Criminal inadmissibility issues rarely appear out of nowhere. In most cases, the warning signs are present early—often during the very first client intake or consultation. The challenge for immigration practitioners is knowing what to ask, how to ask it, and when to probe further before an application is submitted or a client is sent to a Canadian port of entry.
In a recent LPEN course on Evaluating Criminal Inadmissibility, practitioners explored practical, real-world strategies for identifying inadmissibility risks early in the process. Below are key takeaways that every immigration professional should be building into their intake and assessment workflow.
One of the most common mistakes during intake is asking questions that are too narrow. Clients often misunderstand what matters for Canadian immigration purposes and may exclude information they believe is minor or irrelevant.
A best practice is to ask whether the client has ever had any interaction with the police anywhere in the world. This should explicitly include driving offences, traffic tickets, arrests that did not result in charges, and matters that were “resolved” or happened many years ago.
Clients frequently assume that minor or foreign offences do not matter. Asking broad, inclusive questions helps prevent unintentional omissions that could later lead to refusals or misrepresentation concerns.
How a client responds can be just as important as what they say.
Hesitation, vague answers, or attempts to minimize past incidents are often signals that more information exists. When this happens, practitioners should slow the consultation down, ask follow-up questions, clarify dates, locations, and outcomes, and confirm whether documents exist.
Rushing past uncertainty can lead to missed admissibility issues that surface later—often at the worst possible time.
Sending a client to a Canadian port of entry without verifying criminal admissibility in advance exposes both the client and the practitioner to significant risk.
Before advising a client to travel, practitioners should ensure that criminal admissibility has been assessed, foreign offences have been properly analyzed, and equivalency and rehabilitation issues have been considered.
Border decisions are unforgiving, and assumptions about admissibility can result in refusals, reports, or long-term consequences for the client.
Employer-driven applications can present unique risks, particularly where urgency or pressure is involved.
Practitioners should be especially cautious when an employer is pushing for fast processing, information comes primarily from the employer rather than the worker, or there is reason to believe a worker may have an undisclosed criminal history.
In these situations, it is critical to ensure that the worker’s admissibility has been independently and thoroughly assessed. Pressure to move quickly should never override due diligence.
Effective intake is not just about gathering information—it is about risk management. Identifying criminal inadmissibility issues early gives practitioners more options, more time, and better outcomes for their clients.
Strong intake practices reduce the risk of refusals, help avoid misrepresentation findings, protect the integrity of the practitioner’s advice, and build trust through thorough, transparent assessment.
These strategies were explored in depth during LPEN’s course, Evaluating Criminal Inadmissibility, which focused on practical assessment techniques practitioners can apply immediately in their files.
Course details and recording access are available here:
https://lpen.ca/evaluating-criminal-inadmissibility-26/
Don’t miss the chance to join one of our upcoming courses!
Join 10,000+ Professionals and get courses updates, news and free premium content and videos.
