Beyond the Sentence:
How Criminal Convictions Affect International Travel and Immigration
What happens when someone has done everything society asks to earn a second chance—but the rest of the world isn’t ready to give them one?
This article was inspired by a chance conversation with Damon West, an internationally recognized author, speaker, and advocate for second chances. Damon shared with me that one of the many lasting consequences of a felony conviction is that international travel can remain difficult—or, in some cases, impossible—even decades after a person has completed a sentence and rebuilt their life. His own journey from incarceration to becoming a sought-after motivational speaker illustrates both the remarkable capacity for personal transformation and the reality that criminal convictions can continue to create barriers long after society has recognized an individual’s rehabilitation.
That conversation prompted me to explore a question that surprisingly few resources answer: how do countries around the world treat travelers and prospective immigrants with criminal convictions? This guide is an attempt to answer that question by bringing together the perspectives of immigration practitioners from multiple jurisdictions.
A criminal conviction can continue to shape a person’s life long after the court-imposed sentence has been completed. In addition to barriers involving employment, housing, professional licensing, voting, and other aspects of civic life, a conviction may prevent a person from traveling or immigrating to another country or subject the person to burdensome disclosure requirements, document requests, waiting periods, discretionary waivers, and uncertain outcomes. Governments have legitimate reasons to protect public safety and screen individuals whose histories may indicate a continuing risk. At the same time, rules that give little or no weight to rehabilitation, remorse, restitution, or the passage of time can create a permanent underclass of people who are never permitted to move beyond their worst act, even after they have completed their sentences, repaid their debt to society, and rebuilt their lives.
What is a Felony?
In the United States, a felony is generally understood as a criminal offense punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, although the precise terminology and classifications vary among federal law and the laws of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. The classification generally depends on the maximum authorized punishment, not the sentence the person received. An individual may therefore have a felony conviction even if the court imposed a penalty such as probation, a suspended sentence, or substantially less than one year in custody. Conversely, not every serious-looking offense is necessarily classified as a felony, and some offenses may be prosecuted as either felonies or misdemeanors depending on the circumstances.
The term “felony” does not translate neatly into every other legal system. England and Wales, for example, distinguish among summary-only offenses, indictable-only offenses, and “either way” offenses that may be tried in either the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court. Indictable offenses are generally the more serious category, but they are not an exact counterpart to U.S. felonies. Canada and Australia similarly distinguish between summary and indictable offenses, while France classifies violations as contraventions, délits, or crimes, in ascending order of seriousness. Even where two countries use similar terminology, the categories may differ in their procedures, potential penalties, and immigration consequences. For that reason, determining whether a foreign conviction is comparable to a U.S. felony generally requires examining the underlying statute, the elements of the offense, the available and imposed sentence, and sometimes the person’s actual conduct—not simply translating the name of the crime.
U.S. immigration law illustrates why the felony label alone is often an unreliable guide.
A person is not automatically inadmissible to the United States merely because an offense was called a felony, nor is a misdemeanor necessarily immigration-safe when seeking entry into the U.S. Instead, U.S. law identifies particular categories of conduct and convictions, including crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled-substance violations, multiple convictions carrying aggregate sentences of five years or more, drug trafficking, and certain other specified offenses, that render foreign nationals inadmissible to the U.S. Some applicants may qualify for statutory exceptions or discretionary waivers, while others face permanent or nearly insurmountable barriers.
Noncitizens already admitted to the United States may also be subject to removal for crimes involving moral turpitude, aggravated felonies, controlled-substance offenses, firearms offenses, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and other designated conduct. Importantly, an “aggravated felony” is a specialized immigration-law term: it includes an extensive statutory list of offenses and does not necessarily correspond to whether the crime was labeled aggravated—or even classified as a felony—under the law of the jurisdiction where it occurred.
In determining whether a person with a criminal conviction may enter or remain in the United States, immigration authorities look beyond the label attached to the offense. The analysis often focuses on the statutory elements of the crime, the maximum possible penalty, the sentence imposed, the age of the conviction, and whether the applicant has a pattern of criminal conduct. Different rules may apply depending on whether the person is applying for a temporary visa, lawful permanent residence, or admission at a port of entry. Because U.S. immigration law is highly technical, two convictions that appear similar under state criminal law may produce very different immigration consequences.
Although a criminal conviction may render a person inadmissible to the United States, relief is available in some circumstances. Nonimmigrant visa applicants who are otherwise inadmissible may, in appropriate cases, obtain a waiver under section 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which permits temporary admission despite many criminal grounds of inadmissibility. Certain applicants may qualify for the “petty offense” exception for a single crime involving moral turpitude. And others (who are seeking to immigrate or already hold green cards) may request a discretionary waiver under INA § 212(h), particularly where denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relative. By contrast, some convictions—particularly those involving drug trafficking or other serious offenses specifically identified in the INA—may carry permanent consequences with little or no opportunity for relief. Because eligibility for these exceptions and waivers depends on the specific offense, the sentence imposed, and the applicant’s immigration history, a careful legal analysis is essential before applying for a visa or traveling to the United States.
Country-by-Country Analysis
The following sections, contributed by immigration practitioners in the relevant jurisdictions, examine how criminal convictions affect temporary travel, residence, employment, family-based immigration, and other immigration pathways in each country.
Contributor: Matthew Amoils, ASG Immigration, Sydney, Australia
Unlike the United States and following the UK in reforming their criminal law legislation, Australia no longer uses the terms “felony” and “misdemeanour” when referring to criminal acts. These are now classified and referred to as “summary offences” or “indictable offences.”
Summary offences refer to less serious crimes which are usually disposed of expeditiously in the lower courts, without a jury trial. Minor traffic violations and drunk or disorderly conduct etc. would fall into this category. Indictable offences are considered to be the more serious crimes generally equivalent to the U.S. concept of a felony. These are tried in higher courts, often by jury trial, and examples include murder and manslaughter, major sexual assaults, robbery and major property theft, serious drug trafficking, and commercial fraud.
From an Australian immigration perspective all non-citizens or permanent residents are required to obtain a visa before traveling to Australia. The Department of Home Affairs requires that all visa applicants disclose their criminal history and must pass the “Character Test” before they can be deemed eligible for the grant of an Australian visa.
The Australian “Character Test” is a legal evaluation under Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958. It is applied to all people applying for a visa or citizenship to determine if they are of good character and safe for admission into the Australian community on either a temporary or long-term/indefinite timeframe.
Reasons for Failing the Test
An applicant fails the character test if they match certain risk or criminal criteria such as the following:
- Substantial Criminal Record: Sentenced to 12 months or more in prison or, multiple sentences totalling 12 months or more.
- Child offenses: Convicted of a sexually based crime involving a person under 18.
- Detention offenses: Convicted of escaping immigration detention or committing an offense while in detention.
- Bad associations: Linked to a group or person suspected of criminal conduct.
- General conduct: Past or present behaviour shows the person is not of good character.
- Security risks: Subject to an adverse security assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or an Interpol warning.
There are two stages of the decision-making process under section 501.
At the first stage, the Minister or the delegate must consider whether the applicant passes the Character Test.
A person who has a “Substantial Criminal Record” will automatically fail the Character Test, regardless of any mitigating factors which attended their offending.
However, mitigating factors may be considered at the second stage under section 501, when the decision-maker is considering whether to exercise their discretion to refuse or cancel the person’s visa.
In considering whether a person is “not of good character,” decision-makers are required to consider “all the relevant circumstances of the particular case … to obtain a complete picture of the person’s character,” including evidence of “recent good behaviour.”
In determining whether a person’s past or present criminal conduct means that they are “not of good character,” decision-makers are to consider:
- the nature, severity, frequency and cumulative effect of the offence/s;
- any surrounding circumstances which may explain the criminal conduct;
- the person’s conduct since the offence/s were committed, including:
- the length of time since the person last engaged in criminal conduct;
- any evidence of recidivism or continuing association with criminals;
- any pattern of similar offences; and
- any pattern of continued or blatant disregard or contempt for the law ‘any conduct which may indicate character reform.
