BristolUK

Have I got this right?
The OP "recently got into a scrap" and however long after was convicted so the fines were more recent than the scrap.
The fines were "paid ages ago" - which sounds rather earlier than the recent scrap and subsequent fine.

There's a plan to visit at Christmas which (as Aviator points out) is ten months away at the time of posting but within three days that plan has possibly been cancelled because the OP already went to Canada and decided that the girlfriend would be coming back to the UK with him instead. Voluntarily I trust.

Maybe I'm taking it too literally?

welsh113

I wish this guy the best of luck, I really hope it works out for him with whatever he decides in his future just as I wish anyone to have nothing but prosperity and luck in there lives.....

Dorothy

Their lives, too I'll bet.

welsh113

always one

Vulcanoid

Your initial response was that OP had "done the right thing", which is demonstrably untrue.

Nobody has said they will not get PR. It has been pointed out that any future PR status may be jeopardized.

mikelincs

Please note that admitting your failure to admit to convictions when visiting Canada and that you have now got citizenship, but you don't say if you were honest when filing for that, if you didn't you COULD have committed fraud and therefore be in a position where you citizenship COULD be revoked, doing this on an open forum where Canadian officialdom can read all you say, and the fact that an actual CBSA officer does, and has posted on this thread, you do like to live dangerously.
Posting comments that could be viewed as suggesting that another member breaks the laws of the country, especially in relation to immigration is something that is likely to lead to problems with the administrators as that is something that is not allowed under any circumstances.

Aviator

You are indeed!

dgagitw

I'm not sure I believe that. Surely the application for the kid himself would have to have contained some misrepresentation too? If it is true, it seems ridiculously harsh.

Former Lancastrian

No he would have been an inadmissible family member at the time the parents applied. The rules have now changed slightly as to who is now an inadmissible family member.

Inadmissible family member

42 (1) A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an inadmissible family member if

(a) their accompanying family member or, in prescribed circumstances, their non-accompanying family member is inadmissible; or

(b) they are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person.

Marginal note:Exception

(2) In the case of a foreign national referred to in subsection (1) who is a temporary resident or who has made an application for temporary resident status or an application to remain in Canada as a temporary resident,

(a) the matters referred to in paragraph (1)(a) constitute inadmissibility only if the family member is inadmissible under section 34, 35 or 37; and

(b) the matters referred to in paragraph (1)(b) constitute inadmissibility only if the foreign national is an accompanying family member of a person who is inadmissible under section 34, 35 or 37.

Criminality is under section 36(1) or (2) which isn't mentioned.

dgagitw

It's somewhat shocking that there wouldn't be any exclusions for people bought to Canada at a young age and then left in limbo later. Even the yanks have sort of covered that one.

Aviator

They do, they send them back.

dgagitw

That's not generally the case. They had an executive order from Obama that said they would allow people who'd been taken to the US as children to stay. Trump has not reversed that so far.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...-daca-dreamers

Aviator

They are working on it I believe

US 'Dreamer' Daniela Vargas 'facing deportation' after speech - BBC News