Date: 20251124

Docket: IMM-5974-23

Citation: 2025 FC 1858

Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tsimberis

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] This is the judicial review of the May 5, 2023 decision of a Migration Officer [Officer] refusing the application for permanent residency of the Applicant, Mr. Premananthan Hariendran, under a spousal sponsorship [Decision]. The reason for the refusal was because the Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Hariendran is a member of the inadmissible class of persons described in paragraph 34(1)(f) as being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (b.1), or (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, s 34 [IRPA].

[2] While in the process of applying for permanent residency, Mr. Hariendran self declared being a member of the Tamil Youth Organization in the United Kingdom [TYO-UK]. The Officer determined that the TYO-UK is part of the Liberation of Tamil Tigers Elam [LTTE], which has been proscribed as a terrorist entity. As such, Mr. Hariendran was deemed inadmissible by the Officer pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(f) of the IRPA.

[3] The only question before the Court is whether the Officer’s conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Hariendran was inadmissible for being a member of the LTTE by virtue of his membership in the TYO-UK was reasonable in light of the evidence.

[4] Mr. Hariendran’s application for judicial review is granted. The matter is remitted to a different officer for redetermination with additional relief specified below in my judgment to help ensure Mr. Hariendran’s file is given the priority processing it so deserves.

II. Background

[5] Mr. Hariendran is a 35-year-old national of Sri Lanka who became a citizen of the United Kingdom in 2021. His wife is a Canadian citizen, with whom the Mr. Hariendran has two children, both Canadian.

[6] In April 2018, Mr. Hariendran’s wife submitted an application to sponsor him to come to Canada as an immigrant under the Family class and Mr. Hariendran filed an application for permanent residence.

[7] On November 17, 2021, Mr. Hariendran was interviewed by an Immigration Officer at Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] in London, United Kingdom. Mr. Hariendran admitted that he was a member of the TYO-UK from 2009-2013 and continued to participate in the organization’s activities as late as 2021.

[8] On December 14, 2021, the first Procedural Fairness Letter [PFL] was sent advising that the Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Hariendran was inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 34(1)(f) for being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe has engaged in, engages in, or will engage in terrorist activities.

[9] On May 20, 2022, a second PFL was sent to ensure that Mr. Hariendran was fully aware of the case to meet, ensuring he had access to the sources relied upon by the Officer.

[10] On August 28, 2022, a response to the second PFL was received by the Officer.

[11] As there were issues with three of the hyperlinks provided in the second PFL, a final PFL was sent on Dec 19, 2022 to ensure full disclosure of the information identified.

[12] On February 19, 2023, a response to the final PFL was received by the Officer.

III. Decision Under Review

[13] On May 5, 2023, the Officer found that Mr. Hariendran was inadmissible to Canada as he is described under paragraph 34(1)(f) for being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged, or will engage in terrorist activity. The basis for the Decision was that Mr. Hariendran acknowledged being a member of the TYO-UK and the Officer found the evidence established reasonable grounds to believe that there were “ties” between the TYO-UK and the LTTE. The Officer based this finding on various open-source articles linking the TYO-UK to TYOs in other countries and other articles showing a link between other countries’ TYOs and the LTTE.

IV. Relevant Provisions

[14] The Officer was satisfied that Mr. Hariendran was a member of an organization described in paragraph 34(1)(f) of IRPA:

V. Issue

[15] There is no dispute that Mr. Hariendran was a member of the TYO-UK, and there is no dispute that the LTTE is a terrorist organization. The only issue is whether the Officer’s finding that the TYO-UK is affiliated to the LTTE is reasonably supported by the evidence.

VI. Analysis

[16] In the Respondent’s Further Memorandum of Argument filed a few days before the hearing, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] agrees that there is a reviewable error in the Decision and concedes that this inadmissibility decision of October 24, 2023 should be set aside and that the matter should be remitted to a different officer for redetermination. Specifically, the Minister agrees that the assessment of the evidence on file conducted by the Officer finding that the TYO-UK was an affiliate of the LTTE was unreasonable, and thus the admissibility determination contains a reviewable error and is unreasonable.

[17] I agree with the parties that the Officer’s Decision is unreasonable for the reasons agreed upon by the parties at the hearing. In this case, the assessment of the evidence leading to the conclusion that the TYO-UK was affiliated to the LTTE was not reasonable. Specifically, the Dutch, Asian and Canadian National Post news sources cited do not reasonably lead to a finding that the TYO-UK is an affiliate of the LTTE. Furthermore, the 2012 article that noted coordination between the TYO-UK and other national TYOs under the Tamil Youth League umbrella does not reasonably link the TYO-UK to the LTTE. Taken together, these sources do not lead to a reasonable finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Hariendran is a member of the LTTE by virtue of being a member of the TYO-UK.

[18] The Minister proposed further relief than the one sought in Mr. Hariendran’s Notice of Application for Leave and for Judicial Review [ALJR], including that Mr. Hariendran be provided with a request letter for updated submissions within two weeks of the Court’s Order and that the matter be given priority processing by the Officer. At the hearing, Mr. Hariendran’s counsel consented to this additional relief proposed by the Minister and did not ask the Court for a directed remedy. I agree with the parties that a directed remedy would not be appropriate in the circumstances of this case as it is reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is only one possible outcome or where remitting the matter would have no useful purpose, which is not the case here: Li v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 548 at paras 36-7.

[19] As the parties agree that this judicial review should be allowed and the Minister has consented to the relief sought in the ALJR, there is no longer a live issue between the parties and the application should be granted on the terms sought: Borowski v Canada, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; Yusuf v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 1454, at paras 21-22 and 25.

VII. Conclusion

[20] The parties agree that this application for judicial review should be granted, as the Decision is unreasonable.

[21] I agree.

[22] I therefore grant this application for judicial review and remit the Officer’s decision for redetermination. I also deem it appropriate to grant the additional relief suggested by the Minister, which includes the re-opening of the file and sending a request letter for submissions to Mr. Hariendran within two weeks of the Court’s judgment, and further redetermining the application on a priority basis.

JUDGMENT in IMM-5974-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. This application for judicial review is granted without costs to either party.

2. The decision dated May 5, 2023 is set aside, and the matter is returned for redetermination by a different visa officer.

3. The Office will promptly send a request letter asking the Applicants to provide updated submissions within two weeks of this Court’s judgment, and at the latest by December 8, 2025.

4. The matter for redetermination will be given priority processing.

"Ekaterina Tsimberis"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: