If you have a
U.S. conviction involving threats (text messages, calls, social media posts,
in-person statements) and you plan to visit, study, work, or immigrate to
Canada, Canadian officers may assess you for criminal inadmissibility under IRPA s. 36 after doing a criminal equivalency match to a
Canadian offence.
1) The
Canadian baseline: Criminal Code s. 264.1 (Uttering threats)
Canada’s
“uttering threats” offence covers knowingly uttering or conveying threats:
● (a) to cause death or bodily harm;
● (b) to burn/destroy/damage real or personal property; or
● (c) to kill/poison/injure an animal/bird that is someone’s property.
Canadian
punishment (important for immigration)
● Threats under (1)(a) (death/bodily harm): hybrid;
up to 5 years if prosecuted by indictment.
● Threats under (1)(b) or (c) (property/animal): hybrid; up to 2 years if prosecuted by indictment.
Why “hybrid”
matters for inadmissibility
IRPA treats hybrid
offences as indictable when determining criminal inadmissibility for
foreign nationals. That means a U.S. conviction that matches s. 264.1 can still
trigger ordinary criminality analysis under IRPA s. 36(2).
Important
clarity: Uttering threats
usually does not meet the “10+ year maximum” threshold that commonly
drives serious criminality for foreign convictions. Instead, it is more
often analyzed under ordinary criminality for foreign nationals (or
serious criminality only in other specific scenarios).
2) Equivalency chart: U.S. threats offences → likely Canadian matches
Canadian
equivalency depends on the elements and the court record. Here are
common matches for the three states you’ve been focusing on:
Jurisdiction | Common
threats offence | What it
typically requires | Likely
Canadian equivalent |
California | Penal Code
§ 422 (criminal threats) | Willful threat
to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury, intent it
be taken as a threat, and it causes sustained fear | Often closest
to s. 264.1(1)(a) (threats of death/bodily harm) |
New York | Penal Law §
240.30(1) (aggravated
harassment 2nd degree—threats by communication) | Threat to
cause physical harm or unlawful harm to property via
communication + victim reasonably fears harm; class A misdemeanor | Often analyzed
against s. 264.1(1)(a) (physical harm) and/or s. 264.1(1)(b) (property threats), depending on record |
Minnesota | Stat. §
609.713 (threats of
violence) | Threaten to
commit a crime of violence with purpose to terrorize (or reckless
disregard), max 5 years | Often closest
to s. 264.1(1)(a) (death/bodily harm threats), depending on the
threatened act |
3) When U.S.
threats laws can be “broader” than Canada’s (and why records matter)
Even if the
offence label looks similar, differences can matter for equivalency, such as:
● whether the law requires the victim to be in sustained
fear (California does)
● whether the law focuses on harassment + threat by
communication (New York’s 240.30)
● whether the law requires a threat of a crime of
violence (Minnesota does)
Because of
these differences, the charging document and the record of conviction often decide which Canadian paragraph applies:
● s. 264.1(1)(a) (death/bodily harm) vs
● s. 264.1(1)(b) (property) vs
● s. 264.1(1)(c) (animal).
4) How this
ties to criminal inadmissibility (plain language)
Once
equivalency is identified:
● Foreign nationals (visitors, students, workers) can be found
inadmissible for ordinary criminality if the Canadian equivalent would
be treated as indictable (hybrid deemed indictable).
● Threats convictions are frequently assessed at the ordinary
criminality level because the Canadian max penalties here are 5 years /
2 years, not 10+.
Call A&M
Canadian Immigration Law Corporation: (204) 442-2786
If you have a threats-related
conviction from California, New York, or Minnesota, a document-based
equivalency review can clarify the closest match to Criminal Code s. 264.1 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.
criminal laws vary by state and can change over time, and outcomes depend
on the exact statute, offence date, and official court records.
Sources
(hyperlinks)
● Canada
— Criminal Code s. 264.1 (uttering threats)
● California
— Penal Code § 422 (criminal threats)
● New York — Penal
Law § 240.30 (aggravated harassment 2nd degree)
● Minnesota — Stat. §
609.713 (threats of violence)
● Canada
— IRPA s. 36 (criminal inadmissibility framework)
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. The U.S. label is not decisive. If the offence matches a Canadian hybrid offence like s. 264.1, IRPA treats it as indictable for inadmissibility analysis.
Yes. Canada’s s. 264.1 applies to threats conveyed “in any manner.”
Usually not based on the “10-year maximum” test. It is more commonly analyzed under ordinary criminality for foreign nationals (equivalency + hybrid deemed indictable).
