact by using only a prewritten news release). “The detail was operational for a little more than three hours.”

Great. So the DUI fines which the state of California could really use will instead help pay for more cops wasting everybody's time for 3 hours. Cheap! Shooting fish in a barrel you just built? Self-perpetuating work for DUI cops?

Local San Diego California DUI lawyer Rick Mueller tried to warn people about this crap in an URGENT PRESS RELEASE blog post yesterday.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

DUI Attorney assistance in California is not that hard. Surf the net. Find resourceful links by a successful San Diego DUI Lawyer

DUI Attorney assistance in California is not that hard. Surf the net. Find resourceful links by a successful San Diego DUI Lawyer.

Helpful San Diego DUI Lawyers appear in court and at California DMV. Criminal Defense Attorneys offer peace of mind and valuable advice.



San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is one of several Superb San Diego DUI Lawyers & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorneys. In his 28th annual defensive assaults, the DMV Guru cherishes each moment of his San Diego DUI law practice to vigorously pursuing as your Mouthpiece.

His Hired Gun DUI Defense Form

- online DUI & DMV consultation experience-

can get it done...now!

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Please take a few minutes at this

Free DUI Survey

for your best San Diego DUI Defense

One significant step taken by those needing TOTAL ASSISTANCE begins at the right genesis: San Diego County DUI Law Center's Rick Mueller. His site is the stairway to a resourceful Drunk Driving Attorney Resource Center for those accused of a San Diego California DUI.



Trouble-free San Diego DUI Lawyer handles all court and DMV appearances, striving to keep you driving & save your license.



Rick Mueller is a 10 out of 10 Superb Avvo-Rated San Diego DUI Lawyer. Sporting 27 years of battling in the trenches, this California DMV Guru and San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller devotes every second to helping those accused of a DUI.

Please take a few minutes at this

Free DUI Survey

for your best San Diego DUI defense attorney approach, period.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

New California Marijuana Law, for Possession

New California Health & Safety Code Section 11357.

(a) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses
any concentrated cannabis shall be punished by imprisonment in the
county jail for a period of not more than one year or by a fine of
not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and
imprisonment, or shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison.

(b) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses not
more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis,
is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than one
hundred dollars ($100).

(c) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses more
than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, shall
be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not
more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred
dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(d) Except as authorized by law, every person 18 years of age or
over who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than
concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds of, or within, any school
providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12
during hours the school is open for classes or school-related
programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine
of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment in
the county jail for a period of not more than 10 days, or both.

(e) Except as authorized by law, every person under the age of 18
who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than
concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds of, or within, any school
providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12
during hours the school is open for classes or school-related
programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the
following dispositions:

(1) A fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), upon
a finding that a first offense has been committed.

(2) A fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or
commitment to a juvenile hall, ranch, camp, forestry camp, or secure
juvenile home for a period of not more than 10 days, or both, upon a
finding that a second or subsequent offense has been committed.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Mother's not guilty plea to DUI, manslaughter murder in crash killing daughter, entered in California court today

A California lady accused of DUI and murder in a drunk driving crash which killed her 9-year-old daughter, Chloe Honeycutt, pleaded not guilty today.

Karen Faye Honeycutt was also hurt 1/26/11 but surved and now faces second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and two other DUI-related felonies.

Honeycutt had 3 California DUI convictions and one felony DUI conviction from the 1990s in San Diego County, attorneys are told.

She was allegedly speeding in a Jeep Grand Cherokee on Vail Ranch Parkway in Temecula when it struck a concrete light pole and a tree, lawyers hear. 2 persons were thrown from the SUV. pleads not guilty to murder in fatal crash

California Criminal Defense attorney Leah Kisner explained this case is not as "cut and dry" as it may appear.

Huntington Beach should be Sued for Interfering with this California's restaurant to operate, regardless of how many DUI cases are associated with it!

A respectable California restaurant in hip-hop happening Huntington Beach is being unfairly limited despite its huge success as an entertainment facility for Americans...just because 77 California DUI cases are somehow indirectly or directly related to the business.

That's right, customers may not drink alcohol past 11 p.m. each business day, per Huntington Beach Police Department's Notice.

The DUI incidents are somehow - probably remotely - related to Baja Sharkeez during late night hours, lawyers are told.

The new Big Brother hours go into effect in 2 weeks a condition for the restaurant's entertainment permit renewal, according to attorneys who should sue the City!

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Around the NFL - from DUI arrest for Oakland California star Michael Bush to Road Rage Assault charges

Oakland California Raiders rising star running back Michael Bush faced arrest yesterday for DWI aka drunk driving or driving while intoxicated in Indiana. He was stopped at quarter to four in the a.m. for an infraction in good ol' Jeffersonville. Not much good happens at that time of the night so one must obey every traffic law.

Bush ran for 655 yards on 158 carries, 8 touchdowns, a rising fantasy player. Michael is a free agent, free unless Indiana sentences him to jail.

In other NFL news, Washington Redskins Defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth faces misdemeanor assault due to a road rage incident. His criminal defense attorney appeared at a police station because of an ordeal involving an assault by a driver of a pickup truck who was tailgating him. The accuser is seeking fame and money, lawyers are told.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Olympic bobsled champion Steven Holcomb says he used "poor judgment" when he drove upon being convicted of Impaired Driving (not DUI)

Bobsled champion Steven Holcomb only had to pay a $1,430 fine and complete 48 hours of community service after his attorney got his DUI reduced to a lesser charge of impaired driving.

He blew a .19% on a DUI breath test, over twice Utah's limit of .08%. says he used "poor judgment" when he drove after drinking in October 2009.

Holcomb said he was sorry to the U.S. Bobsled and Skeleton Federation, the U.S. Olympic Committee, his teammates in the USA-1 sled, and mentioned his "need to show better judgment."

He drove his four-man sled to the Win at 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games. No word that he drove his sled while DUI, lawyers believe.

Friday, February 11, 2011

So many California lawyers claim to represent they specialize in DUI cases or are specialists. However, upon closer scrutiny, one can see the truth.

So many California lawyers claim to represent they specialize in DUI cases or are specialists. However, upon closer scrutiny, one can see that the attorney is neither 100% DUI Defense nor more importantly not recognized by California DUI Lawyers Association as a true Specialist. Sad but true.

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller is a "Specialist", a unique Award official given out by the well-known California DUI Lawyers Association. The man is a

very highly-rated - "Superb" in fact,

San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney who has been around the block a few times.

Way too easy to commence. Just go to this relatively simple, free San Diego DUI & DMV Defense Attorney Survey at www.SanDiegoDUI.com/survey

. You will get an immediate response, including helpful information and a proposal if you can be helped.



Video of California's premier San Diego DUI Attorney


Thursday, February 10, 2011

California Vehicle Code Section 23578 (.15% BAC DUI enhancement allegation) / 23538 - 9 month program if .20% BAC

California Vehicle Code Section 23578 (.15% BAC DUI enhancement allegation):

In addition to any other provision of this code, if a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, the court shall consider a concentration of alcohol in the person's blood of 0.15 percent or more, by weight, or the refusal of the person to take a chemical test, as a special factor that may justify enhancing the penalties in sentencing, in determining whether to grant probation, and, if probation is granted, in determining additional or enhanced terms and conditions of probation.

Additional DUI terms or conditions may also include but are not limited to:

Jail, Trash Detail, Vehicle Impound, 6 month license suspension from a DUI conviction, Public Work Program, Community Service, Ignition Interlock Device, higher DUI fine, Volunteer Work and a 9 month alcohol program.

California Vehicle Code § 23538(b)2) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol concentration was 0.20 percent (.20%) or more, by weight, or who refused to take a chemical test, to participate for at least nine (9) months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least 60 hours of program activities, including those education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

A top DUI lawyer or Drunk Driving attorney in California can avoid most of these additional or enhanced terms.

Premier DUI Attorney assistance - So why not mount the right horse after browsing the resourceful links by this SUPERB rated San Diego DUI Lawyer

Premier DUI Attorney assistance is desired by smart folks everywhere.

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is a California DMV Criminal Defense Attorney going on three decades of devotion of every working moment during his DUI law practice.

California's Drunk Driving and DMV Defense Evaluation Form

at this online DUI consultation survey site

starts the critical process like a path to a pot of gold.

So why not mount the right horse after browsing the resourceful links by this SUPERB rated San Diego DUI Lawyer specializing in just one area of law. Worry-free San Diego DUI Lawyers help with both court and DMV. Complete San Diego Criminal Defense Attorneys offer solid defense representation.

Attorney Mueller shared secrets with the

Annual DUI Seminar

at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, California.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

A tremendous regional resource center for DUI Lawyers who yearn for information simply by following San Diego County DUI Law Center's Rick Mueller

A tremendous regional resource center for DUI Lawyers who yearn for information simply by following San Diego County DUI Law Center's Rick Mueller.

Absolutely trouble-free DUI & DMV Defense Lawyer goes to court and the license hearing for folks throughout the client who had some trouble in San Diego.

Prominent Attorney Rick Mueller is a SUPERB-Rated San Diego Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego DUI & DMV Defense Attorney possessing almost 300 seasoned months of commitment.

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller DEVOTES EVERY MINUTE of his San Diego DUI law practice to successfully and vigorously helping people out.

Option #1 BEGIN here: complete

Free DUI & DMV Lawyer Survey

for a well-reasoned San Diego DUI defense attorney tactical approach.

Check out this San Diego California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer whose blog really tweets:

San Diego DUI Attorneys Blog

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

SUPER BOWL DUI LAWYERS ANNOUNCE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA DUI ARRESTS INCREASE FOR 2011

SUPER BOWL DUI LAWYERS ANNOUNCE SAN DIEGO DUI ARRESTS INCREASE FOR 2011

San Diego County Sheriff’s Department along with the San Diego Avoid the 14 asked football fans not to drive drunk. the message was not heard by many San Diegans as COPS made DUI arrests in big numbers over 2011 Super Bowl weekend. San Diego County law enforcement booked a total of 160 people into local jails for DUI this year; in comparison last year there were a total of 135 arrests, attorneys say.

4 of this weekend’s San Diego drunk driving arrests resulted from collisions where occupants in the involved vehicles were injured. There were no fatal DUI collisions over Super Bowl weekend.

San Diego County Avoid the 14 DUI Task Force supplemented law enforcement throughout the county, conducting a DUI/Drunk Driving checkpoint in the 1800 block of Olivenhain Road in the city of Encinitas on Saturday night and deploying special roving DUI patrols in more than 20 communities in the county on Super Bowl Sunday.

San Diego DUI patrols are in addition to regularly scheduled officers, all looking for the so-called tell-tale signs of a possible DUI driver.

California DUI/DMV hearings are presided over by a Driver Safety Officer (DMV hearing officer) rather than a real judge, an employee of the DMV

Attorneys from California who deal with administrative per se license suspension actions know the similarities to it being a sort of DUI trial. Funky San Diego DMV rules, odd San Diego DMV laws and unbelievable San Diego DMV procedures exist.




Search no more for experienced California DUI Attorneys? San Diego California Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller spoke at the famous California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

.

Click on below site for a video of San Diego DUI Lawyers who handles these cases:

Video of San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney


The San Diego DMV hearing is presided over by a Driver Safety Officer (DMV hearing officer) rather than a real judge, an employee of the DMV not trained in law who acts as both prosecutor and judge. As unfair as it is, she or he can legally object to your evidence, rule on her or his own objection, dually engage San Diego DUI lawyers, and admit or not admit either party's evidence.



The San Diego Driver Safety Officer offers evidence in the form of documents and/or witnesses. The Driver Safety Officer offers the San Diego drunk driving / DUI police report, DMV records, San Diego DUI alcohol reports and the important San Diego DUI officer's sworn statement entitled a "DS 367." With no Fifth Amendment right at the hearing, San Diego DUI attorneys usually will not want you to be present at the hearing since the Driver Safety Officer can call you as a witness and force you to testify against yourself if you ill-advisedly appear.



The San Diego DMV Driver Safety Officer's decision will usually be mailed a few days or even weeks after the hearing. A San Diego DMV / DMV suspension can be set aside or sustained. If the San Diego DMV suspension is sustained, the decision can be appealed to the DMV in Sacramento and/or to the San Diego Superior court by filing a San Diego DMV petition for writ of mandamus.




A San Diego DUI attorneys' defenses at an APS hearing are specialized and technical, more so than in criminal court. Frequent San Diego DUI / DMV proof problems - as well as legal, procedural and bureaucratic obstacles - are possible grounds for setting aside the suspension.




Because of the peculiar nature of San Diego DUI / DMV hearings and the absence of an independent San Diego DUI judge to offer some protection, you are strongly advised not to try to represent yourself. Because these are not San Diego DUI criminal proceedings, San Diego County public defenders are unavailable.




Your San Diego DUI / DMV lawyer has just 10 CALENDAR DAYS after the DUI arrest to call the San Diego DMV Driver Safety Office to timely demand a hearing. You waive your right to a hearing after the 10 day deadline is up.






If you must contact DMV yourself, although not advised as they are not "on your side," please ask for the name of the person you speak with. Please do not discuss the reasons why you are contesting the suspension. The San Diego Driver Safety Office is located at 9174 Sky Park Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego (858 627-3901 or fax 858 627-3925).




Upon request, San Diego DMV may not be able to schedule a hearing before your 30-day temporary license expires. Your San Diego DUI / DMV lawyer will request a Notice of Stay of the 30-day temporary license until a San Diego DMV hearing is provided and a San Diego DMV decision is actually rendered.


Monday, February 7, 2011

Attorneys handling DUI cases in San Diego persist - what to do within 10 days of a Super Bowl weekend California drunk driving ordeal

Attorneys handling DUI cases in San Diego persist - what to do within 10 days of a Super Bowl weekend California drunk driving ordeal:



San Diego DUI Lawyers in California with excellent records:

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorneys



10. A DUI attorney has only 10 calendar days to contact DMV! This is the big ticket item to remember.

Obviously, please do NOT schedule yourself.

Why not? Well. If you yourself contact DMV to schedule a date which ends up conflicting with your San Diego DUI attorney's calendar, DMV will not reschedule and you may not get the San Diego DUI attorney of your choice. There is no hurry as long as your San Diego DUI attorney contacts DMV by the 10th day from your arrest.



9. The ten (10) day time limit is computed from the Issue date of the SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE. If time is running out or you think you might be late, contact a San Diego DUI lawyer ASAP.



8. This ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is the California DMV paper which you should have received.



7. Even if you did not receive this DMV paper, the California DMV will probably take action against your driving privileges.



6. Even if you have a license from another state, and even if the San Diego DUI officer did not take your license, that state may also take action against your driving privileges.



5. This TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE ENDORSEMENT is valid for only 30 days from the issue date.



If a DMV hearing is requested within ten (10) days, your DMV TEMPORARY will be extended & there will be a stay (delay) of any suspension until the outcome of your DMV hearing is determined.



4. Please do not confuse this initial 30 day TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE with your court date!

The DMV and criminal proceedings are separate and independent. The outcome of one almost never affects the other. Sometimes the officer or the DMV paper confuses or misleads you to believe that the TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is good "until the court date". If there are approximately thirty (30) days from your arrest date to your court date, this may just be a dangerous coincidence. There usually are months before your DMV hearing takes place.



3. There are three (3) issues at the San Diego DMV hearing if you completed a chemical test. (See reverse side of pink DMV paper.)



Issues are whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you, and whether the San Diego DUI breath or blood test evidence is inadmissible, rebuttable, unreliable, inaccurate and/or untrustworthy.



2. The DMV has the burden of proof to prevail on all three (3) issues. If DMV meets the burden of proof on two (2) issues, you win!



1. All DMV attorneys have to do is successfully knock out just 1 of the DMV issues to preserve your license, to avoid a reissue fee, and/or to avoid an expensive SR-22 rip-off.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

It's not that hard to avoid a Super Bowl DUI, even if you are driving in California today - lawyers' clues

No DUI Conviction in California even after the Green Bay - Pittsburgh show? Attorneys offer these helpful tips and suggest it's possible once the lights go on.


* In California on Super Bowl Sunday, you are required to give a suspecting DUI cop only your insurance, registration & license.

It's real important to remember that any additional evidence gathered by the drunk driving cop is part of his plan to convict you of a DUI. So do not join that plan. Stand firm. Polite decline to help convict yourself, lawyers stress.

* DUI police like to ask lots of question before any arrest (with the intent of convicting you or setting you up).

You're not then in custody for the purposes of Miranda warnings, along the side of the road or wherever.

Gently but convincingly do NOT answer any of the DUI investigating officer's questions, before or after the California arrest. Why? To avoid incriminating statements which would be presented against you in California DUI court, attorneys know.

* Field Sobriety Tests (FST's) are voluntary, so volunteer NOT to do them.

If attempted, you will be arrested anyway.

Again, it's a real good idea not to give the investigating officer any DUI evidence that will be used against you in court. Otherwise, he takes notes of all the things you did wrong because that is how he was trained, believe it or not. Bottom line: refuse to do any Acrobatics or Gymnastics.

* Never blow into any PAS or hand-held gadget (portable breath machine device), otherwise known as a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test. Unless you are under 21 or currently on DUI probation, the test is optional so exercise your option NOT to blow in the street.

Attorneys will tell you how unreliable these machines are: one can essentially blow about the legal limit after eating just white bread or soy sauce (alcohol-free).

* Because a DUI cop only offers blood or breath test, select big breath test machine at the station or jail.

California DUI breath machines are not 100% accurate and there are many possibilities for problems, e.g. DUI'>http://www.sandiegodui.com/defenses.html">DUI & Drunk Driving Defenses to Breath Test.

* Telephone a loved one to listen to you speak, hear your words and that you were not slurring like the cop will probably say. Jails like to give folks their "one call."

* Be calm & courteous with the cops; most will reciprocate. How you are observed by the cop goes into his report which is then how you will observed in California court by a DUI jury, criminal defense lawyers emphasize.

* Note everything in order prior to your arrest, up to and including your release from custody. A pen and a paper are good friends.

* Simply avoid drinking and driving. Darn cell phones will get you in trouble. Music on the radio sounds good until you hear a siren mixed in your surround sound.

It may be lawful to drink and drive but it's easier to get a designated driver. To make sure you're not over .08%, go to Amazon.com and buy a small breath test gadget to estimate how much alcohol is on your breath prior to getting into a car listening to tunes and being tempted to fiddle with your Iphone or Droid.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

The right step, right now: California's ONLINE SAN DIEGO DUI Attorney Assistance & DMV Lawyer Resource Center

Take the right step right now:


* California's ONLINE SAN DIEGO DUI Survey

at this Attorney DUI consultation & drunk driving lawyer evaluation service


"Superb"-rated

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller recognized by the California DUI Lawyers Association as specializing in California DUI and DMV law.



San Diego DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only DMV - DUI attorney who was the featured Speaker at 7 DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last several years. At an 8th seminar, attorney Mueller lectured at the

Annual DUI Seminar

in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. At a 9th seminar, San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller spoke at the prestigious California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

. California criminal defense lawyers in attendance spoke highly of lawyer Rick Mueller to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association.


San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is known in the legal community as the "DMV Guru".


Attorney Mueller is the only San Diego DUI Editorial Consultant for the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law. Known as California's bible for DUI defense, the book features key DUI defense materials of San Diego DUI attorney Rick Mueller.


San Diego drunk driving lawyer Rick Mueller is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association. Attorney Mueller's a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.


San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller speaks at Strategies in Handling DUI Cases seminars, at the DUI & Drug Defense seminar at the San Diego Bar Building, at the North San Diego County Bar Association's Drunk Driving - DMV seminars, and at the Public Defender's Office DMV - DUI Training seminars. His DMV - DUI work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders' materials. Since 1983, DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller has actively defended these cases. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is in Good Standing with the State Bar (#114305).




Quality San Diego DMV - DUI legal representation: 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI

Friday, February 4, 2011

Drunk Driving Attorney Rick Mueller can be found in San Diego & is a legitimate "Specialist", a title earned through the California DUI Lawyers Assn.

Drunk Driving Attorney Rick Mueller can be found in San Diego & is a legitimate "Specialist", an Award proclaimed by the California DUI Lawyers Association. He's a

top shelf-rated

San Diego DUI, Drunk Driving & DMV Attorney with over 28 years of vigorous courtroom and administrative hearing lawyering.



Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller uses most of his day and 100% of his law firm work in defending nice folks dealing with the potential pitfalls of a San Diego DUI.

Super simple - embark with the San Diego DUI Attorney Intake Form

at this amazing DUI consultation & DMV survey

to become enlightened as a high-level aggressive tactic in your cases.

