Passport Canada
www.passportcanada.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Adjudication of security cases
Table of contents
- Opening remarks
- Introduction
- Investigation procedure (for cases other than those related to national security)
- Adjudication/ruling
- Objective and Subjective Tests in the exercise of the ministerial Discretion
- Number and types of decisions
- Comparative overview of rulings
- Length of suspension of passport services
- Backgrounders
- Supporting documents
Opening remarks
This section provides an overview of the adjudication of security cases. This information was also set out in the Ombudsman's annual report but it seemed appropriate to separate the information regarding the Ombudsman from that concerning the Adjudicator, as the two functions are quite distinct, even though they report to the same authority.
We hope interested parties will be adequately informed about the processes leading to the consideration of recommendations for revocation, refusal or suspension of passport services. Please note this applies to cases other than those involving national security, for which there is a separate procedure.
Introduction
In compliance with the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Security Bureau forwards recommendations to refuse or revoke a passport to a neutral Adjudicator. Our role as Adjudicator is, in cases other than those related to national security (section 10.1 of the Order), to rule on the applicability of the grounds for revoking or refusing passport services set out in the Canadian Passport Order.
Investigation procedure (for cases other than those related to national security)
The Security, Policy and Entitlement Branch of Passport Canada underwent reorganization in 2005-06. A Security Bureau was created. It remains an investigative body identified in the Privacy Act. This Bureau, which includes the Security Operations Division, gathers facts and determines whether those facts seem consistent with the conditions for refusing or revoking a passport. If this is the case, a letter of proposal which states the allegations is sent to the subject. Subjects are given the opportunity to present a defence and respond to the Bureau's allegations.
The Bureau considers the information received from the subjects or their counsel. After considering this information, it may authorize the issuance of a full validity passport or a passport for a limited period of time and containing certain conditions. Alternatively, if the Security Bureau considers that the information seems to support a conclusion that grounds for refusal or revocation apply, it can recommend that an Adjudicator, acting on behalf of Passport Canada, rule on the matter. The submissions of each party are placed in their entirety in the security and investigation file, which is forwarded to the Adjudicator for final ruling.
Adjudication/ruling
The Adjudicator rules on the matter based on the written submissions of the parties. Acting as a neutral, impartial party, the Adjudicator ensures compliance with the rules of natural justice. It is the Adjudicator's responsibility to ensure that the allegations have been described in sufficient detail to enable the subject to produce a full answer and defence.
In deciding on the merits, the Adjudicator considers the whole file and delivers a ruling in writing supporting, in whole or in part, or rejecting the recommendations of the Security Bureau. Where the recommendations of the Bureau are upheld, the Adjudicator also makes a ruling on the length of suspension of the applicable services. Rulings by the Adjudicator are considered final from the date of receipt by the persons to whom they are sent, that is, the subjects of the investigations or their counsel.
The latter may challenge the ruling by filing an application for judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada within thirty (30) days of receiving the said ruling.
The Adjudicator may on occasion be called on to rule on a request for interim service on compassionate grounds pending completion of the investigation of the issue in the main case and the parties' presentation of their arguments. The Security Bureau may authorize such service without submitting the matter to the Adjudicator, but a refusal to provide such service must be confirmed by the Adjudicator.
Investigation files of the Security Bureau cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman. Once an active security file is confirmed, the Ombudsman refuses jurisdiction in order to preserve its impartiality as Adjudicator.
Objective and Subjective Tests in the exercise of the ministerial Discretion
The Adjudicator systematically applies an objective test (i.e., determining whether there is objective presence of grounds for refusal or revocation as established in the Order). Objectively, when criminal charges are layed, a guilty plea entered or a guilty verdict reached, there are grounds for revocation or refusal. But since this is a ministerial discretion, a subjective test must also be applied in such cases. Based on the experience of adjudicators' rulings, we have established that not all criminal offences necessarily have to translate into suspension of passport services.
Next, for indictment cases (as opposed to cases where a criminal conviction was obtained), certain criteria have to be established to prevent the Adjudicator, and by extension the Agency since the Adjudicator rules on its behalf, from replacing the Crown, which has the burden of determining the risk of the accused fleeing the jurisdiction of the court. In the absence of restrictions on mobility, we consider it unreasonable for Passport Canada to be petitioned by third parties such as law enforcement agencies to create a de facto restrictive condition that the Crown could seek from the courts. The Crown in fact has every freedom, at the stage of indictment and setting of preliminary conditions of release, to seek restrictions on mobility.
