Does being charged with a crime revoke your application for citizenship?

[Rahim37]

Assuming the person is awaiting the oath ceremony.

 

[thevisawhisperer]

It might make you inadmissible to Canada as you remain a PR until you become a citizen, but not until you're convicted of something.

 

[k.h.p.]

Anything in progress will be paused until (a) you are acquitted, (b) you are convicted of a crime that doesn't make you inadmissible to Canada, or (c) you are convicted of something that makes you inadmissible, upon which you may be orders to leave Canada.

 

[dpenabill]

Does being charged with a crime revoke your application for citizenship?

Assuming the person is awaiting the oath ceremony.

Just being charged with any criminal offense that is defined to be an "indictable offence" results in the individual being prohibited from a grant of citizenship and barred from taking the oath. See Section 22(1)(b) in the Citizenship Act here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-7.html#docCont Even if this happens the morning of the day the person is scheduled to take the oath.

Being charged or convicted of a criminal offence defined to be a "summary" offence does not affect an individual's eligibility for citizenship UNLESS the person is placed on probation or jailed.

Persons on probation or in jail are also prohibited. See Section 22(1)(a) subsections (i) and (III) . . . at same link as above.

If convicted of an indictable offence, the person is then prohibited from a grant of citizenship for FOUR years from the date of conviction. Section 22(2) in the Citizenship Act (same link as above)

Similar prohibitions apply for crimes outside Canada, based on whether the crime would be an indictable offence if committed in Canada.

CAUTION: Applicants have an absolute obligation to report arrests, charges, convictions, and so on. Again, even if it happens the morning the person is scheduled to take the oath. Failure to do is per se misrepresentation by omission and is among the relatively few types of misrepresentation more aggressively prosecuted, including proceedings to revoke citizenship if the individual did not report it and was allowed to take the oath.


PROCEDURE:

Convictions for an indictable offence will result in a pending application being denied.

There are mixed reports about how it goes when a person is arrested and charged, and the outcome is pending. This subject gets a little complicated for a lot of crimes that are called "hybrid" offences, crimes which the Crown may choose whether to prosecute it as an indictable offence or as a summary offence.

Technically, just being charged with an indictable offence means the individual is subject to the prohibition and cannot be granted citizenship or take the oath, and CIC/IRCC has indeed simply made a decision denying applications for some applicants who get charged with an offence before taking the oath. But NOT all. There are some reports from individuals who were arrested and subsequently had the charges resolved in a way that either amounted to a dismissal or a disposition for a summary offence that does not affect the individual's eligibility for the grant of citizenship, and then proceeded to complete the process and take the oath, becoming a citizen. Anyone affected by this should at least consult with a competent lawyer with experience in BOTH criminal law and citizenship law.


COLLATERAL ISSUES:

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the crime, as others have responded, convictions for criminal offences can also have an impact on a Permanent Resident's admissibility. For example, conviction of an offence that results in six months plus a day, or more, actual imprisonment constitutes "serious criminality" which makes a PR inadmissible, and if formally adjudicated to be inadmissible for serious criminality, that terminates the individual's PR status. This aspect is discussed in more depth in the section of this forum regarding Permanent Residency Obligations https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/forums/permanent-residency-obligations.11/

 

[screech339]

The judge will remind the applicants at the oath ceremony that if you were charged and awaiting trial, you are expected to leave the oath ceremony and reapply for oath ceremony once the charges are dismissed / dropped / found not guilty. If you went ahead with oath and found after the fact you were found guilty, you will lose your citizenship. This was said at my wife's oath ceremony.

 

[dpenabill]

There is currently in the news a sad illustration of how a criminal charge in another country can have a negative impact on a Canadian (Canadian PR) applying for Canadian citizenship.

see https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/maria-kartasheva-russia-citizenship-conviction-1.7074233

Last May Maria Kartasheva was scheduled to take the oath, and just as she was about to take the oath, after honestly responding to a question about criminal charges which she had previously informed IRCC about, she was taken aside and not allowed to take the oath.

She was charged and convicted in Russia based on blog posts she made while here, in Canada. In addition to the CBC description of the criminal charges and what they were based on, see one example of the substance of her alleged crime as posted at the Ottawa Citizen here:
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/genina-and-kartasheva-call-russia-and-tell-people-the-truth-about-the-war-in-ukraine

She was "arrested" in absentia, convicted and sentenced to eight years prison, for "public dissemination of deliberately false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation."

