In Serious Criminality Appeal, Ali v. Canada, 2026 FC 1190, the Federal Court dismissed an Afghan permanent resident’s challenge to an Immigration Appeal Division decision upholding his removal order for serious criminality. The decision was issued in Toronto on September 23, 2026.
IAD upheld removal order after criminal conviction
The applicant had been a Canadian permanent resident as a protected person since 2017. On April 26, 2023, he was convicted of luring after seeking the sexual services of a person he believed to be a minor, who was in fact a police officer. He received a sentence of six months less a day of imprisonment and one year of supervised probation.
The offence was punishable by a maximum prison term of 14 years. The Immigration Division found the applicant inadmissible for serious criminality and issued a removal order. On June 19, 2025, the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissed his appeal of that order.
Humanitarian factors did not outweigh the offence
The IAD found that the applicant’s establishment in Canada and his family presence in the country were relatively positive factors. It also found there was some evidence that retaining his permanent resident status would be in the best interests of children.
However, the IAD considered the criminality serious because it involved a minor. While it recognized some potential for rehabilitation, it found that this was tempered by a lack of credible remorse and introspection. It also found that the applicant had not shown very serious hardship from losing permanent resident status.
The IAD concluded that the humanitarian considerations did not justify allowing the appeal or staying the removal order.
Federal Court found IAD's assessment reasonable
The parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review. Justice Roger R. Lafrenière held that the IAD had broad discretion when assessing whether humanitarian considerations justified special relief, while noting that its analysis remained subject to the relevant legal framework.
The Court found that the applicant’s arguments largely challenged the IAD’s weighing of evidence concerning his establishment, support for his parents and the interests of his nieces and nephews. The IAD had accepted and assessed the evidence, but reasonably concluded that it did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence and the absence of remorse.
The Court also rejected the argument that the applicant’s inability to sponsor his spouse supported a stay. It noted that the inability to sponsor resulted from his criminal conviction. The Court further observed that the sponsorship application had been filed in 2021, a year before the marriage, and that the applicant had never lived in Canada with his spouse.
The applicant also argued that the IAD should have considered risks on return to Afghanistan, including risks related to religion. The Court found this argument unfounded because he continued to hold refugee status in Canada, making his removal hypothetical.
Affidavit was inadmissible on judicial review
The Court also found the applicant’s affidavit inadmissible. The affidavit had been translated by his brother, but there was no evidence that the brother was a competent and independent interpreter, as required where an affiant does not understand the official language used in the affidavit.
Justice Lafrenière added that judicial review examines the administrative decision rather than deciding issues anew. Evidence that was not before the original decision-maker generally cannot be submitted on judicial review.
Application dismissed with no certified question
The Court concluded that the IAD decision was transparent, intelligible and justified in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints. It dismissed the application for judicial review.
No serious question of general importance was certified. The Court also ordered that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be named as the proper respondent.
Source: Federal Court Decisions