Federal Court Upholds Decision on Inadmissibility Due to Human Rights Violations

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260624 Docket: IMM-8700-25 Citation: 2026 FC 859 Ottawa, Ontario, June 24, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision by the [RESPONDENT] [[NAME]] of the [RESPONDENT[NAME], dated April 3, 2025 [Decision] finding that he is inadmissible to Canada pursuant to paragraph 35(1)(a) of the [RESPONDENT] and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] on grounds of violating human or international rights for committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act , SC 2000, c 24 [CAHWCA]. [ 2 ] For the reasons outlined below, I am not persuaded that [NAME]’s determination and reasons are unreasonable when considered in light of the evidence and the entirety of the record. The application is accordingly dismissed.

II. Background Facts [ 3 ] The Applicant is a citizen of India. [ 4 ] The Applicant voluntarily became a member of the [NAME] in August 2001. During his career with the [NAME], the Applicant had a number of different postings as a member of the [NAME], notably his deployment with the [NAME] [[NAME]] between August 2003 and July 2004 and with the [NAME] between December 2004 and February 2007. [ 5 ] The Applicant was deployed in areas during counterinsurgency operations such as in Jammu and Kashmir. During his postings as a member of the [NAME], he participated in its mission by doing cordon-and-search operations of militants and Operation Rakshak. This involved the deployment of a sizeable number of formations and units in Jammu and Kashmir. [ 6 ] The Applicant retired from the [NAME] in December 2017 for family reasons. He came to Canada and claimed refugee protection on May 27, 2018. [ 7 ] In January 2021, the Applicant confirmed details of his service in the [NAME] during an interview with an agent with the Canada Border Services Agency [[NAME]]. [ 8 ] A report dated March 5, 2021, was prepared pursuant to subsection 44(1) of the IRPA. The report alleged the Applicant was inadmissible to Canada on security grounds, more precisely under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the IRPA , which concerns the violation of human or international rights for committing crimes against humanity and war crimes outside of Canada. The Applicant’s refugee claim was suspended pending the outcome of his admissibility hearing. [ 9 ] The admissibility hearing before [NAME] was heard at sittings on February 14, 2024, on September 10, 2024, and on November 7, 2024.