San Diego California Attorney DUI Lawyer Twitter Resource Center

Thursday, February 3, 2011

In California, San Diego DUI Attorney assistance is ensured by browsing the resourceful links by a premier San Diego DUI Lawyer

In California, San Diego DUI Attorney assistance is ensured by browsing the resourceful links by a premier San Diego DUI Lawyer for those accused and in need of a driver's license.



Stress-free San Diego DUI Lawyers help with both court and DMV. Complete California Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Attorneys offer peace of mind.



San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is a Superb San Diego DUI Lawyer & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorney with over 28 years of experience. This California DMV Guru devotes every moment of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively representing every person who engages him.

San Diego California Drunk Driving Attorney Rick Mueller spoke at the

Annual DUI Seminar

in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller lectured @ California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

.

California's criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer Rick Mueller's presentation and materials were extremely valuable and very rewarding.



Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey

at this online DUI consultation site

to find out your best strategy and to protect your driver's license in California or elsewhere.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Evaluating Inadmissibility of a person into Canada with a California DUI on his or her record

If you want to get into Canada and you have a California DUI conviction, please note that you need a VERY GOOD REASON and lots of documentation of your criminal case to get a Temporary Resident Permit. There is no guarantee that you will get one. They may refuse you at the airport or at the border and keep you out of Canada in their exercise of discretion. Please note that a Temporary Resident Permit is NOT the same thing as a Temporary Resident Visa.

A good reason to refer you to Canadian counsel if you have a California DUI conviction is that if you attempt to process the paperwork through the nearest Canadian consulate, the person will wait for the approximate 2-3 year backlog before your application is processed.

Canadian counsel is likely to accomplish the same task for a person with a California DUI conviction on the other side of the border in around 6 weeks, give or take.

Plus, just look at everything the Canadian Government considers:



Evaluating Inadmissibility

1. What this chapter is about .................................................................................................... 5
2. Program objectives ............................................................................................................... 5
3. Departmental policy on criminality........................................................................................ 6
3.1. Reasonable grounds versus balance of probabilities ....................................................... 6
3.2. Convicted in or outside Canada/Committing an act.......................................................... 7
3.3. Convictions in Canada ...................................................................................................... 7
3.4. Convictions outside Canada ............................................................................................. 8
3.5. “Committing an act” provisions – A36(1)(c) and A36(2)(c) ............................................... 8
3.6. Foreign judicial process .................................................................................................... 9
3.7. Essential case elements ................................................................................................... 9
3.8. When to use the “committing an act” provisions............................................................... 9
3.9. When not to use the “committing an act” provisions....................................................... 10
3.10. Use of the “committed an act” provisions in unusual situations .................................. 10
3.11. Reasonable grounds to believe and the gathering of evidence .................................. 10
3.12. Committing on entering Canada [A36(2)(d)] ............................................................... 11
3.13. Policy intent ................................................................................................................. 11
3.14. Policy application......................................................................................................... 12
3.15. Presumption of innocence........................................................................................... 13
3.16. Reasonable grounds to believe and the gathering of evidence .................................. 13
3.17. Essential case elements.............................................................................................. 13
3.18. When to use “committing, on entering Canada” provisions ........................................ 13
3.19. When not to use the “committing, on entering Canada” provisions ............................ 14
3.20. “Committing, on entering Canada” provisions – application in unusual situations...... 15
4. Departmental policy on organized criminality ..................................................................... 15
4.1. Policy intent..................................................................................................................... 16
4.2. Policy application ............................................................................................................ 16
4.3. Mandate of Organized Crime Section............................................................................. 17
4.4. Mandate and procedures for cases involving money laundering ................................... 18
4.5. Interpretation ................................................................................................................... 18
4.6. Participation in a legitimate business.............................................................................. 19
4.7. Interviewing organized crime applicants......................................................................... 19
5. Security ............................................................................................................................... 20
5.1. National security issues - A34(1) .................................................................................... 20
6. Human or international rights violations ............................................................................. 20
6.1. Human or international rights [A35(1)] ............................................................................ 21
6.2. Policy intent..................................................................................................................... 21
6.3. Crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes and terrorist acts ................................ 22
6.4. Senior members/officials of governments designated by the Minister of PSEP............. 22
6.5. International travel sanctions [A35(1)(c)] ........................................................................ 23
7. Medical inadmissibility ........................................................................................................ 24
7.1. Medical inadmissibility for temporary entry ..................................................................... 26
7.2. Medical inadmissibility for permanent residence ............................................................ 26
8. Financial reasons................................................................................................................ 26
8.1. Protected persons in Canada and their family members................................................ 26
9. Misrepresentation ............................................................................................................... 26
9.1. Policy intent..................................................................................................................... 27
9.2. Misrepresentation or withholding material facts.............................................................. 28
9.3. Principles........................................................................................................................ 29
9.4. Materiality....................................................................................................................... 29
9.5. An error in the administration of the Act.......................................................................... 31
9.6. Fraudulent documents .................................................................................................... 32
9.7. At visa offices and ports of entry..................................................................................... 33
9.8. In Canada........................................................................................................................ 33
9.9. Visa office procedures..................................................................................................... 34
9.10. Examples..................................................................................................................... 34
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 2
9.11 Sponsorship cases ...................................................................................................... 35
9.12 Vacation of refugee status for misrepresentation........................................................ 35
9.13 Ceasing to be a citizen under paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act ................... 36
9.14 Two-year inadmissibility and return to Canada ........................................................... 36
10. Non-compliance.................................................................................................................. 36
10.1. Policy intent ................................................................................................................. 37
10.2. Examples of non-compliance allegation wording applicable to foreign nationals ....... 38
10.3. Removal orders and returning without consent........................................................... 40
10.4. When is a removal order considered to be enforced? ................................................ 41
10.5. Evidence for returning without consent ....................................................................... 42
10.6. Application of A20(1)(b)............................................................................................... 42
10.7. Applications and documentation requirements ........................................................... 46
10.8. Non-compliance by permanent residents.................................................................... 49
10.9. Non-compliance with A27(2) ....................................................................................... 50
10.10. Non compliance with the residency obligation of A28................................................. 50
11. Inadmissible family members ............................................................................................. 51
11.1. Persons whose accompanying family member is inadmissible .................................. 51
11.2. Persons who are accompanying an inadmissible family member............................... 51
12. Refugees, protected persons and inadmissibility ............................................................... 52
12.1. Convicted in Canada ................................................................................................... 53
12.2. Convicted outside Canada .......................................................................................... 53
12.3. Violators of human or international rights / security threats / organized criminality .... 53
13. Relief provisions ................................................................................................................. 53
13.1. Overview of relief mechanisms ................................................................................... 53
13.2. Pardon for convictions in Canada ............................................................................... 54
13.3. Criminal rehabilitation .................................................................................................. 55
13.4. Passage of time........................................................................................................... 55
13.5. Imposed sentences incorporating a “time served” provision....................................... 55
13.6. National interest........................................................................................................... 56
13.7. National interest considerations .................................................................................. 57
14. Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 59
14.1. Committing an act........................................................................................................ 59
14.2. Conviction.................................................................................................................... 59
14.3. Omission...................................................................................................................... 61
14.4. Organization ................................................................................................................ 61
14.5. Pattern of criminal activity............................................................................................ 61
14.6. Withholding.................................................................................................................. 62
Appendix A Examples of criminal equivalents ......................................................................... 63
Appendix B National Interest Information Sheet...................................................................... 68
Appendix C International sanctions for the purpose of A35(1)(c)............................................ 69
Appendix D Form Cases where Money Laundering and/or Terrorist Financing is Suspected 71
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 3
Updates to chapter
Listing by date:
Date: 2006-05-24
Changes were made to Appendix C in order to reflect the United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1672 listing four individuals under the travel ban and assets freeze for Sudan.
2006-03-14
The wording of section 3.7 was amended to clarify its contents.
Changes were made to Appendix C in order to reflect the UN Security Council Resolution
1636 implementing a travel ban and assets freeze against individuals to be listed by the
Committee of the UNSC as suspected of involvement in the planning, sponsoring,
organizing or perpetrating of the terrorist bombing that killed the former Lebanese Prime
Minister Rafiq Hariri on 14 February 2005. However, no one has yet been listed;
therefore, no action is required at this time.
Changes were also made to Appendix C in order to reflect the addition of a list of persons
designated under the travel ban and assets freeze for Ivory Coast.
2006-02-06
Changes were made to ENF 2 in order to reflect the Citizenship and Immigration Canada
(CIC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) policy responsibility and service
delivery roles.
Changes were made to sections 3 and 14 to change the wording from “acts and
omissions” to “committing an act” in order to reflect the wording in the Act.
Sections 3.5, 3.8 and 3.9 have been updated. The amendments were made to reflect the
policy that the “committing an act” provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act (IRPA) may be used when a conviction has been registered for the offence, but a
certificate of conviction is not available.
Section 9 has been amended to specify the procedure when processing cases abroad
involving misrepresentation for provincial nominees.
Section 13.5 has been updated to specify that, for the purposes of A64(2), multiple
consecutive sentences are not included for appeals.
Appendix C has been updated to reflect a change in the individuals designated under the
UN travel ban for Liberia. The UN Security Council has also passed resolutions
implementing travel bans for designated individuals of the Democratic Republic of Congo
(Kinshasa), Ivory Coast and Sudan. Appendix C has been amended to reflect these new
resolutions.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 4
Changes were also made to Appendix C in order to reflect the coming into force of a
regulation amending the United Nations Democratic Republic of Congo Regulations P.C.
2005-1722 and the addition of a list of persons designated under the travel ban for this
country.
2005-02-25
Updates to ENF 2 at section 9 were published on December 13th, 2004. Unfortunately,
some of the changes were omitted in the French version of the text. The text has now
been rectified and it is recommended that any former version of this chapter be discarded
in favour of the one now appearing in CIC Explore.
2004-12-13
Substantive and minor changes as well as clarifications have been made throughout
section 9.
2004-03-03
Appendix C – The Web links to the travel ban lists for Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and
Liberia have been updated.
2003-12-04
Chapter ENF 2, entitled “Evaluating Inadmissibility” and, in particular, Section 4 entitled
“Departmental policy on organized criminality” has been updated and is now available on
CIC explore.
The amendments were made to include the procedures related to the National Initiative
to Combat Money Laundering and, in particular, to the application of section A37(1)(b) of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
More information on CIC’s role within the national initiative and on money laundering
issues is available on the intranet, on the Organized Crime Directorate (RZTO) Web site.
Questions about this policy or procedures may be directed to RZTO via e-mail at Nat-
Organized- Crime.
Among the changes to this chapter, the highlights include:
• Section 4 – “Departmental policy on organized criminality,” Section 4.4 “Mandate and
procedures for cases involving money laundering.”
• Appendix D – “Form for cases where money laundering and/or terrorist financing is
suspected” has been added. Until the reporting template becomes operational from
RZTO Web site, as an interim measure, the form may be sent to RZTO by fax at 613-
952-0694.
2003-07-07
Both minor and substantive changes and clarifications have been made throughout
ENF 2 - Evaluating inadmissibility. It is recommended that any former version of this
chapter be discarded in favour of the one now appearing in CIC Explore.
2003-06-11
Both minor and substantive changes and clarifications have been made throughout the
ENF 2 Manual. It is recommended that any former version of this manual be discarded in
favour of the one now appearing in CIC Explore.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 5
1. What this chapter is about
This chapter provides guidance for officers when they need to determine whether a
person is inadmissible to Canada.
2. Program objectives
Permitting Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of
immigration, protecting the health and safety of Canadians and maintaining the security
of Canadian society are important objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act (IRPA or the Act).
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (C&I) is responsible for the administration of
the Act, with the exception of the following:
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP) is responsible for
the administration of the Act as it relates to the following:
♦ examination at ports of entry;
♦ the enforcement of the Act, including arrest, detention and removal;
♦ the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of the Act and
inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or
international rights; or
♦ determinations under any of subsections A34(2), A35(2) and A37(2).
By applying the inadmissibility provisions as set out in Part 1, Division 4, of the Act
(hereinafter referred to as Division 4), officers can help achieve these objectives.
Most persons described in Division 4 cannot be admitted because of criminal, medical or
security restrictions. Division 4 makes distinctions based on categories of inadmissibility
related to:
• criminality;
• organized criminality;
• security;
• human or international rights violations;
• health;
• financial reasons;
• misrepresentation;
• non-compliance with Act;
• inadmissible family members.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 6
For information on writing and reviewing A44 reports in Canada, please refer to ENF 5
and ENF 6.
3. Departmental policy on criminality
CIC has the policy responsibility with respect to criminality [A36]
3.1. Reasonable grounds versus balance of probabilities
Section A33 states specifically that the facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections
A34 to A37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include
facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are
occurring or may occur. However, A36(3)(d) provides an exception for A36(1)(c), where
the facts must be established on the balance of probabilities that a permanent resident
committed an offence.
There have been several rulings from the Federal Court of Appeal to clarify the meaning
of reasonable grounds. The key points may be summarized as follows:
1. “Reasonable grounds” is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on
credible evidence. "Reasonable grounds" is a lower standard of proof than the
civil standard which is the “balance of probabilities.”
2. If you have reasonable grounds to believe, you are more than suspicious. You
have some objective basis for your belief. Put another way, the fact itself need
not be proven; it is enough to show reasonable grounds for believing the
allegation true.
3. Reasonable grounds to believe” imports a standard of proof which lies
between mere suspicion and the “balance of probabilities.”
4. Balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative
tribunals, unless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented
must show that the facts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly,
a party having the burden of proof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able
to persuade, by the evidence, that a claim or a fact is more probably true than
not true. The evidence presented favours or outweighs opposing evidence.
“Balance of probabilities” is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable
grounds to believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a
reasonable doubt” used in criminal proceedings.
Question: Would a rational person with the same information reach the same
conclusion?
For example, an anonymous letter alleging certain facts may arouse suspicion but would
not normally constitute reasonable grounds. On the other hand, a document from a
proper authority may be sufficient to establish reasonable grounds that an event has
occurred.
Synopsis
Reasonable grounds are a set of facts and circumstances that would satisfy an ordinarily
cautious and prudent person, and which are more than mere suspicion. Information used
to establish reasonable grounds should be specific, credible and be received from a
reliable source.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 7
3.2. Convicted in or outside Canada/Committing an act
IRPA bars entry into Canada to persons who fall into any of nine classes of criminality.
Two classes of criminality specifically relate to organized criminality (for which the CBSA
has the policy responsibility); consequently, they are more fully described in Section 4 of
this chapter.
The remaining seven classes of criminality are specified within the provisions of section
A36 (for which CIC has the policy responsibility) and may be distinguished by the
following category headings:
• convicted in Canada, see Section 3.3;
• convicted outside Canada, see Section 3.4;
• committing an “act” outside Canada or upon entering Canada, see Section 3.5.
It is important to note that in respect of provisions contained within section A36, there are
different rules for the taking of an enforcement action against a permanent resident
versus a temporary resident.
Put simply, evidence of serious criminality is required before a permanent resident may
be subject to possible removal from Canada, whereas foreign nationals are subject to
enforcement action for lesser criminality.
The preamble of subsection A36(1); it clearly specifies that both permanent residents and
foreign nationals are subject to its provisions. In contrast, however, subsection A36(2)
specifies that only foreign nationals are subject to its provisions.
Furthermore, a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act
described in paragraph A36(1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities [A36(3)(d)].
An offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed
an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily [A36(3)(a)].
Inadmissibility may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a pardon has been
granted and has not ceased to have effect or been revoked under the Criminal Records
Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal [A36(3)(b)].
Inadmissibility may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the
Contraventions Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-38.7/index.html) or an offence under
the Young Offenders Act [A36(3)(e)].
Note: The Young Offenders Act was repealed in 2003. The Youth Criminal Justice Act is now in
force and may be found at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Y-1.5/index.html
Officers should never speculate on the disposition of an inadmissibility report.
3.3. Convictions in Canada
This is the first group of the three category headings mentioned in Section 3.2 of this
chapter; included are persons described in A36(1)(a) and A36(2)(a). These paragraphs
affect persons convicted in Canada of offences under an Act of Parliament punishable:
• in the case of permanent residents and foreign nationals, by a maximum term of
imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for
which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;
or
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 8
• in the case of a foreign national, by way of indictment, or of two offences under any
Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence.
3.4. Convictions outside Canada
This is the second group of the three category headings mentioned in Section 3.2 of this
chapter; included are persons described in A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b) . These paragraphs
affect persons who, an officer has reasonable grounds to believe, were convicted outside
Canada of one or more offences.
The offence must be equivalent to an offence in Canada (for examples, see Appendix A),
and:
• in the case of permanent residents and foreign nationals, be punishable under an Act
of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years;
or
• in the case of a foreign national, constitute an indictable offence, or constitute two
offences not arising out of a single occurrence under an Act of Parliament.
The matters referred to in paragraphs A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b) do not constitute
inadmissibility in respect of a person who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the CIC
Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that
is deemed to have been rehabilitated [A36(3)(c); R17 and R18]. For Relief provisions,
see also Section 13.
3.5. “Committing an act” provisions – A36(1)(c) and A36(2)(c)
The “committing an act” provisions are not to be used where a conviction has been
registered and where the appropriate evidence of conviction has been obtained.
However, where it is not possible to obtain a certificate of conviction as indicated above,
then the provisions may be used.
As part of Canada's international commitment to combat transnational crime, the policy
intent in applying the provisions is first and foremost to deny entry into Canada and
thereby prevent Canadian territory being used as a safe haven by persons who are
subject to a criminal proceeding in a foreign jurisdiction; or are fleeing from such
proceedings.
The “committing an act" provisions of the Act are not intended to bar the entry into
Canada of persons who may have committed, but have not been convicted of, one or
more summary offences.
The practical application of the policy with respect to the “committing an act” provisions is
to deny entry into Canada to persons against whom there is evidence of criminal activity
that could result in a conviction if there were a prosecution in Canada. Good judgment is
important to ensure that the objectives of the Act are supported in applying these
provisions.
Officers should also recognize that a decision by a local policing authority not to
prosecute is often a result of considerations that are specific to the criminal justice
context and not necessarily consistent with the objectives of managing access to
Canada. In other words, a decision by a local policing authority not to lay or proceed with
charges should not automatically be considered as prima facie evidence that an offence
was not committed; nor should officers be overly capricious in the use of the Act’s
inadmissibility provisions.
The matters referred to in paragraphs A36(1)(c) and A36(2)(c) do not constitute
inadmissibility in respect of a person who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the CIC
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 9
Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that
is deemed to have been rehabilitated [A36(3)(c); R17 and R18]. For Relief provisions,
see Section 13 of this chapter.
For more information about:
• Essential case elements, see Section 3.7;
• When to use the “committing an act” provisions, see Section 3.8;
• When not to use the “committing an act” provisions, see Section 3.9;
• Use of the “committing an act” provisions in unusual situations, see Section 3.10;
• Reasonable grounds to believe and the gathering of evidence, see Section 3.11.
3.6. Foreign judicial process
These provisions cannot be used where the person has been acquitted. Similarly, when a
court has made a finding of not guilty, the process and the decision will be respected and
negate any reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed the offence.
However, if a foreign investigating authority decides not to lay or proceed with charges in
a country whose criminal justice concepts are similar to ours, it should not be assumed
that a crime was not committed or that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction.
3.7. Essential case elements
In determining, on reasonable grounds for a foreign national, and a balance of
probabilities for a permanent resident, that an act was committed, the following case
elements must be established:
• an act was committed;
• the act occurred outside Canada;
• the act is an offence under the laws of the place where it occurred; and
• for foreign nationals, the offence in question has a Canadian equivalent that is an
indictable offence;
• for permanent residents or foreign nationals, the offence in question has a Canadian
equivalent that is an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at
least 10 years.
3.8. When to use the “committing an act” provisions
The “committing an act” inadmissibility provisions would generally be applied in the
following scenarios:
• an officer is in possession of intelligence or other credible information indicating that
the person committed an offence outside Canada;
• authorities in the foreign jurisdiction indicate that the alleged offence is one where
charges would be, or may be, laid;
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 10
• the person is the subject of a warrant where a formal charge is to be laid;
• charges are pending;
• the person has been charged but the trial has not concluded;
• the person is fleeing prosecution in a foreign jurisdiction
• a conviction has been registered for the offence, however a certificate of conviction is
not available.
3.9. When not to use the “committing an act” provisions
The “committing an act” inadmissibility provisions would generally not be applied in the
following scenarios:
• in most cases, when authorities in the foreign jurisdiction indicate they would not lay
a charge or make known to an officer their decision or intent to drop the charges;
• the trial is concluded and no conviction results (for example, acquittal, discharge,
deferral);
• the person admits to committing the act but has been pardoned or the record is
expunged;
• the act was committed in Canada.
3.10. Use of the “committed an act” provisions in unusual situations
The above guidelines are put forward in an effort to achieve the desired policy intent and
promote consistency in the application of the “committing an act” provisions contained
within the IRPA..
It must be recognized that there may be unusual situations, such as where a criminal
justice system in a foreign jurisdiction has concepts not found in Canadian law, where the
use of the provisions would be entirely appropriate.
For example, where money is paid and charges are dropped as a result of the payment;
in such a case it may be appropriate to apply this provision, provided there is evidence
that the person committed an act.
Should policy clarification be required regarding the application of these provisions,
requests should be directed to the Legislative and Regulatory Policy Division,
Admissibility Branch, CIC, NHQ at: NHQ-Legislative-Policy@cic.gc.ca.
For case specific queries relating to these provisions, contact the Director, Case Review,
via e-mail: Nat-Case-Review@cic.gc.ca.
3.11. Reasonable grounds to believe and the gathering of evidence
As indicated previously, permanent residents who commit an act outside Canada will
have their inadmissibility assessed using the higher standard of “balance of probabilities.”
In the case of a foreign national, an officer must be satisfied that there are “reasonable
grounds to believe” that an act has occurred.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 11
In both cases, officers must be satisfied that the act is reportable under the provisions of
the IRPA.
For example, circumstances may exist where a charge alone may not always be prima
facie evidence that an act has occurred. If an officer has doubts, the officer should
interview the person concerned to obtain their version of events.
Officers may also seek out sources of additional information if further corroboration is
required. For example, a credible explanation from the person concerned may either
negate or justify the need for an officer to obtain further information, such as a police
incident report.
Officers are expected to take whatever action they deem proper to establish, in their
opinion, that the applicable standard of proof has been met to support an inadmissibility
allegation involving a reportable act.
In order for a “committing an act” allegation to apply under the provisions of section A36,
the offence must have been committed outside Canada; and be an offence in the place
where it was committed; and there must be a Canadian equivalent offence. Where
necessary, copies and translations of the relevant statutes should be obtained.
3.12. Committing on entering Canada [A36(2)(d)]
For information about:
• Policy intent, see Section 3.13
