Reasonable Grounds to Believe: What IRCC's Own Training Says the Standard Really Means (About 37%)
When an officer finds you inadmissible on security or criminality grounds, they do not have to be convinced you did it. They only need "reasonable grounds to believe" you did, a standard written into law at section 33 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. IRCC's own officer training puts that bar at about 37%, says Amir Ansari, RCIC of Ansari Immigration in Vancouver, well below the "more likely than not" most applicants assume.
That gap, between what you think the government has to prove and what it actually has to, is where a lot of refusals are won and lost. A reasonable grounds to believe finding can rest on far less evidence than a conviction, and it attaches to the grounds that carry the heaviest consequences: security, human or international rights violations, serious criminal inadmissibility, and organized criminality. Reading a refusal as if it were a criminal verdict is one of the most common and costly mistakes we see.
What "reasonable grounds to believe" actually means
The standard comes straight from statute. Section 33 of IRPA, the "rules of interpretation" for inadmissibility, states that the facts constituting inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 "include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur." In other words, Parliament deliberately set a lower evidentiary bar for these grounds than the ordinary civil standard.
How low? The Immigration and Refugee Board's own legal guidance is the clearest public statement of it. Its Weighing Evidence chapter explains that the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard "requires something more than mere suspicion, but less than the standard applicable in civil matters," and that "reasonable grounds will exist where there is an objective basis for the belief supported by compelling and credible information." That formulation traces back to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera v. Canada, the case every officer and member is trained on.
So the legal test is qualitative: more than a hunch, less than probable, grounded in credible information. What it is not is a requirement to prove the facts happened. That single distinction is the heart of this topic.
The number IRCC trains its officers to use: about 37%
Here is what the public pages do not tell you. In IRCC's internal Provincial Nominee Program officer training guide, released under access to information, the facilitator script quantifies the standard for instructors. It tells them to teach that for inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37, "reasonable grounds to believe" means "there is a serious possibility that the inadmissibility exists (about 37%)," while "balance of probabilities" for sections 38 to 42 means "more likely than not (50+1%)."
Reasonable grounds to believe means that there is a serious possibility that the inadmissibility exists (about 37%). (IRCC officer training, Provincial Nominee Program Module 1 Instructor's Guide, 2022)
That is a striking thing to see in writing. The Supreme Court has always refused to put a number on the standard, precisely because it is meant to be judged qualitatively on the evidence, not arithmetically. Yet IRCC's own trainers reach for a figure below 40% to make the concept concrete for new decision-makers.
Treat that number for exactly what it is: a trainer's teaching gloss from a 2022 internal course, not a published policy, not a program delivery instruction, and not the legal test. The binding standard is still the qualitative one from section 33 and Mugesera. But the training figure is revealing, because it confirms what practitioners see in refusal letters: officers are operating on a threshold that sits closer to one-in-three than to a coin flip. If your file was refused on reasonable grounds and the reasons read like a low-probability inference stacked into a conclusion, that is not a glitch. That is the standard working as officers are taught to apply it.
Have you ever read a refusal that seemed to decide against you on less than a coin flip's worth of evidence? That is often reasonable grounds doing the work, and it is worth understanding before you respond.
The standard of proof continuum, and where your ground sits
IRCC does not apply one standard to every inadmissibility. The continuum runs from the lowest bar to the highest, and the ground cited against you decides which bar applies.
Standard | What it means | Where IRCC applies it |
|---|---|---|
Mere suspicion | A possibility unsupported by facts; an intuition. Not enough on its own. | The floor. Never sufficient to find inadmissibility. |
Reasonable grounds to believe (about 37% in IRCC training) | More than suspicion, less than probable; an objective basis supported by compelling and credible information. | Inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37: security, human or international rights violations, serious and ordinary criminality, organized criminality. |
Balance of probabilities (50+1%) | More likely than not; the ordinary civil standard. | Sections 38 to 42: health, financial, misrepresentation, non-compliance, and inadmissible family member. Also a permanent resident's foreign act under 36(1)(c), per 36(3)(d). |
Beyond a reasonable doubt | The criminal standard, the highest bar. | IRCC uses this only in a narrow spot, such as accepting DNA results as proof of a parent-child relationship. |
Source: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sections 33 to 42 (Justice Laws, Act current to September 21, 2026), and the Immigration and Refugee Board's Weighing Evidence guidance. Verified October 2026.
