Enter Canada with DUI
 

Hello - Forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse, but can anyone provide some hard facts about the reality of attending a business function in Canada with a U.S. DUI? The stories online are sensational, but I have yet to find a 'real person' who has ever been denied entry.

I have pursued every angle and suggestion I can find, which is why I am here asking a question that has been asked a million times.

Facts of this case:

Arizona DUI from 2012. Sentence completed - I can provide documentation to that effect. I refused blood test (made Officer get warrant, which he later admitted lying in order to obtain). Don't know if that will show up as a separate 'encounter.' Complete one year suspension for refusal.

Only conviction in my 50 years. Note AZ requires jail time for all impaired driving convictions.

One other arrest in the early 1990's - someone punched me for no reason and the police arrested everyone in order to sort it out. All charges dismissed. I didn't even remember this until it was brought up during my 'booking' so I know it's in a system somewhere.

Travelling for meeting at our Vancouver office. Employer will provide supporting documentation. My manager is willing to travel on same flight for added support, if that will help.

Consulate website indicates that, with Foreign Service Strike, TRP could take a year.

I will attempt to obtain whatever documentation is required for a TRP application.

I've heard so many stories ranging from "I lied about conviction, they found it and still let me in" (another person with an AZ DUI from last year) to the horror stories featured on forums like this.

Can anyone shed any light based on actual current experience? I have a gut feeling that these denials are the exception, rather than the rule, based on the numbers - 10's of millions of visitors and less than 7000 getting turned back. I get stunned looks from friends and colleagues that travel constantly for business - they think I'm making this up. It seems that at least one of these people would know someone who got denied for some old infraction.

I guess my real questions are:
1) Can a Border Agent, seeing a record like mine on the computer, still let me in at his/her discretion?
2) What are the odds of getting a TRP at YVR if I provide the documentation listed above and have me $200 ready?

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

The conviction is very recent; that presents more of a problem in terms of Canadian immigration law than older convictions. You'd best get permission before you go. I don't know that I've seen horror stories per se, they just send people back. Presumably they don't take kindly to lying.

Since you have already done so much research, you can probably make up your own mind as to whether to go or seek permission. Here's what Canada has to say about the matter:

If I do decide to travel to Canada, do I have to tell immigration that I have a conviction?

You are advised to carry the final disposition of the hearing - or a copy of your police certificate - or other evidence that no conviction was recorded - as the Port of Entry officer/s may ask you about previous convictions/criminal charges. You are obliged under Canada's Immigration Act to answer that question truthfully - and if you have the documentation to prove you have no conviction recorded it will be useful at that time.

I know I am inadmissible to Canada because of a conviction. What if I just go to Canada and don't admit my conviction?

If your conviction comes to light at the port of entry or during your visit to Canada, you will be reported under the Act and could face removal from Canada and future inadmissibility as a person who has been removed, in addition to inadmissibility due to the conviction. If you knowingly enter Canada while you are inadmissible, then later make an application for permanent residence in Canada, your application for permanent residence is likely to be refused. This applies even if you are sponsored as the spouse or partner of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

* * *

Considering you'd thing they'd want to discourage, the language they use is rather wishy-washy ("could", "likely", "advised"). Then, before they discuss lying, they use the word "obliged". Seems you should tell the truth.

If you are willing to risk being sent back then presumably you don't have much to lose by showing up there besides the risk of formal removal and future inadmissibility. Probably not a good idea to lie considering sharing of databases exist.

You could always choose to fly to Seattle and cross the land border; the admissibility requirements are the same, but practical aspect of being refused entry is a little easier to deal with that at the airport.

The Canadian government notes that 5 years must have passed since the end of the sentence, e.g., 2017 in your case, but that you can nonetheless complete the application, mark it "for information only" and present it to the Officer on arrival for review and possible temporary admission.

I would confirm this with an attorney who handles Canadian immigration matters (possibly by asking for a referral from an Arizona lawyer) and take it from there.

When dealing with government officials who have a great deal of discretion to exercise, answering questions truthfully and completely (e.g., "yes, I was arrested for assault, but not charged") is critical. Once you are disbelieved, excluding you becomes the easy decision.