• Policy application, see Section 3.14
• Presumption of innocence, see Section 3.15
• Reasonable grounds to believe and the gathering of evidence, see Section 3.16
• Essential case elements, see Section 3.17
• When to use the “committing, on entering Canada” provisions, see Section 3.18
• When not to use the “committing, on entering Canada” provisions, see Section 3.19
• “Committing, on entering Canada” provisions - application in unusual situations, see
Section 3.20
3.13. Policy intent
IRPA recognizes that a decision by a local policing authority not to prosecute is often a
result of considerations that are specific to the criminal justice context and not necessarily
consistent with the objectives of managing access to Canada.
In keeping with Canada's continuing efforts to protect Canadian society and to prevent
criminals from accessing Canada, paragraph A36(2)(d) is intended to enhance the ability
of officers at a port of entry (POE) to efficiently remove foreign nationals where the
commission of an offence occurs at the POE, regardless of a local policing authority
decision or practice not to lay charges.
It is important to note that it is not the government’s intention that the A36(2)(d) provision
be used as an alternative to prosecution. In fact, when charges are laid officers are to
await the disposition of those charges before alleging inadmissibility under any of the
criminality provisions. Where charges have not been laid, however, officers may consider
writing an A44(1) inadmissibility report using the provisions of A36(2)(d).
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 12
As indicated throughout this chapter, officers are expected to exercise good judgment. In
the context of an inadmissibility report under the provisions of subsection A44(1), good
judgment may be defined to include that:
• officers may write inadmissibility reports where the evidence and circumstances
support the writing of such a report; and
• the decision to write an inadmissibility report will be in accordance with the objectives
of the Act.
Officers should never speculate on the disposition of an inadmissibility report.
3.14. Policy application
The practical application and intent of paragraph A36(2)(d) is to bar the entry into Canada
of foreign nationals who commit offences in Canada, specifically at our borders. Officers
are expected to use good judgment in applying the provisions of paragraph A36(2)(d).
As indicated previously, it is expected that officers will not use these provisions in those
cases where a local policing authority, perhaps working in conjunction with the CBSA are
pursuing formal charges with the objective being a registered conviction against the
person in Canada. In these types of scenarios, officers are to await the court's disposition
with respect to the charges and, if a conviction results, apply the provisions relating to
having a conviction in Canada.
In these types of cases the objective is clear: actions are being undertaken by lawful
authorities to have a conviction registered against the person in Canada. Consequently,
the examination should be adjourned (pursuant to A23) with a view to resuming once a
conviction in Canada has been registered. At that point, the provisions relating to an in-
Canada conviction would apply.
The situation is somewhat different in a case where no charges are being contemplated
even though the evidence and circumstances clearly indicate that a person has
committed an offence on entering Canada.
In such cases, officers are expected to investigate further the reason why no formal
proceedings are being advanced and/or why no charges were laid against the person. If,
despite this information, the officer is still of the opinion that the evidence and
circumstances justify the writing of an A44(1) inadmissibility report, then officers may
write an inadmissibility report using the provisions of paragraph A36(2)(d).
It is important to note that offences covered by A36(2)(d) must be offences under a
prescribed Act of Parliament. R19 currently lists the prescribed Acts of Parliament for the
purposes of A36(2)(d) as: the Criminal Code of Canada, the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, the Firearms Act, the Customs Act and the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act.
Note: Only indictable offences are prescribed.
Officers should never speculate on the disposition of an inadmissibility report.
It is important to note that the “committing, on entering Canada” allegation only affects a
person’s admissibility on the occasion of that person seeking to enter Canada. In other
words, if an officer believes a person to be inadmissible for having committed an offence
“on entering Canada,” and that person is subsequently allowed to withdraw or otherwise
leaves Canada, the person cannot at some future date or time be viewed as being
inadmissible for a past “committing, on entering Canada” offence. For greater clarity, the
A36(2)(d) inadmissibility allegation provision may only be used in the circumstance of a
“present tense” scenario.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 13
3.15. Presumption of innocence
There is an important distinction between the test and purpose of a criminal justice
proceeding and that of an administrative process for the purpose of determining who has
a right to enter Canada or who is or may become authorized to enter and remain in
Canada. No criminal conviction and sentence may result from a subsection A44(1) report
and admissibility hearing. Therefore, the presumption of innocence in a criminal context
does not preclude writing a subsection A44(1) report where no charges are laid.
As indicated earlier, officers should recognize that a decision by a local policing authority
not to prosecute is often a result of considerations that are specific to the criminal justice
context and not necessarily consistent with the objectives of managing access to
Canada. In other words, a decision by a local policing authority not to lay charges should
not automatically be considered as prima facie evidence that an offence was not
committed; nor should officers be overly capricious in the use of the Act’s inadmissibility
provisions, such as paragraph A36(2)(d).
3.16. Reasonable grounds to believe and the gathering of evidence
In the case of paragraph A36(2)(d), an officer must be satisfied that there are “reasonable
grounds to believe” that an offence was committed on entering Canada. The officer must
also be satisfied that the offence committed was an offence under a prescribed Act of
Parliament for the purposes of paragraph A36(2)(d) of IRPA. See also R19.
In most cases, it is expected that officers will be able to examine the person concerned to
obtain their version of events. Officers may also seek out sources of additional
information if further corroboration is required.
It is further expected that officers will recognize that a credible explanation from the
person concerned may either negate or justify the need for an officer to obtain further
information (such as a copy of the CBSA incident and/or seizure report, police reports,
etc.) and if deemed warranted, proceed with the writing of a formal inadmissibility report
under the provisions of subsection A44(1).
Officers are expected to take whatever action they deem proper to establish, in their
opinion, that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that an inadmissibility allegation is
justified.
3.17. Essential case elements
In determining whether the “committing, on entering Canada” provisions should be
applied, the following case elements must be established:
• there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed;
• the offence was committed on entering Canada, that is, at a port of entry;
• the offence committed is an indictable offence under a prescribed Act of Parliament
for the purposes of paragraph A36(2)(d).
3.18. When to use “committing, on entering Canada” provisions
The "committing, on entering Canada" inadmissibility provision would generally be
applied in the following scenarios:
• an officer is in possession of information indicating that the person did commit, on
entering Canada, an indictable offence under a prescribed Act of Parliament for the
purposes of paragraph A36(2)(d);
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 14
• the officer is not satisfied that the offence was committed unwittingly or accidentally,
such as would be the case if an act is not an offence in the country of departure; or
the person was unaware of the act they had committed;
• no formal charge is to be laid, or is being contemplated to be laid, by the local
policing authority.
Example: 1: A person who upon entering Canada is found to be in possession of less than 15
grams of marijuana. CBSA Customs Secondary officers provide sufficient evidence to
support the inadmissibility allegation. There is evidence to suggest that the person has had
past involvement with drugs and illegal substances. The person is either uncooperative and
does not admit to anything or having any involvement; or the person freely admits that the
marijuana is for their own personal use and provides details of how the marijuana came to be
in their vehicle or possession. This would constitute an indictable offence under the
provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, specifically, subsection 6(1),
Importing and exporting.
Example: 2: A person who upon entering Canada fails to pass an “Approved Screening Device”
(ASD) test (as administered by a CBSA Customs Secondary officer) for the purposes of
determining whether that person’s blood alcohol level may be in excess of the legal limit. In
such a case, an officer would have “reasonable grounds to believe” that the person may be
committing, on entering Canada, an offence under the Criminal Code, specifically, section
253, Operation while impaired.
3.19. When not to use the “committing, on entering Canada” provisions
The "committing, on entering Canada" inadmissibility provision would generally not be
applied in the following scenarios:
• A conviction will be, or is likely to be, registered in Canada for the offence;
• The local policing authority, in conjunction with the CBSA, are proceeding with the
laying of formal charges. This may include incarceration pending a court appearance
date;
• The person unwittingly committed the offence or claims no knowledge of the illegal
article or substance in their possession or vehicle and is considered credible by the
officer. The person has co-operated fully throughout the examination and there is no
evidence to suggest that the person is involved with illegal activities, substances or
has been the subject of related offences;
• The person freely admits to ignorance of Canadian law and the person’s credibility is
not in doubt. The person also expresses, in the officer’s opinion, genuine remorse at
having committed an offence and the chances of the person committing a similar or
related offence in future, in the officer’s opinion, are unlikely.
Example: 1: A person who upon entering Canada neglects to declare to the CBSA the
importation of an item (such as an undeclared wedding ring; a gift; or a firearm - provided the
act of possessing and/or carrying the firearm would not have violated any law in the USA
state opposite or from which the person immediately came from and sought entry into
Canada) and in the officer’s opinion, the person did not declare the item as a result of a
genuine forgetfulness, carelessness or any other terminology that gives rise to the meaning
that the person did not knowingly and/or deliberately intend to mislead or otherwise
misrepresent the true facts, either directly or indirectly. Evidence of this may include, in the
officer’s opinion, a genuine expression of remorse by the person at having committed a
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 15
wrongdoing. The officer should also be of the opinion that the chances of the person
committing a similar or related offence in the future are unlikely.
Example: 2: A CBSA Customs Secondary officer discovers a small amount of marijuana in the
back seat of a car driven by an otherwise seemingly credible and genuine temporary
resident. After examining the person and hearing the evidence of the CBSA Customs
Secondary officer, the CBSA immigration officer is of the opinion that the person was
unaware of the marijuana being in the vehicle; is satisfied as to person’s credibility; and is of
the opinion that the person had no involvement whatsoever with the marijuana.
3.20. “Committing, on entering Canada” provisions – application in unusual situations
The above guidelines are put forward in an effort to achieve the desired policy intent and
promote consistency in the application of the “committing, on entering Canada”
provisions contained within IRPA.
It must be recognized that there will be unusual situations and officers are expected to
assess the circumstances of each case on its own merits.
Should policy clarification be required regarding the application of these provisions,
requests should be directed to the Legislative and Regulatory Policy Division,
Admissibility Branch, CIC. NHQ at NHQ-Legislative-Policy@cic.gc.ca
For case-specific queries relating to these provisions, contact the Director, Case Review,
via e-mail: Nat-Case-Review@cic.gc.ca.
4. Departmental policy on organized criminality
The CBSA has the policy responsibility with respect to organized criminality [A37].
Should CIC officers encounter an issue involving organized crime, they must seek
guidance from the appropriate section of the National Security Division at the CBSA,
NHQ.
Two classes of criminality within the Act that specifically relate to organized crime are
paragraphs A37(1)(a) and A37(1)(b).
In the case of paragraph A37(1)(a), an applicant is inadmissible for being a member of an
organization that is believed on reasonable grounds to be or to have been:
• engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity; and
• as part of this pattern, the organization must be acting to help commit an
indictable offence in Canada, or an “act” or “omission” outside Canada that
would constitute an offence if committed in Canada that may be punishable
under an Act or Parliament by way of indictment.
An applicant is inadmissible for reasons described in paragraph A37(1)(b) for engaging in
transnational crime activities, such as people smuggling, trafficking in persons or money
laundering.
With respect to paragraph A37(1)(b), it should be noted that this paragraph provides that,
in addition to those transnational crime activities listed, namely, people smuggling,
trafficking in persons or money laundering, the activities listed are not exhaustive. To
clarify, because the paragraph contains within its provisions the statement “in activities
such as”, the paragraph is sufficiently broad to cover any transnational crime activity.
A37(1) does not apply in the case of a person who satisfies the Minister of Public Safety
and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP) that their presence in Canada would not be
detrimental to the national interest [A37(2)(a)].
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 16
With reference to A37(2)(a), the Minister of PSEP is not authorized to delegate the
exercise of this discretion [see A6(3)].
Persons, whose involvement with criminal organizations is limited to having used their
services for the purpose of coming to Canada to claim refugee protection, will not be
considered a member of such an organization and will have access to the refugee
determination process [A37(2)(b)].
4.1. Policy intent
The activities of organized crime present a major threat to the security of all nations. The
benefits of globalization, including the increased ease with which people, goods, and
information are able to cross national boundaries, are not confined to legitimate
businesses.
The Act contains specific provisions to bar the entry into Canada of persons associated
with organized crime and those who engage in transnational crime activities.
Subsection A37(1) enables Canada to protect itself from the threat of organized crime by
excluding not only those intending to commit crimes, but also those whose presence in
Canada may be used to strengthen a criminal organization or advance its criminal
objectives.
Paragraph A37(1)(b) responds to Canada’s commitment to contribute, in concert with the
international community, to the fight against criminals who seek to profit from human
suffering and to the fight against money laundering.
4.2. Policy application
Officers are expected to use good judgment in applying the provisions of subsection
A37(1).
As indicated previously, there is an important distinction between the test and purpose of
a criminal justice proceeding and that of an administrative process for the purpose of
determining who has a right to enter or who is or may become authorized to enter and
remain in Canada.
Furthermore, the evidentiary requirements for an admissibility hearing are quite different
from those in a criminal case; for example, information used by the CBSA might well be
dissimilar to that obtained and used by a local policing authority.
Therefore, although the A37(1) provisions will not generally be used in those cases
where a local policing authority is pursuing formal charges of participation in organized
crime or transnational crime in Canada, neither is the use of A37(1) provisions in such
cases precluded.
Put another way, generally, although officers will not write an A44(1) inadmissibility
report— preferring instead to await the court disposition with respect to the charges and if
a conviction results, apply the provisions relating to having a conviction in Canada—
officers may choose to exercise their discretion and write an inadmissibility report using
the provisions of A37(1).
In addressing the scenario of no Canadian authority laying charges or otherwise
advancing formal proceedings when the evidence and circumstances clearly indicate
A37(1) would apply, officers are expected to investigate further to determine, if possible,
why no formal proceedings are being advanced and/or no charges have been, will be or
are being contemplated to be laid against the person. If despite this information the
officer is still of the opinion that the evidence and circumstances justify the writing of an
A44(1) inadmissibility report, then the officer may write such a report using the
appropriate provisions of subsection A37(1).
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 17
4.3. Mandate of Organized Crime Section
The Organized Crime Section (RZTO) is a section of the National Security Division,
CBSA, NHQ
The mandate of the section is to:
• gather and disseminate intelligence on organized crime groups and members;
• provide advice and guidance to personnel in Canada and abroad;
• manage a temporary resident vetting program;
• analyze background and trends in relation with transnational criminal activities;
• work in close partnership with various partner agencies and other law enforcement
agencies;
• develop profiles on organized crime groups in cooperation with partners;
• provide strategic advice on organized crime trends and issues;
• coordinate a national strategy on organized crime;
• provide training sessions and briefing sessions on transnational criminal activities;
and
• provide a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week (24-7) service to the field.
In all cases where there is an Enforcement Information Index (EII) hit for organized crime,
or where an officer has concerns about involvement in transnational criminal activities, or
when an officer intends to use A37(1) as an allegation, RZTO must be contacted.
The section can be reached via e-mail at Nat-Organized-Crime@cic.gc.ca or by
telephone at (613) 952-8482. RZTO can also be reached after regular working hours
through the Immigration Warrant Response Centre (IWRC).
The RZTO may be contacted for the following reasons:
• to take advantage of existing intelligence with regard to suspect criminal activity or a
suspected member of a criminal group;
• RZTO analysts can provide assistance to officers by suggesting areas to explore and
provide background information with regard to the suspected criminal activity;
• RZTO analysts can liaise with other points of service having an interest in a case;
• RZTO analysts can advise partner agencies having an interest in a case; and
• to contribute to the CBSA’s role in terms of intelligence.
For further assistance when dealing with outlaw motorcycle gangs, Criminal Intelligence
Service of Canada (CISC) Headquarters can provide specific information on these
groups and can also assist officers in identifying persons who are suspected members of
such a group. CISC may be contacted during regular working hours at (613) 993-8338;
and after hours at: 1-877-660-4321.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 18
4.4. Mandate and procedures for cases involving money laundering
The Organized Crime Section (RZTO) of the National Security Division at CBSA, NHQ
has the following mandate with respect to money laundering :
• to assess and collect information on clients suspected of having engaged in money
laundering activities;
• to further investigate persons involved in criminal activities with particular emphasis
on money laundering activities;
• to uphold their partnership obligations with FINTRAC, law enforcement agencies and
CSIS for the purpose of combating organized crime and money laundering.
RZTO will serve as the point of contact with FINTRAC and other agencies for cases
related to money laundering activities.
Procedures concerning money laundering cases
In any case where organized crime is suspected, and whenever money laundering
activities could be involved, missions, ports of entry, inland and enforcement offices may
request RZTO’s assistance to conduct further checks. If available, the following
documents are required :
• copy of the application form;
• copy of identity documents;
• any relevant supporting documents based on the type of case; and
• a summary of the officer’s concerns.
RZTO will analyze the information and will provide the person requesting the information
with an assessment with regard to organized crime and/or money laundering.
For interceptions at ports of entry, RZTO can always be reached through the Immigration
Warrant Response Centre after regular working hours, or through the duty cellular phone
at (613) 795-8192.
All cases where money laundering is suspected, regardless of the outcome or decision,
must be referred to RZTO for the purpose of gathering intelligence and to determine
whether the case should be disclosed to FINTRAC or other partners.
How to report to RZTO : See Appendix D for the form designed to assist officers in
collating all information pertaining to a case that could involve money laundering
activities. This form (Appendix D) is also available on the RZTO Web site in the intranet
where it can be retrieved, completed and sent electronically to RZTO. You may also
reach RZTO by e-mail at the Nat-Organized-Crime address in the address book.
4.5. Interpretation
The meaning of “member – membership” includes anyone who is knowingly linked to an
organized crime group and benefits from this association; this may include:
• persons who devote themselves full time or almost full time to the organization;
• persons who are associated with members of the organization, especially over the
course of a lengthy period of time;
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 19
• persons who do not personally commit acts, provided that they are connected to the
criminal organization;
• persons who are directly, indirectly, or peripherally involved with the organization;
• persons who are not involved in the management of the organization but derive an
economic benefit from their association with the organization;
• persons working for a legitimate company while knowing it is controlled by organized
crime; and
• persons who do not have formal membership as long as they belong (or belonged) to
the criminal organization. Belonging to an organization is assumed where persons
join voluntarily and remain in the group for the common purpose of actively adding
their personal efforts to the group's cause.
Membership does not include persons who had no knowledge of the criminal purpose or
acts of the organization.
However, the structure of A37(1)(a) makes it clear that “membership” of a gang and
engaging in gang-related activities are discrete, but overlapping grounds on which a
person may be inadmissible for “organized criminality.” The “engaging in gang-related
activities” ground of “organized criminality” was added by IRPA.
See Section 14.4 of this chapter for the definition of ”organization”.
4.6. Participation in a legitimate business
It is not always possible to draw a clear line between the legitimate business activities of
a criminal organization and its criminal activities. The former may be used to launder the
proceeds of the latter, while the organization's criminal activities may in turn be financed
by profits made from a successful legitimate business that it controls. Therefore, a
person's participation in a legitimate business, knowing that it is controlled by a criminal
organization, in some instances may support a reasonable belief that the person is a
member of the criminal organization.
4.7. Interviewing organized crime applicants
When an officer has information concerning possible organized crime involvement, or is
planning to refuse entry into Canada under the provisions of A37(1), the applicant should
be convoked for an interview and provided with an opportunity to address the allegation.
Any convocation letter should clearly outline the officer’s concerns regarding the
organized crime involvement and subsection A37(1) should be quoted. As the information
an officer has is likely to be protected, the convocation letter should state that information
about the applicant has been received and it is considered to be of a serious nature. The
letter should also state that, although the details cannot be disclosed in the letter, the
relevant issues will be discussed over the course of the interview.
If, at the conclusion of the interview, a decision has been reached to refuse an applicant,
it may be more effective to refuse based on information provided at the interview than
based on the protected information received. Such cases are also more likely to
withstand judicial review.
Consequently, an effective interview strategy is essential. In such cases, valuable
guidance can be provided by RZTO analysts. For more information on issues relating to
organized crime, an officer may always consult with the RZTO Section.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 20
5. Security
The CBSA has the policy responsibility with respect to security [A34]. Should CIC officers
encounter security issues, they must seek guidance from the appropriate section of the
National Security Division at the CBSA, NHQ.
5.1. National security issues - A34(1)
Paragraphs A34(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) describe people who may not be admitted
to Canada for reasons of national security; this includes espionage, subversion, terrorism
or violence.
The provision is also meant to include all persons who an officer has reasonable grounds
to believe will engage or have engaged in any one of the aforementioned activities.
A34(1)(f) may also include persons who an officer has reasonable grounds to believe are
or were members of organizations that engage, have engaged or will engage in any one
of the paragraphs dealing with espionage, subversion or terrorism.
Note: See Section 4.5 of this chapter, titled “Interpretation” for the definition of “member –
membership” and Section 14.4 of this chapter for the definition of “organization”.
Note: For the purpose of determining whether a person is inadmissible under paragraph
A34(1)(c), if a previous decision or determination was rendered as described in R14, then the
findings of fact as set out in that previous determination or decision shall be considered as
conclusive findings of fact; and the person may be deemed inadmissible without the need to
re-establish the findings of fact as set out in that previous decision or determination.
A34(1)(e) specifically covers persons who would or are likely to engage in acts of
violence that may endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.
A34(1)(d) is an additional class of persons who an officer has reasonable grounds to
believe may be a danger to the national security of Canada and are not covered under
any of the other classes.
The matters referred to in subsection A34(1) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of
a person who satisfies the Minister of PSEP that their presence in Canada would not be
detrimental to the national interest [A34(2)].
The Minister of PSEP is not authorized to delegate the exercise of A34(2) discretion
[A6(3)].
An officer should not refuse an application based on an A34(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f)
allegation without first consulting with Security Review (RZTZ) of the National Security
Division at CBSA, NHQ . Similarly, officers will first consult with RZTZ before writing an
A44(1) inadmissibility report.
If an officer considers an applicant to fall within any of the aforementioned A34(1)(a), (b),
(c), (d), (e), or (f) classes, they should inform RZTZ of the case details; state why the
applicant may be inadmissible and copy this information to the office of the Senior
Director Geographic Operations, International Region (RID), CIC as well.
See also chapter IC 1, Security and Criminal Screening of Immigrants, for further
information about these classes of inadmissibility.
6. Human or international rights violations
The CBSA has the policy responsibility with respect to human and international rights
violations [A35]. Should CIC officers encounter these issues, they must seek guidance
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 21
from the appropriate CBSA Regional War Crimes Unit or the Modern War Crimes Section
of the National Security Division at CBSA, NHQ.
6.1. Human or international rights [A35(1)]
This section of the Act describes what actions and/or circumstances might make a
permanent resident or a foreign national inadmissible on grounds of violating human or
international rights, and includes:
• persons who have committed outside Canada an offence referred to in sections 4 to
7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;
• persons who were prescribed senior officials in the service of a government that, in
the opinion of the Minister of PSEP, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic
or gross human rights violations, genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity;
• persons who, other than permanent residents, are nationals or representatives of a
government or country against which Canada has imposed, or has agreed to impose,
sanctions in concert with an international organization of states or association of
states of which Canada is a member.
Note: With reference to A35(1)(c), see also Appendix C.
Officers are advised to contact their Regional War Crimes Unit or the Modern War
Crimes Section of the National Security Division at CBSA, NHQ for assistance with case
file preparation in all paragraph 35(1)(a) or (b) human or international rights violation
cases. This is necessary as experience has shown that there is considerable effort
required before these types of cases may go forward. See also chapter ENF 18 , War
Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
In the case of paragraph A35(1)(a), persons may be deemed inadmissible as a human or
international rights violator without the need to re-establish findings of fact as set out in
any previous decision or determination, provided that previous decision or determination
was made by:
• an International Criminal Tribunal established by the United Nations;
• the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) on a finding that the applicant is excluded
on grounds of being a person referred to in section F of Article 1 of the Refugee
Convention: or
• a Canadian court rendering a decision made under the Criminal Code of Canada or
the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act concerning a war crime or crime
against humanity [R15].
A permanent resident or foreign national who is described in either paragraph A35(1)(b)
or A35(1)(c) and who satisfies the Minister of PSEP that their presence in Canada would
not be detrimental to the national interest is not inadmissible on grounds of violating
human or international rights. No such exemption exists for persons described in
A35(1)(a); they are forever inadmissible.
The Minister of PSEP is not authorized to delegate the exercise of A35(2) discretion
[A6(3)].
6.2. Policy intent
The policy of the government is clear: individuals who have committed, or who are
complicit in the commission of a war crime, a crime against humanity, genocide, or any
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 22
