IRPA Inadmissibility Grounds Overview

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

According to the provided text, what is the minimum requirement for a Minister to demonstrate 'reasonable grounds to believe' a fact, even after prima facie evidence against it has been presented?

To present evidence that definitively proves the fact in question.

To provide evidence showing a credible basis for believing the fact, without necessarily proving the fact itself. (correct)

To outweigh the prima facie evidence with evidence of a civil standard.

To disregard the prima facie evidence and solely rely on their initial belief.

The passage suggests that the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard, as applied in this context, is considered to be:

Higher than the civil standard of proof.

Independent of any established legal standard.

Lower than the civil standard of proof. (correct)

Equivalent to the civil standard of proof.

When a court is presented with 'competing versions of the facts' and 'extensive evidence from both parties', what does the 'reasonableness standard' necessitate?

Weighing the evidence to determine which facts are more credible and acceptable. (correct)

Accepting the version of facts presented by the Minister without question.

Dismissing all evidence and making a determination based on procedural grounds.

Prioritizing prima facie evidence over all other forms of evidence.

What is the extent of the Minister's evidentiary burden in demonstrating 'reasonable grounds to believe'?

The Minister must meet a threshold of evidence that is sufficient to establish the necessary facts for a determination, as discussed in Moreno. Signup and view all the answers

The text references 'Robertson J.A. in Moreno'. What is the significance of this reference in the context of 'reasonable grounds to believe'?

It illustrates a judicial discussion on the minimum threshold of evidence required from the Minister to meet the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard. Signup and view all the answers

According to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), what is one of the stated policy objectives related to inadmissibility?

To protect public health and safety and maintain the security of Canadian society. Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary legal consequence of a determination of inadmissibility under the IRPA?

Denial of a visa or entry to Canada, or removal from Canada. Signup and view all the answers

For a refugee protection claimant alleged to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, what is the immediate procedural consequence regarding their claim?

Their claim can be suspended pending an admissibility hearing. Signup and view all the answers

Under the IRPA, which section specifically outlines the inadmissibility grounds related to security?

Section 34 Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following grounds of inadmissibility, as listed in sections 34-42 of the IRPA, is explicitly stated to apply to both foreign nationals and permanent residents?

Serious criminality (s 36(1)) Signup and view all the answers

In addition to denial of entry or removal, what is another potential consequence that is frequently associated with suspicion or determinations of inadmissibility?

Detention. Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following best describes the scope of the 'Module' referenced in the text regarding the examination of inadmissibility under the IRPA?

A broad, introductory survey of the substantive criteria of inadmissibility and their application. Signup and view all the answers

According to the IRPA, promoting international justice and security is achieved through which specific action related to inadmissibility?

Denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks. Signup and view all the answers

Which classes of non-citizens may be exempt from health-related inadmissibility concerning excessive demand on health or social services?

Protected persons and certain members of the family class. Signup and view all the answers

Section 33 of the IRPA is best described as which type of provision?

An interpretive provision clarifying the scope of inadmissibility grounds. Signup and view all the answers

According to section 33 of the IRPA, facts constituting inadmissibility under sections 34-37 can arise from:

Past actions, present actions, and reasonably expected future actions. Signup and view all the answers

What legal standard is defined by the phrase 'reasonable grounds to believe' in the context of inadmissibility under the IRPA?

An objective basis founded on compelling and credible information. Signup and view all the answers

In Chiau v Canada, Justice Dubé described the standard of 'reasonable grounds' as:

More than a 'flimsy suspicion' but less than the 'balance of probabilities'. Signup and view all the answers

What is the crucial element that distinguishes 'reasonable grounds to believe' from a 'mere suspicion'?

Objective basis assessed by a reasonable person. Signup and view all the answers

Where does the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard fall in comparison to the UK's standard for control orders related to terrorism?

Higher than the UK standard. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of 'reasonable grounds to believe,' does the legislation require proof of the fact itself to establish inadmissibility?

No, evidence falling short of proving the fact itself may be sufficient. Signup and view all the answers

In Canada v Jolly, the Federal Court of Appeal addressed inadmissibility related to membership in an organization promoting subversion. What was the central question the court considered regarding 'reasonable grounds for believing'?

Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the organization promoted subversion. Signup and view all the answers

According to the excerpt from Canada v Jolly, what is 'implied' by the statutory use of the expression 'reasonable grounds for believing'?

The fact itself need not be established. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of inadmissibility, if an individual presents prima facie evidence negating a potentially inadmissible fact, what is the Minister required to demonstrate to proceed with inadmissibility?

Show that there were still reasonable grounds for believing in the existence of the fact. Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following best describes the relationship between 'reasonable grounds to believe' and the actual existence of a fact?

Showing the fact does not exist is one way to show there are no 'reasonable grounds to believe'. Signup and view all the answers

What standard of evidence is used in U.S. District Court habeas corpus proceedings relating to Guantanamo detainees, as mentioned in the text for comparison?

Preponderance of the evidence. Signup and view all the answers

What is a key characteristic of 'compelling and credible information' required for 'reasonable grounds to believe'?

It must provide an objective basis for the belief. Signup and view all the answers

Which sections of the IRPA are specifically referenced as being interpreted by section 33 regarding inadmissibility?

Sections 34-37. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Inadmissibility Grounds

IRPA aims to protect public health and safety, maintain Canadian security, and promote international justice.
Inadmissibility can occur even if an applicant meets immigration class requirements, leading to visa denial, removal from Canada, and other consequences.
Refugee protection claims can be suspended if the claimant is suspected of being inadmissible due to security issues, human rights violations, serious criminality, or organized criminality.
Inadmissibility can lead to detention of the individual.

Grounds of Inadmissibility

IRPA lists 11 grounds of inadmissibility: security, human/international rights violations, serious criminality, criminality, organized criminality, health, financial, misrepresentation, cessation of refugee protection, non-compliance with the Act, and inadmissible family members.
Some grounds apply only to foreign nationals, others to both foreign nationals and permanent residents.
Exemptions exist for certain groups, like protected persons (refugees, etc), and some family members from health-related inadmissibility due to potential burden on health/social services.

Interpretive Provision (Section 33)

Section 33 allows for inadmissibility based on omissions and facts where there are reasonable grounds to believe they have/are/may occur.
Inadmissibility is not limited to actions, but also omissions.
A future act or omission could lead to inadmissibility.

"Reasonable Grounds to Believe" Standard

"Reasonable grounds to believe" requires an objective basis, based on compelling and credible information.
This standard is higher than mere suspicion but lower than the civil balance of probabilities standard, or the criminal burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt).
It requires a bona fide belief in a serious possibility supported by credible evidence.
The belief must be objectively reasonable, meaning a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have had the same belief.
Proof of the fact itself isn't required, rather, evidence showing reasonable grounds to believe the fact is sufficient.
- Demonstrating, there are no reasonable grounds to believe can be done by showing the fact itself does not exist.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Discover the key grounds of inadmissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This quiz explores the implications of these grounds for immigration applicants, including the circumstances leading to visa denial and removal from Canada. Test your knowledge on security issues, criminality, and health-related inadmissibility factors.