[1]        This is an appeal from a decision of Dubé J. (1998 CanLII 9042 (FC), [1998] 2 F.C. 642 dismissing an application for judicial review of a refusal by a visa officer in Hong Kong to issue a visa to the appellant, Sing Chi Stephen Chiau. The basis of the officer’s decision was that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Chiau was a member of a criminal organization and was hence inadmissible under paragraph 19(1)(c.2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2 [as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 11].
[ 1] 这是对 Dubé法官的裁决的上诉（1998 CanLII 9042 (FC)，[1998] 2 F.C. 642），该裁决驳回了对香港签证官拒绝向上诉人 Sing Chi Stephen Chiau 签发签证的司法审查申请。签证官决定的依据是有合理理由相信 Chiau 先生是一个犯罪组织的成员，因此根据《移民法》第 19(1)(c.2)段，R.S.C.，1985，c. I-2 [经 S.C. 1992，c. 49，第 11 条修订]，他不被允许入境。

[2]        Underlying almost every aspect of this appeal is a task that presents a considerable challenge to the officials and institutions of an open and democratic society, including its courts, namely, the need to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of the individual and the duty of the state to protect national security.
[ 2] 本次上诉几乎每个方面的基础都是一个对开放和民主社会的官员和机构（包括其法院）提出相当挑战的任务，即在个人利益与国家保护国家安全的职责之间寻求适当的平衡。

[3]        The individual interest at stake in this case is the appellant’s right to have his application for a visa determined, and his application to have that decision reviewed, in accordance with law, including the norms of procedural fairness.
[ 3] 本案中涉及的个人利益是上诉人有权根据法律，包括程序公正的规范，决定其签证申请及对该决定进行复审的申请。

[4]        To be balanced against this is the need for state authorities to obtain and rely on information supplied in confidence by law enforcement authorities, including foreign governments and institutions, the disclosure of which may cause valuable sources of intelligence to dry up, to the detriment of the state’s ability to detect and exclude non-citizens whose admission to Canada might jeopardize national security through their connections with organized crime.
[ 4] 与此相对的是，国家当局需要获得并依赖执法机构（包括外国政府和机构）提供的保密信息，披露这些信息可能导致宝贵的情报来源枯竭，从而损害国家检测和排除可能通过与有组织犯罪的联系而危害国家安全的非公民入境加拿大的能力。

[5]        Mr. Chiau is a very successful actor. He is well known among Cantonese-speaking people in East and South East Asia, and elsewhere, as a result of his appearances in films and television programmes. Since 1981 he has been under contract with TVB, a Hong Kong television company, which has also been his agent in the negotiation of his film contracts. In addition, he has made more than 20 films, including seven films for two Hong Kong studios that are widely believed to be controlled by a particular triad. On the other hand, there is no suggestion that TVB is under triad control.
[5] 赵先生是一位非常成功的演员。他因在电影和电视节目中的表现而在东南亚及其他地区的粤语人群中广为人知。自 1981 年以来，他与香港电视公司 TVB 签订了合同，该公司也在他电影合同的谈判中担任他的代理。此外，他拍摄了超过 20 部电影，包括为两家广泛认为受特定黑帮控制的香港制片厂拍摄的七部电影。另一方面，没有证据表明 TVB 受到黑帮控制。

[6]        Triads typically are highly structured organizations, often run by members of a family, that are engaged in crime: drugs, prostitution, extortion, people-smuggling and gambling, in particular. In addition, members of a triad may also run legitimate businesses. For example, it is widely believed that triads control a substantial portion of the film and entertainment industry in Hong Kong.
[ 6] 三合会通常是高度结构化的组织，通常由家族成员管理，参与犯罪活动：特别是毒品、卖淫、敲诈、人口走私和赌博。此外，三合会成员也可能经营合法企业。例如，广泛认为三合会控制了香港电影和娱乐行业的相当一部分。

[7]        Mr. Chiau’s first application for a visa to enter Canada as a permanent resident in the self-employed class was refused by a visa officer in Singapore in September 1993, on the same ground as the refusal under review in this appeal. However, in 1994 the Trial Division of the Federal Court set this decision aside on consent, because Mr. Chiau had not been given an interview before the officer refused his visa application.
[ 7] 赵先生首次申请以自雇类别进入加拿大的永久居民签证于 1993 年 9 月在新加坡被签证官拒绝，拒绝的理由与本次上诉审查中的拒绝理由相同。然而，在 1994 年，联邦法院的初审庭在双方同意的情况下撤销了该决定，因为赵先生在签证申请被拒绝之前没有接受面试。

[8]        The appellant renewed his visa application in November 1995, this time to the visa section of the Canadian High Commission in Hong Kong, believing that his application file would be transferred to Hong Kong from Singapore. In January 1996, the appellant received a letter from the visa officer in Hong Kong handling his application, Jean Pierre Delisle, who had been posted to Hong Kong to handle the security and criminality screening of visa applicants.
[ 8] 上诉人于 1995 年 11 月重新提交了签证申请，这次是向位于香港的加拿大高级专员公署签证处提交，认为他的申请档案会从新加坡转移到香港。1996 年 1 月，上诉人收到了处理其申请的香港签证官 Jean Pierre Delisle 的信件，他被派往香港负责签证申请人的安全和犯罪背景审查。