Clearly, you need to be prepared to be excluded.

Thanks for the replies. I have no intention of lying. It sounds like getting the TRP paper work and filling it out as much as possible is the most logical option.

I don't know how much time/interest they have in listening to my particulars. I wasn't driving (being intoxicated after dark around car keys is enough). The arresting officer admitted at trial to having lied about certain 'facts'. At my mandatory 'substance abuse' evaluation the counselor said "clearly you don't have a drinking problem." The judge at sentencing said "I have a feeling I won't be seeing you again.", etc., etc. This was a one time wrong place/wrong time situation (the arresting officer was driving around looking for a burglar alarm and we surprised each other - once the process started it couldn't be stopped.)

Hopefully some more folks will chime in. If the border agent is allowed any discretion in the matter, I will present my case and take my chances. If the only people in my position who gain entry (and I know they exist) are those that lie and get lucky then it's not worth trying.

Probably not what you want to hear but my best friend got pulled over for a DUI that was later reduced to Ability Impaired and he paid his fine and did the 2 classes he had to attend many years ago. I was in the car when he was pulled over. Small town bull as the cop and I had a previous run in and he was fired 3 years previously by the local PD for calling me a "cracker". Luckily the State Police were nice enough to hire him...
My friend went to Canada for work 3 times (all land crossings) with no problem. Then he got his random stop and they discovered the infraction. He was given paperwork and told he had to immediately leave and not return. They were polite (they are Canadian after all:p:):D) but he has not been able to go for work or pleasure since.

I can see why the Canadian tourism industry is lobbying to fix this mess. I have spent hours trying to find the forms and/or application procedure to handle this correctly. CIC website have links for every other type of permit/visa and the search function on the Consulate website is broken.

Every Google search gets dozens of law firms willing to 'help', even though the scant information from official sources makes it clear that outside help is of absolutely no benefit.

My biggest concern now is getting flagged for having been denied. Does anyone know how the process works at YVR? It sounds like Border Agent and Visa Officer are two different roles - is there a way, upon arrival, to go straight for the "Visa booth" and apply for TRP, or is even that option at the discretion of the Border Agent?

I am sure they have no interest in your particulars. I would imagine one of the quickest ways to be denied entry is to start making excuses especially if they involve making negative comments about a law enforcement officer. Just my opinion...

This may be relevant, though the OP seems to be implying he spent some time in the clink.

Further information here.

emrdoc - I agree totally. My feeling at the time, when the officer admitted lying, was disappointment as a member of the community. It didn't matter in my little case, but the same actions in a case such as rape or murder could result in a violent criminal walking free. To me his behavior was a slap in the face to the very notions of 'law and order' and 'tough on crime.' That said, I would never bring that aspect up to a border agent. I was looking at 'mitigating factors', as I have read that consideration for TRP involves an in depth look at each particular case. The totality of circumstances clearly show this was a one-off, bad luck encounter that escalated due to confusion and mistaken identity - the officer thought I was a burglar.

HomoEconomicus - yes, I was hopeful about that at first, but it is not much help in practice. Many states now have mandatory jail as part of a DUI conviction. It has been reported that the new policy of waving TRP fee was a token gesture to the tourism industry that has not eased entry in any way.

A quick stab at the math: Recent Canadian Trade figures indicate about 20 million visitors a year from US (figure is five times higher if using daily border crossers). 20 million is about 6 percent of the US population. There are 1.4 million DUI arrests in US each year. All things being equal, that would mean about 90K people with recent DUI flags enter Canada from U.S. each year. Figures for those turned away are harder to come by - 2006 figure was less than 7000. That would mean a less than 10% chance of being stopped. I realize these are all wild estimates, but it is a place to start. It seems that there are many more recent stories about this being an issue, so I would guess that the figure from 2006 is no longer even close. I suspect the number exploded after 2009 and is probably 10 times higher. That would explain the recent actions by the tourism lobby - this was simply a much smaller issue five or ten years ago.

