Other Grounds

Inadmissibility under Canada’s immigration framework extends beyond the commonly known categories of medical issues, criminality, or misrepresentation. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) contains additional grounds—commonly referred to as “other grounds”—that can prevent foreign nationals or permanent residents from entering or remaining in Canada. These grounds include security, human rights violations, organized criminality, financial inadmissibility, non-compliance with IRPA, and inadmissible family members. Each category has its own legal tests, evidentiary standards, and consequences. Let's have a comprehensive, lawyer-level analysis of these lesser-understood inadmissibility grounds and outlines practical strategies, defences, mitigation tools, and litigation pathways for affected clients.

Many applicants are unaware of these additional grounds until they receive a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL), interview request, or refusal. These categories often involve complex factual or legal allegations, including security assessments by CBSA or CSIS, financial scrutiny, or concerns linked to family conduct. Skilled counsel is critical to navigating these issues because officers interpret sensitive and often confidential information when assessing admissibility.

Overview of “Other Grounds” Under IRPA

The following “other grounds” of inadmissibility fall under IRPA ss.34–42:

• Security – s.34
• Human or international rights violations – s.35
• Organized criminality – s.37
• Financial inadmissibility – s.39
• Non-compliance – s.41
• Inadmissible family members – s.42

These grounds carry significant immigration consequences, ranging from refusal of temporary applications to loss of permanent residence and removal orders. Because several of these grounds involve allegations of wrongdoing rather than proven criminal convictions, the scope of admissibility can be broad, requiring precise legal rebuttal.

1. Security Inadmissibility — IRPA s.34

Security inadmissibility involves allegations relating to:

• espionage or subversion,
• terrorism or membership in terrorist organizations,
• engaging in violence or threats to national security,
• acts of government overthrow or destabilization,
• association with groups believed to engage in violence.

Security inadmissibility findings can be based on:

• association or membership,
• past political activities,
• intelligence reports from CSIS or foreign governments,
• confidential evidence withheld for security reasons.

Challenges require legal precision because evidentiary standards differ from criminal law. Officers do not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; they assess “reasonable grounds to believe.”

Strategies for Security Inadmissibility Cases

• Demand particulars of allegations via procedural fairness,
• Challenge vague or uncorroborated intelligence,
• Provide political-context evidence,
• Submit expert affidavits (country experts, political analysts),
• Challenge association findings that are too broad,
• Pursue Federal Court judicial review where fairness is breached.

2. Human or International Rights Violations — IRPA s.35

This category applies to individuals alleged to have been involved in:

• war crimes or crimes against humanity,
• complicity in human-rights abuses,
• membership in organizations engaged in civil or military repression,
• senior-level government roles in abusive regimes.

Key Legal Principles

• Direct participation is not required — complicity is enough.
• Exclusion provisions under refugee law may overlap (Articles 1F(a)–(c)).
• Burden of proof is lower than criminal law standards.

Strategies

• Prove lack of personal involvement,
• Demonstrate absence of command responsibility,
• Provide objective documentation about role, authority, duties,
• Submit evidence of coerced involvement (if applicable),
• Litigate unreasonable decisions at Federal Court.

3. Organized Criminality — IRPA s.37

Organized criminality inadmissibility relates to individuals suspected of involvement in:

• gang activity,
• organized crime networks,
• transnational criminal enterprises,
• people smuggling or trafficking organizations,
• money laundering networks.

The applicant need not be convicted; “reasonable grounds to believe” is enough.

Strategies

• Challenge reliability of police intelligence,
• Address mistaken identity,
• Provide proof of distancing from alleged networks,
• Submit extensive character and employment documentation,
• Litigate officer errors in equivalency or factual interpretation.

4. Financial Inadmissibility — IRPA s.39

A person is financially inadmissible if they are “unable or unwilling to support themselves or their dependants” and may rely on social assistance. This assessment usually arises in:

• PR applications lacking settlement funds,
• family sponsorship cases with insufficient income,
• medical conditions creating financial burden (when excessive-demand does not apply),
• visitor visas where economic ties are weak.

Evidence for Overcoming Financial Inadmissibility

• employment contracts,
• bank statements,
• tax returns and NOAs,
• third-party financial guarantees,
• proof of assets,
• cost-of-living budgets,
• affidavits from financially capable family members.

5. Non-Compliance with IRPA — IRPA s.41

A foreign national may be inadmissible if they fail to comply with IRPA or its regulations. Common issues include:

• overstaying visas,
• working without authorization,
• studying without authorization,
• breaching conditions of entry,
• failing to appear for interviews or exams,
• failure to satisfy residency obligation (PRs).

Defences and Solutions

• Restoration of status applications,
• Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) for urgent needs,
• Humanitarian and compassionate submissions addressing hardships,
• Corrective compliance measures and supporting documentation.

6. Inadmissible Family Members — IRPA s.42

Under IRPA, one inadmissible family member can render the entire family inadmissible in a PR application. This applies to:

• medical inadmissibility,
• criminality,
• security concerns,
• misrepresentation,
• non-compliance.

This provision ensures that inadmissibility concerns affecting one person are addressed up front for the whole family.

Approaches

• Address inadmissibility directly (e.g., rehabilitation, TRP),
• Argue non-dependency where applicable,
• Provide individualized evidence showing lack of shared risk,
• Challenge officer findings where unsupported.

How Procedural Fairness Applies to “Other Grounds”

Before issuing an inadmissibility decision, IRCC must send a PFL outlining:

• allegations,
• evidence relied upon,
• opportunity to respond.

Failure to provide adequate detail can justify Federal Court intervention.

Judicial Review and Litigation Tools

Federal Court intervention is often required in these cases, especially for:

• security allegations based on secret evidence,
• unreasonable interpretations of foreign police data,
• financial inadmissibility based on incomplete analysis,
• non-compliance errors involving officer discretion,
• association-based findings that violate legal standards.

Judicial review may result in a remittal and a new assessment.

The Importance of Skilled Legal Counsel

These “other grounds” involve sensitive and high-risk allegations. Skilled legal counsel is essential to:

• analyze confidential or complex evidence,
• prepare robust factual and legal rebuttals,
• challenge misinterpretations of foreign or intelligence information,
• present humanitarian and contextual evidence,
• litigate cases at the Federal Court when necessary.

With expert representation, many applicants can overcome these challenging inadmissibility findings and successfully move forward with their Canadian immigration goals.