Navigating Inadmissibility: Raj Sharma on the Sidhu Case and the Art of High-Stakes Immigration Advocacy 

December 2021: Podcast: Raj Sharma on Inadmissibility and the Sidhu Case 

Overview of the Podcast 

In this episode of the Welcome Home podcast—a show about Canadian immigration law brought to listeners by the Immigration Law Series from Emond Publishing—hosts Cathryn and Chantal welcome immigration lawyer Raj Sharma of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi for a wide-ranging conversation on inadmissibility. Recorded in December 2021, the discussion features a practitioner of some 17 years and a former refugee protection officer with the Immigration and Refugee Board, who is also a co-author (alongside Aris Daghighian) of the new textbook Inadmissibility and Remedies. 

The conversation blends the practical and the philosophical. The hosts and their guest explore why inadmissibility work is both the most demanding and the most rewarding corner of immigration practice, how practitioners can manage the emotional weight of files where “every file is a life,” and—most topically—how the high-profile case of Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, the driver convicted in the Humboldt Broncos bus tragedy, illustrates the complex intersection of criminal and immigration law. The discussion also canvassed the evolving jurisprudence under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the broadening reach of CBSA enforcement powers, and the shrinking avenues of appeal available to permanent residents facing removal. The episode closed with a recurring segment, “Things I Wish I Knew,” reflecting on the importance of relationships and entrepreneurial skill in building a legal career. 

The Origins of the Book and the Appeal of Inadmissibility Work 

On the origins of his textbook and the role of the pandemic in its creation, Raj credited the hosts for pushing the project forward: 

“Inadmissibility, enforcement, deportation, removal, stays. This is something that has been my life’s work, I suppose, for over a decade… And oddly enough, I think the pandemic assisted in the writing of the book. Normally, I’m doing dozens of hearings a year… those early months of the pandemic really assisted in getting the raw work out.” 

Asked why inadmissibility is “near and dear” to his heart, Raj framed it as the dividing line between serious practitioners and dabblers: 

“Once you get into the labyrinth or the maze of inadmissibility, these are big concepts. There’s terms of art. There’s jurisprudence… So it’s a lot of moving parts, and it’s been very challenging. But at the same time, very rewarding as well.” 

Advocacy That Balances Law and Emotion 

On managing the emotional toll of the work, Raj drew on philosophy: 

“Every file is a life… You’re a little bit on the side of a surgeon, let’s say, which is you can’t get too emotionally invested, but without emotional investment or without passion, you cannot be a proper advocate.” 

One of the hosts offered a striking illustration of that burden, recalling “one DUI case where the individual hit his best friend’s car and had three children in the back seat, and it went up in flames.” Raj responded with a reflection on human complexity: 

“I think individuals contain multitudes. Does one act define you for a lifetime? Perhaps, perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t.” 

The panel emphasized that compelling submissions must blend emotional resonance with rigorous legal reasoning: 

“It’s going to be heartfelt. There’s going to be passion. At the same time there’s going to be advocacy. There’s going to be logic. There’s going to be reliance on jurisprudence and an appeal to that discretion of that officer.” 

One participant described the particular talent required in admissibility work: 

“I find that’s the talent in admissibility, is separating that emotional piece somewhat for yourself, adding it into your submissions where needed, but focusing on the law and proving the points that you need to prove to make sure that when that CBSA officer does that weighing, they can say, you know, spouse in Canada, life in Canada, criminal free up until this particular point… as close to a zero percent chance of recidivism that you could possibly get.” 

The Sidhu Case and the Reality of Double Jeopardy 

Turning to the Sidhu case, Raj explained the concept of double jeopardy that sits at the heart of criminal inadmissibility: 

“Immigration is one of those aspects where you do get double jeopardy… you will be punished in Canada, but you will also face the jeopardy of exile, banishment from Canada, another punishment. And historically, exiling someone or banishing someone was one of the highest punishments you could give.” 

This raised the recurring question of when a person who has served their criminal sentence has truly “paid their debt”: 

“When is enough enough? If I’ve served my criminal sentence, because society has said eight years is now the penalty, after that eight years plus however many years of probation, am I done then?” 