III. The Decision [ 10 ] [NAME] commenced its analysis by determining if the [NAME] had committed crimes against humanity, outlining the four components of the crimes against humanity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2005 SCC 40 at para 119 [ [RESPONDENT] ]. [ 11 ] [NAME] reviewed the evidence, which showed that the [NAME], including the [NAME], in its fight against separatist movements including in the states of Jammu and Kashmir where the Applicant was deployed during his service, committed acts that are enumerated and proscribed under the CAHWCA. These included torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, enforced disappearances and rape. [NAME] noted that according to the documentary evidence, the [NAME] created the [NAME]. The regiment was the main force for counterinsurgency operations in the Jammu and Kashmir regions in the early 1990’s and was described as the elite of the [NAME]. [ 12 ] [NAME] found, after reviewing the documentary evidence, that there was sufficient evidence showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the [NAME], including the [NAME], committed crimes against humanity in the regions of Jammu and Kashmir. [NAME] also found that [NAME] officials admitted and justified their serious human rights violations on the civilian population on the basis that there were no other means to combat serious terrorist threats. [NAME] concluded that these acts were part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against civilians and militants, real or suspected, with the full knowledge of the [NAME] and the participants. [NAME] also found that the attack was supported by an official policy of the [NAME]. [ 13 ] [NAME] next considered whether the Applicant was complicit in the [NAME]’s crimes, even though there is no evidence that he personally committed any such crime. [ 14 ] [NAME] referred to the six-part test for assessing a person’s complicity in the crimes of an organization to which they belonged, which the Supreme Court of Canada set out in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2013 SCC 40 at para 73 [ [NAME] ]. These are: (1) the size of the organization; (2) the part of the organization with which the applicant was most directly concerned; (3) the applicant’s duties and activities in the organization; (4) their position and rank; (5) the length of time they were in the organization, especially after becoming aware of the organization’s crimes; and, (6) the method of the applicant’s recruitment and opportunity to leave the organization. [ 15 ] [NAME] found that the size and nature of the [NAME] was a factor which did not favour a finding of complicity given that it was an organization with a legitimate purpose, and not one with a limited and brutal purpose. [ 16 ] On the question of the part of the [NAME] with which the Applicant was most directly concerned, [NAME] noted that the Applicant was a member of the [NAME] and was assigned to Baramulla and Kupwara for almost three years. The Applicant was an Infantry Soldier General Duty and reached the rank of [NAME] later in his career. He was deployed to Baramulla with the 46 th [NAME] between August 2003 and July 2004 and with the [NAME] in Kupwara from December 2004 to February 2007. [ 17 ] The Applicant acknowledged that he participated in cordon-and-search operations, vehicle search and crackdowns. The Applicant testified that the objective of these operations is to capture militants and to retrieve weapons. His unit was conducting small operations in villages and houses. He declared that, on average, he participated in one to three cordon-and-search operations a month in Baramulla and Kupwara. The cordoning team was composed of approximately 10 men, and they surrounded the special area while other security forces’ members would conduct searches in villages and houses. The Applicant also stated that in Baramulla he took part on two occasions in actual house searches. [ 18 ] [NAME] found that the Applicant was awarded a Special Service Medal because of his service during Operation Rakshak, a counter-insurgency operation. [NAME] further found that the Applicant’s duties and activities in the [NAME], which comprised of his participation in cordon-and-search operations in Jammu and Kashmir, allowed the military operations to take place even though the Applicant did not personally commit a crime against humanity. [NAME] found that a contribution of such nature constituted a significant contribution towards the crimes or criminal purpose of the [NAME]. This factor favoured a finding that the Applicant was complicit. [ 19 ] [NAME] found that the fact that the Applicant voluntarily joined and remained an [NAME] soldier for 16 years and did not object to his assignment with the [NAME] for almost three years in disturbed regions. In terms of the length of the Applicant’s service in the [NAME], [NAME] determined that the Applicant’s 16-year service in the [NAME] was considered a lengthy career. These factors were found to weigh in favour of finding him complicit. [ 20 ] [NAME] found that the Applicant’s denial of any knowledge of the [NAME]’s commission of crimes against humanity was “hard to believe” given the extensive documentation of the crimes committed by the [NAME], the Applicant’s long career in India’s military, and the fact that he was deployed with the [NAME] in Jammu and Kashmir. [ 21 ] [NAME] ultimately found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant was aware of the crimes against humanity committed by the [NAME] and that he therefore made a knowing contribution to the [NAME]’s crimes.

