Immigration and Commission de l'immigration

Refugee Board of Canada et du statut de réfugié du Canada

Immigration Division Section de l’immigration

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

ID File No. / No de dossier de la SI: A8-01297
Client ID No. / No ID client: XXXXX XXXXX

Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision

PRIVATE PROCEEDINGS

The Minister of Public Safety and

Emergency Preparedness
Between Le ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection Entre
civile

And et

Person(s) Concerned XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX Intéressé(e)(s)

Date(s) of Hearing 27 February 2009 Date(s) de l’audience

Place of Hearing Vancouver, BC Lieu de l’audience

Date of Decision May 28, 2009 Date de la décision

Panel M. McPhalen Tribunal

Counsel for the Conseil du ministre

R. Yamauchi
Minister

Counsel for the
Person(s) Concerned
Conseil(s) pour
Peter Edelmann, Barrister & Solictor
l’intéressé(e) / les
intéressé(e)(s)
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297

Reasons for Decision

INTRODUCTION

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

[1] Immigration officials (the Minister) have alleged that Mr. XXXXX is a foreign national
who is inadmissible to Canada under paragraphs 34(1)(a) and (d) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA”). Those paragraphs read as follows:

34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security

grounds for
(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic
government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

[2] With respect to the paragraph 34(1)(a) allegation the Minister must establish the
following elements of the allegation:

1. that Mr. XXXXX is a foreign national,

2. that he has engaged in an act of espionage or subversion,

3. that the act of espionage or subversion was against a democratic government,

institution or process as they are understood in Canada.

[3] With respect to the paragraph 34(1)(d) allegation the Minister must establish the
following elements of the allegation:

a. that Mr. XXXXX is a foreign national,

b. that Mr. XXXXX is a danger to the security of Canada.

 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
2

[4] By virtue of section 33 of the IRPA, the standard of proof applicable to each allegation is
reasonable grounds to believe. Reasonable grounds to believe is a relatively low standard, it is
more than mere suspicion, but less than proof on a balance of probabilities. It requires a bona
fide belief in a serious possibility based on credible evidence, Chiau v. Canada, [2001] 2 F.C.

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

297 (C.A.).

BACKGROUND

[5] It is not in dispute that Mr. XXXXX is a foreign national, who has not been authorized to
enter Canada. He attempted to enter Canada at Vancouver International Airport on December 10,
2008; he was interviewed, detained and reported for the alleged inadmissibilities described
above.

[6] Regarding the allegation of espionage against a democratic government, institution or

process, Mr. XXXXX has admitted that he acted as a middleman in an espionage plan. XXXXX
XXXXX wanted to obtain a copy of the NADRA database from Pakistan. NADRA stands for
National Database and Registration Authority. XXXXX XXXXX wanted to know the locations of
illegal weapons factories in Pakistan and he wanted to know the origin of the raw materials for
making those weapons.

[7] Mr. XXXXX agreed to contact a friend of his, XXXXX XXXXX, and Mr. XXXXX tried to
obtain the information that Mr. XXXXX wanted, but he was unable to obtain a copy of the
NADRA database. He did pass on the location of two weapons factories.

[8] With respect to the allegation that Mr. XXXXX is a danger to the security of Canada the
Minister points to the following factors:

- Mr. XXXXX has a friend, XXXXX XXXXX, who is a member of the terrorist
group, the Hizbul Mujahideen (the “HM”),

- Mr. XXXXX paid Mr. XXXXX 40,000 rupees to obtain information, thus putting
money in the hands of an HM member,
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
3

- Mr. XXXXX has been detained and tortured as a suspected terrorist and denied
boarding on an airplane because he comes from a part of India that has many
terrorists,

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

- he has admitted that when he was younger he dreamed of being a terrorist,

- he was used by XXXXX XXXXX to spy on Pakistan,

- he is friends with or associated with terrorists and freedom fighters,

- he has an interest in guns and violence and has had weapons training and

- XXXXX XXXXX, the person whose passport he used to come to Canada, has
been photographed holding an assault rifle and making a gang sign.

