Immigration and Refugee Law
Reading Time
11 MINUTE READ
If Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) believes you held a senior position in a government that Canada has designated, you may receive a procedural fairness letter (PFL) warning that you could be found inadmissible under paragraph 35(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Since the Government of Canada designated the Iranian regime for this purpose, many former public servants, military personnel and other officials have received these letters.
This article explains in plain language what the law says, which positions count as “senior”, how the Federal Court has reviewed these decisions, how family members can be affected, and how to prepare a careful response. It describes the law only; it is not political commentary and it is not legal advice.
In this article
A procedural fairness letter is a letter from an IRCC officer that sets out a concern about your application before a final decision is made and invites you to respond, usually within a stated deadline. In a senior official case, the letter typically says the officer has reasonable grounds to believe you are or were a “prescribed senior official” in the service of a designated government, and that you may therefore be inadmissible to Canada.
A PFL is not a refusal. It is your opportunity to correct mistakes, explain your role and provide evidence. Your response often becomes the main part of the record the officer, and later a judge, will look at.
Paragraph 35(1)(b) only applies to officials of a government that the Minister has designated. In November 2022, the Government of Canada designated the Government of Iran for the purposes of paragraph 35(1)(b), initially for the period starting on November 15, 2019, as the Federal Court described in Samani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 886. Federal Court decisions describe a later change, taking effect in September 2024, that moved the start date back to June 23, 2003 (Salehi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1590).
As a result, people who held senior positions in the Iranian government at any time since June 23, 2003 may be asked about that service. Letters are commonly sent to applicants for permanent residence, visitor visas, study and work permits, and to people already in Canada.
Paragraph 35(1)(b) of IRPA makes a permanent resident or foreign national inadmissible for “being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity” within the meaning of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. (The former paragraph 35(1)(c) was repealed in 2023, and sanctions-based inadmissibility is now in a separate section 35.1.)
Section 16 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) defines a prescribed senior official as a person who, by virtue of the position they hold or held, is or was able to exert significant influence on the exercise of government power or is or was able to benefit from their position. It includes:
Section 33 of IRPA sets the standard: the facts must be ones for which there are “reasonable grounds to believe” they have occurred, are occurring or may occur. In Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40, the Supreme Court of Canada said this requires more than mere suspicion but less than proof on a balance of probabilities, based on compelling and credible information. That standard applies to questions of fact, not to the legal meaning of the provision.
Most disputes are about whether a particular position was senior enough. The Federal Court has generally looked at where the position sat in the organization’s hierarchy, based on evidence:
On judicial review, the Court applies the reasonableness standard from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65: a reasonable decision is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis that is justified in relation to the facts and law. Accurate evidence about your actual rank, title, reporting line and duties is therefore central.
The wording of paragraph 35(1)(b) focuses on holding a prescribed senior position in the service of a designated government. It does not expressly list personal participation in the government’s conduct as an element. This is different from paragraph 35(1)(a), which deals with committing certain international crimes and where the test for complicity from Ezokola applies (see our article on complicity and senior official inadmissibility).
The cases we reviewed decided whether the person’s position was senior; they did not squarely decide a separate argument about personal complicity. In practice, the focus of a response is usually on the position itself and the evidence about it. Senior official inadmissibility is also separate from security inadmissibility for membership in an organization under paragraph 34(1)(f), discussed in our article on IRGC membership and procedural fairness letters.
Under section 42(1) of IRPA, a foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an inadmissible family member if their accompanying family member (or, in prescribed circumstances, a non-accompanying family member) is inadmissible, or if they are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person. For temporary residents and temporary resident applicants, section 42(2) limits this to family members inadmissible under sections 34, 35, 35.1 or 37, which includes paragraph 35(1)(b).
This means a spouse or dependent child included in an application can be affected by a senior official finding against the principal applicant. It is not automatic for every relative, and the rules depend on whether the family member is accompanying and on the type of application.
In Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the duty of fairness is flexible and depends on context, but that people affected by a decision must have a meaningful opportunity to present their evidence and have it considered. Baker does not require a letter in every case, but where IRCC relies on concerns you may not know about, fairness generally means you should be told the substance of the concern and be given a real chance to answer.
In Mazloumiaboukheili, the officer sent a PFL with detailed questions and time to respond, and the Court found no breach of fairness. If your letter is vague, relies on documents you have not seen, or gives too little time, you can say so in writing and ask for clarification or an extension before the deadline.