I thank everyone for the constructive discussion - other similar threads have quickly gone off the rails. I would love to hear from a current/former Canadian Official on the current state of affairs, but I suspect this is a touchy subject.

You can go straight to "Immigration" at YOW instead of to the passport control booths; I don't know about YVR. As far as getting flagged for being denied, if they discover they can't allow you in to Canada for reason X, they aren't going to let you in until X is resolved.

Since this sounds like a work trip, I would find a replacement and not even risk it. Its one thing if you're heading up for personal reasons and get turned back. It's another if it's for work and you get denied. I've personally witnessed guys I work with stuck in secondary for an hour or more because they put down "work" as their reason for visiting, and the Canucks go nuts. I had a guy who had to spend the night in an airport hotel, under threat of 'if you leave we'll deport you" because Canadian immigration couldn't decide if he needed a student visa or not. He didn't, but because he put down "attending a class" for his 3-day seminar on routing IPV6 via MPLS instead of just writing "customer meetings" or something, he got delayed an evening and most of a morning because of it.

Canada can be a pain for your average business visitor, much less one with a very recent DUI conviction. I wouldn't even chance it, both for yourself and for your company. Find someone else to handle this visit.

Thanks again for the helpful advice. After my last post I informed my manager that this is looking worse than I thought. Outside of a pre-approved TRP through Consulate it's just not worth the expense and potential fall out. I can just see our accounting department "A five minute trip to Canada? Hmmm....."

I'll lobby instead for moving this event to the States in the future. Had I know all this earlier it would have been held here this time. Anyway, I'm glad I found this site - it's an awesome resource!

You mentioned up thread about your record once being turned away. I can give you my story, but consider it just one story. As always, YMMV.

All of the following involve declared work trips. In the early 90's I was stopped at the border for not having the necessary paperwork after being assured by the contacting company that it was taken care of. It was not but they let me in on a provisional entry.

The next time, about a year later, I refused to come until the paperwork was in order. I got to the border expecting to meet my contact with the paperwork and he did not show. It was assumed I was trying to sneak in again. I was put under house arrest and given 24 hours to come up with the paperwork or I would be sent back. The paperwork was faxed to immigration while we were heading to the airport for me to return.

I then started entering on a NAFTA exemption and made several trips without incident. Eventually, a border agent decided that I was not what I said I was and sent me home with the requirement that I get an LMO (Labor Market Opinion.) I got one, entered Canada, paid for the work permit and was good to go.

I returned to another part of Canada, and since I had been turned away previously, had been put under house arrest and generally had a record of trying to "sneak" into Canada to work, he was suspicious and turned me back at the border, putting me on the next flight out. I spent three hours in the airport hotel, returned at 6 a.m. and was escorted through security and immigration under armed guard with the gate agent for the airline required to sign that they had taken custody of me and would guarantee I would be on the plane.

On subsequent entries, I made certain that all paperwork was in order to the point of double checking with the immigration station that I would be using. I have had no more problems, but each time I enter, they read through page after page after page on their computer screen of the documentation that I have generated over the last 25 years as a consultant.

Now, your question. Does it affect my entry? Bottom line is "no." I applied for and obtained a Nexus without a problem. I have registered my US company (I am self employed) with service Canada and I apply for an LMO for my employee (me) to enter. As long as I have the valid LMO and $150C for the work permit, it is fine.

I always tell them the truth, where I am working, what I will be doing and how much I charge. They read the record, and it is still fine. So, in my case, previous problems do not cause current problems as long as I have taken the steps they insisted on to correct them.

I was just discussing this with a colleague and his comment was that he "just couldn't understand why it's so hard to get a straight answer." Then the proverbial 'light-bulb' came on and it all seems very logical:

Border Agents now have complete histories of every traveler right in front of them. Who is going to risk a career to let someone pass? What if they let me in and something happened? I wouldn't let me in if I was in agent's shoes.

The solution is to fix the policy, but, like the boss in Dilbert, management is paralyzed by fear. Who is going to, again, at risk to career, come out and say "the effect of the current policy is a new slogan: 'Canada - Closed for Business!'"