[9] Mr. XXXXX says that there are innocent explanations for these events and that he has
provided those explanations in interviews with Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”)
officials. Mr. XXXXX was not called to testify at the hearing.

DETERMINATIVE DECISIONS

Issue 1: Did Mr. XXXXX engage in an act of espionage against a democratic government,
institution or process as they are understood in Canada?

Decision 1: No.

Issue 2: Is Mr. XXXXX a danger to the security of Canada?

Decision 2: No.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Did Mr. XXXXX engage in an act of espionage against a democratic

government, institution or process as they are understood in
Canada?

[10] Mr. XXXXX admits that he was the middleman in a scheme to obtain information about
Pakistan. A mysterious XXXXX XXXXX wanted the information and Mr. XXXXX tried to
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
4

arrange to have his friend, Mr. XXXXX obtain the information. Mr. XXXXX wanted a copy of
the NADRA database, information about the location of illegal weapons factories in Pakistan and
information about the source of the raw materials used to make the illegal weapons.

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

[11] Counsel for Mr. XXXXX submits that the espionage does not meet the requirements of
paragraph 34(1)(a) because it was not against a democratic government, institution or process.
The espionage took place in 2006 and 2007 and counsel says that Pakistan was not a democratic
government at that time. Regarding NADRA he says that there is no evidence that it is a
democratic institution or process, it is just a tool and that tool could be used by either a
democracy or dictatorship. He says that spying on NADRA cannot be considered espionage for
IRPA purposes unless Pakistan was a democracy at the time of the espionage.

[12] I agree with counsel for Mr. XXXXX that the requirements of paragraph 34(1)(a) are not
met, unless the object of the espionage was a democratic government, institution or process at
the time the espionage took place.

[13] With respect to NADRA, counsel for Mr. XXXXX characterizes it as simply a database.
However I find that it is more than just a database; it is an institution, the National Database and
Registration Authority. The Minister provided a copy of the NADRA internet home page at
Exhibit C-2, p. 380. I note that the internet address is www.nadra.gov.pk. It appears to be a
Crown corporation or government department. In any event there is no evidence before me as to
the democratic nature or otherwise of NADRA. NADRA is closely enough linked to the
government of Pakistan that espionage against NADRA is not espionage against a democratic
institution, unless the government of Pakistan was a democracy at the relevant time.

[14] The evidence as to whether Pakistan was a democracy at the relevant time, 2006 and
2007 is not very clear. Putting before me evidence that Pakistan was a democracy in 2008, as the
Minster, did is not helpful, in the light of evidence advanced by counsel for Mr. XXXXX that
Pakistan was not a democracy in 2007. Both counsel could have put before me better evidence as
to whether Pakistan was a democracy in 2006 and 2007; the evidence with respect to 2006 is
particularly meagre.
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
5

[15] The US Department of State Report on Pakistan for the year 2007 found in Exhibit P-1.
p.1 says that on March 9, 2007 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was suspended. On
November 3, 2007, when President Pervez Musharraf believed that the Supreme Court was about
to rule him ineligible for re-election as president he declared a 42 day State of Emergency (the

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

“SOE”), suspended the constitution and replaced the Supreme and High Court justices. This led
to public protests and the government response was to arrest and or detain over 6,000 lawyers,
judges, political party workers and leaders and civil society activists.

[16] Counsel for Mr. XXXXX also introduced into evidence the Operational Guidance Note on
Pakistan issued February 4, 2009 by the UK Border Agency (P-1, p.26). It notes that Chief of
Army Staff General Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999. At that time he
“appointed himself ‘chief executive,’ declared a state of emergency, and suspended parliament,
the provincial assemblies, and the constitution. In June 2001, General Musharraf dismissed
President Rafiq Tarar and assumed the presidency himself. He also dissolved the suspended
National Assembly, the Senate and the provincial assemblies.”

