IRGC nepieņemamība un obligātā dienesta ievērošana: IRPA 34. panta PFL aizstāvēšana

1. Kopsavilkums un tiesiskais regulējums

Zem Imigrācijas un bēgļu aizsardzības likums (IRPA), security-based inadmissibility represents one of the most severe obstacles for foreign nationals and permanent residents seeking entry or status in Canada. In recent years, individuals who completed mandatory military service (Sarbazi) Irānā un tika nejauši vai piespiedu kārtā norīkoti Islāma revolucionārās gvardes korpusā (IRGC / Sepah-e-Pasdaran Enghelab Islami) have faced widespread allegations of inadmissibility under section 34(1)(c) un 34. panta 1. punkta f) apakšpunkts IRPA.

Izplatīts nepareizs priekšstats pretendentu vidū ir tāds, ka, tā kā militārais dienests Irānā ir obligāts ar likumu, Kanādas Imigrācijas, bēgļu un pilsonības pārvalde (IRCC) automātiski attaisnos dienestu IRGC. Mandatory military service does not automatically eliminate the risk of security inadmissibility.

Where service occurred within the IRGC, IRCC officers frequently assert inadmissibility under s. 34(1)(f) on the basis of “membership” in a listed terrorist entity, irrespective of whether the applicant personally committed or facilitated any acts of violence.

Tomēr Kanādas jurisprudencē ir noteikti divi svarīgi tiesību principi:

1. Compulsory military service alone, without proof of individual participation and specific intent, does not establish personal terrorism under s. 34(1)(c).
2. Patiesi piespiests dienests, kad persona pienākumus veica tikai piespiešanas un pašsaglabāšanās nolūkos, nav uzskatāms par likumīgu “dalību” saskaņā ar 34. panta (1) punkta (f) apakšpunktu.

Defending against a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) alleging IRGC-based inadmissibility requires an evidence-heavy strategy anchored in Canadian administrative and immigration case law. Pax Law Corporation has prepared this comprehensive legal guide to analyze the statutory framework, dissect recent Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal precedents, and detail the precise evidentiary requirements needed to safeguard your Canadian immigration status.

2. Disentangling s. 34(1)(c) (Engaging in Terrorism) and s. 34(1)(f) (Membership)

Lai izveidotu efektīvu aizstāvību pret procesuālā taisnīguma vēstuli (PFL), ir jānošķir IRPA 34.(1) pantā noteiktie likumā noteiktie pamatojumi:

34. panta (1) daļa. Drošības nepieļaujamība:
A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for:

• (C) iesaistīšanās terorismā;
• (f) būt par dalību organizācijā, par kuru ir pamatots iemesls uzskatīt, ka tā iesaistās, ir iesaistījusies vai iesaistīsies darbībās, kas minētas (a), (b), (b.1) vai c) apakšpunktā.

Zem IRPA 33. pants, the threshold of proof applied across Section 34 is “reasonable grounds to believe”. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined “reasonable grounds to believe” as requiring something more than mere suspicion, but less than the civil standard of balance of probabilities. It exists where there is a bona fide belief in a reasonable possibility that the facts exist based on credible evidence.

2.1 34. panta (1) punkta (c) apakšpunkts: Personiskās uzvedības un konkrēta nodoma prasības

Section 34(1)(c) focuses entirely on the applicant’s pašu individuālās darbības. IRCC cannot establish inadmissibility under paragraph (c) simply by alleging that the applicant belonged to or served within an organization.

The legal definition of terrorism in Canadian immigration law stems from the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Suresh pret Kanādu (Pilsonības un imigrācijas ministrs), 2002 SCC 1. Augstākā tiesa 98. punktā definēja terorismu, iekļaujot jebkuru:

“…act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

In Foisal pret Kanādu (Pilsonība un imigrācija), 2021 FC 404, Federālā tiesa precizēja būtiskos vīriešu rea (mental state) required for paragraph (c):

• Specific Intent is Mandatory: Persona vai organizācija saskaņā ar 34. panta 1. punkta c) apakšpunktu “iesaistās terorismā” tikai tad, ja tai ir konkrēts nodoms izraisīt nāvi vai smagus miesas bojājumus (Foisal(14. punktā).
• Negligence and Recklessness Excluded: Subjective elements such as negligence, recklessness, knowledge, or wilful blindness cannot replace or satisfy the statutory requirement of specific intent (Foisal(14. punktā).
• Vardarbība pret nodomu: Military actions or general participation in armed conflict/violence cannot simply be equated with an intent to cause death or serious injury to civilians for a coercive purpose (Foisal(17. punktā).

