• Home
  • Security & Other Inadmissibilities

Security & Other Inadmissibilities

Are you inadmissible to Canada?
Is this inadmissibility based on security, human and international rights violations or organized criminality?


The primary grounds for inadmissibility in the criminal context are set out at sections 34 – 42 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).  With respect to inadmissibility on grounds of security (section 34), human and international rights violations (section 35) and organized criminality (section 37) we outline various considerations below. Please note that for the purposes of inadmissibility “permanent resident” refers to any individual who has acquired and not subsequently lost permanent resident status. “Foreign national” refers to any person who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and includes a stateless person.

Who is inadmissible?

Section 34

The IRPA states that inadmissibility on security grounds may result where it is determined that a permanent resident or foreign national is: engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests;

a) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

b)engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

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), (b.1) or (c)

Espionage under subsection 34(1)(a) refers to the practice of gathering information by spying, usually seeking information from a hostile country to benefit one’s own country. “Subversion” under subsection 34(1)(b) is the act of overturning or overthrowing a organization through illicit or improper means. “Democratic” under subsection 34(1)(b.1) refers to government by the people. Finally, “terrorism” under subsection 34(1)(c) relates to use or threats of acts of violence against persons or property with the intent of achieving some political objective.  The purpose of terrorism is, by its nature or context, understood to be to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to abstain from some action.

Section 35

Permanent residents or foreign nationals may be found to be inadmissible for human or international rights violations for the following reasons:

a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;

b) being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;

c) being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry into or stay in Canada is restricted pursuant to a decision, resolution or measure of an international organization of states or association of states, of which Canada is a member, that imposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that organization or association;

d) being a person, other than a permanent resident, who is currently the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act on the grounds that any of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(1.1)(c) or (d) of that Act has occurred; or

e) being a person, other than a permanent resident, who is currently the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).

For reference, “terrorism” under subsection 35(1)(b) holds the same definition as under 34(1)(c), as set out above. “Crimes against humanity” under subsection 35(1)(b) refers to those acts defined under section 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, including murder, extermination, torture, sexual violence and deportation committed against a civilian population or identifiable group. “Genocide” under subsection 35(1)(b) refers to actions taken to destroy an entire group of persons, as defined under international law. Finally, “war crime” under subsection 35(1)(b) refers to acts or omissions committed during an armed conflict, as defined under intentional law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts.

Section 37

Finally, findings of inadmissibility on grounds of organized criminality may be made against permanent residents or foreign nationals for:

a) being a member of an organization that is believed on reasonable grounds to be or to have been engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of an offence punishable under an Act of Parliament by way of indictment, or in furtherance of the commission of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute such an offence, or engaging in activity that is part of such a pattern; or

b) engaging, in the context of transnational crime, in activities such as people smuggling, trafficking in persons or laundering of money or other proceeds of crime.

“Transnational crime” under subsection 37(1)(b) refers to offending that extends beyond or operates across national boundaries.

Section 42.1(1)

Please note that, pursuant to section 42.1(1) of the IRPA, following an application by a foreign national, the Minister may declare that the matters referred to in sections 34, 35 and 37 do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a foreign national if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.

Determination Process

Assessments of whether a non-citizen fits within one of the above categories must conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the acts under investigation have occurred, are occurring or may occur. This test requires that information referred to in support of the decision is specific, credible and from a reliable source.

Determinations of inadmissibility under sections 34, 35 and 37 are under the purview of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Officers of the CBSA may take into consideration a variety of information in assessing inadmissibility. For findings of inadmissibility under section 34, the officer may collect the following types of evidence:

  • police or intelligence reports;
  • statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer;
  • media articles, scholarly journal articles, expert evidence;
  • weapons or documentation in the person’s possession that indicate planned violence (for subsection 34(1)(e)); and
  • Any public information that establishes the propensity for violent acts by the individual.

For assessments under section 35, officers may collect any of the following information:

  • Statutory declaration supported by evidence that establish that the person concerned committed an act that constitutes a war crime as defined under international law;
  • Evidence that the act committed is contrary to international law or convention; and
  • Media articles, scholarly journal articles, expert evidence.

Finally, for assessments under section 37, officers of the CBSA may collect the following types of evidence:

  • police or intelligence reports;
  • statutory declaration supported by evidence of statements made to an officer;
  • proof that the alleged organization is involved in criminal activity; and
  • media articles, scholarly journal articles, expert evidence.

Overcoming Inadmissibility on These Grounds

Findings of inadmissibility under sections 34, 35 and 37 have serious ramifications as there is no right of appeal for permanent residents or foreign nationals under subsection 64(1) of the IRPA. These decisions may be challenged to the Federal Court of Canada in some instances. Please contact our office for further information and how we may be able to address inadmissibility under sections 34, 35, and 37 of the IRPA.

