A PR applied for the renewal of their PR card. IRCC determined that they had not met their residency obligation, and the minister issued a departure order. The PR retains an RCIC to represent them and wants to know the standard of proof that the IAD would apply when assessing the evidence presented at the hearing. What should the RCIC advise?

Mere suspicion is not a sufficient standard of proof in legal contexts, including immigration cases. It implies a feeling or belief that something may be true without any substantial evidence to support it. The IAD requires more concrete evidence than mere suspicion to make determinations regarding residency obligations.

Reasonable grounds to believe is a standard typically used in criminal law and certain administrative contexts, indicating that there is a reasonable basis for a belief or assumption. However, it does not meet the threshold required by the IAD, which operates under the balance of probabilities rather than requiring a reasonable belief based on available evidence.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in criminal cases, requiring the evidence to eliminate any reasonable doubts about the defendant's guilt. This standard is not applicable in immigration hearings, where decisions are made based on the balance of probabilities instead of the stricter requirement of eliminating all doubt.