"Operational Bulletin 389", the 'answer' to growing complaints from Canadian tourism interests, is a perfect example of this paralysis. Soon every state will require some minimal jail time for 1st time DUI - so what is the point of waiving TRP fee for 'single DUI, no jail time?' Just another pointless piece verbiage used to cover backsides while telling constituents "I did SOMETHING..."

Here is an example of why people are confused - I just found this gem on a sport fishing site. I'm sure the poster is reporting what he was told, even though it was a complete distortion of the facts:

"It is my extreme pleasure to tell everyone that I was honoured last Friday to be invited to a conference call from the Federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada who announced to us all privately that he signed into law last Friday, effective March 1st 2012, a new program for the border crossing issues involving minor misdemeanours.
This involves particularly, but not solely, DUI’s. These laws have now been relaxed making entry to Canada much easier with a one time minor offence.

He told us that anyone who is a single, one time offender of any misdemeanour including DUI, bar fights, assault, bad checks, etc. and who did not serve more than 6 months in jail will now be automatically allowed into Canada and not turned back with NO FEES required and they have also made the rehabilitation process much simpler, quicker and easy to fill out now too.

The Minister apologized to all of us in the tourism business and said it was never their intention for the law to go this far. They never meant for one time offenders, who made a single one time mistake sometime in their life, to not be permitted into Canada and he was changing this law to be effective right away, as of March 1st. "

It's a shame, because policy change given 'off the record' would go a long way toward fixing this problem.

Ecks, I don't think it's going to be solved. Drunk drivers are pretty much considered to be scum in both the US and Canada, so getting any broad relief on Canadian requirements is not going to happen. The days are gone when a DUI/DWI was like a bad speeding ticket. A $500 fine, six points on the license, your insurance rates went up and you had a restricted license for a few months. Today, it's considered to be very serious.

Moral of the story - don't drink and drive.

All other concerns aside, I am curious how Canada can see US court histories in their computer. Does the US just open up files on its citizens for all the world to see? Would a Canada immigration officer be able to see the court histories of citizens of France or China?

you missed the part where he said he was in AZ (a pig state) and was around key cars, not actually DRIVING

Anyone can get your US criminal record. It's public.

I'm glad to hear the OP is cancelling this business trip since it's very likely it would end in total failure and disaster, a big waste of money and time because one set of pigs (Canada Immigration) and another set of pigs (AZ cops) have access to the same database that says you're a "bad guy". Unbelievable but true. :td:

Notwithstanding the rhetoric, immigration law in Canada generally suggests you are not admissible with a DUI. If I may make a suggestion though if you'd really like to go to the meeting; fly to Bellingham or Seattle and drive to a land crossing. When you present yourself to the border agent, explain you're attending a meeting in Vancouver at your Canadian subsidiary and wait and see if he or she asks about criminal convictions. Be truthful.

If he/she turns you around, then that's that but you haven't spent as much money trying to get in on a flight straight to Vancouver which would be expensive. They may not ask you about criminal convictions, or may see it and not care.

Still, I think the rest of the advice is sound. The reality is you're not admissible without a waiver, even though your circumstances are clearly extenuating, so you're at the mercy of the agent doing the examination when you arrive.

It's pretty common for DUI defendants to say that they weren't driving. They were just sitting in the front seat but not planning to drive, they were taking a nap in the back, etc. It's the reason that a lot of states now define a DUI a little more broadly to the intent to drive. In lieu of waiting until you fire up the car and start driving away, the police can arrest you if the keys are on you and you're attempting to get into the car. It's to short circuit the old "I didn't really drive, I passed out first so I'm innocent" defense. The argument is that a DUI offender is a safety hazard the second they turn the key, so preventing that from happening is an important goal.

I'm not saying that's the case with the OP, but the bottom line is it's irrelevant. He has a conviction, and it's on his record, for all to see.

catocony - I'm not trying to make excuses - based on the law as it is applied in AZ I would have voted myself guilty at trial. Actually if I had known that I was deemed 'inadmissible' the moment I refused to voluntarily provide a blood sample there wouldn't have been a trial.