[9]        The letter advised him that there was reason to believe that Mr. Chiau might be inadmissible under paragraph 19(1)(c.2) of the Act, and invited him to attend an interview on March 5, 1996 “to ascertain if you have maintained any links with triads or other organized criminal elements.”
[ 9] 信中告知他，有理由相信邱先生可能根据该法第 19(1)(c.2)段不被接纳，并邀请他于 1996 年 3 月 5 日参加面试，“以确定您是否与黑帮或其他有组织犯罪团伙保持任何联系。”

[10]      There is some controversy about precisely what happened at the interview, which Mr. Chiau attended alone, particularly with respect to whether Mr. Chiau had with him copies of contracts to make films for companies other than those believed to be controlled by a triad. Mr. Delisle said that he did not, and that he invited Mr. Chiau to provide copies, either then or later, which he failed to do.
[10] 关于采访中发生的具体情况存在一些争议，蔡先生是单独参加的，特别是关于蔡先生是否携带了与被认为由黑帮控制的公司以外的公司制作电影的合同副本。德利斯尔先生表示他没有，并邀请蔡先生提供副本，无论是当时还是后来，但他未能做到。

[11]      Mr. Chiau, on the other hand, said that he had brought copies of contracts with him to the interview, but that the visa officer was only interested in those with the allegedly triad-controlled studios. He denied that Mr. Delisle requested him to produce copies of contracts with film companies that were not triad-controlled.
[ 11] 另一方面，Chiau 先生表示他在面试时带来了合同的副本，但签证官只对那些 allegedly 由黑帮控制的工作室的合同感兴趣。他否认 Delisle 先生要求他提供与非黑帮控制的电影公司签订的合同副本。

[12]      I should also note that Mr. Delisle stated that, when he decided to refuse to issue a visa he did not have available to him the copy of the business plan that Mr. Chiau had submitted with his original application, because it was missing from the file that had been transferred from Singapore. However, Mr. Delisle accepts that he did have before him copies of Mr. Chiau’s contract with TVB. Mr. Chiau stated that he did not provide a business plan to Mr. Delisle because he assumed that the plan that he submitted with his previous visa application in Singapore would have been forwarded to Hong Kong.
[ 12] 我还应该指出，德利斯先生表示，当他决定拒绝签发签证时，他没有获得乔先生随原申请提交的商业计划书的副本，因为该文件在从新加坡转移的档案中缺失。然而，德利斯先生承认他确实有乔先生与 TVB 的合同副本在他面前。乔先生表示，他没有向德利斯先生提供商业计划书，因为他认为他在新加坡提交的前一个签证申请中的计划会被转发到香港。

[13]      Mr. Delisle asked Mr. Chiau during the interview whether he knew a certain member of a triad, whom he named, and inquired about his relationship with two of the principals of the companies that owned the film studios for which he had worked. The officer also suggested to Mr. Chiau that it was odd that, despite the number of film companies operating in Hong Kong, he seemed only to have worked for triad-controlled studios.
[ 13] 德利斯先生在面试中问乔先生是否认识某个他提到的黑帮成员，并询问他与拥有他曾工作过的电影制片厂的两位主要负责人之间的关系。该官员还向乔先生暗示，尽管香港有许多电影公司，但他似乎只在黑帮控制的制片厂工作过，这很奇怪。

[14]      The answers received by Mr. Delisle to these questions did not satisfy him that Mr. Chiau was being truthful. For instance, having first denied knowing the named triad member, the appellant later agreed that, if Mr. Delisle had been referring to the person whose recent death had been widely reported in the Hong Kong media, he had known him, but had been confused about the name.
[ 14] 德利斯先生对这些问题的回答并没有让他相信乔先生在说实话。例如，在最初否认认识所提到的三合会成员后，上诉人后来同意，如果德利斯先生所指的是最近在香港媒体广泛报道的那位已故人士，他确实认识他，但对名字感到困惑。

[15]      As for the person who ran a film studio for whom Mr. Chiau had worked, and whom the United States Senate Subcommittee on Asian Organized Crime had identified as a member of the ruling council of a triad, Mr. Chiau claimed that he had a strictly business relationship with him in connection with the movies that he had made for his studio.
[ 15] 至于经营电影制片厂的那位与焦先生合作过的人，美国参议院亚裔有组织犯罪小组已将其认定为一个黑帮的执委会成员，焦先生声称他与该人士之间仅存在与他为该制片厂制作的电影相关的纯商业关系。

[16]      There was also discussion at the interview about an incident, widely reported in the Hong Kong press, in which a gun had been fired into the office of one of the allegedly triad-controlled film studios for whom Mr. Chiau worked. The head of the company that owned the studio was reported to have said that this was an attempt by another triad to intimidate the studio into permitting Mr. Chiau to make a movie for one of its companies.
[16] 面试中还讨论了一个事件，该事件在香港媒体广泛报道，涉及一支枪被开向 Mr. Chiau 工作的一家 allegedly triad-controlled 电影制片厂的办公室。拥有该制片厂的公司的负责人据报道表示，这是另一个三合会试图威胁该制片厂，以迫使 Mr. Chiau 为其公司制作电影的企图。

