Docket: IMM-23075-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1975
Ottawa, Ontario, December 16, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Saint-Fleur
|
BETWEEN: |
|
THI THANH MAI NGUYEN |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of an officer of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [Officer] refusing her application for rehabilitation to overcome criminal inadmissibility dated October 7, 2024 [Decision] pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
[2] For the following reasons, this application is dismissed.
II. Background Facts
[3] The Applicant is a citizen of China. She was born in Vietnam and relocated to Hong Kong in 1994 with her first husband. The Applicant divorced her first husband in 2001 and married her current husband in 2006. She currently resides in Hong Kong with her husband and two children.
[4] The Applicant has five theft convictions:
-
1997: paid a fine of HK $1,200;
-
2013: paid a fine of HK $2,500;
-
2015: paid a fine of HK $500 and received probation for one year;
-
2016: paid a fine of HK$1,050 and was sentenced to 140 hours of community service; and
-
2019: sentenced to two weeks imprisonment which was suspended for eighteen months. The Applicant did not have to complete her sentence in jail.
[5] The Applicant describes the circumstances surrounding the above convictions in a letter. She explains the first conviction was the result of her friend shoplifting. Unfamiliar with the language and the laws in Hong Kong, she did as she was instructed and admitted guilt.
[6] The second conviction was, in part, the result of her bad mood due to a conflict with her husband. The Applicant also attested to being in a rush and feeling annoyed there were no staff members to assist her. The third conviction arose out of similar motivations as the Applicant claimed she wanted to escape the long lines and was feeling pressured to complete her tasks as she was scheduled to meet her probation officer shortly thereafter.
[7] The fourth conviction was the result of the Applicant wanting to try a new product. Having only gone to purchase napkins, she did not have enough money and attempted to hide the product under the napkins as she left.
[8] The fifth conviction was the result of the Applicant not wanting to wait in a long queue for a second time after finding new items she wanted to purchase. Instead, the Applicant chose to leave without paying for these items.
[9] The Applicant explains she learned her lesson after her final conviction and began seeing a psychologist to address the underlying issues associated with her convictions, including her depression and marital issues.
[10] The Applicant also decided to return to school and became interested in a two-year hospitality management diploma program at Vancouver Community College. The Applicant has an International Diploma in Administrative Management and previously worked with the Four Seasons Hotel from 2005 to 2021 and the Mandarin Oriental for an undisclosed time.
[11] The Applicant applied to Vancouver Community College and was accepted. She subsequently applied for a study permit. The Applicant’s first study permit was refused in November 2022.
[12] The Applicant applied for a second study permit in December 2022 with the assistance of her previous representative. On March 10, 2023, the Applicant requested her application be processed urgently to meet Vancouver Community College’s deadline to provide proof of an approved study permit by March 15, 2023.
[13] The Applicant’s second study permit was refused on April 3, 2023. The refusal letter stated she was inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)(b) of IRPA. The Applicant was not eligible for criminal rehabilitation at the time of the second refusal because five years had not passed since her last conviction.
[14] The Applicant applied to this Court for judicial review which was granted. The matter was sent back for reconsideration; however, the Applicant did not proceed with the reconsideration because she could not obtain a new acceptance letter to meet the requirements for a Canadian study permit.
[15] In August 2024, the Applicant applied for criminal rehabilitation pursuant to subsection 36(3) of IRPA. The Applicant’s application was refused on October 7, 2024.
III. Decision Under Review
[16] The Officer concluded that the Applicant had failed to convince him that she is rehabilitated based on the insufficient evidence she proffered. The Officer held that the effect of this decision is that she remains inadmissible to enter Canada because she is a person described in paragraph 36(2)(b) of the IRPA.