However, in cases where charges were laid for serious crimes, if ministerial discretion were specified in the operational guidelines or rules of procedure, the situation would be clearer for everyone. Finally, when charges call into question facts which directly underlie the use of a passport in the commission of the offence, the Agency has full authority to conduct its administrative investigation, which is distinct from the criminal process, and to invoke the facts in support of a recommendation for revocation/refusal and suspension of passport services. At that point, the Agency is no longer basing itself simply on the laying of criminal charges, but is satisfied that specific acts were committed by the subject, acts which objectively constitute grounds for revocation/refusal and suspension of the passport.
Number and types of decisions
| Adjudication Rulings by Year | |
|---|---|
| 2007-08 | 67 |
| 2006-07 | 40 |
| 2005-06 | 10 |
| 2004-05 | 8 |
| 2003-04 | 17 |
| 2002-03 | 34 |
| 2001-02 | 22 |
| 2000-01 and prior | 81 |
In keeping with the process described above, the Adjudicator renders three types of decisions:
- Adjudication decision letters
- on recommendations for revocation or refusal of passport services, with recommendations for suspension of passport services for a certain period of time.
- Interim decisions
- based on the Rule of Procedure under which the Adjudicator may, before rendering a decision, ask the Security Bureau or the party for any additional information or documentation he/she deems necessary in rendering the decision;
- upon petition for limited validity passport services on compassionate grounds rejected by the Security Bureau
- during the Bureau’s investigation and before an adjudication decision letter is issued, or
- when the exceptional circumstance for compassionate grounds arises after an adjudication decision letter is issued.
- Appeal decisions on the simplified process of revocation / refusal of service
- certain types of revocation / refusal of service may be imposed by Passport Canada without adjudication. For example, individuals on parole subject to mobility restrictions would clearly be ineligible for passport services. In cases where an administrative decision is challenged, the Bureau or the subject may ask the Adjudicator to review it.
The following chart outlines the two previous fiscal years, the most significant in terms of the number and types of decisions.
| 2006-07 | 2007-08 | |
|---|---|---|
| Adjudication decision letters | 38 note 1 | 61 note 3 |
| Interim decisions | 1 note 2 | 6 note 4 |
| Appeal decisions | 1 | 0 |
| Note 1: | 37 decisions allowed the recommendations in whole or in part; 1 decision disallowed them. |
| Note 2: | the decision called upon the Agency to notify the subject of criminal charges laid against him/her; the proposal letter simply advised the subject that the Agency had been informed that charges had been laid against him/her. Under sections19 and 28(6) of the Rules of Procedure, the disclosure of more substantial information was required from the Agency. |
| Note 3: | 59 decisions allowed the recommendations in whole or in part; 2 decisions disallowed them, since the evidence was not preponderant in terms of the subject’s involvement in the alleged acts. |
| Note 4: | one petition out of three for limited validity passport services on compassionate grounds was allowed by the Adjudicator; refusal by the Security Bureau in the two other cases was upheld. Three interim decisions were rendered requiring the parties to exchange more substantial information to respond to the allegations. |
Adjudication decision letters allowing in whole or in part recommendations to suspend passport services determine the duration of this suspension which takes into account both the mitigating and the aggravating factors of each case.
Comparative overview of rulings
The following table continues to be updated annually. It shows certain patterns in the type of infraction that is the subject of recommendations for revocation or suspension of passport services. We have grouped the infractions under seven different headings. We shall report for each of these groups cases of public or jurisprudential interest.
- Assistance to impersonators consists in giving support to persons holding travel documents which generally belong to members of the immediate family. The person acts as a smuggler or escort to a third person who often uses the unaltered document of the person related to the smuggler.
- Escorting foreigners is a variation on the previous type, in which the third person being accompanied is carrying a fraudulent document, usually altered, that has no connection to the smuggler.
- Lending documents is sometimes done for payment, and sometimes purely as a favour, to allow a third person to enter the country either by altering the document by substituting his/her own photograph or by impersonating the legitimate holder (the lender) at the point of entry.
