Immigration Law

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing her appeal of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting her claim for refugee protection on credibility grounds.

The applicant had provided inconsistent narratives regarding threats from her in-laws related to her husband's disappearance and failed to claim asylum during two extended stays in the United States.

The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably concluded the applicant was not credible due to numerous material inconsistencies and omissions in her evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, citizens of China, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicants argued that the officer failed to properly consider the best interests of their Canadian-born children, specifically the hardship they would face in China without a Hukou due to their dual nationality.

The Federal Court found that the officer erred by failing to address this explicit argument.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision rejecting her application for permanent residence under the Live-In Caregiver Class.

The Immigration Officer found that she did not hold a valid work permit as a live-in caregiver at the time of her application, a requirement under the regulations applicable to the transitional provisions of the abolished program.

The Federal Court held the decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing her open work permit application and finding her inadmissible for misrepresentation.

The officer cited concerns about the validity of the applicant's marriage and her failure to disclose past visa refusals.

The Federal Court found no breach of procedural fairness but held the decision was unreasonable.

The officer improperly relied on speculative concerns about the marriage and the conclusion appeared to be a boilerplate adoption of the interviewing officer's recommendation without a genuine review of the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment but absconded after the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his criminal appeal.

Warrants were issued for his arrest, and authorities believed he had crossed into the United States.

His former counsel was removed from the record, and the applicant did not appear at the hearing.

The Court found the application for judicial review moot because there was no live issue for determination, as the applicant was a fugitive and believed to have left Canada.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Tamil from Sri Lanka who lost permanent resident status due to serious criminality, sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment.

The officer found insufficient objective evidence to corroborate the applicant's claims of past detention or profile as a suspected LTTE member.

The Federal Court held the officer made reasonable findings on the sufficiency of evidence rather than disguised credibility findings, and did not breach procedural fairness by relying on updated country condition reports that were consistent with the applicant's evidence.

The applicants, citizens of Albania, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal.

They claimed refugee protection based on a fear of a blood feud.

The RAD refused to admit new evidence as the applicants did not submit the required memorandum under the RAD Rules.

The RAD also found that the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Albania.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the Albanian police had investigated their complaint.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of her permanent residence application in the Quebec investor class.

The visa officer refused the application on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine intention to reside in Quebec, citing her failure to visit the province despite undertakings to do so, and her lack of a concrete establishment plan.

The Federal Court held the officer's assessment of the applicant's intention to reside was reasonable and supported by the lack of concrete evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a migration officer's decision refusing her permanent residence application as a Convention refugee abroad or member of the country of asylum class.

She argued the officer failed to consider the country of asylum class criteria.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer reasonably considered both classes and appropriately addressed credibility concerns regarding the applicant's lack of subjective fear and personal risk in Iraq.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the refusal of his refugee claim on the basis of a viable internal flight alternative in Abuja, Nigeria.

The Federal Court found that the RAD's reasons lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility, noting the failure to conduct a proper independent assessment or provide appropriate reasons for the internal flight alternative determination.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant, a citizen of Haiti, applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing his application for a temporary resident visa and study permit.

The officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.

The Federal Court held that there was no breach of procedural fairness, noting that the officer was not obliged to give the applicant an interview or notify him of doubts.

The Court further held that the officer's decision, based on the applicant's failure to meet his burden of proof regarding his intent to leave Canada, was reasonable.

The applicant, a citizen of Liberia with Convention refugee status, sought judicial review of a Minister's delegate's opinion that he is a danger to the public under paragraph 115(2)(a) of the IRPA, making him inadmissible for serious criminality and subject to refoulement.

The applicant had been convicted of incest and sexual interference involving his daughter.

The decision-maker found him to be a danger despite expert evidence showing a low risk of recidivism.

The Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable because the decision-maker relied on factual errors regarding the applicant's age, failed to consider the current ages of the potential victims, and improperly treated his not guilty plea at trial as a significant aggravating factor.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing his application for a temporary work permit as a cleaning supervisor in Canada.

The officer concluded under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations that the evidence did not demonstrate the applicant could adequately perform the work.

The Federal Court held the decision was reasonable given the limited evidence provided, which consisted primarily of financial documents from the applicant's business in India.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the applicant had no right to be informed of the officer's concerns regarding the sufficiency of his evidence.

The applicants, a family of Roma ethnicity from the Czech Republic, applied for judicial review of a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) decision rejecting their application.

The PRRA officer found they would not face persecution or risk if returned to the Czech Republic, relying on findings of adequate state protection despite acknowledging societal discrimination against Roma.

The applicants argued the officer applied the wrong legal test, ignored evidence, and failed to consider their profiles.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable under the Vavilov standard.

The Court concluded the officer properly considered the operational adequacy of state protection and did not fundamentally misapprehend the evidence regarding country conditions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Delegate's decision to issue an exclusion order against him for presenting a false passport upon entry.

The applicant claimed he lacked the mental capacity to understand the proceedings, relying on a cognitive assessment conducted weeks later, and argued this breached his procedural fairness and Charter rights.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's assessment of capacity reasonable and the evidence insufficient to establish a Charter breach.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing a deferral of removal to Italy.

He requested deferral until an eligibility decision was made on his inland spousal sponsorship application.

The officer concluded that a decision on the sponsorship was not imminent.

The Federal Court held the officer's decision was reasonable, noting that the processing time for the application was 12 to 18 months and a pending application alone does not justify deferral.

The court also found the officer reasonably assessed the short-term best interests of the children and the hardship the applicant might face upon removal.

The applicant, a Hungarian citizen of Roma ethnicity, sought judicial review of a decision rejecting his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application.

The applicant claimed protection as a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The PRRA officer discounted evidence regarding the treatment of Romani people in Hungary, stating it related to the general population and requiring the risks to be "personalized." The Federal Court found that the officer improperly imported a requirement for individualization of risk, which is more suited to a section 97 claim, into the section 96 analysis.

The Court also found the officer's treatment of an attack experienced by the applicant in Hungary to be unreasonable, as it failed to consider material evidence regarding the motivation.

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

The applicant, who had overstayed his visitor status, was arrested and issued a removal order.

He sought judicial review, arguing that CBSA officers breached procedural fairness by failing to adequately assess his ability to appreciate the nature of the proceedings under paragraph 228(4)(b) of the IRPR, and that his section 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated.

The Federal Court found no evidence that the applicant was unable to understand the proceedings during his interviews.

The Court also concluded, based on the officers' evidence, that the applicant had been informed of his right to counsel and offered the opportunity to contact a lawyer, which he declined.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Uganda, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that upheld the rejection of her refugee claim based on a lack of credibility regarding her alleged forced marriage.

The RAD rejected new evidence (a traditional marriage certificate and an email) under section 110(4) of the IRPA because it was not relevant to events occurring after the initial decision.

The RAD also considered documentary evidence about forced marriage practices in Uganda to find that the applicant was not part of a particular social group.

The Federal Court found no denial of procedural fairness and concluded that the RAD's rejection of the new evidence and overall credibility assessment were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Governor in Council decision revoking his Canadian citizenship for failing to disclose criminal charges during his application process in the 1990s.

He brought a preliminary motion for disclosure of materials subject to a Cabinet confidence claim, which was dismissed.

The court found the transitional provisions of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act required the matter to proceed under the former legislation, issue estoppel did not bar the revocation, and the delay did not amount to an abuse of process warranting a stay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.