Federal Court

Immigration and Citizenship

Exclusion and removal

Inadmissible classes

Pakistan citizen inadmissible to Canada because husband employed with Pakistan’s military
Foreign national (FN) was citizen of Pakistan who applied for permanent residence as member of investor class. FN disclosed that her spouse had been employed with Pakistan’s military between 1976 and 2000 and had achieved rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Immigration officer denied FN’s application on basis that spouse was inadmissible to Canada due to reasonable grounds to believe he had been complicit in and participated in crimes against humanity. FN brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. Officer’s decision was reasonable. Officer’s conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe spouse had directly participated in acts that amounted to torture, and that such acts constituted offences referred to in ss. 4 to 7 of Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, was not unreasonable. Admission given by spouse during interview was both compelling and credible. Even if evidence relied upon by officer left open reasonable doubt as to whether spouse had in fact committed acts of torture described in decision, that would not preclude or be inconsistent with conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe spouse had committed those acts. Officer’s conclusion with respect to spouse’s complicity in human rights abuses, including torture, was not unreasonable. That conclusion fell within range of possible, acceptable outcomes that were defensible in respect of facts and law. Decision as whole fit comfortably within principles of justification, transparency, and intelligibility.
Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 692, 2017 CarswellNat 693, 2017 FC 269, 2017 CF 269, Paul S. Crampton C.J. (F.C.).
cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?