[17] The Global Case Management System notes confirm the Officer reviewed the Applicant’s Certificate of Trial from Hong Kong indicating that the Applicant has five convictions for seven counts of theft. The Officer noted the Applicant’s first conviction is dated January 7, 1997, and her fifth conviction is dated July 24, 2019. The Officer assessed the period between convictions when assessing her risk of recidivism. While the Applicant had no new convictions since July 2019, this was not unusual for the Applicant considering there are gaps of five years or longer between convictions, including a 16-year gap between her first and second convictions.
[18] The Officer determined each of the offences qualify as theft under subsection 322(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Code] and are punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years under paragraph 334(b) of the Code. Therefore, the Applicant is inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 36(2)(b) of IRPA.
[19] The Officer then assessed whether the Applicant had been rehabilitated. They noted the Applicant’s five convictions extend over a period of 22 years, with the most recent conviction occurring just over five years before the Applicant’s application. Considering the Applicant’s history of “repeating the same [crime] multiple times over [her] entire adult life”
, the Officer concluded it suggests a pattern of shoplifting.
[20] The Officer considered the Applicant’s explanation she sought help from a psychologist after her fifth conviction, assessed the psychologist’s letter, and noted the letter made no reference to the Applicant’s history of shoplifting or criminal convictions. Considering the psychologist’s letter and the Applicant’s explanation letter, the Officer found she was seeing the psychologist for stress, anxiety, and couple’s therapy.
[21] The Officer referred to the Applicant’s other evidence, including the certificates from her employer, report cards for her children, and contributions she made to a Non-Governmental Organization.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[22] The issues to be determined are whether the Officer reached their Decision in a procedurally fair manner and whether the Decision is reasonable.
[23] Procedural fairness arguments are to be reviewed on a standard of correctness or akin to correctness for which “the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond”
(Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Transportation Agency), 2021 FCA 69 at paras 46–47, 56; Schofer v Attorney General of Canada, 2025 FC 50 at para 15; see also Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35).
[24] The parties concur, and I agree, the standard of review of the merits of the Decision is reasonableness. In this respect, the role of the reviewing court is to examine the decision-maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”
and is “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision-maker”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 85-86 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 64). A decision will be reasonable if, when read as a whole and taking into account the administrative setting, it bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility (Vavilov at paras 91-95, 99-100).
V. Relevant Dispositions
[25] Paragarph 36(1)(b) of IRPA states a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of serious criminality:
Serious Criminality
|
Grande criminalité
|
36 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
|
36 (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour grande criminalité les faits suivants :
|
(b) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
|
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
|
[26] Paragraph 36(2)(b) of IRPA describes a foreign national who is inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of criminality:
Criminality
|
Criminalité
|
(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
|
(2) Emportent, sauf pour le résident permanent, interdiction de territoire pour criminalité les faits suivants :
|
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament; or
|
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions sous le régime de toute loi fédérale;
|
[27] Paragraph 36(3)(c) of IRPA outlines the ability of an applicant to overcome admissibility concerns where they satisfy the Minister of their rehabilitation:
Application
|
Application
|
(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) to (2.1):
|
(3) Les dispositions suivantes régissent l’application des paragraphes (1) à (2.1) :
|
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
|
c) les faits visés aux alinéas (1)b) ou c) et (2)b) ou c) n’emportent pas interdiction de territoire pour le résident permanent ou l’étranger qui, à l’expiration du délai réglementaire, convainc le ministre de sa réadaptation ou qui appartient à une catégorie réglementaire de personnes présumées réadaptées;
|
[28] Subsection 322(1) of the Code defines the offence for theft:
Theft
|
Vol
|
322 (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
|
322 (1) Commet un vol quiconque prend frauduleusement et sans apparence de droit, ou détourne à son propre usage ou à l’usage d’une autre personne, frauduleusement et sans apparence de droit, une chose quelconque, animée ou inanimée, avec l’intention :
|
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
|
a) soit de priver, temporairement ou absolument, son propriétaire, ou une personne y ayant un droit de propriété spécial ou un intérêt spécial, de cette chose ou de son droit ou intérêt dans cette chose;
|
(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
|
b) soit de la mettre en gage ou de la déposer en garantie;
|
(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
|
c) soit de s’en dessaisir à une condition, pour son retour, que celui qui s’en dessaisit peut être incapable de remplir;
|
(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.
