Assault case charged and withdrawn - Citizenship application

[Ryan4]

Honestly, stop posting just for the sake of posting.

Again, the discussion was about charges which have been withdrawn or dropped. In Canada, when charges are dropped, it's not specifically noted but it's what's equivalent of with prejudice. Only in very very exceptional situations the charges are brought back again so anyone in that situation will a sweet No.

Go on and write another essay but your posts are pretty much redundant and not relevant.

Exactly, that’s what we are discussing!!! It’s not that hard to comprehend

 

[dpenabill]

Honestly, stop posting just for the sake of posting.

Again, the discussion was about charges which have been withdrawn or dropped. In Canada, when charges are dropped, it's not specifically noted but it's what's equivalent of with prejudice. Only in very very exceptional situations the charges are brought back again so anyone in that situation will a sweet No.

Go on and write another essay but your posts are pretty much redundant and not relevant.

For some, perhaps, it might not be clear what you mean . . . you say "stop posting" in one paragraph, and in another "Go on and write another essay." "Honestly" you claim.

To be honest, which I make a concerted effort to be, I get it. I do. Criticism noted, the sarcasm included.

Just doing the best I can to clearly address some issues which can be a problem for some PRs applying for citizenship. For @jeahpalumar05 for example, stating the brother was in the "same situation" as the OP, as similar as the brother's situation might be to the OP's it seemed prudent to caution that questions in the citizenship application about criminal charges are NOT limited to questions ONLY about convictions.

If you were charged with “murder” and the court of law found you not guilty and the charge was fully withdrawn because you were innocent, then you should answer NO to both questions without the need to hire a lawyer. IRCC has access to see that you were charged and you were innocent.

It’s not mandatory to hire a lawyer but you can always do it if you want.

I am just trying to offer information which will help those, like @jeahpalumar05's brother, who are trying to navigate the process of applying for citizenship, to offer insights that could help avoid pitfalls that cause problems in citizenship application processing, including reducing the risk of delay-causing non-routine processing. (I responded to the query by @Cool2021 in another thread.)

It should be noted, nonetheless, that even though IRCC has access to see that an applicant has been charged, IRCC does not have access to determine whether the applicant is actually "innocent." The criminal justice system in Canada does not determine innocence. Meanwhile, even though IRCC can get access to the disposition of criminal charges in Canada, as reflected in the RCMP database, it is readily apparent that many applicants who have been charged with an offence encounter non-routine processing to verify the disposition of the discharges even though the disposition does not constitute a prohibition, typically including requiring the applicant to obtain and submit certified copies of the court's record in their case. (Burden of proving no prohibitions, like the burden of proof for all other requirements, is on the applicant. Not exactly, but somewhat like proving physical presence, the applicant must provide an accounting of all travel outside Canada despite IRCC's access to the applicant's travel history in CBSA records.)

Many applicants, as reflected in scores of queries in this forum (including three in just this short topic), are uncertain about the formal or official disposition of criminal charges. Those who are uncertain about the precise disposition in their case really should be consulting with competent legal counsel. With only rare exceptions, I am confident that almost everyone charged with murder has obtained the assistance of a lawyer. True, it's not mandatory, but the need for a lawyer's assistance when charged with murder is significantly more compelling than "if you want."

Of course it is true that if an applicant KNOWS they have no charges pending against them, they can honestly answer the prohibition questions accordingly, answering "no" there are no charges now pending against them. For those who have been charged and entangled in a criminal case, what more to provide with a citizenship application, if anything, is a personal choice and will depend on the particular circumstances, including the specifics of the disposition in the criminal case. There is no one answer fits all for how to best navigate these matters.

 

[Ryan4]

that even though IRCC has access to see that an applicant has been charged, IRCC does not have access to determine whether the applicant is actually "innocent."

So you are telling me even when the court of law including the judge withdraw the charges and you were “innocent”, IRCC look if you are actually “innocent”. That’s a bold statement. Anyways, I was charged with 3 offenses and I was not guilty and all 3 charges were withdrawn.