Last month IRCC sent what appears to be a procedural fairness letter, informing her that it appears she is subject to prohibitions under the Citizenship Act (and thus ineligible for citizenship), indicating that the crime "she committed in Russia" (this quote comes from the CBC article; obviously the so-called crime itself was not committed in Russia, but in Canada, allegedly constituting a crime in Russia), and that the Canadian equivalent is subsection 372(1) in the Canadian Criminal Code (see this here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-53.html#h-122418 ).

What this means is that she must successfully make the case that subsection 372(1) in the Canadian Criminal Code is not the equivalent of the Russian criminal offence for which she has been charged, and convicted, to avoid having her citizenship application denied and being prohibited from applying again until November 2027 (four years from date of conviction in Russia).

The Canadian Criminal Code subsection 372(1) defines the indictable offence (technically a hybrid offence, which is considered to be an indictable offence even if not prosecuted by indictment) of communicating "false information" as "Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication."

The Canadian offence is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years.

To say there is a lot off here is a gross understatement. And that's without going under the hood to analyze what constitutes "false" information in today's world awash in pervasive perversions of truth (not the least of which is the obvious fact that Russia has actually criminalized publicizing true information, and that the particular offence involved here was specifically adopted, by Russia, to suppress the dissemination of true information about the war in Ukraine).

While I do not know what is specifically defined to be an offence, in the Russian law, it is hard to imagine that a law specifically making it a crime to communicate "false" information about the government (such as here, about the Russian armed forces) could have, let alone does has an equivalent offence in Canada, where any such offence would clearly be in violation of Section 2(b) in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (protecting the "fundamental freedom" of expression). That is, ON its FACE, the Russian crime clearly has NO equivalent offence in Canadian law.

That is, on its face IRCC should have summarily concluded the Russian offence does NOT constitute an offence that "if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament."

This is very much akin to the situation created in countries that define a breach of contract as theft, such as leaving the country without having fully paid off outstanding debts. There is no equivalent offence in Canada's criminal law. Being charged and convicted under such law in another country does not constitute a prohibition barring the individual from being granted Canadian citizenship. There is no indication that IRCC has any problem summarily distinguishing foreign "theft" offences based on contract breach as not having a Canadian equivalent. It should be even easier to distinguish an offence criminalizing the expression of dissent as not constituting what would be an offence in Canada.

My sense is that the Russian law fails to have a Canadian equivalent in other respects as well, and it is likely obviously so.

My sense is that it requires an almost grotesque distortion of reason to so much as suggest that it might (let alone does) appear that subsection 372(1) in the Canadian Criminal Code is the equivalent of the Russian offence.

So, WHY? What is going on in this case? I don't have a clue why. I do have, however, serious concerns.

The Take-Aways:

As I have often cautioned, prohibitions clearances are never fully "completed" until the oath is actually taken.

Foreign (outside Canada) criminal charges can be a quagmire for PRs generally and those applying for citizenship in particular, even if those charges are rooted in what most people in Canada would not consider "crimes," let alone crimes serious enough to be prosecuted by indictment.

Immigrants should be aware that their home country can have a long reach.

And, and this is very important, it appears that Maria Kartasheva could have remained silent last April, and not proactively inform IRCC of the Russian charges against her, and probably then proceeded to take the oath, thereby becoming a Canadian citizen, and after that she probably would have been OK in so far as her status here in Canada. BUT, a huge BUT, that would have been misrepresentation by omission. Her Canadian citizenship would forever be vulnerable to revocation. And it would NOT be a defense that the Russian charges were not for what would constitute an offence in Canada, that is for IRCC to decide. So, despite the imbroglio she now faces, proactively disclosing the Russian charges was absolutely the right thing to do. The thing is, if she had not disclosed this, became a Canadian citizen, and then if Russia initiated extradition proceedings (and there is some suggestion this might happen; appears that she may have become a particular target of Russia), that could trigger the sort of inquiry potentially leading to proceedings to revoke her citizenship on misrepresentation grounds . . . so, again, disclosing this was absolutely the right thing to do.

 

[armoured]

The Canadian Criminal Code subsection 372(1) defines the indictable offence (technically a hybrid offence, which is considered to be an indictable offence even if not prosecuted by indictment) of communicating "false information" as "Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication."

