Amy King

The applicants applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds, citing hardship in Botswana, the best interests of their children, and establishment in Canada.

A Senior Immigration Officer refused the application, finding that the cumulative assessment of these factors did not justify an exemption.

On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the officer's assessment of establishment, hardship, and the children's best interests was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision denying his humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application.

His initial refugee claim based on alleged kidnapping and torture by Al-Shabaab in Somalia was rejected due to lack of credibility.

In the H&C application, the officer relied on the Refugee Protection Division's findings regarding risk and country conditions, and found the applicant's establishment in Canada was not significant enough to warrant relief.

The Federal Court found the officer's global assessment of the H&C factors to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant applied for a study permit to attend an Early Childhood Education program in Canada.

The immigration officer refused the application under s. 216(1)(b) of the IRPR, finding the applicant would not leave Canada at the end of her stay based on the purpose of her visit, limited employment prospects, current employment situation, and personal assets.

On judicial review, the Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable.

The Court found the officer failed to meaningfully engage with the applicant's detailed study plan, her evidence of family obligations to elderly parents in the UAE, and misapprehended her employment history and future plans.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal from the Refugee Protection Division.

The RAD rejected his refugee claim on the basis that he had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Karachi.

The applicant feared land encroachers affiliated with a political party.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting insufficient evidence that the agents of persecution had the means or motivation to locate the applicant in Karachi.

The applicants, a family from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal on the basis of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt or Abuja.

The applicants fled Nigeria after their meat processing factory was destroyed during a violent incident involving a cult and a vigilante group, and the principal applicant received death threats after identifying cult sponsors to the police.

The Federal Court found the RAD's IFA analysis reasonable, concluding that the cult lacked the motivation or capacity to locate the applicants outside Lagos.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, a family from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

They claimed protection from pressure to undergo female genital mutilation.

The RAD found they had viable internal flight alternatives in Port Harcourt, Abuja, or Kaduna.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the applicants had not challenged the RPD's findings on the availability of IFAs before the RAD.