Criminal rehabilitation approval

[JoseM]

So I got approved. After two years of sending paper work and paying close to $1000. I got approved. All I was given was a letter of approval to print out.

My question is is this it??? Just show up at the boarder with this letter of approval?? And they say it's not guaranteed either that it's up to the port of entry officers now?
Anyone has any clue on this???

 

[dmsesq]

Yes, just show up at the border... you shouldn't have anything to worry about unless there is something else that makes you inadmissible to Canada. I send my application in February 2015, got it returned for not including passport photo and because they didn't accept the credit card form and I needed to send a money order. I immediately re-sent it for the requested items. I then got a letter saying I could submit additional documentation in support of my application for the next 90 days or email them to have it proceed "as is" with only the documents I sent and that I didn't intend on sending anymore. I emailed them asking them to waive the 90 days and proceed. I just got my letter of approval yesterday in the mail (5/18/2015). So, it took less than 3 months from sending the application to getting approved. I had a driving while ability impaired in NYS from 2007. I am providing this information because all I have read is people say that it takes "years." My experience was much different.

 

[seekingCR2]

Yes, just show up at the border... you shouldn't have anything to worry about unless there is something else that makes you inadmissible to Canada. I send my application in February 2015, got it returned for not including passport photo and because they didn't accept the credit card form and I needed to send a money order. I immediately re-sent it for the requested items. I then got a letter saying I could submit additional documentation in support of my application for the next 90 days or email them to have it proceed "as is" with only the documents I sent and that I didn't intend on sending anymore. I emailed them asking them to waive the 90 days and proceed. I just got my letter of approval yesterday in the mail (5/18/2015). So, it took less than 3 months from sending the application to getting approved. I had a driving while ability impaired in NYS from 2007. I am providing this information because all I have read is people say that it takes "years." My experience was much different.

Who did you send an email? Is there any email that you send it to? My application has been sent on 11th May 2017 and i am curious if they will send me any kind of receipt notice upon receiving my application? Did you receive any receipt notice once you submitted your application?

 

[kim.dorval77]

Who did you send an email? Is there any email that you send it to? My application has been sent on 11th May 2017 and i am curious if they will send me any kind of receipt notice upon receiving my application? Did you receive any receipt notice once you submitted your application?

Hi, did you end up received a receipt notice that they have received your application? Also which office did you send it to?

 

[mpottier]

So I got approved. After two years of sending paper work and paying close to $1000. I got approved. All I was given was a letter of approval to print out.

My question is is this it??? Just show up at the boarder with this letter of approval?? And they say it's not guaranteed either that it's up to the port of entry officers now?
Anyone has any clue on this???

Yes you just show up with that piece of paper with your passport, and that's it. It's like nothing ever happened. In the case of my wife they often don't even ask for it. The whole rehabilitation thing is just a fancy way for the Canadian government to save face and give the illusion that they are protecting Canadians. After spending all that time and money on this rather flabby piece of paper you almost want them to give you special treatment.

They say entry cannot be guaranteed, and it is up to the officer, but this is the case for any non-Canadian citizen entering Canada. they just reiterate this so you don't think the rehabilitation document is some sort of golden ticket.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Yes you just show up with that piece of paper with your passport, and that's it. It's like nothing ever happened. In the case of my wife they often don't even ask for it. The whole rehabilitation thing is just a fancy way for the Canadian government to save face and give the illusion that they are protecting Canadians. After spending all that time and money on this rather flabby piece of paper you almost want them to give you special treatment.

They say entry cannot be guaranteed, and it is up to the officer, but this is the case for any non-Canadian citizen entering Canada. they just reiterate this so you don't think the rehabilitation document is some sort of golden ticket.

It is not a way to "save face and give the illusion". While not a perfect system, it keeps actual criminals out of Canada.

 

[mpottier]

It is not a way to "save face and give the illusion". While not a perfect system, it keeps actual criminals out of Canada.

It certainly does help keep criminals out of Canada, but the bar is far too low on who is considered a danger to the Canadian populace. It was originally designed for war criminals, fugitives, and violent/repeat offenders. Now it is just a dragnet for people with old misdemeanors and stupid mistakes, who should not be subject to the same process as a rapist or wanted war criminal. Should people with minor crimes be allowed to enter Canada automatically, of course not, but they should not be automatically subject to inadmissibility and "rehabilitation" or TRP applications. This is not only overkill for most, but clogs the system within the IRCC and CBSA where resources are limited and could be used for far more pressing matters (like PR processing). A better system would be something like Australia, where people are not criminally inadmissible unless they served jail time of 12 months or more. This is a realistic benchmark we could emulate and wouldn't require every Canadian citizen to run background checks on all their foreign family and friends before inviting them to Canada. The system we have now looks great on paper but does nothing to reduce foreigner crime in Canada, as evidenced by the little to no change in these stats since CBSA started enforcing our rules more strictly in the early 2000's. It's just there now to give CBSA clout.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