Having met Mr. Sidhu informally, Raj spoke with evident sympathy, while never losing sight of the devastation: 

“He struck me as a very honourable individual… Mr. Sidhu took responsibility, pled guilty. Of course, his oversight, his negligence, resulted in the death of sixteen individuals and horrific injuries to thirteen more.” 

Crucially, Raj pushed back on the notion that a serious conviction forecloses all hope—a key message of his book: 

“I’ve heard these individuals say, well, if you get convicted of a crime in Canada, and you get sentenced to this length of sentence, there is no hope. You will get deported, and that’s simply not the case… There is discretion that remains in the system, and that’s where Mr. Sidhu is right now.” 

He located that discretion within the statutory framework, noting that while section 36 renders removal likely for a sentence of eight years’ incarceration, section 44 preserves room for an officer to decline enforcement. He also turned a critical eye to systemic responsibility: 

“Did the broader system let Mr. Sidhu down?… We allow individuals with a few dozen hours of training to drive sixty thousand pound missiles.” 

The conversation expanded to the responsibilities of employers and the downstream effects on other applicants. Raj reported a tangible (but understandable) chill: 

“We’re seeing pushback now. I’m doing judicial review of work permit refusals of truck drivers… We’re seeing a lot more refusals on the grounds of—well, I believe implied refusals—on the basis of safety. So we are seeing pushback by officers now in light of that case.” 

Raj also reminded listeners that discretion routinely flows the other way, with Canada admitting individuals who have criminal histories: 

“We allow criminals into Canada all the time. Whether it’s Conrad Black with a fraud conviction… whether it’s media stars, singers… we allow individuals entry to Canada notwithstanding prior interactions with the criminal justice system.” 

Finally, asked what evidence practitioners should marshal in seeking favourable discretion, Raj—noting that Mr. Sidhu is represented by the respected Michael Green, QC—outlined a possible approach [of note the podcast was recorded some years earlier and there’s been developments in Mr. Sidhu’s file since then including the grant of a stay against the refusal to defer removal earlier in 2026]: 

“What I would do probably is we would put in those sentencing transcripts… a pre-sentence report, what have you… the families that have not forgiven him and the families that have… the Maclean’s article or the National Post article… This calls for us to bring forth the highest level of advocacy that we can bring to the table.” 

He cast the exercise as almost a humanitarian and compassionate application in miniature, engaging the deepest principles of the system: 

“All of the concepts of rehabilitation, recidivism… all of these concepts that underlie our heritage—which is that while punishment for criminal acts is part and parcel of our worldview, forgiveness is also part and parcel of that.” 

The Erosion of Appeal Rights 

Raj provided valuable historical context for younger practitioners, tracing how the right of appeal for permanent residents has been steadily narrowed: 

“There used to be a full right of appeal for permanent residents. Pretty much everyone with a criminal record would be able to have a right of appeal, where those discretionary factors would be fully litigated, and that was changed in the law some time ago to become pretty strict. It’s almost like a one strike you’re out policy, absent the discretion in the Section Forty-Four report.” 

He walked through the legislative progression: 

“Prior to IRPA, you had the ability for a permanent resident to challenge almost any ground of inadmissibility or criminal inadmissibility. IRPA brought in that two years less a day threshold. We had… the euphemistically entitled Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act… which brought in this less than six month sort of threshold, and it was a threshold that didn’t take into account the nature of the crime itself. It was strictly based on the sentence imposed.” 

Section 37 and the Breadth of Organized Criminality 

A significant portion of the discussion addressed Section 37 of IRPA, which Raj predicted would be increasingly relied upon by CBSA precisely because it removes the constraints found in Section 36: 

“Section Thirty-Seven removes whatever fetters one has under Section Thirty-Six… You don’t need a conviction, and isn’t that scary? You don’t even need to show an actual crime. You just have to show an involvement with the organization.” 

He illustrated the troubling breadth of these provisions with striking examples. He also referenced the Sunny Wang case, in which the central figure was convicted and sentenced but not removed (since he was a citizen), while his permanent resident assistants faced removal under Section 37 without any charges or convictions: 

“His secretaries, his assistants, who are permanent residents, are facing removal under 37 of the Act with no conviction, no charges, no conviction. So, a definite uphill battle.” 