Key Strategy for PFL Responses: Obligātajam militārajam dienestam — ja nav pierādījumu, ka iesaucamais personīgi plānoja, veica vai palīdzēja darbībās, kas vērstas pret civiliedzīvotājiem — nevar atbilst 34. panta (1) punkta (c) apakšpunktam. Atbildē detalizēti jāapraksta pretendenta faktiskie ikdienas pienākumi un jāapstiprina (ja tas ir faktiski), ka persona nekad nav piedalījusies:

• Attacks on civilian populations or anti-regime protesters;
• Targeting, detention, or interrogation of civilians;
• Acts of torture, summary executions, or extrajudicial killings;
• Terrorist financing, logistics for foreign proxy groups, or weapons transfers;
• Intelligence operations directed at domestic or international non-combatants.

2.2 Section 34(1)(f): Membership & Low Statutory Thresholds

Section 34(1)(f) presents a distinct legal challenge because it is a uz biedru skaitu balstīta teritorijaAtšķirībā no (c) apakšpunkta, (f) apakšpunkts neprasa, lai IRCC pierādītu, ka konkrētais pieteikuma iesniedzējs ir izdarījis, veicinājis vai devis ieguldījumu terora aktos.

Federālā apelācijas tiesa noteica 34. panta (1) punkta (f) apakšpunkta darbības jomu Kanagendren pret Kanādu (Pilsonība un imigrācija), 2015 FCA 86. The Court held that s. 34(1)(f) does nav require a criminal complicity analysis, nor does it require proof that the person was a “true” or active member who significantly contributed to the organization’s wrongful acts (Kanagendren(22. punktā).

Turklāt:

• Mere Membership Suffices: Uncomplicated, non-violent membership can trigger paragraph (f) even where the applicant did not personally participate in or support terrorism (MN pret Kanādu (Sabiedrības drošība un gatavība ārkārtas situācijām), 2019 FC 796, at para 7).
• No Temporal Connection Required: Federālā apelācijas tiesa apstiprināja Najafi pret Kanādu (Sabiedrības drošība un gatavība ārkārtas situācijām), 2014 FCA 262 (at para 101) that paragraph (f) contains no temporal limitation. An applicant is inadmissible if they were a member of an organization that engages, ir saderinājies, vai will engage in terrorism.

Consequently, arguing that an applicant completed their IRGC service pirms Canada officially designated the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Kriminālkodekss is nav, on its own, a complete legal defense under s. 34(1)(f).

3. The Legal Impact of IRGC Entity Listing

Islāma revolucionārās gvardes korpuss ir oficiāli iekļauts teroristu organizāciju sarakstā saskaņā ar ... Noteikumi, ar kuriem izveido subjektu sarakstu saskaņā ar 83.05. pantu Kriminālkodekss (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46). The regulation explicitly references:

“Islāma revolucionārās gvardes korpuss (IRGC) (citu nosaukumu vidū zināms arī kā Pasdaran, Sepah un Sepah-e-Pasdaran Enghelab Islami).”

3.1 Entity Listing vs. Individual Inadmissibility

The listing of the IRGC provides statutory notice that the organization meets the threshold of a terrorist group under Canadian criminal law. In administrative proceedings under the IRPA, this listing satisfies the requirement to prove that the organizēšana engages or has engaged in terrorism.

Tomēr, the listing of an entity does not deem every conscript or assigned individual to be a personal terrorist under s. 34(1)(c) or a voluntary member under s. 34(1)(f). IRCC retains the burden of establishing that the specific foreign national:

1. Bija juridiski šīs sarakstā iekļautās vienības “biednieks” (nevis piespiedu kārtā iesaukts karavīrs, kas rīkojās piespiedu kārtā); un/vai
2. Personīgi iesaistīts diskvalificējošā rīcībā saskaņā ar 34. panta 1. punkta c) apakšpunktu.