[17]      Mr. Chiau told Mr. Delisle that this person had no authority to claim that his studio could veto the companies for whom Mr. Chiau could work. Indeed, TVB subsequently clarified an earlier statement that it had made by stating that none of the film producers had a general veto over Mr. Chiau’s performance under non-conflicting contracts with other companies.
[ 17] Chiau 先生告诉 Delisle 先生，这个人没有权力声称他的工作室可以否决 Chiau 先生可以为之工作的公司。实际上，TVB 随后澄清了之前的声明，指出没有任何电影制作人对 Chiau 先生在与其他公司签订的非冲突合同下的表演拥有一般否决权。

[18]      As I have already indicated, Mr. Delisle’s evidence was that he asked for copies of contracts between Mr. Chiau or his company, and non-triad- controlled film studios. Despite the uncertainties surrounding it, I am not satisfied that this evidence was incorrect. It is not determinative that Mr. Chiau subsequently attached a list of non-triad-controlled companies for whom he had made films to the affidavit that he swore for the purpose of this application for judicial review.
[18] 正如我已经指出的，德利斯先生的证据是他要求获得与邱先生或他的公司以及非黑帮控制的电影制片厂之间合同的副本。尽管对此存在不确定性，但我并不认为该证据是不正确的。邱先生随后将他为之制作电影的非黑帮控制公司的名单附在他为本次司法审查申请而宣誓的宣誓书上并不具有决定性。

[19]      In a letter dated March 26, 1996, Mr. Delisle informed Mr. Chiau that his application for a visa had been refused on the ground that he might be a person described in paragraph 19(1)(c.2) of the Act, in that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Chiau was a member of an organization reasonably suspected of being involved in organized criminal activity.
[19] 在 1996 年 3 月 26 日的信中，德利斯先生通知乔先生，他的签证申请因可能属于法案第 19(1)(c.2)段所描述的人而被拒绝，因为有合理的理由相信乔先生是一个合理怀疑参与有组织犯罪活动的组织的成员。

[20]      Mr. Delisle concluded that Mr. Chiau was inadmissible as a person described in paragraph 19(1)(c.2) of the Immigration Act. He based his decision on the answers to the questions that he had put to Mr. Chiau about his long-term relationship with one of the film studios and its head, and their connection with a particular triad, on the information supplied by Mr. Chiau, and on the confidential information that he was not at liberty to disclose.
[20] 德利斯先生得出结论，乔先生作为《移民法》第 19(1)(c.2)段所描述的人是不被接纳的。他的决定基于他向乔先生提出的关于他与某电影制片厂及其负责人之间长期关系的问题的回答，以及他们与某特定黑帮的联系，基于乔先生提供的信息，以及他无法透露的机密信息。

[21]      At the hearing of the application for judicial review of this decision in the Trial Division, counsel for the Minister invoked subsection 82.1(10) [as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 19; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 73] of the Immigration Act, and made submissions in camera and ex parte. He explained to the Judge the nature and significance of the confidential information that was before the visa officer and why its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to Canada’s international relations. If, as counsel submitted to the Judge, this was the case, the Court could take the information into account in reviewing the visa officer’s decision.
[21] 在审判部门对该决定的司法审查申请听证会上，部长的律师援引了《移民法》第 82.1(10)款[根据 R.S.C., 1985 (第 4 次补充), c. 28, s. 19; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 73]，并进行了非公开和单方面的陈述。他向法官解释了签证官面前的机密信息的性质和重要性，以及其披露为何会对国家安全或加拿大的国际关系造成伤害。如果正如律师向法官所述，确实如此，法院可以在审查签证官的决定时考虑该信息。

[22]      After hearing these ex parte submissions and carefully inspecting the confidential information, the Judge found (supra, at paragraph 18, page 655):
[ 22] 在听取这些单方面的陈述并仔细检查机密信息后，法官发现（见上文，第 18 段，第 655 页）：

[23]      In light of the confidential information, the information that the officer had provided to Mr. Chiau about the nature of his concerns and the opportunity that the appellant had had to respond to them, and the fact that he had no legal right to enter Canada, the Judge concluded that Mr. Chiau had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to know and answer the case against him. Hence, the refusal of the visa had not been in breach of the duty of fairness.
[23] 鉴于机密信息、官员向邱先生提供的关于其担忧性质的信息以及上诉人有机会对此作出回应的事实，以及他没有合法权利进入加拿大，法官得出结论，邱先生已获得合理的机会了解并回答针对他的案件。因此，拒绝签证并未违反公平原则的义务。

[24]      The Judge also held that there were “reasonable grounds” for the officer’s belief that Mr. Chiau was a “member” of a criminal organization, namely a triad, within the meaning of paragraph 19(1)(c.2) of the Act. He defined (supra, at paragraph 27, page 658) “reasonable grounds to believe” in this context as connoting “a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on credible evidence”, a lower standard of proof than the normal civil standard of the balance of probabilities.
[ 24] 法官还认为，执法人员有“合理理由”相信邱先生是根据该法第 19(1)(c.2)段的定义属于一个犯罪组织，即黑帮的“成员”。他在上述第 27 段，第 658 页中将此背景下的“合理理由相信”定义为“基于可信证据的真诚信念，认为存在严重可能性”，这一标准低于正常民事案件的概率平衡标准。