The practical takeaway: misrepresentation under section 40, the ground most applicants actually worry about, is decided on balance of probabilities, not reasonable grounds. The lower reasonable grounds bar is reserved for sections 34 to 37.
Which grounds get the lower bar, and the carve-outs that change it
Section 33 applies the reasonable grounds standard to four inadmissibility sections, set out in sections 34 to 37 of IRPA:
Section 34, security: espionage, subversion (by force, or against a democratic government), terrorism, being a danger to Canada's security, or acts of violence. Membership counts too: being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages in espionage, subversion, or terrorism is itself a ground under 34(1)(f).
Section 35, human or international rights violations: war crimes, crimes against humanity, or being a prescribed senior official of a government that engaged in such conduct.
Section 36, serious criminality (36(1)) and criminality (36(2)): convictions and, in some cases, committing an act that would be an offence in Canada.
Section 37, organized criminality: membership in a criminal organization believed on reasonable grounds to be engaged in a pattern of organized crime, or transnational crimes such as people smuggling or money laundering.
Now the exceptions, because this is where a general rule becomes a usable one:
First, a conviction already proves itself. Where section 36 relies on an actual Canadian or foreign conviction, the conviction is the fact; reasonable grounds about whether a crime happened does not arise. The reasonable grounds analysis bites hardest where there is no conviction, only an allegation or a foreign act.
Second, a permanent resident gets a higher bar on one specific point. Section 36(3)(d) states that "a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities," not reasonable grounds. If you are a PR facing a serious-criminality allegation over an act committed abroad with no conviction, the Minister must meet the higher 50-plus-one standard, not the lower one.
Third, sanctions inadmissibility is carved out of section 33 entirely. Section 35.1(2) says that "despite section 33," a foreign national who is no longer the subject of the relevant sanctions order or measure is no longer inadmissible under that paragraph. The reasonable grounds interpretive rule does not govern there.
These carve-outs are not trivia. Knowing that your status (PR versus foreign national), the specific paragraph cited, and whether a conviction exists can each move the applicable standard is often the difference between a response that lands and one that argues the wrong point.
A worked example, carried to the decision
Consider an illustrative scenario (composed to show how the standard operates, not a real client). A foreign national applies for permanent residence. During screening, open-source information and a partner-agency note suggest the person may have been a member of an organization that, years earlier, engaged in acts the Minister treats as terrorism under section 34. There is no charge, no conviction, and no admission.
Under a balance-of-probabilities standard, the officer would have to conclude it is more likely than not that the person was a member and that the organization engaged in those acts. Under section 33, the officer does not. They need only reasonable grounds to believe it, the roughly one-in-three "serious possibility" supported by compelling and credible information. The officer sends a procedural fairness letter setting out the concern. The applicant responds, denying membership and challenging the reliability of the source.
The decision then turns not on whether the officer can prove membership, but on whether, after weighing the response, an objective basis for the belief still exists. If the credible information survives the response, the finding stands, even though no court would convict on it. That is why a reasonable grounds refusal so often feels unfair to the person receiving it: they are measuring the evidence against a criminal or civil yardstick the law never asked the officer to use.
What goes wrong, the trap applicants fall into
The single most common error is treating a reasonable grounds case like a trial. Applicants and their helpers marshal arguments that would win in a courtroom, there is no conviction, the allegation is unproven, the evidence is circumstantial, and those arguments miss the standard entirely. None of them defeat reasonable grounds, because reasonable grounds does not require a conviction, proof, or direct evidence. It requires only an objective, credible basis for the belief.
A second trap is the membership provisions. Sections 34(1)(f) and 37(1)(a) make you inadmissible for being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages in the listed conduct. The reasonable grounds test applies both to your membership and to the organization's character, and Canadian law reads "membership" broadly. People are regularly caught by an organization they joined for reasons unrelated to its worst conduct.
The third trap is procedural. Because the bar is low, the officer's duty to let you respond, through a procedural fairness letter, is often your most important opportunity, not a formality. The question of when IRCC must send one, and what a strong response looks like, is its own subject, and it is where reasonable grounds cases are frequently salvaged.
Where the official sources go quiet
Here is the asymmetry worth naming. The public canada.ca inadmissibility pages describe the grounds in sections 34 to 37 and tell you that reasonable grounds to believe is the standard. They do not quantify it, and they do not explain how far below "probable" it sits. The roughly 37% figure appears on no public government page. It exists only in internal officer training that reached daylight through an access-to-information request.