It certainly does help keep criminals out of Canada, but the bar is far too low on who is considered a danger to the Canadian populace. It was originally designed for war criminals, fugitives, and violent/repeat offenders. Now it is just a dragnet for people with old misdemeanors and stupid mistakes, who should not be subject to the same process as a rapist or wanted war criminal. Should people with minor crimes be allowed to enter Canada automatically, of course not, but they should not be automatically subject to inadmissibility and "rehabilitation" or TRP applications. This is not only overkill for most, but clogs the system within the IRCC and CBSA where resources are limited and could be used for far more pressing matters (like PR processing). A better system would be something like Australia, where people are not criminally inadmissible unless they served jail time of 12 months or more. This is a realistic benchmark we could emulate and wouldn't require every Canadian citizen to run background checks on all their foreign family and friends before inviting them to Canada. The system we have now looks great on paper but does nothing to reduce foreigner crime in Canada, as evidenced by the little to no change in these stats since CBSA started enforcing our rules more strictly in the early 2000's. It's just there now to give CBSA clout.

Drunk driving is not a stupid mistake or a minor crime, especially when a person does it multiple times.

 

[mpottier]

Drunk driving is not a stupid mistake or a minor crime, especially when a person does it multiple times.

I made no mention of drunk driving, but yes it is not something to be condoned, and certainly multiple DUI's is something to be considered for inadmissibility, but jail time or some sort of strict probation should be involved. This would entail something egregious. For example in the USA 3 DUI's is a felony and thus makes a person inadmissible. But one would not necessarily make a person inadmissible, but perhaps subject to secondary screening to garner details. In Canada it is a blanket ban for 5-10 years subject to rehabilitation. Also a DUI can certainly be a mistake since North America allows some alcohol in your system and you can still drive legally. Often it can only take one drink for a person to be over the limit (depending on their size). You do not need to be stumbling drunk to get a DUI, thus people often mistakenly feel they are fine as do others around them. If the law was a zero alcohol level then there could be no mistakes, and this is certainly something many governments are considering (I would be for this). The fact of the matter is that CBSA's hands are tied. If someone has a single DUI (or any misdemeanor), they are banned from Canada for 10 years (with rehabilitation app possible after 5 years). There are 1 million DUI's give out each year in the USA alone, worldwide is anyone's guess. Even if a fraction of these want to visit Canada, that's a lot or rehab and/or TRP apps clogging up the system and costing the taxpayers $$$ (Also no evidence it reduces crime or protects Canadians). No system is perfect but common sense needs to prevail.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I made no mention of drunk driving, but yes it is not something to be condoned, and certainly multiple DUI's is something to be considered for inadmissibility, but jail time or some sort of strict probation should be involved. This would entail something egregious. For example in the USA 3 DUI's is a felony and thus makes a person inadmissible. But one would not necessarily make a person inadmissible, but perhaps subject to secondary screening to garner details. In Canada it is a blanket ban for 5-10 years subject to rehabilitation. Also a DUI can certainly be a mistake since North America allows some alcohol in your system and you can still drive legally. Often it can only take one drink for a person to be over the limit (depending on their size). You do not need to be stumbling drunk to get a DUI, thus people often mistakenly feel they are fine as do others around them. If the law was a zero alcohol level then there could be no mistakes, and this is certainly something many governments are considering (I would be for this). The fact of the matter is that CBSA's hands are tied. If someone has a single DUI (or any misdemeanor), they are banned from Canada for 10 years (with rehabilitation app possible after 5 years). There are 1 million DUI's give out each year in the USA alone, worldwide is anyone's guess. Even if a fraction of these want to visit Canada, that's a lot or rehab and/or TRP apps clogging up the system and costing the taxpayers $$$ (Also no evidence it reduces crime or protects Canadians). No system is perfect but common sense needs to prevail.

From your precious posts, you or your spouse's issue was 2 DUIs.

It takes more alcohol than is contained in one standard drink to hit a blood alcohol of .08 unless a person weighs well under 100 pounds. If a person has a BAC of .08, they can feel the physical effects of the alcohol and should be well aware that they can't drive.

A DUI where a person has a BAC of .08 or more is a crime, not a mistake.

 

[seekingCR2]

Hi, did you end up received a receipt notice that they have received your application? Also which office did you send it to?

