This article examines the state of Canadian refugee law since the decision of the Supreme Court in Febles v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2014] 3 SCR 431. Drawing upon an analysis of a set of decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the administrative tribunal tasked with refugee status determination in Canada, the article seeks to determine whether administrative decision makers are heeding the guidance of Febles when excluding asylum seekers from refugee protection on the basis of serious criminality pursuant to article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In doing so, it examines the controversy around article 1F(b) since its inception across various jurisdictions and amongst academic commentators, situating Febles within that controversy in order to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s reluctance to clearly set out the purpose underlying article 1F(b) is in step with a longstanding tendency to understand the provision as serving a gatekeeping function, that prevents criminalized non-citizens from obtaining membership in our society. It argues that by omitting to set out a clear and principled standard by which asylum seekers can be excluded from refugee protection pursuant to article 1F(b), the Supreme Court failed to live up to a thick understanding of the rule of law. It concludes by calling for a reassertion of the rule of law into exclusion decision making, both nationally and internationally, in order to ensure that the legitimacy of the international refugee law regime is maintained.

中文翻译：

---

加拿大排除法学后Febles

本文研究了自最高法院在 Febles v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2014] 3 SCR 431 案中作出裁决以来加拿大难民法的状况。在加拿大负责确定难民身份的法庭，该文章旨在确定行政决策者在根据 1951 年《关于难民地位。在此过程中，它审查了自第 1F(b) 条在各个司法管辖区和学术评论员之间开始以来的争议，将Febles置于该争议范围内，以证明最高法院不愿明确阐明第1F(b)条的目的与长期以来将该条款理解为起到把关作用的趋势一致，即防止被定罪的非公民获得我们社会的会员资格。它辩称，最高法院没有制定明确和原则性的标准，根据第 1F(b) 条，寻求庇护者可以被排除在难民保护之外，因此最高法院未能实现对法治的深刻理解。它最后呼吁在国家和国际的排除决策中重申法治，以确保维持国际难民法制度的合法性。