I just filled my application truthfully and I answered NO to both questions as at the time of the filling I was NOT charged and I was NOT convinced.

My application was fine and I got my citizenship within a year.

Also, IRCC get their results from RCMP. It will be something like this ,according to my GCMS notes,: “RCMP Criminal Record with positive identification reviewed. ****, **** and ***** charges were withdrawn on ****/**/**. No impact on citizenship application. Cleared to proceed.”
That was on one of my notes.

I am confident that almost everyone charged with murder has obtained the assistance of a lawyer. True, it's not mandatory, but the need for a lawyer's assistance when charged with murder is significantly more compelling than "if you want."

Omg obviously when I was talking about not needing a lawyer, I was talking regarding filling the application NOT for the actual criminal charge aka “murder”.

 

[dpenabill]

So you are telling me even when the court of law including the judge withdraw the charges and you were “innocent”, IRCC look if you are actually “innocent”.

No, I was not telling you that . . . I do not know what that even means.



For those with questions related to criminal charges:

For those concerned with what questions are asked in regards to criminal matters, in a citizenship application, they should review Question 16 in the application. Many who have been or who are engaged in criminal proceedings would be prudent to meet with a lawyer to clarify the formal status of the criminal proceedings and how to respond accordingly.

As for extrapolating how to best navigate these matters, remember that individual experience only illuminates what has happened at least once, allowing that might or might not reflect how it could go for another, sometimes an indication of how it often goes but not always, and mostly recognizing that how it goes sometimes does not dictate how it will go for sure another time. This is especially so in regards to how criminal matters can affect a PR's status and eligibility for citizenship. If in doubt, see a lawyer.

 

[Ryan4]

Many who have been or who are engaged in criminal proceedings would be prudent to meet with a lawyer to clarify the formal status of the criminal proceedings and how to respond accordingly.

If your charges were withdrawn and therefore not convicted, you can answer NO to both questions (16.3 and 16.8) without the need to see a lawyer.

if you are charged (have a pending charge) or were convicted, I highly recommend to consult a lawyer. Period.

 

[buyok]

SO WHAT HAD HAPPEN TO YOUR CASE

 

[Cavin]

Yes please post the update @sil_ca
1) Were you able to send the letter to IRCC explaining the case and was the explaination accepted?
2) If yes, I am sure you must have received the citizenship?
3) If no, what was the response from IRCC?

 

[kimberlysilva]

Honestly, stop posting just for the sake of posting.

Again, the discussion was about charges which have been withdrawn or dropped. In Canada, when charges are dropped, it's not specifically noted but it's what's equivalent of with prejudice. Only in very very exceptional situations the charges are brought back again so anyone in that situation will a sweet No.

Go on and write another essay but your posts are pretty much redundant and not relevant.

I am irritated by the way you sound. I will need you to shut up. You are out here being unintelligent sounding like u are slow, misinforming people in a very dangerous way. This other guy has done nothing but provide 100% information on how this works and all you do is take it personally and try to fight words with him. Are you a crazy person? Cos u act like one. Why are u even arguing about sth that is true? Even if dismissed for a serious offence should be disclosed. The fingerprints rat you out right away. It can also be posted as a serious delay or some issues with the application. People like you shouldn't be here making misleading comments. Go off and find sth unintelligent to do. Sounds like it suits you better. He has provided perfect information for that question and also to others who may be seeking clarification. Stop arguing like Your breath depends on it. Smh

 

[kimberlysilva]

Caution: anyone involved in criminal charges, including withdrawn or otherwise discharged criminal offences if serious (like murder), would be wise to hire a lawyer, at the least for personal advice, before proceeding to make an application for citizenship.

This discussion is NO substitute for getting qualified legal counsel.



Your overall point is well-taken. And, in particular, in regards to the assertion by @Ryan4 that even if an applicant has been charged with murder, if there is a total discharge/dismissal of the charges there is no need to refer to it or include a LOE. Far better to in some way reference this and the fact it has been fully resolved (withdrawn, dismissed, discharged), in a LOE or otherwise. Will address this more below.

