lacoste859

I received a caution in the UK for possession of a class a drug back in 2005 i only received a caution i did not go to court neither was i put in a cell.
I have spent 2 years in Australia on a working holiday visa and im currently on a years whv in New Zealand on both applications for these visas i admitted about the caution and was granted entry.
I would like to know if anyone knows what the process is like to get a working holiday visa for Canada ,im planning on applying for one in december when they open up the visa process again.
I need to know if i have a chance or not really so i can make another plan i would be grateful for any advice thanks james

Sherlock Holmes

Hi there and welcome to B.E.

It's my pleasant duty to welcome you to the forum and give you a point of contact should you need any help with the site. You can contact me here.

A list of all the moderators and helpers with their relevant countries can be found here.

Any problems, dont hesitate to PM me.

I can't advise you re immigration rules for Canada but I'm sure that someone will be along soon to help.

It seems unusual to get a caution for class 'A' - whilst it's not impossible, it's rare. Are you sure it was class 'A'? I ony ask as, to admit to class 'A' when it may have been B or C might add to the problem.

Alistair.

Weebie

Don't tell them!

If you tell them the Canadian authority will investigate and will most probably not grant you entry and cancel your WHV. I knwo a few peopel who have been denied through low drink driving offences. They are a alot more serious with the "having good character" requirements.

If you don't tell them they won't even know anyway.

christmasoompa

Are you seriously condoning visa fraud? You might like to re-read the site rules, paying particular attention to no. 3 which clearly states 'messages describing anything against the law are not allowed'.

The OP will have to get a police check anyway, so why on earth would they lie on their application?? Plus if they have any long term plans to stay in Canada then lying on a visa application and entering the country when they shouldn't have done isn't exactly going to help is it?

OP - you may need to apply for criminal rehab, but you can find this out by doing an 'information only' request. Have a look at the CIC website and read up all about criminal rehab, and hopefully that will answer your question. Good luck.

rubberduckofdeath

What she said!

dietswork

As this was a caution, which is expunged immediately it is given, wouldn't Burgon apply here.

rubberduckofdeath

My understanding is that for Canadian immigration purposes, it's counted as a conviction, thus you might need to apply for rehab.

chrischrischris

Myself and a friend are going out to Canada on the 24th of this month, both of us have WHV's, he got an official caution from the police last year for a drunken group fight (of which he didnt start), he ran away from the police to begin with and then turned himself in the morning after as they were looking for him, he spent the day in a cell, had his fingerprints done and everything, they gave him an official caution (a glorified telling off that appears on your record) He seriously thought that he wouldn't be able to get a WHV because of this.

He disclosed everything and spoke to BUNAC who advised him to continue the visa process anyway and that it might just take a bit longer. His police check came through with the official caution on it - it took about 3-4 weeks to come through instead of the '10 days' the police said it would take. If you have any form of caution/crime you have to write a personal letter to the embassy explaining what happened and include this in your application to BUANC, he did this. After he submitted it all to BUNAC it took exactly the same length of time as mine to come through - about 4 weeks after posting. I know it's not not the same crime but as its a caution I honestly think you will be ok. Hope this helps.

dietswork

In which case it would be deemed rehabilitated as its immediately spent.

lacoste859

Thanks everyone for your advice i have checked the canadian immigration web site and found this out:

Criminality and Rehabilitation
|
Individuals wishing to enter Canada, either permanently or temporarily as visitors, foreign workers and international students, may be denied entry if they or their dependents are deemed criminally inadmissible.
A person may be considered inadmissible on the grounds of either:

Criminality
Serious Criminality
However, even those considered criminally inadmissible may be allowed to enter Canada if Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) considers them criminally rehabilitated under either:

Deemed Rehabilitation
Individual Rehabilitation
If the applicable rehabilitation requirements have not been met, but an otherwise criminally inadmissible person has a pressing need to enter Canada, a Temporary Resident Permit may be granted.

I think my caution comes under a criminality and not a serious criminality as the serous ones actually insist you have done time,which i havent.
I should then come under the deemed rehabilitation section as it has been 5 year since the offence and i have not been in trouble since so i think the following below is what i what come under-


Been convicted outside Canada of two or more acts that, if committed in Canada, would be equivalent to summary offences, and they meet the following requirements:
Five years have elapsed since the completion of their sentences;
They have not been convicted of any indictable offence or summary offence in Canada in the last five years, or more than one summary conviction in the five years before that; and
They have not been convicted outside Canada of an offence in the last five years that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence, or of more than one summary conviction in the five years before that.


Im still not sure on this as i have only one caution not two ,also everything they mention on this site is about convictions and time done in jail im not quite sure a caution is going to be viewed as harshly.

Its also been fives years since the offense is there a chance it would be removed by now.

dietswork

Thats not the whole story.

Case of Burgon and Barnett deemed that UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act can be used.

Under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 cautions are immediately spent (if simple or at end of conditional) and are not a conviction anyways so the "fives years since the offense" thing is irrelevant, its immediately "removed".

Therefore, my theory being the caution would be deemed rehabilitated.

admissiblebrit

Having dealt with burgon, rehab and a class B drug (canabis) in my PR application. You are not inadmissible to canada. Your caution is considered spent as soon as it is given. A caution is NOT a criminal conviction which can only be given by a court of law. For this reason you have no conviction to declare and need not declare it on your application. When i landed last week the VO told me, you technically have no conviction so it is not a misrepresentation to say no.

When you arrive at a POE and you are asked have you ever been "convicted" of an offence answer no, you havent been convicted of an offence so you are not misrepresenting.

If in future you apply for PR you should declare the caution ahead of time in the application, but it would not render you inadmissible. What will happen is if you ever have to provide an ACPO cert it will show up NO LIVE TRACE which will mean there is an expunged offence on your record. If you dont declare this on an app tha will require a ACPO ahead of time it will delay the process.

dietswork

Wouldn't it be a hybrid offence, meaning you could be charged as both indictable - Maximum 7 years imprisonment if a schedule 1 - or summary. So criminal rehabilitation wouldn't have been deemed.

Would be a mute point anyways if it were considered immediately spent as it was a caution.

admissiblebrit

It wouldnt matter what it is. If the "Sentance" falls under the ROA 1974 in the case of a caution he is no longer a person inadmissible under the IRPA A36(1)(b) or A36(2)(b).

He has no conviction to declare its as simple as that and by saying no it is not a misrepresentation. It happened that i had a conviction that was expunged under the ROA 1974. So i checked no. Its was later deemed that i had NOT misrepresented myself since due to burgon i was not inadmissible and under the ROA1974 i no longer had a conviction so i told the truth.