other reprehensible act, regardless of when or where these crimes occurred, are not
welcome in Canada.
A four-pronged approach in dealing with modern-day war criminals is taken by:
• refusing their visa applications abroad as foreign nationals, refugees, or temporary
residents;
• denying their entry into Canada at ports of entry;
• excluding them from the refugee determination process in Canada;
• removing them from Canada.
6.3. Crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes and terrorist acts
The following descriptions apply:
Crimes against humanity
Murder, extermination, enslavement, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, or any other
inhumane “act” or “omission” that is committed against any civilian population or any
identifiable group, whether or not the state is at war, and regardless of whether the “act”
or “omission” is a violation of the territorial law in force at the time. The acts or omissions
may have been committed by state officials or private individuals, and against their own
nationals or nationals of other states.
Genocide
An “act” or “omission” committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group, whether committed in times of peace or war, by state
officials or private individuals.
War crimes
“Acts” or “omissions” committed during an armed conflict (war between states and civil
war), which violate the rules of law as defined by international law. These “acts” or
“omissions” include the ill treatment of civilians within occupied territories, the violation
and exploitation of individuals and private property, and the torture and execution of
prisoners.
Terrorist acts
Terrorist acts have a wider application than war crimes or crimes against humanity
because:
• they can be committed against both persons and property;
• they can be isolated incidents: they do not have to be committed in a widespread or
systematic manner;
• they can be committed in times of both war or peace.
6.4. Senior members/officials of governments designated by the Minister of PSEP
A35(1)(b) describes senior members or officials of governments designated by the
Minister of PSEP as governments that engage in terrorism, systematic or gross human
rights violations, genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. This allegation may
not be used unless a government is designated.
As of this writing (i.e., February 2002), the following governments have been designated:
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 23
• Designated 16 June 1993: the Bosnian Serb regime between 27 March 1992 until
10 October 1996.
• Designated 12 October 1993: the Siad BarrĂ© regime in Somalia between 1969 and
1991.
• Designated 8 April 1994: the former military governments in Haiti between 1971 and
1986, and between 1991 and 1994 except the period August - December 1993.
• Designated 21 October 1994: the former Marxist regimes of Afghanistan between
1978 and 1992.
• Designated 3 September 1996: the governments of Ahmed Hassan Al-Bakr and
Saddam Hussein in power since 1968.
• Designated 27 April 1998: the government of Rwanda under President
Habyarimana between October 1990 and April 1994, as well as the interim
government in power between April 1994 and July 1994.
• Designated 30 June 1999, amended 14 March 2001: the governments of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia (Milosevic) between
February 28, 1998 and October 7, 2000.
• Designated 14 March 2001: the Taliban regime in Afghanistan from September 27,
1996.
For additional guidelines on the application of A35(1)(b) and a current listing of
designated governments, see ENF 18, Appendix E , War Crimes and Crimes Against
Humanity.
6.5. International travel sanctions [A35(1)(c)]
In the application of A35(1)(c), it must be recognized that although the following
paragraphs refer specifically to the United Nations (UN), the provisions of A35(1)(c) are
equally applicable to any decision, resolution or measure that an international
organization of states or association of states might make, so long as Canada:
• is a member of that international organization or association of states; and
• has imposed or has agreed to impose, as the case may be, the particular decision,
resolution or measure.
With the aforementioned in mind, and using Canada’s membership in the United Nations
as an example for discussion purposes, as a signatory to the Charter of the United
Nations, and as a United Nations member, Canada is under an international legal
obligation to implement binding United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decisions that
impose sanctions on certain states.
In keeping with this obligation, the provisions of A35(1)(c) allow Canada to fully
implement United Nations resolutions where other provisions of the Act might not apply.
For example, A35(1)(b) relates to persons who “ being a prescribed senior official in the
service of a government . . . .” Clearly, this provision may not include spouses or children
of these persons unless they themselves are found to be a part of this group; nor might it
include other individuals in neighbouring countries who may be providing financial and/or
military support to armed rebel groups.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 24
Also of note, in the case of other individuals providing financial and military support, some
of these individuals may well come from countries not requiring visas; this would make it
all the more difficult to control the admissibility of such persons to Canada.
In such cases, the provisions of A35(1)(c) sufficiently provide Canada with the necessary
authority to fully implement any UNSC resolutions and, as a result, meet its international
obligations.
See Appendix C for a listing of web sites and of sanctions, as at the time of this writing.
7. Medical inadmissibility
CIC has the policy responsibility with respect to medical inadmissibility [A38].
A38(1) bars entry into Canada to persons with three types of medical conditions:
• people with a health condition that is likely to be a danger to public health [A38(1)(a)];
see also R31.
• people with a health condition that is likely to be a danger to public safety [A38(1)(b)];
see also, R33.
• people with a health condition that might reasonably be expected to cause excessive
demand on health or social services [A38(1)(c)]; see also R1 and R34.
Applicants for permanent residence and, in certain cases, temporary entry into Canada,
will be required to undergo a medical examination to determine their health admissibility.
Those applicants who do not comply with the medical examination requirement will be
considered to have abandoned their application for entry into Canada.
Foreign nationals in Canada who fail to undergo a required medical examination or any
medical procedure that is required as a part of that examination, or who fail to abide by
the conditions of any follow-up medical surveillance imposed as a condition of entry, may
be reported pursuant to subsection A44(1) and be ordered removed from Canada.
Medically admissible applicants will only have an electronic "medical certificate" issued.
Results are found in CAIPS and/or FOSS. Medically inadmissible applicants will have a
hard copy medical certificate [IMM 5365B] issued to the visa/immigration office in addition
to the electronic notification.
Medical assessments for applicants covered by A38(2) will clearly indicate that the
assessment was based only on public health and public safety.
It will be inferred from the issuance of the aforementioned “documents” that there is a
medical assessment on file, where indeed a medical examination was required. No hard
copy "medical certificate" will be provided to an applicant per se.
When an officer is of the opinion that a foreign national may be a member of an
inadmissible class described in subsection A38(1), the officer may require persons
described within the provisions of R30 to undergo a medical examination.
Conditions may be imposed pursuant to R32 requiring the person to report at a specified
time and place for a medical examination and to provide proof, at a specified time and
place, of compliance with the conditions imposed.
An officer may form the opinion that a person may be medically inadmissible by:
• observation: the person may appear to be sick or may require assistance; and
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 25
• questioning: has the person recently been discharged from hospital? Has the person
recently been sick? Is the person taking medication for a serious illness?
R29 provides that, for the purposes of paragraph A16(2)(b), a medical examination
includes any or all of the following: a physical examination; a mental examination; a
review of past medical history; laboratory tests; diagnostic tests; and a medical
assessment of records respecting the applicant.
R30(4) provides that every foreign national referred to in R30(1) who seeks to enter
Canada must hold a medical certificate that indicates that they are not inadmissible on
health grounds and that is based on the last medical examination to which they were
required to submit within the previous 12 months.
In a port-of-entry (POE) case, where there are grounds to believe – based on a “balance
of probabilities” – that a person is medically inadmissible, an officer may proceed as
follows:
Action at land ports/ferry ports
At land or ferry ports, persons who require an immigration medical examination will be
required to go to a designated medical practioner in the United States of America (USA).
A list of accredited designated medical practioners in the USA will be issued to the
person. If the person continues to demand immediate entry into Canada, or leaves but
returns to seek entry into Canada prior to having an electronic “medical certificate” in
FOSS - that indicates the person is not inadmissible on health grounds [see R30(4)], an
officer may choose to write an A44(1) inadmissibility report citing allegation A41(a) and
A20(1)(a) or (b), as appropriate.
In the case of a foreign national, this allegation is within the jurisdiction of the Minister’s
delegate and may result in the Minister’s delegate making a removal order against the
person [R228(1)(c)(iii)].
Action at international airports
Where it is believed that a person may be medically inadmissible at an international
airport, normally, after consultation by telephone with a medical officer with the
Operations Directorate, Medical Services Branch,CIC, the examination should be
adjourned under the provisions of A23.
The person would then be required to undergo a medical examination pursuant to
R30(1)(d) by a Designated Medical Practitioner in Canada. Officers must ensure they
impose appropriate conditions as allowed for under R32 in addition to those conditions
that must be imposed pursuant to R43(1) ; that is, that the person is required to report at
a specified time and place for a medical examination and is to provide proof, at a
specified time and place, of compliance with conditions imposed.
Because of the aforementioned, where feasible, officers should make every effort to
make the appointment for the person. All appointments should be scheduled for the
earliest possible date.
Note: Persons will be expected to pay for their own medical examinations; officers should
advise Designated Medical Practioners of this fact at the time the appointment is made.
If an officer believes that the person is an immediate public health or safety risk, an order
to detain the person and an A44(1) report written for A41(a) and A16(2)(b) would be
appropriate. In such a case the officer should also immediately notify a medical officer.
See also ENF 20, Detention.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 26
7.1. Medical inadmissibility for temporary entry
An applicant inadmissible as a permanent resident may not be inadmissible as a
temporary resident. A permanent resident may require services that a temporary resident
with the same condition would not require. An officer cannot use the results of a
permanent resident's examination to refuse an application for temporary entry into
Canada.
When an applicant changes categories, an officer must review the medical examination
results for the new category. When a medical notification for the new category is
received, an officer may then make a decision.
7.2. Medical inadmissibility for permanent residence
A person who fails a temporary resident medical examination is also likely to fail an
permanent resident examination. Still, an officer cannot use results of a temporary
resident examination to refuse an application for permanent residence. An officer must
have the results from a medical assessment for a permanent resident.
8. Financial reasons
CIC has the policy responsibility with respect to financial inadmissibility [A39].
A39 describes people who are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any
person who is dependent on them for care and support. If the person satisfies an officer
that adequate arrangements for care and support (not involving social assistance) are in
place, then they do not fall within this inadmissibility provision.
8.1. Protected persons in Canada and their family members
Protected persons, within the meaning of subsection A95(2), are exempted from the
application of section A39. Protected persons may apply for permanent resident status
through the Case Processing Centre (CPC) in Vegreville, Alberta; their application for
permanent resident status may include their family members abroad [A21(2), R139(3),
R176(1) and R21].
If a protected person becomes a permanent resident and subsequently sponsors a family
member, the provisions of R133 would apply.
9. Misrepresentation
CIC has the policy responsibility with respect to misrepresentation [A40]
The Auditor General’s Year 2000 Report strongly recommended more effective measures
to discourage fraudulent immigration applications.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) responds to this recommendation in
two ways:
1. by rendering inadmissible, for misrepresentation, foreign nationals abroad. Pursuant
to the former Immigration Act, the misrepresentation provisions applied only in
Canada. With the advent of the IRPA, the misrepresentation provisions have been
expanded to apply abroad as well; and
2. subsection A64(3) limits the right of appeal for sponsors of family class members who
make misrepresentations on applications for permanent residence, to cases of the
spouse, common-law partner or dependent child of the sponsor.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 27
9.1. Policy intent
The purpose of the misrepresentation provisions is to ensure that applicants provide
complete, honest and truthful information in every manner when applying for entry into
Canada.
The provisions are broad enough to cover a range of scenarios to encourage compliance
with the legislation and support the integrity of the program. Yet, it is also imperative that
the application of the provisions be guided by the use of good judgment to support the
objectives of the Act and ensure fair and just decision-making.
This inadmissibility section can be used to deny visas at visa offices abroad and to deny
entry into Canada at ports of entry to prospective permanent residents and foreign
nationals. It can also be used as grounds for removal once in Canada and for refusing
in-Canada applications.
Section A40 applies to:
• applications for permanent residence;
• applications for visas for permanent resident status;
• applications for temporary residence;
• applications for student and work permits; and
• renewals and extensions of status,
whether these applications are made abroad, at the ports of entry or in Canada.
However, the misrepresentation provisions do not apply to protected persons. Section
R22 provides that those persons who have claimed refugee protection, if disposition of
their claim is pending, and protected persons are exempted from the application of the
misrepresentation provision.
In addition, the misrepresentation provisions do not apply to family members abroad of
protected persons by virtue of sections R176 and A21.
Subsection R176(1) enables a protected person applying to remain in Canada as a
permanent resident to include any of their family members in the application.
Subsection R176(2) permits the issuance of a permanent resident visa to a family
member who is outside Canada at the time of application, if
(a) the family member makes an application outside Canada to an officer within one year
after the day on which the applicant becomes a permanent resident; and
(b) the family member is not inadmissible on the grounds listed in subsection A21(2).
Misrepresentation is not a listed ground of inadmissibility under section A21 and as such
does not apply.
If the person misrepresented their relationship to the applicant, the officer may have
grounds to refuse the application on the basis that the applicant did not provide sufficient
evidence to show proof of family relationship with the protected person in Canada. If the
misrepresentations were made with respect to the basis for which the IRB granted
protected status, then, pursuant to A109, an application to vacate status should be made
to the IRB. [See section 9.12 below]
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 28
9.2. Misrepresentation or withholding material facts
Persons who misrepresent or withhold material facts, either directly or indirectly, relating
to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the Act
are inadmissible to Canada pursuant to paragraph A40(1)(a).
Definitions
Misrepresentation:
Misstating facts to obtain money, goods, benefits or some other thing desired by a person
who might otherwise not be entitled to it. Misrepresentation may also be referred to as
"false pretences."
Example: An individual appears at a port of entry with someone else’s passport and represents
his identity as that of the owner.
Withholding:
To hold back from doing or taking an action; to keep (within); to refrain from granting,
giving, allowing or “letting ‘it’ be known.” A person can misrepresent themselves by being
silent just as easily as a person who actively states a “mistruth.” A person who refuses or
declines to answer a question, preferring instead to allow outdated or false information to
be accepted as current or true information, is engaging in the activity of
misrepresentation.
Example: A vehicle with four individuals arrives at a port of entry and the driver is asked if all
the occupants in the car are Canadian citizens, to which the driver replies, “yes.” One of the
passengers is a foreign national and remains silent. That individual is withholding facts.
Direct and indirect misrepresentation:
Direct misrepresentation includes situations where the person makes a misrepresentation or
withholds information themselves—on their own behalf.
Example: An individual at a port of entry, when asked about criminality, states they have never
been convicted of a crime. A CPIC check reveals a criminal record. This is direct
misrepresentation.
Indirect misrepresentation is where a third party makes a misrepresentation or withholds
information.
Instances of indirect misrepresentation include:
Example: Situations where the applicant does not make the misrepresentation themselves but,
rather, it is done by someone else—a third party to the application. For example, a consultant
or agent for an entrepreneur submits a monitoring report on behalf of the entrepreneur and
provides false information on the establishment of a business.
Example: The misrepresentation need not be willful or intentional—it can also be unintentional.
An applicant need not be aware of a misrepresentation in order to be found inadmissible on
the grounds of A40. For example, an applicant asks a relative to obtain information in support
of an application. The information provided by the applicant’s representative is false and the
applicant claims to not be aware of the falsity. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that
the application is truthful and the supporting documents are genuine. The applicant could
therefore be inadmissible for misrepresentation for submitting false documents even though
he was not the one who fabricated evidence.
Example: Non-disclosure of facts relating to admissibility or inadmissibility which, if known,
would be material and relevant to induce or which could induce an error in the administration
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 29
of the Act, e.g., the person concerned does not disclose that they were previously deported—
this constitutes indirect misrepresentation.
Arranged employment cases (visa applications – R76, R77 and R82):
In the specific case of arranged employment, where the misrepresentation is discovered, care
should be used in applying section A40. Many clients involved in this fraud are not aware that the
jobs to which they are destined are not genuine.
In keeping with the dictates of procedural fairness, the applicant must be given the
opportunity to refute any negative information. The decision-maker must be satisfied on a
balance of probabilities that the person committed the misrepresentation. This could be a
factor in determining whether to use section A40 or not.
9.3. Principles
Officers are to be guided by the following principles when applying the misrepresentation
provision:
• Procedural fairness: An individual should always be given the opportunity to respond
to concerns about a possible misrepresentation. At a visa office, once the applicant
has been given the opportunity to respond to the concerns, then the designated
officer shall render a final decision regarding the misrepresentation to issue or refuse
the visa. At a port of entry or inland, the Minister’s delegate shall determine whether
or not to refer the case to the IRB for an admissibility hearing.
• It must be recognized that honest errors and misunderstandings sometimes occur in
completing application forms and responding to questions. While in many cases it
may be argued that a misrepresentation has technically been made, reasonableness
and fairness are to be applied in assessing these situations.
• Material facts are not restricted to facts directly leading to inadmissible grounds.
There are varying degrees of materiality. Fairness should be applied in assessing
each situation.
• Misrepresentations are sometimes made to conceal sensitive personal information to
avoid embarrassment. Where the fact is of limited relevance or materiality, it should
not affect the outcome of the application.
• Applicants are responsible for ensuring that all the information submitted in their
application is truthful and that all documents submitted are genuine.
• The test to be applied in the application of this provision is the “balance of
probabilities.” This is a higher standard than “reasonable grounds to believe.” Where
the standard is not met, the provision should not be invoked.
• Misrepresentation can either be made orally or in writing (by submitting false
supporting documents or writing a false statement or omitting to include the proper
information in the application).
9.4. Materiality
With respect to relevancy and materiality, the following principles apply:
• What is relevant is a broader concept than what is material.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 30
• All material factors will be relevant. However, what is relevant may not always prove
to be material:
(1) information requested from applicants will be considered relevant, otherwise this
information would not be requested; but
(2) this relevant information will not always affect the process undertaken by an officer
or the final decision. Only when it affects the process undertaken, or the final
decision, does it become material. At this point, misrepresentation of the information
means section A40 would apply, regardless of the decision outcome.
Example: A sponsored parent, 65 years of age, is asked in background information about his
educational history. This is relevant information because the educational background is
pertinent for security review. The individual has always told his family he is a high school
graduate, and completes the information accordingly. In fact, we discover that he failed his
final exam 45 years ago and did not receive a diploma. The information is relevant, but not
material because whether he did or did not graduate from high school affects neither his
eligibility nor the security review process the officer would have used.
Provincial nominees :
The following procedure should be used for provincial nominee cases processed abroad:
In provincial nominee cases, misrepresentation may be an issue that needs to be
addressed by CIC as well as by the province. Where, in examining the application, there
is persuasive evidence that the province’s selection decision was based on direct or
indirect misrepresentation or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that
induces or could induce an error in the administration of IRPA, the following should be
considered.
It is CIC’s responsibility to determine whether applicants are inadmissible. This includes
misrepresentation. Before rendering an inadmissibility decision pursuant to A40, the
officer must examine issues of relevancy and materiality. As this may be related to the
selection decision made by the province, the visa officer should consult with the
provincial official to gather all the information necessary regarding materiality and
relevancy. This consultation process and the evidence gathered from the province should
be clearly explained and recorded in the file notes for possible use as evidence in the
Federal Court or before the IRB.
The procedure outlined below should be followed in cases involving misrepresentation:
1. As per normal standards of procedural fairness, the visa officer should advise the
applicant of the concerns and give the applicant at least 30 days to respond to the
concerns. The province should receive a copy of this letter, and the applicant should be
advised that the province is being provided with the copy.
2. If the reply from the applicant provides a satisfactory explanation to meet the visa
officer's concerns, case processing may continue normally without referral to the
province.
3. If there is no reply, or if the reply does not provide a satisfactory explanation to meet
the concerns of misrepresentation in line with normal procedural fairness standards, the
visa officer should proceed as follows:
♦ Consult with the responsible provincial authority, asking the province to confirm
the concerns regarding misrepresentation and request that they withdraw the
provincial nomination certificate
♦ The visa office must
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 31
a) provide the province with documentation from the file regarding their concerns;
b) advise the province that the applicant had been provided with an opportunity to
respond and the nature of that response; and
c) inform them of the visa officer's conclusion that misrepresentation of a material
fact relating to a relevant matter has occurred.
• Misrepresentation related to the provincial selection decision where
province agrees:
Should the province agree, and following confirmation by the province that the
certificate has been withdrawn, the designated officer may proceed to refuse the
case based on the recommendation of the visa officer. The refusal letter should be
based on A40 and A15(2) and sent to the client. A copy of the refusal letter should
also be sent to the province.
For those cases where the province agrees that there was misrepresentation, but
does not withdraw the certificate, the refusal letter should be based on A40 only.
• Misrepresentation related to the provincial selection decision where province
disagrees and does not withdraw the certificate:
Where there is disagreement on the materiality and relevancy of the
misrepresentation regarding the selection decision, the province and the designated
manager should first attempt to resolve that disagreement. Where the disagreement
remains and the provincial authority does not withdraw the certificate, cases must be
examined individually to determine whether an A40 refusal can be maintained, if
necessary in consultation with Case Management, cc. IR/RIM. The agreement of the
province is not necessary to refuse based on A40, however, to maintain a refusal in
these circumstances a visa officer will require strong evidence to be able to
demonstrate that there was misrepresentation and it was material and relevant,
notwithstanding the province’s conclusion.
Should a refusal on A40 be maintained, the refusal letter from the designated officer
should be based on A40 and sent to the client with a copy to the province.
• Misrepresentation not related to the provincial decision on the case:
If the misrepresentation was not related to the provincial selection decision on the
case, then visa officers should refer to the general guidelines on misrepresentation in
section 9.3, Principles, above.
If the A40 test is met, then the refusal letter should be based on A40 and sent to the
client with a copy to the province.
• Use of R87 (Negative substituted evaluation)
The use of A40 is the preferred tool in situations where misrepresentation has
occurred. Generally, where the province has not withdrawn its certificate and has
thereby maintained its opinion that successful establishment is likely, the use of
negative substituted evaluation is not advised as a basis for the refusal.
9.5. An error in the administration of the Act
Erroneous determinations that a person satisfies the requirements for:
• a visa or other document;
• temporary resident status;
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 32
• permanent resident status; or
• admissibility;
are clearly errors in the administration of the Act.
In carrying out the duties under subsection A11(1) at a visa office and section A21 and
subsection A22(1) at a port of entry (POE), as well as inland for all applications (for
extensions of status, applications for work or study permits and applications for
permanent residence etc.), officers are required to be satisfied that a person meets the
requirements and is not inadmissible.
To make these determinations, officers decide what procedures, including investigations,
interviews and verifications, are required. Some procedures are required by law—others
are administrative.
Instances of misrepresentation that could also induce an error in the administration of this
Act include:
Example: If the misrepresentation prevented or could have prevented the officer from
undertaking correct procedures that would normally have been taken, it can be said that the
fact is material. If the wrong administrative process is followed to support the decision made
under the Act, then it can be said that the misrepresentation could induce an error in the
administration of this Act.
Example: It can also be said that if the right procedure is followed by using the wrong
information provided, that this could induce an error in the administration of this Act—an error
which was induced by misrepresentation. For example, the applicant states that he was in
the U.K. when, in fact, he was in the USA. In this case, the officer will proceed with a
background security check (right procedure) but based on the wrong information (wrong
location to conduct the security checks). This would have induced an error in the
administration of the Act.
Example: Misrepresentations that lead to the issuance of documents containing false
information provided by or on behalf of the client, e.g., visas, PR cards, permits with incorrect
names, date and place of birth.
It should be noted that the resulting error does not have to relate to the person who
makes the misrepresentation; that is, it may relate to another person, such as an
accompanying family member in which case all the family members will be inadmissible
pursuant to A42.
9.6. Fraudulent documents
Verification of documents sometimes reveals that documents submitted by applicants are
fraudulent; this does not automatically lead to inadmissibility. These documents may not
be material and/or relevant and/or may not induce an error in the administration of the
Act. Officers should consider and be guided by the following principles:
• The source: It is preferable if the issuing authority is able to confirm in writing that the
document was either fraudulently obtained or that it is not genuine. Some
organizations may advise that they believe a document is fraudulent because they
have no record of having issued the document. On its own, this information may not
be sufficient evidence to conclude there has been a misrepresentation. Officers
should consider the reliability of the source as well as other reasons for suspecting
the validity of the document. If the information that a document is fraudulent is not
from the issuing authority, the source should be a recognized expert in document
analysis.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 33
• The information must be material in accordance with the general principles outlined
previously.
