We all know by now that immigration to Canada is under a piece of legislation called the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Since we love to use abbreviations, it’s referred to as IRPA. So, what does an immigration officer have to look at regarding a person seeking entry to Canada? It’s whether they are a danger to the security of Canada. And yes, it’s under IRPA.
Subsection 34 (1) of the IRPA gives guidance on who may be an inadmissible class in Canada based on security grounds. It states:
34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for
a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;
c) engaging in terrorism;
d) being a danger to the security of Canada;
e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or
f) being a member of an organization where there is reasonable ground to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
What’s important to understand is that the threshold for establishing inadmissibility on security grounds is relatively low. The Minister of Immigration only needs to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant falls under any of these categories. This is not the same as the higher legal standard known as the “balance of probabilities.” Instead, it requires a genuine belief in a serious possibility, supported by credible evidence.
Canadian immigration decisions must also adhere to the principles established by common law jurisprudence, meaning prior case law, particularly from the Federal Court of Canada, guides how these provisions are interpreted. For instance, in the well-known Chiau case, the Federal Court of Appeal clarified that “reasonable grounds” means a belief based on credible, objective evidence, even if it doesn’t reach the level of probability.
However, challenging a finding of inadmissibility can be difficult, especially when immigration officers assert there is credible evidence pointing to a potential threat. Yet, courts caution that such conclusions must be based on objective facts, not assumptions or speculation.
I recall a case from my practice that illustrates this point well. An Iranian national, an engineer who had applied for permanent residence through the Express Entry program, was found inadmissible on security grounds. The reasoning? Immigration officials believed that, due to his role as an engineer on a military ship in Iran, he could have been involved in activities raising suspicion. The troubling part was that the decision lacked clear reasons or specific evidence.
We took the matter to court, challenging the decision. The courts emphasized the necessity of objective, credible evidence, rather than mere speculation, to support such a serious finding. Ultimately, the case served as a reminder that while the bar for security inadmissibility may be low, immigration decisions still require a fair, evidence-based approach.
