Admissibility issue for claiming asylum in Canada

[asylum_seeker]

The admissibility criteria for lodging asylum claim while in Canada are less strict than the general admissibility criteria for admission into the country for foreign nationals, for example non-serious criminal convictions and any health issues do not affect eligibility to claim asylum.

However this bears the question of how would a foreign national be able to enter Canada in the first place and claim asylum having these admissibility issues? I cannot think of a scenario where a foreign national is legally present in Canada having such admissibility grounds either prior to entering which would refuse his TRV or eTA or after entering in case he would be deported for committing a crime in Canada. The only possibility is if he's a PR already but that would disqualify him from asylum anyways.

Is it the case such asylum seekers hide the fact they are inadmissible for non-serious criminal convictions when entering and later declare it in the asylum basic claim? Sort of like when stating the intent for tourism in the TRV but actually intending to file for protection after arrival?

 

[hamgha]

The admissibility criteria for lodging asylum claim while in Canada are less strict than the general admissibility criteria for admission into the country for foreign nationals, for example non-serious criminal convictions and any health issues do not affect eligibility to claim asylum.

However this bears the question of how would a foreign national be able to enter Canada in the first place and claim asylum having these admissibility issues? I cannot think of a scenario where a foreign national is legally present in Canada having such admissibility grounds either prior to entering which would refuse his TRV or eTA or after entering in case he would be deported for committing a crime in Canada. The only possibility is if he's a PR already but that would disqualify him from asylum anyways.

Is it the case such asylum seekers hide the fact they are inadmissible for non-serious criminal convictions when entering and later declare it in the asylum basic claim? Sort of like when stating the intent for tourism in the TRV but actually intending to file for protection after arrival?

i don't think applying for a TRV is the only way to get a refugee claim

 

[asylum_seeker]

what other ways are possible to enter Canada without a TRV?

 

[Buletruck]

Being or claiming refugee status does not make you exempt from being deported or having your status revoked for criminality. There is no difference between being a refugee vs. applying for a PR or visa. If you have serious criminality, your application can be delayed or refused. If you are guilty of crimes after, you can still have your status revoked.

 

[scylla]

what other ways are possible to enter Canada without a TRV?

Study permit, work permit...

 

[R4mercy]

Being or claiming refugee status does not make you exempt from being deported or having your status revoked for criminality. There is no difference between being a refugee vs. applying for a PR or visa. If you have serious criminality, your application can be delayed or refused. If you are guilty of crimes after, you can still have your status revoked.

I have these questions
1. Can driving offences like red light, driving without or expired insurance, or speeding above speed limit considered as crime or have status revoked.
2. What other offenses are considered as crime

 

[asylum_seeker]

Being or claiming refugee status does not make you exempt from being deported or having your status revoked for criminality. There is no difference between being a refugee vs. applying for a PR or visa. If you have serious criminality, your application can be delayed or refused. If you are guilty of crimes after, you can still have your status revoked.

The eligibility criteria for asylum claims as posted on IRB website is different from the general admissibility criteria for foreign nationals. A DUI conviction for example would make someone ineligible to visit or study as you say but it doesn't affect asylum claim eligibility as it is not a serious crime (crimes which have a maximum sentence of less than 10 years). Canada is actually obligated to accept them as it is spelled out in the 1951 convention.

 

[asylum_seeker]

I have these questions
1. Can driving offences like red light, driving without or expired insurance, or speeding above speed limit considered as crime or have status revoked.
2. What other offenses are considered as crime

It depends where they have been committed and how they were handled by the city. In the US traffic violations can sometimes be promoted to be misdemeanors depending on the circumstances like if you were involved in accident or they were repeat offenses and the state had a policy to charge them as misdemeanors.
But in any case it is just matter of declaration on forms as it will not affect you unless they are listed under Canada's criminal code.

 

[Buletruck]

The eligibility criteria for asylum claims as posted on IRB website is different from the general admissibility criteria for foreign nationals. A DUI conviction for example would make someone ineligible to visit or study as you say but it doesn't affect asylum claim eligibility as it is not a serious crime (crimes which have a maximum sentence of less than 10 years). Canada is actually obligated to accept them as it is spelled out in the 1951 convention.

Again, IMO, there are exceptions to the sentencing when determining criminality. Not to say that it isn't a consideration, but there are other determining factors as well. Being a signatory on the 1951 convention does not mean it supersedes the laws of the receiving country. Not being a lawyer, that's just my perspective, but none the less an interesting read.

As to whether the seriousness of the crime may be measured by reference to the nature of punishment prescribed in the Criminal Code of Canada, the Court said that "while regard should be had to international standards, the perspective of the receiving state or nation cannot be ignored in determining the seriousness of the crime.Thus the Court noted that there is a strong indication in IRPA that Canada, as a receiving state, considers crimes for which an offence may be punishable by a maximum term of at least 10 years to be a "serious" crime. However, the Court did not state that only crimes for which a sentence of 10 years or more could have been imposed is a "serious" crime in the context of this exclusion clause and therefore regard should be had to the factors already identified when determining the "seriousness" of a particular crime committed. Also, the Court noted that "whatever presumption of seriousness may attach to a crime internationally or under the legislation of the receiving state, the presumption may be rebutted by reference to the above factors".

http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/references/LegJur/Pages/RefDef11.aspx#n1131

 

[asylum_seeker]

Again, IMO, there are exceptions to the sentencing when determining criminality. Not to say that it isn't a consideration, but there are other determining factors as well. Being a signatory on the 1951 convention does not mean it supersedes the laws of the receiving country. Not being a lawyer, that's just my perspective, but none the less an interesting read.



http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/references/LegJur/Pages/RefDef11.aspx#n1131

I agree but in Canada's case the laws are also permissive in this regards, you can see provisions in the immigration act as enacted by the parliament allowing for these exceptions.
Sure, I believe surrounding facts and nature of crime still weigh in during assessment. Say for example if a DUI case involved a major accident and there were many fatalities and injuries and the person was charged with felony DUI, negligence ..etc and was sentenced to something like 13 years in total. That will probably be considered serious, where a simple DUI case would not.