[17] Also included in the document package submitted by counsel for Mr. XXXXX is an
article from CBC News entitled “Pakistan suspended from the Commonwealth.”(P-1, p.38) At a
Commonwealth summit in November of 2007 representatives from nine Commonwealth
countries voted unanimously to suspend Pakistan from the Commonwealth after Musharraf
failed to meet deadlines to resign as army chief, allow a free press, hold elections and restore the
power of his country’s judiciary.

[18] The Minister’s counsel produced only two documents as to whether Pakistan was a
democracy: Pakistan: an excerpt from the CIA World Factbook, accessed 06 January 2009 (C-2,
p.376) and an article “Pakistan leaders mark first year,” Syed Shoaib Hassan, BBC News, 18
February 2009 (C-2, p.379). The CIA World Factbook has little information as to whether
Pakistan was a democracy at the relevant time except for a brief reference to Pakistan’s
constitution. After the heading Constitution, it reads “12 April 1973; suspended 5 July 1977,
restored 30 December 1985; suspended 15 October 1999, restored in stages in 2002; amended 31
December 2003; suspended 3 November 2007 restored on 15 December 2007.” The BBC article
is not helpful to the Minister’s argument in that it demonstrates that Pakistan was not a
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
6

democracy under President Musharraf. The article reads “The 18 February 2008 was expected to
go down as a key date in the history of Pakistan. Political leaders hailed the return of democratic
forces and the end of Pakistan’s absolute ruler, President Musharraf.” This is evidence that prior
to the elections on February 18, 2008 and under President Musharraf’s rule, Pakistan was not a

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

democracy.

[19] After considering all of the evidence on that point, I conclude that Pakistan was not a
democracy as the term is understood in Canada from 1999 when President Musharraf seized
power in a coup until February 18, 2008 when free elections were finally held and he lost power.
The evidence shows that from 1999 to the end of 2007, whenever his hold on power was
threatened, President Musharraf took actions such as declaring a state of emergency, amending
or suspending the constitution or taking power away from the judiciary. This is not how a
democracy operates.

[20] Mr. XXXXX was the middleman in an espionage operation targeting Pakistan and the
NADRA database. The espionage occurred in 2006 and 2007. At that time Pakistan was not a
democracy as the term is understood in Canada and by extension NADRA, being a government
authority, was not a democratic institution.

[21] Mr. XXXXX has not engaged in espionage against a democratic government, institution
or process as they are understood in Canada. Accordingly I am satisfied that Mr. XXXXX is not
inadmissible on security grounds pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(a).

Issue 2: Is Mr. XXXXX a danger to the security of Canada?

[22] In Suresh v. Canada (The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney
General of Canada) 2002 SCC 1, the Supreme Court stated at para. 90:

a person constitutes a “danger to the security of Canada” if he or she poses a

serious threat to the security of Canada, whether direct or indirect, and bearing in
mind the fact that the security of one country is often dependent on the security of
other nations. The threat must be “serious”, in the sense that it must be grounded
on objectively reasonable suspicion based on evidence and in the sense that the
threatened harm must be substantial rather than negligible.
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
7

[23] Suresh in para. 90 also held that “while ‘danger to the security of Canada’ must be given
a fair, large and liberal interpretation, it nevertheless demands proof of a potentially serious
threat.”

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

[24] While I will discuss separately the factors suggested by the Minister as indicia that Mr.
XXXXX constitutes a danger to the security of Canada, I am considering all of the factors
together in arriving at my conclusion. I am doing this because while a number of factors each
viewed in isolation from the others, might not lead to a conclusion that a person is a danger to the
security of Canada, a number of factors viewed together might lead to that conclusion.

[25] Mr. XXXXX admits that he has a friend, XXXXX XXXXX who is a member of the
terrorist group, the HM. His explanation for this is that he grew up in the Kashmir region of
India, an area that is a hot bed for militant movements and that everyone who grew up there
when he did knows people who are members of militant groups. He says that while he knows
militants, he does not share their goals; in fact he disagrees with their aims. I accept this
explanation because in his interviews with enforcement officers Mr. XXXXX did make it clear
that he does not support the goals of violent militants.

