When criminal
law and immigration law intersect, things can quickly become confusing. Many
people assume that immigration authorities can only act after a criminal
conviction. In reality, Canadian immigration law sometimes operates under
different rules and different standards of proof.
One of the most
important distinctions involves the legal standards used to assess criminal
conduct. Two phrases often appear in immigration discussions:
● Reasonable grounds to believe
● Beyond a reasonable doubt
These standards
serve different purposes and can affect foreign nationals and permanent
residents in different ways.
Understanding
why the standards are different can help explain why someone may face
immigration consequences even without a criminal conviction.
Why
Immigration Law Uses a Different Standard
Criminal courts
and immigration proceedings serve very different purposes.
A criminal
trial determines whether someone is guilty of committing a crime and whether
they should face penalties such as fines, probation, or imprisonment. Because
of the seriousness of those consequences, the prosecution must prove the
offence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard of
proof in Canadian law.
Immigration
proceedings, on the other hand, are not criminal trials. They are
administrative processes used to determine whether someone can enter or
remain in Canada.
For that
reason, immigration authorities may rely on a different evidentiary standard
when making inadmissibility decisions.
The
“Reasonable Grounds to Believe” Standard
In immigration
law, many inadmissibility findings are made using the standard of reasonable
grounds to believe.
This standard
is set out in section 33 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
(IRPA). It allows immigration decision-makers to rely on credible and
trustworthy information to determine whether certain facts exist.
The Supreme
Court of Canada has explained that “reasonable grounds to believe” requires more
than mere suspicion, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It means there must be reliable information that would lead a reasonable person
to believe the event likely occurred.
Evidence that
may be considered can include:
● police reports
● court records
● witness statements
● admissions by the individual
● other credible documentation
Because
immigration decisions are administrative rather than criminal in nature, this
lower standard is considered appropriate.
How Foreign
Nationals Are Affected
Foreign
nationals—people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents—often
encounter the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard when immigration
authorities assess whether they are inadmissible to Canada.
Under section
36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a foreign national can be
found inadmissible not only for certain convictions but also for committing
an act outside Canada that would be considered an offence both where it
occurred and under Canadian law.
In practical
terms, this means a conviction is not always necessary. Immigration authorities
may examine the available information and determine whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed the act.
This is one
reason travelers are sometimes surprised to encounter immigration issues even
when a case did not result in a conviction.
How
Permanent Residents Are Usually Affected
Permanent
residents often encounter criminal inadmissibility in a different context.
In many cases,
immigration consequences arise after a criminal conviction in Canada.
Under section 36(1) of IRPA, a permanent resident may be found
inadmissible for serious criminality if they:
● are convicted in Canada of an offence punishable by a
maximum sentence of at least ten years, or
● receive a sentence of imprisonment of more than six
months.
Because these
situations depend on a criminal conviction, the criminal court process—where
guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt—usually occurs first.
Once a
conviction is entered, immigration authorities may then assess the person’s
admissibility.
Why the
Distinction Matters
The difference
between these two standards can lead to outcomes that people do not expect.
For foreign
nationals, immigration authorities may rely on the reasonable grounds to
believe standard when evaluating conduct that occurred outside Canada. In
those situations, a criminal conviction is not always required for immigration
consequences to arise.
For permanent
residents, the issue often arises after a criminal conviction in Canada,
which must first be established beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court.
This
distinction helps explain why immigration law sometimes appears to treat
similar situations differently depending on the person’s status.
The
Intersection of Criminal Law and Immigration Law
Criminal
charges, convictions, and immigration status are closely connected. Decisions
made during criminal proceedings—such as entering a plea or accepting a
sentence—can have serious immigration consequences.
For both
foreign nationals and permanent residents, it is important to understand how
Canadian immigration law may interpret criminal conduct and how the applicable
legal standards may affect their situation.
Sources
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)
IRPA – Section 33 (Reasonable Grounds to Believe)
IRPA – Section 36 (Criminal Inadmissibility)
Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40
Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 50
