IRGC Conscripts and Canada: What the 34(1)(f) Fairness Letters Mean

As of November 3, 2026.

Since Canada listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity on June 19, 2024, Iranian men who did their compulsory military service in the IRGC have been receiving procedural fairness letters (PFLs) from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). The letters say the officer believes the applicant may be inadmissible under section 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), for membership in a terrorist organization. Families and advocates have protested in Montreal and Ottawa through 2026, and IRCC says conscription alone does not automatically make anyone inadmissible. This guide explains what the letters mean, what the Federal Court has decided so far, and what a response needs to contain.

Why are former IRGC conscripts getting these letters?

The listing under the Criminal Code is not an immigration rule by itself. It matters for immigration because of IRPA section 34(1)(f), which makes a person inadmissible for "being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage" in terrorism or other acts listed in section 34. Once the government had formally named the IRGC a terrorist entity, officers began asking applicants who had disclosed IRGC service whether that service made them members.

Two features of the law make this hard for conscripts:

• The standard of proof is low. Under IRPA section 33, the facts only need to meet "reasonable grounds to believe", which is less than the balance of probabilities.
• "Member" is read broadly. The courts have held that a person does not need to have taken part in violent acts, or contributed significantly to the organization, to count as a member.

This is a different measure from the 2022 designation of the Iranian regime under IRPA section 35(1)(b). That designation covers "prescribed senior officials", defined in section 16 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations as people who held senior positions such as ministers, senior public servants, senior military officers and diplomats. The letters to conscripts that have been reported cite section 34(1)(f), not section 35.

What has IRCC said about conscripts?

IRCC has not published a policy or operational instruction on conscripts. Its position so far comes from statements to the media. In August 2026, an IRCC spokesperson told Iran International that:

• compulsory service in the IRGC does not automatically make someone inadmissible, and each case is assessed on its own facts;
• a procedural fairness letter is not a final decision, but a chance for the applicant to respond;
• an officer decides after weighing the response, the case law and the recommendations of security partners;
• IRCC does not keep a count of how many applicants did compulsory IRGC service or how many letters it has sent.

IRCC gave Global News a similar message: conscription alone does not necessarily result in inadmissibility.

Advocates put the number of letters much higher than the few cases that reach the courts. An advocacy group of former conscripts told Iran International in August 2026 that more than 500 of its members had received letters. Iran International also reported that the letters give 30 days to respond. Neither figure comes from IRCC. On enforcement, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) reported 48 people inadmissible for IRGC membership as of July 6, 2026, according to Global News. That figure does not say how many were conscripts.

What have the protests asked for?

The campaign has grown through 2026:

According to Medad, the organizers asked the government to publish guidance that compulsory service alone is not IRGC membership, to stop refusing applications based only on that service, and to review recent refusals where it was decisive. According to Canadian Press, speakers at the September 22 rally said they support the IRGC listing itself. Their complaint is that men who had no choice about serving are being treated as members. As of November 3, 2026, we have not seen any government response to the Ottawa gathering.

What has the Federal Court decided?

We searched the Federal Court decisions available in the A2AJ legal database, which may not include every case. We found one decision on the merits of a conscript's section 34(1)(f) refusal, and the conscript lost. The other cases we found are about delay.

The 2025 Vadiati decision is the one to read closely. The applicant, a protected person, had admitted two years of conscript service in the IRGC, and the decision turned largely on that admission. The Court held that relying on that admission was "well-supported by the jurisprudence" (para 21), and that the officer did not have to weigh how combative his role was or how long he served (paras 22 to 23). On duress, the officer applied the Supreme Court's test from R v Ryan, which requires, among other things, a threat of death or bodily harm, and the Court upheld that approach. Fines, prison, extended service and losing civil and job rights were not enough (paras 24 to 33). The applicant had not even raised duress in his response to the letter (para 25). The Court also refused documents on Iranian conscription that he filed only at the court stage, because he could have sent them with his response (paras 9 to 11).

The delay cases show the limit of what a court can do. In Vadiati 2024 and Khajir, the Court ordered IRCC to make a decision. That decision can still be a refusal, which is what happened to Mr. Vadiati a year later.

What should a response to a 34(1)(f) letter include?

The response is usually your one real chance to put evidence in front of the officer. Vadiati shows that a court reviewing the decision will look at what you sent then, not at what you could have sent. Have a licensed professional review your response before you send it. A complete response usually covers the points below.

