Federal Court dismisses judicial review of inadmissibility decision

Date: 20260507 Docket: IMM-22539-24 Citation: 2026 FC 607 Toronto, Ontario, May 7, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] By decision dated November 18, 2024 [Decision], the Immigration Division [[NAME]] of the [NAME] found [NAME] [Applicant] inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ Act ]. The Applicant was an officer with the [NAME] [[NAME]] of the Ministry of Interior [MOI] in the Kingdom of Bahrain [Bahrain]. [ 2 ] The MOI is the chief law enforcement agency in Bahrain and the [NAME] is the MOI’s elite paramilitary branch. The [NAME] found that between 2011 and 2018, the [NAME] acted as the “tip of the spear” for violently crushing dissent in Bahrain to enforce the government’s ban on nonviolent criticism and peaceful protest. The [NAME] further found that the Applicant was complicit in these crimes. [ 3 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Decision and submits that the Decision is unreasonable in respect of two key findings: that the human rights abuses carried out by the [NAME] were carried out pursuant to State policy and that he made a voluntary and knowing contribution to those crimes. For the detailed reasons that follow, I find that these findings and the Decision as a whole, are justified on the facts and the law that constrained the [NAME].

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

II. Facts A. The Applicant’s asylum claim [ 4 ] The Applicant is a Pakistani national who entered Canada on a visitor visa in May 2022. He submitted a refugee claim in June 2022, claiming that as a Shia Muslim, he is under investigation in Bahrain and is being targeted by [NAME] in Pakistan. [ 5 ] Following an interview with an officer of the IRCC on September 16, 2022, the Applicant was convoked for an interview with Canada Border Services Agency [[NAME]] in Calgary, Alberta. At the interview held on April 21, 2023, the Applicant was questioned about his work with the [NAME] while he was living in Bahrain. B. The Applicant’s employment with the [NAME] [ 6 ] The Applicant says that he responded to an advertisement recruiting for the [NAME] as a way to escape the persecution he faced as a Shia Muslim in Pakistan. [ 7 ] For eleven years, from April 2011 until May 2022, the Applicant worked in Bahrain in the [NAME], first as a “Raqeeb Awal Natoor” and eventually as a “[NAME],” the latter position being Arabic for police sergeant. Both the Minister and the Applicant agreed that the Applicant was a low-ranking member. [ 8 ] Working in police security, the Applicant’s duties included clearing the public in situations involving roadblocks, accidents, demonstrations, religious processions and protests. He acknowledged that he used tear gas in dispersing protestors. He was also responsible for driving people to and from shifts and the scheduling and assignment of work. [ 9 ] The Applicant claims that he first became aware of human rights abuses committed by the [NAME] in 2018 when members of the [NAME] used tear gas on women and children. He complained to his superiors and was transferred to Jau prison where he worked for under a year. He eventually resigned from his employment in May 2022, when his superiors learned that he was a Shia Muslim, and he feared that he could be arrested. C. The section 44 report [ 10 ] On June 26, 2023, the Applicant was issued a section 44 report alleging that he was inadmissible to Canada pursuant to paragraph 35(1)(a) of the Act as there are reasonable grounds to believe that he was a member of the [NAME] for Bahrain from 2011 to 2022. D. The inadmissibility hearing [ 11 ] At the admissibility hearing on December 18, 2023, the section 44 report was orally amended to include an allegation that the MOI and the [NAME] engaged in acts, outside of Canada, that meet the definition of crimes against humanity. It was alleged that the Applicant was complicit in the crimes committed by the MOI and the [NAME], based on his own statements, as well as his employment with the [NAME]. [ 12 ] The Applicant did not challenge the documentary evidence relied upon by the Minister before the [NAME] but relied instead on a document entitled “Code of Conduct for Police Officers” [Code of Conduct] from the Lieutenant-General of the MOI. The Code of Conduct states that the force had “a zero tolerance policy on torture” and instructed officers to use force only when “absolutely necessary” or in self-defence and to commit to “using only such force as is proportional to the danger posed to life or public or private property.” [ 13 ] The [NAME] accepted the Minister’s evidence as credible and trustworthy and accepted the Code of Conduct as genuine. The [NAME] noted that the Code of Conduct is consistent with the Minister’s documentary evidence that refers to a code of conduct for police adopted in 2012 and addresses improving human rights. E. The Decision [ 14 ] The [NAME] released its Decision finding that the Applicant was inadmissible to Canada on the basis that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant was complicit in crimes against humanity committed by the [NAME]. [ 15 ] According to the [NAME], the evidence establishes that from April 21, 2011, up to and including early 2018, Bahrain was a state that criminalized and limited fundamental freedoms including by: prohibiting peaceful assembly; banning, dissolving or restricting organizations and opposition groups and journalists; and by criminalizing criticism of Islam and the government. [ 16 ] From April 21, 2011, to 