Date: 20090922
Docket: IMM-1134-09
Citation: 2009 FC 942
Ottawa, Ontario, September 22, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
MIKHAIL
LENNIKOV
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), of a decision of
the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness dated February 24, 2009,
where Mikhail Lennikov was denied Ministerial relief.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[2]
Mikhail
Lennikov (the Applicant), born July 6, 1960, is a citizen of Russia. The Applicant
attended the Far Eastern State University in the former U.S.S.R. where he
studied Japanese language. While attending university, the Applicant was the
leader of a communist youth league called Kom So Mol.
[3]
The
Applicant travelled to Japan in October 1981 as part of Kom So Mol. It
was shortly before this trip that the Applicant was approached by an agent of
the Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti (KGB). The KGB agent asked the
Applicant to provide character references for students in his class. The
Applicant says that providing such information was part of his role as Kom So
Mol leader. The KGB agent also asked him to keep an eye out for anything of
note during his trip to Japan. Upon his return, the Applicant met with
the KGB agent and handed over business cards he had collected in Japan. The
Applicant also answered some of the KGB agent’s questions about Japanese police
activity around the Kom So Mol boat and about a Japanese Parliamentary member
he had met.
[4]
The
KGB agent contacted the Applicant once he had graduated from university and
advised him that a request had been made to have him work for the KGB. The
Applicant was hired by the KGB in August 1982. The Applicant says that,
although, he did not wish to work for the KGB, he accepted out of fear that his
career possibilities and ability to travel overseas would be compromised if he
refused.
[5]
Initially,
the Applicant worked for the First Department of the KGB in the Japanese
Section in the Vladivostock office. His work included translating documents,
assessing prospective Japanese informants’ credibility and continuing contact
with some student informants from Far Eastern State University. The Applicant
rose through the ranks in the KGB despite his alleged attempts to transfer to
different departments and be reassigned. Finally, in November 1988, after
sending a report outlining why he was not suited for employment with the KGB, the
Applicant was dismissed on the grounds that he was incapable of service. After
leaving the KGB, the Applicant worked in a variety of positions before finally
leaving for Japan in 1995.
[6]
The
Applicant entered Canada in 1997 on a study permit. Accompanied by his
wife and son, who are also Russian citizens, he moved to Vancouver and studied
at the University
of British
Columbia.
In April 1999, the family filed an application for permanent residence. This
led to an interview with an immigration officer who determined that the
Applicant was inadmissible by reason of his employment with the KGB.
[7]
That
determination led to a series of proceedings. On October 28, 2004, a report
under subsection 44(1) of the Act was referred to the Immigration and Refugee
Board (the Board) for an admissibility hearing. The Board determined that the
Applicant was inadmissible to Canada on security grounds pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(f)
of the Act and a deportation order was made against him. A judicial review of
that decision was dismissed on January 16, 2007 (Lennikov v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, 2007 FC 43, [2007] F.C.J. No. 67 (QL)). The
Applicant also requested a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment which was refused in
August 20, 2008. A request for a humanitarian and compassionate exemption under
section 25 of the Act made by the Applicant was denied on May 13, 2009 and
leave to appeal was not granted.
[8]
The
Applicant also sought Ministerial relief under subsection 34(2) of the Act.
Throughout that process, the Applicant made a variety of submissions.
Ministerial relief was denied on February 24, 2009, based on the
conclusion that it would be detrimental to the national interest to permit the
Applicant to continue to remain in Canada. The Applicant now
seeks judicial review of that decision.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[9]
In
a letter dated February 24, 2009, signed by the Minister of Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness (the Respondent), the request for Ministerial relief was
denied. The reasons given in the letter were as follows:
I have reviewed and considered the
material and evidence submitted in its entirety and specifically considered the
following:
·
The applicant’s
account of his KGB career does not provide a satisfactory level of evidence
that his presence in Canada is not detrimental to the
national interest.
·
The applicant
admits to having reported directly to the department of the KGB directly
responsible for foreign intelligence and espionage.
·
The applicant
admits to having contributed to foreign intelligence functions as well as
recruitment activities for the KGB.
·
The applicant
acknowledges that he was aware of the nature of the KGB’s activities during his
admitted involvement with [the] organization.