Raj noted the fulsome treatment of Section 37 in his book, and pointed to his partner Bjorn Harsanyi’s work on Lopez Gaytan, a duress case that reached the Federal Court of Appeal, as evidence of how dynamic and evolving this area of law remains. He also touched on the challenges of equivalency analysis involving foreign law, noting the difficulty of comparing offences such as fraud in the People’s Republic of China—where large-scale fraud can attract the death penalty—to their Canadian counterparts. 

Advice for Aspiring Practitioners 

Asked for his guidance to listeners, Raj offered a characteristically witty first answer—“Buy the book”—before delivering more substantive counsel. He urged aspiring practitioners to begin with self-knowledge: 

“Going back to those ancient Greeks, the first step is to know yourself. If you’re interested in that area of law, that intersection of criminal law and immigration law, then we can develop down this path.” 

He stressed that this field demands a litigator’s instinct and a willingness to question everything: 

“This is not an area where, well, an officer says it’s so, therefore it must be the case. Here, you’re going to question everything. Is this evidence? Is this an inference? Is this speculation?” 

Drawing on the UK distinction between solicitors and barristers, Raj encouraged lawyers to recognize their own strengths and to refer matters out when appropriate: 

“If you’re not in that world, you identify an issue early on, refer that out, unless you want to flirt with allegations of incompetence or conduct in breach of professional requirements or ethics. Refer that out. Get specialists on board.” 

“Things I Wish I Knew”: Relationships and Entrepreneurship 

The episode’s closing segment offered reflections on the softer skills that underpin a successful practice. One panellist emphasized that relationships are everything—not only with mentors and colleagues, but with opposing counsel, CBSA officers, Department of Justice lawyers, and even registry and administrative staff: 

“Those people who are doing those administrative duties actually have a lot of power in some ways… they could either shut the door in your face and your filing is late, or they could stay open for a few extra minutes to allow you to get your stuff in under the wire.” 

The theme of trust and reputation carried into a discussion of entrepreneurship, with the panel noting that law school teaches one how to practise law but rarely how to build a business: 

“You reach a point in your career where you need to bring in the business… Learn how to be an entrepreneur, create those relationships, make sure you get out and network.” 

The panel agreed that the best advertisement is simply doing excellent work—passionate, respectful advocacy generates referrals even in cases that are lost. 

Conclusion 

This episode of Welcome Home, recorded some 5 years ago (and with the 2nd edition of the textbook Inadmissibility and Remedies out in 2027), offered both a practitioner’s masterclass and a thoughtful meditation on one of the most consequential areas of Canadian immigration law. Raj Sharma made the case that inadmissibility work demands more than checklist competence—it requires persuasive advocacy, emotional resilience, and a willingness to inhabit a client’s entire life story before an officer who must, in turn, exercise genuine discretion. 

The Sidhu case served as the conversation’s anchor, crystallizing the collision between administrative immigration powers and the criminal law, the reality of “double jeopardy” for permanent residents, and the enduring tension between punishment and forgiveness. Raj’s central and reassuring message for practitioners was clear: even a serious conviction and a lengthy sentence do not automatically mark the end of one’s journey in Canada, because discretion—under provisions such as section 44—remains available. At the same time, he highlighted the broader public-policy questions the case raises, from inadequate training standards for commercial drivers to the responsibilities of employers and the ripple effects now being felt by other applicants facing heightened scrutiny. 

Yet the conversation also carried a note of caution. The jurisprudence is evolving rapidly and often runs against the client: appeal rights for permanent residents have been steadily eroded, and provisions such as Section 37 grant CBSA sweeping powers untethered from any requirement of a conviction or even proof of an actual crime. His advice to practitioners—know yourself, develop genuine litigation skills, question every inference, and refer out when you are beyond your depth—reflects the care and professionalism that define the work at Stewart Sharma Harsanyi. 

For immigration lawyers and students alike, the takeaway is that inadmissibility practice is where the stakes, the complexity, and the rewards of this field are at their highest—and where the quality of advocacy can genuinely alter the course of a life. And, as the panel reminded us throughout, the relationships you build along the way—with colleagues, opponents, clients, and staff alike—may ultimately matter just as much as the law you master.