2020, the [NAME] committed acts of torture. From April 21, 2011, to early 2018, they also engaged in arbitrary detention, excessive force, warrantless home raids, enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings. These acts were knowingly committed as part of a widespread attack against the civilian population. [ 17 ] The [NAME] considered that binding Canadian jurisprudence requires a finding of State or organizational policy as “a necessary ingredient of a widespread or systematic attack” (citing Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v [NAME] , 2021 FC 507 at paras 1, 4). However, the [NAME] held that: An explicit or written policy endorsing human rights abuses or crimes against humanity is not required. It is open to the Immigration Division (the [NAME]) to find that a state “turning a blind eye to such abuses speaks to the widespread and systematic nature of said abuses. [ 18 ] The [NAME] was of the view that despite various attempts by the [NAME] to implement reform to address human rights violations, the “indicia of human rights compliance… are outweighed by the realities of the situation in Bahrain,” which led the [NAME] to conclude that the widespread attacks against members of the civilian population were committed pursuant to a “veiled State policy.” [ 19 ] The [NAME] concluded that the Applicant was complicit in the [NAME]’s crimes against humanity based on its findings that he made a voluntary, knowing and significant contribution to the [NAME]’s crimes (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 SCC 40 [ [NAME] ]). The Applicant not only voluntarily joined the [NAME], but his own evidence shows that he stayed with the [NAME] four years after becoming aware of the [NAME]’s crimes and his conduct assisted in the furtherance of those crimes. The Applicant’s responsibilities included roles tied to events or places where acts of torture occurred and each of the acts he performed were found to be a significant contribution toward the MOI’s criminal purpose. Despite having the opportunity to leave the [NAME] and Bahrain, the Applicant chose not to do so despite travelling to Pakistan for extended stays throughout the course of his employment. [ 20 ] Accordingly, the [NAME] found that the Applicant was excluded from refugee protection, and a deportation order was issued against him.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 21 ] The Applicant has raised the following issues: Was the [NAME]’s finding that the [NAME] committed crimes against humanity pursuant to State policy unreasonable? Was the [NAME]’s finding that the Applicant made a voluntary and knowing contribution to State crimes unreasonable? [ 22 ] The parties agree, as do I, that the applicable standard of review on issues going to the merits of a decision is that of reasonableness as that standard is described in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ]. [ADDRESS] must start by considering the [NAME]’s reasons read in light of the evidentiary record and consider whether the Decision falls within a “range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” that constrained the [NAME] ( [NAME] at para 86). The Decision must not demonstrate a fatal flaw in logic or reasoning ( [NAME] at para 102). [ 23 ] This standard of review is also informed by the standard of proof provided in section 33 of the Act for findings of fact upon which a finding of inadmissibility is based, namely “reasonable grounds to believe.” While considered a lower standard of proof, it is not so permissive as to allow decision makers to rely on ambiguous, suspect or unverifiable information ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 111 at para 44 [ [NAME] ]).

IV. Analysis A. Has the Applicant shown an error related to the [NAME]’s finding of State policy? (1) No error related to objective country condition evidence [ 24 ] The Applicant challenges the reasonableness of the [NAME]’s determination that the [NAME] committed crimes against humanity pursuant to a State or organizational policy. The Applicant submits that the country condition evidence shows that the [NAME] did not turn a “blind-eye” to human rights abuses as the Court found in [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2024 FC 400 [ [NAME] ], nor is there evidence that torture was “institutionalized” as was found to be the case in Y.Z. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1923. [ 25 ] The Applicant suggests that the [NAME] Member’s conclusions regarding a State policy in Bahrain is unreasonable and unsubstantiated. The specific country condition evidence relied upon by the Applicant is highlighted in the following paragraph of the Applicant’s written submissions: [NAME] , the [NAME] accepted proposals from the [NAME], they accepted training from the UK to combat impunity, they set up an Ombudsman’s office. Bahrain did not turn a blind eye, as was the case with NSF in Nigeria. In fact, the country condition evidence suggests that the impunity in Bahrain results from the deficient implementation of safeguards as opposed to a scheme or an ideological policy underlining the attacks. [ 26 ] I cannot agree. Each of the indicia of good faith reform relied upon by the Applicant, was addressed by the [NAME] who found the implementation of reforms to be more than simply inadequate and ineffective, and instead reflected a lack of genuine effort to stop torture and other human rights abuses in Bahrain. [ 27 ] With respect to United Nations proposals, the [NAME] found that the Bahraini government failed to fully or properly