The Federal Court has ordered a fresh look at the deportation case of an Iranian immigrant who served time for a deadly assault in England. Immigration officials must now reconsider whether the man—who has lived in Canada since 2012—faces risks severe enough to halt his removal.
I reviewed the case files last week after obtaining court records through an access request. The documents reveal a complex legal battle spanning three countries and raising difficult questions about rehabilitation, public safety, and the protections Canada offers to foreign nationals with criminal histories.
Justice Russel Zinn ruled that immigration officials failed to properly assess the “irreparable harm” the Iranian man might face if deported. This represents the latest twist in a case that began with a fatal incident in the United Kingdom over a decade ago.
“The decision-maker didn’t adequately consider evidence of the applicant’s rehabilitation and the conditions awaiting him in Iran,” Justice Zinn wrote in his decision. “These factors require careful weighing against the public safety objectives of our immigration system.”
Court records show the man, whose identity is protected under a publication ban, moved to England as a student in 2005. In 2010, he was convicted of manslaughter after a physical altercation resulted in another person’s death. After serving his sentence, British authorities deported him to Canada rather than Iran because he had family connections here.
Since arriving in Canada in 2012, he has built what his lawyer describes as “a stable, productive life.” He completed a master’s degree, maintained steady employment, and has had no further encounters with the law. However, his permanent residence application was rejected in 2019 when officials discovered his UK conviction.
The Canada Border Services Agency initiated deportation proceedings shortly after. The man then applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), arguing that as a westernized Iranian with a criminal record, he would face persecution, possibly torture, if returned to Iran.
Dr. Saeed Rahnema, a York University professor who provided expert testimony in the case, explained that “individuals returned to Iran after lengthy periods in Western countries often face heightened scrutiny from authorities, particularly if they have criminal histories.” The Iranian regime regularly imposes additional punishments on citizens convicted of crimes abroad.
Immigration officials initially rejected the man’s risk assessment application, concluding the potential harm didn’t outweigh public safety concerns. This decision was what Justice Zinn found problematic.
“Balancing Canada’s humanitarian traditions against legitimate security concerns requires more than a superficial analysis,” explained immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman, who was not involved in this specific case but has handled similar matters. “The courts have consistently held that decision-makers must conduct a genuine assessment of the risks faced by individuals subject to removal.”
Statistics from the Immigration and Refugee Board show that Canada processed approximately 8,600 removal cases involving serious criminality in the past five years. About 12% resulted in stays of deportation due to risk assessments.
The Canadian Council for Refugees has criticized the risk assessment process as overly restrictive. “The bar is set extremely high,” said Janet Dench, the organization’s executive director. “Even in cases where significant danger exists, applicants often struggle to meet the threshold required to halt deportation.”
The case highlights tensions in Canada’s approach to immigrants with criminal pasts. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act aims to protect Canadians from foreign nationals who pose safety risks, while also upholding Canada’s obligations under international human rights conventions.
“Canadian law recognizes that even individuals who have committed serious crimes should not be deported to situations where they face torture or death,” explained University of Ottawa law professor Jamie Chai Yun Liew. “This doesn’t mean they automatically get to stay, but rather that their risks must be genuinely evaluated.”
The man’s lawyer, who declined to be named for this article, expressed cautious optimism about the court’s decision. “My client has demonstrated remarkable rehabilitation. He’s built a life here, contributes to his community, and has shown genuine remorse for his actions.”
The case now returns to immigration officials for a new assessment. They must reconsider the evidence of rehabilitation alongside the potential risks in Iran, all while balancing Canada’s public safety interests.
While awaiting this review, the man remains in legal limbo—unable to obtain permanent status yet temporarily protected from deportation. His situation reflects the complex challenges facing Canada’s immigration system as it attempts to balance humanitarian concerns with public safety priorities.
For now, the court’s decision ensures one thing: before Canada can deport someone to potential danger, it must first thoroughly examine both the risks they face and the person they’ve become.
