Andrew D. Little

The applicant, a citizen of Togo living in a refugee camp in Ghana, applied for judicial review of a migration officer's refusal of his permanent resident visa application.

The officer found the applicant did not meet the requirements of the Convention refugees abroad class or the country of asylum class.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the officer's decision unreasonable because the refusal letter and the Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes provided entirely conclusory statements and lacked discernable, responsive reasoning to justify the refusal.

The applicant, a federal public servant, applied for judicial review of a final-level grievance decision denying his grievance.

The applicant alleged that a non-management employee improperly accessed his leave balances and argued that the CBSA failed to implement policies complying with the Treasury Board Directive on Privacy Practices.

The Court found that the decision maker was alert and sensitive to the issues raised, concluding that the employer's Privacy Code of Principles complied with the Directive and that accessing the leave balance for management purposes did not breach privacy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, a family from El Salvador, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) finding that they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The applicants claimed they fled extortion linked to the principal applicant's former role as vice-governor.

The Court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the applicants' argument that the RAD erred in its role by failing to refer the matter back to the RPD due to numerous errors.

The Court further found the RAD's substantive decision reasonable, noting insufficient credible evidence linking the extortion to the company in question, and dismissed procedural fairness claims.

The applicant, a citizen of India whose study permit had expired, applied for a post-graduate work permit (PGWP) and restoration of status.

The application was refused because she did not hold a valid study permit when applying, as required by the new Program Delivery Instructions.

She applied for judicial review, arguing the officer misapplied the instructions and breached procedural fairness.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer reasonably concluded the applicant did not qualify because she lacked valid temporary status and had not applied for restoration within the required 90-day period.

The Court also held no procedural fairness was breached as the officer was not required to provide an opportunity for further submissions regarding eligibility criteria.

The applicants, a mother and son from Venezuela, sought judicial review of the Refugee Protection Division's decision denying their claims for Convention refugee status and protection.

The principal applicant claimed persecution based on her political beliefs and refusal to support the ruling PSUV party while employed as a civil servant.

The RPD found the workplace pressure and harassment amounted to discrimination, not persecution, and that she would not face particular risk upon return as a former civil servant.

The Federal Court held the RPD's assessment was reasonable, finding the Member properly conducted a cumulative analysis in substance and did not ignore relevant country condition evidence.

The applicants, a mother and two minor children from Egypt, sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of their refugee protection claims.

The applicants claimed fear of persecution based on political activities and ties to the Freedom and Justice Party.

The RAD declined to admit new evidence, hold an oral hearing, and concluded the applicants had not established an objectively well-founded fear.

The Federal Court held the RAD provided procedural fairness and its decision on the lack of an objective basis for fear was reasonable, noting the absence of a link between documentary evidence and the applicants' specific circumstances.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by a Senior Immigration Officer rejecting their request for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

The applicants argued they would face hardship in South Africa due to racial tensions targeting foreign business owners, and that the officer failed to properly consider this risk along with the best interests of their children.

The Federal Court held that the officer's decision was reasonable, concluding the officer did not ignore or misapprehend evidence regarding the applicants' affluent status, lack of personal victimization, or the children's educational and medical needs.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting her claim for refugee protection and finding it to be manifestly unfounded.

The RPD concluded the applicant had failed to establish her identity and that her claim was clearly fraudulent due to numerous inconsistencies, the use of a fraudulent passport, and discrepancies in testimony and documents.

The Federal Court found the RPD's determinations on identity and credibility, as well as its conclusion that the claim was manifestly unfounded under IRPA s. 107.1, to be reasonable.

The Court also found no reviewable error in the RPD's treatment of post-hearing medical evidence or its refusal to hear additional witnesses.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants applied for judicial review of a decision refusing their humanitarian and compassionate application under s. 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The principal applicant suffered extensive sexual and physical abuse in Brazil and submitted medical evidence detailing her acute PTSD and the negative mental health impacts of a return to Brazil.

The officer gave little weight to this evidence and suggested that mental health resources were available in Brazil.

The Federal Court held the officer's decision was unreasonable, as the officer improperly discounted the psychological evidence, failed to engage with the substantive issue of the impact of removal on the applicant's mental health, and conducted a flawed analysis of the best interests of the children by failing to assess their interest in their mother's mental well-being.