IV. Analysis [ 22 ] It is important to note from the outset that the Applicant does not dispute that [NAME] performed a comprehensive analysis regarding crimes against humanity committed by the [NAME] and the [NAME]. He does not challenge [NAME]’s findings that the [NAME] committed crimes against humanity during the period from 2001 to 2017, such as rape, disappearances and unlawful killings of young Muslim men suspected of being militants in application of a state policy. Nor does the Applicant take issue with [NAME]’s findings that the crimes were committed throughout the country, indicating their large-scale nature, over several decades and against civilians, that the operations were systematic because they were clearly organized, followed a regular pattern and were based on counterinsurgency state policies and that the same practices were routinely used in different states such as Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and North-Eastern states. The Applicant accepts that these findings were reasonably open to [NAME] on the record before it . [ 23 ] The Applicant’s arguments boil down to two points to challenge the Decision. [ 24 ] First, the Applicant claims that there was no objective evidence to support [NAME]’s finding that he made a significant and knowing contribution to the crimes against humanity committed by the [NAME] during the period from 2003 to 2007. He submits that [NAME]’s finding is highly speculative, unsupported by any direct facts, and extremely circumstantial. [ 25 ] Second, the Applicant claims that while [NAME] stated that “it is hard to believe” the Applicant had no knowledge of the human rights violations committed by his [NAME] unit and by the [NAME], it did not explicitly make any adverse credibility findings or sufficiently explain such findings. [ 26 ] The Applicant argues that once the speculation and unsupported credibility inference is discarded, what remains is mere membership and presence, which is not sufficient to place the Applicant within the ambit of the statutory exclusion clause. [ 27 ] As explained below, there is no merit to the Applicant’s arguments. [ 28 ] The facts giving rise to inadmissibility must be established on the standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” pursuant to section 33 of the IRPA. Reasonable grounds to believe require “something more than mere suspicion, but less than the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the balance of probabilities.” ( [NAME] at para 114) The question in this application is not whether there were in fact reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant was inadmissible. Rather, the question to be determined is whether [NAME]’s conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to so believe was itself reasonable ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]), 2013 FC 623 at para 22; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2019 FC 820 at paras 10–11). [ 29 ] The Applicant submits that it was unfair for [NAME] to insinuate that he ought to have known what was being done by the [NAME] in Jammu and Kashmir as if he had spent the entirety of his 16-year career working in those areas. However, [NAME] did no such thing. [ 30 ] There was objective and compelling evidence demonstrating that during the time the Applicant was posted in Jammu and Kashmir , the [NAME] was committing crimes against humanity against the civilian population in those areas. [ 31 ] The Applicant testified that he had no knowledge of the crimes alleged to have been committed by the [NAME]. However, [NAME] did not find his denial credible. [NAME] noted that the Applicant admitted to participating in cordon-and-search operation in those areas. He conceded that while he was with the [NAME], his colleagues were involved in armed encounters with militants and some of those militants were killed. He also mentioned that soldiers would get medals for killing militants. [ 32 ] [NAME] considered the length of time the Applicant served in the [NAME] as well as his duties in finding that there was reason to believe the Applicant had knowledge of the crimes committed by the [NAME]. [NAME] found that the Applicant intentionally downplayed the real involvement of the [NAME] members. I see no error in these findings. There was objective evidence that showed that crimes against humanity were broadly known to have taken place in the area where the Applicant was stationed. In the circumstances, it was reasonably open to [NAME] to draw an inference that the Applicant had knowledge of crimes he claimed he was not aware of. [ 33 ] The Applicant points out that he denied at the hearing having received any medal or taking part in Operation Rakshak. He submits that no intelligibly articulated reasons are provided by [NAME] for rejecting his testimony that was given under oath. However, [NAME] noted in its reasons that during an interview with the [NAME], the Applicant stated that he participated in Operation Rakshak and was awarded the Special Service Medal. In my view, it was reasonably open to [NAME] when faced with contradictory statements by the Applicant to prefer his earlier, unambiguous and spontaneous version. [ 34 ] Contrary to the Applicant’s contentions, [NAME] did not rely solely on adverse credibility findings to conclude that the Applicant was complicit in the crimes against humanity committed by the [NAME]. This conclusion is based both on a comprehensive analysis of the various non-exhaustive factors set out in [NAME] , the extensive documentary evidence and on implausibilities in the Applicant’s testimony.

V. Conclusion [ 35 ] I find that [NAME]’s conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant made a significant, voluntary and knowing contribution to the criminal purpose of the [NAME] in the areas where he was assigned for an extensive period was well-supported by the record before it. I conclude that [NAME]’s Decision is transparent, justified and intelligible. [ 36 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 37 ] There are no questions of general importance to be certified.

JUDGMENT in IMM-8700-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There are no questions to be certified. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-8700-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: June 10, 2026

REASONS and judgment: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 24, 2026 APPEARANCES : [COUNSEL] [NAME] [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Montréal, [NAME] of Canada Montréal, Quebec For The Respondent