• Was the document provided to make a misrepresentation? Sometimes fraudulent
documents are obtained to support true facts that cannot be verified because records
are otherwise unobtainable or difficult to obtain. In these circumstances, if the facts
are otherwise established to the satisfaction of the officer, it is questionable that the
misrepresentation could have induced an error.
• In the case of fraudulent documents, section A40 should be used. However, if the
officer cannot be certain that the evidence satisfies all the elements of this provision,
then paragraph A36(2)(c) is another possible option. There may be circumstances
where the officer may use paragraph A36(2)(c) – for instance, when it is not clear that
there has been an error in the administration of the Act, yet an offence was
committed.
9.7. At visa offices and ports of entry
An application for a visa abroad, or for entry into Canada at a port of entry may be denied
based on a misrepresentation made in connection with the current application or
examination only, unless the person was previously the subject of a refusal for
misrepresentation and the resulting two-year inadmissibility period has not elapsed.
Failure to satisfy an officer of certain facts or intentions does not equate to
misrepresentation. For example, if an officer does not find a person's stated intention to
leave Canada before the expiry of the period authorized to be credible, this is not
sufficient to support inadmissibility based on misrepresentation. Rather, non-compliance
with paragraph A20(1)(b) would better define the situation as temporary residents must
establish that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.
Where, on a balance of probabilities, there is sufficient evidence of misrepresentation at a
port of entry, officers may write a subsection A44(1) report. Officers should refer to the
procedural guidelines outlined in ENF 5 for writing reports.
9.8. In Canada
A permanent resident in Canada who obtained status as a result of misrepresentation
may be the subject of a section A44 report on grounds of inadmissibility for
misrepresentation. In the case of misrepresentation, it is viewed as continuing so long as
the person remains in Canada.
Example: Misrepresentations are sometimes made by foreign nationals on applications for a
permanent resident visa. A visa is granted and the foreign national subsequently becomes a
permanent resident [A21(1)]. The misrepresentation is only discovered after permanent
resident status is granted, when the permanent resident makes a sponsorship application for
a family member. It is during the examination of the sponsorship application that the officer
discovers that the sponsor made a misrepresentation to obtain status. Paragraph A40(1)(a)
may be used to render the permanent resident sponsor inadmissible to Canada. The officer
may write a subsection A44(1) report to the Minister’s delegate who may refer the report to
the IRB for an admissiblity hearing and possible removal.
A further example might involve a person seeking to enter at a port of entry. The person
is authorized to enter based on statements (that is, representations) made at the time of
seeking entry into Canada. A few days later, it is determined that the statements are
false; thus, the person was untruthful, thereby obtaining permanent resident status under
false pretences. In such a case, the person may be reported pursuant to section A44 on
the grounds of misrepresentation.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 34
In the case of misrepresentations made by permanent residents who have become
Canadian citizens, there is a possiblity of revoking their citizenship pursuant to the
Citizenship Act if the misrepresentation was made in order to obtain permanent resident
status. See the Citizenship chapter CP 9, section 5, entitled “Revocation of citizenship”.
9.9. Visa office procedures
An officer who suspects that an applicant may be inadmissible for misrepresentation
should carefully document the reasons for the concern in their notes. They must then
provide the individual with information on the basis for their concern and invite the person
to respond. This can be done at an interview or in writing. If in writing, the person should
be given at least 30 days from the time of receipt of the officer’s notice to respond. The
information provided in the response should be carefully assessed in accordance with the
principles outlined previously.
If the officer believes that the person is inadmissible for misrepresentation, and the officer
is not a designated officer for the use of section A40, then the officer refers the case to a
designated officer. The decision based on section A40 is solely the decision of the
designated officer who renders the decision on the basis of the information before them,
including any further information or interview the designated officer feels is necessary.
The designated officer enters appropriate file notes on their own assessment of the case
and the factors leading to the decision. The section A40 decision is not a “concurrence”
with another officer’s decision.
9.10. Examples
Officers are to apply the aforementioned guidelines designed to support the consistent
and fair application of the misrepresentation provisions. It is not possible to provide an
exhaustive list of all scenarios. In each case, all the relevant information and the
circumstances should be carefully considered. The following examples generally illustrate
the intent of these guidelines.
The following situations would generally constitute misrepresentation:
• An applicant fails to disclose that they recently applied for a visa to Canada.
• An applicant fails to disclose a criminal record, even if it is eventually established that
they are not inadmissible under the criminality provisions (either due to lack of
equivalency or because of the deemed rehabilitated class, for example).
• An applicant for a visa fails to disclose the existence of family members, even if the
family members could satisfy the requirements of the Act [R117(9)(d)].
• An applicant fails to disclose that they were previously issued a removal order in
Canada, even if they would not require consent to return.
• An applicant includes a nephew in their application and lists this person as a son.
• An applicant misrepresents the age of a family member who could otherwise not be
included in the application.
• A skilled worker applicant submits a false education certificate in an effort to meet
selection criteria that they would not otherwise meet.
• Failure to disclose changes in marital status or changes in material facts since visa
issuance abroad [R51].
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 35
The following situations would not generally constitute misrepresentation:
Mistakes or misunderstandings:
• An applicant who indicates the current year as their year of birth; or reverses the date
and month of birth on an application form.
• An applicant who indicates being single, when in fact they are widowed.
• An applicant who fails to disclose being denied entry into Canada when attempting to
enter from the United States for an afternoon five years ago. The applicant explains
that because “withdrawal” was effected, the notion of having been denied entry into
Canada was not properly understood (that is, the applicant did not believe entry into
Canada had been denied because the option of withdrawal or “Allowed to Leave”
was offered and exercised) and the applicant, in the officer’s opinion, is credible.
• Other cases where a person answers truthfully at an interview without hesitation and
it is reasonable to believe that the person did not understand the question on the
application form or forgot the relevant information at that time.
Misrepresentations that are of limited relevance:
Often, these are misrepresentations for reasons unrelated to Canada's immigration
requirements. Sometimes the purpose is to conceal what the applicant considers
sensitive personal information from officials, from other family members included in the
application, or from the sponsor. Some examples include:
• an elderly family class applicant who misleads an officer by indicating graduation
from high school when, in fact, graduation was not achieved;
• an applicant who fails to disclose the birth of a child that was given up for adoption.
9.11 Sponsorship cases
Where a permanent resident sponsor misrepresents information in a sponsorship
application related to the sponsored family member’s application, the family member
being sponsored may be inadmissible for misrepresentation as per paragraph A40(1)(a).
9.12 Vacation of refugee status for misrepresentation
Vacation of refugee status under the Act is deemed a nullification of refugee protection.
A46(1)(d) provides that a final determination to vacate refugee status for fraud or
misrepresentation also results in a loss of permanent resident status.
A40(1)(c) provides that a person will be determined inadmissible if there is a final
determination to vacate a refugee protection decision with respect to a permanent
resident or a foreign national.
However, if refugee protection status was granted pursuant to subsection A95(1), then
misrepresentation cannot be used as grounds to apply for vacation of status before the
IRB.
Where a report is written and a decision is made to issue a removal order, the Act
provides that such persons will be issued a removal order by the Minister’s delegate
without the need to re-establish the grounds of misrepresentation at an admissibility
hearing.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 36
Despite this streamlined process up to and including the issuance of a removal order,
officers must still be cognizant that the Act provides and authorizes the Federal Court to
review decisions relating to all immigration and refugee protection matters. Consequently,
officers are advised to also refer to other manual chapters when dealing with such cases,
including, ENF 24, Ministerial Interventions; ENF 9, Judicial Review; and ENF 10,
Removals.
9.13 Ceasing to be a citizen under paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act
Persons who cease to be citizens under the provisions of paragraph 10(1)(a) of the
Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of that same Act, are
inadmissible to Canada.
Paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act provides for the loss of Canadian citizenship for
reasons of false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material
circumstances.
Paragraph 10(2) provides that: “a person shall be deemed to have obtained citizenship
by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances if the
person was lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence by false representation
or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances and, because of that
admission, the person subsequently obtained citizenship.”
9.14 Two-year inadmissibility and return to Canada
Pursuant to subsection A40(2), a permanent resident or a foreign national determined to
be inadmissible for reasons of misrepresentation continues to be inadmissible for a twoyear
period following:
• in the case of a determination made outside Canada, the date the officer renders a
final decision, i.e., the date of the refusal letter; and
• in the case of a determination made in Canada, the date the removal order is
enforced.
Pursuant to section A49, a removal order comes into force on the latest of the following
dates, except in respect to a refugee protection claimant [A49(2)]:
a) the day the removal order is made, if there is no right to appeal;
b) the day the appeal period expires, if there is a right to appeal and no appeal is made;
and
c) the day of the final determination of the appeal, if an appeal is made.
Where a permament resident or a foreign national is determined to be inadmissible under
this provision, and where a request is made to return to Canada within the two-year
period, consideration may be given to issue a temporary resident permit (TRP), where
warranted. See chapter IP 1, Temporary Resident Permits, for more guidance.
See also Section 10.2, Examples of non-compliance allegation wording applicable to
foreign nationals; and Section 10.3, Removal orders and returning without consent.
10. Non-compliance
CIC has the policy responsibility for non-compliance [A41]
Under the provisions of A41, a person is inadmissible for failing to comply with “this Act.”
Pursuant to subsection A2(2), unless otherwise indicated, references in the Act to “this
Act” include the Regulations made under it.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 37
It is important to note that a non-compliance allegation must be coupled with a specific
requirement of either the Act or the Regulations; it is not meant to be, nor should it be, a
“stand-alone” allegation.
The table that follows at Section 10.2 provides some example of the various sections of
the Act that may be coupled with an A41 non-compliance allegation. For a complete
listing of all non-compliance allegations, officers should refer to a current Field Operation
Support System (FOSS) manual or FOSS Release Notes publication.
Generally, inadmissibility for non-compliance will end as soon as the person is no longer
in a state of non-compliance or leaves Canada.
This does not prevent an officer from writing an A44(1) report covering a person who:
• is still or otherwise remains in Canada; and
• during the period of that person’s current authorized stay or presence in Canada,
violates (or violated) a condition or requirement of the Act.
For example, in the case of a person who performed an unauthorized work activity but
who now claims to no longer be in a state of non-compliance because the work activity
has ceased, these persons are and will remain reportable for non-compliance for the
duration of their current stay in Canada because, during the period of their current stay in
Canada, they violated a condition or other requirement of the Act; namely, they were not
in possession of a work permit nor were they authorized to work.
This rationale is consistent with the “in Canada” misrepresentation provisions outlined
previously in this chapter at Section 9.8 in that, in the case of a misrepresentation, the
misrepresentation is viewed as continuing so long as the person remains in Canada
Synopsis:
Permanent residents will be determined to be inadmissible under the provisions of A41
only if:
• they fail to comply with the residency obligation pursuant to section A28; or
• they fail to comply with any conditions imposed under the Regulations.
Foreign nationals will be determined to be inadmissible under the provisions of A41 :
• through an “act” or “omission” that contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of
the Act.
10.1. Policy intent
This section provides for the refusal of entry into Canada, or the removal from Canada, of
those persons who have contravened any condition or requirement of the Act or who are
not respecting their obligations under the Act.
Examples include:
• persons who stay in Canada longer than the period for which they are authorized to
stay;
• persons in Canada who, despite not being authorized to work, have engaged in a
work activity;
• persons who do not comply with any condition, requirement or obligation lawfully
imposed.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 38
Officers should note that persons described may be those who have disregarded the law
knowingly (that is, intentionally) or unknowingly. For this reason, officers are expected to
look closely at the overall circumstances, paying special attention to the person’s intent,
before recommending an enforcement action. An infraction may be quite innocent;
however, it may also have been committed knowingly and purposefully.
Officers are expected to recommend or decide, if within their jurisdiction, the appropriate
enforcement action to be taken keeping in mind the person’s character, intent, motivation
and other equally important factors that led to the person’s contravention of the law.
10.2. Examples of non-compliance allegation wording applicable to foreign nationals
Note: For a complete listing of all non-compliance allegations, officers should refer to a current
Field Operation Support System (FOSS) manual or FOSS Release Notes publication.
A41 stipulates:
41. A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act
(a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes,
directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act;…
Table 1: Wording in the Act—FOSS allegation wording
Section Wording in the Act FOSS allegation wording
A11(1) A foreign national must, before entering
Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or
for any other document required by the
Regulations.
The requirement of subsection A11(1)
that a foreign national must, before
entering Canada, apply to an officer for
a visa or for any other document
required by the Regulations.
A16(1) A person who makes an application
must answer truthfully all questions put
to them for the purpose of the
examination and must produce a visa
and all relevant evidence and
documents that the officer reasonably
requires.
The requirement of subsection A16(1)
that a person who makes an application
must answer truthfully all questions put
to them for the purpose of the
examination and must produce a visa
and all relevant evidence and
documents that the officer reasonably
requires.
The requirement of subsection A16(1)
that a person who makes an application
must answer truthfully all questions put
to them for the purpose of the
examination.
The requirement of subsection A16(1)
that a person who makes an application
to enter Canada must produce a visa.
The requirement of subsection A16(1)
that a person who makes an application
to enter Canada must produce all
relevant evidence and documents that
the officer reasonably requires.
A16(2)(b) In the case of a foreign national, the
foreign national must submit to a
medical examination on request.
The requirement of paragraph A16(2)(b)
that a foreign national must submit to a
medical examination on request.
A18(1) Every person seeking to enter Canada
must appear for an examination to
determine whether that person has a
The requirement of subsection A18(1)
that every person seeking to enter
Canada must appear for an examination
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 39
right to enter Canada or is or may
become authorized to enter and remain
in Canada.
to determine whether that person has a
right to enter Canada or is or may
become authorized to enter and remain
in Canada.
A20(1)(a) Every foreign national, other than a
foreign national referred to in section 19,
who seeks to enter or remain in Canada
must establish, to become a permanent
resident, that they hold the visa or other
document required under the
Regulations and have come to Canada
in order to establish permanent
residence.
The requirement of paragraph A20(1)(a)
that every foreign national, other than a
foreign national referred to in section 19,
who seeks to enter or remain in Canada
must establish, to become a permanent
resident, that they hold the visa or other
document required under the
Regulations and have come to Canada
in order to establish permanent
residence.
The requirement of paragraph A20(1)(a)
that every foreign national, other than a
foreign national referred to in section 19,
who seeks to enter or remain in Canada
must establish, to become a permanent
resident, that they hold the visa or other
document required under the
Regulations.
The requirement of paragraph A20(1)(a)
that every foreign national, other than a
foreign national referred to in section 19,
who seeks to enter or remain in Canada
must establish, to become a permanent
resident, that they have come to
Canada in order to establish permanent
residence.
A20(1)(b) Every foreign national, other than a
foreign national referred to in section 19,
who seeks to enter or remain in Canada
must establish, to become a temporary
resident, that they hold the visa or other
document required under the
regulations and will leave Canada by
the end of the period authorized for their
stay.
The requirement of paragraph A20(1)(b)
that every foreign national, other than a
foreign national referred to in section 19,
who seeks to enter or remain in Canada
must establish, to become a temporary
resident, that they hold the visa or other
document required under the
Regulations and will leave Canada by
the end of the period authorized for their
stay.
The requirement of paragraph A20(1)(b)
that every foreign national, other than a
foreign national referred to in section 19,
who seeks to enter or remain in Canada
must establish, to become a temporary
resident, that they will leave Canada by
the end of the period authorized for their
stay.
The requirement of paragraph A20(1)(b)
that every foreign national, other than a
foreign national referred to in section 19,
who seeks to enter or remain in Canada
must establish, to become a temporary
resident, that they hold the visa or other
document required under the
Regulations.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 40
A29(2) A temporary resident must comply with
any conditions imposed under the
regulations and with any requirements
under this Act, must leave Canada by
the end of the period authorized for their
stay and may re- enter Canada only if
their authorization provides for re-entry
into Canada.
The requirement of subsection A29(2)
that a temporary resident must comply
with any conditions imposed under the
Regulations and with any requirements
under this Act and must leave Canada
by the end of the period authorized for
their stay.
The requirement of subsection A29(2)
that a temporary resident must comply
with any conditions imposed under the
Regulations and with any requirements
under this Act.
The requirement of subsection A29(2)
that a temporary resident must leave
Canada by the end of the period
authorized for their stay.
A30(1) A foreign national may not work or study
in Canada, unless authorized to do so
under this Act.
The requirement of subsection A30(1)
that a foreign national may not work or
study in Canada unless authorized to do
so under this Act.
The requirement of subsection A30(1)
that a foreign national may not work in
Canada unless authorized to do so
under this Act.
The requirement of subsection A30(1)
that a foreign national may not study in
Canada unless authorized to do so
under this Act.
A52(1) If a removal order has been enforced, a
foreign national shall not return to
Canada unless authorized by an officer
or in other prescribed circumstances.
The requirement of subsection A52(1)
that, when a removal order has been
enforced, a foreign national shall not
return to Canada unless authorized by
an officer or in other prescribed
circumstances.
10.3. Removal orders and returning without consent
The Act contains provisions regarding the issuance of removal orders and their effect on
persons who are found to be inadmissible to Canada.
Subsection A52(1) provides that, if a removal order has been enforced, the person
concerned shall not return to Canada unless authorized by an officer or in other
prescribed circumstances.
The three types of removal orders that may be issued are deportation orders, exclusion
orders and departure orders. The Regulations establish under what conditions a specific
removal order may be issued and the effect of those orders [R223 through R228].
The Regulations also provide that the Minister’s delegate may issue a deportation order
to foreign nationals who may have previously been removed from Canada and who
return without prior authorization [R228].
Deportation orders
The Regulations provide that receipt of a deportation order obliges the foreign national to
obtain the written authorization of an officer to return to Canada at any time after the
order is enforced.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 41
For the purposes of subsection A52(1), the making of a deportation order against a
foreign national on the basis of inadmissibility under paragraph A42(b) (that is, an
inadmissible family member) is prescribed as a circumstance that does not oblige the
foreign national to obtain the authorization of an officer in order to return to Canada
[R226].
Exclusion orders
The provisions respecting exclusion orders specify that:
• an exclusion order obliges the foreign national to obtain the written authorization of
an officer in order to return to Canada for a period of one year after the order has
been enforced; and
• a foreign national who is issued an exclusion order as a result of being found
inadmissible for misrepresentation must obtain the written authorization of an officer
to return to Canada for a period of two years after the order has been enforced.
For the purposes of subsection A52(1), the making of an exclusion order against a
foreign national on the basis of inadmissibility under paragraph A42(b) (that is, an
inadmissible family member) is prescribed as a circumstance that does not oblige the
foreign national to obtain the authorization of an officer in order to return to Canada
[R225].
Departure orders
The provisions respecting departure orders specify that:
• a departure order does not oblige a foreign national to obtain the authorization of an
officer in order to return to Canada provided the foreign national who is issued the
departure order satisfies the requirement related to departure from Canada within 30
days of the order becoming enforceable, failing which the order would become a
deportation order [R224].
• if the foreign national is detained within the 30-day period or the removal order is
stayed, the 30- day period is suspended.
10.4. When is a removal order considered to be enforced?
R240 provides that a removal order shall be considered to have been enforced against a
foreign national if the subject of that order:
(a) appears before an officer at a port of entry to have their departure from Canada
verified;
(b) obtains a certificate of departure;
(c) departs from Canada; and
(d) has been authorized to enter, other than for purposes of transit, their country of
destination.
Visa offices
R240 provides that foreign nationals who apply for a visa abroad, and against whom a
removal order has not been enforced, must establish that their removal has been
enforced.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 42
Removal orders may be enforced by an overseas officer if, following an examination, the
foreign national is able to establish that they have complied with certain removal
requirements; these include:
• appearing before an officer outside of Canada;
• providing verification that they are the same person named on the removal order;
• demonstrating that they were lawfully admitted to the country in which they are
physically present at the time that the application is made; and
• proving that they are not a threat to security, have not violated human or international
rights and have not been involved in serious or organized criminality.
Allowing for removal orders to be enforced abroad provides persons with an opportunity
to further regularize their admissibility status. Persons who fail to have their removal
order enforced prior to seeking re-entry into Canada may find that they are the subjects
of outstanding arrest warrants.
10.5. Evidence for returning without consent
Evidence demonstrating inadmissibility for returning without consent may include:
• evidence the person was ordered excluded or deported
♦ in the case of a person ordered excluded, evidence that one year has not
elapsed since the enforcement of the exclusion order or, in the case of an
exclusion order issued as a result of a misrepresentation finding, that two years
have not elapsed [A40(2)(a)].
• evidence the person has not obtained the written authorization of an officer to return
♦ in the case of a person issued with a departure order, evidence the person was
given a departure order and has not complied with the provisions respecting
enforcement of that order; specifically, the provisions of R240 which include the
requirement to obtain a certificate of departure.
10.6. Application of A20(1)(b)
A20(1): Every foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in A19, who seeks
to enter or remain in Canada must establish,
(b) to become a temporary resident, that they hold the visa or other document required
under the Regulations and will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their
stay.
For more information about the application of A20(1)(b), see:
• Considerations, below;
• Policy intent, below;
• Evidence to support an A20(1)(b) allegation, below;
• Examinations involving non-genuine applicants, below.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 43
Considerations
The determination of an officer that a foreign national may become a temporary resident
is very much dependent upon the foreign national, because the burden of proof rests on
the foreign national to satisfy an officer that:
• they hold the visa or other document required under the Regulations; and
• they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.
Policy intent
Subsection A20(1) describes what obligations foreign nationals must meet when they
seek to enter or remain in Canada. It is important to note that the provisions of A20(1)
relate to all persons except Canadian citizens, registered Indians and permanent
residents. Consequently:
• persons who want to become permanent residents must establish that they hold the
visa or other document required by Regulations and that they have come to Canada
to establish permanent residence;
• persons who want to become temporary residents must establish that they hold the
visa or other document required by Regulations and that they will leave Canada by
the end of the period authorized for their stay;
• persons who are subject to a province’s sole selection responsibility under a federalprovincial
agreement must establish that they hold a document issued by the
province indicating that they comply with the selection criteria of the province.
Apart from lacking a visa or other document as required, the only way a person could be
found inadmissible under this provision would be if an officer forms the opinion that the
person is a non- genuine applicant for the status being sought.
If such is the case, the officer’s opinion must be based on a logical assessment of the
facts and circumstances. It is important that the rationale used by officers be such that,
given the same set of facts and circumstances, an ordinarily prudent and cautious
individual would come to a similar or like conclusion.
Depending on the status being sought, officers may consider the following factors:
• What are the reasons the person is coming to Canada?
• What are the person's interest(s) in Canada?
• Are there any established links the person might have with Canada and their country
of nationality?
• Did the person make any preparations in advance for their trip to Canada?
• What is the person’s knowledge of Canada?
• What is the person’s intended duration or stay and prospective plans while in
Canada?
• Are there funds available for the person’s trip (to cover the cost of such things as
food, accommodation, transportation)? An officer should determine how the person
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 44
plans to pay their expenses to be sure they are not inadmissible for financial reasons
[A39];
• How does the person intend to leave Canada? Do they have a return air ticket or do
they have some other means or plans by which they will leave Canada?
• Does the person have any friends or relatives in Canada should the need arise for in-
Canada assistance? In other words, what plans does the person have should
emergency assistance be required (for example, possible medical needs, running
short of funds, etc.);
• What are the person’s family responsibilities and obligations? What is the person’s
occupation in their home country? If applicable, why are the spouse and/or children
not accompanying the person?
• What, if anything, would require the person to return to their home country by a
certain date? Reasons commonly include: economic (money, employment, legal
responsibilities); family responsibilities (work on the family farm or assist/take care of
relatives); possible social, judicial or political reasons specific to their home country
(military service).
• Has the person ever been arrested, charged or convicted of any crime or offence, in
any country, at any time? Has the person ever been fingerprinted for any reason, and
if so, why? Is the person the subject of an outstanding warrant for arrest? Is the
person wanted by the police for any reason?
• Has the person been diagnosed as having any disease, disorder or any other health
impairment of any kind?
• What is the political situation in the person’s home country or country of nationality?
An officer should gather evidence to support an allegation very carefully. The
examination should be conducted in a very thorough and accurate manner. The quality of
an officer’s notes, when used as evidence, may be crucial to a finding of inadmissibility
