Can a drink driving conviction lead to the labor department canceling an ARC?

I heard that a friend of a friend has been told his ARC - through employment or visa will be cancelled due to a drink driving conviction last year.
He paid off the fine and got a driving ban for 1 year.
He may have 14 days to leave apparently.
Has anyone heard of such a thing?
If I hear any more i will post.

There are problems with the title of this thread.

The Labor Bureau does not handle ARCs. As far as I know, that’s the responsibility of the National Immigration Agency / Ministry of the Interior.

Guy

Fixed, except for the Britishism… :rolling_eyes:

The Ministry of Labor may have something to do with the work permit, which validates the guy’s ARC. No work permit, no visa, no ARC.

Question is: can MOL cancel his work permit? If so, under what circunstances? And why would they even bother?

NIA would handle the actual notification of 2 weeks notice and posterior dumping.

As this is from last year, could it be that he’s just having difficulty getting a new/renewed work permit now that he has this mark on his record?

I am getting second hand information.
So, I am not sure who told him.
I know the offense was last year, the fine was paid in the last 6 weeks or so.
He has a work permit.

I should be able to find out more information later today.

A friend of mine had a drunk driving conviction here but he was still able to get an APRC.

No word on this yet, but I was informed by someone who runs a bar here that they were informed from officials that drink driving offenses are now punished by deportation unless you have an APRC.
Maybe someone should try to clarify that as I would hedge a bet it would be relevant to some that visit the forums here.

The Immigration Act is very clear on this. Irrespective of whether the foreigner holds an ARC or APRC, any conviction to a prison term of one year or more will lead to deportation. Refer to Articles 32 and 33 of the Immigration Act.

Punishments for drunk driving can easily be in a relevant range, i.e. a prison term of more than one year (rf. Article 185-3 of the Criminal Code.

Hence APRC holders face the same deportation threshold as ARC holders.

Aside from these specific instances, the government may very well decide to not let you re-enter Taiwan for any criminal record either abroad or in the ROC. You may also be banned from entering if your presence is simply not desirable to the powers that be (rf. Article 18, sub-paragraphs 13 and 14, Immigration Act.) It would appear more likely for the government to apply a strict standard to most ARC holders and be more lenient towards ARC holders with local spouses and APRC holders.

1 Like

The guy was not sentenced to 1 year or more in prison. It was 30 days or the option of a fine - which he paid.
I don’t know anything else as of yet which may have been a reason for his departure which will happen in the coming days apparently.

It would be helpful if you could provide the case number in Chinese. Sentences are periodically uploaded by the government and available to the public.

I would if I could.
Is there a website where you can enter the name and see the results?

http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw

I’m not sure if this page is what you’re looking for, but it has criminal, civil, and administrative cases for–as far as I can tell–courts at the district level and above:

http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/FJUDQRY01_1.aspx

It also appears to have some kind of sentence (“公懲”–does that mean sentence?) records (on the far right side), but I’m not familiar with that part. As far as I can tell at the time of this writing, with a Chrome browser you can use Google Translate on the page linked above by right-clicking the page.

For one reason or another, the page linked below won’t allow Google Translate (as far as I can tell):

http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD

That is the difference between a Permanent Resident and a Citizen.

Residents can still be deported and banned from a country for mis-behavior.

Saw on tv here in CAlif about a Mexican guy who came to the US legally as a child. Never got his citizenship. Got in trouble a few times , admittedly fairly serious stuff, gang activity. Got his act back together, got married, got kids and BAM the ICE got him. He is now back in Mexico, facing LIFETIME deportation from the USA. His family comes to visit him as he can NOT cross the border into the USA, without facing jail.

It is important to have an avenue for someone who has lived in Taiwan legally dog’s years (say over 10 years) to be able to gain citizenship without the need to denounce one’s prior citizenship.

Charge that new citizen TAX, even on world wide income like Uncle Sam does. You want citizenship? Pay your club fees!

Tommy, here they left a little portahole there where they can annul your ROC nationality if you commit any “immoral” act. One wonders if a DUI would qualify. Or if they find out that somehow a criminal case in your paperwork escaped their attention -again, afte rthe fact, which if you lied or ommited sounds logical but otherwise if it is their fault quite vindictive.

When you become a naturalized citizen of the USA, they also leave a tiny loophole where you could lose your citizenship.

If they prove that you lied on any part of your application.
So it is not just Taiwan.

Oh, the lying provision I am not against. It is the unclear Damocles spear type thing I am not keen on.

The thing si that most people here have no idea what it entails to become ROC citizen or even resident. They blame you for not having a work permit, when a work permit is never yours to have. So in that kind of environment it is very easy to have some trap set for you to have the rug pulled from under your feet. That is a problem.

Don’t see what the problem is with that. US Citizenship was granted based on what was supplied in the application. So if the information was deliberately false, then the application should never have been approved.

I’m sure that is intentional. Taiwan doesn’t really want foreigners as citizens. If they did, the double standard in the citizenship law would not exist.