The Extraordinary Statelessness of Deepan Budlakoti 13 of banishment and exile intersecting with erosion of rights of persons accused or convicted of crime (Hernández, 2013; Macklin, 2014).18 In the IRB tribunal and courts, the extinguishment of Budlakoti’s Canadian citizenship has been rendered in terms of: “a significant factual dispute between the parties [and even by the Federal Court of Appeal as a “narrow question of fact,”] as to whether the Applicant’s parents left their Indian High Commission employment before or after his birth. If the parents left their employment before his birth, then the Applicant was entitled to Canadian citizenship by virtue of his birth.” (Budlakoti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 855, para.10) In the latter case, he would be considered as having acquired the right to citizenship under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act. If not, he would be ineligible for jus soli citizenship by virtue of being “not applicable to children of foreign diplomats” under Section 3(2)(a) or 3(2)(b) of the Citizenship Act. Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials,19 the IRB, and the courts have thus far decided that Deepan is not a Canadian citizen and also that it is premature to conclude that he is stateless, because he has not applied for either Canadian or Indian citizenship.20 In 2011, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concluded that Deepan was a permanent resident, not a Canadian citizen. The government’s contention is not that they have revoked his Canadian citizenship, but that “despite his passport,” he has never been a Canadian citizen. As they determined that his parents were employees of the Indian High Commission at the time of his birth, Deepan was thus subject to the exception to jus soli citizenship applied to children born in Canada of diplomatic or consular officers or other representatives or employees in Canada of a foreign government. In October 2011, the IRB held an admissibility hearing, ruled Budlakoti inadmissible on the grounds of “serious criminality,”21 and issued a removal order to India, a country in which he had no social connection or familiarity. By the end of 2012, having served out his criminal sentence, he 18 The effort to exile citizens convicted of criminal acts is in keeping with long-standing Conservative Party policy that regards deportation as an effective strategy to support the safety and security of legitimate Canadians. Thus, in Stand up for Canada, the 2006 Conservative Party of Canada Federal Election Platform, “effective deportation laws” are touted as a key strategy in keeping Canada’s borders safe from foreign criminals within and abroad (Conservative Party of Canada, 2006, p.27, cited in Kwak, 2016). 19 Soon after the new Liberal government of Canada took office in November 2015, the federal department Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) was renamed Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). 20 Hon. Justice Phelan who heard the case in Federal Court, stated that “India has denied that the Applicant is a citizen of India or entitled to citizenship but the record on this issue is sketchy at best” (Budlakoti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 855, para. 5.) 21 Under s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident or a foreign national will be considered criminally inadmissible if he or she has been convicted (in Canada) of an offence: carrying a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed. Studies in Social Justice, Volume 11, Issue 1, 1-26, 2017