I have considered his ties to the
community, established family in this country and other factors. However, the
above noted negative factors are serious and outweigh any factors in Mr.
Lennikov’s favour. It would be detrimental to the national interest to permit
the applicant to continue to remain in Canada. Ministerial Relief is denied.
The certified copy of the decision provided
by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) included a copy of the aforementioned
letter and a document titled Briefing Note for the Minister For Decision (the
Briefing Note) signed by the President of CBSA.
[10]
The
Briefing Note begins by summarizing the Applicant’s immigration history in Canada. It
continues on by accounting for the Applicant’s inadmissibility including that
the Applicant admitted serving as a KGB employee and details his various tasks
within the KGB.
[11]
The
Briefing Note then sets out the test for ministerial relief under subsection
34(2) of the Act and underlined that the burden of proof rests on the
individual who is applying for relief to prove that their continued presence in
Canada would not be
detrimental to the national interest. It then notes that the factors defining
the national interest are indicated in the Inland Processing 10 procedural
manual and that all evidence submitted has been reviewed in light of those
factors. It continues and notes that the consideration of national interest
involves the assessment and balancing of all factors pertaining to the
Applicant’s admission against the stated objectives of the Act as well as
against Canada’s domestic
and international interests and obligations.
[12]
The
next portion of the Briefing Note details the considerations taken into account
by the President of CBSA. He notes that in interviews and declarations, the
Applicant was not forthcoming and failed to provide a credible account of his
service and resignation from the KGB including refusing to provide requested
documents on his military service. It is also noted that the Applicant has
failed to express any understanding or remorse for the espionage conducted by
the KGB.
[13]
It
is also noted that the Applicant has always maintained that he was never
directly involved in espionage and his tasks were confined to clerical,
analytical and linguistic work. The Applicant also maintains that his knowledge
of KGB abuses come from listening to foreign source radio. The Briefing Note
then relates that open-source information confirms that the KGB was involved in
various espionage activities and that the department that employed the
Applicant would have reported to the central unit that coordinated all foreign
intelligence activities. Also, the Applicant has acknowledged assisting in
recruiting officers by collecting information on Japanese visitors and making
recommendations on appropriate candidates. Based on this, it was concluded that
the Applicant worked in direct support of espionage activities in Japan. Finally, it
is noted that the Applicant claims that he did not knowingly recruit spies.
[14]
The
Briefing Note then addresses the Applicant’s claim that he was compelled to
join the KGB against his will and plotted to leave at the first opportunity.
However, the President of CBSA finds that this unlikely in light of the
rigorous recruitment process employed by the KGB and the prestige that came
along with KGB employment. It is also noted that it is unclear why the
Applicant was promoted if his disillusionment was as pronounced as he claims.
[15]
After
relating the Applicant’s employment history once he left the KGB, it is noted
that there is no information indicating that the Applicant was in contact with
Russian intelligence services while he lived in Japan or since arriving in Canada.
[16]
The
Briefing Note also notes that the Applicant claims that he fears he might be
charged with treason if returned to Russia as he has revealed the
names of certain KGB agents.
[17]
A
variety of facts about the Applicant’s life in Canada were noted by the
President of CBSA including his establishment in Canada, his employment as a
teaching assistant and pursuit of his doctoral studies. Also, it has been
submitted that both the Applicant and his wife are suffering from mental health
problems attributed to the family’s immigration status. The Applicant has also
provided letters showing support from the community for his application to stay
in Canada. It is also
noted that the Applicant has expressed concerns that his Canadian educated son
will incur education set backs if deported to Russia and that he
could be subject to compulsory military service. It is also noted that there
are possible exemptions from military service and that the government has
announced plans to abolish the mandatory military service. Furthermore, these
concerns were raised in the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment and discounted by the
officer.
