If you have a
U.S. conviction for “assault with a weapon” (or a similar weapon-based assault
offence) and you plan to visit, study, work, or immigrate to Canada,
Canadian officers may assess you for criminal inadmissibility under IRPA
s. 36 after completing a criminal equivalency analysis (matching
your U.S. offence to the closest Canadian offence).
Source: IRPA s. 36
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-36.html
1) The
Canadian baseline offence: Criminal Code s. 267
Canada’s most
common equivalent for “assault with a weapon” is Criminal Code s. 267.
It includes assaults where a person:
● uses/carries/threatens to use a weapon (or imitation), or
● causes bodily harm, or
● chokes/suffocates/strangles.
Source: Criminal Code s. 267
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-267.html
Why this
matters for inadmissibility
● s. 267 is a hybrid offence, and if prosecuted by indictment it carries a maximum
of 10 years.
Source: Criminal Code s. 267
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-267.html
● Under IRPA, hybrid offences are treated as
indictable for inadmissibility analysis.
Source: IRPA s. 36(3)(a)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-36.html
2) U.S. → Canada equivalency chart (three states)
State | Common
“weapon assault” statute | What it
typically requires | Likely
Canadian equivalent |
California | Penal Code §
245(a)(1) (assault with deadly weapon/instrument other than firearm) | Assault using
a deadly weapon/instrument | Often maps to Criminal
Code s. 267(a) (weapon use/threat) |
New York | Penal Law §
120.05(2) (Assault 2nd: intent to cause physical injury + causes injury
by deadly weapon/dangerous instrument) | Injury +
weapon/dangerous instrument + intent | Often maps to s.
267(a) and/or s. 267(b) depending on record |
Minnesota | Minn. Stat. §
609.222 (Assault 2nd: assault with dangerous weapon; enhanced where
substantial bodily harm) | Assault with
dangerous weapon (and higher injury tiers) | Often maps to s.
267(a) and possibly s. 267(b) if bodily harm is proven |
Sources:
3) How this
can trigger serious vs ordinary criminality (IRPA s. 36)
Serious
criminality (IRPA s. 36(1))
Applies to permanent
residents and foreign nationals. For foreign convictions, serious
criminality can apply where the Canadian equivalent would be punishable by a maximum
term of at least 10 years.
Because s. 267 carries up to 10
years on indictment, it may place a case into a serious-criminality
analysis once equivalency is established.
Source: IRPA s. 36(1)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-36.html
Source: Criminal
Code s. 267
Ordinary
criminality (IRPA s. 36(2))
Applies to foreign
nationals only. A foreign national may be inadmissible if convicted outside
Canada of an offence that would be indictable in Canada—remembering the
hybrid-deemed-indictable rule.
Source: IRPA s.
36(2)(b) and s. 36(3)(a)
Practical
takeaway: even if a U.S.
case is described as “misdemeanor,” the Canadian equivalent (often hybrid)
may still be treated as indictable for inadmissibility screening.
Source: IRPA s.
36(3)(a)
4) What
documents usually decide the equivalency outcome
To assess
inadmissibility risk properly, officers/lawyers typically need:
● the exact U.S. statute section (and version in
force)
● charging document
● judgment/disposition
● sentence terms
● where the statute is broad: plea transcript /
factual basis (weapon type, injury level, intent)
Call A&M
Canadian Immigration Law Corporation: (204) 442-2786
If your conviction is from
California, New York, or Minnesota, a document-based equivalency review can
confirm the closest Canadian match (often Criminal Code s. 267) and how criminal
inadmissibility under IRPA s. 36 may apply.
Disclaimer
(Educational Use Only)
This content is
for general educational and informational purposes only and is not legal
advice. Immigration laws, regulations, and officer practices can change. U.S.
offences vary by state and may change over time; outcomes depend on the exact
statute, offence date, and court records.
Sources
(hyperlinks)
Frequently Asked Questions
It can. If the U.S. conviction matches a
Canadian indictable/hybrid offence (like s. 267) and the IRPA thresholds apply,
entry can be refused on criminal inadmissibility grounds.
Source: IRPA s.
36
Not automatically, but because the common Canadian match (s. 267) has a 10-year maximum on indictment, it often falls into a serious-criminality analysis once equivalency is established.
Sources: Criminal
Code s. 267