[26] Mr. XXXXX admits that he paid Mr. XXXXX 40,000 rupees to obtain information; the
Minister points out that this put money in the hands of a Hizbul Mujahadeen member. Mr.
XXXXX says he did this to obtain information that would be used against groups which advocate
violence. His other reason for paying for information was so that he could pass the information
on and obtain money himself. I am satisfied that Mr. XXXXX paid the money to Mr. XXXXX to
obtain information which Mr. XXXXX could use to make money for himself. The payment was
not an attempt to fund a terrorist group.

[27] Mr. XXXXX admits he has been detained and tortured by Indian authorities as a
suspected terrorist and was denied permission to board an airplane because he comes from a
region of India that has many terrorists. Counsel for Mr. XXXXX says that being arrested on
suspicion of being a terrorist is not evidence that a person is a terrorist. Counsel for Mr. XXXXX
says that the Minister should put before me the information that the Indian officials were acting
upon, when they arrested Mr. XXXXX. Mr. XXXXX says that the Indian authorities suspect
everyone who comes from the Kashmir of being a terrorist (C-1 p. 45). I agree with Mr. XXXXX
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
8

counsel that Mr. XXXXX various arrests at the hands of Indian authorities do not constitute
evidence that he is a terrorist. In fact since the Indian authorities, who are in a position to look
into whether he is a terrorist, have released Mr. XXXXX after each arrest, the fact that they
released him suggests that he is not a terrorist. I am saying this despite taking into account that

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

on one occasion Mr. XXXXX was released after his father paid a bribe to the Indian authorities
because I note that there is no indication bribes were paid to secure his release on the two other
occasions when he was arrested and released.

[28] Mr. XXXXX has admitted that when he was as old as fourteen he dreamed of dying
fighting for the liberation of Kashmir. His explanation as to why this should not be a concern is
that as he grew older he came to believe that religious leaders, who spoke in the mosques, were
simply using young people for their own agenda by sending young people to fight against the
infidels and the Indian occupation. As his perceptions changed, Mr. XXXXX stopped believing in
religion (C-1 p. 43). The majority of the Minister’s case relies upon admissions made by Mr.
XXXXX. The Minister would have me accept Mr. XXXXX evidence as credible when he says
something that is potentially damaging to Mr. XXXXX, but to find incredible Mr. XXXXX
explanations when they assist his case. Absent some additional ingredient, such as that the
explanation will not stand up to a common-sense evaluation or is contradicted by other evidence,
I am not prepared to simply dismiss Mr. XXXXX explanations as incredible. In both his Personal
Information Form (PIF) found at Exhibit C-1, p.32 and the accompanying statement to his
UNHCR Asylum Seeker Certificate (C-1, p.51), Mr. XXXXX admits that when he was young he
had dreams that he would die as a martyr or fighting for the liberation of Kashmir, but in both
documents he goes on to say that as he learned more about religion and religious leaders his
ideas changed. In his PIF at p. 43 he says “I came to realize that the leaders of the militant
organizations were using us for their personal benefit.” In the accompanying statement to the
UNHCR Asylum Seeker Certificate Mr. XXXXX says at p. 54, “Religion seemed to be
everything, but as we grew up we noticed that the people who are stressing religion the most are
the separatist leaders who by using religion as a key to use the blood of innocent and illiterate
people for there (sic) personal benefits.” I accept that this is a plausible explanation for Mr.
XXXXX change of heart. Mr. XXXXX seems to have had romanticized notions of violence that
he grew out of as he gained more life experience.
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
9

[29] Mr. XXXXX admits that when he was less than ten years old he carried a bag containing
some type of weapon across a field and delivering it to militants waiting on the other side. In a
written statement at page 52 of Exhibit C-1, he also admits to borrowing for a week the pistol of
a friend who was a militant because he was curious and wanted to show it to his friends. He was

