The following excerpt is from Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] 3 SCR 431, 2014 SCC 68 (CanLII):
Australian courts have concluded that Article 1F(b) is additionally intended to protect the country of refuge from individuals who are considered dangerous as a result of committing past crimes (Dhayakpa v. Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995), 62 F.C.R. 556, at para. 29; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Singh, [2002] HCA 7, 209 C.L.R. 533, at paras. 15 and 95-96), as has New Zealand (Tamil X, at para. 82). Other jurisdictions, however, like this Court in Pushpanathan, have expressly rejected the proposition that exclusion of dangerous individuals is the underlying purpose of Article 1F(b), even if its application may incidentally have that effect in some cases.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.