Cacha Collas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 820 : Terrorism Inadmissibility Finding Overturned Because Evidence Did Not Establish Reasonable Grounds to Believe in Terrorist Membership

Ø  Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision finding the applicant inadmissible under section 34 of the IRPA for membership in the Shining Path, a terrorist organization.

The Court overturned the decision because the IAD relied on weak and unreliable evidence and failed to establish an objective basis for its conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was a member of the organization.

Ø  Key Principle

The “reasonable grounds to believe” standard requires more than suspicion or conjecture. It requires an objective basis supported by credible and compelling information.

Where evidence relied upon to establish terrorist membership has been excluded or seriously undermined, the remaining evidence must independently establish reasonable grounds to believe in membership.

A general finding that an applicant lacks credibility cannot, by itself, establish membership in a terrorist organization without reliable evidence connecting the applicant to that organization.

Ø  Background

The applicant, a Peruvian citizen, was arrested in 1993 and convicted of treason by a military tribunal. The government alleged that the conviction related to his membership in the Shining Path.

The Immigration Division found that the applicant’s incriminating statement had been obtained through torture and therefore could not support the inadmissibility finding. It also gave little weight to other evidence, including a book by Colonel Benedicto Jiminez and a newspaper article reporting allegations made by Peruvian authorities.

The IAD nevertheless reversed the Immigration Division’s decision and found that the applicant was inadmissible. It relied primarily on the newspaper article, the book, and negative credibility findings.

Ø  Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the IAD’s decision was unreasonable.

The Court emphasized that reasonable grounds to believe are more than reasonable suspicion. The evidence must provide an objective basis supported by credible and compelling information.

The Court found that the La Republica article merely reported allegations made by Peruvian authorities at a press conference. It did not independently establish that the alleged terrorist activities had actually occurred or that the applicant was a member of the Shining Path.

The Court also found significant problems with the book relied upon by the IAD. Its source, publication date, information sources, and authorship were unclear, it contained numerous pseudonyms, and the author had previous defamation convictions. The IAD had not adequately explained why the book should be considered credible and compelling evidence.

Most importantly, the Court found that the IAD’s general credibility concerns did not establish terrorist membership. Without reliable evidence connecting the applicant to the organization, the decision amounted to suspicion rather than reasonable grounds to believe.

Ø  Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review and returned the matter to a differently constituted IAD panel for redetermination.

Case Citation:

Cacha Collas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 820 CanLII