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

sixteen years old at the time. When he was interviewed about this later he said that the friend
showed him some of his weapons collection (C-1, p. 71(a)). Interviewed about the incident a
second time, he said that the friend hid the pistol at Mr. XXXXX home (C-2, p. 403). The
incident involving carrying a weapon across a field would be relevant, except for the fact that he
was less than ten years old when this happened. It does not tend to suggest that he is a danger to
the security of Canada because he was too young to understand the importance of what he was
doing.

[30] The incident involving the militant’s pistol happened when Mr. XXXXX was older. If at
age sixteen he was hiding a weapon for a militant, this is a serious incident because it suggests
that he is associated with a militant group. However while Mr. XXXXX gave various
explanations to CBSA officers as to why he had the pistol, he was consistent in saying that his
friend was arrested by the Indian authorities. The friend gave Mr. XXXXX name to the
authorities, the authorities arrested Mr. XXXXX and his brother interrogated and tortured them
and tried to get them to admit that they were connected with a terrorist organization. Mr. XXXXX
said that his father had connections with the police and was able to pay a bribe to secure their
release. Mr. XXXXX does not admit that he is or was a member of a terrorist group.
Notwithstanding that Mr. XXXXX was released after the payment of a bribe by his father, he was
in the custody of Indian authorities and interrogated by them. I do not believe that they would
have released him if he was a member of or closely linked to a terrorist organization because
being a member of a terrorist organization is such a serious allegation. I also note that according
to Mr. XXXXX Personal Information Form he was also arrested, taken to a police station and
questioned by police in XXXXX XXXXX of 2004 and again in XXXXX of 2007. If the Indian
authorities had evidence that he was linked to a terrorist organization, it is unlikely that they
would have released him as quickly as they did. When I consider the incident with the pistol
along with his explanations that he does not sympathize with militants and in the context of his
multiple releases from custody by the Indian authorities, I am satisfied that this incident does not
tend to show that he is a danger to the security of Canada.
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
10

[31] XXXXX XXXXX used Mr. XXXXX to spy on Pakistan. The Minister suggests that
XXXXX XXXXX must have used Mr. XXXXX because he perceived that Mr. XXXXX was
involved in activities which would make him useful for espionage. It could be that he had useful
connections. Counsel for Mr. XXXXX does not know quite what to make of this point and says

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

that at best it raises suspicions that Mr. XXXXX has closer connections to these organizations
than he has admitted, but that there is no evidence of this. Mr. XXXXX admits that he knows
militants who travel from the Kashmir in India to Pakistan. He has explained that while he
knows these people from growing up in the Kashmir, he does not share their ideals. I am
satisfied that this explains why he could be useful to XXXXX XXXXX and yet not be a dangerous
person himself.

[32] XXXXX XXXXX was uneasy speaking to enforcement officers from Canada Border
Services Agency. He asked that they speak with an associate of his from the United States who
had worked for the CIA. This unidentified source told CBSA officers that Mr. XXXXX said that
Mr. XXXXX was a bad guy. The unidentified source went on to say “If XXXXX says he’s bad,
he’s bad.” (C-1 p. 372). CBSA officers had a chance to speak with Mr. XXXXX again after their
conversation with the unidentified source. They asked him about Mr. XXXXX and he responded
that there was no adverse information about Mr. XXXXX, but that his associates could be a
different story. There is a conflict between what Mr. XXXXX says about Mr. XXXXX and what
the unidentified source says about him. I prefer Mr. XXXXX evidence as being more trustworthy
because the unidentified source has no personal knowledge of Mr. XXXXX; his information
regarding Mr. XXXXX would have come from Mr. XXXXX.