For clarity . . .

Question 16.3 in the citizenship application does specifically ask "Are you now charged" . . .

Clearly, contrary to the assertion that the citizenship application "only asks if you were CONVICTED," it is NOT correct that the application ONLY asks about criminal charges for which there is a conviction.

I now understand that @Ryan4 meant to exclusively refer to a fully resolved charge in the past tense when stating there is (typo corrected) "no question asking if you were charged." I do not agree that was at all clear, especially given the juxtaposition with the statement that the application ONLY asks if the applicant was convicted.

In particular, if a month or six months before making a citizenship application, an applicant was (past tense) charged with an indictable offence (including hybrid offences which might be prosecuted summarily rather than by indictment), it is absolutely NOT true the application ONLY asks if the applicant was convicted (since, after all, pending charges for sure must be disclosed).

Apart from disagreeing with the characterization by @Ryan4 of my clarification for @jeahpalumar05 (who queried about the "same situation" as the OP, recognizing it is never actually the same situation, there always being some differences no matter how similar), what is important for those dealing with criminal charges to understand is the imperative to disclose pending charges as well as convictions.



So long as a criminal charge is fully discharged (whether withdrawn, dismissed, or otherwise conclusively discharged), there is no charge pending. It would be correct, in regards to this, to answer [No] in response to question 16.3. in the citizenship application.

But make no mistake, if there was a charge made, that is almost certain to pop up in background screening attendant the application for citizenship. This would very likely trigger non-routine processing to verify there are no prohibitions.

As I stated (in the post you take offense about, the entirety of what was addressed to the OP's query, the rest of that post being in response to the query by @jeahpalumar05):



But let's be clear, whether to include a LOE is not a question of fact. It is a judgment call, a personal decision. It may be entirely unnecessary. It may actually not make much difference. As long as the applicant has truthfully answered the questions in the application, without deceit, without being misleading, that meets the applicant's obligations to provide honest, accurate, and complete information. Whether a particular applicant should additionally include some additional information or explanation is their personal choice, typically depending on whether they think the additional information or explanation will clarify something that might cause problems or otherwise help IRCC more efficiently process the application.

For most applicants, "problems" include non-routine processing that leads to significant delays in finalizing the application and taking the oath. Of course problems that can affect the outcome (cause the application to be denied) are more important, but for many applicants (probably most), it is important to proceed in a way that will minimize the risks of non-routine processing, minimize the risk of delays in getting to take the oath.

Here's the thing about providing information in a citizenship application:

-- if it will hurt, cause problems, odds are very high the applicant is obligated to disclose that information​

-- if it should not be a problem, odds are very high that disclosing it will not cause a problem​

In the context of matters arising in relation to criminal charges, what this means is that disclosing information (or an explanation) about a criminal case that does not amount to a prohibition will NOT cause any more of a problem than the case would otherwise cause.

If there is a final disposition in the criminal matter that does not constitute a prohibition, it will not affect the individual's eligibility. If, however, the criminal matter does constitute a prohibition, IRCC is almost certain to learn of it (whether the applicant discloses it or not) and process the application accordingly.

If there has been an arrest (let alone formal charges actually presented in court), the fact the individual has been charged will almost certainly be known to IRCC, and again this will be whether or not the applicant is forthcoming in disclosing it. IRCC typically requests fingerprints in these scenarios and depending on what RCMP records show, also requests certified copies of the court record showing the final disposition of the charges. There is NO harm disclosing the charges to IRCC upfront with an explanation that the charges have been withdrawn (or dismissed or otherwise fully discharged as if never charged). Upfront disclosure in the application may reduce or perhaps even avoid non-routine processing to verify there is no prohibition.

As cautioned above, and it is an easy call to make especially for someone who has been charged with murder (even if totally withdrawn), best to get paid for advice from a lawyer before proceeding with making the citizenship application.

Your very intelligent explanations are appreciated.