PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS SERIES (4): SECURITY CHECK

A recent news:

It is reported that the Canadian government is prepared to reject the application for permanent residents by three employees of a high-tech company on the grounds of “spy, terror”.
Moreover, another applicant was told that the applicant and his spouse’s application would also be rejected.
The consulate wrote a letter on March 18. An immigration officer informed the applicant that there was reason to believe that the main applicant did not comply with section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This provision stipulates that applicants involved in spying, terror and damage to government are not in compliance. The applicant has worked for the company and his partner is now in the company.
In another letter dated March 21, an immigration officer rejected another applicant for the same reason.

Although I don’t know the specific situation, this letter has at least two errors. First, if an applicant is inadmissible for safety reasons, the spouse will certainly be inadmissible, that is, if any of the three applicants is refused, his spouse will be refused. Then from the content of the report, the visa officer only issued the Procedural Fairness Letter to the applicant, and there are many opportunities for recovery, which is not a refusal.
The embassy sent PFLs to use we have grounds to believe, but did not tell the applicant what the grounds were. This practice is very controversial and is easily overturned in the appeal, but the visa officers are still doing their own thing, probably true. No one likes to appeal.

Let’s see which one of the immigration laws is quoted if it is to be refused:

IRPA 34(1)(a)
Permanent residents or foreigners may not be able to enter Canada for security reasons if they engage in espionage against Canada or against Canadian interests.
A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests.

The visa officer issued the PFL, at least with some evidence, although it was not disclosed to the applicant, but the applicant is generally well-informed. The next step is to see how they respond to the PFL and how the visa officer decides. Finally, if you go to the court, everyone can see the result.

The Canadian immigration system and high-tech companies are well-known. Our previous immigration applicants, whether they are only the main application or the deputy application – as long as they work in high-tech companies, no matter how long or short, will be safe. The survey is short for half a year and long for 1-2 years.
However, the security investigation usually involves putting the applicant’s name in the system and searching. As long as there is no record left, there is usually no problem.

Having said that, the real spy will really apply for immigration to Canada, and is it so easy to find out?