[33] Mr. XXXXX says he is friends with or associated with people who consider themselves to
be freedom fighters or terrorists. Counsel for Mr. XXXXX says that Mr. XXXXX knows these
people because he grew up in the Kashmir, a region with a lot of militant activity and that
everyone from the Kashmir has acquaintances who are involved in the liberation movement. He
says the important thing is that Mr. XXXXX was never a member of a militant organization, he
had only minimal involvement with such organizations when he was young and he has distanced
himself from these organizations. Mr. XXXXX has given essentially the same explanation in his
PIF, in the statement accompanying the UNHCR Asylum Seeker Certificate and in interviews
with enforcement officers. I accept that this is a reasonable explanation.
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
11

[34] At page 69 of C-1 when Mr. XXXXX was asked his opinion of the Mumbai bomb attack,
he said “It’s stupid, it’s crazy. They should not kill people in the streets, they should do it at the
border.” I was troubled by this statement and I asked Mr. XXXXX counsel for an explanation.
Counsel for Mr. XXXXX points out that when Mr. XXXXX was given a chance to explain this

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

statement at page 341 of C-2 he said “Yeah, fight like border. Army to army. If India and
Pakistan have a conflict, they should clear it at the borders like they did in Kargil war in 2000
something.” Counsel for Mr. XXXXX expands upon this explanation to say that Mr. XXXXX
believes that the targeting of civilians is wrong and that wars, if they take place at all, should take
place at the border. I have read pages 340 and 341 of C-1 carefully and I accept that Mr. XXXXX
means that disputes between countries should be settled by wars between the countries taking
place at the borders, rather than by subjecting civilians to terrorist attacks. This is apparent from
his statement at page 340, “They have political conflict, they should resolve it man to man. Not
killing people in the street. Like morning I go to work, and I don’t know if I always come back
or not. Morning children go to school and evening they come with one leg.”

[35] Mr. XXXXX travelled to Canada under the name XXXXX XXXXX and the Minister’s
representative submitted that the pictures at page 369 and 370 of C-1 of a person holding an
assault rifle, are pictures of Mr. XXXXX obtained from Mr. XXXXX by CBSA when he returned
to Canada. The Minister’s evidence that the pictures are of Mr. XXXXX is hardly ideal. At page
365 of C-1, Phillippe Sincennes, CBSA intelligence officer, describes an interview with Mr.
XXXXX on February 8, 2009 regarding his involvement with Mr. XXXXX. Mr. Sincennes
neglects to mention anything in his statutory declaration of obtaining photographs from Mr.
XXXXX. Even if I were to assume that the photographs are of Mr. XXXXX, what should I
conclude from that information? CBSA has had the opportunity to interview Mr. XXXXX, the
Canadian government has the resources to check into his background and yet, no additional
adverse information regarding Mr. XXXXX has been put before me. Mr. XXXXX is a person who
assisted Mr. XXXXX in coming to Canada by giving him a passport, but there is no indication
that Mr. XXXXX has links to any terrorist organizations. Mr. XXXXX association with Mr.
XXXXX does not suggest that Mr. XXXXX is a danger to the security of Canada.

[36] Mr. XXXXX has admitted that he has had training in the use of weapons. When he was
first asked “Do you have any weapons training?” he replied “Yes, small firearms. I was in the
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
12

army for 6 months. I am trained in XXXXX, XXXXX, that’s it.” (C-1, p.67). I gather that XXXXX
and XXXXX are types of assault rifle. Mr. XXXXX was asked about this training in later
questioning by CBSA Officer Sangalli. It was put to him “You said that you were in the army as
a cadet from XXXXX to XXXXX? What year was this?” He responded “It was XXXXX.” (C-1,

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

p.76). The officer did not ask him any more questions on the subject at that time. At a later
interview Mr. XXXXX was asked more questions about his weapons training. He said that he
took the training through his school, the training was lead by his physical training teacher, he
was taken to another region of Kashmir for two weeks of training which consisted of trekking
and gun shooting. In this interview he denied being trained to use an XXXXX and said that he
was only trained to shoot an XXXXX (C-1, p. 139-143). CBSA contacted his school and was
told that the school did not offer such training. Mr. XXXXX was confronted with this information
and he replied that it happened during the school vacation and that it took place in the XXXXX
region. (C-1, p. 403). Mr. XXXXX was asked if he knew if Mr. XXXXX had attended any sort of
a training camp either in Kashmir or anywhere else. He responded that Mr. XXXXX had attended
a training camp in Kashmir and that it was a boy scout camp for self-growth. The Minister’s
counsel urges that I draw a negative inference from all of this information.

