Canadians are increasingly worried about immigration management, with 56% believing current immigration levels are too high. Additionally, one-third of the population associates immigration with increased crime. These concerns have intensified following a recent Federal Court ruling that could complicate immigration enforcement. On October 10, the Federal Court issued a decision in the case of Ali v. Canada, imposing new requirements on immigration officials. The court ruled that officials must demonstrate a "rational link" between an individual's past actions and any potential danger to Canadian security. Furthermore, the court stated that Canada’s non-refoulement obligations, which prevent returning individuals to places where they may face persecution or serious harm, must be considered during the inadmissibility assessment. This stage was originally intended to evaluate the risks posed by the claimant to Canada. Public Safety Canada has not disclosed whether it plans to appeal this ruling. The Ali decision builds on a previous Supreme Court ruling from 2023, Mason v. Canada, which also required immigration adjudicators to establish a connection between an individual's past conduct and potential threats to Canada while adhering to non-refoulement principles. The Ali ruling alters the previous approach that separated humanitarian concerns from security issues. This procedural change may seem technical but could significantly hinder Canada’s ability to deport individuals deemed dangerous. The case centers on Abdelsakhi Abbas Adesakhi Ali, a former Sudanese politician linked to the National Congress Party (NCP), which was under the regime of dictator Omar al-Bashir. Ali was deemed inadmissible to Canada due to his association with the NCP, which was accused of repressing political opponents. However, the Federal Court found that immigration officials did not sufficiently connect Ali's past actions to any current threat to Canada. The court overturned his deportation order and sent the case back for reassessment. While the Mason and Ali rulings do not grant blanket immunity from deportation, they raise concerns about the implications for immigration enforcement. Critics argue that these decisions may encourage individuals facing serious deportation grounds—such as ties to terrorist organizations or oppressive regimes—to invoke non-refoulement claims to avoid removal. Canada's immigration system is already strained, with challenges in deporting individuals. Since a 2022 ban on Iranian regime affiliates, only one out of 23 identified individuals has been deported. The new evidentiary requirements introduced by the recent rulings could further complicate enforcement efforts. Moreover, the ruling may allow individuals to delay or prevent their removal by fabricating claims of persecution, potentially including agents of hostile governments. The Hogue Commission has highlighted ongoing foreign interference operations by countries like China, Russia, and Iran targeting Canadian communities and officials. As the situation evolves, the balance between humanitarian considerations and national security remains a pressing issue for Canada’s immigration policy.