Federal Court Upholds Inadmissibility for Former IRGC Conscript: Mandatory Service Alone Is Not a Defense

A recent Federal Court decision, Vadiati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1859 , highlights the strict approach Canada takes toward individuals who have served, even involuntarily, in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The applicant, a protected person who had been granted asylum in 2019, saw his permanent residence application refused after an immigration officer found him inadmissible under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) for being a member of an organization engaged in terrorism.

Although the applicant served as a conscripted soldier, the Court confirmed that this fact alone does not shield an individual from inadmissibility.

Broad Interpretation of “Membership”

The Court reaffirmed what has become settled law: for immigration purposes, “membership” is interpreted very broadly. If a person admits to having been part of an organization, regardless of duration, rank, duties, or voluntariness, this is typically sufficient to establish membership under s. 34(1)(f).

Justice Turley emphasized that the jurisprudence does not require proof of ideological alignment, combat involvement, or personal contribution to wrongdoing. Simply put, conscript status does not negate membership.

Why Duress Did Not Apply

The applicant argued that he served under duress, pointing to the penalties he would have faced for evading service: imprisonment, fines, extended military service, and restrictions on future employment and civil rights. However, both the officer and the Court held that these consequences, while significant, do not meet the extremely high threshold for duress in immigration law.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s framework in R v Ryan, the Court reiterated that duress applies only where the individual faces imminent threats of death or serious bodily harm. The applicant did not demonstrate such danger.

Justice Turley was clear: penalties common to ordinary conscription regimes, even harsh ones, do not constitute duress.

Key Takeaway

This decision confirms that mandatory IRGC conscription is not enough to overcome inadmissibility under s. 34. Applicants must show:

• Extreme, life-threatening duress, not merely harsh penalties; and

• Clear evidence of their role, demonstrating minimal or non-supportive involvement.

Without credible proof of imminent danger, death, or bodily harm, former conscripts will continue to face significant barriers to admissibility.