- Altering documents occurs decreasingly, particularly since the introduction of the new design of the passport booklet and the requirement of individual passports for minor children. Before 2004, the names of minor children could be inserted on a remarks label affixed to the visa pages of the parents' passports. Faced with the prospect of fraudulent insertion of remarks labels becoming widespread, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) introduced the "one passport, one person" standard. In conforming to this standard, Canada mitigated the financial impact on families by establishing a schedule with reduced fees for passports of minor children.
- False statements can take various forms. Mostly, these are statements of document
loss, theft or damage that the truth is disputed by the Security Bureau. Other types of false statements: forging signatures of spouses or guarantors on the passport application form, submitting false documentary evidence of citizenship.
Convictions under section 57 of the Criminal Code are grounds for passport refusal and revocation under sections 9(e) and 10(1) of the Order. This type of violation is reflected in the breakdown by generic groups in this section. Thus, the vast majority of convictions under section 57 involve “false statements”. Adjudication of cases involving convictions for the use or production of forgeries would be reflected in our “altering documents/forgery” statistics.
[ref. 11269 December 11, 2007] Minor child passport application - Parent checking "No" to question on existence of separation agreements, court orders or legal proceedings pertaining to custody, mobility or access to child - Court judgment in these matters provided by other parent post-passport issuance - Minor passport revocation recommendation based on 10(2)(d) maintained - Parent passport revocation under 10(1) CPO and withholding of passport services recommendations maintained in part - Court permission for parent to travel obtained after the compromising fact not nullifying presence of objective ground to revoke parent passport - However, this element is factored in determining appropriate period of withheld in the subjective test to apply - Adjudication mindful of not fuelling a difficult family situation and break-up.
Negative answer by applying parent on the passport application form question cited above. Court judgment clearly stated that if the subject were to apply for a passport for the children, the authorization of the other parent is required. The other parent did not signed the application for the child. The subject tabled a detailed rebuttal explaining that as the child was born after the divorce, and because the other parent was no longer part of their life or birth, the child was given the subject’s own name and the other parent’s name on the birth certificate is undeclared.
It is recognized that the subject has sought the Court’s permission to apply for a passport for E... but this was after having filed a Canadian passport application in the child’s name, and obtained the document. This is a post facto element to the submission of the child’s application. The document issued in the child’s name is revoked under 10(2)(d) CPO. The subject’s passport is revoked under 10(1) and 9(a)(i) CPO.
As to the period of withheld of passport services, the decision notes the objectives of deterrence and sensitizing to the gravity of the omission are mostly served with the finding on the revocation of the subject’s passport. The decision notes that the other parent’s request to a Court that the subject be forbidden to leave the province was rejected, as the tribunal retained the subject’s clear intent to not live outside its boundaries. As the family court was trying to prevent a quarrelsome climate for the benefit of the children, the decision held that a significant period of withheld may fuel a difficult break up. Hence, a more lenient period of 18 months was applied. A more detailed case summary of this decision is available in the annex.
[ref. 10930 March 26, 2007] Identity theft - Revocation under section 10(d) of the Canadian Passport Order, maintained - Recommendation for a five-year suspension of passport services, based on section 9 of the Order, upheld - Mitigating factor: admission - Aggravating factor: serious inconvenience resulting from the subject’s action for the victim of the identity theft.
The proposal letter disclosing all of the relevant facts to the subject was quite conclusive. Realizing his true identity was known to the authorities, the subject made a confession in a subsequent document, saying that he would have "[translation] liked to have informed you of my true identity myself; the stress from the events had upset my thinking and my decision-making shortly after my arrest. I am sorry to have caused you this inconvenience."
Since the salient fact was admitted, that is, identity theft, there is the objective presence of grounds for supporting the recommendation for revoking the passport, which is provided for in 10(d). Given this finding, the adjudicator did not rule on the admissibility of the grounds under section 10(b) of the Order.
The recommendation of a five-year suspension of passport services effective on the date of arrest abroad remains to be considered. Obtaining a passport using fraudulent documents is an act that carries serious consequences. Passport Canada ensures that the security, integrity and value of the travel documents issued to citizens is maintained. Canadians expect nothing less from the government.
To balance this element like other elements in this context, by which Canada has committed to penalizing passport-related abuses and fraud, it is important to note the subject’s post facto cooperation, confirming his true identity to the authorities, though only after he was informed that his identity had been discovered. Moreover, the Canadian citizen identity usurpation created serious inconveniences for that person as a result of his various actions and transactions under that identity, as well as possible future inconveniences with various parties.
In view of these facts, no reduction to the period of the recommended suspension was applied. Therefore, the recommendation for suspension of passport services for the full five-year period has been maintained.
- The "boarding pass" category, as its name suggests, refers to individuals exchanging
boarding passes.
[ref. 9860 - March 15, 2007] Escort to illegal migrants - Burden of proof - Evidence requirements - Passport revocation under 10(2)(b) Canadian Passport Order (CPO) - Finding of guilt in criminal fora not necessary to enact CPO section - Circumstantial elements of interest to determine the length of the period of withheld of passport services.
The Security Bureau presented a case wherein the subject was ostensibly involved in 11 incidents as an escort to individuals in custody of fraudulent travel documents. The subject maintains he must be deemed innocent unless proven guilty with due process. This argument is not retained as Passport Canada administers the CPO, not the Criminal Code. Furthermore, he puts forward that foreign immigration authorities were satisfied as to his innocence because they released him and did not press charges. The record shows he was denied entry and deported back to his starting point in four incidents. Foreign border authorities have made an administrative ruling as opposed to instituting criminal proceedings.
After having carefully examined the evidence in the 11 incidents alleged against the subject, seven of them were found to be adequately demonstrated, as per the applicable burden of proof which provides that the evidence is assessed on a balance of probabilities basis. The arguments tabled as mitigating elements to determine the length of the period of withheld of passport services are not retained. A more detailed case summary of this decision is available in the annex.
[ref. 10831 April 30, 2007] Boarding pass swaps - Passport revocation under 10(b) CPO - Of credibility of denials - Evolving story as investigation unfolded and following receipt of a formal proposal letter recommending the revocation and withholding of passport services for 5 years - Recommendations maintained.
Subject developed rebuttals as factual elements disclosed during the investigation of the Security Bureau. Vague explanations aimed at portraying the elements linking the subject to third parties fraudulently using her identity and travel document number, as the result of burglars focussing on airline tickets, are assessed against the material and circumstantial evidence produced which were deemed more credible. A more detailed case summary of this decision is available in the annex.
[ref. 11051 July 18, 2007] Boarding pass swap - Passport revocation under 10(2)(b) CPO - Letters from the Security Bureau not answered - Passport not returned during investigation - Formal proposal letter recommending passport revocation and withholding of passport services for 5-years not rebutted - Decision maintaining recommendations - Mitigating element (cooperation with authorities) - Conditional alternate periods of withholding of passport services applied.
The subject’s admission when he was intercepted warrants a reduction of 12 months to the recommended period of withheld. However, he omitted to surrender his passport during the investigation. Conditional alternate periods of withholding of passport services are applied, that are linked to the surrender, in a specified delay, of the revoked passport which shall not have been used or altered during the investigation. A more detailed case summary of this decision is available in the annex.
- Others, to take into account other reasons that can be invoked for revoking or suspending
passport services, as described in the Canadian Passport Order. For example: criminal charges laid against the subject, court-imposed mobility restrictions, possession of false travel documents, etc.
[ref. 10980, October 20, 2006] Recommendation for revocation based on the fact that the applicant is charged in Canada with a criminal offence - sections 10(1) and 9(b) of the Order - subjective test in exercising ministerial discretion - relative seriousness of the offense - special circumstances with regard to a case pending trial.
Subject was charged with fraud over $5,000 and use of a counterfeit document (forged cheque). When criminal charges were laid, no restriction on the subject's mobility was sought by the Crown. The accused was released on a promise to appear. Considering the facts that the nature of the fraud was in no way related to the possession of a passport, that the passport was in the possession of the Security Bureau and so could not facilitate the subject's flight outside the jurisdiction of the court, and that the arrest warrant issued against the subject for failure to appear was geographically restricted, attesting to the Crown's assessment of the offence as "relatively serious," the recommendation of revocation of the passport was not upheld.
[ref. 10949 September 28, 2007] Passport refusal under 9(c) CPO stating that Passport Canada may refuse to issue to an applicant who stands charged outside of Canada with the commission of any offence that would, if committed in Canada, constitute an indictable offence - Objective and subjective tests to perform - Adequate disclosure - Absence of full / unrestricted constitutional right to passport services - Perceived unfair procedural delays not creating an ipso facto obligation to issue a passport - Permissible basis to refuse to issue, following a review of the equivalency tests to perform in the case of persons "standing charged" abroad - Applicable standard in exercising the discretionary authority vested in 9(c) CPO.
