De Campos Gregorio v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 748 : Criminal Rehabilitation Refusal and Risk of Reoffending

Isabel Maria De Campos Gregorio, a Portuguese citizen, was convicted in Portugal in 2013 of an offence equivalent to forgery in Canada. The offence arose from fraudulent bank transfers exceeding €10,000 while she worked as a bank teller.

She later came to Canada, married a Canadian permanent resident, and applied for permanent residence through spousal sponsorship. Because the foreign conviction rendered her inadmissible for serious criminality under section 36(1)(b) of IRPA, she applied for criminal rehabilitation under section 36(3)(c).

An immigration officer refused the rehabilitation application. The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable.

Key Principle

The central question in a criminal rehabilitation application is whether the applicant is likely to commit further criminal offences. An officer cannot simply list positive and negative factors and reach a conclusion without assessing what those factors reveal about the risk of reoffending.

Officer’s Decision

The Officer focused on the seriousness of the original offence, including:

• the significant financial loss suffered by the victim;
• the fact that the transactions occurred repeatedly over several days;
• the finding that the Applicant personally profited from the fraud;
• the involvement of co-accused in other serious criminal activity; and
• the relative recency of the conviction.

The Officer concluded that criminal rehabilitation was not warranted.

Federal Court Analysis

Justice Fothergill held that the Officer failed to address the most important issue: whether Ms. De Campos Gregorio was likely to reoffend.

The Court relied on Lau v Canada, 2016 FC 1184, Tahhan v Canada, 2018 FC 1279, and Ramirez Velasco v Canada, 2019 FC 543.

The Court confirmed that rehabilitation is inherently forward-looking. Current IRCC guidance similarly describes rehabilitation in terms of whether an individual has developed a stable lifestyle and is unlikely to become involved in further criminal activity.

The Court rejected the Minister’s argument that Lau was outdated because older operational guidelines had been replaced. The underlying principle remained valid.

Relevant factors included:

• the nature and circumstances of the offence;
• the time elapsed since the offence;
• whether there were previous or subsequent offences;
• the Applicant’s conduct since the offence;
• changes in personal circumstances; and
• other indicators relevant to whether criminal conduct is likely to recur.

The Applicant had no other convictions before or after the offence, had paid her fine, had expressed remorse for the victim’s harm, and had submitted character evidence from friends and family.

The Officer mentioned various factors but failed to explain what they demonstrated about future recidivism.

Practical Significance

This case is useful where IRCC refuses criminal rehabilitation by concentrating primarily on the seriousness of the historical offence.

The decision confirms that serious past criminal conduct alone does not complete the rehabilitation analysis. The officer must expressly assess the likelihood of future offending.

Outcome

The judicial review was granted. The refusal was set aside and the rehabilitation application was returned to a different immigration officer for redetermination.

Case Citation:

De Campos Gregorio v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 748 (CanLII)