Dui Conviction over 10 years wife sponsorship

[Ponga]

we have the court papers for everything, including the conviction date, all her classes and everything she had to do to complete her sentence, it just says that her probation was 36 months on her court papers it doesn't show the end date, we will consult with someone asap to find out what exactly we need to do

If she is in Canada now...

Not to pour salt into the wound, but she should consider keeping a low profile in Canada until she gets some legal guidance. Even a simple traffic stop (which are uber popular this time of year [for good reason]) could expose her situation. This is not to say that she should barricade herself in the house. LOL!

 

[fashiontart]

So, my husband has this exact scenario. American, DUI from 2015. You're automatically deemed 'rehabilitated' after ten years (from when your 'sentence' ends, not the incident itself). But you can apply to be rehabilitated after 5. We consulted with an immigration attorney before applying, and she told us we HAD to apply for the rehabilitation before we applied. We started compiling all of the information (which was a lot). In the end, we consulted my MP (we had a few different questions about the application, and that was one of them). Our MP contacted IRCC directly, and IRCC told them we did NOT need to apply for rehabilitation, and could proceed with the application as normal - because my husband had never been denied entry to Canada. They said that is the major thing they look for - that you've never been turned away at the border. So when we applied, we wrote a Letter of Explanation stating that he'd been back and forth dozens of times (including 6 months after his arrest), and had never been turned away.

We still received a letter from IRCC 10 months after applying asking for further information on the incident and proof that he finished his sentence and all of that. My husband had kept a file with any paperwork he was given. We also looked it up (some states have court files online that you can search for) and screenshot where it says the case was finalized or whatever. We scanned all of the paperwork. And wrote a very detailed LoE explaining how it all played out and when he finished probation. And we also fully reiterated that he had NEVER been denied entry at the border. AND we also said he has had a clean / safe driving record since. We sent the letter in September, and we just got our application approved literally yesterday.

A couple of the posters here are saying that the letter means your wife IS inadmissible, but that's not how I read it at all. They're saying - prove she isn't. So I'd do what we did. Reiterate she's never been turned away. Give detailed information about her case and talk about learning her lesson, etc.

 

[fashiontart]

Sorry - one more thing, just on people saying she's automatically inadmissible - it's up to the border agent, ultimately. It's not automatic. With my husband - he's stopped at the border (ESPECIALLY if he's crossing at a land border rather than flying) and questioned every time, and he is honest and tells them the same thing every time. And they've always, always let him in. That's very important to IRCC. But it is not automatic, and I really don't think she has to lay low. If they let her into the country, they knew full well what her record is (they can see it when they search you at the border). No one on a traffic stop is going to send her out of the country for having a DUI once 10+ years ago.

 

[scylla]

So, my husband has this exact scenario. American, DUI from 2015. You're automatically deemed 'rehabilitated' after ten years (from when your 'sentence' ends, not the incident itself). But you can apply to be rehabilitated after 5. We consulted with an immigration attorney before applying, and she told us we HAD to apply for the rehabilitation before we applied. We started compiling all of the information (which was a lot). In the end, we consulted my MP (we had a few different questions about the application, and that was one of them). Our MP contacted IRCC directly, and IRCC told them we did NOT need to apply for rehabilitation, and could proceed with the application as normal - because my husband had never been denied entry to Canada. They said that is the major thing they look for - that you've never been turned away at the border. So when we applied, we wrote a Letter of Explanation stating that he'd been back and forth dozens of times (including 6 months after his arrest), and had never been turned away.

We still received a letter from IRCC 10 months after applying asking for further information on the incident and proof that he finished his sentence and all of that. My husband had kept a file with any paperwork he was given. We also looked it up (some states have court files online that you can search for) and screenshot where it says the case was finalized or whatever. We scanned all of the paperwork. And wrote a very detailed LoE explaining how it all played out and when he finished probation. And we also fully reiterated that he had NEVER been denied entry at the border. AND we also said he has had a clean / safe driving record since. We sent the letter in September, and we just got our application approved literally yesterday.

A couple of the posters here are saying that the letter means your wife IS inadmissible, but that's not how I read it at all. They're saying - prove she isn't. So I'd do what we did. Reiterate she's never been turned away. Give detailed information about her case and talk about learning her lesson, etc.