I was in jail with a 20 year old kid who was in for his second extreme DUI. His only concern was if he could have a couple beers at lunch once granted work release (he was in for two weeks straight and then six weeks of being let out for work each day.) If I am considered no different from that idiot, then so be it - I just doubt that was the intention of the policy.

I'm just one guy trying to find out the odds of getting though YVR with a modern passport and flags in the system. That question has been settled. I just wish Canada would clarify the policy in unambiguous language, and clearly I'm not alone in that desire.

The Canadian consulate in Los Angeles has been pretty quick on email inquiries in my experience, although they do not take phone calls. Suggest you try the consulate or embassy nearest you. If you get an answer, you can also print it out and take it with you. For LA, the urgent inquiry email is: [email protected]

Thank goodness someone in this thread finally cast a stone; for a minute there, I was worried the OP had the moral high ground. :rolleyes:

When I lived in Germany, there were two general classifications of DUI (this is a very rough generalization). If you came in between .05-.079, your DUI was considered more of a traffic infraction. If it was above .08, it was treated more like a criminal offense.

I'm not sure what the Canadian authorities consider to be DUI, but I can't help but think that if they differentiated between the serious DUIs and the less serious DUIs, they would not have to turn around so many people. Granted, drinking and driving isn't a good idea regardless, but there is a difference between driving after a beer or two and driving while completely inebriated.

Maybe another workable condition of entry is to forbid anyone who has a prior DUI (or a recent DUI) from driving while in Canada under the penalty of permanent expulsion if they are caught driving in Canada. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to keep people out who may have made a mistake earlier in their life, or people who can demonstrate that they won't drive while in Canada (for instance, someone who is entering with another person who can drive or someone who has train/air reservations).

While I do not condone DUI/DWI at all, no exceptions, if the AZ law is like the Oklahoma one then the cops can arrest you for DUI just by having car keys on you or being around your car as they say you have the "intent" to drive. I do find that a big stretch. I knew two people who got tagged for it; one didn't even own a car in OKC, the other was sleeping it off in the back seat as he awaited his sober friend to drive him home. $#!t happens.

If one is drunk and behind the wheel that is serious and there should be no excuse for it.

Not to fan any flames or stoke any controversies.... and I haven't been to Canada since the 1970's and have no plans to go any time soon.... But can people who have recently been to Canada say, if they even routinely ask the question, "have you ever been arrested?". I mean sure they 'could' ask you and they 'could' pull your arrest record up on their computer. But is it front and center as part of their ordinary border inspection, or is even asking the question or checking an arrest record reserved for cases where the officer sees something else that compels them to dig a little deeper or perhaps some secondary inspection.

It seems plausible that the vast majority of American drunks who visit Canada are legitimately unaware of Canada's restriction, they just are not asked on an ordinary entry, ignorance is bliss, and their trips are uneventful. And perhaps it's a much much smaller number "don't look right" or something, get looked at a little closer and asked some extra questions and have issues.

All just pure speculation on my part. Like I say. Haven't been to Canada since the 1970's.

There are plenty of reports, just on FlyerTalk, of people being turned away at the border or sent straight back on the next available flight for having DUI/DWI convictions. It's not a theoretical "maybe", like a lot of discussions are on here. It definitely happens, and seems to happen fairly regularly.

What I can personally confirm, having been sent to Immigration secondary twice myself and traveling with three other guys who got an Immigration secondary, is that the Canadians are very, very touchy. These were Immigration secondaries, not Customs, which I've never had to visit and personally know of no one else who has.

It can be a pain to enter Canada on business. Oh, and shipping stuff in? I've had more shipping issues with stuff going to Canada than I have with any other country besides Brasil and Russia.

As a passenger on leisure trips, I've ended up in immigration secondary very rarely. British Commonwealth countries which are part of the US-led international surveillance network referred to commonly as the Five Eyes, those seem to be the worst of the lot for sending admissible people from OECD countries to immigration secondary.

On my road crossings from the US to Canada in recent years, I've never been asked about arrest history. I assume that having no arrest history reduces the chances of being asked about any arrest history.

