Sponsoring a parent with Freedom fighter background

[sraboni5]

Hello everyone,

Recently I came across some posts where it has been indicated that if your parent is freedom fighter (has connection with any war) then immigration is usually denied for them and they are to be considered as inadmissible in Canada. Anyone has any experience on this?

Anyone has any idea/ reference where people with such background has been successfully landed as PR here?
In such cases, are they also banned or restricted for visit/ supervisa as well?

 

[Western Mountain Man]

Hello everyone,

Recently I came across some posts where it has been indicated that if your parent is freedom fighter (has connection with any war) then immigration is usually denied for them and they are to be considered as inadmissible in Canada. Anyone has any experience on this?

Anyone has any idea/ reference where people with such background has been successfully landed as PR here?
In such cases, are they also banned or restricted for visit/ supervisa as well?

I'm guessing it depends on the definition of " freedom fighter. " ( A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal ).

 

[canuck78]

Hello everyone,

Recently I came across some posts where it has been indicated that if your parent is freedom fighter (has connection with any war) then immigration is usually denied for them and they are to be considered as inadmissible in Canada. Anyone has any experience on this?

Anyone has any idea/ reference where people with such background has been successfully landed as PR here?
In such cases, are they also banned or restricted for visit/ supervisa as well?

Really depends on the organization involved and their level of involvement in the group. If the group was involved in more destructive behaviour and not only
peaceful protests then there may be an issue. Each case will be evaluated individually. Yes it could impact any form of travel to Canada although more scrutiny is placed on potential PRs.

 

[YVR123]

Regardless, this piece of information needs to be included in the application. Not disclosing it would be considered a misrepresentation.

 

[armoured]

Regardless, this piece of information needs to be included in the application. Not disclosing it would be considered a misrepresentation.

This point is really important.

I have heard often enough - mostly mocking - from acquaintances and online the complaint that Canada asks questions to which no-one would ever answer 'yes' (are you a war criminal / have you been involved in human rights violations / etc). Yes, no-one ever answers "yes" to the question "have you committed acts of genocide?".

But the history in Canada is pretty simple: it has been or proven very hard for Canada to deport or strip citizenship (leading to deportation) of immigrants - going right back to the post-war period and Nazi war criminals. Really, really hard. Standard of proof and all that is very difficult with foreign evidence and the like.

To the extent Canada has had success in extraditing/deporting/stripping citizenship, it's often been because of misrepresentation. They may not be able to prove guilt, but sometimes they can prove the individual lied or omitted key facts.

So yep, they ask the question. It seems weird but has a specific legal history and usage.

Omit such information at your peril.

 

[sraboni5]

Really depends on the organization involved and their level of involvement in the group. If the group was involved in more destructive behaviour and not only
peaceful protests then there may be an issue. Each case will be evaluated individually. Yes it could impact any form of travel to Canada although more scrutiny is placed on potential PRs.

Appreciate your reply. they already have valid visit visa till 2023; they had visit visas earlier in 1990 also and have visited Canada few times. So I was wondering, will that be affected as well?

If they consider them inadmissible as PR, does that mean they will be inadmissible as visitors as well?

 

[sraboni5]

This point is really important.

I have heard often enough - mostly mocking - from acquaintances and online the complaint that Canada asks questions to which no-one would ever answer 'yes' (are you a war criminal / have you been involved in human rights violations / etc). Yes, no-one ever answers "yes" to the question "have you committed acts of genocide?".

But the history in Canada is pretty simple: it has been or proven very hard for Canada to deport or strip citizenship (leading to deportation) of immigrants - going right back to the post-war period and Nazi war criminals. Really, really hard. Standard of proof and all that is very difficult with foreign evidence and the like.

To the extent Canada has had success in extraditing/deporting/stripping citizenship, it's often been because of misrepresentation. They may not be able to prove guilt, but sometimes they can prove the individual lied or omitted key facts.

So yep, they ask the question. It seems weird but has a specific legal history and usage.

Omit such information at your peril.

I will be disclosing the information, but I heard even if you disclose they will deny immigration and they can be banned for lifetime. I am really confused why they will be banned for lifetime without misrepresentation. My worry here is, if after disclosing they deny immigration, that is one point but banning for lifetime seems very hard and unfair. Anyone has idea if they can be banned in spite of being honest and not hiding anything.

 

[canuck78]

Appreciate your reply. they already have valid visit visa till 2023; they had visit visas earlier in 1990 also and have visited Canada few times. So I was wondering, will that be affected as well?

If they consider them inadmissible as PR, does that mean they will be inadmissible as visitors as well?

Impossible to comment because unless they know they took part in what would be considered criminal activity there is a lot of variability when it comes to cases. You must disclose because misrepresentation is also very bad.

 

[sraboni5]

Impossible to comment because unless they know they took part in what would be considered criminal activity there is a lot of variability when it comes to cases. You must disclose because misrepresentation is also very bad.

