Hossein v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 91 : Security Inadmissibility Finding Upheld Where Officer Reasonably Found BNP Engaged in Subversion and Terrorism

The Federal Court reviewed Md Awal Hossein’s permanent residence refusal based on security inadmissibility under section 34 of IRPA. The applicant accepted his BNP membership but challenged the BNP finding.

Key Principle

Under section 34 of IRPA, “reasonable grounds to believe” requires more than suspicion but less than proof on a balance of probabilities. An officer may rely on diverse country and human rights evidence and prefer evidence supporting organizational involvement in subversion or terrorism where the analysis is grounded in the record.

Background

The applicant and his family received asylum in Canada in 2014 because of risks associated with his political activities. He had been involved with the BNP’s youth wing around 2000 and later became an active supporter from 2011 to 2014. On his permanent residence application, the officer found him inadmissible under section 34 because there were reasonable grounds to believe the BNP had engaged in subversion by force of government and terrorism.

Court Findings

• Reasonable-Grounds Standard Was Satisfied

The Court confirmed that section 34 requires reasonable grounds to believe an organization engages, has engaged, or will engage in specified acts. The standard is higher than suspicion but lower than the balance of probabilities. The officer therefore did not need to prove the BNP’s conduct to the civil standard.

• Officer Considered Diverse Evidence

The officer considered case law and multiple sources, including non-governmental and human rights reports concerning BNP violence during 2013 and 2014. The Court found it open to the officer to prefer evidence supporting the BNP finding.

• Officer Made an Explicit Finding of Intent

The applicant argued that the officer improperly inferred terrorist or subversive intent from awareness or wilful blindness concerning the consequences of BNP activities. The Court rejected this argument because the officer expressly found that the BNP intended to subvert the government and kill or seriously harm civilians.

• Civil Disobedience Was Not Conflated With Terrorism

The Court rejected the argument that the officer equated civil disobedience with terrorism or subversion. The officer relied on evidence concerning strikes, street violence, killings, and BNP hartals. Consistent with S.A. v Canada, the Court noted that the BNP’s hartals were understood as calls for violent action rather than merely general strikes.

• Previous Jurisprudence Supported the Finding

The Court noted that prior Federal Court decisions had upheld similar findings concerning BNP activities during the relevant period. Those decisions supported the officer’s assessment that the BNP’s activities could engage subversion of government and terrorism for IRPA purposes.

• Legal Framework Was Properly Applied

Considering the broad legal definitions, reasonable-grounds standard, and evidentiary record, the Court found the officer acted reasonably under section 34. The officer’s analysis was grounded in the particular evidence and applicable legal framework.

• Membership Was Not Disputed

The applicant did not dispute his BNP membership. He challenged whether the BNP met the section 34 threshold. Since the officer’s organizational finding was reasonable, his membership supported inadmissibility.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application and upheld the section 34 security inadmissibility finding. No serious question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Hossein v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 91 (CanLII)