[25]      As for the meaning of “member”, the Judge held that, given the policy underlying paragraph 19(1)(c.2), the term “member” was not limited to a person who actively participated in criminal acts, or to one with a membership card whose name appeared on a membership list. Rather, it should be understood more broadly to mean simply a person who “belonged to” the criminal organization in question.
[25] 关于“成员”的含义，法官认为，鉴于第 19(1)(c.2)段落所依据的政策，“成员”一词并不限于积极参与犯罪行为的人，或是持有会员卡且名字出现在会员名单上的人。相反，它应更广泛地理解为简单地指“属于”相关犯罪组织的人。

[26]      On the basis of the public record and of the content of the confidential information, the Judge concluded that the visa officer’s decision that there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that Mr. Chiau was a “member” of a certain triad, an organization reasonably believed to be involved in organized criminal activity, could not be characterized as “patently unreasonable”. Hence, there was no basis on which the Court could quash the refusal.
[26] 根据公开记录和机密信息的内容，法官得出结论，签证官认为有“合理理由相信”邱先生是某个三合会的“成员”，该组织被合理认为涉及有组织犯罪活动，这一决定不能被视为“显然不合理”。因此，法院没有理由撤销拒签决定。

[27]      For the sake of convenience, the provisions of the Immigration Act to which reference will be made in these reasons are set out below [s. 39(2) (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 29)].
[27] 为了方便起见，以下列出了在这些理由中将提及的移民法条款 [第 39(2)条（根据 1992 年加拿大法案第 49 章第 29 条修订）]。

[28]      The Trial Judge certified three questions under subsection 83(1) [as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 73] of the Act, each of which raised “a serious question of general importance.” However, as Ms. Jackman, counsel for the appellant, was quick to point out, the Federal Court of Appeal must consider any ground relied on in the appeal. She identified a total of five grounds, including the certified questions, on which she submitted that the appeal should be allowed:
[28] 审判法官根据法案第 83(1)款[根据 1992 年加拿大法案第 49 章第 73 条修订]认证了三个问题，每个问题都提出了“一个具有重大普遍重要性的问题。”然而，正如上诉人的律师杰克曼女士迅速指出的，联邦上诉法院必须考虑上诉中所依赖的任何理由。她指出了包括认证问题在内的五个理由，并提交认为上诉应当被允许：

[29]      Before addressing the issues outlined above, I should say something about the confidential information, and the Court’s consideration of it.
在讨论上述问题之前，我应该对机密信息以及法院对此的考虑说几句。

[30]      First, we did not find it necessary to hear submissions of counsel for the Minister on whether the Court could, and should on this appeal, conduct an in camera hearing in the absence of the appellant and his counsel, at which counsel for the Minister would take the Court through the confidential material and explain why it supported the visa officer’s decision and should not be disclosed. Such a procedure is expressly provided in subsection 82.1(10) of the Immigration Act in proceedings before the Trial Division and we do not have to decide whether this highly unusual procedure is also available in the Federal Court of Appeal.
[30] 首先，我们认为没有必要听取部长的律师关于法院是否可以以及在本次上诉中是否应该在缺席上诉人及其律师的情况下进行非公开听证的陈述，在该听证中，部长的律师将向法院介绍机密材料，并解释为什么这些材料支持签证官的决定并且不应被披露。这种程序在《移民法》第 82.1(10)款中明确规定，适用于审判部门的程序，我们不必决定这种非常不寻常的程序是否也适用于联邦上诉法院。

[31]      Second, we read the confidential affidavits and their supporting material since they were part of the record before the Trial Judge and the visa officer. Ms. Jackman did not object to our so doing. We did not, however, read the “secret” written submissions prepared by counsel for the Minister, or the “secret” book of authorities that he submitted to the Court, since we felt able to appreciate for ourselves the nature and relevance of the information contained in the secret affidavits.
[31] 第二，我们阅读了保密的宣誓书及其支持材料，因为它们是审判法官和签证官面前的记录的一部分。杰克曼女士对此没有提出异议。然而，我们没有阅读部长律师准备的“秘密”书面陈述，或他提交给法院的“秘密”权威书籍，因为我们认为能够自行理解保密宣誓书中所含信息的性质和相关性。

[32]      Third, the nature and sources of the information, and the conditions on which it was supplied, left us in no doubt that its disclosure might well prejudice Canada’s national security and relations with foreign governments and institutions. Even to provide a summary that did not name the sources could inadvertently reveal information, including the identity of the informants, that could be useful to organized crime and endanger lives. Hence disclosure might well result in the drying up of these and similar sources on which Canadian authorities must rely in order to exclude those inadmissible under paragraph 19(1)(c.2) of the Act.
[ 32] 第三，信息的性质和来源，以及提供信息的条件，使我们毫不怀疑其披露可能会损害加拿大的国家安全以及与外国政府和机构的关系。即使提供一个不提及来源的摘要，也可能无意中泄露信息，包括线人的身份，这可能对有组织犯罪有用并危及生命。因此，披露可能导致这些及类似来源的枯竭，而加拿大当局必须依赖这些来源以排除根据该法第 19(1)(c.2)段不被接纳的人。