Just to clarify, the wife is in fact inadmissible due to the DUI and the fact she doesn't meet the requirements yet for being deemed rehabilitated. Being inadmissible has nothing to do with whether someone has been refused at the border or not. She is inabmissible due to the criminal issue and will remain inadmissible until either the 10 years pass and she is deemed rehabilitated or until IRCC processes a rehabilitation application to remove the inadmissibility.

Congrats on being approved BTW. It means that IRCC went ahead with a rehab application as part of your PR application to remove the inadmissibility.

 

[fashiontart]

Just to clarify, the wife is in fact inadmissible due to the DUI and the fact she doesn't meet the requirements yet for being deemed rehabilitated. Being inadmissible has nothing to do with whether someone has been refused at the border or not. She is inabmissible due to the criminal issue and will remain inadmissible until either the 10 years pass and she is deemed rehabilitated or until IRCC processes a rehabilitation application to remove the inadmissibility.

Congrats on being approved BTW. It means that IRCC went ahead with a rehab application as part of your PR application to remove the inadmissibility.

Not doubting your knowledge here - but just to be clear. We did NOT submit a rehab application with our PR application. The rehab application was much more involved than the PR application (in certain aspects), and requires police certificates from every state he's lived in (it was 5 or 6 in his case) and several other things that we never included. IRCC would not have been able to fill one out for us. They maybe have the ability to flip a switch on rehabilitation, but not the application for it.

Also the Gov't of Canada website says that that being criminally inadmissible means the person is not allowed to enter Canada because of having committed or convicted of a crime. So I can't really understand why you're saying being inadmissible has nothing to do with being refused at the border? It's the literal definition. Inadmissible. Not admitted. In this case, she was admitted. My husband was admitted over and over again (and they questioned him on the DUI at every border crossing).

As I said - my MP talked to IRCC directly and they're the ones who said we didn't need to fill out the application because we were never refused at the border and that's what was important to them.

 

[Ponga]

Also the Gov't of Canada website says that that being criminally inadmissible means the person is not allowed to enter Canada because of having committed or convicted of a crime. So I can't really understand why you're saying being inadmissible has nothing to do with being refused at the border? It's the literal definition. Inadmissible. Not admitted. In this case, she was admitted. My husband was admitted over and over again (and they questioned him on the DUI at every border crossing).

As I said - my MP talked to IRCC directly and they're the ones who said we didn't need to fill out the application because we were never refused at the border and that's what was important to them.

I will echo what @scylla has already stated. A person with a DUI conviction, where 10 years have not passed since the completion of their sentence, are in fact inadmissible. If they are not `detected' when entering Canada, that's really a potential flaw in the system, but having said that, perhaps it's a Secondary Inspection that would have found the DUI in the case of the OP's wife. To digress, IRCC also says that a PR must have a valid PR card to return to Canada via a commercial carrier, which is not true for all PRs. A PR with a valid U.S. passport can `return' (travel) on that alone (to board a plane). All other PR holders must have a valid card to appease the carrier. This has NOTHING to do with `entering' Canada, since the `entering' part comes well after a passenger has exited the aircraft.

When I suggested `laying low', that was merely that; a suggestion "...she should consider...". If the OP's wife is stopped (for whatever reason) and is asked to produce her DL, it is certainly possible that the DUI would show up if/when the officer runs it through the system and if questioned about it, could only add to their angst. Law enforcement has immediate access to things like this, where CBSA may have to send the person to Secondary to find it. But again...it was only a suggestion.

It would seem logical that the visa officer working on the application has deduced that 10 years have NOT passed since the completion of the sentence and, at least at this point, would have the right to refuse the application. The OP cannot dispute that fact.

I, like everyone else here I'm sure, hope that the application is ultimately approved.

 

[fashiontart]

I will echo what @scylla has already stated. A person with a DUI conviction, where 10 years have not passed since the completion of their sentence, are in fact inadmissible. If they are not `detected' when entering Canada, that's really a potential flaw in the system, but having said that, perhaps it's a Secondary Inspection that would have found the DUI in the case of the OP's wife. To digress, IRCC also says that a PR must have a valid PR card to enter Canada via a commercial carrier, which is not true. A PR with a valid U.S. passport can travel on that alone (to board a plane). All other PR holders must have a valid card to appease the carrier. This has NOTHING to do with `entering' Canada, since the `entering' part comes well after a passenger has exited the aircraft.