If your application is refused, you may be able to apply to the Federal Court for leave and judicial review under section 72(1) of IRPA. The deadlines are short, so act quickly. The Court does not usually rehear the case; it reviews whether the decision was reasonable and fair.
You may also consider ministerial relief under section 42.1 of IRPA. The Minister may declare that the matters in section 34, paragraph 35(1)(b) and subsection 37(1) do not constitute inadmissibility if satisfied that this is not contrary to the national interest. Relief can be requested by application or granted on the Minister’s own initiative. Learn more on our ministerial relief page.
It is wise to speak with a lawyer as soon as you receive a PFL, especially if your former title could be translated in different ways, your family members are included in the application, you are already in Canada, or you have earlier statements on file. A lawyer can help you organize the evidence about your position and present the legal arguments clearly. You can also read about our inadmissibility defence services.
Lawyers at Pax Law Corporation have Federal Court decisions published on CanLII; you can see examples on our court decisions page. Every case is different and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
It is a letter from an IRCC officer saying you may be inadmissible under IRPA paragraph 35(1)(b) because you are or were a prescribed senior official in the service of a designated government, and inviting you to respond before a decision is made.
IRPR section 16 covers people whose position lets them exert significant influence on government power or benefit from it, including heads of state or government, cabinet members, senior advisors, senior public servants, senior military, intelligence and internal security members, ambassadors and senior diplomats, and members of the judiciary.
In November 2022. The Federal Court has described the designation as initially covering the period from November 15, 2019 (Samani, 2026 FC 886), and a later change taking effect in September 2024 that moved the start date back to June 23, 2003 (Salehi, 2025 FC 1590).
IRPA section 33: reasonable grounds to believe. In Mugesera, 2005 SCC 40, the Supreme Court described it as more than mere suspicion but less than a balance of probabilities, based on compelling and credible information.
The wording of paragraph 35(1)(b) focuses on holding a prescribed senior position in a designated government, not on personal participation. The cases we reviewed focused on whether the position was senior.
It looks for evidence of the actual hierarchy. In Damte, 2023 FC 58, a hierarchy-focused approach was found reasonable; in Al-Rubaye, 2023 FC 1089, a finding based on assumptions was set aside; in Mazloumiaboukheili, 2025 FC 1629, a finding based on the reporting chain was upheld.
Yes, in some cases. Under IRPA section 42, accompanying family members of a person inadmissible under paragraph 35(1)(b) can also be found inadmissible. Protected persons are excluded, and the rules depend on the type of application.
Yes. You can ask in writing for an extension before the deadline and explain why. The officer decides whether to grant it.
Fairness generally requires that you know the substance of the concern and have a meaningful chance to respond (Baker, [1999] 2 SCR 817). Ask in writing for clarification and raise the issue in your response.
Records that show your exact title, grade, dates of service, reporting line and duties, such as appointment letters, employment records and organizational charts, with certified translations.
You may be able to seek leave and judicial review in the Federal Court under IRPA section 72(1), and you may consider ministerial relief under section 42.1. Deadlines are short, so get advice quickly.
Yes. Section 42.1 of IRPA allows the Minister to declare that matters in paragraph 35(1)(b) do not constitute inadmissibility if satisfied it is not contrary to the national interest.
If you have received a procedural fairness letter about senior official status, a lawyer at Pax Law Corporation can review it with you.
For more on Canadian law: subscribe on YouTube · Instagram @paxlawcorp · TikTok @paxlaw
Disclaimer: This article is general legal information only, not legal advice. It reflects the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and the court decisions cited as of the date of publication. Laws change and every case is different, so speak with a lawyer about your own circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
A plain-language guide to making a valid will in British Columbia under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act: formal requirements, electronic wills, section 58, wills variation and intestacy.
A plain-language guide to representation agreements in British Columbia: standard (section 7) and enhanced (section 9) agreements, representatives, monitors, signing rules and what happens without one.
A plain-language guide to procedural fairness letters alleging IRGC membership under IRPA s. 34(1)(f), including former conscripts, the membership case law, and how to prepare a response.
Book a consultation with Pax Law Corporation and we will explain the options for your matter.
Book a consultationCall 604-767-9529This website provides general legal information only, not legal advice. Booking a consultation does not create a lawyer-client relationship until we confirm in writing. Outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
We use cookies to measure visits and improve this website. Choose whether to allow them.
0 Comments