The consideration of a person’s past or present general conduct allows the decision-maker to consider “a broader view of a person’s character where convictions may not have been recorded or where the person’s conduct may not have constituted a criminal offence.” In considering this broader view of character, the decision-maker should consider all relevant circumstances, including evidence of rehabilitation and any relevant periods of good conduct.
As mentioned above, if an applicant fails to satisfy the Minister or a delegate that they pass the Character Test, the person’s visa is not automatically refused or cancelled. The decision-maker must decide whether to exercise their discretion under section 501 to refuse or cancel the person’s visa.
Contributor: Luis Flávio Marques Lima, Marques Lima Advogados, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, Brazil
Brazil does not ask whether you have a criminal record. It asks a narrower question, and the difference decides most cases. Under Article 45(III) of the Migration Act (Law No. 13,445/2017), a traveler may be denied entry if convicted—or currently prosecuted—abroad for an intentional crime that would be extraditable under Brazilian law. That qualifier does a great deal of work.
Article 82 bars extradition where the conduct is not a crime in both countries, where the penalty Brazilian law attaches to the equivalent offense is under two years, or where the matter is already time-barred under either country’s statute of limitations. Run an ordinary American misdemeanor through that filter—a single DUI, simple possession, petty theft—and it usually fails to clear the two-year threshold, which means it never triggers Article 45(III) at all. A felony whose Brazilian analogue carries a short sentence, or has no analogue, falls outside it for the same reason. Negligence-based offenses are excluded on a separate ground: the provision reaches dolo, intentional conduct, only. And even a qualifying conviction produces no automatic bar. The statute says the traveler may be denied entry, after an individual interview and by reasoned written decision. This is not a watchlist running automatically against an arriving passenger.
The second thing worth getting right is that “deportation” is not one thing in Brazil, and English-language sources collapse the two mechanisms almost without exception.
Deportação (Article 50) has nothing to do with criminal history – it addresses irregular migratory status, and it begins not with removal but with written notice giving the person no less than sixty days, often extendable, to regularize their situation, during which they move freely within the country. Voluntary departure discharges deportação entirely, and it carries no bar on return.
Expulsão (Article 54) is the conviction-driven measure, and it is the one that closes the door: it requires a final, non-appealable judgment for either a Rome Statute crime (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression) or an intentional common crime punishable by imprisonment, weighed against the gravity of the offense and the person’s prospects of rehabilitation in Brazil. It is defined as removal combined with a bar on re-entry for a fixed period, but the period is bounded. Article 54, paragraph 4 requires the bar to be proportional to the sentence imposed and never longer than twice its duration. It thus is a finite, calculable exclusion, not the indefinite one American practitioners are conditioned to expect.
Then there is the part that surprises U.S. counsel most. Article 55 does not say the authority may decline to expel. It says expulsion shall not proceed in certain cases and then lists the circumstances: the person has a Brazilian child under their custody or dependent on them economically or socio-affectively; the person has a spouse or partner residing in Brazil, recognized judicially or legally, without discrimination of any kind; the individual arrived in Brazil before age twelve with continuous residence since; or the person is over seventy years of age with more than ten years of residence. In these instances, there is no necessity to establish hardship, no waiver application, and no exercise of discretion to persuade. A qualifying family tie is not a factor to be weighed against the conviction; it is a statutory prohibition on removing the person at all. For a client with genuine roots in Brazil, this is frequently the whole answer.
At the visa stage, the same test is applied earlier in time.
Article 11 allows a consulate to deny a visa to anyone falling within Article 45(I)-(IV) or (IX), so extraditability governs the consular decision exactly as it governs at the port of entry. What changes is the posture: a consular officer working from a paper file, without the individual interview Article 45 contemplates at the border, has both less information and less occasion to make the fine judgment the statute calls for—and Article 11’s sole paragraph attaches a lasting effect to the refusal, keeping the person barred from entry for as long as the underlying conditions persist. A visa denial is not a discrete or one-off setback and re-applying for the visa should not be attempted casually.
The provision that most often decides these cases is Article 10(II): a visa shall not be granted to anyone who demonstrably conceals a condition that would impede its issuance. Accordingly, a conviction that would not have barred the client becomes disqualifying the moment it is hidden, and a discretionary judgment converts into a mandatory refusal.
The long-term picture is more forgiving than the short-term one, and practical advice follows from it. Naturalization requires that the applicant have no criminal conviction or have been rehabilitated under the law—the same formula appears in Article 65(IV) for ordinary naturalization and Article 69(III) for the special track—and Brazilian criminal rehabilitation is a distinct judicial proceeding that converts what would otherwise be a permanent disqualification into a non-issue, permitting the individual to naturalize.
So it is inadvisable to send a client to a Brazilian port of entry hoping a criminal record will not surface, and do not have them volunteer a narrative either. Have them carry the material that lets an official complete the analysis the statute requires: the certified disposition, proof that the sentence was served or the matter resolved, and evidence of expungement or rehabilitation where it exists, each with a sworn Portuguese translation. The officer conducting the Article 45 interview must reach a reasoned conclusion about extraditability and gravity and decide in the moment.
In my experience, clients who run into trouble in Brazil are almost never the ones with the serious records. They are the ones who were advised, somewhere along the way, that the safest thing was to say nothing.
Contributor: Sereyrath Kiri, Husky & Partners, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Cambodian law classifies criminal offences into three categories: felonies, misdemeanours, and petty offences.
Felonies are the most serious category of criminal offences under Cambodian law. Examples include murder, rape, torture and acts of cruelty, armed robbery, human trafficking, and drug trafficking. Felonies are punishable by severe criminal penalties, including imprisonment of more than five years, which may extend up to 30 years or life imprisonment depending on the nature and circumstances of the offence. Courts may also impose fines where such penalties are provided under the applicable laws.
Misdemeanours are offences of lesser severity than felonies. Examples include theft, breach of trust, fraud, causing involuntary bodily harm, intentional acts of violence, and intentional damage to property. Depending on the specific offence and applicable legal provisions, misdemeanours may be punishable by imprisonment ranging from six days to five years and/or fines.
Petty offences are the least serious category of criminal offences. They generally involve minor violations, such as certain acts of public defamation, public insult, minor acts of violence, or minor damage to property. Petty offences are generally punishable by fines and, in certain cases, imprisonment of no more than six days, depending on the applicable legal provisions.
Cambodian law does not provide that every foreign national with a criminal conviction is automatically prohibited from entering Cambodia. In practice, foreign nationals may apply for Cambodian visas without being routinely required to disclose all prior criminal convictions. A criminal conviction, by itself, does not automatically result in refusal of entry into Cambodia.
However, pursuant to the Law on Immigration of Cambodia, Cambodian immigration authorities have the authority to refuse entry, revoke visas, order removal or deportation, or take other immigration measures against foreign nationals whose presence is considered to affect national security, public order, or public safety. Accordingly, foreign nationals with convictions for serious offences, particularly offences involving terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, or other serious security-related crimes, may face difficulties obtaining entry permission or may be subject to immigration action.
In addition, under the Law on Cambodian Nationality, a foreign national applying for Cambodian nationality must satisfy certain legal requirements, including having good character and not having been convicted of a felony or misdemeanour.
Therefore, while a prior criminal conviction does not automatically prevent a foreign national from entering Cambodia, the outcome may depend on various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the time elapsed since the conviction, the individual’s immigration history, and the assessment and discretion of Cambodian immigration authorities at the relevant time.
Contributors: Jacqueline Bart and Carrie Wright, BARTLAW LLP Canadian Immigration, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Canada recognizes three categories of criminal offences: summary offences, indictable offences, and hybrid offences. Summary offences are generally the least serious offences and are broadly comparable to misdemeanors in the United States. Indictable offences are more serious and are generally comparable to felonies in the United States. Hybrid offences occupy a unique category under Canadian law because the prosecutor may elect to proceed either summarily or by indictment, depending on the circumstances of the case. For Canadian immigration purposes, hybrid offences are treated as indictable offences, regardless of how the prosecution ultimately proceeds.