The Canadian offence is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years.

To say there is a lot off here is a gross understatement.
...
That is, on its face IRCC should have summarily concluded the Russian offence does NOT constitute an offence that "if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament."
...
My sense is that it requires an almost grotesque distortion of reason to so much as suggest that it might (let alone does) appear that subsection 372(1) in the Canadian Criminal Code is the equivalent of the Russian offence.

There's a lot going on here, and unfortunately a WHOLE lot of grotesqueness, and I'd have to say incompetence. A few mor people should have had the inclination to think and reflect, even for a second.

The most charitable interpretation I can muster is that somebody came up with a procedure that says that all such cases need to be looked at by challenging the candidate to citizenship in writing, without any judgment made internally about whether it's even plausible it is equivalent to a Canadian statute.

It is, additionally, grotesque that it will be used by Russian in propaganda efforts - I am 100% certain of this.

And, and this is very important, it appears that Maria Kartasheva could have remained silent last April, and not proactively inform IRCC of the Russian charges against her, and probably then proceeded to take the oath, thereby becoming a Canadian citizen, and after that she probably would have been OK in so far as her status here in Canada. BUT, a huge BUT, that would have been misrepresentation by omission. Her Canadian citizenship would forever be vulnerable to revocation. And it would NOT be a defense that the Russian charges were not for what would constitute an offence in Canada, that is for IRCC to decide. So, despite the imbroglio she now faces, proactively disclosing the Russian charges was absolutely the right thing to do. The thing is, if she had not disclosed this, became a Canadian citizen, and then if Russia initiated extradition proceedings (and there is some suggestion this might happen; appears that she may have become a particular target of Russia), that could trigger the sort of inquiry potentially leading to proceedings to revoke her citizenship on misrepresentation grounds . . . so, again, disclosing this was absolutely the right thing to do.

While I understand your point, and I don't intend to debate the issue in great detail, I'm not sure that it was the right call in this instance. I think the government has just demonstrated that there is a serious risk to disclosing, EVEN WHEN it is obviously not an offence under Canadian law. And that there is an asymmetry here, that there is a much lower chance a government would pursue such an obviously grotesque case later - because someone more senior with a legal education would have to evaluate and approve any subsequent steps and expenses.

That said: I would not suggest this (not advising) except in VERY unusual and narrow circumstances - everyone else should. And only with very good legal advice.

Yesterday, before this idiotic case came up, I'd've been 100% in agreement with you.

 

[armoured]

In positive news, the government swiftly climbed down - once someone in the minister's office had the sense to think for a moment - and Ms. Kartasheva was made a citizen today.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/maria-kartasheva-russia-citizenship-conviction-canada-1.7078560

The downside: once again, too often, they show they do not have sufficient common sense, and in some specific instances, there can be no realistic option but to make enough noise in the media to embarrass the government enough that they have to do something.

Note, 'the government of the day': it happens under every government. Again and again. I know, there are a lot of files, some mistakes are going to happen, but some are just inexcusable.

 

[dpenabill]

In positive news, the government swiftly climbed down - once someone in the minister's office had the sense to think for a moment - and Ms. Kartasheva was made a citizen today.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/maria-kartasheva-russia-citizenship-conviction-canada-1.7078560

The downside: once again, too often, they show they do not have sufficient common sense, and in some specific instances, there can be no realistic option but to make enough noise in the media to embarrass the government enough that they have to do something.

Note, 'the government of the day': it happens under every government. Again and again. I know, there are a lot of files, some mistakes are going to happen, but some are just inexcusable.

Thank you for notice of this update in the story, an important update.

The upside of this story is that it illustrates that Canada is among those countries which make an effort to fix mistakes, which is well illustrated throughout several steps in the process, not the least of which is the procedural fairness letter and the opportunity to respond, and includes reasonable access to judicial review if and when needed. This should not be taken for granted. There are many countries where things will, well, work differently.

The downside, in my view, is worse than a failure to exercise common sense. This had to be an affirmative decision, an overt act of finding and interpreting an "equivalent" offence in Canadian law. Someone would have to be living totally off the grid, no access to any sort of media, to not be aware that a Russian law penalizing commentary about the Russian military was anything other than criminalizing dissent, which not only is NOT but CANNOT be a crime in Canada, and given that thus approached this issue highly skeptical there could be any equivalent "offence" (meaning a CRIME) in Canadian law.