[37] There is evidence that has to be considered along with the Minister’s evidence. Mr.
XXXXX was asked if he had ever received training from the Hizbul Mujahideen; his answer was
“No. I was never linked to any organization. I was 14 years old when I became atheist.” (C-1, p.
65). Mr. XXXXX counsel entered into evidence a Wikipedia article, the National Cadet Corps
(India) as Exhibit P-2. The article explains that India has a National Cadet Corps (the “NCC”)
which recruits cadets from high schools and colleges. The NCC provides basic military training
in small arms and parades. There is a junior division for boys recruited from high schools and
they are under the command of an Associated NCC Officer who is a teacher in their school. The
article says that regular and frequent shooting camps are organized.

[38] The description of the NCC training offered to high school students is much like the
training that he says that he received. The Minister’s evidence is that Mr. XXXXX school has
never offered training in the use of weapons, but it may be that if the school authorities had been
asked specifically whether students from the school ever went to NCC training in the use of guns
that their answer would have been different. However if I do not believe Mr. XXXXX evidence
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
13

that he received training through his school in how to shoot an XXXXX, what conclusion does
that lead to? Presumably Minister’s Counsel would like me to find that Mr. XXXXX must have
received weapons training at a camp for extremists. Establishing that Mr. XXXXX did not
receive weapons training through his school, is not evidence that he received weapons training

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

from an extremist group. Minister’s counsel is inviting me to speculate on this point and it would
be an error to base my decision on speculation. Generally Mr. XXXXX was credible in his
interviews with CBSA. He was not credible when he denied knowing Mr. XXXXX or having
used his passport, but other aspects of his story that CBSA has investigated, such as having
dealing with Mr. XXXXX, have been corroborated. His account of how he was trained to use an
XXXXX is plausible and is supported by Exhibit P-2; accordingly I find that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that he received training through his school in the use of an XXXXX.

[39] The fact that Mr. XXXXX has been trained to use an XXXXX could be a factor tending to
establish that he is a danger to the security of Canada. The ability to use a weapon only tends to
establish that a person is a danger to the security of Canada if it is combined with other factors
such as the inclination to use a weapon for terrorist purposes, associating with extremists and
identifying with their goals or a previous history of violence. None of those factors are present
here. He has admitted knowing Mr. XXXXX, who is a member of a terrorist group. He has
explained that he knows Mr. XXXXX because they were neighbours in Kashmir. There is no
evidence that Mr. XXXXX has participated in any of the terrorist group’s activities; he has
consistently stated that since the age of fourteen he has not supported the goals of terrorist
groups. Mr. XXXXX paid money to Mr. XXXXX simply so that Mr. XXXXX himself could make
money and not out of an intention to fund a terror group. He does not have a past history of
violence.

[40] After considering the evidence I am satisfied that Mr. XXXXX is not inadmissible for
being a danger to the security of Canada pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(d).
 ID File No. /Dossier: A8-01297
14

FAVOURABLE DECISION

2009 CanLII 49233 (I.R.B.)

I hereby authorize Mr. XXXXX to enter Canada for further examination.

APPEAL RIGHTS

Under subsection 63(5) of IRPA, The Minister may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division
against a decision of the Immigration Division at an admissibility hearing.

Michael McPhalen

28 May 2009

IMMIGRATION DIVISION - INADMISSIBILITY - ESPIONAGE - DANGER TO SECURITY OF

CANADA - CREDIBILITY