Section 36(3)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides the legislative basis for rehablitation applications. It states that:
36(3)(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated.
IRCC Rehabilitation Guide
The following PDF is IRCC’s United States Criminality Assessment Guide.
IRCCNYGuideAs well, here is an internal IRCC New York memo which provides context on the number of rehabilitation applications that they receive.
IRCC NY ReportWhere To Submit
IRCC’s preference is that rehabilitation applications be submitted separate from permanent or temporary residence applications.
Statistics
Jurisprudence
In Hadad v. Canada (The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism), 2011 FC 1503, the Federal Court affirmed several important principles of rehabilitation applications, including that:
- The Minister should take into consideration the unique facts of each particular case and consider whether the overall situation warrants a finding that the individual has been rehabilitated;
- rehabilitation is forward looking; and
- an officer commits a reviewable error if they too much importance to the fact that an applicant has past criminal activity as opposed to the likelihood that the applicant would be involved in future or unlawful activity.
Similarly, in Fazekas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 666, Justice Norris noted that it was unreasonable for a visa officer to state that an applicant had not established that they were unlikely to reoffend without any explanation if the evidence indicates otherwise.
Truong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 602 provides an example of a refused rehablitation application. There, the Global Case Management System notes, which Madam Justice Furlanetto found reasonable, stated:
….He has 5 convictions which render him criminally inadmissible per 36(2)(b) In his response to Q. 16, he states that as a young adult he made many mistakes but has since learned the error of his way. He has provided brief descriptions of the events which lead to the charges/convictions, a recurring them[e] is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He has established a pattern of criminal behaviour, with numerous offences and negative contact with the law. He has submitted 3 personal references – from his roommate, sister-in-law and his brother. Unfortunately none of the references indicate any detailed knowledge of his multiple convictions but refer in general to his past mistakes or as his brother says “he has made many mistakes in the past” but that his last offence was more than 5 years ago and he has distanced himself from people that weren’t good for him. He has submitted a 2017 US Tax return showing business income of $49,522 from self-employment, he states on the form that he is a nail technician. He has not submitted any documents to show any counselling, treatment or other rehabilitation. Having reviewed the Rehabilitation application, there is insufficient documentation to be satisfied that the applicant is rehabilitated and will not reoffend.
It should be noted that pursuant to the Federal Court decision in Veizaj v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 120 an officer does not have to consider whether an applicant is rehabilitated if the applicant does not ask for rehabilitation and pay the required fees.