441-01338 (Foreign affairs)

Foreign nationals who are charged or convicted for an offence outside Canada are not automatically barred from entering or remaining in Canada.

Immigration officers examine foreign charges and convictions to determine if there is an equivalent offence in Canada for the act committed. If there is no equivalent offence, the individual would not be inadmissible for having committed or being convicted for that offence. For example, as there is no equivalent offence in Canada for peaceful protesting, a charge or conviction for having partaken in such activities would not make an individual inadmissible to Canada.

Where there are some similarities between the foreign law and Canadian law, a person would only be inadmissible if the underlying action is considered an offence in Canada.

Immigration officers review all applications on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific facts presented by the applicant. All inadmissibility decisions are based on evidence, which may consist of police or intelligence reports, statutory declarations or other documents, such as media articles or publicly-available information.

Decision-makers are required to follow the rules of procedural fairness throughout the decision-making process. In the event that an immigration officer has concerns over the criminal admissibility of an applicant, the individual is informed and given an opportunity to provide a response to concerns about their application.

If an officer determines that an applicant is inadmissible to come to Canada, applicants may be eligible for relief mechanisms available under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For example, a temporary resident permit may be issued, when justified in the circumstances, to allow an inadmissible foreign national to enter Canada.

Canada has a special relationship with Hong Kong that is rooted in a shared history and extensive commercial, institutional and people-to-people ties.

(1) The maintenance of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, as expressed through the One Country, Two Systems framework, is a high priority for the Government of Canada. Under this framework, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. Canada remains committed to supporting Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy within the One Country, Two Systems framework, and to working with international partners to advance the goal of a free, stable and prosperous Hong Kong where human rights and fundamental freedoms under the Basic Law are guaranteed. We will continue to monitor developments in Hong Kong closely, including those relating to the territory’s judicial system, and reserve the right to undertake appropriate action in response to future developments.

(4) In advance of the imposition of the National Security law in Hong Kong on June 30, 2020, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement on May 22, 2020, expressing deep concern over proposals to introduce national security legislation in Hong Kong. Another statement was issued with Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States on May 28, 2020, reiterating concerns over the anticipated introduction of the National Security Law. On June 17, 2020, Canada joined its G7 partners to release a joint statement urging China to reconsider its decision.

Following the imposition and implementation of the National Security Law, Canada has worked in concert with international partners to support the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Hong Kong residents and Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy under the Basic Law and the One Country, Two Systems framework. Canada also announced new immigration initiatives for Hong Kong and has sought to complement and align these initiatives with measures taken by our likeminded partners.

Subsequently, following the adoption by the National People’s Congress of a package of changes to the electoral system in Hong Kong in March 2021, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and the High Representative of the European Union, also released a joint statement expressing grave concerns at the Chinese authorities’ decision. The joint statement made it clear such a decision strongly indicates that the authorities in mainland China are determined to eliminate dissenting voices and opinions in Hong Kong, while also stifling political pluralism, contrary to the aim of moving towards universal suffrage as set out in the Basic Law.

The wider chilling effects of the National Security Law and the growing restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, which are being felt across civil society is deeply concerning. On December 20, 2021 Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, as well as the Foreign Ministers of the G7, noting the outcome of the Legislative Council elections in Hong Kong, issued separate statements expressing grave concern over the erosion of democratic elements of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s electoral system. On February 17, 2022, Canada and 21 other members of the Media Freedom Coalition issued a joint statement expressing their deep concern at the Chinese authorities’ attacks on freedom of the press and their suppression of independent local media in Hong Kong.

While Canada and its partners share a common interest in Hong Kong’s prosperity and security, each country has its own legislative framework and is responsible for applying its own sovereign rules and procedures, including those related to immigration and admissibility.

Foreign nationals who are charged or convicted for an offence outside Canada are not automatically barred from entering or remaining in Canada. Inadmissibility decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.