Unrecognizing Refugees: The Inadmissibility Scheme Replacing Article 1F Decisions in Canada

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the interwoven relationship between article 1F (the exclusion provision) of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the inadmissibility scheme based on the grounds of security, violation of human or international rights, serious criminality, or organized criminality (SHSO) in Canada. Incorporating evidence from a literature review, case law, statistics, and interviews conducted with practitioners in Canada, this research demonstrates that Canada deliberately chooses to review the cases of refugee claimants about whom there are serious reasons to consider that they have committed grave crimes under the inadmissibility scheme rather than under article 1F. Accordingly, the article argues that the exclusion provision in Canada, through practice and with an intentional design, has turned into the inadmissibility proceeding. This shift from the exclusion provision to the inadmissibility scheme is problematic since using the broader SHSO grounds instead of article 1F violates Canada’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention.