Ghana midfielder Partey loses appeal for Canadian visa ahead of Panama fixture
The ruling follows diplomatic and legal escalation from the Ghanaian government and the Ghana Football Association, which had protested the denial as unfair. They filed an emergency interlocutory injunction at the Federal Court of Canada seeking a review of the decision.
An appeal against the decision to deny Ghana’s Thomas Partey a Canadian visa for the World Cup has failed – with court documents revealing the initial visa application did not disclose the criminal charges he faces in the UK.
An application for a temporary resident visa (TRV) was made on May 21, but in answer to a question about whether Partey had ever committed, been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any criminal offence in any country, the response provided was 'No'.
The 33-year-old former Arsenal midfielder denies seven charges of rape and one count of sexual assault, relating to allegations by four different women between 2020 and 2022, and is due to stand trial next year.
A letter addressed to Partey from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) sent on May 25 set out concerns about whether his application had met the requirement to "answer truthfully".
It also stated he may be inadmissible for a temporary resident visa under a section of legislation covering misrepresentation.
The federal court, in its ruling on Tuesday dismissing the motion, noted that the response to that letter and Partey's affidavit to the court "fail to acknowledge, let alone explain why this material information was missing in his application".
Documentation concerning the charges was sent to the IRCC by the Ghana Football Association on May 27. Ghana face Panama in Toronto on Wednesday but must now do so without Partey, before they take on England in Boston on June 23. Partey has been granted a United States visa.
The court found that the officer who denied Partey a visa had not erred in law by basing the decision to refuse on an unproven offence.
"Paragraph 36(1)(c) of the IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), as distinct from 36(1)(b), does not require a conviction in order to find the Applicant inadmissible. Rather, simply having reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed is sufficient," wrote Judge Roger R. Lafreniere.
Comments
Sign in with Google to comment, reply, and like comments.
Continue with Google