3.2 Corporate, Subsidiary, and Affiliated Entity Distinctions

In many instances, Iranian conscripts are assigned to perform service within regular Iranian armed forces (Artesh), civil infrastructure projects, IRGC-controlled commercial companies (such as Khatam al-Anbiya Construction Headquarters), or affiliated state entities.

Where IRCC attempts to assert s. 34(1)(f) inadmissibility based on service within a secondary or affiliated entity, the officer must establish an evidentiary link demonstrating that the sub-entity and the IRGC are legally and operationally identical.

In Seeniyan pret Kanādu (Sabiedrības drošība un gatavība ārkārtas situācijām), 2016 FC 956, the Federal Court issued a clear warning regarding organizational proxies:

“Pirms dalības vienā organizācijā uztveršanas kā aizstājēju dalībai citā, ir jāievēro liela piesardzība.” (Seeniyan, at para 33)

If an applicant completed their service in an entity separate from the core IRGC military structure, the PFL response must challenge IRCC to provide the precise factual and evidentiary foundation justifying why membership in the sub-entity is legally equivalent to membership in the listed terrorist organization.

4. Analyzing Adverse Jurisprudence: Vadiati pret Kanādu

Any credible legal defense against an IRGC-based PFL must confront recent adverse jurisprudence, most notably the decision of the Federal Court in Vadiati pret Kanādu (pilsonība un imigrācija), 2025. gada FC 1859.

4.1 Galvenie secinājumi Vadiati pret Kanādu, 2025 FC 1859

In Vadiatiimigrācijas procesa laikā pieteikuma iesniedzējs atzina, ka viņš ir dienējis obligātā divu gadu iesaukšanas periodā IRGC. Saņemot PFL, viņš apgalvoja, ka viņa dienests bija obligāts un tika veikts juridiski piespiests.

Federālā tiesa noraidīja tiesas pārskatīšanu, atstājot spēkā imigrācijas amatpersonas atzinumu par nepieņemamību, pamatojoties uz diviem galvenajiem konstatējumiem:

1. Admissions of Membership: Tiesa lēma, ka, ja pretendents nepārprotami atzīst, ka ir sarakstā iekļautas organizācijas biedrs, amatpersonai ir tiesības paļauties uz šo atzīšanos, neveicot izsmeļošu sekundāro analīzi:

   “If an individual admits from the outset to being a member of an organization, it is not necessary to carry the analysis any further.” (Vadiati, at para 21)

2. High Threshold for Duress: The applicant argued that refusing service would lead to imprisonment, financial penalties, extension of service, and severe restrictions on civil rights (such as prohibition from obtaining a passport, driver’s license, or formal employment). The Court upheld the officer’s rejection of duress:

   “…pieteikuma iesniedzējs nav pierādījis, ka iespējamās sekas, ko rada nedienēšana IRGC…, atbilst augstajam tūlītēju nāves vai miesas bojājumu draudu slieksnim piespiedu kārtā.” (Vadiati, at para 27)

4.2 Why Conscription Arguments Fail Without Evidentiary Context

Vadiati ilustrē bieži sastopamu neveiksmes punktu pašgatavotās PFL atbildēs: Vienkārši apgalvot, ka “mans militārais dienests bija obligāts”, juridiski nav pietiekami.

To distinguish an applicant’s case from Vadiati, counsel must recognize that Vadiati bija uz faktiem balstīts lēmums Federālās tiesas līmenī, nevis saistošs Federālās apelācijas tiesas lēmums. Svarīgi, ka Vadiati failed because the evidentiary record before the officer did not establish an imminent threat to life or bodily harm, relying instead on administrative and civil inconveniences.

5. Coerced Membership & Duress as a Viable Defense

Neskatoties uz Vadiati, Piespiedu dalība joprojām ir pilnībā dzīvotspējīgs juridiskais aizstāvības līdzeklis Kanādas imigrācijas likumos ja tie ir pareizi formulēti saskaņā ar saistošiem apelācijas precedentiem.