by the Immigration Division. A case highlights form should be very detailed so as to assist
the hearings officer prepare for the admissibility hearing.
Evidence to support an A20(1)(b) allegation
If an officer believes a person to be inadmissible for being a non-genuine applicant
[A20(1)(b)], then the officer should gather evidence to support that view.
The following are examples of what may be gathered to prove such a case:
• evidence that the person is seeking to come into Canada;
• evidence that the person is or was seeking to come into Canada for a temporary
purpose;
• evidence to show that the person does not have a right to enter or remain in Canada,
nor are they a permit-holder or a person seeking refugee protection;
• evidence that an officer examined the person;
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 45
• evidence that there are grounds to believe that the person is a non-genuine
applicant. This may include notes relative to the person’s demeanour, intentions,
history and/or reasonableness of their story.
An officer may establish the elements in a case by providing a statutory declaration of
statements made by the person to the officer at the time of examination. An officer should
always provide as much detail as possible.
An essential element in any non-genuine case should be evidence to support the view
that the person’s credibility is in doubt. It is important to make note of all contradictory
statements that the person may have relayed. An officer should record the person's
statements and then, if applicable, record the reason that the credibility of the statement
is in question.
All hand-written notes should be neat, jargon-free and written in a respectful and
professional manner. The officer’s case file notes/highlights report should make note of
the following:
• any explanation the person may have offered as to why they had difficulty recalling
important details relevant to their story, yet on matters irrelevant, details were easily
recalled;
• if applicable, an officer’s notes should indicate how the person was evasive or, again
if applicable, how the person made contradictory statements and provide examples;
• any instances where, in the opinion of the officer, the person's story seems
unreasonable.
If a person is evasive, the officer should make note of this in the case file notes:
Example: I asked Mr. Jones three times during the examination who paid for his ticket to
Canada and received a different reply each time. First, he stated that his brother paid for the
airfare; then he said his parents gave him the money; and finally, he said that he sold his
stereo to obtain the money for the ticket.
An officer should make note of any contradictions that occur during the course of an
examination:
Example: Mr. Jones told me twice that he had never visited Canada previously; however, his
passport indicates on page 3 that he was authorized to enter Canada as a temporary resident
on 12 March 1999 at Blackpool, PQ.
An officer should also make note of a person's inability to recall important details:
Example: Mr. Jones cannot remember how he came to make the decision to come to Canada.
However, he remembers quite clearly the details of his lengthy and varied employment
history.
An officer should make note of any statements made by the person that seem
unreasonable:
Example: Mr. Jones said that since childhood, he has always had a desire to visit Prince
Rupert. This, in my opinion, is not credible as he does not know where Prince Rupert is in
relation to the whole of Canada; he believes Prince Rupert to be a farming community when
in fact it is a seaport city with no agricultural economy at all; and he claims he cannot stand
rain yet Prince Rupert is widely known for the quantity of rain it receives each year.
If an officer is able to provide reasons to put in doubt the sincerity of the person's
intentions on coming to Canada, then the question of whether the person will leave
Canada as declared also becomes suspect. Credibility then becomes an issue. An officer
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 46
must be cognizant of the fact that if called to give evidence at an admissibility hearing, or
in the Federal Court, the officer must be able to swear or affirm to the truthfulness of
every notation cited in their file notes/highlights report.
Synopsis:
Officers should develop the case by gathering the facts and making note of relevant
circumstances; then, supported by solid rationale, arrive at a conclusion.
Facts such as no requirement for a foreign national to return home by a certain date; lack
of a job or employment prospects in their home country; few or no ties, personal
possessions or obligations in the person's home country give reason to suspect that a
person may not leave Canada.
Examinations involving non-genuine applicants
If an officer conducts an examination of a person who they believe may be non-genuine,
be it overseas or in Canada, the following format may be of assistance:
• Purpose of trip: What is the purpose for your trip to Canada?
• Interest in Canada: Why are you travelling to Canada at this time (tourism, business,
study, medical care or other)?
• Contacts in Canada: Has someone invited you (family, friend, or other)?
If yes, what is their relationship to you?
• How do you plan to get to your destination?
• If applicable, how did you receive the invitation (by letter, telephone, facsimile)?
• Trip preparation: Has your trip been planned for sometime or is this a recent decision
to travel?
• Have you previously been in contact with any Canadian officials outside of Canada
(High Commission, Embassy or Consulate)?
• Are you in possession of any tourist information concerning Canada?
• Have you been to Canada previously?
• Cost of trip: If the cost of the trip in relation to the person’s circumstances seems
unusual (such as where the cost of the air ticket is equal to the person’s total annual
income) questions such as how the air ticket was paid for, or who paid for the air
ticket would be appropriate.
• Knowledge of Canada: Does the person have any knowledge about where they are
going (geographical, political, cultural, social, meteorological, etc.)?
10.7. Applications and documentation requirements
The Act provides that foreign nationals are under an obligation to obtain certain required
documents before entering Canada. The Regulations address mandatory requirements
respecting applications.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 47
The purpose of the provisions is to establish which documents foreign nationals require
before seeking to enter Canada. The Regulations also specify the requirements that must
be met in order for an application to be considered; for example, the type of form to be
used in making an application, the required information to be submitted on such a form,
including any supporting documentation necessary, and the place where an application is
to be filed.
For more information, see:
• What the Regulations do, below;
• Policy intent, below;
• Policy application, below;
• What is documentary evidence, below;
• What documentary evidence must foreign nationals produce, below;
• Are all foreign nationals required to produce a passport, below;
• What about temporary residents who have a passport but no airline ticket to leave
Canada, below;
• How else can temporary residents establish that they are able to leave Canada,
below;
• What to do if a temporary resident fails to establish to the officer’s satisfaction that
they are able to leave Canada, below.
What the Regulations do
The application and documentation provisions prescribe:
• the circumstances in which visas are required to enter Canada;
• the circumstances in which foreign nationals are exempt from requiring temporary
resident visas;
• the circumstances in which a study or work permit is required before entering
Canada;
• the form, content, mandatory information required and place where an application
may be made;
• the general rules regarding the form in which documents are required to be
presented when the Act, which includes the Regulations, so specifies.
Policy intent
The existence of regulatory provisions specifying the mandatory requirements of an
application are intended to result in increases in self-compliance. Should an application
not meet these requirements, it should be returned to the applicant without being
processed.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 48
Failure to provide the necessary documentation in its required form may result in a
refusal of the application. Foreign nationals will be refused entry into Canada, and may
be removed, if they require visas and permits to enter Canada but have not obtained
such documentation in advance.
Policy application
Subsection A15(1) provides that an officer is authorized to proceed with an examination
where a person makes an application to the officer in accordance with the Act.
R28 provides that, for the purposes of subsection A15(1), a person makes an application
to an officer by:
(a) submitting an application in writing;
(b) seeking to enter Canada;
(c) seeking to transit through Canada as provided in R35; or
(d) making a claim for refugee protection.
A16(1) provides that a person who makes an application must answer truthfully all
questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all
relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.
A16(2) provides that, in the case of a foreign national, the relevant evidence referred to in
A16(1) includes photographic and fingerprint evidence. The foreign national must also
submit to a medical examination on request.
What is documentary evidence?
The definition of a document is: “Any writing or printing capable of being made evidence,
no matter on what material it may be inscribed”. Based on this, a passport, a visa, an
airline ticket, money or even a bank statement of a person's assets may be considered
documentary evidence.
What documentary evidence must foreign nationals produce?
The Act is very thorough on what documents foreign nationals are required to produce. In
addition, an officer may require additional relevant and/or documentary evidence that
may not specifically be listed in the Act, yet, is considered by an officer to be reasonably
required in order that a proper admissibility decision may be made.
Are all foreign nationals required to produce a passport?
Unless otherwise prescribed by the Regulations, foreign nationals seeking to enter
Canada as temporary residents, or to become permanent residents, must hold a passport
or travel document from a prescribed list.
What about temporary residents who have a passport but no airline ticket to leave
Canada?
Temporary residents should be able to establish to the satisfaction of an officer that they
are in fact able to leave Canada. Normally, all they need to do is produce an airline ticket
or the money to buy one.
It is important to note, however, that an officer should not necessarily and automatically
decide that a temporary resident is inadmissible simply because they are not able to
produce either an airline ticket or the money to buy one. For example, during an
authorized stay in Canada or the United States of America (USA), temporary residents
will often decide to visit in the neighbouring country.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 49
In such cases, temporary residents may not be in possession of their return airline ticket
or the necessary funds to buy one simply because they chose to leave the ticket at their
relatives' or friends' home in the country where they initially commenced their visit. In this
case, the explanation is reasonable and, unless the person’s credibility is in doubt, or
some other inadmissibility factor becomes known, the person should be authorized to
enter without having shown a return airline ticket or sufficient money to buy one.
This example illustrates the importance of determining all relevant facts and considering
reasonableness before making an opinion on admissibility.
How else can temporary residents establish that they are able to leave Canada?
An officer should exercise good judgment in all cases. The following are offered as
examples only:
• a letter from a relative agreeing to provide an airline ticket;
• a ticket left in the United States of America may be sent via priority courier and the
person could present it after a period of adjournment or when next seeking entry into
Canada;
• a confirmation from a travel agency that a ticket has indeed been issued.
What to do if a temporary resident fails to establish to the officer’s satisfaction that
they are able to leave Canada?
In such cases, an officer may be justified in forming an opinion that the person is
inadmissible. If deemed warranted, the officer may also go to the extent of writing an
A44(1) report using the A41(a) non-compliance allegation coupled with A20(1)(b).
Since there is doubt as to whether the temporary resident will be in Canada temporarily,
officers should make efforts to determine if there are any other factors that would warrant
an inadmissibility opinion. For example, other aspects of the temporary resident's travel
plans may be questionable enough to undermine the applicant’s credibility.
In conclusion, what an officer may consider sufficient documentary evidence may vary
depending on the circumstances of the case. An officer acting in good faith is not
restricted on what may be considered.
Officers are expected to use good judgment in all cases.
10.8. Non-compliance by permanent residents
A41: A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act
(b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection A27(2)
or section A28.
A41(b) case elements Explanation
permanent resident Only permanent residents may be reported
under this paragraph.
balance of probabilities Standard of proof to establish allegation is
“balance of probabilites”.
through failing to comply Permanent residents must comply with the
requirements of the Act.
with subsection A27(2) This subsection requires compliance with any
conditions imposed under the Regulations.
or or
section A28 This section requires compliance with the
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 50
residency obligation with respect to every fiveyear
period.
10.9. Non-compliance with A27(2)
A27(2) applies to permanent residents who have not satisfied any of the conditions that
may have been imposed under the Regulations. For example, the person may not have
complied with the condition to marry a fiancé or to undergo medical treatment. This
provision should not be used if there is a more specific ground of inadmissibility.
Put simply, a permanent resident is inadmissible under these provisions for failing to
comply with a condition lawfully imposed; thus, the person has not respected their
obligations under the law.
The recommended evidence to support this allegation will depend on the circumstances
of the case; specifically, the particular condition(s) that the person is alleged to have not
complied with.
See also chapter ENF 1, Inadmissibility.
10.10. Non compliance with the residency obligation of A28
The Act establishes residency requirements and obligations with respect to each fiveyear
period after the granting of permanent residency status.
Pursuant to A28(2). a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation
provisions, if for at least 730 days in that five-year period, the permanent resident is
physically present in Canada or is:
• outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen spouse or common-law partner or,
in the case of a child, their parent;
• outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the
public service of Canada or of a province;
• outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse, commonlaw
partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a full-time
basis by a Canadian business or in the public service of Canada or of a province.
Paragraph A28(2)(c) provides that “humanitarian and compassionate” (H&C)
considerations be given in cases where residency obligations have not been satisfied
before any loss of status determination is made.
What this means is that each decision-maker involved in a residency obligation
determination case, has a duty, as part of the decision-making process, to assess
whether there are any compelling humanitarian and compassionate reasons to justify
why permanent resident status should be retained, even though the person may not have
complied with the residency obligation provisions of paragraph A28(2)(a). Officers are to
keep in mind that the best interests of a child directly affected by the determination must
also be considered when assessing humanitarian and compassionate factors that may
justify the retention of permanent resident status.
In those cases where it is determined that humanitarian and compassionate
considerations (including the best interests of a child) exist, and therefore retention of
permanent resident status is justified, the H&C considerations will overcome any breach
of those obligations that may have occurred or been determined prior to the H&C
determination.
See also chapter ENF 23, Loss of Permanent Resident Status.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 51
11. Inadmissible family members
CIC has the policy responsibility with respect to inadmissible family members [A42]
11.1. Persons whose accompanying family member is inadmissible
A42 stipulates:
42. A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an
inadmissible family member if
(a) their accompanying family member or, in prescribed circumstances, their nonaccompanying
family member is inadmissible;
A42(a) case elements Explanation
foreign national (other than a protected person) Only foreign nationals, other than protected
persons within the meaning of A95(2), may be
reported under this section.
balance of probabilities Standard of proof required to establish
allegation is “balance of probabilities” .
accompanying family member They are inadmissible because their
accompanying family member is inadmissible.
or or
in prescribed circumstances, a nonaccompanying
family member
They are inadmissible because, in prescribed
circumstances, their non-accompanying family
member is inadmissible.
See also chapter ENF 1, Inadmissibility
11.2. Persons who are accompanying an inadmissible family member
A42: A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an
inadmissible family member if:
(b) they are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person.
A42(b) case elements Explanation
foreign national (other than a protected person) Only foreign nationals, other than protected
persons within the meaning of A95(2), may be
reported under this section.
balance of probabilities Standard of proof required to establish
allegation is “balance of probabilities” .
accompanying family member of an
inadmissible person
They are inadmissible if they are an
accompanying family member of an
inadmissible person.
See also chapter ENF 1, Inadmissibility.
Foreign nationals are inadmissible if their accompanying family member is inadmissible
or if they are themselves a family member who accompanies an inadmissible person.
They would also be inadmissible, in circumstances prescribed by Regulations, if a family
member who does not accompany them is inadmissible.
This section does not apply to permanent residents, nor does it apply to persons
considered to be protected persons within the meaning of A95(2).
For a person to be declared inadmissible under A42, an officer must establish, in
evidence, that the person is a family member as defined in R1(3). Proof of family
relationship may take the form of birth certificate copies or other relevant documentation
or correspondence. In the absence of this, the allegation is unsupportable.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 52
Proof that a family member is inadmissible may take the form of certified copies of
documents available from the Query Response Centre (QRC), CIC, for example, a copy
of a removal order issued to a family member. Further proof may include any relevant
documentation that the person concerned may have presented, produced or may have
otherwise been found to have in their possession; or alternatively, that others may have
in their possession that pertains to an inadmissible family member.
Further proof may include copies of any visa refusal letter that may have been issued to a
family member. A copy of an Allowed to Leave Canada [IMM 1282B] or Direction to
return to the United States [IMM 1237B], issued to an inadmissible family member, may
also be used as evidence.
Still further proof may be the direct testimony of the person concerned, evidenced by a
statutory declaration signed by that person or a statutory declaration from an officer (or
officers) detailing statements made by the person concerned (or others) to an officer.
Statutory declarations from other credible witnesses may also be used as evidence.
See also chapter ENF 1, Inadmissibility; and ENF 3, Admissibility Hearings.
12. Refugees, protected persons and inadmissibility
CIC has the policy responsibility with respect to refugees and protected persons.
The concept of refugee protection within the Act includes persons who:
• are determined to be Convention refugees or are persons in similar circumstances
under a visa application overseas and have been allowed to come to Canada for
protection reasons;
• are determined in Canada by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to be
Convention refugees or persons in need of protection;
• are granted protection by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (C&I) through a
pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).
A person who has had refugee protection conferred on them is a protected person
[A95(2)].
A person referred to in section E or F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention is not a
Convention refugee or a person in need of protection [A98].
Canada’s obligations with respect to Convention refugees may be found in the provisions
of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.
Incorporated therein is the obligation that Convention refugees, lawfully in Canada, have
a right to remain.
Consequently, a protected person, or a person who has been recognized as a
Convention refugee, cannot be removed from Canada unless:
• they are determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality and
constitute, in the opinion of the Minister of C&I, a danger to the public in Canada; or
• they are determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or
international rights or organized criminality and, in the opinion of the Minister of C&I,
they should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the nature and
severity of acts committed or on the basis of being a danger to the security of
Canada.
See also the principle of non-refoulement [A115].
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 53
12.1. Convicted in Canada
Persons are not eligible to make a refugee claim if they are found to be inadmissible on
grounds of having been convicted in Canada of an offence for which 10 years or more
imprisonment may be imposed and for which at least two years was imposed
[A101(2)(a)].
12.2. Convicted outside Canada
Persons convicted outside Canada are not eligible to make a refugee claim provided the
Minister of C&I determines that they are a danger to the public in Canada and the
conviction is for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence
under an Act of Parliament that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at
least 10 years [A101(2)(b)].
The above provisions are meant to reinforce the concept that decisions to exclude
persons convicted of offences will be based on decisions lawfully rendered by the
Immigration Division.
Policy intent
A claimant, convicted outside Canada, is not ineligible to have their claim referred to the
Refugee Protection Division on the basis of a serious criminality determination unless the
Minister of C&I is of the opinion that the claimant is a danger to the public in Canada.
Rationale
The purpose of the provision is to provide an acceptable processing balance between
identifying the most serious offenders convicted outside Canada, yet still provide for
those instances where a foreign law or judicial system may not equate to Canadian
standards; and/or where the possibility exists of politically motivated or spurious
convictions and the imposition, by some countries, of an excessive penalty
12.3. Violators of human or international rights / security threats / organized criminality
Persons found to be inadmissible by the Immigration Division for reasons of security,
violating human or international rights, serious or organized criminality, except for
persons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of paragraph A35(1)(c), are not
eligible to make a refugee claim [A101(1)(f)].
13. Relief provisions
Both CIC and the CBSA have policy responsibility with respect to relief provisions.
CIC has the policy responsibility for rehabilitation with respect to criminality.
The CBSA has the policy responsibility for relief based on national interest for security,
war crimes, crimes against humanity and organized crime inadmissibilities.
13.1. Overview of relief mechanisms
The relief provisions in the Act are at the discretion of the respective Ministers.
The existence of these provisions does not constitute a right for inadmissible persons to
be considered under them. An officer is not required to advise or counsel applicants on
the existence or application of these provisions. Although an officer may submit a request
for relief with a recommendation, the onus rests on the applicant to establish that relief
(that is, an exemption) is warranted. To recommend relief, an officer must be satisfied
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 54
that it is highly unlikely that the person concerned will become involved in any further
criminal activities.
There are four separate mechanisms to grant relief to inadmissible persons:
• Pardon – National Parole Board;
• Rehabilitation – Minister of C&I;
• passage of time;
• national Interest – Minister of PSEP.
Overview of relief mechanisms
The Act Mechanism Authority
A34(1) National interest Minister of PSEP [A34(2)]
A35(1)(b) and (c) National interest Minister of PSEP [A35(2)]
A36(1)(a) and A36(2)(a) Pardon National Parole Board
[A36(3)(b)]
A36(2)(a): An applicant convicted in Canada (under any Act of Parliament of two or more
summary conviction offences not arising out of a single occurrence) may be deemed rehabilitated
if at least five years have elapsed since the sentences imposed were served; has not been
refused a pardon for the offences and they have not been convicted of a subsequent offence
other than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act or an offence
under the Young Offenders Act (R18(2)(c)).
A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b) Rehabilitation Minister of C&I [A36(3)(c)]
A36(2)(b): An applicant convicted outside Canada (of an offence that if committed in Canada
would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of
imprisonment of less than 10 years) may be deemed rehabilitated if 10 years have elapsed since
the completion of the sentence imposed and they have not been convicted of a subsequent
offence other than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act or an
offence under the Young Offenders Act [R18(2)(a)(i)].
A36(2)(b): An applicant convicted outside Canada (of two or more offences not arising out of a
single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute summary conviction offences
under any Act of Parliament) may be deemed rehabilitated if five years have elapsed since the
sentences imposed were served and they have not been convicted of a subsequent offence other
than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act or an offence under
the Young Offenders Act [R18(2)(b)].
A36(1)(c) or A36(2)(c) Rehabilitation Minister of C&I [A36(3)(c)]
A36(2)(c): An applicant who committed an act outside Canada (that is an offence in the place
where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an
Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than 10 years) may be
deemed rehabilitated if 10 years have elapsed from the commission of the act and they have not
been convicted of a subsequent offence other than an offence designated as a contravention
under the Contraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act [R18(2)(a)(ii)].
A36(2)(d) Passage of time (i.e., Next
entry)
Officer
A37(1) National interest Minister of PSEP [A37(2)(a)]
A40(1) Passage of time (i.e., 2 years) Officer [A40(2)(a)]
13.2. Pardon for convictions in Canada
The Criminal Records Act provides authority for the granting of a pardon to persons who
have convictions in Canada. Applicants can request a Pardon Application Guide or
additional information from the following:
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 55
Clemency and Pardons Division
National Parole Board
10 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R1
Tel: 1-800-874-2652 (callers in Canada or U.S. only) / Fax: (613) 941-4981
Web site: http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca
Note: The guide, which includes application forms, may be downloaded from the web site.
For more information on pardons in Canada, see also chapter ENF 14, Criminal
Rehabilitation.
13.3. Criminal rehabilitation
For convictions and “committing an act” provisions outside Canada, the Act provides
authority for the Minister of C&I to approve rehabilitation. In response to a formal
application from the person concerned, rehabilitation approval is the decision of the
Minister of C&I or delegated authority, that the person is rehabilitated. To approve
rehabilitation the decision-maker must be satisfied that it is highly unlikely that the person
concerned will become involved in any further criminal activities. A positive rehabilitation
decision removes the ground of criminal inadmissibility.
For more information on criminal rehabilitation and the application process that applies,
see also chapter ENF 14, Criminal Rehabilitation.
13.4. Passage of time
Some grounds of inadmissibility cease to exist after the passage of time if the person
concerned ceases to be involved in criminal activity. In order for this to occur, a
prescribed period of time must pass since the completion of any sentence served or to be
served during the period immediately preceding the date the applicant seeks entry into
Canada.
For guidance in the interpretation of when a sentence is considered completed, see also
chapter ENF 14, Criminal Rehabilitation.
13.5. Imposed sentences incorporating a “time served” provision
In the context of having a right of appeal in order for the grounds of serious criminality to
apply, a person must have been convicted in Canada and have received a sentence of
two years or more [A64(2)].
For the purpose of calculating the term of imprisonment where there has been time
served, i.e., pre-sentence custody, the officer must verify the credit given by the criminal
court sentencing judge for the pre-sentence custody by reviewing the criminal court
transcript. If there is no indication in the transcript of how the sentencing judge has
credited the time served, each day of time served is credited as two days of a prison
sentence.
For example, if a person were sentenced to one year of imprisonment plus 183 days of
time served, the 183 days of time served would count as a 366-day sentence (2 x 183 =
366), plus a one-year sentence imposed for a total sentence of two years and one day.
There is no appeal right because the total sentence exceeds two years.
When calculating the total sentence imposed, it is imperative that the sentence be
calculated to the day and not rounded off to the month as the repercussion for meeting
the two-year threshold is loss of a right of appeal. R. v. Wust, [2000] 1 SCR 455.
A64(2) is not meant to include multiple consecutive sentences. It only refers to a single
sentence.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 56
See also ENF 19, Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
13.6. National interest
Persons who have engaged in acts involving espionage, terrorism, human rights
violations and subversion, and members of organizations engaged in such activities
including organized crime, are inadmissible to Canada. The ground of inadmissibility may
be overcome if the Minister of PSEP is satisfied that their entry into Canada is not
contrary to the national interest.
Whereas criminal rehabilitation is specific and results in a decision that the person is not
likely to re-offend, the concept of national interest is much broader. The consideration of
national interest involves the assessment and balancing of all factors pertaining to the
applicant's entry into Canada against the stated objectives of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act as well as Canada's domestic and international interests and
obligations.
When the Minister of PSEP decides that the entry into Canada of a particular individual is
