DUI in 2006

[Rockstar DUI]

Hello Seniors

I had a DUI in the USA back in 2006, I traveled to Canada a few times and don't recall what I put on the application for arrests. I now have my ITA and want to proceed with it. What would happen if in case I may have said 'No' in the previous application and 'Yes' now? Worried about the consequences. The most recent visit was July 2017.

Thanks

 

[russ6970]

if you said No on the previous and Yes now you would be committing misrepresentation and could be banned for 5 years. It would be helpful to you if you could find out somehow what you put on previous before advancing.

 

[Rockstar DUI]

thanks for the reply. I tried to look at the application I filled online and couldn't retrieve it. I guess I don't have a choice but to roll the dice. What is my spouse becomes a primary applicant and exclude me from the application.Lets say in this case I'm banned for 5 years. Once she gets it, can she sponsor me as a dependent after 5 years?

 

[russ6970]

From what I can gather if you have a DUI you would have to go through rehabilitation as well.

 

[Rockstar DUI]

From what I can gather if you have a DUI you would have to go through rehabilitation as well.

Even if it more than 10 years old. I thought that would be considered 'Deemed Rehabilitated' if it has been more than 10 years.

 

[meyakanor]

I'm assuming that you are not a US citizen?

Because, if you're a US citizen, you would likely not ever have to [except, maybe in secondary] answer any question about arrests, charges, or conviction when attempting to enter Canada since US citizens are visa-exempt and eTA exempt?

About the situation with your spouse, if you are inadmissible, likely they will not let your wife to enter the country as well, since one's spouse's inadmissibility implies one's inadmissibility as well:

There are many reasons we may not let you into Canada, such as:

• you are a security risk,
• you have committed human or international rights violations,
• you have been convicted of a crime, or you have committed an act outside Canada that would be a crime,
• you have ties to organized crime,
• you have a serious health problem,
• you have a serious financial problem,
• you lied in your application or in an interview,
• you do not meet the conditions in Canada’s immigration law, or
• one of your family members is not allowed into Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/inadmissibility.html

You should consult an expert. The issue is not your DUI at this point (2006 was over 10 years ago, so you should look into 'Deemed Rehabilitation'), it's the misrepresentation (again, consult with a very competent expert).

 

[Rockstar DUI]

I'm assuming that you are not a US citizen?

Because, if you're a US citizen, you would likely not ever have to [except, maybe in secondary] answer any question about arrests, charges, or conviction when attempting to enter Canada since US citizens are visa-exempt and eTA exempt?

About the situation with your spouse, if you are inadmissible, likely they will not let your wife to enter the country as well, since one's spouse's inadmissibility implies one's inadmissibility as well:



You should consult an expert. The issue is not your DUI at this point (2006 was over 10 years ago, so you should look into 'Deemed Rehabilitation'), it's the misrepresentation (again, consult with a very competent expert).

Thank you. I will consult with Campbell Cohen law firm with my case and proceed with them to help guide in getting over this hump.

 

[meyakanor]

Thank you. I will consult with Campbell Cohen law firm with my case and proceed with them to help guide in getting over this hump.

Minister Hussen just made an announcement that those 'deemed rehabilitated' before December 17 2018 would not require to apply for any special relief to overcome the DUI inadmissibility (the new Bill made DUI a 'serious criminality' in Canada unfortunately, but your timing seem to be pretty lucky):

The minister said that anyone deemed rehabilitated for an impaired driving offence outside Canada before December 18, 2018, “would not need to reapply for relief to overcome inadmissibility due to that same offence.”

https://www.cicnews.com/2018/09/feds-address-immigration-concerns-raised-by-tougher-impaired-driving-sentences-0911165.html

So definitely look into this deemed rehabilitation as soon as possible (clock is ticking until December 17 2018), and make sure you qualify (and if not, take any necessary action).

And yes, the bigger issue is the misrepresentation, which you have unfortunately committed.

Consult with an expert, and always be truthful about it when asked.

 

[Rockstar DUI]

Minister Hussen just made an announcement that those 'deemed rehabilitated' before December 17 2018 would not require to apply for any special relief to overcome the DUI inadmissibility (the new Bill made DUI a 'serious criminality' in Canada unfortunately, but your timing seem to be pretty lucky):



So definitely look into this deemed rehabilitation as soon as possible (clock is ticking until December 17 2018), and make sure you qualify (and if not, take any necessary action).

And yes, the bigger issue is the misrepresentation, which you have unfortunately committed.

Consult with an expert, and always be truthful about it when asked.

I will mention this and hopefully they don't look at my previous applications, which I doubt will happen. I'm sure they will look at my old application details.

 

[Copingwithlife]

I'm assuming that you are not a US citizen?

Because, if you're a US citizen, you would likely not ever have to [except, maybe in secondary] answer any question about arrests, charges, or conviction when attempting to enter Canada since US citizens are visa-exempt and eTA exempt?

About the situation with your spouse, if you are inadmissible, likely they will not let your wife to enter the country as well, since one's spouse's inadmissibility implies one's inadmissibility as well:



You should consult an expert. The issue is not your DUI at this point (2006 was over 10 years ago, so you should look into 'Deemed Rehabilitation'), it's the misrepresentation (again, consult with a very competent expert).

They could ask him if he has any prior arrests con

I'm assuming that you are not a US citizen?

Because, if you're a US citizen, you would likely not ever have to [except, maybe in secondary] answer any question about arrests, charges, or conviction when attempting to enter Canada since US citizens are visa-exempt and eTA exempt?

About the situation with your spouse, if you are inadmissible, likely they will not let your wife to enter the country as well, since one's spouse's inadmissibility implies one's inadmissibility as well:



You should consult an expert. The issue is not your DUI at this point (2006 was over 10 years ago, so you should look into 'Deemed Rehabilitation'), it's the misrepresentation (again, consult with a very competent expert).

Canada would already have information on file regarding any arrests or convictions the o/p may have in the past . Information is shared between countries . He could be asked , he states no, and the border officer is probably going to ask him to think about that .

 

[LifeDreamer]

Your DUI is not on FBI's NCIC data center, and thus you were not flagged at the port of entry. Perhaps your DUI was in New Jersey?

Regarding misrepresentation, if you have not affirmatively answered No to any questions regarding arrests on actual visa applications you are fine. If you did so, then it is a matter of discretion whether IRCC will look the other way when it comes to process your PR application. At worst, you will first receive a procedural fairness letter asking for explanation and your input there will play a crucial role.

 

[Copingwithlife]

There is nothing in the Immigration Act that states whether the IRCC "will look the other way". The Act is legislation passed in Parliament, thus it has be followed as past

Misrepresentation, as stated in the Immigration Act

• • http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-40.html

• There is no provision, from at least what I read, in this law that allows the IRCC to "look the other way', when it comes to misrepresentation. Otherwise the law would not be applied fairly and evenly across for all applicants. Some being allowed in with misrepresentation on their applications, while others refused for the same misrepresentation

 

[LifeDreamer]

This is true if the misrepresentation was discovered by IRCC and the applicant was confronted with the true facts before they admitted it. However, if the applicant is the one to come forward with the true facts before any misrepresentation comes to light to IRCC then a different outcome may actually be achieved.

See this blog post by renowned Canadian lawyer Steven Meurrens:
https://meurrensonimmigration.com/undisclosed-criminal-records-and-criminal-rehabilitation/

To quote from that blog entry:

Prior to the introduction of the Electronic Travel Authorisation, people who could travel to Canada without a visa were often never asked if they had a criminal record. This was especially true for individuals who applied for work permits at Canadian ports of entry. Because these individuals were never directly asked whether they had criminal records, visa officers were more forgiving for their omission than they would have been for someone who had outright misrepresented.

As a general rule immigration officials are much more forgiving to individuals who disclose criminal records than to those who are caught with them.

There are also examples on this forum including one of a British citizen who did not disclose juvenile criminal convictions on his study permits, but when it was time to apply for PR he disclosed them and this did not result in a misrepresentation finding for him.

Granted it could be said that discretion is generally exercised if the applicant was admissible on the true facts when the misrepresentation happened. So in the OP's case if he had been entering Canada while his DUI case was more than 10 years old, there's a good chance it may not be a problem for the PR visa now.

 

[LifeDreamer]

There is nothing in the Immigration Act that states whether the IRCC "will look the other way". The Act is legislation passed in Parliament, thus it has be followed as past

Misrepresentation, as stated in the Immigration Act

• • http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-40.html

• There is no provision, from at least what I read, in this law that allows the IRCC to "look the other way', when it comes to misrepresentation. Otherwise the law would not be applied fairly and evenly across for all applicants. Some being allowed in with misrepresentation on their applications, while others refused for the same misrepresentation

The provisions in the Immigration Act apply to people who already have had an inadmissibility report written against them, so yes once a person is found inadmissible for misrepresentation there is no way to remove this bar and all applicants who fall in this category have no other recourse but to wait for the five year period to elapse if they haven't appealed this finding.

 

[MC2]

Not much talk about the other common "record" in people's history.

How is an old old weed offence treated? Offences were 05/06 and now legal in that country and soon to be legal here. And, is a letter of expungement same as rehabilitated?

Thanks C.