5.1 Saistošā apelācijas iestāde: Gaitāns un Rodrigess Anzola

The foundational jurisprudence on forced association comes from the Federal Court of Appeal in Kanāda (Sabiedrības drošība un gatavība ārkārtas situācijām) pret Gaytanu, 2021 FCA 163. Pievēršoties drošības nepieņemamības apjomam, tiesnesis Mainvils konstatēja, ka Parlaments nekad nav iecerējis sodīt personas, pret kurām pielietots patiess spēks:

“…despite the presence of section 42.1, Parliament did not intend membership to extend to those who were forcibly recruited by a terrorist or a criminal organization and performed acts consistent with the goals of such an organization while under duress.” (Gaitāns, at para 79)

Tiesa iekšā Gaitāns uzsvēra, ka patiesa piespiešana ir jānošķir no parastiem, nepārliecinošiem apgalvojumiem, kuros indivīds brīvprātīgi pievienojās organizācijai, bet vēlāk apgalvo, ka viņa loma bija mazsvarīga, nevardarbīga vai pasīva (Gaitāns(81. punktā).

This principle was reaffirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Rodrigess Anzola pret Kanādu (Pilsonība un imigrācija), 2026 FCA 90. Tiesa apstiprināja, ka Gaitāns doctrine applies across the broader inadmissibility framework:

“…coerced membership could not reasonably have been intended to be captured by sections 34 and 37 [of IRPA] and that duress is a relevant constraint within the inadmissibility framework.” (Rodrigess Anzola, at para 64)

5.2 Practical Application: Zigta un Gafari

Federal Court jurisprudence establishes that officers evaluating Section 34 allegations are legally required to evaluate duress alongside membership claims:

• Zigta pret Kanādu (Pilsonība un imigrācija), 2023 FC 93: Federālā tiesa apstiprināja, ka piespiešanu nevar nodalīt pa daļām vai ignorēt:

  “Lai izlemtu, vai persona patiešām bija grupas locekle vai, drīzāk, to motivēja pašsaglabāšanās, pierādījumi par piespiešanu ir jāņem vērā kopā ar pierādījumiem par piederību.” (Zigta, at para 36)
  "Personu nevar uzskatīt par grupas locekli, ja tās iesaistīšanās tajā ir balstīta uz piespiešanu." (Zigta, at para 37)

• Ghaffari pret Kanādu (Pilsonība un imigrācija), 2013 FC 674: Where an officer issues a finding of inadmissibility without examining the practical, real-world options available to a conscript, the decision is unreasonable. The Court set aside a negative decision because the officer gave “scant or even any real consideration” to whether the applicant had any realistic, safe alternative to performing service (Gafari(21. punktā).

5.3 Comprehensive Evidentiary Checklist for Duress

Lai gūtu panākumus saskaņā ar Gaitāns, Rodrigess Anzola, un Zigta, the applicant’s submission must contain detailed, sworn evidence covering every facet of their conscription experience:

6. Stratēģiskā sistēma atbildes sniegšanai uz procesuālā taisnīguma vēstuli (PFL)

When IRCC issues a PFL alleging inadmissibility under s. 34(1)(c) or (f), the response must be structured using alternative legal positions. Relying on a single sweeping assertion exposes the applicant to immediate refusal if the officer rejects that single premise.

6.1 Step 1: Factual Clarification & Prior Statement Reconciliation

Atbildei jāsākas ar skaidru faktuālu paziņojumu, kurā izklāstīts obligātā dienesta laika grafiks:

“Es veicu obligāto militāro dienestu (Sarbazi) no [datums] līdz [datums] saskaņā ar Irānas tiesību aktu prasībām. Es brīvprātīgi nepieteicos, nepievienojos un nemeklēju dalību IRGC, kā arī nepieņēmu tās ideoloģiju, nemeklēju paaugstinājumu amatā, nepagarināju dienestu un neveicu nekādas darbības, lai veicinātu teroristu mērķus.”

Reconciling Terminology: Iranian applicants frequently used the terms “member” or “served” interchangeably when filling out earlier temporary or permanent resident forms. If prior immigration forms, refugee statements, or interview transcripts state that the applicant was a “member of the IRGC,” the response must explicitly address this distinction.

The response should explain that the word was used in a purely descriptive, non-legal sense to indicate physical presence during mandatory military service, rather than voluntary allegiance or formal organizational membership.