not contrary to the national interest, the individual is no longer inadmissible under that
section.
For more information, see:
• Role of an officer outside Canada, below;
• Procedural fairness, below.
Role of an officer outside Canada
The relief provisions in the Act are at the discretion of the Minister of PSEP.
The existence of these provisions does not constitute a right for inadmissible persons to
be considered under them. An officer is not required to advise or counsel applicants on
the existence or application of these provisions. Although an officer may submit the
request with a recommendation, the onus rests on the applicant to establish that an
exemption is warranted.
Applicants who wish to apply for relief should be provided with the National Interest
Information Sheet as outlined in Appendix B .
The application for entry into Canada should be held in abeyance while the Minister of
PSEP considers the matter of relief.
The role of the officer in such cases is to:
• provide verification of the information provided by the applicant;
• obtain any other information that may be required;
• provide comments on the submission of the applicant;
• provide to the applicant any documents not in the applicant's possession that will be
considered by the Minister of PSEP and provide the applicant an opportunity to
respond;
• forward the submission to the appropriate section of the National Security Division at
CBSA, NHQ , with a recommendation.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 57
Procedural fairness
There is extensive case law from the Federal Court on procedural fairness in immigration
processing. It is well established that applicants are entitled to know the test they have to
meet, to have a meaningful opportunity to present the various types of evidence relevant
to their case, to provide a response to information obtained by the officer and to have
their evidence fully and fairly considered by the decision-maker. The evolution of this
doctrine in immigration processing has resulted in the following rules for the processing of
rehabilitation and relief applications submitted by the persons concerned:
• the decision-maker must make the decision on complete information. Therefore, all
documents provided by the applicant must be forwarded and presented to the
decision-maker for consideration. It is not acceptable that the contents of such
documentation be summarized in a covering memorandum and provided to the
decision-maker without attaching the primary documentation;
• except for information that must be protected for security reasons, the applicant is
entitled to receive and comment on any relevant documents obtained by the officer
that will be considered by the decision-maker. Where information must be protected,
officers should contact the appropriate bureau for guidance;
• the applicant is entitled to be advised of issues raised by the officer and to respond to
those issues;
• an officer cannot refuse to accept an application for relief if the immigration
application is in process.
13.7. National interest considerations
A submission to the Minister of PSEP should consist of three parts:
1. The first part must address the applicant's current situation with respect to the
ground of inadmissibility;
2. The second part of the submission must deal with the immigration application
and humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) considerations;
3. The third part provides the recommendation.
In order to assess the current situation regarding the ground of inadmissibility, evidence
must be produced to address the questions stated in the following table:
Question Details
Will the applicant's entry into
Canada be offensive to the
Canadian public?
• Is there satisfactory evidence that the person does not
represent a danger to the public?
• Was the activity an isolated event? If not, over what period
of time did it occur?
• When did the activities occur?
• Was violence involved?
• Was the person personally involved or complicit in the
activities of the regime/organization?
• Is the regime/organization internationally recognized as one
that uses violence to achieve its goals? If so, what is the
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 58
degree of violence shown by the organization?
• What was the length of time that the applicant was a
member of the regime/organization?
• Is the organization still involved in criminal or violent
activities?
• What was the role or position of the person within the
regime/organization?
• Did the person benefit from their membership or from the
activities of the organization?
• Is there evidence to indicate that the person was not aware
of the atrocities/criminal/terrorist activities committed by the
regime/organization?
Have all ties with the regime/
organization been completely
severed?
• Has the applicant been credible, forthright, and candid
concerning the activities/membership that have barred entry
into Canada or has the applicant tried to minimize his role?
• What evidence exists to demonstrate that ties have been
severed?
• What are the details concerning disassociation from the
regime/organization? Did the applicant disassociate from the
regime/organization at the first opportunity? Why?
• Is the applicant currently associated with any individuals still
involved in the regime/organization?
• Does the applicant's lifestyle demonstrate stability or a
pattern of activity likely associated with a criminal lifestyle?
Is there any indication that the
applicant might be benefiting
from assets obtained while a
member of the organization?
• Is the applicant's lifestyle consistent with Personal Net Worth
(PNW) and current employment?
• If not, provide evidence to establish that the applicant's PNW
did not come from criminal activities.
Is there any indication that the
applicant may be benefiting
from previous membership in
the regime/organization?
• Does the applicant's lifestyle demonstrate any possible
benefits from former membership in the regime/
organization?
• Does the applicant's status in the community demonstrate
any special treatment due to former membership in the
regime/organization?
Has the person adopted the
democratic values of Canadian
society?
• What is the applicant's current attitude towards the regime/
organization, his membership, and his activities on behalf of
the regime/organization?
• Does the applicant still share the values and lifestyle known
to be associated with the organization?
• Does the applicant show any remorse for their membership
or activities?
• What is the applicant's current attitude towards violence to
achieve political change?
• What is the applicant's attitude towards the rule of law and
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 59
democratic institutions, as they are understood in Canada?
The second part of the submission should deal with the immigration application and any
humanitarian and compassionate considerations. This includes:
• details of immigration application/status;
• Canadian interest including family in Canada and abroad;
• is the applicant a Convention refugee;
• does the applicant meet all other statutory requirements.
The recommendation should include a supporting rationale.
The rationale should demonstrate a thorough assessment and balancing of all factors
relating to the entry into Canada of the person in accordance with the explanation of
national interest as noted in Section 13.6 of this chapter.
The submission, with all supporting documents, should be marked to the attention of the
appropriate division and submitted by mail to the following address:
Director General
Case Management Branch
Citizenship and Immigration
Jean Edmonds North Tower
300 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ont. K1A 1L1
Should an officer require assistance with respect to a relief request, they may contact the
appropriate section as follows:
For persons described in A34(1) contact the
Security Review Section by e-mail: Nat-Security-Review@cic.gc.ca.
For persons described in A35(1) contact the Modern War Crimes Section by e-mail:
Nat-WARCRIMES@cic.gc.ca.
For persons described in A37(1) contact the Organized Crime Section by e-mail:
Nat-Organized-Crime@cic.gc.ca.
14. Definitions
14.1. Committing an act
Division 4 inadmissibility provisions refer numerous times to the term “act.” Section A33
makes specific reference to the term “omissions.” The term “act” is referred to extensively
in sections A34 through A36. A41(a) has both the terms act and omission within its
provisions.
What is an “act” or “omission”?
“Act”— an act is something done; a completed action; something that happened such as
an event or circumstance.
“Omission”—an omission is a failure to do something, including the deliberate failure to
act.
14.2. Conviction
A conviction is a finding by a competent authority that a person is guilty of an offence.
A charge or a confession is not a conviction.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 60
In cases involving a charge or a confession, the use of the “committing an act” provisions
within IRPA may be appropriate.
A conviction does not exist in the following situations:
• the conviction is set aside on appeal;
• the court grants an absolute or conditional discharge as provided for in the Criminal
Code;
• the person is granted a pardon in a foreign jurisdiction and the pardon is recognized
as equivalent to a Canadian pardon.
For more information on the effect of foreign pardons, see ENF 14, Section 27, Pardons
outside Canada.
A conviction does exist in the following situations:
• the court delivers a suspended sentence;
• the person appeals the conviction;
• the person is convicted in absentia.
To assist officers in determining whether a conviction has occurred in the United States
(U.S.), the following table provides some commonly used terminology in the U.S. along
with the relative Canadian interpretation. All officers should use these interpretations so
that the various provisions of the Act may be applied both consistently and universally.
U.S. criminal dispositions
Terminology used Defined
Acquittal contemplating
dismissal
Not a conviction; would likely have the same effect as a
conditional discharge.
Deferral of sentence This is a conviction providing the offence equates to Canadian
law; similar to a suspended sentence in Canadian law.
Deferral of prosecution Not a conviction. A deferral indicates that no trial on the merits of
the charge has been held; similar to a stay in Canadian law.
Deferral of judgment Not a conviction. If the conditions imposed in the deferral are
fulfilled, the judgment finally rendered may be a finding of "not
guilty."
Deferral of conviction Not a conviction. It is a form of disposition equivalent to a
conditional discharge in Canada.
Nolo contendre A Latin phrase meaning "I will not contest it." It is a plea that may
be allowed by the court in which the accused does not deny or
admit to the charges.
This plea is similar to pleading guilty and a conviction results.
Nolle prosequi A Latin phrase meaning "I will no longer prosecute." The effect is
similar to a stay of prosecution in Canada and no conviction
results.
Sealed record A sealed record is, for the purposes of IRPA, a criminal record.
The fact that a sealed record exists does not in and of itself
constitute inadmissibility. An officer should determine the
circumstances of the sealed record by questioning the person
concerned.
A sealed record is usually the process used in the case of young
offenders; however, a sealed record may also be used because
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 61
of an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant or in
security cases.
In the state of Vermont, for example, a record may be sealed if a
person abides by terms and conditions imposed by the court. A
sealed record will appear on a person’s “rap sheet”; however,
the record will not be made public without a court order.
In the case of a sealed record, an officer should ask whether the
record was the result of a conviction as a minor. If the person
was a minor, then it would most likley equate to an offence
under the Young Offenders Act - unless the case would have
been eligible for transfer to an adult court.
Convicted of several counts Multiple convictions. Counts in the U.S. are equivalent to
charges in Canadian law.
Expunged Not a conviction. Expunged means to strike out; obliterate; mark
for deletion; to efface completely; deemed to have never
occurred.
14.3. Omission
See Section 14.1, Committing an act.
14.4. Organization
An organization refers to any partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity
and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.
An organization contains the following elements:
• an association with a common purpose and continuity of structure and personnel
although this does not imply that personnel will not change over time;
• the members of the organization must function as a continuing unit as shown by a
hierarchical or consensual decision-making structure;
• normally not an organization that briefly flourishes and then fades;
• an organization can consist of central and local structures;
• a system of authority directs the group's pattern of activity on a continuing rather than
a singular basis;
• the fact that some changes occur in the structure does not mean that there is not a
structure of continuity;
• a group of corporations can be an organization;
• an informal and loosely connected criminal network can be an organization.
14.5. Pattern of criminal activity
A pattern of criminal activity:
• signifies a common scheme, plan or motive and is not simply a series of
disconnected acts;
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 62
• contemplates multiple transactions or episodes, not just multiple acts, to promote an
illegal objective;
• cannot be established without some indication that the acts are interrelated and that
there is continuity or threat of continuity.
14.6. Withholding
Withholding is to hold back from doing or taking an action; to keep (within); to refrain from
granting, giving, allowing or “letting ‘it’ be known.” A person can misrepresent themself by
being silent just as easily as a person who actively states a mistruth. A person who
refuses or declines to answer a question, preferring instead to allow outdated or false
information to be accepted as current or true information, is engaging in the activity of
misrepresentation.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 63
Appendix A Examples of criminal equivalents
United States of America (USA) - Internal Revenue Code
Paragraph 7206(1) of 26 USC 1976 (the Internal Revenue Code of the United States)
provides that "Any person who
wilfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document which contains or
is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which
he does not believe to be true and correct as to any material matter . . .
shall be guilty of a felony . . . "
A corresponding Canadian provision might be paragraph 239(1)(a) of the Income Tax
Act, which stipulates that "every person who has
(a) made, or participated in, assented to or acquiesced in the making of, false or
deceptive statements in a return, certificate, statement or answer filed or made as
required by or under this Act or a regulation . . .
is guilty of an offence . . ."
You could analyse the elements of these two provisions for equivalence as follows:
Foreign provision Canadian provision Equivalent element
any person who every person who
wilfully makes and subscribes made, or participated in,
assented to or acquiesced in
the making
The foreign offence states the
element of intent ("willfully").
While the Canadian offence
does not specifically refer to
intent, it would be argued that
intention is clearly a required
element of the Canadian
offence. While the U.S.
provision refers to making a
return, the Canadian statute
refers to making a statement in
a return. It would be argued that
both statutes attempt to control
the making of false statements
in returns, and while the
language of the statutes may
differ, their intent and operation
are the same.
makes any return return filed or made Equivalent element.
which contains or is verified as required by or under this Act
or a regulation
The Canadian offence may be
wider in that it does not require
the return to be verified by a
written declaration made under
penalties of perjury. The point is
arguable since the Canadian
statute contemplates that the
return will be filed "as required
by or under this Act or a
regulation." Research of the
Canadian statute may or may
not reveal a Canadian
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 64
compliance method equivalent
to that contained in the U.S.
statute. The argument here
could be, first, that the two
elements are equivalent on their
face; second, that the
adjudicator should find that the
"narrower" U.S. element is
included in the more broadly
defined Canadian element and
is therefore equivalent; and
third, that if it is found that there
is no equivalency on this
element, it is irrelevant to the
adjudicator's decision because
the difference between the two
elements is one of form, not of
substance, and in any event,
the element is not essential to
the offence.
and which he does not believe in the making of false or
deceptive statements
The Canadian offence, it might
be argued, is more broadly
defined than the U.S. offence,
since it contemplates the
making of merely deceptive
statements (which may well be
true), as well as false
statements. The U.S. statute
refers to statements not
believed to be true and correct.
One could argue that these
elements are equivalent and
that, in any event, the element
of the narrower American
offence is included within the
more broadly defined Canadian
offence.
by a written declaration that it is
made under the penalties of
perjury to be true and correct as
to any material matter
The U.S. statute refers to "any
material matter," implying,
perhaps, that untrue and
incorrect statements might be
permissible in a return if they
were immaterial. Fortunately the
Canadian statute, by omitting
the concept of materiality,
forces us to address the whole
of the return as to false or
deceptive statements, not just
material matters. This, it could
be argued, is a more broadly
defined approach than that
taken in the U.S. statute, and
therefore the element of the
U.S. statute is included in the
Canadian element.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 65
Based on this analysis, or similar arguments, an officer could say that the statute
provisions are equivalent.
Hong Kong Prevention of Bribery Ordinance
Paragraph 9(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Prevention of Bribery Ordinance provides that:
9.(1)"Any agent who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, solicits or accepts
any advantage as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of his
b) showing or forbearing to show, or having shown or forborne to show, favour or
disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business,
shall be guilty of an offence."
A corresponding Canadian provision might be subsection 426(1) of the Criminal Code:
"426.(1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) corruptly
(ii) being an agent, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person,
any reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for doing or forbearing to
do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act relating to the affairs or business of his
principal or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person with
relation to the affairs or business of his principal . . .”
One could analyse the elements of these two provisions for equivalence as follows:
Foreign provision Canadian provision Comments
Any agent who agent Apparently equivalent
without lawful authority or
reasonable excuse
corruptly Not equivalent - In Li (34
Imm.L.R. (2nd), page 109 (Fed.
C.A.)) the term “corruptly” was
held to mean “without
disclosure” in Canadian law;
and as such, would make it
narrower than the Hong Kong
offence.
solicits or accepts demands, accepts, offers or
agrees to accept
Apparently equivalent
any advantage any reward, advantage or
benefit of any kind
Apparently equivalent
as an inducement to or reward
for or otherwise
as consideration Apparently equivalent
Showing favour to any person showing favour to any person Apparently equivalent
in relation to his principal's
affairs or business
with relation to the affairs or
business of his principal
Apparently equivalent
It is certainly arguable that these two offences are equivalent. They seem to contain the
same essential elements and would appear to have been enacted to achieve the same
quality and degree of social regulation.
South Africa Road Traffic Ordinance
Subsection 135(1) of the South Africa Road Traffic Ordinance provides that:
"The driver of a vehicle on a public road at the time when such vehicle is involved in or
contributes to any accident in which any other person is killed or injured or suffers
damage in respect of any property or animal
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 66
(a) shall immediately stop the vehicle;
(b) shall ascertain the nature and extent of any damage sustained."
Section 252 of the Criminal Code stipulates that:
“252.(1) Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a
vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with
(a) another person,
(b) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or
(c) in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of a person,
and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability, fails to stop his vehicle, vessel or, if
possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been
injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance . . .
(2) In proceedings under subsection (1), evidence that an accused failed to stop his
vehicle, vessel, or where possible, his aircraft, as the case may be, offer assistance
where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, and give his name
and address is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of an intent to escape
civil or criminal liability.”
One could analyse the elements of these two provisions for equivalence as follows:
Foreign provision Canadian provision Comments
The driver of a vehicle on a
public road
Every person who has the care,
charge or control of a vehicle
The Canadian element is more
broadly defined. The argument
could be made that a "driver" in
the South African provision
would be included in "Every
person who has the care,
charge or control" in the
Canadian provision. Note that
the element of the Canadian
offence does not require that
the offence take place on a
public road.
at the time when such vehicle is
involved in or contributes to any
accident
that is involved in an accident These elements would appear
to be equivalent.
in which any other person
suffers damage in respect of
any property
Note the manner in which
"damage" is treated in the
South African provision, which
includes a penalty for failure to
stop to ascertain damage. The
Canadian offence provides a
penalty for failure to stop with
intent to escape civil or criminal
liability.
shall immediately stop the
vehicle
fails to stop his vehicle These elements are arguably
equivalent although phrased
differently.
with intent to escape civil or
criminal liability
Intention to escape civil or
criminal liability is not an
element of the South African
offence. The onus in the South
African offence is to stop to
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 67
ascertain the nature and extent
of damage.
It could be argued in this situation that the essential element of the Canadian provision
that is, the intention to escape civil or criminal liability is not contained in the South
African offence which focuses on the obligation to stop to ascertain the nature and extent
of any damage sustained. Thus, although the offences are similar in nature, an
Immigration Division member may not find them equivalent.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 68
Appendix B National Interest Information Sheet
You have asked for relief under paragraph __________ of Canada's Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (ACT), which reads as follows:
You may be exempted from this ground of inadmissibility if the Minister of PSEP decides
that your entry into Canada would not be contrary to Canada's national interest. The
consideration of national interest involves the assessment and balancing of all factors
pertaining to your entry into Canada against the stated objectives in Canada's
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as any possible impact on Canada's
domestic and international interests and obligations.
If you wish to be considered for this exemption, the onus rests with you to prepare a
submission along with any supporting documentation that you deem relevant. To assist
you in preparing your submission, it is suggested that you address the following:
Why are you immigrating to Canada?
Are there any special circumstances surrounding your application?
Provide evidence that you do not constitute a danger to the public.
Explain current activities you are involved in (employment, education, family situation,
involvement in the community etc.).
If the ground of inadmissibility involves membership in a regime or organization, explain
the purpose of the organization, your role in the organization and activities in which you
were involved. You must provide extensive detail and be very thorough in explaining this,
including dates, locations and impact of these activities. How long ago and for how long
were you a member? Did these activities involve violence? If you are claiming to no
longer be a member of this regime or organization, you must provide evidence.
Explain when and why you disassociated yourself from the regime/organization and
whether you are still involved with persons who are members of the regime/organization.
Lastly, explain your current attitude towards this regime/organization, its goals and
objectives and how you feel about the means it has chosen to achieve its objectives.
Your submission need not be restricted to the above. You may provide any information
and documents that you think may strengthen your request for an exemption.
Your submission, in English or French, should be provided to the local CBSA immigration
office which will review your request, seek any required clarification and forward it to the
Minister of PSEP with a recommendation.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 69
Appendix C International sanctions for the purpose of A35(1)(c)
(Last Updated: 9 June 2005 – The Canadian Economic Sanctions Web site of
International Trade Canada, found at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/trade/sanctionsen.
asp,provides summaries of existing sanctions, including links to various lists. Officers
are encouraged to visit the Web site to verify if new sanctions have been added, old
sanctions removed, or if lists have been updated.)
Country Restriction Method
Enforced
Afghanistan No travel by senior officials belonging to or associated with the
Taliban or Al-Qaida organization as stated by UNSCR
resolution 1390 paragraph 2(b), 1267 para. 4(b) and UNSCR
1333, para. 8(c).
UN Committee Web site identifies those persons at:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/tablelist.htm
A35(1)
Democratic
Republic of
Congo
(Kinshasa)
Resolution 1596 (2005) of the UNSC has expanded UNSCR
1493 (2003) to apply the arms embargo to any recipient within
the DRC’s territory, and impose a travel ban and assets freeze
on those violating the embargo. The resolution is explained on
the press release page at:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8361.doc.htm
The Regulations Amending the United Nations Democratic
Republic of the Congo Regulations P.C. 2005-1718 entered
into force on October 4, 2005. Information can be found at:
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2005/20051019/html/sor306-
e.html
The Regulations Amending the United Nations Democratic
Republic of the Congo Regulations modify the arms embargo
and impose an assets freeze and a travel ban to persons
identified by a UN Committee. A list of persons has been
published on November 1, 2005, and can be found at:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/DRC/1533_list.htm
A35(1)
Ivory Coast Resolution 1572 (2004) of the UNSC has imposed a travel ban
and a freeze of assets on designated persons who constitute a
threat to the peace and reconciliation process in Ivory Coast.
Additional information on Resolution 1572 may be found at
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/trade/sanctions-en.asp#ivoire. See
also the press release at:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8261.doc.htm and
the Canada Gazette at:
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2005/20050518/html/sor127-
e.html
The list of persons under this travel ban and assets freeze can
be consulted at:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/CITemplate.htm
A35(1)
Liberia Restrictions on travel of senior government and military officials
from Liberia, together with other individuals providing financial
and military support to armed rebel groups in countries
neighbouring Liberia, pursuant to Resolution 1343 of UNSCR.
The UN Committee Web site identifies those persons at:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/Liberia3/1521_list.htm
Resolution UNSCR 1579 (2004) has updated Resolution 1521
(2003) of the UNSC to expand the travel ban list. The latest
A35(1)
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 70
version of the travel ban list may be accessed at the following
URL:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8359.doc.htm
Sierra Leone No travel by members of the military junta or adult members of
their family, as designated by para. 10(f), UNSCR 1132 (1997),
restated by para. 5, UNSCR 1171.
The UN Committee Web site identifies those persons at:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/
committees/SierraLeone/1132_list.htm
A35(1)
Sudan Resolution 1591 (2005) of the UNSC imposes a travel ban and
a freeze of assets on those who impede the peace process in
Darfur. The resolution is explained on the press release found
at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8346.doc.htm
Resolution 1672 (2006) adopted by the Security Council at its
5423rd meeting on 25 April 2006 decides to impose a travel ban
and assets freeze, as per paragraph 3 of Resolution 1591
(2005), in respect to four individuals. The text of Resolution
1672 (2006) with the names of the individuals concerned can
be found at:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/Sudan/SudanResEng.ht
m
A35(1)
Syria Resolution 1636 (2005) of the UN Security Council imposes a
travel ban and an assets freeze against individuals suspected
of involvement in the planning, sponsoring, organizing or
perpetrating of the terrorist bombing that killed former Lebanese
Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The resolution is explained in the
press release found at:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8543.doc.htm
No travel ban list has yet been established; therefore no one
has been designated under this travel ban.
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 71
Appendix D Form Cases where Money Laundering and/or Terrorist Financing is Suspected
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Cases where money laundering _____and/or terrorist financing is suspected _____
Office: Officer: File Number:
Date, place and
time of interview or interception
Applicant Full Name:
Alias:
Date and place of birth:
Citizenship(s):
Address in country of residence:
Accompanying family members:
Passport details:
Application type:
Occupation:
Employer:
Address and phone number of employer:
Contact name/ supervisor:
Destination Name of host:
Address and telephone number:
Relationship:
Name of host organization:
Address and phone number:
Purpose of trip:
Funds (specify currency) In his/her possession
Available:
Bank accounts Name of financial institution:
Location:
Branch/ transit number:
Account number:
Balance and date:
If multiple accounts are of concern, continue in this section
Credit cards Name of financial institution:
Location:
Credit card number:
If multiple accounts are of concern, continue in this section
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Association of concern:
Business:
Company name:
Address and phone number:
Contact name:
Field of business:
Concerns in regards to business:
Charitable, Not for Proofit,
Non Government Organization:
Name of organization:
ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility
2006-05-24 72
Address and phone number:
Contact name:
Registration number:
Purpose of organization:
Concerns in regards to organization:
Associate Name:
Date and place of birth (if available):
Address and phone number:
Concerns in regards to associate:
Specific concerns Explain the areas of concern in relation to
potential money laudering activities or terrorist
financing activities: