Maple News reports that Canada’s Federal Court has issued a significant ruling clarifying that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) visa officers are not required to assess whether an applicant is ‘deemed rehabilitated’ for past criminal activity—unless the applicant explicitly asks them to do so.
The ruling stems from the case Bello v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), in which Ms. Bello, a Nigerian national, applied for permanent residence in Canada despite having a criminal conviction for using forged documents in the United Kingdom. Although she acknowledged her inadmissibility to Canada based on this conviction, she sought an exemption under humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.
Her application was denied by an IRCC officer, who cited serious criminality as grounds for rejection. The officer referred to her conviction abroad, which, if committed in Canada, would be an offense punishable by at least 10 years in prison—the threshold for serious criminality under Canadian immigration law.
Ms. Bello later contested the decision, arguing that the visa officer should have considered whether she was ‘deemed rehabilitated’ under Canadian law. However, the Court found that because her application did not explicitly raise this issue, the officer was under no obligation to address it. Instead, her application focused solely on requesting an H&C exemption.
The Court ruled the visa officer’s decision was reasonable, emphasizing that applicants bear the responsibility for putting all relevant arguments forward. This ruling highlights an important procedural point: applicants with a criminal history must clearly indicate if they are seeking a determination on deemed rehabilitation. Otherwise, IRCC officers are not required to evaluate that aspect.
This decision has widespread implications for individuals with past criminal records seeking immigration pathways to Canada. It underscores the importance of comprehensive and precise application strategies—especially when dealing with grounds of inadmissibility.
Maple News recommends that applicants assess whether they may qualify as ‘deemed rehabilitated’ and be proactive in requesting such a determination if they believe it strengthens their case. Otherwise, this crucial consideration may go unexamined by immigration officers.
Ultimately, the judgment reinforces the principle that clarity and thoroughness in immigration applications are essential to ensuring all avenues of admissibility are taken into account.