Shamloo Gorjaee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1224 : Security Inadmissibility Finding Set Aside Where “Danger to the Security of Canada” Was Based on Speculative Evidence

The Federal Court granted judicial review of the refusal of the Applicants’ Express Entry permanent residence application. The Officer found that the Applicant’s spouse was inadmissible under s 34(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a danger to the security of Canada because of her work on an Iranian synchrotron project. The Court found that the Officer’s conclusion was based on conjecture and speculation rather than compelling and credible information.

Key Principle

A finding under s 34(1)(d) that a person constitutes a “danger to the security of Canada” must be supported by reasonable grounds to believe, which requires an objective basis grounded in compelling and credible information. Mere theoretical possibilities or speculation about the potential military or nuclear applications of technology are insufficient.

The Court also confirmed that an officer cannot discount expert evidence merely because the experts have a relationship with the applicant. An expert’s interest may affect the weight of the evidence, but it cannot be the sole basis for disregarding otherwise relevant expert opinions.

Background

The Applicants were Iranian citizens. The Applicant’s spouse worked at Iran’s Institute for Research and Fundamental Sciences from April 2010 to May 2019 and served as head of the Radio Frequency Group at the Iranian Light Source Facility Project, which involved construction of a synchrotron particle accelerator.

After applying for permanent residence through Express Entry, the Applicants received a PFL concerning the spouse’s work. IRCC was concerned that particle accelerators could have “dual use” applications, including the production of fissile material, and noted an apparent connection between the Institute and Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

The Applicants responded with statements, legal submissions, an updated CV, and letters from several scientists supporting the position that the ILSF was a scientific project without nuclear or military applications. The Officer nevertheless found the spouse inadmissible under s 34(1)(d), rendering the other family members inadmissible under s 42.

Court Findings

• Reasonable grounds require more than suspicion: The Court emphasized that the reasonable-grounds-to-believe standard requires an objective basis supported by compelling and credible information. Although the cited articles established that particle accelerators could theoretically be used for non-peaceful purposes, they did not establish that the ILSF Project had actually been used, or was realistically intended to be used, for nuclear or directed-energy weapons.

• The evidence established only theoretical possibilities: The Kemp and Antolak articles discussed potential applications of particle accelerators but did not identify an actual instance of such technology being used to produce nuclear or directed-energy weapons. The Court therefore found that the Officer’s conclusion that the ILSF constituted dual-use technology lacked a sufficient evidentiary foundation.

• Officer relied on conjecture: The Court held that a decision-maker cannot make findings based on speculation or unsupported assumptions. The Officer’s conclusion that the ILSF Project presented a security threat was therefore unreasonable.

• Expert letters were improperly discounted: The Officer gave little weight to letters from scientists because their authors had worked with or were close to the Applicant. The Court found this insufficient. The letters contained specialized opinions directly addressing whether the ILSF had nuclear or military applications, and the Officer did not provide a meaningful reason for rejecting their substantive content.

• Procedural fairness did not need to be determined: Because the decision was unreasonable on its merits, the Court found it unnecessary to decide the Applicants’ separate procedural fairness arguments.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review and remitted the matter to a different IRCC officer for redetermination. No certified question was proposed and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Shamloo Gorjaee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1224 (CanLII)