Yes, i received receipt notice. I sent it to Canadian consulate, LA, USA

 

[mpottier]

From your precious posts, you or your spouse's issue was 2 DUIs.

It takes more alcohol than is contained in one standard drink to hit a blood alcohol of .08 unless a person weighs well under 100 pounds. If a person has a BAC of .08, they can feel the physical effects of the alcohol and should be well aware that they can't drive.

A DUI where a person has a BAC of .08 or more is a crime, not a mistake.

I am certainly not talking about any personal case. People do weigh 100lb or less, and people can "feel" the effect of .04 or less alcohol in their system, but again people don't know when they are feeling the affect of .03 or .08, which is why I advocate for ZERO and hence the mistake aspect of a DUI. Punishment needs to suit the crime and 5-10 years of banishment is heavy handed. I have stated numerous times that a DUI is a crime, but crimes can premeditated or errors in judgment. Again, I don't think people with Misdemeanors (not just DUI's, I'm not really sure why you brought up just this crime) should not receive secondary screening, but using the resources designed for war criminals and murderers is not the way to go, and wastes the time of CBSA and IRCC (not to mention a whole lot of money). The Fact that musicians, actors, and other noted people with VERY severe criminal records visit Canada all the time and are issued TRP's by CBSA, simply shows that this is not about keeping Canadians safe, but keeping up the security theatre. Most security experts agree in this regard. Good day.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I am certainly not talking about any personal case. People do weigh 100lb or less, and people can "feel" the effect of .04 or less alcohol in their system, but again people don't know when they are feeling the affect of .03 or .08, which is why I advocate for ZERO and hence the mistake aspect of a DUI. Punishment needs to suit the crime and 5-10 years of banishment is heavy handed. I have stated numerous times that a DUI is a crime, but crimes can premeditated or errors in judgment. Again, I don't think people with Misdemeanors (not just DUI's, I'm not really sure why you brought up just this crime) should not receive secondary screening, but using the resources designed for war criminals and murderers is not the way to go, and wastes the time of CBSA and IRCC (not to mention a whole lot of money). The Fact that musicians, actors, and other noted people with VERY severe criminal records visit Canada all the time and are issued TRP's by CBSA, simply shows that this is not about keeping Canadians safe, but keeping up the security theatre. Most security experts agree in this regard. Good day.

They know they are feeling the effects of alcohol and therefore shouldn't be driving regardless. Those who weigh less than 100lbs should have the common sense to know they are more easily affected.

I brought up DUIs because that is the crime in your situation.

There are tens of thousands of TRPs issued every year, most to "normal" people.

 

[mpottier]

They know they are feeling the effects of alcohol and therefore shouldn't be driving regardless. Those who weigh less than 100lbs should have the common sense to know they are more easily affected.

I brought up DUIs because that is the crime in your situation.

There are tens of thousands of TRPs issued every year, most to "normal" people.

There was no DUI in any case with myself. I often use that term for the sake of brevity as the reality is more complex. I'm a Canadian citizen and my wife and I have no criminal record.

So you agree the law should be changed to ZERO. It's nice to think that people will have a drink and not drive for hours, but the reality is quite different (Hence the millions issues each year around the world). The same goes for people driving tired or distracted.

TRP's are lengthy applications that can take a year or more to process and are often only issued for days or a few weeks. The thousands issued each year is offset by the thousands more refused, not because these people were dangerous but because they didn't have urgent need to enter Canada. But again the TRP is a blanket app meant for serious criminality like assault, organized crime, rape etc, and are only meant if you have serious need to enter the country (visiting family is not one of these reasons). My point is that this is a waste of money (as they are not self funded), can hurt Canadian citizens, and does nothing to "secure" Canada as the bulk of these are issued for misdemeanors . Hence the theatre and illusion. I would love to be wrong about this but I've know too many Canadian citizens who have had their relationships destroyed over Canadian policy or were forced to move to their family's/spouse's country. If it prevented crime in Canada or kept my family and friends safe I could justify it, but it doesn't and I can't. Have a wonderful day.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

There was no DUI in any case with myself. I often use that term for the sake of brevity as the reality is more complex. I'm a Canadian citizen and my wife and I have no criminal record.

Your previous posts would suggest otherwise...

Hello everyone from Seoul South Korea. I have a big interesting topic to present and questions to ask. Currently I am a Canadian living in Seoul, South Korea. I have been here for going on 4 years. Currently I have a common law spouse who I have been living with here since September 2009. She is American, not Korean. She has been here for about 3 years. We are both on Korean E2 Visas, which are for teachers of children and adults. She teaches at an elementary school , and I teach University classes.