• Read the letter for the exact concern and deadline. One letter quoted by Iran International said: "I am therefore concerned that you served in the IRGC and that you may be inadmissible to Canada." Note the date you received it. If more time is needed to gather documents, an extension can be requested in writing before the deadline passes.
• Get your GCMS notes. They can show what the officer already has on file. Our GCMS notes guide explains how to request them.
• A precise description of the service. Dates, the branch (IRGC, Artesh or police), where you were posted, your unit and duties, and any weapons or operations involved. In Cheloei, IRCC asked for military records partly to confirm which force the applicant served in.
• How the assignment was made. If you did not choose the IRGC, how you were assigned and what you knew about it at the time.
• Duress or coercion, raised with evidence and not only in words. Any threats you faced, supported with documents, raised now rather than later. In Vadiati, the test applied required a threat of death or bodily harm, among other things, and fines or prison for refusing were not enough.
• Supporting documents, sent with the response. Your service record or end-of-service card, any documents about your duties, and reliable reports on how conscription into the IRGC works. Late evidence was refused in Vadiati.
• Consistency with what you said before. Your answers will be compared with your earlier forms. An answer that conflicts with them can raise a separate misrepresentation problem under section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which carries a five-year ban.

Our earlier guide on Iranian applicants and security screening covers why IRGC service and other profile features trigger mandatory checks, and how long they tend to take.

What if the application is refused?

There are three main routes, and none of them is easy.

• Judicial review. You can ask the Federal Court to review the refusal under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The deadline to apply for leave is 15 days for a decision made in Canada and 60 days for a decision made outside Canada. The Court does not decide the application itself. If it finds the decision unreasonable or unfair, IRCC decides again.
• Ministerial relief. Under IRPA section 42.1, the Minister of Public Safety can declare that a section 34 matter does not make a foreign national inadmissible, if that is not contrary to the national interest. Only national security and public safety may be considered. According to the CBSA's ministerial relief guide, you can apply once a section 34 finding has led to a refused application or a removal order, using the free form BSF766, sent to the CBSA's Ministerial Relief Unit in Ottawa (or, from outside Canada, through the visa office). The CBSA shares its recommendation with you before it goes to the Minister, who alone decides. The CBSA says an exact timeline cannot be predicted, and approval is not guaranteed.
• Humanitarian and compassionate grounds are not available. Section 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act excludes people inadmissible under section 34, and the Court confirmed this in Vadiati (paras 34 to 38).

If the application was a sponsorship or a family member's application, the inadmissibility of one person can affect the whole family's file, so get advice before anyone withdraws or changes an application.

Key takeaways

• The letters cite IRPA section 34(1)(f), membership in an organization listed as terrorist, not the 2022 senior-official designation under section 35.
• IRCC says conscription alone does not automatically mean inadmissibility, but it has published no guidance explaining how officers should decide.
• The only Federal Court merits decision we found, Vadiati 2025 FC 1859, upheld a refusal of a two-year conscript.
• What you put in your response matters most: precise service details, any duress evidence and supporting documents, sent on time.
• Humanitarian and compassionate relief is not available for section 34, and ministerial relief under section 42.1 is slow and discretionary.

Getting help with a fairness letter

A procedural fairness letter on section 34(1)(f) is not a form to fill in on your own. Our licensed consultant (RCIC-IRB) reviews these letters, your GCMS notes and your earlier forms, and helps you prepare a complete response, or refers you to a litigation lawyer when the case is headed to the Federal Court. We work in English and Farsi. Book a consultation.

Sources

• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 34 (Justice Laws)
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 33 (Justice Laws)
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 35 (Justice Laws)
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, section 16 (Justice Laws)
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sections 25, 40, 42.1 and 72 (Justice Laws)
• CBSA, Ministerial relief
• Public Safety Canada, Currently listed entities
• Public Safety Canada, Government of Canada lists the IRGC as a terrorist entity (June 19, 2024)
• Vadiati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1859; Vadiati, 2024 FC 1056; Khajir, 2026 FC 258; Doust, 2025 FC 1546; Cheloei, 2025 FC 820 (Federal Court)
• Iran International, August 12 and 18, 2026; Global News, August 4, 2026; Canadian Press, September 22, 2026; Medad, October 28, 2026