6.2 2. solis: 34. panta (1) punkta (c) apakšpunkta Personiskās iesaistes atspēkošana

The submission must systematically refute any allegation that the applicant personally engaged in terrorism under paragraph (c):

• Provide an exhaustive description of daily duties (e.g., administrative clerk, driver, basic mechanic, cook, guard at a non-sensitive facility);
• Pierādīt, ka pieteikuma iesniedzējs nekad nav veicis kaujas operācijas, izlūkdienestu informācijas vākšanu, aizturēšanas operācijas vai pret civiliedzīvotājiem vērstu policijas darbu;
• Apstiprināt, ka pieteikuma iesniedzējam nebija nepieciešamā konkrētā nodoma izraisīt nāvi vai nodarīt smagus miesas bojājumus jebkāda piespiedu vai politiska mērķa sasniegšanai saskaņā ar Suresh un Foisal.

6.3 Step 3: Establishing Coerced Membership to Defeat s. 34(1)(f)

To defeat the membership ground under paragraph (f), the response must present a complete defense of duress under Gaitāns un Rodrigess Anzola:

• Sīki aprakstiet piespiedu atlases procesu, kurā Irānas Bruņoto spēku Ģenerālštābs (Setad-e Kol-le Qavvat-e Mosallah) randomly routes conscripts to Artesh or IRGC units without applicant input;
• Document the specific penalties for draft evasion or desertion in Iran, citing applicable provisions of the Iranian Military Crimes Law (Qanun-e Mojazat-e Jaraye’m-e Mosallah), tostarp bargu ieslodzījumu, fizisku vardarbību militārā apcietinājuma laikā un nopietnus riskus ģimenes drošībai;
• Demonstrate that the applicant served solely out of self-preservation and lacked any safe, realistic avenue of escape or alternative.

6.4 4. solis: Dokumentu un pierādījumu iesniegšana

A persuasive PFL response must be supported by primary documentary evidence:

1. Sworn Affidavit: Visaptverošs, notariāli apliecināts pretendenta paziņojums, kurā sīki aprakstīts precīzs laika grafiks, atlases process, ikdienas rutīna, saņemtās komandas un psiholoģiskais stāvoklis dienesta laikā.
2. Official Military Records: Conscription cards (Kart-e Payan-e Khedmat), discharge certificates, assignment orders, and transfer requests.
3. Apstiprinoša dokumentācija: Izglītības atlikšanas ieraksti, medicīniskie atbrīvojumi, liecinieku apliecinājumi no citiem karavīriem vai augstākstāvošiem virsniekiem (ja tas ir droši un iespējams), kā arī aizturēšanas ieraksti.
4. Country Conditions & Expert Evidence: Independent country expert reports, UNHCR documentation, and objective human rights reports detailing the mandatory nature of Iranian conscription, the arbitrary allocation of conscripts to the IRGC, and the severe consequences of draft refusal.

7. Procesuālā taisnīguma nodrošināšana: pamatojošo pierādījumu pieprasīšana

Procedūras taisnīguma vēstulei ir jāsniedz pieteikuma iesniedzējam pietiekama informācija, lai izprastu pret viņu vērsto lietu. Drošības nepieņemamības jautājumos IRCC darbinieki bieži izdod neskaidrus PFL, kas parasti attiecas uz “pierādījumu kopumu” vai neizpaužamiem izlūkošanas novērtējumiem.

7.1 The Duty of Disclosure under Tamilselvana un Geng

Procedural fairness in administrative law guarantees that an applicant must receive “the information on which a decision is based” so they can meaningfully respond, correct errors, and submit counter-evidence (Thamilselvan pret Kanādu (Pilsonība un imigrācija), 2022 FC 66, at para 18).

While absolute disclosure of sensitive national security intelligence is restricted under section 87 of the IRPA, IRCC is legally required to disclose the core facts and reasoning driving the assessment:

• Geng pret Kanādu (Pilsonība un imigrācija), 2023 FC 773: The Federal Court held that IRCC must provide the applicant with the “gist” of the security concerns. A PFL that vaguely cites overall background information while withholding the actual reports or analytical summaries that guided the officer’s assessment breaches procedural fairness (Geng, at paras 72-73).
• Thamilselvan pret Kanādu, 2022 FC 66: Where undisclosed internal reports contain the immigration officer’s or security agency’s active analysis of the applicant’s specific role—rather than merely reproducing the applicant’s own statements—withholding those documents prevents a meaningful response and vitiates the decision (Tamilselvana(19. punktā).