That matters for two reasons. You are expected to meet a standard whose operational weight the department does not publish, and the people deciding your file have been handed a number that the courts have deliberately declined to give. A reader might object that a fixed percentage sounds arbitrary, as if officers were running a calculator. The better reading is that the figure is a training heuristic, a way to teach new officers that "reasonable grounds" sits closer to one-in-three than to one-in-two, while the actual decision still has to be justified qualitatively on credible evidence and survive review for reasonableness. Both things are true: the legal test is qualitative, and officers are trained to feel it as a low number. Knowing both is how you argue the real issue instead of the one you assumed.
What to do if your file turns on reasonable grounds
If you are facing a security, criminality, or organized-criminality concern, whether on a permanent residence application or a temporary resident visa, the path is specific:
Identify the exact paragraph cited (for example 34(1)(f) or 37(1)(a)); the ground decides the standard and the argument.
Confirm your status: a permanent resident facing a 36(1)(c) foreign-act allegation gets the higher balance-of-probabilities bar under 36(3)(d).
Treat the procedural fairness letter as your main chance; respond to the actual concern with credible evidence, not courtroom arguments about the lack of a conviction.
Attack the reliability and credibility of the information the belief rests on, not just its sufficiency.
Get the file read by a licensed professional before you respond, because the response is usually the decision point.
Not sure which inadmissibility ground actually applies to your file, or whether your status changes the standard? That is a 30-minute question for a licensed RCIC, and it is worth asking before you respond to IRCC.
Frequently asked questions
What does "reasonable grounds to believe" mean in Canadian immigration?
It is the standard of proof for inadmissibility under IRPA sections 34 to 37. The Immigration and Refugee Board defines it as more than mere suspicion but less than the balance of probabilities, met where there is an objective basis for the belief supported by compelling and credible information. IRCC's internal officer training describes it as roughly a 37% serious possibility.
Is reasonable grounds to believe the same as a conviction?
No. A conviction proves a fact to the criminal standard. Reasonable grounds to believe is far lower and does not require any charge, conviction, or admission. An officer can find you inadmissible on reasonable grounds without a court ever ruling on the underlying facts.
What standard does IRCC use for misrepresentation?
Misrepresentation under section 40 is decided on the balance of probabilities, not reasonable grounds. The lower reasonable grounds bar applies only to sections 34 to 37: security, rights violations, criminality, and organized criminality.
Can I be found inadmissible without being charged or convicted?
Yes. For sections 34, 35, and 37, and for an uncharged foreign act under section 36, inadmissibility can rest on reasonable grounds to believe the conduct occurred. No charge or conviction is required for those grounds.
What is the difference between reasonable grounds and balance of probabilities?
Balance of probabilities means more likely than not, over 50%. Reasonable grounds to believe is lower, an objective and credible basis short of probability. IRCC training frames the two as about 37% versus 50-plus-one.
How do I challenge a reasonable grounds finding?
Respond to the procedural fairness letter by attacking the reliability and credibility of the information the belief relies on, and by addressing the specific paragraph cited. Because the standard is low, the quality of your response, not the absence of a conviction, usually decides the outcome.
Related Posts
Criminal Inadmissibility Canada: Deemed Rehabilitation and How to Overcome a Criminal Record (2026): How a criminal record leads to inadmissibility and the routes to overcome it, including deemed rehabilitation.
When Is IRCC Required to Send a Procedural Fairness Letter? Credibility vs. Insufficient Evidence: When officers must give you a chance to respond, and how credibility concerns differ from insufficient evidence.
What Is a Procedural Fairness Letter from IRCC (PFL)?: What a PFL is, why you get one, and how to respond when IRCC raises a concern about your application.
Why work with Ansari Immigration. Read a reasonable grounds refusal on your own and it is easy to argue the wrong point, that there was no conviction, that nothing was proven, when the standard never asked for either. Work with Ansari Immigration and a licensed RCIC reads the actual ground cited, your status, and the evidence the belief rests on, then tells you plainly whether the finding is worth challenging. Flat, transparent fees are quoted upfront. Every file is handled personally by the firm's licensed RCIC, regulated by CICC and practicing since 2019, who teaches immigration law at three colleges.
Have you ever had a file turn on reasonable grounds rather than real proof? Share how it went in the comments, keep it general, and for advice on your own situation book a consultation ($80 for 30 minutes).
This article is for general information only. It is not legal advice. Program criteria, requirements, processing times, and selection approaches can change without notice. Always confirm details on official government websites or consult a licensed Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (RCIC) for advice specific to your situation.
Comments