Can be refused entry even if not convicted of crime

Re Fate of media baron’s citizenship lies in hands of visa officer Nov. 26.

Although your quoting of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is accurate, it does not go far enough. You note that an applicant is ineligible if “ convicted of a crime outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence . . . punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.” In fact, the power of the immigration officer goes much further than this. I know this from my experience in seeking to support a number of refugees seeking entry to Canada through my church. Aperson does not have to have been convicted of a crime; in fact, does not even have to have been charged with a crime. I am here quoting from a refusal letter to a refugee applicant to Canada, “ Section 33 of the act sets out that the facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur.” This means that a person can be, and routinely people are, denied refugee or permanent resident status when an immigration officer believes that such a crime may have been committed.

Although I am appalled by the fact that such a provision exists in Canada’s immigration legislation, that is, that a person can be deemed guilty by an immigration officer without having been charged let alone convicted of a crime in Canada or in another jurisdiction, I do believe that the law should be applied equally to the rich and famous such as Lord Black as it is to many, many poorer and less well- known people who apply to enter Canada as refugees or permanent residents every year. Surely in Black’s case, any immigration officer would have reasonable grounds to believe that these crimes have been committed. Robert Faris, Toronto