OP, sorry if this has been answered as I skimmed through, but was this actually placed as a conviction on your record or was is simply a supervision?

FWIW, just a couple of months ago at the tunnel going into Windsor I was asked (by the hottest border agent I think I've ever seen...smoking lady ^ ) if I had ever been arrested (I never have). She then went on the "do you have guns discussion" for some time and told me "lots of people from Texas have guns" and I told her in my experiance so do lots of people in Canada but unfortunetly I didn't bring mine with me. Then I asked her to go to dinner with me and she told me to go on and have a nice evening. I was single traveller in rental car with a well used passport. YMMV

I used to be asked quite often, maybe half of the time, but he answer was always truthfully "no." Not that it should have been as I did things in my youth that would get me put under the jail today. The best I can remember, this line of questioning stopped soon after I got my Nexus, which is linked to my passport, and is the result of a detailed background check on both sides of the border. I wonder what they checked and whether they kept what they found. Too late now to worry about it.

I found out that Canada even links the work permit to the passport. Violate the terms of the permit and get caught and it goes in your passport record.

Arrest history. I got that crap in Miami customs on a simple connecting flight...
Doesn't that violate the presumption of innocence. Why not conviction
history? What if you got arrested, say, as a result of a frivolous sex
assault accusation like that football player int he news last month.. Imagine the ridiculous conversation at the border.

I'd need to get my record, but I assume conviction will show up. Also, my reading of Canadian law indicates 'refusal to submit to chemical test' carries the same sanctions as DUI, and I know motor vehicles has that information stored.

Another wild card is arrests when charges were either dropped or simply not pursued. It sounds like many people get dinged that way - as far as the Border Agent is concerned, a charge with no clear resolution can be interpreted as a flight from justice.

abaheti - thanks for the email link. I think I wrote to them and didn't get and answer, but I'll check again.

I'd start by reading this http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/informa...ns/rehabil.asp

If five years have elapsed since the end of the sentence you may apply for rehabilitation. 200$ fee isn't too much of a burden to be able to visit your northern neighbor.

I'm sorry that you don't like the law in AZ. But an objective person would have to admit that for CIC or CBSA, it would be impractical to investigate the legitimacy of every claim of unjust conviction.

Both the US and Canada routinely deny entry to individuals with arrest, but not conviction records. The burden is on the individual non national to show that he ought to be admitted, not on the border agency involved to demonstrate that he shouldn't.

I have a friend who has been refused entry to the US on a permanent basis because he truthfully answered "yes" to the US immigration question "have you ever used marijuana?". It doesn't matter that he has never been arrested, charged, or even caught by police using the drug. Just the fact that he used it at some point makes him inadmissible. Countries do have some strange rules.

I visit Vancouver 2 -3 times a year as I have close family living there and have been doing so for the last 25 years. Majority of the times I have flown in but I have also crossed via the land border. One time I drove from San Diego to Vancouver just as a sightseeing vacation. On that occasion the Canadian border agent did did not even look at my passport (I was in a rental car).

I have never had anything more than a brief interview with the border agents - never sent to secondary and never asked about convictions and arrest records. So some of the posts in this thread is quite a surprise to me.

The US provides Canada with court histories because Canada insisted on it when the USA said "Canada will have to provide all court histories of Canadians to us or we'll close the border". At least Canada got some level of reciprocity, but it all started from US insisting on Canadian records. Note that Canadian airlines flying domestic Canadian routes also have to provide the USA with passenger lists.

Also, what makes every American here think that the USA doesn't exclude entry to the USA to every Canadian with a criminal history? The USA will and does exclude people even without a criminal history if they have any connection to the drug trade - like they did to a a UBC professor who had done LSD research.

The problem is that it sweeps up a lot of innocents also. If you're in a rural area sleeping it off in the back seat very well might be the best course of action--except these days that will get you a DUI so you might as well risk driving home. The law should be encouraging people to sleep it off, not making that the riskier choice!

As far as I'm concerned DUI should involve *DRIVING*. Not merely being in a car with the keys. Not even if the car is running in a climate where you need the heater to keep warm.