Published
Sundeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2018, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.
Updated November 10, 2026: sections 33, 34 and 42.1 of the Act and the Federal Court’s 2025 decisions in Ali and Rajmanoharan checked that day.
The fix: challenge whether the organization fits section 34 and whether you were really a member. After a decision, judicial review; separately, an application to the Minister for relief.
The deadline: the date in the fairness letter. After a decision, 15 days in Canada or 60 days outside (IRPA s.72).
Why a lawyer: “member” has been read very broadly, and the Federal Court is now questioning that. Which argument to make, and when, is a legal decision. Why a lawyer
The lawyers who handle these files
Sundeep S. GrewalBarrister and Solicitor
Prabhpreet Kaur SanghaBarrister and Solicitor
Pardeep S. GrewalBarrister and SolicitorAbout our lawyers
Sundeep S. Grewal founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.
Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.
Pardeep S. Grewal is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.
If IRCC or CBSA says you are inadmissible under section 34(1)(f) because you belonged to a political party, movement or group, the officer is saying two things: that there are reasonable grounds to believe the group engaged in espionage, subversion or terrorism, and that you were a member. Courts have read “member” broadly, so ordinary supporters and former party officials have been caught. In 2025, the Federal Court began requiring decision-makers to consider whether the person is actually a danger to Canada. You can challenge the finding in court, and you can also ask the Minister for relief.
Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, responds to security inadmissibility allegations and takes these decisions to the Federal Court; this guide is by Sundeep S. Grewal.
Leave your details and our team will contact you to arrange a time with a lawyer. Or call (778) 598-3785.
Thank you, we have your request
A member of our team will contact you to arrange a time. If your matter is urgent, call us at (778) 598-3785, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
What does section 34(1)(f) say?
Under section 34(1)(f), a person is inadmissible for “being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage” in espionage, subversion of a government by force, subversion of a democratic government, institution or process, or terrorism. The person does not have to have done any of these acts personally.
Why this needs a lawyer
One lawyer, one file, every step:
- a detailed response on the organization and on your role in it;
- representation at the Immigration Division if there is a hearing;
- judicial review within 15 or 60 days;
- an application to the Minister for relief under section 42.1.
Immigration lawyers are members of a provincial law society (in our case, the Law Society of British Columbia), and only lawyers can appear for you in the Federal Court.
What are my options?
- Challenge the organization: did this group, at the relevant time, really engage in acts listed in section 34?
- Challenge membership: your actual involvement, how long, how committed, and whether you left.
- Judicial review of a refusal or a Division decision, within 15 or 60 days.
- Ministerial relief: under section 42.1, the Minister may declare that section 34 does not make you inadmissible “if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.” Only national security and public safety are considered.
What has the Federal Court said?
Membership read broadly. In Rajmanoharan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1694, a visa officer found an applicant inadmissible for involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Court dismissed her challenge on October 15, 2025, repeating that “the term ‘member’ should be interpreted broadly” and finding her duress argument unsupported.
A danger to Canada must be considered. In Ali v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1682, a former official of Sudan’s ruling party had been found inadmissible as a member of an organization that engaged in subversion. On October 10, 2025, the Court set that decision aside. It held that the broad reading “results in the inadmissibility of persons who pose no danger to the security of Canada”, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2023 decision in Mason, and sent the case back for the Division to consider whether he was a danger.
The lesson I take from these two cases is that the law on membership is moving. A response written today should address both the old broad test and whether you pose any danger to Canada.
Section 34(1)(f) at a glance
| Question | Answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof | Reasonable grounds to believe | IRPA s.33 |
| Must I have done the acts? | No; membership is enough on its own wording | IRPA s.34(1)(f) |
| Is danger to Canada relevant? | It must be considered, per a 2025 decision | Ali, 2025 FC 1682 |
| Ministerial relief | Available, on national interest grounds | IRPA s.42.1 |
| Humanitarian exemption | Not available | IRPA s.25(1) |
| Court deadline | 15 days in Canada; 60 days outside | IRPA s.72(2)(b) |
Worked example: the response
Example. A woman applying for permanent residence through Express Entry is asked about her student years in an opposition party abroad. Her response shows she attended rallies for one year, never held a position, left in 2014, and that the violent acts the officer cites were by a breakaway faction formed later. It also explains that she poses no danger to Canada and attaches her academic and work history since.
Mistakes I have seen
- I have seen people exaggerate their party role in a refugee claim, then find that claim used against them years later.
- I have seen people deny a membership that their own earlier forms disclosed.
- I have seen people apply for ministerial relief without first testing whether the finding was right.
Frequently asked questions
Is being a voter or donor “membership”?
Not on its own. Officers look at the nature of your involvement, how long it lasted and how committed you were.
How long does ministerial relief take?
Usually at least two years. It is pursued alongside, not instead of, a challenge to the finding.
What about mandatory military service in Iran?
That is usually a section 34(1)(f) issue about the IRGC. See our separate guide on IRGC fairness letters.
Related guides
See our guides on an IRGC fairness letter over military service, section 35(1)(a) and past police or military service and what inadmissible to Canada means.
What should I do right now?
Write down the response deadline. Gather everything you have ever said about the organization on earlier forms and claims. List your actual involvement, with dates.
Book a consultation with our immigration lawyers in Surrey, Abbotsford or Vancouver, or online from anywhere.
Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑
Sources (official)
- Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 34 (current to October 19, 2026), s. 33, s. 42.1, s. 25 and s. 72
- Rajmanoharan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1694 (October 15, 2025)
- Ali v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1682 (October 10, 2025)
This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.