{"id":2140,"date":"2026-11-11T01:24:33","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T01:24:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/inadmissible-35-1-a-police-military-service\/"},"modified":"2026-11-11T04:06:27","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T04:06:27","slug":"inadmissible-35-1-a-police-military-service","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/inadmissible-35-1-a-police-military-service\/","title":{"rendered":"Found inadmissible under section 35(1)(a) for past police or military service: the complicity test and your options"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a>, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation \u00b7 Reviewed November 10, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

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<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Updated November 10, 2026: sections 25, 33, 35 and 42.1 of the Act and the Federal Court’s decisions in Ahuday and AAB checked that day.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The fix:<\/strong> answer the fairness letter with detailed evidence of what you actually did, where and when. After a refusal or an Immigration Division finding, judicial review in the Federal Court.<\/p>\n

The deadline:<\/strong> the date in the fairness letter. After a decision, 15 days in Canada or 60 days outside (IRPA s.72<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Why a lawyer:<\/strong> there is no ministerial waiver and no humanitarian route for this ground. Winning on the facts is usually the only way through. Why a lawyer<\/a><\/p>\n

Book a consultation<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The lawyers who handle these files<\/p>\n

\"SundeepSundeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PrabhpreetPrabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PardeepPardeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
\nAbout our lawyers<\/summary>\n
\n

Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.<\/p>\n

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/a><\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

Pardeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n

If IRCC or CBSA says you may be inadmissible under section 35(1)(a) because you served in a police force or army that committed crimes against humanity or war crimes, the question is not whether you were a member. It is whether you made a voluntary, significant and knowing contribution to those crimes. Officers only need “reasonable grounds to believe”, a low standard, and there is no ministerial relief or humanitarian exemption for this ground. That makes the first response, with detailed evidence of your actual duties, unit and dates, the most important document in the file.<\/p>\n

Lawgical Law Corporation<\/a>, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, responds to inadmissibility allegations and takes these decisions to the Federal Court; this guide is by Sundeep S. Grewal.<\/p>\n

What does section 35(1)(a) say?<\/h2>\n

Under section 35(1)(a)<\/a>, a person is inadmissible 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”. Those offences include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and they include being an accessory or complicit. Under section 33, the facts can be ones “for which there are reasonable grounds to believe” they occurred.<\/p>\n

Section 35(1)(b) is different: it covers prescribed senior officials of designated governments, whatever they personally did.<\/p>\n

Why this needs a lawyer<\/h2>\n

One lawyer, one file, every step:<\/strong><\/p>\n