Back to the upside, the extent to which there is a process which facilitates the recognition and correction of errors, this is a part of why I so emphatically state that disclosure is definitely the right thing for a citizenship applicant to do in such a situation. Cost versus risk. Many times the positive outcome takes longer than it appears to have here, but incurring some delay is a relatively minor cost compared to the risk of making what might be characterized a misrepresentation.

Overall, am glad for the outcome here.

 

[armoured]

The downside, in my view, is worse than a failure to exercise common sense. This had to be an affirmative decision, an overt act of finding and interpreting an "equivalent" offence in Canadian law. Someone would have to be living totally off the grid, no access to any sort of media, to not be aware that a Russian law penalizing commentary about the Russian military was anything other than criminalizing dissent, which not only is NOT but CANNOT be a crime in Canada, and given that thus approached this issue highly skeptical there could be any equivalent "offence" (meaning a CRIME) in Canadian law.

A bit speculative but there are a few things that can be drawn from what is known about the process, to give a sense of both what happens overall and what the point of failure is/was:

1) First, at the ceremony. Actually, no surprises and effectively no issues here. The taking of the oath at a ceremony - whether online or in person - is almost certainly carried out by staff who are in no position, whatsoever, to make snap judgments about the nature of the (alleged) crime. They just have a script of what to do if someone answers in the affirmative here, and it's take them out of the ceremony so it can be looked at in more detail. Basically no fault of the officers of the citizenship ceremony.

[Side note/question is, what can an individual do in advance of a ceremony? I presume you have to notify the government of pending charges, or your awareness of them, but whether that leads to any different steps than in my (2) below, I don't know. My guess is it sends you to the same process as (2).]

2) Clearly, in simplified terms, IRCC (i) collects information about the nature of the charge (the allegation); (ii) where available / however available, they get whatever they can about the nature of the statute under which such a crime would be charged; (iii) they attempt to 'map' the charge and the statute to any kind of Canadian statute, i.e. they take a look and see if there is such a crime in Canada (and the nature of that crime i.e. whether it's the type of serious crime that bars becoming a citizen); (iv) they give the applicant / prospective citizen a chance to respond (PFL/procedural fairness letter; and, (v) they look at that information and make a decision about whether it is indeed a crime that would prevent becoming a citizen.

[I 'plead' to ignorance here about what they do when it's a charged crime but facts not deemed proven yet / i.e. no trial; for Ms. Kartasheva, the (joke of a) trial in absentia and sentence had already been concluded.]

As @dpenabill notes, there is a procedure, and in the end that procedure did basically 'get there.' There doesn't appear to be any significant issue with steps i, ii, iv, and - at least in this case - v (although this last subjective judgment should be noted with an *asterisk as at minimum, it was 'hurried along' by the news story and the political level getting involved.

[Another small note, I'd think/hope that even at step (ii) they'd have a process to 'toss out' cases that are clearly not even plausibly what was intended by Canada's immigration rules. E.g. jaywalking, purely administrative violations, some known cases from some countries that are obviously not like criminal statutes in Canada, eg in some countries bank debt and kiting cheques can be included under serious crime statutes. In this case, if there is such a 'toss out the obvious cases' process, it passed over this case. Probably because novel.]

It's (iii) that's the issue: whoever looked at this did not apply the common sense we've referred to, did not look at the contxt of the country it comes from (for example, Russia has a well-established track record of abusing the 'red notice' international warrant process through Interpol to pursue domestic 'enemies' abroad.)] Etc.

This is where this case truly astounds me: it is clear, to me, that the person who found this statute must have some kind of legal education - because it's not so easy to search through Canada's statute book and make such comparisons (except for relatively common and easy crimes). Even if this person wasn't a lawyer, such a PFL should absolutely NOT be sent with such an allegation based on saying 'these charges seem to correspond to such and such a Canadian statute' without serious, substantive, common sense review by a lawyer. If they did not, the system is just wrong and should be fixed.

If this was reviewed by a lawyer and signed off without consideration of these other aspects, either that person is astoundingly incompetent and clueless, the terms of what will be considered at this stage is absurdly limited (i.e. no common-sense check and no senior person reviewing for common sense), or both.