Assessment as to whether the generic disclosure of alleged facts against the subject in the context of a thorough knowledge of the case by Counsel is adequate. Study of the protection afforded by the Charter (section 6) on the liberty of movement. Study on the equivalency test to conduct for indictments abroad relative to indictable offences in Canada (objective test). Impact of the process time of the case on the due process and fairness duties of the Agency. Explanations on the subjective test to conduct in the exercise of the discretionary authority vested in 9(c) CPO. A more detailed case summary of this decision is available in the annex.
[ref. 11239 November 6, 2007] Posting of image of passport bio page on the web - Permitting another person to use passport information - Revocation and withholding recommendations based on 10(2)(c) CPO maintained - Disclosure to subject, although not as per usual practice, not in breach of fairness given complexity and particular nature of communications between parties - Elements assessed in determining appropriate period of withheld of passport services.
This decision analyses a complex exchange of correspondence between the parties with regard to possession, by third parties, of images of the subject’s passport identification page. These images were made available to the public online on the Internet by the subject who posted the reproduction obtained by digital scanning. The exchange through numerous investigation letters by the Security Bureau and the subject’s rebuttal, culminated in a letter terminating the investigation that confirmed to the subject that the case would be submitted to the adjudicator. In this letter, the subject was specifically warned of the possibility of a five-year suspension of passport services. Preceding letters referred to the Agency’s authority to refuse, revoke and suspend passport services. Disclosure to enable the subject to present a full and complete defence was deemed satisfactory.
The decision analyses the scope of the grounds raised, that is, “permits another person to use the passport.” It holds that the general approach adopted in Passport Canada’s preliminary documents appears to have the objective of favouring a proactive and collaborative approach on the part of the client. The imbroglio between the parties as to the exact nature of what ended up in the possession of third party defrauders militated in favour of a shorter suspension period of passport services, which was set at three years, taking into account the detailed description of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Complete summary of this decision attached. This decision has been brought to the Federal Court for review.
[ref. 10813, November 13, 2007] Charge of making a false statement concerning a passport - disclosure strictly limited to the laying of criminal charges - sanction sought (suspension of passport services) for a set period that is not suspensive at the end of the criminal investigation - terms of disclosure to the subject - natural justice - parties invited to exchange information on the alleged wrongdoing.
The Subject was advised that the Security Bureau held against him the fact that he was facing a criminal charge of making a false statement concerning a passport and using a counterfeit document. The mere disclosure that criminal charges had been laid against the subject led the subject to make representations strictly related to the hybrid nature of the offences, the fact that the mode of indictment had not been chosen, and the fact that no judgment had been rendered, as the trial had not taken place. In accordance with rules of procedure 19 and 28(6), the parties were invited to exchange information more material than that disclosed in the letter of proposal. The subject was advised that his response did not address the material facts held against him, which the Bureau was invited to communicate to him to permit the presentation of a full answer and defence in the context of the administrative procedure brought against him.
Ref. MI89963 (January 18, 2008) – Procedure for request for temporary passport services based on urgent compelling compassionate considerations (UCCC) - Requests can be filed pending completion of security review of regular passport application - Request denied by the Security Bureau, directed to adjudication as per subsection 29(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Decision maintained - Request by client to Adjudicator to revisit matter - Adjudication decisions are not being reviewed by Adjudicator - New UCCC request can be filed for new circumstances, upon tabling of a new application with prescribed fee - Turned down UCCC requests not affecting subject’s citizenship.
The Security Bureau of Passport Canada opened an investigation on the subject’s passport application. The applicant sent various faxes stressing that he needed to travel abroad to visit an ailing sibling and show respect to a deceased one’s family. The Bureau replied that limited validity passport (LVP) services for a life threatening illness of a family member may be considered, pending completion of a security investigation on his regular passport application, upon tabling of a separate standard application. The applicant needed to present himself to an issuing office to complete the form, pay the applicable fee and bring along documentation that supported the compelling and urgent nature of his request.
The Security Bureau’s turned down the LVP request. The decision is maintained by the adjudicator. A close examination of the material submitted by the applicant in support of the LVP services application was made. The telexes tabled by the applicant came from individuals who could not attest to the events described (the death of a sibling and the medical situation of another one). The hospital release certificate was confirmed as not matching the institution’s records and, furthermore, was found to be questionable in terms of authenticity.