An arrest, pending charge, or conviction for a criminal offence in the United States can have significant consequences for a person’s ability to visit or immigrate to Canada. Under Canadian immigration law, a foreign national may be inadmissible if they have committed an act outside Canada that would constitute a criminal offence under an Act of Parliament if committed in Canada, or if they have been convicted outside Canada of an offence that has a Canadian equivalent. If the Canadian equivalent offence is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, the individual may be inadmissible for serious criminality. If the equivalent offence is an indictable or hybrid offence, or if the individual has been convicted of two separate offences that would constitute criminal offences in Canada, they likewise may be inadmissible for criminality.
There are two primary mechanisms for overcoming criminal inadmissibility to Canada. The first is a Temporary Resident Permit (“TRP”), which allows an otherwise inadmissible individual to enter Canada temporarily when their need to enter outweighs any risk they may pose. TRPs are typically issued for a specific purpose or period of time. In assessing a TRP application, Canadian immigration authorities consider the reason for the individual’s travel, including whether there are persuasive humanitarian considerations or a significant benefit to Canada, and weigh those factors against the reasons for the inadmissibility. Relevant considerations include the nature and seriousness of the offence, how much time has passed since it occurred, evidence of rehabilitation, and the likelihood of reoffending.
The second option is an application for criminal rehabilitation. Criminal rehabilitation is a permanent remedy that, if approved, removes inadmissibility arising from the offences covered by the approval, provided there are no subsequent offences. An individual generally becomes eligible to apply five years after completing all aspects of their sentence for a conviction, or five years after committing the underlying act where inadmissibility is based on the commission of an act rather than a conviction. In assessing an application, immigration officers consider whether the applicant is unlikely to commit further offences, taking into account factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, the applicant’s conduct since the offence, and evidence demonstrating rehabilitation.
In certain circumstances, individuals who are inadmissible for criminality-but not serious criminality-may become deemed rehabilitated automatically by operation of law. Eligibility for deemed rehabilitation depends on several factors, including the number of offences, the Canadian equivalent of the offence, the maximum penalty for that offence under Canadian law, the amount of time that has elapsed since completion of the sentence, and whether the individual has committed any subsequent offences. Individuals who are inadmissible for serious criminality are not eligible for deemed rehabilitation.
Because the assessment of criminal inadmissibility requires a detailed comparison of foreign criminal law with Canadian criminal law, determining whether an arrest, charge, or conviction will make an individual inadmissible is often complex. Anyone with a criminal history who intends to travel to, work in, or immigrate to Canada should consult experienced Canadian immigration counsel to determine whether they are inadmissible and, if so, what options may be available to overcome that inadmissibility.
Contributor: Romina Gálvez, Munita & Olavarría abogados, Santiago, Chile
Chile does not have a precise equivalent of the U.S. “felony.” Chilean criminal law ranks offenses as “crímenes” (crimes), “simples delitos” (ordinary offenses), and “faltas” (petty offenses), in descending order of seriousness. “Crímenes” are the closest counterpart to a U.S. felony; “simples delitos” occupy a broad middle tier; and “faltas” cover minor wrongdoing. For Chilean immigration purposes, the foreign label is rarely decisive. What matters in Chile is how the conduct would be classified under Chilean law and what penalty would apply to it, rather than the name given to the offense abroad.
A serious criminal conviction can indeed affect a person’s ability to visit or immigrate to Chile. The Immigration Law distinguishes between mandatory and discretionary entry prohibitions. Mandatory prohibitions include, for example, convictions for drug or arms trafficking, money laundering, human trafficking, terrorism, homicide, kidnapping, certain violent robberies, and serious sexual offenses, as well as having been convicted in Chile of crímenes or simples delitos for which the statute of limitations has not expired or the sentence has not been fully served. Among the discretionary grounds, the authorities may deny entry to anyone who has been convicted abroad within the last ten years for acts that Chilean law classifies as crímenes, or within the last five years for acts classified as simples delitos, as well as to anyone with a criminal record flagged by INTERPOL. These same grounds may serve as the basis for the denial or revocation of residence permits, denial of entry into the country, and, where applicable, deportation.
When evaluating an applicant with a criminal record, Chilean authorities – the National Immigration Service, the Investigative Police at the border, and consulates – typically consider the nature and severity of the offense, its equivalent under Chilean criminal law, the time elapsed since the conviction, whether the sentence has been served or has expired, the existence of pending proceedings, and the applicant’s immigration history. When considering deportation or the duration of an entry ban, they also consider family ties in Chile, the period of lawful residence, and social or economic contributions. For temporary residency, adult applicants must submit a criminal record certificate from their country of origin and from any country in which they have resided during the past five years.
There is no generic U.S.-style immigration “waiver,” but there are workarounds. The Undersecretary of the Interior may authorize, by means of a well-founded resolution, the entry of individuals subject to entry prohibitions, either on a one-time basis or indefinitely. Entry prohibitions and expulsions may be suspended or revoked “ex officio” or at the request of a party when new evidence renders them unjustified or inappropriate.
In the realm of domestic criminal law, Decree-Law No. 409 allows a person to be treated for legal and administrative purposes as if they had never committed a crime once certain time periods and conduct requirements have been met. The Regulations on the Expungement of Criminal Records (Decree No. 64) provide for the expungement or omission of criminal-record entries, depending on the severity of the conviction and the time elapsed. These mechanisms are particularly helpful when the conviction is old, the sentence has been served, and the offense does not involve the most serious crimes; however, they do not, on their own, lift a current immigration ban or guarantee a visa.
The most important practical advice is to be transparent and have all necessary documentation ready. Anyone with a criminal record who intends to travel to or reside in Chile should gather in advance the full court judgment, proof that the sentence was completed or has expired, up-to-date criminal record certificates, and, if available, evidence of rehabilitation or expungement. Concealing a criminal conviction on a visa or residency application is particularly risky: false statements or falsified documentation are, in themselves, grounds for rejection, revocation, and deportation.
Nor is it advisable to simply show up at the border “to see what happens” if there is a current ban or a crime that the law treats as an absolute barrier; it is preferable to first seek authorization, reconsideration, or an appeal through the National Immigration Service, even from abroad via Chilean consulates. Since the outcome depends on Chile’s assessment of the incident, the date of the conviction, and the type of permit requested, it is advisable to evaluate the case with a local immigration advisor before purchasing tickets or initiating a residency application.
Contributor: Samuel Guo, Duan & Duan, Shenzhen, China
Restrictions and Impacts of Foreign Nationals’ Criminal Records on Their Entry, Visa Application and Permanent Residence in China
(1) Grounds for Refusal of Entry and Visa Issuance (Existing Applicable Laws)
A foreign national may be refused entry to China in the following circumstances: failure to hold valid identity documents; being expelled or repatriated within the statutory entry prohibition period; potential risks to national security and interests or engagement in illegal and criminal activities; fraud or misrepresentation in visa applications; intended activities inconsistent with the visa category after entry; and other circumstances prescribed by laws and administrative regulations.
During the visa examination phase, visas shall not be issued to applicants who fall under the following categories: those expelled or repatriated within the entry prohibition period; individuals posing potential threats to national security and interests or likely to commit illegal and criminal acts; applicants who submit false materials or make fraudulent statements; persons unable to demonstrate sufficient financial means to cover their stay; applicants who fail to submit required supporting documents; and other individuals deemed unsuitable for visa issuance. Border inspection authorities are not obligated to provide reasons for refusing entry.
(2) Re-entry Restrictions Following Expulsion or Repatriation
Foreign nationals subject to deportation shall be barred from entering China for 10 years starting from the date of deportation. Those ordered to be repatriated shall face a re-entry ban ranging from one to five years, calculated from the date of repatriation.
(3) Supplementary Entry Restrictions under Upcoming Administrative Regulations
The Regulations of the State Council on Exit and Entry Administration (to take effect on September 15, 2026, not yet in force) set forth additional prohibitive provisions:
- Foreign nationals who submit falsified documents or make false statements when applying for visas or seeking entry at border ports may be subject to a 1–5 year entry ban.
- Individuals convicted of criminal offenses impairing state border control, or those who received administrative penalties for document fraud or illegal exit/entry, may be prohibited from entering China for 1–5 years commencing upon completion of all penalties.