[33]      Fourth, in the course of her oral argument Ms. Jackman recognized that the content and nature of the secret information before the Court could render her submissions moot, since, of necessity, they were based solely on the public record. Mr. Wruck, counsel for the Minister, acknowledged this when he said that this was almost entirely a fact-based case, in the sense that, if the Court accepted the information in the secret affidavits, most of the legal issues on which Ms. Jackman relied resolved themselves.
[ 33] 第四，在她的口头辩论中，杰克曼女士承认，法庭面前的秘密信息的内容和性质可能使她的主张变得无关紧要，因为这些主张必然仅基于公开记录。部长的律师沃克先生对此表示认可，他说这几乎完全是一个基于事实的案件，因为如果法庭接受秘密宣誓书中的信息，杰克曼女士所依赖的大多数法律问题将自行解决。

[34]      We agree with these observations; the content of the secret affidavits, four in all, render most of Ms. Jackman’s able arguments moot. The affidavits and their supporting documentation comprise approximately 200 pages. They contain detailed and concrete information about triads in general, and about the particular triad of which the visa officer believed Mr. Chiau to be a member, and link Mr. Chiau to that triad. Taken together with the public record, these materials amply justify the visa officer’s decision.
[ 34] 我们同意这些观察；这四份秘密宣誓书的内容使杰克曼女士的大部分有力论点变得无关紧要。这些宣誓书及其支持文件大约有 200 页。它们包含了关于三合会的一般信息，以及签证官认为丘先生是其成员的特定三合会的详细和具体信息，并将丘先生与该三合会联系起来。结合公共记录，这些材料充分证明了签证官的决定是合理的。

[35]      It was common ground that in determining a visa application a visa officer is subject to the duty of fairness, and that this includes a reasonable opportunity to know and respond to information on which the officer proposes to rely in making his decision. Whether the appellant was denied this reasonable opportunity depends on an analysis of the factual, administrative and legal contexts of the decision.
[35] 双方一致认为，在审理签证申请时，签证官有公平的职责，这包括合理的机会了解和回应签证官在作出决定时拟依赖的信息。上诉人是否被剥夺了这一合理机会取决于对该决定的事实、行政和法律背景的分析。

[36]      It is trite law that the content of the duty of procedural fairness varies according to context: the concept of fairness is situational, not abstract or absolute. The Supreme Court of Canada has identified a number of factors to be taken into consideration in determining the content of the duty of fairness in any given situation: see, in particular, Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19, 1990 CanLII 138 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653, at pages 682-687; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at pages 837-844.
[ 36] 程序公正的义务内容因情境而异是显而易见的法律原则：公正的概念是情境性的，而非抽象或绝对的。加拿大最高法院已确定在任何特定情况下确定公正义务内容时需要考虑的多个因素：特别参见 Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19, 1990 CanLII 138 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653, 第 682-687 页；Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, 第 837-844 页。

[37]      Drawing on the reasons for judgment in these cases, I now consider the factors most relevant to determining whether the visa officer disclosed sufficient information to Mr. Chiau to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to disabuse Mr. Delisle of his concerns.
[ 37] 根据这些案件的判决理由，我现在考虑与确定签证官是否向 Chiau 先生披露了足够的信息，以便为他提供合理机会使 Delisle 先生消除顾虑的因素。

[38]      First, it is necessary to consider the seriousness of the impact on the individual of an adverse administrative decision. The visa officer’s decision in this case did not deprive the appellant of any legal right, since non-citizens have no right at common law or under statute to enter Canada (Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711, at page 733), although the statutory scheme under which immigration control is administered does not leave admission decisions to the untrammelled discretion of the Minister or her officials. Nor did Mr. Chiau have any connection with Canada that rendered the refusal of a visa a particular hardship.
[ 38] 首先，有必要考虑不利行政决定对个人的影响的严重性。本案中签证官的决定并未剥夺上诉人任何法律权利，因为非公民在普通法或法定法下没有进入加拿大的权利（Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711, 第 733 页），尽管移民控制所依据的法定方案并未将入境决定完全交由部长或其官员的自由裁量权。Chiau 先生与加拿大之间也没有任何联系，使得拒签造成特别的困难。

[39]      Moreover, a refusal to issue a visa is not final, in the sense that the individual may always apply again. However, it must also be acknowledged that, when an applicant is refused a visa under paragraph 19(1)(c.2) of the Act, subsequent applications by that person are likely to be subject to a higher level of scrutiny than they might otherwise have attracted.
[39] 此外，拒绝签发签证并非最终决定，因为个人可以随时再次申请。然而，也必须承认，当申请人在《法案》第 19(1)(c.2)段下被拒签时，该人后续的申请可能会受到比其他申请更高程度的审查。

[40]      On the other hand, Ms. Jackman submitted that the ground on which the visa was refused was likely to damage the appellant’s reputation and cause him financial loss, particularly since he is so well known and his case has attracted considerable media interest. I would note, however, that Mr. Chiau has some responsibility for any adverse publicity that he has received. It was, after all, not the visa officer who publicized the refusal or the ground on which it was based. If it had not occurred before, publicity was inevitable when Mr. Chiau exercised his right to make an application for judicial review of the refusal.
[ 40] 另一方面，杰克曼女士提交的理由是，签证被拒绝的原因可能会损害上诉人的声誉并导致其经济损失，特别是因为他非常知名且他的案件引起了相当大的媒体关注。然而，我要指出，邱先生对他所受到的任何负面宣传有一定的责任。毕竟，公示拒签及其依据的并不是签证官。如果之前没有发生过，当邱先生行使申请司法审查拒签的权利时，宣传是不可避免的。