Nevertheless, I would like to sponsor her to come to Canada and live with me in the Autumn of this year (Sept-Nov 2011). Our relationship is genuine, and we have all the paper work for sponsorship eligibility lined up and ready to mail off to the office in Ontario.

However, this is where is gets complicated, she has 2 DUI's on her record. One occurred almost 10 years ago when she was 19, and just made a stupid mistake, there was no dangerous driving, no bodily harm ,and no property damage. The second occurred in the spring 2009, much to her humiliation. She was coming home from dinner with family, and an officer pulled her over for a random check (which is legal in her state of Maine), and gave her a DUI because she had drinks with her dinner (which she had absently mind-idly forgot about). Once again there was no speeding/dangerous driving, no bodily harm, and no property damage. She always cooperated, and paid the fines promptly. Her licence is gone and she doesn't intend to get it back anytime soon (She is eligible to get it back this year with restrictions, and get it back with no restrictions next year). Also, she is originally from a border town in Maine, and she can literally see Canada from her house. In the summer of 2009 we visited her hometown, and went to the border to visit my family in Nova Scotia (we didn't know about the inadmissibility rules). They scanned her passport and her DUI from 10 years ago popped up. They took her to an isolation room, and questioned her ( I was not allowed to go with her). She obviously told them the truth and was very forthcoming and told them of the second DUI that didn't show up on their scan. However, she was denied entry and we were told to turn around (Thank god she lives 5 minutes from the border). They offered us no information on how she could enter Canada. Lastly, her second DUI does no appear on her criminal record, we don't really know why (it's been over 2 years), but the State of Maine said they don't always appear on your criminal record if there were no aggravating circumstances, it would just appear on you driving record.

Anyway, we later learned we should have went to one of the major border crossings to get a Temporary resident permit (TRP) from a trained immigration official (the smaller crossing we went across was not equipped with immigration officers), and that with proper paper work she can get this TRP issued for up to 3 years in length (and it will allow her to get a student and open work visa if it is issued for longer than 6 months).

Nevertheless, I was wondering if anyone has any experience with these TRPs, and how difficult they are to get? My spouse has lived in Korea for 3 years, and the Korean government doesn't care about these types of infractions, and they certainly trust her with children. She has also traveled to Brazil, China ,and Europe with no problems, in fact they almost laugh when she brings it up (like we are wasting their time with this, they are looking for violent criminals or smugglers). The immigration website is extremely vague on this matter, and I have no idea what they mean when they say TRP's are issued on compassionate grounds (does that include us?). Also, some websites say they issue these rarely, but I have spoken to numerous lawyers who say they issue these things daily, with few being rejected. Also, I used Stats Canada and discovered they issue thousands of these TRP's a years for much worse crimes, including armed robbery, manslaughter, sexual assault, and 'terrorist acts'!? I also called immigration in Canada, and they sent me an e-mail, stating that they had to change the rules for TRP's because too many people were getting rejected from the USA. They actually created a clause that celebrities and musicians coming to Canada can get TRP's more easily!? (I still have this e-mail, and I will try and post it).

Thanks to anyone who has any experience with this, we are going to apply for it either way, and we would rather not use lawyers since they charge way too much, and don't seem to offer any real advantage (in fact some lawyers told us to just try it by ourselves first).

Thanks in advance.

So you agree the law should be changed to ZERO. It's nice to think that people will have a drink and not drive for hours, but the reality is quite different (Hence the millions issues each year around the world). The same goes for people driving tired or distracted.

No, I don't agree it should be changed to zero. That still won't stop stupid people from driving drunk.

TRP's are lengthy applications that can take a year or more to process and are often only issued for days or a few weeks. The thousands issued each year is offset by the thousands more refused, not because these people were dangerous but because they didn't have urgent need to enter Canada. But again the TRP is a blanket app meant for serious criminality like assault, organized crime, rape etc, and are only meant if you have serious need to enter the country (visiting family is not one of these reasons). My point is that this is a waste of money (as they are not self funded), can hurt Canadian citizens, and does nothing to "secure" Canada as the bulk of these are issued for misdemeanors . Hence the theatre and illusion. I would love to be wrong about this but I've know too many Canadian citizens who have had their relationships destroyed over Canadian policy or were forced to move to their family's/spouse's country. If it prevented crime in Canada or kept my family and friends safe I could justify it, but it doesn't and I can't. Have a wonderful day.

TRPs are often granted immediately at the POE as well. At the end of the day, the criminal inadmissibility laws and the rehabilitation process keeps criminals out of Canada, even if their crimes are "less serious".