[18]
Finally,
the President of CBSA stated that CBSA had balanced all factors pertaining to
the application for ministerial relief and concludes that the Applicant has not
established that his presence in Canada will not be detrimental
to the national interest. This balancing is summarized in one of the closing
paragraphs where the President of CBSA states that:
Mr. Lennikov’s ambiguous account of his
KGB career does not provide CBSA with a satisfactory level of evidence that his
presence in Canada is not detrimental to the
national interest. He admits to having reported directly to the department of
the KGB responsible for foreign intelligence and espionage, and further admits
to having directly contributed to these functions, as well as engaging in
recruitment activities. Mr. Lennikov acknowledges that he was aware of the
KGB’s activities and expresses no remorse over his involvement with the
organization. His claims to have joined the KGB under duress prove unlikely
when compared with the organization’s high reputation as an employer within the
Soviet Union. While Mr. Lennikov has
established his family in Canada and appears to be a law-abiding resident with
extensive ties to the community, the negative factors outlined above outweigh
these positive factors and serve to demonstrate that his presence in Canada would be contrary to the
national interest.
[19]
Throughout
the Briefing Note, there are references to supporting materials prepared by the
Applicant and CBSA, which were submitted with the recommendation.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
[20]
The
relevant statutory provisions are contained in Appendix A of this document.
ISSUES
[21]
Is
the Minister’s decision to deny Ministerial relief unreasonable?
[22]
The
application for judicial review shall be dismissed for the following reasons.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[23]
Both
of the parties submit that in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions
in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 2009, [2008]
1 S.C.R. 190 (Dunsmuir) and Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (Khosa)
reasonableness is the standard of review to be applied to the question at
issue. In conducting its review, the court must make “inquires into the
qualities that make a decision reasonable, referring both to the process of
articulating the reasons and to outcomes” (Dunsmuir, at paragraph 47).
The Court must ask itself the question if the decision “falls within a range of
possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law”
(Dunsmuir, at paragraph 47). I agree with the parties that the standard of
review is reasonableness.
[24]
At
the hearing, the Applicant brought an oral motion to amend his written arguments
to add an additional argument that he had been denied procedural fairness by
the failure of the Respondent to provide significant and relevant documents
that were relied on in making the Minister’s Brief.
[25]
The
Respondent objected to such a motion. After hearing counsel’s oral submissions,
I dismissed the motion in directing myself with the Court of Appeal’s decisions
in Lanlehin v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993]
F.C.J. No. 207 (F.C.A.) (QL) and Dag v. Canada (Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FCA 95, [2008]
F.C.J. No. 424 (QL).
ANALYSIS
Is the Minister’s
decision to deny Ministerial relief unreasonable?
Applicant’s Arguments
[26]
The
Applicant submits that there are two reasons why the Minister’s decision
is unreasonable – the reasons fail to balance the necessary factors and they
are based on erroneous findings of fact.
Failure to balance the
necessary factors
[27]
The
Applicant submits that, notwithstanding the passages of the Briefing Note that
refer to the IP 10 Processing Guidelines (the Guidelines), there was no
analysis or balancing of the factors whatsoever. The Applicant alleges that there
is no evidence that indicates that his presence would be offensive to Canada and that
factor was not addressed in the reasons. The Applicant also submits that the
question of whether or not he has severed all ties with the KGB was not clearly
addressed and that, based on the evidence, the only possible answer is that he
has. Nor is there any analysis of the question of whether or not the Applicant
appears to be benefiting from assets obtained while he was with the KGB or if
he is benefiting in any way from his previous membership. Finally, the
Applicant contends that the Briefing Note does not address the question
of whether or not he has adopted the values of a democratic society.
[28]
He
adds that the Respondent failed to balance and weigh the appropriate factors
arising from these questions. Relying on Afridi v. Canada (Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FC 1192, 75 Imm.
L.R. (3d) 291 and Ismeal v. Canada (Minister of Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FC 1366, 77 Imm. L.R. (3d) 310, the
Applicant argues that reasons that ignore the factors and guidelines cannot
withstand judicial review.
Erroneous findings of
fact
[29]
The
Applicant also advances that the decision is unreasonable as it was based on
erroneous findings of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard
to the material.
[30]
These
erroneous findings of fact include the finding that the Applicant was not
forthcoming. The Applicant argues that there is no specific reference in the
Briefing Note evidencing his failure to be forthcoming and that a review of
interview transcripts does not support that conclusion. Furthermore, the
Applicant provided complete and detailed accounts of his history with the KGB
which were never referred to in the Briefing Note.