|
d) soit d’agir à son égard de telle manière qu’il soit impossible de la remettre dans l’état où elle était au moment où elle a été prise ou détournée.
|
[29] Subsection 334(b) of the Code defines the punishment for the offence of theft under $5,000:
Punishment for theft
|
Punition du vol
|
334 Except where otherwise provided by law, every one who commits theft
|
34 Sauf disposition contraire des lois, quiconque commet un vol :
|
(b) if the value of what is stolen is not more than $5,000, is guilty
|
b) si la valeur de ce qui est volé ne dépasse pas cinq mille dollars, est coupable :
|
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
|
(i) soit d’un acte criminel et passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de deux ans
|
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction
|
(ii) soit d’une infraction punissable sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire.
|
VI. Analysis
A. Did the Officer breach procedural fairness?
[30] On the issue of procedural fairness, the Applicant submits the Decision was procedurally unfair as the Officer improperly made unsubstantiated and implicit credibility findings without notifying her of the concerns or providing her with an opportunity to respond. The Applicant takes issue with the Officer’s description of her as a career criminal who has committed offences over her entire adult life, despite not having committed a crime for 26 of her 31 years as an adult. She claims she was not notified of this characterization or of the Officer’s concerns with her evidence related to her remorse, accountability, and her efforts towards reform.
[31] According to the Applicant, the Officer also improperly dismissed her psychologist visits and disregarded long periods of her not reoffending. The Applicant again claims she was deprived of the opportunity to address or clarify these findings. She argues her evidence was credible, accurate, and genuine, and the Officer’s assumptions related to her remorse and risk of recidivism impacted the assessment of her credibility.
[32] The Respondent submits that the Applicant has failed to show any issue with procedural fairness. In the present case, the Officer’s concerns pertained to the sufficiency of the Applicant’s supporting materials on the likelihood of her reoffending in Canada and not her credibility. As such, the Officer was not required to notify the Applicant or provide her with an opportunity to submit additional evidence.
[33] With respect, I agree with the Respondent. There is no merit to the Applicant’s submission.
[34] Firstly, I find the Applicant has misstated the alleged mischaracterization. Referring to the period in which these convictions occurred, the Officer states the Applicant has repeated the same crimes “multiple times over [her] entire adult life.”
[35] Second, as the Respondent rightly submits, the Officer’s concerns on the sufficiency of Applicant’s evidence in respect of her risk of recidivism in Canada are not matters concerning her credibility. The Officer does not question the credibility of this evidence, but rather its sufficiency in establishing the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending in the future. In their reasons, the Officer specifically concluded the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of her rehabilitation. In this context, I find the Officer was not required to inform the Applicant of their concern with the sufficiency of her evidence and provide her with a further opportunity to submit documents. The Applicant is not entitled to notice of this issue or an opportunity to make submissions or provide evidence (Mohamud v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1140 at paras 14-17).
[36] The Applicant has not demonstrated that there was a breach of procedural fairness.
B. Was the Officer’s Decision Reasonable?
[37] The Applicant asserts the Decision was unreasonable as the Officer failed to conduct a proper assessment and to consider evidence of her rehabilitation. She claims the Officer did not apply the proper legal test and erred in their assessment of her evidence.
[38] The Applicant submits, when deciding a criminal rehabilitation application, the Officer has to consider the following four factors: 1) the nature of the offence, 2) the circumstances surrounding the offence, 3) the length of time since the offence, and 4) whether the individual has committed other offences (Lau v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1184 at para 26 [Lau]). The Applicant submits rehabilitation does not mean there is no future risk of reoffending, only that the risk is “highly unlikely”
(Lau at para 24).
[39] According to the Applicant, the Officer did not properly apply the Lau factors. The Applicant cites the decision of Justice Fothergill in De Campos Gregorio v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 748 at paragraph 28 [De Campos Gregorio] which in turn cites Justice Diner’s decision in Yu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1280 at paragraph 11. The Applicant relies on these decisions in support of her position that any consideration of an applicant’s recidivism will necessarily consider the nature of the applicant’s criminal history, what has occurred since that time, and any indicators of reoffending. The Applicant submits this requires the Officer to meaningfully analyze whether these factors support a finding of the Applicant’s rehabilitation.
[40] The Applicant takes issue with the Officer’s treatment of her criminal history by treating her prior convictions as determinative of a risk of recidivism without addressing her efforts towards rehabilitation.
[41] It is the Respondent’s position that the Applicant has not shown there is a reviewable error. Unlike De Campos Gregorio, the Officer’s reasons do not state a conclusion without any explanation. The Respondent highlights that officers are required to assess an applicant’s propensity to reoffend in the future and, in this case, the Officer appropriately considered the Applicant’s criminal history while assessing the likelihood of her reoffending (De Campos Gregorio at paras 24-25; Tahhan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1279 at para 21).
[42] I agree with the Respondent that the Officer clearly grappled with the appropriate question whether the Applicant had demonstrated she was not likely to become involved in criminal activity (De Campos Gregorio at paras 24-25).
[43] The Officer appropriately considered the Applicant’s criminal history and evidence of rehabilitation, including the therapy she undertook and the passage of time between and since her convictions. I find this analysis engages with the appropriate question and what is required of the Officer in such a case. Unlike in De Campos Gregorio, the Officer did not simply state a conclusion without having completed an analysis. Here, the Officer considered the Lau factors, address the Applicant’s prior convictions, and the passage of time between convictions and since her last conviction.
[44] Despite the Applicant’s submissions to the contrary, the Officer considered evidence both favourable and unfavourable to her and provided reasons in support of their conclusion. In particular, the Officer acknowledged that the Applicant sought the assistance of a psychologist and that the Applicant‘s last conviction was in July 2019.
[45] The Applicant argues the Officer erred in assessing her visits to the psychologist because they occurred in the context of couple’s therapy. The Officer acknowledged the psychologist’s letter that the Applicant presented in support of her application for rehabilitation which indicates the Applicant and her husband consulted the psychologist to reconcile their relationship. The letter further states the spouses were advised to understand the perspective of the other person, solve differences between them, and were taught multiple cognitive and behavioural stress management techniques. With respect to the Applicant’s progress, the psychologist writes the Applicant has developed good insight into her adjustment to self-awareness behaviours. I conclude it was reasonable for the Officer to note these visits to the psychologist were focussed on couple’s therapy.
[46] Furthermore, the Officer considered the Applicant’s key evidence which was favourable to her, including the letter from her employer, her personal letter, her role as a spouse and a mother, the excellence of her children, and her charitable involvement and other volunteer activities.
[47] Respectfully, the Applicant is asking this Court to disturb the factual findings of the officer and to reweigh the evidence. This is not its role on judicial review.
[48] In order for the Officer’s conclusion to be reasonable, Vavilov, at paragraph 301, instructs that “administrative decision-makers are not required to consider and comment upon every issue raised by the parties in their reasons.”
Rather, what is required is that “a reasoned explanation for the decision can be discerned,”
based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis, and the outcome is acceptable and defensible in light of the factual and legal constraints acting on the decision-maker (Vavilov at paras 85, 101-102). In this case, the Officer was clearly alive to the Applicant’s evidence but reasonably assessed the Applicant provided limited evidence of rehabilitation.
VII. Conclusion
[49] This application for judicial review is dismissed because the Applicant has not demonstrated the Decision under review is unreasonable or there was a breach of procedural fairness.
[50] Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree none arise.
Email this Content