The Federal Court of Canada has dismissed an application for judicial review filed by Nigerian national Douglas Egharevba, affirming an earlier decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) that found him inadmissible to Canada on security grounds because of his former membership in Nigeria’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The judgment, delivered by Justice Phuong T.V. Ngo on June 17, 2025, did not determine that Mr. Egharevba personally engaged in terrorism or political violence. Rather, the Court held that the Immigration Appeal Division’s decision was reasonable under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), and therefore should not be overturned.
Background
Mr. Egharevba entered Canada in 2017 and sought refugee protection. During immigration processing, he disclosed that he had been a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) between 1999 and 2007 before later joining the All Progressives Congress (APC) until 2017.
Following this disclosure, the Canada Border Services Agency initiated admissibility proceedings under Section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which deals with security-related inadmissibility.
In September 2020, the Immigration Division ruled in his favour, finding insufficient evidence that either the PDP or APC qualified as organizations engaged in terrorism or acts of subversion under Canadian law.
However, the Minister of Public Safety appealed that decision. On March 25, 2024, the Immigration Appeal Division reversed the earlier ruling, concluding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the PDP had engaged in acts of subversion against democratic institutions and terrorism as contemplated by Canada’s immigration legislation. Consequently, the applicant was declared inadmissible to Canada.
Mr. Egharevba subsequently sought judicial review before the Federal Court.
The Central Issue
The Federal Court considered one primary question:
Was the Immigration Appeal Division’s decision reasonable?
Importantly, the Court was not tasked with deciding afresh whether the PDP committed terrorism or subversion. Instead, its role was limited to determining whether the Immigration Appeal Division’s conclusions were justified, transparent and intelligible based on the evidence before it.
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant argued that:
- He never personally participated in acts of terrorism or political violence.
- Mere membership in the PDP should not automatically render him inadmissible.
- Nigeria’s electoral system, which has historically suffered from irregularities, should not be regarded as a democratic process “as understood in Canada,” making findings of subversion inappropriate.
Court’s Findings
Justice Ngo rejected these arguments.
The Court held that Canadian immigration law does not require proof that an individual personally committed terrorist or subversive acts before a finding of inadmissibility can be made under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Instead, the relevant legal question is whether the individual was a member of an organization for which there are reasonable grounds to believe it engaged in such prohibited conduct.
Since Mr. Egharevba repeatedly acknowledged his membership in the PDP, the Court found that the Immigration Appeal Division reasonably concluded that the statutory membership requirement had been satisfied.
Findings on the PDP
The Court accepted that the Immigration Appeal Division reasonably relied upon evidence indicating that the PDP was associated with:
- ballot stuffing;
- ballot-box snatching;
- voter intimidation;
- politically motivated violence;
- killings of opposition supporters and candidates during elections; and
- failure by party leadership to prevent or discipline those responsible for such acts.
According to the judgment, the Immigration Appeal Division found these activities sufficiently widespread and persistent to justify linking them to the organization itself for purposes of Canada’s immigration law.
The Court emphasized that it was reviewing the reasonableness of the administrative decision—not making an independent factual determination about the PDP.
Democracy Argument Rejected
The applicant also argued that because Nigeria’s elections have often been marred by irregularities, they should not qualify as democratic processes under Canadian law.
Justice Ngo rejected this reasoning, describing it as circular. The Court held that accepting such an argument would effectively prevent any finding of subversion whenever democratic institutions had already been weakened by misconduct.
The judgment concluded that electoral malpractice does not eliminate the existence of democratic institutions capable of being subverted.
Terrorism Finding Not Addressed
Having concluded that the Immigration Appeal Division’s findings regarding acts of subversion were reasonable, the Court found it unnecessary to examine separately whether the evidence also supported findings relating to terrorism.
The subversion finding alone was sufficient to sustain the applicant’s inadmissibility.
Final Judgment
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review in its entirety.
The Court also declined to certify any question for appeal.
Significance
The ruling reinforces the broad scope of Canada’s security inadmissibility provisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The judgment confirms that, in immigration proceedings, Canadian authorities are not required to prove an applicant personally committed acts of terrorism or political violence where the applicable statutory provision concerns membership in an organization reasonably believed to have engaged in such conduct.
At the same time, the Court did not independently declare the Peoples Democratic Party a terrorist organization. Rather, it held that the Immigration Appeal Division’s conclusions, based on the evidence before it and the applicable legal standard, were reasonable and therefore should not be disturbed on judicial review.
