(For people
trying to visit, study, work, or immigrate to Canada)
If you have a
U.S. conviction for harassment or stalking and you plan to visit
Canada, apply for a study permit, apply for a work permit, or immigrate, Canadian officers may assess you for criminal
inadmissibility under IRPA s. 36 after doing 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: Criminal harassment (stalking) — Criminal Code s. 264
Canada’s main
harassment/stalking offence is Criminal Code s. 264 (criminal harassment).
It includes conduct such as:
● repeatedly following someone,
● repeatedly communicating (directly or indirectly),
● watching a person’s home/workplace, or
● threatening conduct,
where it
causes the person to reasonably fear for their safety (or the safety of someone
known to them).
Source: Criminal
Code s. 264
Why this
matters for criminal inadmissibility
● s. 264 is a hybrid offence (can proceed by indictment or summary).
● If prosecuted by indictment, it carries a maximum
of 10 years.
Source: Criminal
Code s. 264
● IRPA treats hybrid offences as indictable for
inadmissibility purposes.
Source: IRPA s.
36(3)(a)
Practical
implication: If your U.S.
conviction matches Canada’s s. 264, it can create serious admissibility
issues for visitors, students, workers, and immigration applicants.
Source: IRPA s.
36(1), 36(2), 36(3)(a)
2) Equivalency chart: California, New York, Minnesota → Canadian equivalents
State | Common
stalking/harassment statute | Core
elements (high level) | Likely
Canadian equivalent |
California | Penal Code
§ 646.9 (stalking) | repeated
following/harassing + credible threat + intent to place person in fear | Often Criminal
Code s. 264, depending on record |
New York | Penal Law §
120.45 (stalking 4th) | course of
conduct, no legitimate purpose, knowledge it causes fear or specified harms | Often Criminal
Code s. 264, depending on subsection and facts |
Minnesota | Stat. §
609.749 (harassment; stalking) | harassment/stalking
conduct with penalty tiers | Often Criminal
Code s. 264, depending on subsection and record |
Sources:
● CA PC 646.9 https://california.public.law/codes/penal_code_section_646.9
● NY PL 120.45 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.45
● MN 609.749 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.749
● Canada s. 264 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-264.html
3) When U.S.
“harassment” can be broader than Canada’s (and why that matters)
Some U.S.
harassment laws can cover conduct that does not require a safety-fear
component the way Canada’s s. 264 does. When the foreign statute is
broader, the equivalency outcome often depends on:
● the exact subsection charged,
● the charging document, and
● the record of conviction / plea factual basis showing
the Canadian elements (especially reasonable fear for safety).
Source: Criminal Code s. 264 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-264.html
4) How this
can lead to inadmissibility (plain language)
Once
equivalency is established:
Ordinary
criminality (IRPA s. 36(2)) — foreign nationals
A foreign
national may be inadmissible if their foreign conviction matches an offence
that would be indictable in Canada. Because s. 264 is hybrid and hybrids
are deemed indictable, this is a common pathway for visitors, students, and
workers.
Source: IRPA s. 36(2)(b), 36(3)(a)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-36.html
Serious
criminality (IRPA s. 36(1)) — foreign nationals and permanent residents
Serious
criminality can apply where the Canadian equivalent carries a maximum of 10
years or more. Since s. 264 has a 10-year maximum on indictment,
equivalency to s. 264 can push an assessment into serious criminality analysis.
Source: IRPA s. 36(1)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-36.html
Source: Criminal
Code s. 264
Call A&M
Canadian Immigration Law Corporation: (204) 442-2786
If you need to visit, study,
work, or immigrate to Canada and you have a harassment/stalking record from
California, New York, or Minnesota, a document-based equivalency review can
confirm the closest Canadian match (often s. 264) and how 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.
laws vary by state and can change over time, and outcomes depend on the
exact statute section, offence date, and official court records.
Sources
(hyperlinks)
● IRPA s. 36:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-36.html
● Criminal Code s. 264 (criminal harassment): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-264.html
● California PC § 646.9 (stalking): https://california.public.law/codes/penal_code_section_646.9
● New York PL § 120.45 (stalking 4th): https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.45
● Minnesota Stat. § 609.749 (harassment/stalking): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.749
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. If your U.S.
conviction matches a Canadian offence that triggers IRPA s. 36, you can be
found inadmissible when trying to visit Canada.
Yes. Criminal inadmissibility can affect temporary resident applications such as study permits and work permits, depending on equivalency and thresholds.
Not always. Canada requires
the fear-for-safety component and specific conduct types. The record must
support those elements for equivalency.