[41]      While, as I have noted, it was not disputed that the duty of fairness applies to the determination of visa applications, the nature of the individual interests at stake in this case suggests that the procedural content of the duty to which the appellant was entitled before the visa officer rendered his decision was at the lower end of the spectrum.
[ 41] 正如我所提到的，虽然没有争议的是公平的义务适用于签证申请的决定，但本案中涉及的个人利益的性质表明，上诉人在签证官作出决定之前所应享有的程序内容处于光谱的较低端。

[42]      Here, the question is the extent to which the impugned decision, and the process by which it was made, resemble an adjudication: the closer the resemblance, the greater the content of the rules of procedural fairness. The following three factors point to imputing a relatively high procedural content to the duty of fairness in this case: that the decision was based on reasonably objective criteria, rather than pursuant to an open-ended and subjective discretion, and on facts concerning the individual, and that it applied only to the appellant.
[42] 在这里，问题在于受到质疑的决定及其作出过程在多大程度上类似于裁决：相似程度越高，程序公正的规则内容就越丰富。以下三个因素表明在本案中应将相对较高的程序内容归于公正义务：该决定是基于合理的客观标准，而不是根据开放式和主观的自由裁量权，并且是基于与个人相关的事实，并且仅适用于上诉人。

[43]      On the other hand, visa officers do not hold adjudicative-type hearings before reaching their decisions: visa application interviews, at which applicants are normally not permitted to be accompanied by counsel, could not be mistaken for the kind of hearing conducted by most independent administrative tribunals. Officers’ decisions are based in large part on the content of the file, supplemented by the interview.
[ 43] 另一方面，签证官在做出决定之前并不举行裁决类型的听证会：签证申请面试通常不允许申请人由律师陪同，不能与大多数独立行政法庭进行的听证会混淆。官员的决定在很大程度上基于档案的内容，并辅以面试。

[44]      The content of the duty of fairness may also be reduced below that indicated by other factors by the presence of a countervailing public interest, including the withholding of confidential information which, while relevant to an administrative decision adversely affecting an individual, would prejudice national security or international relations if disclosed to the person concerned.
[ 44] 公平义务的内容也可能因存在相反的公共利益而低于其他因素所指示的水平，包括保留机密信息，该信息虽然与对个人产生不利影响的行政决定相关，但如果向相关人员披露，将会损害国家安全或国际关系。

[45]      In this case, as I have already indicated, the officer based his decision in part on intelligence information gathered by the government or institution of a foreign state, the disclosure of which would cause these and other sources of similar information to dry up, to the detriment of Canadian security. Having examined the documents in question, I agree with this assessment.
[ 45] 在本案中，正如我已经指出的，官员的决定部分基于由外国政府或机构收集的情报信息，披露这些信息将导致这些及其他类似信息的来源枯竭，从而损害加拿大的安全。经过审查相关文件，我同意这一评估。

[46]      The activities of organized crime present a major threat to the security of all nations. The benefits of globalization, including the increased ease with which people, money, goods and information are able to cross national boundaries, are not confined to legitimate businesses. International co-operation among governments and their law enforcement agencies is a vital element in the attempt to curb the insidious international spread of the power of organized crime.
[46] 有组织犯罪的活动对所有国家的安全构成了重大威胁。全球化带来的好处，包括人、资金、商品和信息跨越国界的便利，不仅限于合法企业。各国政府及其执法机构之间的国际合作是遏制有组织犯罪势力在国际间蔓延的关键因素。

[47]      The factors considered above must be balanced, not in the abstract, but in the factual context of the particular case. Thus, a determination of whether fairness required the disclosure of any part of the secret material on which the visa officer relied must also include a consideration of the extent to which the individual’s knowledge of the nature of the visa officer’s concerns effectively enabled him to respond.
[ 47] 上述考虑的因素必须在特定案件的事实背景中进行平衡，而不是抽象地进行。因此，判断公平是否要求披露签证官所依赖的任何部分秘密材料，也必须考虑个人对签证官关切性质的了解在多大程度上有效地使他能够作出回应。

[48]      In fact, Mr. Chiau was relatively well informed. He knew the legal basis on which the officer was minded to base his decision; he knew the organization of which he was suspected of being a member; he knew that the basis of this suspicion included his relationship with allegedly triad-controlled studios and their heads, and with another member of the triad.
[48] 事实上，邱先生相对了解情况。他知道官员打算基于的法律依据；他知道他被怀疑是某个组织的成员；他知道这种怀疑的基础包括他与 allegedly 由黑帮控制的工作室及其负责人，以及与另一名黑帮成员的关系。

[49]      He was thus far from being in the dark about the officer’s concerns, and could have attempted to assuage them by, for instance, providing evidence that he had made films for studios other than those believed to be owned by triad-controlled companies.
[ 49] 他因此并不对官员的担忧一无所知，并且可以通过例如提供证据证明他曾为其他不被认为是由黑帮控制的公司的制片厂制作电影来试图缓解这些担忧。

[50]      Despite the lack of clarity in the evidence about what took place at the visa interview, I am not persuaded that Mr. Chiau was denied a fair opportunity to present material, either at or after the interview, that might have supported his position. It is relevant here to note that subsection 8(1) of the Act places on applicants for admission to Canada the burden of establishing that their entry would not be contrary to the Act.
[ 50] 尽管关于签证面试中发生了什么的证据不够明确，但我并不相信邱先生在面试期间或之后被剥夺了公平机会来提交可能支持他立场的材料。在这里需要指出的是，《法案》第 8(1)款规定，申请入境加拿大的申请人有责任证明他们的入境不会违反该法案。

