In some countries the failure to pay a debt can be a criminal offence. I do not know Dubai law. But some have suggested that Dubai is among jurisdictions in which the failure to pay a debt can be prosecuted or charged as a criminal offence.
Such an offence is NOT a prohibition which would keep a person from becoming a Canadian citizen. An offence outside Canada constitutes a prohibition ONLY if it is an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament. This is true for both charges, per Citizenship Act Subsection 22(1)(b.1), and for convictions within the previous four years or while application is in process, per Subsection 22(3).
The IRCC information about prohibitions is similarly stated. This information is directly linked from the current citizenship application form, and otherwise is here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/become-canadian-citizen/eligibility/situtations-prevent-citizenship.html
Notwithstanding this, in the current application form Item 16.3. asks, [yes] or [no], "
Are you now charged with, on trial for, or subject to or a party to an appeal relating to: An offence outside Canada?" Unlike the counterpart to Item 16.3, asking about offences in Canada, this does NOT reference an "indictable" offence, but references any offence.
So the question is, can the applicant check "NO" knowing it is NOT a prohibition? Or should the applicant disclose the "offence" outside Canada, explain details, and then let IRCC determine for itself whether the offence is one which would be an indictable offence in Canada, and thus a prohibition?
Which leads to the following discussion:
Hi,
I landed in Jan 2016, however, my plan was to come in Jan 2017 as I was working in Dubai and had some debts to pay back. Unfortunately I lost my job in Jan 2016 and those who are aware of Dubai rules knows that you have 30 days to either leave or get another job before banks put travel ban.
To cut it short, here I am in Canada for 3 years with 70% debt i've paid back but still some is left - unfortunately due to this I've got "police case". I understand that though this is a criminal case in Dubai, it isn't in Canada.
Will such case affect the citizenship? Or shall I wait for the time to lapse to avoid getting police certificate?
Thanks all.
If u did not go back to dubai once landed as PR u r not required to provide PC from dubai even if fall in last 4 years
As some subsequent posts have alluded . . .
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: REAL QUESTION IN THIS SCENARIO IS NOT WHETHER A POLICE CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED.
THE MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS HOW TO RESPOND TO ITEM 16 and HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROCESS.
Item 16 in the current application form, CIT 0002 (01-2019), has two questions which loom large in this situation.
Item 16.3. asks, [yes] or [no], "
Are you now charged with, on trial for, or subject to or a party to an appeal relating to: An offence outside Canada?"
Item 16.8. asks, [yes] or [no], "
In the 4 years immediately before the date of your citizenship application, have you: Been convicted of an offence outside Canada, regardless of whether you were pardoned or otherwise granted amnesty for the offence?"
If there is an offence charged in Dubai which has not been fully resolved, the truthful response to 16.3., as it is stated, is "yes."
If there is a conviction for an offence in Dubai, the truthful response to 16.8., as it is stated, is "yes."
A "yes" response to either requires the applicant to provide details in the box under 16.b)
The help (?) button information states "
You cannot become a citizen if any to [should be 'of']
the situations listed in Question 16 apply to you at the time you submit your citizenship application or while your application is being processed."
This is NOT entirely true in terms of what situations are listed, at least NOT as they are literally phrased.
And, indeed, the link to "
situations that prevent you from becoming a Canadian citizen" (should link) phrases some of the situations differently than they are listed in Item 16 itself.
Removal Order Example: Item 16.4.
Item 16.4 asks [yes] or [no], "
Are you now, or have you ever been, under a removal order (have you been asked by Canadian officials to leave Canada)?"
In the list of situations that prevent one from becoming a Canadian citizen, in contrast, it states that one of the situations which will prevent one from becoming a citizen is if the applicant is "
under a removal order (Canadian officials have asked you to leave Canada)." This version appears to be consistent with statutory provisions.
That "
have ever been" is far broader than the situation which actually constitutes a prohibition.
So what if a PR previously had been reported for a breach of the PR RO, and issued the Removal Order, appealed that and won the appeal, and then eventually remained in Canada long enough to qualify for citizenship? Truthful response to literal question in Item 16.4 would be "YES," but the details should illuminate that does NOT constitute a prohibition. The help (?) button states, however, that if any of the listed situations applies, the person cannot become a citizen.
Can an applicant assess whether his or her actual situation constitutes a prohibition and respond based on that? Can, for example, a PR who was issued a Removal Order in the past, which has been fully cured, check "NO" because it is NOT a prohibition? Even though the question asks if you "
have ever been" under a Removal Order?
Which brings this back around to questions about charges or convictions for an offence outside Canada. Can the applicant evaluate an offense charged abroad and conclude that it would NOT be an indictable offence in Canada and based on that conclude it is OK to answer "NO?" No, because it is NOT a prohibition. Even if it is an "offence?"
THIS IS A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT SHOULD BE. NOT MY FAULT.
So as I initially suggested, in reference to Item 16 questions about offences outside Canada: the question is, can the applicant check "NO" knowing it is NOT a prohibition? Or should the applicant disclose the "offence" outside Canada, explain details, and then let IRCC determine for itself whether the offence is one which would be an indictable offence in Canada, and thus a prohibition?
Generally I lean toward the latter, based on giving a very high priority to being fully truthful, and trusting IRCC to properly evaluate the information. BUT obviously disclosing this "offence" is likely to trigger some non-routine processing. Maybe a request for a police certificate even though one is not required with the application itself.
I do not know what the best approach here is. My view is that enduring delays in processing is preferable to fudging facts in order to (one hopes) get through the process more easily and faster. This is a process in which one really wants to get things right. Risk of delay seems small compared to risk of consequences for misrepresentation.
BUT I do not know. I do NOT trust any declarative opinions about this by anyone here. Especially any advice that assures applicants it is OK to state a response that is not accurate. Especially any advice that is based on second-guessing
what-IRCC-really-wants. But it looks like IRCC may indeed want applicants to check "no" if the foreign offence is not one that would constitute an indictable offence in Canada. That said, I would not trust the help centre call agents about this either.
The big difference now, compared to the previous versions of the application, is that this version explicitly states that checking "yes" for any item means you cannot become a citizen. That does not seem correct to me (examples above). For some of the sub-items, that is NOT correct for certain answers to certain items read literally. But I suspect that any "yes" check might result in the application being returned rather than processed.
Check "NO" and include a supplemental page explanation, a very brief one along the lines: "I have NO prohibitions but I do have a charge in XXX country for an offence under that country's laws which is NOT an offence in Canada." Maybe some details about what the particular offence is. But I am not at all confident this is a good way to approach this either.
BUT I can offer a REMINDER: just because the applicant is not required to submit a police certificate with the application does NOT preclude IRCC from later asking for a police certificate during the processing of the application.
AND it is worth noting, as some have suggested, if the "offence" can be cleared by paying the debt (such as if it is a pending charge rather than a conviction and the charges can be totally discharged by paying the debt), AND the applicant can pay the debt, that would be one way of minimizing problems. This is NOT necessary to avoid a prohibition, but it could be the path of least resistance.