- Persons included in relevant countermeasure or restriction lists shall be denied visas and refused entry in accordance with law.
(4) Logical Impacts of Overseas Criminal Records on Visa Approval and Permanent Residence Applications
Visa authorities and immigration administrators conduct reviews focusing on applicants’ potential risks to national security and public interests, likelihood of criminal misconduct, and integrity in application disclosures. Applicants with serious criminal records or a history of submitting fraudulent materials face a high risk of visa denial or entry refusal. Anyone under an expulsion/repatriation ban will definitely be rejected within the statutory restriction term.
For permanent residence status: relevant laws stipulate that permanent residence approval is subject to review by the Ministry of Public Security and limited to foreign nationals who have made outstanding contributions or meet statutory eligibility criteria. Compliance with laws, national security and public interests constitute core review metrics. In practice, applicants with serious overseas criminal records rarely satisfy review standards and face a substantial risk of rejection.
(5) Distinction Between Overseas Criminal Records and Criminal Prosecution by Chinese Judicial Authorities
An overseas criminal conviction record constitutes a key factor in administrative vetting for entry permits. However, China’s authority to initiate criminal proceedings against such overseas conduct is determined separately under the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China on protective jurisdiction. Prosecution is permissible only if the offense carries a minimum statutory sentence of three years’ imprisonment, satisfies the dual criminality principle (the idea that a person can only be extradited from one country to stand trial in another if the specific act committed is considered a crime under the laws of both nations), or relevant international treaties impose prosecution obligations on China.
Contributor: Daisy Polanco Jiménez, Guzmán Ariza, Santo Domingo, DR
Unlike the United States, the Dominican Republic does not classify criminal offenses as “felonies” and “misdemeanors.” Instead, Dominican criminal law distinguishes between different categories of offenses under the Penal Code and special criminal statutes. For immigration purposes, however, the relevant consideration is not the classification of the offense but whether the applicant has been convicted of a serious crime that affects admissibility under General Migration Law No. 285-04.
A foreign national applying for a Dominican visa or residence permit must provide a criminal background certificate issued by the competent authority in their country of origin and of legal residence. Under Articles 15 and 16 of Migration Law No. 285-04, the Dominican authorities may deny admission or residence to individuals who have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, transnational organized crime, drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, human trafficking, sexual offenses, or other offenses considered to pose a risk to public order or national security. The Immigration Department (Dirección General de Migración) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs retain broad discretionary authority to assess whether an applicant meets the legal requirements for admission or residence.
Dominican immigration authorities consider the nature and seriousness of the offense, the applicant’s criminal history, the supporting documentation submitted, and any circumstances that may affect public order, national security, or the national interest. In practice, immigration concerns are more likely to arise where the criminal offense has an international dimension or cross-border implications—such as offenses involving terrorism, transnational organized crime, human trafficking, drug trafficking, or money laundering—which may be the subject of international cooperation, alerts, or enforcement mechanisms.
From a practical standpoint, applicants with prior criminal convictions should seek legal advice before initiating the immigration process. Immigration authorities may request certified court records, judgments, evidence of sentence completion, and additional documentation beyond the standard police clearance certificate. Early legal review is particularly important to determine whether the conviction is likely to affect admissibility and to prepare a comprehensive submission addressing any issues that may arise during the evaluation process. Because immigration authorities exercise considerable discretion, a well-documented application can be critical to the outcome.
Legal Framework
- General Migration Law No. 285-04
- Regulation for the Implementation of Migration Law No. 285-04 (Decree No. 631-11)
- Dominican Penal Code and applicable special criminal legislation (where relevant to the underlying offense)
Contributor: Elena Danilova, Global Relocation Consultants, Cairo, Egypt
In Egypt, the closest equivalent to a U.S. felony is a “serious crime” under the Penal Code, such as drug trafficking, violent offenses, or crimes against national security. Felonies in Egypt cover serious crimes punishable by long-term imprisonment or death, including homicide, terrorism, drug trafficking, and organized crime. Foreign nationals are subject to the same criminal law as Egyptians, with no special exemptions except for diplomats.
These convictions can significantly affect eligibility for immigration formalities (for work permit, residency).
Entrance & Tourist Visas
For short-term visits, Egyptian consulates do not generally require applicants to disclose criminal records. However, a serious conviction (e.g., drugs, violence, terrorism) can result in visa refusal, especially if it suggests a risk to public order or national security. Normally receiving a tourist visa and renewing it in country does not require presenting any document confirming past convictions, but the border authorities have discretion to deny entry if they discover such a record, even if a visa was issued. Minor or old convictions may not automatically bar entry.
Work Permits
Work permits are issued by the Ministry of Labour or Ministry of Investment and require employer sponsorship. Immigration Authorities conduct security investigations on each applicant. A felony equivalent conviction—particularly for drug trafficking, violent crime, or fraud—can disqualify an applicant. Employer sponsors must also comply with the 10:1 quota (ten Egyptian employees per foreigner), so they are unlikely to sponsor someone with a serious criminal background.
Residency Permits
Residency permits are linked to work permits and processed by the Passport & Immigration Administration. Although they depend on the validity of the work permit, another security investigation will take place while applying for the Residency. A serious conviction that blocks employment will also block residency. Authorities assess whether the applicant poses a security or public safety risk.
Exceptions & Rehabilitation
Egyptian law recognizes pardons, sentence reductions, and rehabilitation certificates that restore civil rights. Egyptian law does not automatically erase or disregard foreign convictions; however, if the home country issues a pardon or rehabilitation certificate, Egyptian authorities generally respect it. Such a decision is made at the discretion of the relevant authority in Egypt.
Advice for applicants with a record
Please keep all the papers confirming your history of criminal records with you at the border and during the visa application/renewal process, so that you are prepared if authorities discover the history and inquire about details. Be aware that you can be denied entry / a visa/ a permit with no explanation.
Contributor: Arthur Leclerc, GYH Correspondent Attorney, Toulouse, France
Every year, French consulates in the United States process applications from people who, at some point, acquired a criminal record. In American law, the criminal question may turn on whether the offense is considered a misdemeanor or a felony. France, however, does not use this distinction and does not maintain a list of specific offenses that automatically bar entrance into its territory. Instead, French visa law asks a more open-ended question: could this person threaten French public order?
Public order is a central notion in French administrative law, which includes immigration law. Its definition is broad and covers public security, public health and sanitation, public tranquility, public morality, and human dignity. A criminal record of any kind does not by itself lead the French administration to conclude that the applicant is a threat to public order. However, such a record will be weighed by the administration in assessing whether the applicant could be a threat, considering not only the legal classification of the offense as a misdemeanor or felony, but also its gravity and how long ago it occurred. In other words, an old and minor offense without other more recent violations is unlikely to block an application, while a serious one or repeated and more recent offenses are more likely to block it. The administration will also check if the offense also exists in French law, which is not always the case, as well as how it would be punished by our criminal justice system. In practice, for stays of up to 90 days, American citizens and citizens of certain other countries are not required to hold a visa to travel to European territory. While it is still possible that authorities at the French border could deny entry to someone with a criminal record, this kind of on-the-spot denial depends based on a background check that is very rarely carried out for a citizen of a visa-exempt country like the United States.
For longer stays, an applicant needs a visa that functions as a residence permit for the first year after entry. These visa applications do lead to a detailed examination of the criminal record. If such an application is submitted and does not receive any response from the administration for more than two months from the time of filing, it is considered denied. An applicant who is refused may bring an administrative appeal before the Commission de recours contre les décisions de refus de visa d’entrée en France, based in Nantes, and if the administrative appeal also is denied, may then pursue a lawsuit. These appellate processes depend on the legality of the initial decision, so preparing a complete and detailed application is extremely important in this regard.