[51]      I have concluded on the basis of the above considerations that there was no breach of the duty of fairness. The appellant was not denied a reasonable opportunity to know and answer the case against him before he was refused a visa, even though the visa officer in part had based his decision on material that he kept entirely confidential.
[51] 我根据上述考虑得出结论，认为没有违反公平义务。上诉人并没有被剥夺合理的机会在被拒签之前了解和回应针对他的案件，尽管签证官在一定程度上是基于他完全保密的材料作出的决定。

[52]      Despite the individualized and relatively structured nature of the decision-making power exercised by the visa officer, the adverse effect of the decision on the appellant was comparatively slight. In contrast, the potential damage to Canada’s security and international relations as a result of disclosing any part of the confidential material was substantial. The amount of information given to the applicant, and the opportunity that he had to respond, are also relevant to my conclusion that no breach of the duty of fairness occurred.
[52] 尽管签证官行使的决策权具有个性化和相对结构化的特点，但该决定对上诉人的不利影响相对较小。相比之下，披露任何部分机密材料可能对加拿大的安全和国际关系造成的潜在损害是相当大的。提供给申请者的信息量以及他有机会作出回应的情况，也与我得出没有违反公平义务的结论相关。

[53]      It is true, as Ms. Jackman pointed out, that subsection 39(6) of the Immigration Act imposes a duty on the Security Intelligence Review Committee to provide to a person about whom a report is made a summary of security or intelligence reports so that the person concerned can be as fully informed as possible about the circumstances giving rise to the report: see Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), supra.
[53] 正如杰克曼女士所指出的，移民法第 39(6)款确实要求安全情报审查委员会向被报告的个人提供安全或情报报告的摘要，以便相关人员能够尽可能全面地了解导致该报告的情况：见 Chiarelli 诉加拿大（就业与移民部长）一案，前引。

[54]      However, this statutory requirement does not necessarily indicate that the duty of fairness requires the production of a similar summary before a person is refused a visa on national security grounds. This is because section 39 of the Act applies to the deportation of permanent residents of Canada: deportation normally has a more serious impact on the individual concerned, and on his or her family, than the refusal of a visa to a person seeking admission to Canada as an independent immigrant, and thus attracts greater procedural safeguards. When another decision, such as the refusal of a visa, has a less serious impact on individual interests, there is less justification for requiring a degree of disclosure that might result in damage to national security, and the factors determining the content of the duty of fairness must be rebalanced.
[54] 然而，这一法定要求并不一定表明，在因国家安全原因拒绝某人签证之前，公平的义务要求提供类似的摘要。这是因为《法案》第 39 条适用于加拿大永久居民的驱逐：驱逐通常对相关个人及其家庭的影响比拒绝寻求作为独立移民入境加拿大的人的签证更为严重，因此需要更大的程序保障。当另一个决定，例如拒绝签证，对个人利益的影响较小时，要求披露可能对国家安全造成损害的程度的理由就较少，决定公平义务内容的因素必须重新平衡。

[55]      It is convenient to consider together the issues of whether the visa officer committed reviewable error when he determined that there were “reasonable grounds” for believing that Mr. Chiau was a “member” of a criminal organization, namely a particular triad.
[ 55] 将签证官在确定有“合理理由”相信邱先生是某个特定黑帮的“成员”时是否犯下可审查错误的问题一起考虑是方便的。

[56]      Whatever difficulties there might have been in supporting the visa officer’s decision on these issues on the basis of the public record alone, when the content of the secret affidavits is considered there can be no doubt that, on any plausible meaning of the term “members” in the context of paragraph 19(1)(c.2) of the Act, there were reasonable grounds for the officer to believe that Mr. Chiau was a member of the triad.
[ 56] 无论在仅根据公共记录支持签证官在这些问题上的决定时可能遇到什么困难，考虑到秘密宣誓书的内容，毫无疑问，在《法案》第 19(1)(c.2)段落的上下文中，“成员”一词的任何合理含义下，官员有合理的理由相信邱先生是三合会的成员。

[57]      It is not, therefore, either necessary, or helpful, to say much more about the meaning of the term “members” for the purpose of paragraph 19(1)(c.2). However, by equating being a “member” with “belonging to” a criminal organization, the Trial Division Judge correctly concluded that, in this context, the term should be broadly understood. In deference to Ms. Jackman’s arguments, I would make two other observations.
[57] 因此，对于第 19(1)(c.2)段中“成员”一词的含义，不必再多说。然而，通过将“成员”与“属于”一个犯罪组织等同起来，审判庭法官正确地得出结论，在此背景下，该术语应被广泛理解。为了尊重杰克曼女士的论点，我还想提出两个其他观察。

[58]      First, in my view, paragraph 19(1)(c.2) of the Act is broad enough to enable Canada to protect its national security by excluding, not only those intending to commit crimes here, but also those whose presence in Canada may be used to strengthen a criminal organization or to advance its purposes.
[ 58] 首先，在我看来，法案第 19(1)(c.2)段的范围足够广泛，使加拿大能够通过排除不仅是那些打算在此犯罪的人，还包括那些在加拿大的存在可能被用来加强犯罪组织或推动其目的的人，从而保护其国家安全。

