Can train ticket fine reported on police report stop PR admissability?
- Thread starter bimkomoe
- Start date
Is this about inadmissibility for a Foreign National or for a Canadian PR? There is some overlap in what constitutes inadmissibility for FNs and PRs, but if a Canadian PR commits an offence abroad for which the only punishment is a fine, that does not make a PR inadmissible.
If, in contrast, the question is about whether the offence makes a FN (such as a FN applying for PR) inadmissible, the threshold is much lower.
The fact of any offence on one's record is NOT laughable. Hopefully this was indeed more like an infraction than an offence, or at worst would constitute a summary offence in Canada. Still, be sure to disclose it in any application asking about arrests, charges, or such.
In any event, the question is whether the offence (and it does appear to be an offence given there is a criminal record) was one that would constitute an indictable offence in Canada, if committed in Canada, including any so-called hybrid offence (which can be prosecuted as either an indictable or summary offence, but for inadmissibility purposes is considered an indictable offence since, yes, it can be prosecuted by indictment).
I am NOT familiar with the UK criminal law and do not know if this was considered a type of theft offence, or constituted some other category of offence. And I do not know the grades of theft offences in Canada, or what other category of offence it might be, so I do not know if the same acts were done in Canada whether they would constitute an indictable or hybrid offence in Canada.
BUT that is the main question: are the elements of the offence in the UK the same as the elements in what would constitute an indictable (including hybrid) offence in Canada?
The problem tends to be that Canada has a lot of so-called hybrid offences, which are usually minor breaches of law and prosecuted summarily, but since they can be prosecuted (and if the specific facts are more serious, they will be) as an indictable offence, for purposes of Canadian immigration law they are indictable (again, since they can indeed be prosecuted by indictment, even if usually prosecuted as a summary offence). AND that results in inadmissibility.
Short of consulting with an experienced Canadian immigration lawyer who can review the specific records involved (the client's description of these matters is NOT enough, given the importance of the official details which can best be discerned from actual court records), many will go ahead and make an application, honestly disclosing the offence and known details about it, and see how it goes. One of the advantages of consulting with a lawyer, however, is the lawyer can better explain rehabilitation standards or procedures, which can mean even if the offence was one that makes a person inadmissible, there is the possibility that after a certain amount of time or meeting other conditions, it will no longer result in inadmissibility. Thus, for example, among the details that can matter is HOW LONG ago it happened, and how long ago the matter was completely closed in the court's records. And so on.
The fine for not having a train ticket is 20 pounds..why would that be in a police report? There is either more to the story or OPs wording was unclear.
Thank you for your comments and detailed insight. Your point is clear and I will seek professional legal support to be on the safe side.
It's a Magistrates' Court level offence in the UK with, IIRC, £1000 maximum penalty. Almost certainly not going to make you inadmissible.
For clarity: I am addressing this further assuming it is about Foreign National inadmissibility, such as for someone applying to become a Canadian PR, not about what might result in a Canadian PR becoming inadmissible.
If I was to guess, I'd guess it is correct.
And similarly, many FNs in this kind of situation (a minor breach of law resulting in a small fine) are likely to go ahead and make an application for a visa or such, of course disclosing the charge/record in their application, and then see how it goes, most expecting no problem. Doing so reasonably expecting little or NO problem.
For the OP, here, the encouragement is indeed likely to be well-founded.
That said, in general, however, how an offence is actually handled in the country where it occurred, or which court handles it, does NOT determine its effect for purposes of Canadian immigration.
That is, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the predicate; that is, the import of this relative to FN inadmissibility does NOT depend on which court handles these matters in the foreign jurisdiction.
Questions about criminal inadmissibility for FNs are tricky, rule-driven, and not readily intuited, and are rarely suitable for guessing. (And if there is a formal police criminal history record, it is absolutely not laughable.) What matters is the Canadian equivalent.
The possible disposition, probable disposition, and the actual disposition in the country where the violation occurs, can be information, respectively, from which a reasonably likely inference might be made. For example, a small fine signals a minor breach of law, which is quite likely to be similarly categorized in Canada, thus as either an infraction or Summary Offence. No inadmissibility issue triggered.
And, disposition in a venue/court which only handles what are typically the equivalent of an infraction or Summary Offence in Canada, suggests the likelihood it is a violation for which the Canadian equivalent likely is an infraction or Summary Offence. NO inadmissibility issue triggered.
BUT it is important to recognize that what matters is THE CANADIAN EQUIVALENT, and NOT which court handled the matter in the other country, NOT what the disposition could be, usually is, or what it was in the other country (unless there is a total discharge without any conviction).
And when considering the Canadian equivalent, it warrants remembering that many, many rather minor offences in Canada, even many for which the charges can be handled by being issued a ticket and the payment of a fine, that is as a Summary Offence, in the Canadian "Criminal Code" many of these are hybrid offences which can be prosecuted by indictment, even if it is rare to prosecute them by indictment. AND these "hybrid" offences are considered indictable offences for purposes of Canadian immigration. Triggering inadmissibility (unless rehabilitation conditions are met).
Determining the Canadian equivalent is easy for some violations and offences. For many, however, it is NOT so easy. The specific elements of the offence must be compared with elements in similar offences as defined in the Canadian Criminal Code.
As I alluded, the court that handles the cases in the foreign jurisdiction (such as the "Magistrates' Court" in the UK) can be a big clue. BUT that is NOT what matters.
Thus, what is considered and handled as a rather minor offence in another country may nonetheless constitute a hybrid offence in Canada, and thus be considered an indictable offence, triggering FN inadmissibility.
It can work in the opposite way as well. For example, a failure to satisfy certain types of obligations can be considered a serious offence in some countries, even resulting in significant periods of incarceration; in particular, the failure to pay certain kinds of debt can be prosecuted as fraud, a serious type of fraud, resulting in relatively severe punishment. This conduct is NOT a crime under the Canadian criminal code. So a police record showing a conviction for this type of offence, no matter how serious it is treated in the country where it happened, does NOT trigger a FN inadmissibility issue in Canada, because there is no equivalent indictable offence in Canadian law.
As I previously commented, I do NOT KNOW much at all about UK criminal law. And I do not know the Canadian criminal code much either. So I do not have any opinion about what the Canadian equivalent is in the OP's situation. As noted, I'd guess that @zardoz's conclusion is correct. But I'd do so emphasizing this is just a guess, cautioning that knowing which court handles such matters in the UK is just a clue but NOT determinative.
Your conclusion may very well be correct.
If I was to guess, I'd guess it is correct.
And similarly, many FNs in this kind of situation (a minor breach of law resulting in a small fine) are likely to go ahead and make an application for a visa or such, of course disclosing the charge/record in their application, and then see how it goes, most expecting no problem. Doing so reasonably expecting little or NO problem.
For the OP, here, the encouragement is indeed likely to be well-founded.
That said, in general, however, how an offence is actually handled in the country where it occurred, or which court handles it, does NOT determine its effect for purposes of Canadian immigration.
That is, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the predicate; that is, the import of this relative to FN inadmissibility does NOT depend on which court handles these matters in the foreign jurisdiction.
Questions about criminal inadmissibility for FNs are tricky, rule-driven, and not readily intuited, and are rarely suitable for guessing. (And if there is a formal police criminal history record, it is absolutely not laughable.) What matters is the Canadian equivalent.
The possible disposition, probable disposition, and the actual disposition in the country where the violation occurs, can be information, respectively, from which a reasonably likely inference might be made. For example, a small fine signals a minor breach of law, which is quite likely to be similarly categorized in Canada, thus as either an infraction or Summary Offence. No inadmissibility issue triggered.
And, disposition in a venue/court which only handles what are typically the equivalent of an infraction or Summary Offence in Canada, suggests the likelihood it is a violation for which the Canadian equivalent likely is an infraction or Summary Offence. NO inadmissibility issue triggered.
BUT it is important to recognize that what matters is THE CANADIAN EQUIVALENT, and NOT which court handled the matter in the other country, NOT what the disposition could be, usually is, or what it was in the other country (unless there is a total discharge without any conviction).
And when considering the Canadian equivalent, it warrants remembering that many, many rather minor offences in Canada, even many for which the charges can be handled by being issued a ticket and the payment of a fine, that is as a Summary Offence, in the Canadian "Criminal Code" many of these are hybrid offences which can be prosecuted by indictment, even if it is rare to prosecute them by indictment. AND these "hybrid" offences are considered indictable offences for purposes of Canadian immigration. Triggering inadmissibility (unless rehabilitation conditions are met).
Determining the Canadian equivalent is easy for some violations and offences. For many, however, it is NOT so easy. The specific elements of the offence must be compared with elements in similar offences as defined in the Canadian Criminal Code.
As I alluded, the court that handles the cases in the foreign jurisdiction (such as the "Magistrates' Court" in the UK) can be a big clue. BUT that is NOT what matters.
Thus, what is considered and handled as a rather minor offence in another country may nonetheless constitute a hybrid offence in Canada, and thus be considered an indictable offence, triggering FN inadmissibility.
It can work in the opposite way as well. For example, a failure to satisfy certain types of obligations can be considered a serious offence in some countries, even resulting in significant periods of incarceration; in particular, the failure to pay certain kinds of debt can be prosecuted as fraud, a serious type of fraud, resulting in relatively severe punishment. This conduct is NOT a crime under the Canadian criminal code. So a police record showing a conviction for this type of offence, no matter how serious it is treated in the country where it happened, does NOT trigger a FN inadmissibility issue in Canada, because there is no equivalent indictable offence in Canadian law.
As I previously commented, I do NOT KNOW much at all about UK criminal law. And I do not know the Canadian criminal code much either. So I do not have any opinion about what the Canadian equivalent is in the OP's situation. As noted, I'd guess that @zardoz's conclusion is correct. But I'd do so emphasizing this is just a guess, cautioning that knowing which court handles such matters in the UK is just a clue but NOT determinative.
Hello, In the UK, being fined for not having a train ticket from db fahrplanauskunft is typically classified as a civil penalty rather than a criminal offense. Since it’s the only entry on your police record and it dates back to 2014, it’s unlikely to be considered an admissible crime for most purposes, such as employment checks or visa applications. However, the specifics can vary depending on the context in which you're concerned about admissibility. It’s always best to consult with a legal professional or the relevant authority to get precise information based on your situation.
In general, a train ticket fine reported on a police report typically relates to an administrative or civil matter rather than a criminal offense. The impact on admissibility of a Permanent Resident (PR) application could vary depending on the specific circumstances, such as the severity of the offense, whether it resulted in any criminal charges, or if it reflects negatively on character or honesty. It's advisable to consult with an immigration lawyer who can provide specific advice based on the details of your case and the relevant immigration laws.
Regarding today's posts above by @milon45 and @megnani . . . responding to a discussion from nearly SIX YEARS AGO and a discussion itself very likely OFF-Topic in this forum.
It is not clear, not at all, what the reason is for these two posts today, let alone why a post I made more than FIVE years ago is quoted.
This forum is about Canadians with Permanent Resident status, in the group of forums regarding SETTLEMENT in Canada. The discussions in this forum are NOT about Foreign Nationals applying for PR or other status in Canada.
For discussions about applications for PR in Canada, including questions about eligibility and admissibility, see the respective forum under the group "Immigration to Canada," or if applicable, "Moving to Canada from the U.S."
While both these posts recognize the distinction between what is "typical," or in "general," in the UK or country other than Canada, versus the specific case, they fail to note the most important factor relevant to questions about what constitutes criminal inadmissibility for purposes of Canadian immigration (including inadmissibility for serious criminality that can affect Canadians who have PR status). The key to identifying what constitutes grounds for criminal inadmissibility in Canada is the Canadian equivalent.
Reminder: The most important factor in identifying what constitutes inadmissibility on grounds of criminality or serious criminality is whether the acts involved constitute a criminal offence in Canada. The classification of the crime, offence, charge or however it is labeled in another country does NOT determine its effect in regards to what constitutes grounds for inadmissibility in Canadian immigration. It is all about the Canadian equivalent.
The applicable statutory provisions governing what constitutes inadmissibility on ground of serious criminality (applicable to Canadians with PR status as well as Foreign Nationals) and criminality (applicable to Foreign Nationals) are in Section 36 IRPA, which is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-6.html#docCont
It is worth noting that even if there is NO charge filed, NO criminal case prosecuted, just committing an act in another country that if committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offence in Canada, that is sufficient to make a Foreign National inadmissible on grounds of criminality. As a practical matter this is not applied outside rather unusual circumstances but it is important because it demonstrably illustrates that it is what is considered a crime IN CANADA that matters.
It is otherwise worth noting that Canada defines a wide range of unlawful conduct that does NOT constitute a criminal offence, so is not even a summary offence let alone an indictable offence. What many refer to as a "traffic offence" in Canada, for example, is NOT an "offence" but rather an infraction or violation (noting, however, there are some criminal offences based on motor vehicle operation, such as driving while impaired, and some of these can be very serious, particularly if resulting in personal injury or death).
It is not clear, not at all, what the reason is for these two posts today, let alone why a post I made more than FIVE years ago is quoted.
This forum is about Canadians with Permanent Resident status, in the group of forums regarding SETTLEMENT in Canada. The discussions in this forum are NOT about Foreign Nationals applying for PR or other status in Canada.
For discussions about applications for PR in Canada, including questions about eligibility and admissibility, see the respective forum under the group "Immigration to Canada," or if applicable, "Moving to Canada from the U.S."
While both these posts recognize the distinction between what is "typical," or in "general," in the UK or country other than Canada, versus the specific case, they fail to note the most important factor relevant to questions about what constitutes criminal inadmissibility for purposes of Canadian immigration (including inadmissibility for serious criminality that can affect Canadians who have PR status). The key to identifying what constitutes grounds for criminal inadmissibility in Canada is the Canadian equivalent.
Reminder: The most important factor in identifying what constitutes inadmissibility on grounds of criminality or serious criminality is whether the acts involved constitute a criminal offence in Canada. The classification of the crime, offence, charge or however it is labeled in another country does NOT determine its effect in regards to what constitutes grounds for inadmissibility in Canadian immigration. It is all about the Canadian equivalent.
The applicable statutory provisions governing what constitutes inadmissibility on ground of serious criminality (applicable to Canadians with PR status as well as Foreign Nationals) and criminality (applicable to Foreign Nationals) are in Section 36 IRPA, which is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-6.html#docCont
It is worth noting that even if there is NO charge filed, NO criminal case prosecuted, just committing an act in another country that if committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offence in Canada, that is sufficient to make a Foreign National inadmissible on grounds of criminality. As a practical matter this is not applied outside rather unusual circumstances but it is important because it demonstrably illustrates that it is what is considered a crime IN CANADA that matters.
It is otherwise worth noting that Canada defines a wide range of unlawful conduct that does NOT constitute a criminal offence, so is not even a summary offence let alone an indictable offence. What many refer to as a "traffic offence" in Canada, for example, is NOT an "offence" but rather an infraction or violation (noting, however, there are some criminal offences based on motor vehicle operation, such as driving while impaired, and some of these can be very serious, particularly if resulting in personal injury or death).
Once again it shows you know nothing and your posts are just spam.
1. DB Fahrplansauskunft is German and means DB = Deutsche Bahn. Fahrplanauskunft = timetable information. Why would anyone in the UK use a German word? Last time I checked Germany lost the war..
2. Why answer an oooold thread for nothing?
Artificial intelligence generated or supported spam. If there are no links posted yet by these tadpoles, there will be soon, this is a strategy to establish a 'legend' that isn't marked for spam creation - yet.
Noted.
While I do not anticipate, let alone expect those reading my posts to notice let alone pay much attention to fine distinctions in the language employed (recognizing, after all, for many English is at best a second-language, making it difficult to see such distinctions), I nonetheless make the effort to be careful in the language I use (rather imperfectly too often unfortunately).
Here, for example, I was posting in regards to these recent posts, NOT a response, to alert anyone reading those posts how seriously flawed they are, to make it clear that when criminal inadmissibility is at issue, how the charge or allegation is classified in the country where it is made is NOT relevant but, rather, what is the Canadian equivalent based on the individual's acts or conduct, the substantive grounds for whatever is alleged or charged.
I do not purport to police posts here but in regards to a very narrow range of issues which I continue to follow and be engaged in, and particularly if my content is referenced or quoted, it is not uncommon for me to post clarifications such as I have here.
A train ticket fine reported on a police report typically involves a violation or an incident related to public transportation. Whether this affects PR (Permanent Residence) admissibility depends on various factors:
1. **Severity of the Offense**: Minor infractions like a train ticket fine usually don't have a significant impact on admissibility unless they are part of a pattern of offenses or are seen as more serious by immigration authorities.
2. **Immigration Policies**: Each country has its own immigration laws and policies regarding admissibility. Some minor offenses may not affect admissibility, while others might, especially if they are considered criminal offenses.
3. **Character and Conduct**: Immigration authorities often consider an individual's overall character and conduct, including any offenses or fines, when assessing admissibility.
4. **Disclosure and Documentation**: It's important to disclose any incidents or fines accurately when applying for PR. Failure to disclose relevant information can lead to complications or even denial of the application.
In summary, while a train ticket fine reported on a police report may not automatically disqualify someone from PR admissibility, it's essential to understand how immigration policies interpret such incidents and ensure that all required information is accurately disclosed during the application process.
1. **Severity of the Offense**: Minor infractions like a train ticket fine usually don't have a significant impact on admissibility unless they are part of a pattern of offenses or are seen as more serious by immigration authorities.
2. **Immigration Policies**: Each country has its own immigration laws and policies regarding admissibility. Some minor offenses may not affect admissibility, while others might, especially if they are considered criminal offenses.
3. **Character and Conduct**: Immigration authorities often consider an individual's overall character and conduct, including any offenses or fines, when assessing admissibility.
4. **Disclosure and Documentation**: It's important to disclose any incidents or fines accurately when applying for PR. Failure to disclose relevant information can lead to complications or even denial of the application.
In summary, while a train ticket fine reported on a police report may not automatically disqualify someone from PR admissibility, it's essential to understand how immigration policies interpret such incidents and ensure that all required information is accurately disclosed during the application process.
By all means, just noting these are bots, and the content of their points bears no relation to previous posts or reality, beyond some statistical correlation.
Whether you're replying or just scratching your own itches, fine, but for these bots, @flagging them is like feeding the household pests.
Not a criticism, just neutral comment on how they work.