ESPIONAGE, BAN, AND REFUSAL OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE for teaching English... Russia? No, Canada... or China, let's figure it out.
Remember how last year, IELTS teachers were labeled as disloyal and foreign agents in a certain country, even facing the possibility of a prison sentence?
At that time, it received significant media coverage and, of course, a diplomatic note of condemnation from Canada. But if you think Canada condemns, and therefore doesn't act, I have a surprise for you: Canada can do exactly the same thing.
So, a real case from the Federal Court. An English teacher from China was denied permanent residence and inadmissibility to Canada on the grounds of... drumroll please... teaching English.
It turns out that back in the 2000s, the applicant taught English, including to individuals assigned to China's intelligence service. Canada has a law that prohibits permanent residence if there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was involved in espionage against our country! During the review, the officer concluded that since you taught English to the following students, you yourself were indirectly involved in espionage resulting in a refusal and a ban. This, incidentally, despite the applicant having worked for many years as a professor at the University of Toronto and the University of Newfoundland and Labrador and already having Canadian citizenship. The applicant simply renounced it several years ago because they got a job in China and decided to return. Incidentally, China is one of the countries that does not allow dual citizenship.
Our hero, of course, did not expect this turn of events and appealed to the Federal Court, which upheld the appeal.
The court's conclusion is as follows: the officer certainly stretched the concept of espionage, and while there's certainly evidence of English teaching, extending the definition of spy to everyone who stood, breathed, or "danced" near MEMBERS of the organization "in question" is simply wrong.
The refusal has been overturned, but the moral of the story is disturbing. I'd like to point out again that the officer reviewing the case is entitled to an opinion. Whether it's correct or not, honestly, is of little interest to the Canadian justice system, as the approach is this: if you think it's wrong, go to the Federal Court.
But judges are obligated to consider everything and explain it legally, down to the last detail. And not only to render a decision, but also to correctly explain why. The officer, for his part, bears no responsibility for an incorrect decision. And herein lies the crux of the problem: if officers were at least reprimanded for incorrect decisions that are returned to federal judges for review, we wouldn't have such widespread wrongful denials.
And so...do you remember? "What's power, brother?"
"The power lies within the truth"—but it's expensive and time-consuming.
Oleksandra Melnykova, Immigration and Refugee Consultant in Canada.
Copyright 2026 “SKI Immigration Inc.” All rights reserved.