[59]      Second, it will not always be possible to draw a bright line between the legitimate business activities of a criminal organization and its criminal activities. The former may be used to launder the proceeds of the latter, while the organization’s criminal activities may in turn be financed by profits made from a successful legitimate business that it controls. Hence, a person’s participation in a legitimate business, knowing that it is controlled by a criminal organization, in some circumstances may support a reasonable belief that the person is a member of the criminal organization itself.
[ 59] 第二，无法始终清晰地区分犯罪组织的合法商业活动与其犯罪活动。前者可能被用来洗钱后者的收益，而该组织的犯罪活动又可能由其控制的成功合法商业所获得的利润来融资。因此，在某些情况下，一个人参与一个合法商业，明知该商业由犯罪组织控制，可能支持合理的信念，即该人是犯罪组织本身的成员。

[60]      As for whether there were “reasonable grounds” for the officer’s belief, I agree with the Trial Judge’s definition of “reasonable grounds” (supra, at paragraph 27, page 658) as a standard of proof that, while falling short of a balance of probabilities, nonetheless connotes “a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on credible evidence.” See Attorney General of Canada v. Jolly, [1975] F.C. 216 (C.A.).
[60] 关于该官员的信念是否存在“合理依据”，我同意审判法官对“合理依据”的定义（见上文，第 27 段，第 658 页），作为一种证明标准，虽然未达到概率平衡，但仍然意味着“基于可信证据的对严重可能性的善意信念。”见加拿大总检察长诉乔利案，[1975] F.C. 216 (C.A.)。

[61]      Ms. Jackman argued that the evidence from which the decision maker inferred that “reasonable grounds” existed must be not only “credible”, but also likely to be true on a balance of probabilities. I doubt whether it would be appropriate to apply this more rigorous standard in all circumstances. Much will depend on the context: the standard of proof is often more demanding before a power is exercised that has a serious impact on an important individual right. However, refusing to issue a visa to Mr. Chiau was not such a situation, even though the refusal was based on national security grounds.
[ 61] 杰克曼女士辩称，决策者推断“合理依据”存在的证据不仅必须是“可信的”，而且在概率平衡上也应当是可能真实的。我怀疑在所有情况下适用这一更严格的标准是否合适。许多因素将取决于具体情况：在行使对重要个人权利有严重影响的权力之前，证明标准通常更为严格。然而，拒绝向乔先生发放签证并不属于这种情况，即使拒绝是基于国家安全理由。

[62]      Having examined the confidential material in the Court’s record, I am satisfied that the Trial Judge was correct to conclude that the visa officer did not commit a reviewable error when he concluded that, on the totality of the material on which he based his refusal, there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that the appellant was a member of a criminal organization.
[ 62] 在审查了法庭记录中的机密材料后，我满意地认为，审判法官得出的结论是正确的，即签证官在基于他拒绝的所有材料得出结论时，并未犯下可审查的错误，认为有“合理的理由”相信上诉人是一个犯罪组织的成员。

[63]      In addition to the considerations that led me to conclude that the duty of fairness did not oblige the visa officer to provide a summary of the confidential intelligence information before refusing the visa, it would, in my opinion, be inconsistent with the scheme of the Act to import such a requirement into subsection 82.1(10).
[ 63] 除了让我得出公平义务并不要求签证官在拒绝签证之前提供机密情报信息摘要的考虑之外，我认为将这种要求引入第 82.1(10)款的规定与该法案的方案不符。

[64]      This provision establishes a detailed procedural code for the Court’s examination of confidential information of the prescribed types. It does not require the production of a summary of the material. When Parliament intended this, it specifically so provided, as in subsection 39(6) of the Act, where, as I have already noted, an adverse decision could result in the more serious sanction of deportation.
[ 64] 本条款为法院审查规定类型的机密信息建立了详细的程序规范。它不要求提供材料的摘要。当议会有此意图时，会特别作出规定，例如在该法第 39(6)款中，正如我已经提到的，负面决定可能导致更严重的制裁，即驱逐出境。

[65]      Given the detailed and specific nature of the information contained in the confidential material, and the nature and multiplicity of the sources from which it came, the Trial Division Judge was fully justified in finding the material (supra, at paragraph 43, page 663) “cogent, persuasive and worthy of consideration” without having to do more than to read it.
[ 65] 鉴于机密材料中包含的信息的详细和具体性质，以及其来源的性质和多样性，审判庭法官完全有理由认为该材料（上述，第 43 段，第 663 页）“有说服力、令人信服且值得考虑”，而无需做更多的事情，只需阅读它。

[66]      Again, the content of the confidential information in the Court’s file makes it unnecessary to answer this question. The visa officer’s decision would satisfy any of the applicable standards of review, including, on questions of law, that of correctness.
[ 66] 再次，法院档案中机密信息的内容使得回答这个问题变得不必要。签证官的决定将满足任何适用的审查标准，包括在法律问题上，正确性的标准。

[67]      For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal and would answer the certified questions as follows:
[67] 基于这些原因，我将驳回上诉，并将认证问题回答如下：

[68]      I would answer the additional questions raised by counsel for the appellant as follows:
[ 68] 我将对上诉人律师提出的附加问题作如下回答：