[31]
The
Applicant also urges that the finding that he has refused to provide
requested documents regarding his military service, offer of employment by the
KGB and resignation is incorrect. The Applicant submits that the record shows that
he disclosed his work history by filing his workbook with his application for
permanent residence. He also alleges that further requested documents
could not be provided as he does not have them and is uncomfortable approaching
the Russian military for copies – this was communicated to the Respondent in a
letter from counsel.
[32]
With
respect to the finding that the Applicant has failed to express any
understanding or remorse for the espionage conducted by the KGB, the Applicant
contends that there is no evidence in the transcripts to support this
conclusion. He submits that the Respondent ignored very cogent evidence of his
views on the KGB, that he has always been upfront about his reluctance to join
the KGB and that the question of remorse was never put to him directly.
[33]
The
Applicant also argues that an error was committed in reaching the
conclusion that he reported directly to the department of the KGB responsible for
foreign intelligence and espionage as this is not supported by the
evidence. He adds that this actually goes to the question of admissibility
under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act and not of Ministerial relief which
is not meant to review the soundness of the inadmissibility finding. The
Applicant holds that, by relying on this point, the Respondent equated his
former membership with the KGB with national interest and in doing so, was
unreasonable. The Applicant relies on Afridi and Ismael, above and
Soe v. Canada (Minister of Emergency Preparedness), 2007 FC 461,
[2007] F.C.J. No. 620 (QL).
[34]
Finally,
the Applicant contends that the Briefing Note suggests that his subsequent
employers could have been companies utilised to mask covert political and
economic intelligence activities without analyzing the question and indicating
whether or not this was a positive or negative factor. Once again, the
Applicant holds that, by relying on this point, the Respondent equated his
former membership with the KGB with national interest and in doing so was
unreasonable and relies on the above noted cases.
Respondent’s Arguments
[35]
The
Respondent first submits that the burden rests on the Applicant to satisfy the
Minister that his admission to Canada would not be detrimental to the national
interest. Furthermore, the phrase "detrimental to the national
interest" must be interpreted broadly and the Minister is free to take a
variety of factors into account (Miller v. Canada (Solicitor General),
2006 FC 912, [2007] 3 F.C.R. 438 at paragraph 73 (Miller); Chogolzadeh
v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FC
405, 327 F.T.R. 39 at paragraphs 35-37 (Chogolzadeh); Kablawi v.
Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FC
1011, 333 F.T.R. 300 at paragraph 23 (Kablawi)).
Failure to
balance the necessary factors
[36]
The
Respondent contends that there is no merit to the Applicant’s assertion that
the Minister did not balance the relevant factors in his decision. Quite the
opposite, the positive and negative factors are explicitly weighed before
finding that the Applicant’s continued presence in Canada would be detrimental
to the national interest. The Respondent cites extracts from the Applicant’s
and tribunal's records to support such a proposition.
[37]
The
Respondent argues that there is no requirement for relief to be granted in the
face of some positive factors and it is open to the Minister to give greater
weight to the nature and extent of the Applicant’s acts than to whether the
Applicant would benefit from relief being granted (Chogolzadeh, at paragraphs
44-45; Kablawi, at paragraphs 22-23).
[38]
The
Respondent also contends that there is no merit to the Applicant’s submission
that the Minister’s decision is unreasonable because it does not explicitly
parrot the question listed in the Guidelines. He argues that the Applicant has
mischaracterized the guidelines and that although the questions are not
explicitly answered; many of the considerations in the Briefing Note correspond
to sub-questions also listed in the Guidelines. Furthermore, many of the
appendices referenced in the Briefing Note touched on the questions set out in
the Guidelines. Moreover, the Respondent explains that the Court has
rejected the argument that questions listed in guidelines must be addressed
directly as this elevates form over substance (Ramadan v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1155, 335 F.T.R. 227 at paragraph
21). Furthermore, guidelines cannot fetter the scope of administrative discretion
(Kablawi, at paragraph 23; Miller, at paragraph 73).
Erroneous findings of
fact
[39]
As
for the Applicant’s contention that there were numerous erroneous factual
findings, the Respondent asserts that those findings were supported by the
evidence before the Minister and as such do not establish a ground for judicial
review (Khosa, at paragraphs 45 and 61 and Federal Courts Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, subsection 18.1(4)).