implement the recommendations from the Independent Commission of Inquiry and the United Nations Human Rights Council and the MOI continued to commit widespread human rights abuses. The [NAME] found that while Bahrain is a party to several international conventions prohibiting torture, “the ratification of these conventions was not accompanied by genuine adherence to their provisions.” [ 28 ] The [NAME] acknowledged the United Kingdom’s funding and training programs aimed at improving police discipline in Bahrain but noted that British and Bahraini human rights organizations found these programs to have had “no discernable impact” and were instead used by the MOI to obscure the MOI’s “persistent refusal to undertake reform.” [ 29 ] As for the Ombudsman’s Office, the [NAME] noted that while tasked with monitoring the MOI, it was not wholly independent from it and was repeatedly blocked in its investigations by the MOI agencies. The result was that by early 2018, no senior officials were convicted, despite evidence that torture remained commonplace. Moreover, there was evidence that the Ombudsman’s Office was directly involved in abuses themselves. [ 30 ] The [NAME] found that impunity within the [NAME] was not the result of inefficient implementation but resulted from a lack of genuine reform. The Decision points to evidence of intentional indifference and systemic causes, none of which are tied to Sunni police forces. The [NAME] found that the Minister’s documentary evidence, revealed a system in place that encouraged human rights abuses at various stages of arrest and detention by the [NAME]. The [NAME] noted that in 2017, the [NAME] against torture found that the entire accountability system established in Bahrain since 2011, “remained deeply flawed because of its close connection to the MOI.” This impunity was fostered by the close connections between the monarchy, the government, the accountability system, and the MOI. [ 31 ] The [NAME] specifically considered the Code of Conduct upon which the Applicant relied as well as the [NAME]’s 2014 decree to augment the Code of Conduct, but noted that: [A]ccording to Amnesty International, the use of force in situations other than those that qualify as legitimate self-defence remained permissible when it was authorized by a unit commander or a deputy head of a police station or officer of a higher rank, giving wide discretion to relatively low-level officers… Despite the new code of conduct, the MOI continued to perform widespread actions which qualified as human rights abuses. [ 32 ] The Applicant has not pointed to any evidence that he says was misconstrued or ignored in making these findings. While the Applicant is critical of the [NAME]’s heavy reliance on a single report, “Anatomy of a Police State” authored by Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain Report [Report], counsel for the Applicant did not suggest that this Report exhibits any of the fatal flaws identified in [NAME] in that it is either ambiguous, suspect or contains unverifiable information ( [NAME] at para 44). [ 33 ] I find that the Decision reflects a careful and well-supported analysis that more than justifies the [NAME]’s conclusion that the government reform efforts relied on by the Applicant were not made in good faith. This conclusion by the [NAME] was open to it on the evidence and consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2005 SCC 40 [ [NAME] ], in finding a pattern of victimizing behaviour sanctioned and carried out by the government, which is therefore sufficient to demonstrate that crimes against humanity took place pursuant to a plan or policy ( [NAME] at para 160). (2) No error in construing the Applicant’s testimony [ 34 ] The Applicant also alleges that the [NAME]’s finding of State policy was based on a misunderstanding of the Applicant’s testimony. [ 35 ] The Decision states, [NAME] stated that the mistreatment of protestors was not government policy but it was the policy of [NAME] in the police department and an [NAME] policy. [ 36 ] According to the Applicant, his full testimony shows that he was confused by the [NAME] officer’s line of questioning and the [NAME] officer asked questions in numerous ways, until the officer obtained the answer they were looking for. [ 37 ] The full exchange is set out below: Q: Would you say that the mistreatment of civilians in Bahrain is pursuant to either Bahrain the Government or the Ministry of Interior’s policy? A: [NAME] is a Government department and it is government policy. If they are protesting against the government they were taking actions. Q: The mistreatment that occurred to the civilians, was that because of the governments [ sic ] policy. Is it a policy of the government to mistreat civilians? A: Actually, the official language is Arabic and the papers were in English and we were not able to understand them so. Shia population is in the majority and they were demanding their part/their share in the Government. Q: I am going to repeat the questions, because I don’t think we understand the question. Would you say that the mistreatment of civilians is pursuant to the Minister of Interior’s policy? A: When they are protesting against the government. Counsel re-explains question in Punjabi. A: Is [ sic ] was not Government policy no. Q: Is it anyone’s policy to mistreat the civilians? A: Because they were blocking the roads or protesting because of that. Q: Ok, that wasn’t the answer to the question though. Whose policy is it, is there a policy to mistreat the civilians when they are