Yes I will be disclosing. Also I have been thinking due to uncertainty whether I should just drop the idea of PGP and withdraw my application entirely

This is just sad

 

[canuck78]

Yes I will be disclosing. Also I have been thinking due to uncertainty whether I should just drop the idea of PGP and withdraw my application entirely

This is just sad

Would suggest speaking to a lawyer so they can discuss your exact situation.

 

[Buletruck]

I wouldn’t look at it from a completely negative perspective. Being a “freedom fighter” shouldn’t automatically eliminate the possibility for you to sponsor them. There is a critical difference between freedom fighter and a war criminal or criminal activist. Promoting an ideology as a freedom fighter wouldn’t make you inadmissible. Acts of genocide would. So depending on the level of involvement and not surprisingly, responsibilities within that group, you may be stressed about nothing. Canada accepted many thousands of Vietnamese after that war, many who served in the military....and that wasn’t a particularly pleasant action with many atrocities on both sides.
A review of the facts with a competent immigration lawyer would probably go a long way.

 

[sraboni5]

I wouldn’t look at it from a completely negative perspective. Being a “freedom fighter” shouldn’t automatically eliminate the possibility for you to sponsor them. There is a critical difference between freedom fighter and a war criminal or criminal activist. Promoting an ideology as a freedom fighter wouldn’t make you inadmissible. Acts of genocide would. So depending on the level of involvement and not surprisingly, responsibilities within that group, you may be stressed about nothing. Canada accepted many thousands of Vietnamese after that war, many who served in the military....and that wasn’t a particularly pleasant action with many atrocities on both sides.
A review of the facts with a competent immigration lawyer would probably go a long way.

You words gave me some hope, thanks.. but looks like its a long and difficult battle

 

[sraboni5]

Hey everyone, thanks for your responses.

Since I still have some days left, I was thinking if it will be a good idea to withdraw my application entirely and apply only for my mother (as principal applicant) where my father just remains as the non-accompanying spouse. Any ideas?

 

[YVR123]

Hey everyone, thanks for your responses.

Since I still have some days left, I was thinking if it will be a good idea to withdraw my application entirely and apply only for my mother (as principal applicant) where my father just remains as the non-accompanying spouse. Any ideas?

I don't think it matters. For PGP application, both PA and spouse (accompanying or not) need to go through the same medical, security and background check. Just make sure that you include all information and hope for the best.

 

[arkimoon]

I'm guessing it depends on the definition of " freedom fighter. " ( A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal ).

Hello everyone,

Recently I came across some posts where it has been indicated that if your parent is freedom fighter (has connection with any war) then immigration is usually denied for them and they are to be considered as inadmissible in Canada. Anyone has any experience on this?

Anyone has any idea/ reference where people with such background has been successfully landed as PR here?
In such cases, are they also banned or restricted for visit/ supervisa as well?

Canada's immigration has a security inadmissibility section. The section covers the following items.

Section 34

The IRPA states that inadmissibility on security grounds may result where it is determined that a permanent resident or foreign national is: engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests;

a) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

b)engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

c) engaging in terrorism;

d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or

f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c)

This section pretty much implies that if you are even slightly associated with any organization which was involved in any sort of protest (doesn't matter whether it was peaceful or violent protest) that led to the subversion of ANY government, you can be determined inadmissible. The definition of subversion is - "the undermining of the power and authority of an established system or institution.". So, for example if you participated in the protest against a tyrant authority who was responsible for butchering, raping, killing hundreds of people, you will be considered inadmissible because you protested against that authority. You fought against genocide, you will be considered in admissible. You fought for the protection of your people against a brutal military authority, and you will be considered inadmissible. If you did nothing to save your family and protect your country, Canada would accept you with open arms because apparently you are not a "security threat" in that case. I read about a case where a lady was considered inadmissible because she cooked meal for the freedom fighters of her home country. So, apparently your personal contribution does not matter at all. It's a guilt by association approach. These are not my personal opinion. I discussed it with many lawyer friends of mine who deal with such cases and also understand the ridiculous nature of this section.

To be honest, I find it a perfect example of hypocrisy. Our Canadian army is helping many freedom fighters across the world to overthrow tyrant govt. In the media, the govt. is openly expressing support to the people, freedom fighters of such countries. Yet, when you apply for PR with this background, they deny you. Any person with military background (including the US/Canadian military) should automatically fall into this category because they actively "engaged in the subversion by force" of many government across the world. If you are a freedom fighter and also a refugee claimant, you still have a chance of fighting the inadmissibility ground. But that can also take years of litigation.

The law was not like this before. Before the subversion ground was applicable for only democratic govt (section 34.b). That idea resonated with the ideology of Canada. But then, I would never understand why they made an amendment (I think it was done in 2003) to this law and included the subversion of ANY govt. Our govt. just probably want docile/coward people in this country who just know how to run. The moment you fight back even for self-defense you are considered a security threat.