When I suggested `laying low', that was merely that; a suggestion "...she should consider...". If the OP's wife is stopped (for whatever reason) and is asked to produce their DL, it is certainly possible that the DUI would show up if/when the officer runs it through the system and if questioned about it, could only add to their angst. But again...it was only a suggestion.

It would seem logical that the visa officer working on the application has deduced that 10 years have NOT passed since the completion of the sentence and, at least at this point, would have the right to refuse the application. The OP cannot dispute that fact.

I, like everyone else here I'm sure, hope that the application is ultimately approved.

In my husband's specific case - he's entered Canada dozens of times since his DUI, and it was definitely not undetected. At the land borders specifically. Each and every time, he was asked if he was ever arrested (because they can see the flag in the system). He is honest and explains the situation every time. It is all up front and out in the open. And every single time, they've let him in. At a half dozen different land borders. With a countless number of border agents. And in our PR application, we submitted a detailed LoE explaining everything including dates and all of the rest.

For the OP - I'd start compiling those state police certificates for the rehab app right away. Most of the states my husband lived in only accepted money orders and paper mail applications. One or two states only took a few days, but a few took several weeks. It would be ideal if you could have the whole app done within the 30 days to submit with your Letter of Explanation. But I'd still submit all of the paperwork you have on her court case with it.

 

[Ponga]

In my husband's specific case - he's entered Canada dozens of times since his DUI, and it was definitely not undetected. At the land borders specifically. Each and every time, he was asked if he was ever arrested (because they can see the flag in the system). He is honest and explains the situation every time. It is all up front and out in the open. And every single time, they've let him in. At a half dozen different land borders. With a countless number of border agents. And in our PR application, we submitted a detailed LoE explaining everything including dates and all of the rest.

And THAT'S the problem, because technically he was inadmissible, right? Nothing judgemental towards your husband, just identifying a perceived flaw in the system. There are a few different CBSA Enforcement Manuals (ENF-04, for example) that speak to criminality/admissibility issues, when assessing a FN at a POE, but...it's clearly not `enforced' 100% of the time. Here's what is found in ENF-04:

7.6 Criminality

BSOs at the PIL shall not ask a FN about criminality during a PIL examination. Questions
about criminaity are better suited for Immigration Secondary, where B S Os have more time to conduct a full examination and to question a person in a more private setting. Consequently, when a BSO at the PIL suspects, through questioning, lookouts and IPIL, or other indicators, that a FN may have a criminal record, the FN should be referred to an Immigration Secondary examination. All BSOs at Immigration Secondary should take care to ensure privacy by not questioning a person about criminality in the presence of accompanying family members or other travellers.


It's that passive use of ``should' be referred to an Immigration Secondary examination', that seems to be the real issue. Also bolis down to simply the mood of the officer, like it or not.
---


Good advice regarding the PCCs for the OP's wife, just in case she needs them.

 

[armoured]

Also the Gov't of Canada website says that that being criminally inadmissible means the person is not allowed to enter Canada because of having committed or convicted of a crime. So I can't really understand why you're saying being inadmissible has nothing to do with being refused at the border? It's the literal definition. Inadmissible. Not admitted.

In this instance, 'inadmissible' is used as a legal term under an act of parliament and does not correspond (exactly anyway) to the common sense/language definition. It has a specific legal sense with implications under that act of parliament - of course, it overlaps, in that someone can be refused entry, but it's not the same thing.

This type of distinction is something you can discuss with a lawyer. If you want an analogy, think of the common use of the word 'criminal' and legal usage.

 

[Ponga]

So, my husband has this exact scenario. American, DUI from 2015. You're automatically deemed 'rehabilitated' after ten years (from when your 'sentence' ends, not the incident itself). But you can apply to be rehabilitated after 5. We consulted with an immigration attorney before applying, and she told us we HAD to apply for the rehabilitation before we applied. We started compiling all of the information (which was a lot). In the end, we consulted my MP (we had a few different questions about the application, and that was one of them). Our MP contacted IRCC directly, and IRCC told them we did NOT need to apply for rehabilitation, and could proceed with the application as normal - because my husband had never been denied entry to Canada. They said that is the major thing they look for - that you've never been turned away at the border. So when we applied, we wrote a Letter of Explanation stating that he'd been back and forth dozens of times (including 6 months after his arrest), and had never been turned away.