Contributors: Mahrukh Umrigar, Senior Partner, and Aamir Khan, Senior Associate, Consortia Legal, Mumbai, India
In the last two decades, India’s immigration landscape has undergone a significant transformation even as India’s immigration policy continues to be predominantly driven by national security objectives and regional geopolitical imperatives. India’s legal and regulatory framework on immigration aims to ensure that there is no infiltration of illegal immigrants from porous borders including foreign nationals with criminal records or history. The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (“the Act”),the key law governing immigration, aims to enhance national security, whilst regulating entry and stay of foreign nationals more effectively. The Act has introduced stricter penalties for violations by both individuals and corporations alike and seeks to regulate the entry, transit and stay of foreign nationals in India.
Criminal offences in India are mainly governed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This new framework categorizes criminal offences into three broad categories: Cognizable and non-cognizable offences, bailable and non-bailable offences and compoundable and non-compoundable offences.
Cognizable offenses are those that permit the police to arrest a person without a warrant and commence investigation proceedings, while non-cognizable offenses require a warrant and prior court approval for investigations. Bailable offences are those where bail is considered a right of the accused and said accused can be released by offering bail, while non-bailable offences are those that are more serious in nature where bail is permitted at the court’s discretion. Compoundable offences refer to those where the complainant is legally permitted to withdraw the charges (this is typically for minor offences like assault or theft), while non-compoundable offences are more serious in nature where charges cannot be dropped without judicial intervention.
A history or record of criminal offences plays a significant role in determining eligibility of a Foreign National (“FN”) on immigration matters. This is the case in most countries and India is no exception. A serious criminal conviction is highly likely to affect an FN’s eligibility to obtain a visa / entry to India. An FN is required to be honest and transparent about their past criminal history and provide full disclosure of even the smallest infractions.
This is pertinent to all visa applications (e-visas and consular visas) as well as Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) applications. Whilst the disclosure of an FN’s criminal convictions may not directly lead to a rejection of the visa application, the information is verified and assessed by the immigration authorities who have the final discretion of approving or denying a visa. It is more likely for a visa to be denied if the FN has a history of serious offences such as crimes against women or children, human trafficking, drug trafficking, economic offences or financial fraud, terrorism or immigration-related offences. Minor offences such as driving infractions are not likely to have a high refusal rate, although the final discretion remains with the authorities.
Indian immigration authorities are likely to consider the following key factors for FNs with a criminal record prior to approving or denying a visa:
- The nature of the offence and whether it is a major crime (against women or children) as mentioned above, drug or human trafficking, economic or financial fraud, terrorism or immigration related offences – these are likely to have the highest chances of refusal.
- How long ago did the offence occur
- Whether the offence led to a conviction or was it an arrest and charge
- If convicted, how long was the sentence
- Has the conviction been spent/expunged in the country of the FN
- Whether there are any current warrants or pending proceedings on the FN
- Whether there are any international travel bans imposed on the FN
All these factors are likely to have an impact on the visa approval or denial of an FN. Failing to disclose the full criminal history of an FN may result in not only the rejection of a visa but also a ban on future travel to India.
At present, there are no available exceptions, waivers or formal rehabilitation mechanisms that can be availed by an FN who holds a criminal record. If an FN’s conviction has subsequently been spent, expunged, pardoned, annulled or otherwise legally cleared in their country, this information could be relevant to the decision-making process and should be submitted by the FN as supporting explanation. However, all decisions are at the final discretion of the Indian immigration authorities and are determined on a case-to-case basis.
As high-level discretionary powers rest with the Indian immigration authorities, supporting documentation such as court dispositions, proof of completed sentence/probation and character reference certificates must be proactively submitted by the FN in support of their application wherever possible prior to a request being made by the authorities. FNs should also anticipate longer processing times for such applications. It is imperative for an FN to ensure full and accurate disclosure of their criminal record at the time of visa application as incorrect or non-disclosure of information could itself be sufficient grounds for refusal.
Contributor: Bas de Jong, PNB Law Firm, Jakarta, Indonesia
Indonesia does not have a direct equivalent to the U.S. distinction between a “felony” and a “misdemeanor.” Indonesian criminal law generally refers to criminal offenses (tindak pidana) and determines their seriousness by reference to the nature of the offense and the applicable criminal sanctions. From an immigration perspective, there is also no general rule under Indonesian law providing that a foreign national becomes automatically inadmissible simply because he or she has previously been convicted abroad of an offense that would be considered a felony in the United States.
Instead, Indonesian immigration law focuses on specific statutory grounds for refusing entry. Under Article 13 of Law No. 6 of 2011 on Immigration, as amended, Immigration Officers must refuse entry in certain circumstances, including where the foreign national is included on Indonesia’s immigration deterrence list (Daftar Penangkalan), is involved in international crime or organized transnational crime, or is listed as a person wanted for arrest by a foreign country. A previous foreign conviction, standing alone, is not expressly identified as a separate automatic ground for refusal of entry. Indonesian immigration law also does not impose a universal police-clearance requirement across all visa categories.
Nevertheless, a serious foreign criminal history can have significant immigration consequences when it becomes known to Indonesian authorities through international law-enforcement cooperation, immigration intelligence, or other information-sharing mechanisms. For example, an Interpol Red Notice is not itself the same as an Indonesian immigration deterrence decision, but an Interpol record or foreign wanted status may alert Indonesian authorities and result in additional screening, coordination with Indonesian law-enforcement agencies, refusal of admission where the statutory requirements are met, or other immigration enforcement measures. Foreign nationals already in Indonesia may also be subject to administrative immigration measures, including cancellation of a stay permit, deportation, or placement on the deterrence list, where their activities are considered dangerous to security or public order or where they fail to comply with Indonesian law.
Because Indonesia does not impose a general conviction-based ground of inadmissibility, there is no direct equivalent to the U.S. concept of a statutory “waiver of inadmissibility” for a foreign criminal conviction. The practical assessment is therefore highly fact specific. Relevant considerations include the nature and seriousness of the offense, whether the sentence has been completed, whether there is an outstanding arrest warrant or other active law-enforcement action, whether an Interpol notice exists, and whether the individual has been placed on Indonesia’s deterrence list.
Individuals with serious criminal histories should obtain Indonesian immigration advice before applying for a visa or travelling to Indonesia, particularly where there is any possibility of an active international law-enforcement or immigration record.
Contributor: Amit Acco, Kan-Tor & Acco, Ramat Gan, Israel
Under Israel’s legal framework, including the Penal Law, offenses are generally divided into categories such as felonies and misdemeanors. The closest local equivalent to a U.S. felony is an offense explicitly classified as a felony (Pesha) under Israeli law, which typically denotes severe crimes carrying heavier penalties. When evaluating a foreign criminal record, Israeli immigration authorities do not rely on the foreign label alone; rather, they assess the specific nature and severity of the underlying conduct to determine its weight and equivalent status in Israel.
A serious criminal conviction can significantly affect an individual’s eligibility to visit or immigrate to Israel. For individuals seeking to immigrate (Aliyah) under the Law of Return, Section 2(b) of Israel’s Law of Return empowers the Ministry of Interior to deny an immigrant visa to anyone with a “criminal past, likely to endanger public welfare.” When assessing such cases, immigration authorities consider several key factors: the nature and severity of the crime (e.g., whether it was a violent felony or a minor misdemeanor), the amount of time that has elapsed since the offense occurred, whether the record shows a pattern of criminal activity or an isolated incident, and the applicant’s assessed likelihood of reoffending.
Despite these strict security standards, a criminal conviction does not automatically result in a blanket exclusion. The Israeli Ministry of Interior employs a formal “consideration procedure” to individually evaluate applicants, intentionally leaving room to weigh the risk against evidence of rehabilitation. While there is no standard statutory waiver form, applicants can overcome inadmissibility by providing compelling evidence of a changed lifestyle, character reference letters, stable employment records, or certificates from rehabilitation programs. In certain immigration cases, authorities may offer a conditional approval, granting temporary residency for a 1–2 year trial period; if the applicant remains law-abiding during this time, they may subsequently be granted full citizenship.
