Immigrant ordered deported in McMaster case wins chance to stay

(HAMILTON, ONTARIO) A Portuguese immigrant ordered deported six years ago for his role in the 2013 killing of a McMaster University student has won a legal opening to restore his permanent resident status and remain in Canada. As of November 6, 2025, Luis Carlos Rebelo secured a chance to ask Canadian authorities to recognize him again as a permanent resident, a development that could halt his removal and keep him in the country despite a serious criminal conviction.

Rebelo was convicted of manslaughter in 2017 for his part in the early-morning altercation that left Tyler Johnson, a McMaster University mechanical engineering student, dead from a gunshot wound. The shooting took place on November 30, 2013 outside Vida La Pita, a restaurant on King Street West at Caroline in Hamilton. The fatal shot was fired by another man, but a court found Rebelo culpable for manslaughter because of his role in the group attack, a finding that later stripped him of his permanent resident status and led to a deportation order around 2019.

The new development marks a sharp turn in a long-running case at the intersection of criminal justice and immigration enforcement. For years, Rebelo’s future in Canada has been determined by a single legal question: whether his manslaughter conviction leaves him “immigration inadmissibility” under Canadian immigration law, a status that typically triggers loss of permanent residency and removal from the country. The latest decision does not erase his conviction or guarantee he will stay. But it gives him a formal pathway to seek restoration of his status and argue that he should not be forced to leave.

At the core is an incident that unfolded in front of a downtown Hamilton restaurant more than a decade ago. According to the case record referenced in recent filings, Johnson was killed during an altercation involving multiple individuals. While he did not fire the gun, Rebelo was found to have taken part in the attack that preceded the shooting. The court’s verdict—manslaughter, not murder—reflected that distinction, acknowledging that another man fired the fatal shot while still holding Rebelo legally responsible for his role in the violence that led to Johnson’s death.

In 2017, Rebelo’s conviction resulted in a sentence of more than eight years in prison. The sentence alone did not determine his fate in Canada; it was the conviction’s immigration impact that did. After the criminal proceedings, immigration authorities moved to enforce removal on the basis that he had become inadmissible, and his permanent resident status was revoked. By approximately 2019, he was under a deportation order, closing off most paths to stay unless he could mount an appeal or obtain permission to return.

The question of criminal inadmissibility is central in such cases, and it frames the legal route that now lies open to Rebelo. While the proceedings are complex, the premise is straightforward: a non-citizen convicted of certain crimes can be found inadmissible and ordered removed. That determination often turns on the type of offence, the sentence imposed, and how immigration law classifies the conduct. The case file indicates that this inadmissibility question has followed Rebelo since his conviction and shaped every decision about his status. For readers seeking the government’s definition of inadmissibility in general terms, the federal guidance on https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/inadmissibility.html outlines the concept as used in Canadian law.

The opening Rebelo has now won does not reverse the past decade. It does not change the fact of Johnson’s death, the conviction entered in 2017, or the sentence exceeding eight years. It does, however, move the case out of a closed removal track and into a process where he can try to demonstrate that permanent resident status should be restored. That possibility is narrowly framed: the case centers on whether, despite the manslaughter conviction, his current circumstances and the legal standards permit restoration. The records available do not include the detailed legal arguments advanced on either side or the judge’s reasoning for this latest turn, and there are no public statements from Rebelo, Johnson’s family, or officials in response to the development.

The Hamilton location is not incidental. The confrontation on King Street West at Caroline unfolded in a public space familiar to many in the city, outside a restaurant whose name—Vida La Pita—has been cited repeatedly in legal documents as the point of reference for the fatal altercation. In the years since, the case has moved from criminal court to immigration authorities and back through legal channels that determine who is allowed to stay in Canada and on what terms, bringing the name of McMaster University into renewed focus each time the matter returns to public view.

For students and staff at McMaster University, the case has been a painful reference point tied to the death of a young mechanical engineering student. In criminal law, the distinction between the person who fires a weapon and others who participate in a violent incident can define the charge. The court’s finding in 2017 set out that the fatal shot was not fired by Rebelo, yet the legal standard for manslaughter captured his role in the group attack and led to a heavy prison sentence. The subsequent immigration steps translated that criminal finding into a determination about whether he could continue to live in Canada as a permanent resident.

The deportation order in place for roughly six years pushed Rebelo into the category of people facing removal after serious convictions. Winning a chance to restore permanent resident status does not erase the deportation order automatically, but it can pause or alter the trajectory if authorities decide that restoration is warranted. The timing underscores how long such matters can take: a killing in 2013, a manslaughter conviction in 2017 with a sentence exceeding eight years, a deportation order around 2019 tied to the loss of permanent resident status, and now, a renewed opportunity in November 2025 to argue for the right to stay.

This shift also highlights the narrow space where criminal accountability and immigration status overlap. A conviction like manslaughter carries its own criminal penalty. When the person convicted is not a citizen, the consequence extends beyond prison time to questions of immigration status. The records connected to this case state plainly that the key issue is inadmissibility linked to a criminal conviction. That legal label, applied by immigration authorities, has been the basis for the deportation order. Today’s development does not redefine that principle; it only confirms that a window remains for a former permanent resident, even after a serious conviction and an order of removal, to seek a different outcome.

The lack of public statements from those directly involved leaves much unsaid about how the news is being received. The file contains no quotes from Rebelo, no reaction from Johnson’s family, and no official comment on what persuaded the decision-maker to grant this chance. Without those details, what stands out are the established facts. Johnson died of a gunshot wound during a confrontation outside a Hamilton restaurant in 2013. Another man fired the fatal shot. Rebelo took part in a group attack, was convicted of manslaughter in 2017, and received a sentence of more than eight years. As a consequence, his permanent resident status was revoked and he was ordered deported around 2019. Now, as of November 6, 2025, he can apply to restore that status and ask to remain in Canada.

The legal implications will likely revolve around the same foundational questions that have defined the case since the beginning: the weight given to a serious criminal conviction; the standards that govern who is inadmissible; and the limited discretion available when a person with a removal order seeks to remain. While nothing in the record guarantees the outcome, the permission to attempt restoration is substantial. It invites immigration authorities to consider whether the circumstances, as they stand today, warrant letting a person convicted of manslaughter continue to live here as a permanent resident.

In practical terms, the next steps are procedural. The opportunity Rebelo has received opens a process, not a conclusion. It allows him to file, present his case, and respond to the inadmissibility that has defined his status for years. It also gives officials a structured context to review his situation and decide if restoration is appropriate under the standards that apply. The record does not disclose the timeline for those steps or the specific criteria that will be used, beyond the emphasis on inadmissibility and the criminal conviction at the heart of the matter.

For Hamilton, and for McMaster University, this development echoes a story that began on a cold night downtown nearly twelve years ago. The names and places remain specific: Luis Carlos Rebelo, Tyler Johnson, Vida La Pita on King Street West at Caroline, McMaster University. The legal labels are equally specific: manslaughter, inadmissibility, permanent resident status, deportation order. The case now turns to whether those labels will continue to define Rebelo’s life in Canada, or whether the chance granted this week will lead to a different end. The record is clear on what has happened so far. What happens next will be decided in the process that this decision has reopened.