Wow! Talk about lucky!!

 

[Hanedu]

Good day my people. I brought my husband here 7 month ago. He has started cheating on me and he has drinking problems. He is very aggressive and violent. I was pregnant 5 month due to the stress he has put me through I have lost my baby. I have other kids that are always scares of him. He has not tried to build relationships with my children. He has sister here who is misleading him. I have had them speak about him leaving me. I have txt messages of him chatting with other women and he told another woman that he has pregnant ed someone but he is not sure if the baby is his. I want this guy to be deported back. He has been drinking and driving but he has not been stopped by police yet? If he gets stopped by police and found him drunk is there any possibility that he will be deported? He drinks 1litter of whisky at one night. Any advice will be helpful. Thank you.

 

[Naturgrl]

Good day my people. I brought my husband here 7 month ago. He has started cheating on me and he has drinking problems. He is very aggressive and violent. I was pregnant 5 month due to the stress he has put me through I have lost my baby. I have other kids that are always scares of him. He has not tried to build relationships with my children. He has sister here who is misleading him. I have had them speak about him leaving me. I have txt messages of him chatting with other women and he told another woman that he has pregnant ed someone but he is not sure if the baby is his. I want this guy to be deported back. He has been drinking and driving but he has not been stopped by police yet? If he gets stopped by police and found him drunk is there any possibility that he will be deported? He drinks 1litter of whisky at one night. Any advice will be helpful. Thank you.

So sorry for your situation. If he is PR then no he will not be deported. You can leave him and file for divorce. If he is violent towards you then call the police.

If you supported his PR application, then you are responsible for him for the next 3 years even if you do file for divorce. If he goes on social assistance, then you will be on the hook for paying it back to the government.

 

[Ponga]

Good day my people. I brought my husband here 7 month ago. He has started cheating on me and he has drinking problems. He is very aggressive and violent. I was pregnant 5 month due to the stress he has put me through I have lost my baby. I have other kids that are always scares of him. He has not tried to build relationships with my children. He has sister here who is misleading him. I have had them speak about him leaving me. I have txt messages of him chatting with other women and he told another woman that he has pregnant ed someone but he is not sure if the baby is his. I want this guy to be deported back. He has been drinking and driving but he has not been stopped by police yet? If he gets stopped by police and found him drunk is there any possibility that he will be deported? He drinks 1litter of whisky at one night. Any advice will be helpful. Thank you.

So sorry to hear your story.

Is your husband a PR of Canada? If he is, there's nothing that you can do [directly] to have him deported, or his PR status being revoked. WHEN he is pulled over/stopped for driving under the influence, if he is later found guilty, would almost certainly be deported. As of 2018 this is now considered a serious crime in Canada making anyone other than a Canadian citizen inadmissible to Canada...even those like your husband that are already here.

You could also go into your local RCMP detachment and alert them (asking for anonymity) to his driving whilst drinking...as difficult as that may be.

 

[canuck78]

Good day my people. I brought my husband here 7 month ago. He has started cheating on me and he has drinking problems. He is very aggressive and violent. I was pregnant 5 month due to the stress he has put me through I have lost my baby. I have other kids that are always scares of him. He has not tried to build relationships with my children. He has sister here who is misleading him. I have had them speak about him leaving me. I have txt messages of him chatting with other women and he told another woman that he has pregnant ed someone but he is not sure if the baby is his. I want this guy to be deported back. He has been drinking and driving but he has not been stopped by police yet? If he gets stopped by police and found him drunk is there any possibility that he will be deported? He drinks 1litter of whisky at one night. Any advice will be helpful. Thank you.

It looks like your PR sponsorship was denied and you appealed the refusal. It’s unfortunate that many don’t see the warning signs even when IRCC sees them or are under the false impression that you can easily get a spouse deported if things don’t work out when the spouse arrives in Canada. You should separate from your spouse for your family’s personal safety and because you don’t deserve a partner who cheats on you but you can only attempt to get him deported if you have proof that the relationship was only about immigration. Most attempts to prove that a relationship was solely a relationship based on immigration aren’t successful and do not lead to deportation.