Review IRCC waiver rollout
Petitioners ask the government to review IRCC’s March 2025 s.34(1)(f) waiver rollout, ensure equal written waivers, publish eligibility criteria/timeline and expedite s.42.1(1) and s.25.2(1) relief. The government responds that inadmissibility is assessed case by case.
Why we would sign this petition
- Ensures equal application of IRCC’s waiver so eligible people receive the same written relief, addressing the petitioners’ claim of unequal treatment and related hardship.
- Publishing clear eligibility criteria and timelines would increase transparency, helping affected people understand if and when they qualify for relief.
- Expediting ministerial and public‑policy relief would resolve outstanding cases faster, enabling family reunification and stabilizing legal status for those waiting.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- Inadmissibility and relief involve security screening and case‑by‑case assessment; broad mandates could risk undermining necessary safety checks.
- A formal review, public criteria and accelerated relief could be administratively burdensome and divert resources from other immigration processes.
- Ministerial relief is discretionary and some case information is protected by privacy rules; the petition’s demands may conflict with legal or confidentiality limits.
The summary and both sets of reasons are AI-generated from the petition and given equal weight. Claims are the petitioners’ own; consult the official record for the full text.
Official petition
PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Whereas: In March 2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) announced that certain individuals previously found inadmissible under section 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) — due to real or alleged past membership in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) - would have their inadmissibility waived; This decision was based on the recognition that many individuals had been unfairly deemed inadmissible solely because of political affiliation, despite having no involvement in violence, subversion, or terrorism; The announcement represented an important step toward correcting a long-standing injustice, acknowledging that the BNP is a recognized political party in Bangladesh that has engaged in democratic governance and processes; However, despite this policy decision, only some affected individuals have received official IRCC waiver letters, while many others in identical circumstances have not been contacted or granted relief; This unequal and inconsistent implementation has caused serious emotional, social, and financial hardship for those still waiting - people who have lived in Canada for years, followed every rule, contributed to their communities, and maintained faith in Canada's commitment to fairness and justice; Those excluded from the initial round of waiver letters remain trapped in uncertainty - unable to reunite with family members abroad, renew documents, or pursue permanent residency. while watching others move forward under the same policy; The absence of transparency regarding how IRCC determined who received these letters has eroded trust and created an atmosphere of confusion, despair, and perceived discrimination within an already marginalized community; Canada has always stood as a beacon of fairness, equality, and compassion, values that must guide the consistent and equitable application of all immigration policies; Therefore, we, the undersigned residents and citizens of Canada, respectfully call upon the Government of Canada to: Conduct an immediate review of the process by which IRCC determined recipients of the March 2025 inadmissibility waiver letters under IRPA section 34(1)(f); Ensure that all eligible individuals affected by the same inadmissibility grounds receive equal consideration, transparency, and written communication from IRCC; Publish clear and accessible criteria outlining eligibility for the 2025 waiver decision and the timeline for its implementation; Expedite review and ministerial relief under IRPA subsection 42.1(1) for those whose cases remain unresolved; Grant public policy consideration under IRPA section 25.2(1) to all individuals in identical circumstances who have not yet received relief; and Affirm Canada's commitment to procedural fairness by ensuring that no individual or family continues to suffer due to administrative inconsistency, delay, or lack of communication. THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, humbly call upon the Government of Canada to address this matter as one of urgent humanitarian importance, ensuring that relief is applied equitably, transparently, and without delay so that all affected individuals may live, work, and reunite with their loved ones in dignity and peace.
Government response
Response by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Signed by Peter Fragiskatos Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada screens all applications for inadmissibility in order to maintain the security of Canadian society. Immigration officers review all applications on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific facts presented by the applicant. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a foreign national can be found inadmissible for security reasons, including espionage; subversion; terrorism; or membership in an organization for which there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in any of these activities. A foreign national may also be found inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for committing a crime against humanity or war crime outside Canada or being a prescribed senior official in a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, genocide, a war crime, or a crime against humanity. Depending on the circumstances, the officer may request further information from Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada’s Public Safety partners, otherwise known as comprehensive security screening, to inform their determination of the applicant’s admissibility to Canada. Immigration officers will use the results of the comprehensive security screening to support their decision whether or not the applicant is inadmissible, and in turn whether the application should be approved or refused. Decision-makers are required to follow the rules of procedural fairness throughout the decision-making process. In the event that an immigration officer has concerns over the admissibility of an applicant, the individual is informed and given an opportunity to provide a response to concerns about their application. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship may, in examining the circumstances of a foreign national, grant that person an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship exercises this authority at his or her own discretion, not on request by foreign nationals with respect to individual cases. Due to requirements of the Privacy Act, the Department cannot comment on cases involving the exercise of this authority. A foreign national who has been found inadmissible to Canada under section 34 (security) can apply for a declaration of relief—commonly referred to as "Ministerial relief" pursuant to subsection 42.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and related regulations. The Minister of Public Safety may, upon review of the Ministerial relief application and the Canada Border Services Agency’s recommendation, declare that the matters referred to in the above-noted provision of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act do not constitute inadmissibility if the applicant satisfies the Minister that, in their case, relief is not contrary to the national interest. Please note that section s.34 and s.42.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is the policy responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, as per subsection 4(2) of the Act, and your concerns about its functioning have been flagged to his office.