Contact Us

Inadmissibility Testimonials

Important Immigration Court Decisions


What Our Clients Are Saying
Monnie Choi
I have a really good experience with Bellissimo Law Group recently. They help me to get the approval of Deemed rehabilitation! I am so frustrated when I got refusal from IRCC. Then I found Bellissimo. They gave me suggestions and guided me step by step. It is lots of work and preparation they need to do. But they did it professionally. And their fees are reasonable too. I will recommend Bellissimo Law Group for the one who need professional law advise.
Connie Howard
This firm is filled with honest, smart, and kind professionals. If you have immigration needs, they should be your first stop
Lorena Solís
Nicole Goodman
Highly recommend Bellissimo Law Group. They really came through for my family and although it was expensive, it was worth every penny. If you’re worried about your immigration application it helps to know you have a great team behind you and that you’re definitely submitting a strong application. Thanks again to Bellissimo law group for their patience and expertise. We will always recommend you to anyone looking to immigrate to Canada.
Steve Felder
I have consulted with many immigration lawyers. Mario and Hannah were extremely professional, very clear and realistic.
Kanagasabapathy Vijay Kumar
It's been a very good experience working with Bellissimo Immigration Law Group PC. The wealth of experience and professionalism they bring to the table is fantastic. Their professional approach, meticulous planning, their relentless push to get everything they want to compile a flawless submission document was amazing. Overall, they work very hard to get positive results and I am impressed with their services.
Irene Greaves
Our special thanks to Ms Keely Anderson and Ms Alexandra Goncharova for their efforts and due diligence in pulling together a compelling submission in support of my husband’s rehabilitation application due to criminal inadmissibility. This was a complex case, refused once because of incompleteness and lack of transparency then put on hold for 2 years due to the covid pandemic. We subsequently reapplied with BLG upon the advice that they were the best. It was a long journey and they don’t come cheap but the result speaks for itself. We were invited to meet with the Reviewing Officer in IRCC London who said the application was so well documented that no questions remained and we were granted approval then and there. It’s been a 5-year journey but the freedom one feels to be able to travel back and forth with my husband to Canada cannot be underestimated. We are now free to apply for my husband’s permanent residency for which we will always be grateful to BLG for making it possible. Thank you.
Charles Andoscia
I was immigrating from the United States to Canada. Whole process went very smooth. Viola Gniadek provided me with very clear Instructions and was there any time I had a question to help me through the process. She deserves more than 5 stars! I would recommend this firm to anyone interested in immigrating.
Arman Hamzehlou Kahrizi
My wife and I worked with Bellissimo Law Group on a very complex spousal sponsorship application. Our relationship started long-distance and lasted three years before we got married, without having met in person. This raised several red flags in the immigration process. From the beginning, we knew we were facing a difficult case that needed serious legal guidance. After doing thorough research, Bellissimo stood out for their experience with complicated immigration cases, and they lived up to that reputation.

Our consultant and main point of contact was Viola Gniadek. She was professional, honest, and very precise. She responded to our concerns whenever something about the case worried us and was always flexible with us in terms of availability. I remember it was during a weekend and she was still double-checking and completing our forms as we had a submission deadline on Monday. You will be lucky to have her handle your case. The firm took time to understand the complexity of our case and worked closely with us over several months to prepare over 300 pages of documentation. What I appreciated most was how careful they were with every word submitted. In immigration law, even one unnecessary detail can be used against you, and Bellissimo knew how to manage that risk with skill and strategy.

With their guidance, we submitted a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application, even though they had warned us clearly that, due to the circumstances and the country involved, there was a high chance of refusal. But they also had a plan in place from the start to appeal it if that happened. The TRV was refused, as expected, but we followed through on the appeal. IRCC later offered us a settlement, and our application was reopened. We were given a second chance, and even without much new documentation, the TRV was approved within 15 days of reopening. That moment changed everything.

Thanks to that approval, my wife and I have been together in Canada since March 20. Her spousal sponsorship application was finalized and approved shortly after, but had we not pursued and won the TRV appeal, we would likely still be separated due to delays with passport stamping and processing. That TRV win was a turning point not just legally, but personally.

Later, we were invited for a spousal sponsorship interview, which showed that the officer remained skeptical of our case. Bellissimo helped us prepare thoroughly for the interview, which was a separate legal process with additional fees. But the preparation paid off. After seeing how our TRV refusal had been overturned and how well our case had been built, it would have been very difficult for an officer to justify a refusal at that point. It was clear to them that we were not only committed but had the legal backing to defend ourselves through every stage of the system.

One important thing I want to stress is that just because you can apply on your own does not mean you always should. I have seen people succeed without a lawyer, and I have seen many people fail and remain stuck in the system for years due to refusals or misrepresentation. Legal support is expensive, yes, but you need to consider what is truly at stake. Your future, your time, your peace of mind, and your chance to be with the person you love, these are far more valuable than saving a bit of money upfront.

Also, do not assume that a cheaper option means better value. It might cost less, but if they do not understand the complexity of your case or submit something careless, it could cost you far more in the long run. This is your life. Do not cheap out.

If your case is complicated like ours, Bellissimo Law Group is absolutely worth it. They do not make empty promises. They know exactly what they are doing. I am deeply grateful for their work and recommend them without hesitation. Thank you, Mr. Bellissimo and the entire team.
All Authors