7.2 Formal Evidentiary Requests

Atbildot uz PFL, advokātam rakstiskajā iesniegumā oficiāli jāiekļauj pieprasījums par pilnīgu informācijas atklāšanu:

FORMAL DEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE:

1. Pilnīgas visu nerediģēto vai kopsavilkumu kopijas no Kanādas Robeždienesta aģentūras (CBSA), Kanādas Drošības izlūkošanas dienesta (CSIS) un Nacionālās drošības pārbaudes nodaļas (NSSD), uz kurām paļāvās amatpersona;
2. Konkrētie ziņojumi par valsts stāvokli, operatīvās vadlīnijas vai atvērtā pirmkoda dokumentācija, uz kuras pamata pieteikuma iesniedzēja konkrēto militāro vienību saista ar IRGC pamatorganizāciju;
3. The precise factual matrix relied upon to allege voluntary membership under s. 34(1)(f) or individual participation under s. 34(1)(c); and
4. A formal extension of time to supplement the substantive response upon receipt of the requested disclosure.

Making this request on the record protects the applicant’s rights. If IRCC refuses disclosure and subsequently issues a negative decision, the failure to provide the underlying evidence forms a strong basis for Judicial Review before the Federal Court of Canada.

8. Likumā noteiktā tiesiskā aizsardzība un alternatīvie tiesiskās aizsardzības līdzekļi

Understanding what remedies exist—and what remedies are legally barred—is essential for long-term strategic planning.

8.1 Ministru deklarācijas saskaņā ar IRPA 42.1(1) pantu

There is no automatic statutory exception in Section 34 for individuals who served under duress or compulsory conscription. If an applicant is determined to be inadmissible under Section 34, the primary statutory mechanism for relief is a ministru deklarācija zem Section 42.1(1) of the IRPA:

Section 42.1(1) Ministerial Declaration:
“The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare that the matters referred to in section 34 … do not constitute inadmissibility … if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.”

A Section 42.1 application involves an extensive review by Public Safety Canada and the Minister. Because the threshold is based entirely on the “national interest,” a Ministerial Declaration should be pursued as an independent fallback remedy rather than as a substitute for contesting the initial inadmissibility finding in the PFL response.

8.2 Statutory Bar on H&C Relief Under s. 25(1) IRPA

Bieži sastopama kļūda, ko pieļauj nepārstāvēti pretendenti, ir lūgt humānu un līdzjūtības apsvērumu (H&C) saskaņā ar IRPA 25. panta 1. punktu, saskaroties ar drošības nepieņemamību.

Section 25(1) explicitly bars H&C relief for security inadmissibility:

“The Minister must not consider an application for humanitarian and compassionate considerations if the foreign national is inadmissible under section 34, 35 or 37.” (Īpašo tiesību likuma (IRPA) 25. panta (1) punkts)

Consequently, IRCC officers have zero legal authority to waive Section 34 inadmissibility on compassionate grounds, family establishment, or the best interests of a child. All legal arguments in a PFL response must focus strictly on contesting the factual and legal elements of s. 34(1)(c) and s. 34(1)(f).

9. Free Legal Seminar & Special PFL Assistance Offer

Navigating an IRGC-related Procedural Fairness Letter or security inadmissibility finding requires specialized legal representation. Pax Law Corporation invites you to attend our upcoming free public legal seminar to discuss these developments in person with our immigration litigation team.

Semināra informācija

• Tēma: Navigating IRGC Security Inadmissibility, Mandatory Military Conscription, and Responding to Procedural Fairness Letters (s. 34 IRPA)
• Datums: Piektdiena, 14. gada 2026. augusts
• Laiks: 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM PDT
• Atrašanās vieta: Delbrukas kopienas centrs (Arbutus telpa), 851 W Queens Rd, Ziemeļvankūvera, BC V7N 4E3
• uzņemšana: Free (Open to the public)

Special Attendance Discount

If you or a family member have received a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) or are facing security inadmissibility concerns due to mandatory Iranian military service in the IRGC, bring your documentation to the seminar. Pax Law Corporation is offering 10% off legal fees for PFL response services to all attendees with proof of attendance.

For legal inquiries or to schedule a consultation with our immigration litigation team, visit the Pax Law Corporation mājas lapā.