Jurisdiction-specific advice for Israel heavily emphasizes complete and absolute transparency. Applicants must fully disclose all arrests, convictions, and pending charges on their applications if asked; notably, even expunged or “spent” records must be declared, as failure to disclose this history can lead to immediate rejection for misrepresentation. Furthermore, criminal history forms an integral part of the digital screening process conducted through the online Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA-IL) application for visa-exempt nationals and is also assessed during the border control entry inspection process. Evidence indicates that Israeli immigration and security systems thoroughly screen these declarations and actively interface with international databases, sharing and cross-referencing felony information from other global jurisdictions. Individuals with a criminal record should proactively gather comprehensive documentation—including police clearance certificates from their country of residence, official court records, and proof of sentence completion—and should strongly consider consulting an experienced Israeli immigration attorney before applying or attempting to travel.
Contributor: Marco Mazzeschi, Mazzeschi Srl, Siena, Italy
In Italy, as in other countries, a criminal conviction may continue to have adverse consequences for foreign nationals’ entry into and residence in the country, even many years after the commission of the offence.
Italian criminal law primarily distinguishes between delitti (more serious criminal offences) and contravvenzioni (less serious offences). Based on this distinction, Italian immigration law identifies certain criminal offences that may directly affect a foreign national’s ability to enter Italy or, in certain circumstances, to renew a residence permit already held. These offences are considered sufficiently serious to give rise to a presumption of the offender’s inherent social dangerousness.
Regarding their immigration-related consequences, and in particular the restrictions they may impose on entry into the country, such offences (that have been identified under Italian immigration law as potentially impacting immigration to Italy) may be broadly compared to felonies under U.S. law. However, the two categories (offences constituting grounds for exclusion under Italian law and U.S. felonies) do not fully overlap. Unlike felonies, which are classified as such primarily based on the penalty prescribed by law, offences constituting grounds for exclusion under Italian law are identified on a case-by-case basis by the legislature, depending on the specific restrictions it intends to impose.
In this regard, the offences that may affect entry into Italy are set out in Article 4(3) of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998 (Immigration Act). These include offences, whether completed or attempted, for which mandatory arrest in flagrante delicto is required pursuant to Article 380(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even where the criminal conviction is not yet final. This category encompasses particularly serious offences, including robbery, extortion, abuse of family or household members, stalking, certain forms of aggravated theft, and other offences deemed relevant to the protection of public security.
Additional grounds for exclusion from entry to Italy concern offences relating to the trafficking of narcotic drugs and other dangerous substances; offences against sexual freedom; facilitating irregular immigration into Italy or irregular emigration from Italy to other States; the recruitment of persons for prostitution or the exploitation of prostitution; and the involvement of minors in unlawful activities. A prohibition on entry may also apply in cases involving a final conviction for certain copyright-related offences and to foreign nationals who have previously been subject to an expulsion order. In the latter case, however, the prohibition does not apply where the foreign national has obtained special re-entry authorization from the Ministry of the Interior or where the applicable period of prohibition on entry has expired.
In proceedings at the Italian border (concerning entry into Italian territory), the offences identified by the legislature as constituting grounds for exclusion under Italian law may result in the automatic refusal of a visa, without the administrative authority being required to conduct a discretionary assessment of the applicant’s actual degree of dangerousness.
However, for cases in which the individual is already in Italy, particularly in cases involving the renewal of an already-issued residence permit, the case law of the Italian Constitutional Court has established that automatic refusal mechanisms must be interpreted considering the principle of proportionality. Accordingly, in proceedings for the renewal of a residence permit, where a foreign national has committed an offence constituting a statutory ground for exclusion, the competent authority must conduct an individualized assessment of the specific circumstances of the case, balancing the public interest in protecting public order and security against the individual’s private and family interests.
Such an assessment must consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the time elapsed since the conviction, the individual’s subsequent conduct, any evidence of rehabilitation, the person’s family and social ties in Italy, and the impact that removal from the country would have on their private and family life. Indeed, a person who has committed an offence in Italy and is lawfully resident there may, where the statutory requirements are satisfied, apply for judicial rehabilitation. Italian criminal law also permits such an application where the conviction was handed down by a third country, provided that the judgment has been recognized by an Italian court.
Rehabilitation, which presupposes that the sentence has been fully served, constitutes a ground for exceptions to ancillary penalties and other criminal effects of the conviction, thereby enabling the convicted person to regain the legal capacities lost because of the conviction.
Nevertheless, where a foreign national is residing abroad and does not hold a residence permit in Italy, the commission of an offence constituting a ground for exclusion from entry to Italy may, in practice, hinder the issuance of the required authorization (nulla osta) and the subsequent entry visa. In such circumstances, judicial review remains available as a safeguard through which the individual may assert their claims before the courts; however, recourse to the judicial authorities is unpredictable and does not guarantee a favorable outcome.
Contributor: Raúl Lara Maiz, EC Rubio, Monterrey, Mexico
Mexico does not use the felony/misdemeanor distinction familiar to common law jurisdictions. Criminal offenses are classified under the Federal Criminal Code and state criminal codes by the protected legal interest, the applicable penalty, and procedural consequences. The closest practical equivalent to a U.S. felony is not a single statutory label, but the group of serious offenses that may compromise national security or public safety, including organized crime, intentional homicide, kidnapping, human trafficking, certain firearms offenses, and serious public-health or national-security crimes.
For immigration purposes, the label attached to the foreign offense is less important than the nature of the conduct, the seriousness of the conviction, the sentence imposed, the time elapsed, and whether the person’s background presents a current security concern. Mexican immigration authorities therefore do not automatically treat every foreign felony as a bar to entry or residence.
Effect of Criminal Convictions on Entry, Residence, and Naturalization
Mexico’s Migration Law permits immigration authorities to deny a visa, entry, or continued stay when, based on the person’s background in Mexico or abroad, national security or public safety would be compromised. This standard is discretionary and individualized. A criminal conviction, standing alone, does not necessarily result in refusal, but recent or serious convictions—particularly those involving violence, organized crime, trafficking, weapons, drugs, or security-related conduct—may create significant obstacles.
Short-term visitors from visa-exempt countries are not routinely required to submit criminal-record certificates. Screening generally occurs through immigration interviews and internal migration-control lists. Longer-term residence applications may receive closer review, and authorities may request additional documentation if a security concern arises. Naturalization is more demanding: applicants are generally required to provide Mexican criminal-record certificates, and any record should be evaluated in light of rehabilitation, family ties, and integration into Mexican society.
Mexican law also contemplates cancellation of residence status and deportation where the person’s background compromises national security or public safety. Deportation decisions must specify any applicable re-entry bar, and in the most serious cases the bar may be treated as definitive. However, Mexican constitutional principles require due process, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a reasoned assessment rather than a purely automatic result.
The key factors are the seriousness of the offense, whether the conduct has a Mexican-law equivalent, the sentence imposed, the time elapsed since completion of the sentence, subsequent conduct, evidence of rehabilitation, family or employment ties in Mexico, and whether the facts point to a current risk. Old, isolated, non-violent offenses are materially different from recent convictions involving violence, organized crime, trafficking, or national-security concerns.
Relief Mechanisms and Practical Advice
Mexico does not have a formal criminal inadmissibility waiver comparable to the U.S. nonimmigrant waiver. The closest functional tools are individualized administrative assessment, immigration regularization for qualifying persons already in Mexico, humanitarian protection, family-reunification arguments, and judicial review through amparo proceedings (appeal for constitutional protection of fundamental rights) when an adverse decision lacks due process or proportionality.
Rehabilitation can also be relevant. Mexican criminal law allows a sentenced person, in certain circumstances, to be reinstated in civil, political, or family rights lost because of a conviction. Separately, criminal records may sometimes be cancelled from official information systems once legal requirements are met. These mechanisms do not operate like a universal expungement, but they can be important evidence that the conviction should not create a present immigration barrier.
Applicants with a criminal record should not assume that the record will be ignored, and they should not conceal it if disclosure is requested. The better practice is to prepare a complete file before applying or traveling: certified court records, proof that the sentence was completed, evidence of rehabilitation or record cancellation, employment history, family ties, community integration, and certified Spanish translations where needed. The objective is to help the authority assess the matter under Mexico’s security-based standard rather than leaving the record unexplained.
For Mexican nationals seeking to travel abroad, the relevant barriers usually arise under the law of the destination country, not Mexican law. Mexican criminal classifications do not map neatly onto U.S., Canadian, or European immigration concepts, so counsel should analyze the Mexican statute of conviction, the actual disposition, and any available foreign waiver or rehabilitation process well before travel.