[40]
On
the finding that the Applicant was not forthcoming about the nature of his KGB
involvement, the Respondent submits that the finding was reasonably open to the
Minister and was based on inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Applicant’s
submissions and evidence. The Respondent also identifies various
inconsistencies and ambiguities that were contained in interview transcripts
and documents prepared by officers that were put to the Minister.
[41]
In
response to the Applicant’s claim that it was unreasonable to find that he had
refused to provide requested documents, the Respondent points to a series of
letters between the parties where a request for documents was made and the
Applicant simply stated that the did not have them without further explanation
and that he was uncomfortable seeking copies of certain documents that were
held by the Russian military. The Respondent alleges that, faced with
these inadequate explanations, it was reasonable to infer that the Applicant
has essentially refused to provide the requested documents.
[42]
The
Respondent also holds that, based on the evidence in the interview transcripts and
documents before the Minister, it was reasonable to find that the Applicant did
not express remorse, that he reported directly to the department of KGB
responsible for espionage and that his involvement was voluntary. The Respondent
refers to specific elements of evidence that he claims support these
conclusions. The Respondent also points out that many of these findings have
been previously made by both the Board and this Court (Mikhail v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] I.D.D. No. 31 (QL); Lennikov, above
and other decision makers involved in other applicant’s applications.
Analysis
[43]
Before
turning to the Applicant’s submission that determining factors were not weighed
and analyzed by the Respondent, I wish to note that I accept the Briefing Note prepared
by CBSA can serve as reasons for the decision to the extent that the Minister
adopted the recommendation as his determination (Miller, at paragraph
62). I also determine that the burden rests on the Applicant to satisfy
the Minister that his admission to Canada would not be
detrimental to the national interest. I also accept that the phrase “detrimental
to the national interest” must be interpreted broadly and that the Minister is
free to take a variety of factors into account (Miller, at paragraph 73;
Chogolzadeh, at paragraphs 35-37; Kablawi, at paragraph 23).
[44]
With
this in mind, I do not agree that there was no analysis or balancing of the
factors whatsoever. The Briefing Note identifies many factors – both positive
and negative - used in the analysis and the determinant factors are explicitly
balanced in the Briefing Note as demonstrated in the portion reproduced at
paragraph 18 of this decision. Thus, it cannot be found that the
decision was unreasonable on this basis.
[45]
The
Applicant relies on two decisions from this Court, Afridi and Ismeal,
and submits that his case is the same. In those cases, it was found that the
Minister’s decision was unreasonable either because it had not identified
relevant factors or had expressly ignored positive factors that favoured the
applicant and had not made any attempt at balancing the factors. That is not
the case here. The Briefing Note identified the main positive and negative
factors and weighed them accordingly. There is nothing in the record that
indicates otherwise.
[46]
The
Briefing Note references a number of documents including a memorandum prepared
by a CBSA employee which explicitly addresses the guideline questions. It also
identifies the main relevant factors – many of which arise from sub-questions
set out in the Guidelines and it cannot be said to be one-sided. In light of
this determination, I do not find that the Minister’s decision to deny
Ministerial relief was unreasonable. The reasons provide are transparent and
present an intelligible analysis; the decision falls within the acceptable
range of outcomes.
[47]
Before
turning to the second allegation that the Minister’s decision relied on many
erroneous findings of fact, I would like to highlight the distinction made in Khosa
between a ground of review and a standard of review. The standard of review
principles set out in Dunsmuir will be applied in the absence of clear
legislative intent otherwise. Furthermore, the grounds of review set out in the
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, subsection 18.1(4) are not to
be interpreted as standards of review. In applying a reasonableness standard of
review, the Court is “concerned mostly with the existence of justification,
transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. It is also
concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible,
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir,
at paragraph 47; Khosa, at paragraph 63).
[48]
The
findings of fact with which the Applicant takes issue are actually grounded in
the evidence that was before the Minister and were findings that were open to
the Minister to make. The Respondent has pointed to elements of the evidence on
the record that I accept support the facts referred to in the Briefing Note. It
is clear that the evidence submitted by the Applicant was considered in the
preparation of the Briefing Note as much of the information can be found in the
Applicant’s own submissions. I therefore find that there are no reviewable
errors that warrant the Court’s intervention.
