Security Inadmissibility Under Section 34 of the IRPA: Does the Principle of Non-Refoulement Apply?
Yes. The Federal Court has confirmed that the principle of non-refoulement can be relevant when interpreting security inadmissibility provisions under section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).
The issue was recently considered in Nahayo v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 1173, following important decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Court of Appeal.
What Is the Principle of Non-Refoulement?
Non-refoulement is a fundamental principle of refugee law that restricts the return of refugees to territories where they face specified threats. In Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Supreme Court considered paragraph 34(1)(e) of the IRPA, concerning inadmissibility on security grounds for certain acts of violence.
As summarized by the Federal Court in Nahayo, the Supreme Court described non-refoulement as “the cornerstone of the international refugee protection regime” and a “critical legal constraint on interpretation of the IRPA, one that Parliament has decreed must be considered in construing and applying the IRPA” (Mason at para 117).
Does Non-Refoulement Apply at the Inadmissibility Stage?
This question had generated uncertainty in the jurisprudence.
The Federal Court in Nahayo explained that the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Wahab, 2026 FCA 140 has now provided clarity. The Court stated:
“In light of the reasoning in Wahab FCA, it is now clear that adjudicators are definitively required to use the principle of non-refoulement as a guide at the admissibility stage when interpreting the law.”
In Wahab, the Federal Court of Appeal held that Mason and Weldemariam establish that:
“an interpretation consistent with the principle of non-refoulement is required wherever the inadmissibility at issue effectively sanctions refoulement in a manner contrary to Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention.”
Why Does Nahayo Matter?
Nahayo is significant because it confirms that non-refoulement is not necessarily an issue reserved for the later removal stage. Where an inadmissibility determination would effectively sanction refoulement contrary to Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention, the principle can constrain how the relevant inadmissibility provision is interpreted at the admissibility stage itself.
If you are facing security inadmissibility proceedings under section 34 of the IRPA, or wish to challenge an inadmissibility decision before the Federal Court, contact our office to discuss your case.