Contributor: Liliana Tsuboyama and Duilio Nicolini, Tsuboyama & Nicolini Abogados Laboralistas, Lima, Peru
Peruvian criminal law classifies criminal offenses in two main categories: (i) crimes (delitos) and (ii) minor offenses (faltas). Crimes generally involve more serious conduct and are subject to more severe penalties.
These concepts are not equivalent to the U.S. concepts of “felony” and “misdemeanor.” Under U.S. federal law, a felony is generally an offense punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. By contrast, under Peruvian law, conduct classified as a delito may, in certain cases, carry a maximum term of imprisonment of one year or less.
Peruvian immigration law is guided, among other principles, by the State’s obligation to protect internal order and national security. As a rule, a foreign national applying for an immigration benefit before the National Superintendence of Migration (Superintendencia Nacional de Migraciones, or MIGRACIONES) or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must not have current police, criminal, or judicial records, or immigration alerts registered in the INTERPOL system.
Peruvian law also provides grounds upon which foreign nationals may be denied entry into the country. These include, among others:
- Individuals who pose a danger or threat to national security, public order, internal order, the rights of others—particularly women, children, and adolescents—or the international relations of Peru or other States. Particular attention may be given to individuals with criminal records involving offenses related to these protected interests.
- Individuals included on international sanctions lists, particularly those subject to entry or transit restrictions established pursuant to resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
- Fugitives from justice in other countries, including individuals sought for ordinary criminal offenses, particularly offenses against women, children, or adolescents, as well as serious crimes such as illicit drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal logging, money laundering, terrorism and terrorist financing, corruption, organized crime, and related offenses under Peruvian law.
One of the principal tools available to Peruvian immigration authorities when evaluating immigration matters is the Immigration Information Registry (Registro de Información Migratoria). This registry contains immigration-related information concerning both Peruvian and foreign nationals, including, among other information:
- restrictions on international travel;
- immigration alerts and information relating to the deportation and/or extradition of Peruvian and foreign nationals; and
- information concerning foreign nationals convicted of crimes or minor offenses, as well as records of their admission to correctional facilities.
The existence of this registry gives MIGRACIONES access to information that may be relevant when assessing a foreign national’s eligibility for admission, residence, or another immigration status in Peru.
A significant practical difficulty is that there is no publicly available comprehensive standard establishing precisely when a particular foreign criminal record will result in denial of entry, rejection of an immigration application, or refusal of a particular immigration status. In practice, immigration decisions involving criminal records have not always reflected a fully uniform approach.
Therefore, foreign nationals with any criminal history who intend to enter Peru, apply for residence, or change their immigration status should understand not only what appears on their criminal record, but also how that record may be characterized and assessed under current administrative practice. In addition, because terminology and criminal classifications vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another, a careful cross-border analysis is often necessary before determining the likely immigration consequences of a foreign conviction or criminal record in Peru.
Contributor: Mounia Jrabi, Sagardoy Legal & Expat SLP, Madrid, Spain
Spain does not use the U.S. felony/misdemeanour distinction. Instead, the Spanish Criminal Code classifies criminal offenses by seriousness. Historically, offenses were divided into delitos graves (serious crimes), delitos menos graves (less serious crimes), and delitos leves (minor offenses), with the classification depending primarily on the penalty prescribed by law rather than the label attached to the offense. As a result, there is no direct Spanish equivalent to a U.S. felony. Whether a foreign conviction is considered significant for Spanish immigration purposes depends on the nature of the offense, the sentence imposed, and its treatment under both Spanish and foreign law, rather than on whether it was called a “felony.”
A serious criminal conviction may affect a person’s ability to visit, reside in, or immigrate to Spain, although the consequences vary depending on the individual’s nationality and the type of immigration status sought. Nationals of countries requiring a Schengen visa may be refused a visa if they are considered a threat to public policy, internal security, public health, or international relations. Applicants for residence permits, long-term residence/stay, work authorisation, or Spanish nationality generally must demonstrate the absence of relevant criminal convictions, typically by submitting criminal record certificates from their country or countries of residence during the previous 5 years. Existing residents may also face difficulties renewing or maintaining certain immigration statuses if convicted of serious crimes, particularly where public security concerns arise.
Spanish immigration authorities generally consider several factors when evaluating applicants with criminal records. These include the nature and seriousness of the offense, whether the conduct would also constitute a crime under Spanish law, the sentence imposed, the amount of time that has elapsed since the conviction, whether the conviction remains legally effective, and whether the applicant poses a current risk to public order or security. For residence and nationality applications, authorities also examine whether the applicant has obtained criminal record certificates demonstrating good conduct and whether any convictions have been expunged or are otherwise no longer reportable under the relevant legal system.
Spanish law provides several mechanisms that may reduce the long-term impact of a criminal conviction. Under the Spanish Criminal Code, individuals convicted in Spain may become eligible for cancellation (cancelación) of their criminal records after specified rehabilitation periods have elapsed following completion of the sentence, provided they have not reoffended. Foreign convictions are governed by the law of the country where they occurred, and evidence that a conviction has been expunged, pardoned, or is no longer recorded under that country’s law may be relevant when Spanish authorities assess an application, although it does not automatically eliminate immigration consequences. Unlike U.S. immigration law, Spain does not have a general statutory waiver. Instead, immigration decisions are generally made under the applicable provisions of Spanish immigration law and the EU visa framework, with authorities retaining discretion in many cases to assess whether an applicant presents a genuine threat to public policy or security.
Applicants with a criminal record should not assume that a foreign offense automatically prevents entry or residence in Spain. Conversely, the fact that a conviction has been classified as a misdemeanour or has resulted in a relatively light sentence does not guarantee a favourable immigration outcome. Because Spanish authorities evaluate the underlying conduct, the seriousness of the offense, the applicant’s rehabilitation, and the specific immigration benefit sought, individuals with criminal histories should obtain certified records of the disposition of their cases and, where appropriate, evidence of rehabilitation or record cancellation before applying for a visa, residence permit, or Spanish nationality. Particularly in cases involving violent crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, or repeated offending, obtaining individualized legal advice before applying is strongly recommended.
Sources
- Organic Act 10/1995, of November 23, of the Penal Code. Official State Gazette (BOE), 281, of November 24, 1995.
- Organic Act 4/2000, of January 11, on rights and freedoms of foreigners in Spain and their social integration. Official State Gazette (BOE), 10, of January 12, 2000.
- Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code). Official Journal of the European Union, L 243, of September 15, 2009.
Contributor: Kirill Barashkov, Attorney at Law, Kyiv, Ukraine
Under the Criminal Code of Ukraine, criminal offenses are divided into:
- Criminal misdemeanors
- Non-serious crimes punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years
- Serious crimes punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years
- Especially serious crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than 10 years
For a number of immigration statuses, mainly temporary ones, applicants are not required to provide a criminal record certificate from their country of citizenship. This applies to family reunification, work visas, study visas, and volunteer visas. In such cases, based on our practice, only an internal check through international databases, including Interpol, is carried out.
However, when an applicant seeks permanent status in Ukraine or applies for Ukrainian citizenship, verification through the submission of a criminal record certificate is mandatory.
Nevertheless, Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine “On Immigration” states the following: “An immigration permit may be refused to a person who has an outstanding or unexpunged conviction for an act that is recognized as a crime under the laws of Ukraine, and where the applicant was sentenced for that crime to a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.”
Accordingly, if an offense committed in another country is punishable by imprisonment in the applicant’s country of citizenship but is classified under Ukrainian law as a criminal misdemeanor rather than a crime, or has been decriminalized altogether, it will not constitute an obstacle to obtaining approval for immigration; intentional minor bodily injury is one example of conduct that falls within this category.
There is also a specific curious exception to the general requirement to submit a criminal record certificate when applying for permanent status or citizenship. This requirement does not apply to Russian citizens serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as well as Russian citizens who are spouses of Ukrainian servicemembers and are applying for Ukrainian citizenship.
It should also be briefly noted that, when citizens of countries with which Ukraine maintains a visa regime apply for visitor visas, they are not required to submit documents confirming the presence or absence of a criminal record. As for countries whose citizens may travel to Ukraine visa-free for tourism, including the United States, Canada, EU Member States, and practically all countries of Latin America, their citizens are not required to declare or provide documentation concerning criminal prosecution.
With regard to rehabilitation and amnesty mechanisms, Ukraine relies on the relevant national legislation. Ukrainian law provides for the removal or expungement of a conviction after a specified period. Where a foreign country applies the same or a similar mechanism, any potential concerns regarding the foreign applicant are effectively removed once the conviction has been expunged. An exception applies to crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, which permanently prevent a foreign national from immigrating to Ukraine.
In summary, the Ukrainian approach to immigration admissibility differs from that applied in the United States. The decisive factors are the classification of the specific conduct under Ukrainian law, the sentence imposed, and the status of the conviction.
Contributor: Matthew Amoils, ASG Immigration, London, UK
The United Kingdom stopped using the legal term “felony” in the 1960s. The UK abolished the legal distinction between felonies and misdemeanours with the enactment of the Criminal Law Act 1967 in England and Wales, replacing them with a unified system of criminal offences.
Modern UK Crime Classifications
Instead of felony and misdemeanour, the UK legal system divides crimes by how they are tried in court:
Summary offences: Minor crimes heard only in a Magistrates’ Court (e.g., most minor driving infractions or low-level public disorder).
Triable-either-way offences: Medium-level crimes that can be tried in either the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court (e.g., theft or burglary).
Indictable-only offences: Very serious crimes that must be tried in the Crown Court before a judge and jury (e.g., murder, rape, or robbery).
Historical Context
The term “felony” originally came from English common law, denoting severe crimes that historically carried the death penalty or land forfeiture. While countries (and former colonies) like the United States kept and adapted the felony/misdemeanour terminology, the UK streamlined its legal definitions decades ago. Today, people in the UK generally use, “serious crime” or, “indictable offense” rather than “felony.”
Until recently the UK would use both the nature of the underlying offence as well as sentence length, to determine visa applicant eligibility. While certain custodial sentences may have meant a mandatory refusal, this was usually followed by a “cooling off” period after which a non-habitual offender may be granted a visa if they could provide evidence of true reform, rehabilitation and remorse. In other words, in such circumstances their entry into the UK should not be a concern for the British public at large. Home Office case workers had discretion when making their decisions.
However, in the past couple of years the UK has almost inadvertently become one of the most unforgiving and draconian jurisdictions in the world when it comes to visas and criminality. There are now what we refer to as “mandatory grounds for refusal” and the recent legislation has removed any form of discretion. Making matters more difficult, unlike the United States or Australia, there is no provision for any type of application for a waiver of the underlying ineligibility. This means that in situations where the mandatory grounds are triggered, case workers must simply refuse the application, and they are not obliged to consider any mitigating circumstances.
As of 2026, a person who has received a custodial or suspended sentence of 12 months or longer (whether in the UK or abroad) faces a mandatory refusal under UK immigration rules.
Rules on Criminality and UK Visas
Mandatory Refusal: If your total prison sentence or suspended sentence was 12 months or more, the UK Home Office must normally refuse your visit visa or electronic travel authorisation (“ETA”) application.
Time Elapsed: Unlike shorter sentences (which carry discretionary refusal periods that clear after a specific number of years), a sentence of 12 months or longer acts as a permanent or long-term barrier regardless of how long ago the crime was committed and the sentence handed down and served. Even exceptional, rare circumstances or compelling compassionate grounds no longer allow the Home Office to exercise discretion.
If you received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, your application for a UK entry clearance visa/permission to remain in the UK must normally be refused if you disclose circumstances that trigger ineligibility under the criminality rules. This applies to convictions and sentences handed down both in the UK and/or overseas.
This is different from simply having spent 12 months in prison. The important question is what sentence the court imposed, not necessarily the term of imprisonment someone physically served.
If the sentence was less than 12 months, refusal is generally discretionary for many visa categories, although visitor applications have additional rules.
There can also be separate issues involving serious-harm offences, persistent offending, deportation orders, or immigration history.
So, for example, if you were sentenced to two years but served 12 months, that is generally treated as a two-year custodial sentence, and the mandatory refusal rule would apply.
The ramifications of these changes are only just coming to the fore. There are many “non-visa nationals” (i.e., U.S., Australian, Canadian and EEA citizens) who may have single offence convictions resulting in a 12-month sentence that they served decades ago. Until recently these individuals may have frequently travelled to the UK visa free. As they were not required to apply for a visa, they would usually enter the UK as tourists or business visitors with little or no questioning.
This has changed with the introduction of the UK’s system for advance-of-travel Electronic Travel Authorisation / ETA. Applicants are now asked whether they have ever been convicted of an offence resulting in a sentence of 12 months or longer. Full disclosure is required and it is critical that applicants are honest in their answers—everyone over the age of five applying for a UK visa is required to submit their biometrics, and these are run across multinational police databases before a visa decision can be made. Failure to disclose truthfully may result in a visa refusal, even if the underlying offence would not have given rise to a visa refusal. Furthermore, should the non-disclosure be determined to be wilful deception, the visa applicant may be subject to a ten-year bar from being granted an ETA or visa, or from entering the UK on any temporary visa.
Applicants for an ETA who have been refused are then directed to complete a full visa application for their criminal background to be scrutinised, but once the 12-month custodial sentence is disclosed, the visa application must be refused. This has produced terrible consequences for people who are totally reformed and have travelled to the UK many times but are only now finding out that they are subject to an effective lifetime ban from visa grant and/or UK entry.
Conclusion
International mobility is increasingly important for employment, education, family relationships, retirement, and personal fulfillment. Yet for people with criminal records, a planned vacation, professional opportunity, family visit, or permanent move can become legally complex, and the consequences of proceeding without reliable legal advice can be substantial. Although governments have a legitimate interest in screening travelers and immigrants, a fair system should also recognize that people can accept responsibility, make amends, demonstrate rehabilitation, and change profoundly over time.
The rules vary dramatically from country to country, and broad statements such as “felons cannot travel internationally” are rarely accurate. The outcome may depend on the precise statute of conviction, the elements of the offense, the sentence imposed, the applicant’s age at the time, the amount of time that has passed, the purpose and duration of travel, and the availability of a waiver or rehabilitation procedure. Expungement or a pardon may help in one jurisdiction while having limited effect in another, and even convictions considered minor under U.S. law may create difficulties elsewhere.
Grossman Young & Hammond’s Global Solutions practice assists individuals evaluating international travel and immigration options, including those whose plans may be complicated by a felony conviction, another criminal matter, a prior immigration violation, or a history of visa or admission problems. Working with experienced practitioners in the relevant destination country, we can help assess potential barriers, identify waiver or rehabilitation options, and develop a strategy before an application is filed or international travel begins.
Disclaimer. This guide is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein reflects a general overview of immigration and criminal law concepts in the jurisdictions discussed as of the date of publication and is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive.
Immigration and criminal law are highly fact-specific and subject to frequent change. Laws, regulations, policies, and their interpretation and enforcement vary by country and may change at any time without notice. The country-by-country summaries in this guide were contributed by immigration practitioners in the relevant jurisdictions and reflect their understanding of the law in their respective countries; they are not a substitute for individualized legal counsel and should not be relied upon as a complete or current statement of the law. No reader should act, or refrain from acting, based on this guide without first seeking legal advice from qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction, based on their specific facts and circumstances.
Use of this guide, or of any information contained in it, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Grossman Young & Hammond or any contributing author or firm. Grossman Young & Hammond and the contributing practitioners expressly disclaim any and all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this guide. This guide may contain links to or summaries of third-party laws, regulations, or sources. Grossman Young & Hammond does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any such third-party information and is not responsible for its content.
www.grossmanyoung.com | info@grossmanyoung.com | (240) 403-0913 | (301) 917-6900
*Disclaimer: This information is presented for the purposes of general education and does not constitute legal advice.