protesting? Counsel: [redacted] A: [NAME] in the police department Q: Is it a policy of the [NAME] to mistreat the civilian protestors? A: yes [ 38 ] The Respondent submits that the excerpt relied upon by the Applicant shows that the Applicant provided answers to two different questions and the [NAME]’s summary of the Applicant’s testimony is fair. The Respondent emphasizes that the Applicant had an interpreter and was represented by counsel. [ 39 ] I agree that the Applicant’s answers to the questions posed are less than clear. However, the confusion was sown by the Applicant himself and was not the result of dogged questioning on the part of the [NAME] officer. Even if the [NAME]’s summary of this testimony could be questioned, it is not a significant flaw which undermines the Decision given that the Applicant’s testimony played a minor role in the [NAME]’s finding on the issue of State policy and no error has been found in the [NAME]’s treatment of the objective country condition evidence upon which the [NAME]’s finding was largely based ( [NAME] at para 100). B. Has the Applicant shown an error in the RPD’s finding of complicity? [ 40 ] The Applicant also challenges the reasonableness of the [NAME]’s determination that the Applicant was complicit in the [NAME]’s crimes. (1) No error in finding the Applicant made a voluntary contribution [ 41 ] First, the Applicant submits that the [NAME] erred in questioning the plausibility of the Applicant’s reasons for not leaving Bahrain when he learned of the human rights abuses. While the Applicant claimed that he did not leave the [NAME] because it was not safe for him to return to Pakistan, the [NAME] noted that he returned there five times for a duration of one to four months. The Applicant submits that he explained to the [NAME] officer that even when he returned to Pakistan as recently as 2021, he was targeted by [NAME]. The Applicant submits that the [NAME]’s reasoning does not constitute “serious reasons” for considering that he made a voluntary contribution to the [NAME]’s criminal purpose (citing [NAME] at para 84). [ 42 ] I do not agree. The reasoning of the [NAME] on this component of the [NAME] analysis is intelligible and justified. Moreover, the [NAME] noted more than just the Applicant’s repeated return to Pakistan for extended stays, noting that he voluntarily joined the [NAME] and his passports establish that he could have left but did not do so for four years after becoming aware of the [NAME]’s human rights abuses in 2018. It was therefore open to the [NAME] to find that the Applicant’s contribution to the [NAME]’s criminal purpose was voluntary ( [NAME] at paras 86-89). (2) No error in finding the Applicant made a knowing contribution [ 43 ] Second, the Applicant submits that the [NAME] took the Applicant’s testimony out of context in order to justify a finding that the Applicant was aware of human rights abuses before 2018 and therefore made a knowing contribution to the [NAME]’s crimes. The Applicant submits that a review of the transcript shows that he used the word “we” when he was describing the duties of officers with the [NAME] and he was speaking generally. [ 44 ] Contrary to the Applicant’s submissions, for the period before 2018, the [NAME] based its finding that the Applicant had knowledge of the [NAME]’s crimes and criminal purpose, not on the Applicant’s testimony, but on his imputed knowledge. Given his eleven-year employment with the [NAME], which entity the [NAME] found to be “the main source of torture” and who “routinely” used excessive force to respond to demonstrations and peaceful gatherings, the [NAME] held: I find that [NAME]’s life in Bahrain took place predominantly within the world of the [NAME] in Bahrain and given that the Minister’s Documentary Evidence establishes that crimes against humanity were pervasive within the [NAME] and the agencies with which it closely worked, I conclude that [NAME] would have had knowledge of the [NAME]’s crime or criminal purpose. [ 45 ] The Applicant also suggests that the [NAME] failed to point to any inconsistencies in his testimony or any evidence to substantiate the finding that he was aware of human rights violations prior to 2018. This argument does not hold up to the record: the Decision highlights the Applicant’s evolving testimony and notes his attempt to downplay his role as reserve staff. [ 46 ] I find that the Decision makes the requisite link between Applicant and the [NAME]’ s criminal conduct ( [NAME] at paras 29, 76-77) based on findings that were clearly open to the [NAME] to make ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2001 FCT 776 at para 7).

V. Conclusion [ 47 ] For the above reasons, the Applicant has not met his burden of showing that the Decision is unreasonable. On the contrary, the Decision is justified, transparent and intelligible and this application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. [ 48 ] There is no question of general importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-22539-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed; and There is no question to be certified. "Allyson Whyte Nowak" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-22539-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD BY WAY OF ZOOM VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 23, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: WHYTE NOWAK J. DATED: MAY 7, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Calgary, Alberta FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Calgary, Alberta FOR THE RESPONDENT