Iranian Conscripts in Canada Face Inadmissibility Over IRGC Service
Hundreds of Iranian former conscripts living in Canada have received procedural fairness letters warning they may be inadmissible due to mandatory service in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). While the UK and Australia have issued guidance distinguishing involuntary conscripts from active members, Canada’s approach has triggered legal challenges and personal hardships for those who self-disclosed their past military service.
Hundreds of Iranians living in Canada received letters on August 6 and August 7 informing them that they may be inadmissible to stay in the country because of mandatory military service completed in Iran. The notices stem from Canada’s designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization in 2024.
The situation highlights a divergence in how different nations handle former conscripts. Unlike the United Kingdom and Australia, which have issued guidance distinguishing involuntary conscripts from active members or regime supporters, Canada’s current approach treats mandatory service similarly to voluntary membership. This has led to significant legal challenges and personal distress for individuals who disclosed their service history during immigration applications.
Mostafa Tasbandi, a 44-year-old resident, lost his job after receiving a letter indicating he might be inadmissible due to his past IRGC conscription. His experience is shared by many others; six Iranians spoke with CBC News about receiving these procedural fairness letters (PFLs) in August. Immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman represents nearly 40 former Iranian conscripts targeted by these letters.
Legal experts argue that recent Federal Court rulings are being used to deem conscripts as “members” of a terrorist group. A key precedent cited by immigration officers is the ruling in Vadiati v. Canada, which upheld the inadmissibility of an Iranian former IRGC conscript by establishing that mandatory service can count as membership. Lawyers contend this interpretation ignores other legal precedents, such as the Supreme Court’s Mason decision.
The impact extends beyond the individuals themselves to their families. Reza Rajaei’s wife and four-year-old daughter received procedural fairness letters because they are part of his permanent residency application. Similarly, Samira Chahargoli received a PFL due to her husband’s compulsory military service in 2002. These cases illustrate how family members, including young children, face potential inadmissibility linked to relatives’ past service.
In contrast, the United Kingdom published guidance in August stating that conscripts are unlikely to be required to commit acts contrary to basic rules of human conduct. Australia’s Parliament published similar guidance in March, advising authorities to distinguish involuntary conscripts from supporting members. As Canadian immigration officers continue to rely on the Vadiati ruling, affected individuals face uncertainty regarding their work permits and residency status.