The onus is on the claimant to LVP services to provide satisfactory evidence as to the nature of the urgent compelling compassionate circumstances. The application having been reviewed, the fee cannot be reimbursed. The decision informs the applicant he can not amend post-facto his application for LVP services. He is advised that if he wished to table new circumstances on the basis of which LVP services might be considered, pending completion of the investigation of his regular full-validity passport application, a new application with the prescribed fee must be submitted.
Following receipt of the decision, the subject writes back to the adjudicator enquiring about the impact of the decision on his citizenship, and asking for a case review. The adjudicator confirms the decision strictly pertains to a petition for Temporary Passport Services based on urgent compelling compassionate considerations. This decision is not affecting his Canadian citizenship. With regard to elements filed in support of a decision re-opening, the decision was confirmed as final. The information was sent to the Security Bureau for any action deemed appropriate from its end. As the outstanding regular passport application was still pending, the neutrality and impartiality to adjudicate the case merits when and if the Bureau conveys proposals to deny/revoke regular passport services have to be protected. A more detailed case summary of this decision is available in the annex.
The following table gives the prevalence established for activities of type I and V.
| Activities Subject to Sanctions | Adjudications | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | |
| Assistance to impersonators | 12 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 14 |
| Escorting foreigners | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 11 |
| Lending documents | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Altering documents/forgery | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| False statements | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 19 |
| Boarding pass | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Other | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 15 |
| Total adjudications/year | 34 | 17 | 8 | 10 | 40 | 67 |
Lastly, we provide a summary table of the activities subject to sanction, reflecting the full jurisprudence in the adjudication field. This table is updated with data from the last completed fiscal year.
Length of suspension of passport services
We provide a table illustrating the diversity of the penalties, taking into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances in each individual case. The penalty examined here is the length of suspension of passport services imposed by the Adjudicator, which ranges from a maximum of five years, or the maximum length of validity of a passport, to zero, naturally in cases where the recommendation of suspension is disallowed or not applicable. The periods of suspension of service may be suspensive or conditional on an event.
| Penalty | No. of cases | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | |
| 5 years | 83 | - | 9 | 25 | 34 |
| 5 years minus 3 months | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 5 years minus 6 months | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 5 years minus 9 months | 0 | 1 | - | - | 2 |
| 5 years minus 12 months | 25 | 2 | - | 7 | 6 |
| 5 years minus 15 months | 8 | 1 | - | - | 2 |
| 5 years minus 18 months | 3 | - | - | - | 1 |
| 5 years minus 20 months | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 5 years minus 24 months | 2 | - | - | - | 2 |
| 5 years minus 30 months | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| 2 years | - | - | - | - | 1 |
| 1 and a half year | - | - | - | - | 1 |
| 1 year | 0 | 1 | - | - | - |
| suspensive or conditional | 15 | - | - | 5 note 2 | 5 note 4 |
| 0 (no suspension) | 9 | 2 note 1 | - | 2 note 3 | 11 note 5 |
| Note 1: | One revocation recommendation was rejected; in the second case, the subject was not a citizen, therefore it was not so much a suspension as permanent ineligibility until the subject obtains confirmed citizenship. |
| Note 2: |
Details regarding suspensive or conditional periods of non-issuance of passports:
|
| Note 3: | See the cases 10980 and 10813 summarized precedently. |
| Note 4: | details regarding suspensive, conditional or alternative periods of non-issuance of passports:
|
| Note 5: | details regarding the absence of suspension of passport services:
|
The suspension period takes into consideration the aggravating or mitigating factors in each case. The main mitigating factors are the subject's cooperation in the investigation, the presence of compassionate or humanitarian grounds, remorse, and major loss or inconvenience resulting from the fraud. The main aggravating factors are denial in the presence of solid evidence, having been paid for committing the fraud, and having been the instrument of an illegal migration involving vulnerable individuals such as children or persons who will be exploited at work or elsewhere.
The interpretation of data can be highly debatable, depending on the source of interpretation. As the author of this report as well as the author of each of the adjudications, we believe it is relevant to ask the reader to appreciate the following elements. First, for mitigating circumstances to be taken into consideration, they must be brought to the attention of the Security Bureau at the time that a file is opened for investigation.
Second, the fact that a minority of recommendations for revoking or refusing passport services were rejected leads us to believe that sufficient case law now exists to help the Security Bureau identify which cases to send to arbitration.