[49]
No
questions
for certification were proposed and none arise in this case.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the
application for judicial review be dismissed. No question is certified.
“Michel
Beaudry”
APPENDIX A
Relevant Statutory Provisions
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C. 2001, c. 27
|
Security
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 that there are reasonable grounds to
believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph
(a), (b) or (c).
(2)
The matters referred to in subsection (1) do not constitute inadmissibility
in respect of a permanent resident or a foreign national who satisfies the
Minister that their presence in Canada
would not be detrimental to the national interest.
|
Sécurité
34.
(1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour raison de sécurité les faits
suivants :
a) être
l’auteur d’actes d’espionnage ou se livrer à la subversion contre toute
institution démocratique, au sens où cette expression s’entend au Canada;
b) être
l’instigateur ou l’auteur d’actes visant au renversement d’un gouvernement
par la force;
c) se
livrer au terrorisme;
d)
constituer un danger pour la sécurité du Canada;
e) être
l’auteur de tout acte de violence susceptible de mettre en danger la vie ou
la sécurité d’autrui au Canada;
f) être
membre d’une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire
qu’elle est, a été ou sera l’auteur d’un acte visé aux alinéas a), b) ou c).
(2)
Ces faits n’emportent pas interdiction de territoire pour le résident
permanent ou l’étranger qui convainc le ministre que sa présence au Canada ne
serait nullement préjudiciable à l’intérêt national.
|
Citizenship
and Immigration Canada, IP 10
Refusal
of National Security Cases / Processing of National Interest Requests
Appendix
D- Preparing the request for relief report
(October
24, 2005) at pages 14-16.
|
Question
Will
the applicant's presence in
Canada be offensive to the
Canadian
public?
Have
all ties with the
regime/organization
been
completely
severed?
Is
there any indication that the
applicant
might be benefiting
from
assets obtained while a
member
of the organization?
Is
there any indication that the
applicant
may be benefiting from previous membership in the regime/organization?
Has
the person adopted the
democratic
values of Canadian
society?
|
Details
Is
there satisfactory evidence that the person does not represent a danger to
the public?
•
Was the activity an isolated event? If not, over what period of time did it
occur?
•
When did the activity occur?
•
Was violence involved?
•
Was the person personally involved or complicit in the activities of the
regime/organization?
•
Is the regime/organization
internationally
recognized as one that uses violence to achieve its goals? If so, what is the
degree of violence shown by the organization?
•
What was the length of time that the applicant was a member of the regime/organization?
•
Is the organization still involved in criminal or violent activities?
•
What was the role or position of the person within the
regime/organization?
•
Did the person benefit from their membership or from the activities of the
organization?
•
Is there evidence to indicate that the person was not aware of the
atrocities/criminal/terrorist activities committed by the
regime/organization?
Has
the applicant been credible,
forthright,
and candid concerning the activities/membership that have barred admission or
has the
applicant
tried to minimize their
role?
•
What evidence exists to
demonstrate
that ties have been
severed?
•
What are the details concerning disassociation from the regime/organization?
Did the applicant disassociate from the regime/organization at the first
opportunity? Why?
•
Is the applicant currently
associated
with any individuals still involved in the regime/organization?
•
Does the applicant's lifestyle
demonstrate
stability or is there a pattern of activity likely associated with a criminal
lifestyle?
Is
the applicant's lifestyle consistent with Personal Net Worth (PNW) and
current employment?
•
If not, provide evidence to establish that the applicant's PNW did not come
from criminal activities.
•
Does the applicant's lifestyle
demonstrate
any possible benefits from former membership in the regime/organization?
•
Does the applicant's status in the community demonstrate any
special
treatment due to former
membership
in the
regime/organization?
•
What is the applicant's current
attitude
towards the
regime/organization,
their
membership,
and their activities on behalf of the regime/organization?
•
Does the applicant still share the values and lifestyle known to be
associated with the organization?
•
Does the applicant show any
remorse
for their membership or activities?
•
What is the applicant's current
attitude
towards violence to achieve political change?
•
What is the applicant's attitude
towards
the rule of law and
democratic
institutions, as they are understood in Canada?
|
Email this Content