4 total
Study permit refusal quashed due to officer ignoring evidence.
The applicant, a citizen of India, applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing her second study permit application for a post-graduate diploma in healthcare management.
The officer concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer ignored critical evidence regarding the logical progression of the applicant's studies, her ties to India, and her ability to afford the education.
The application for judicial review was granted.
Judicial review allowed as visa officer failed to consider material evidence contradicting self-employment finding.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her permanent resident visa application under the Canadian Experience Class.
The visa officer had concluded the applicant's experience at a subsidiary business amounted to self-employment, rather than an employer-employee relationship, thereby rendering her ineligible.
While the Court found no breach of procedural fairness regarding the procedural fairness letter, it held the decision was unreasonable.
The officer failed to engage with material contradictory evidence regarding the ownership and control of the subsidiary business, including previous Intra-Company Transferee work permits and an agreement establishing the parent company's ongoing control.
The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.
Judicial review of permanent residence refusal dismissed as visa officer owed no duty to send a fairness letter.
Two sisters applied for permanent residence in the self-employed person class intending to establish an art gallery in Toronto.
The visa officer refused their applications on the basis that their business plan was insufficient and lacked market research.
On judicial review, the applicants argued they were owed a fairness letter regarding the officer's concerns and that the officer ignored their qualifications.
The Federal Court held that the duty of fairness for visa officers is at the low end and does not require issuing a fairness letter about a business plan's sufficiency.
The Court also held it was reasonable to focus on the business plan since it formed the core of the application.
The applications for judicial review were dismissed.
Judicial review of H&C application dismissed; officer reasonably assessed BIOC and establishment despite applicants' long-term undocumented status.
The applicants, who had resided in Canada without legal status for 17 years, sought judicial review of a decision denying their humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application for permanent residence.
The applicants challenged the officer's assessment of the best interests of their Canadian-born children and their establishment in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the officer reasonably considered the children's adaptability and medical needs, and appropriately weighed the applicants' long period of unauthorized residence and lack of status in assessing their establishment.
