Avvy Yao-Yao Go

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division ordering his continued detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The applicant argued that the respondent was required to determine his nationality before removing him, asserting he was stateless, and challenged the finding of an immigration nexus to his detention.

The Federal Court held that the regulations do not require the respondent to determine nationality before selecting a country of removal that will authorize entry.

The Court found the Immigration Division's conclusion that an immigration nexus existed and removal to South Sudan remained a possibility was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought an urgent stay of removal scheduled for January 29, 2023.

She requested a deferral of removal based on an H&C application and alleged risks, which an Inland Enforcement Officer denied.

The applicant brought this motion at the last minute, filing over 1,200 pages of materials.

The Court declined to hear the motion, noting the applicant's unexplained delay in providing deferral submissions to the CBSA after receiving the Direction to Report and the unfairness of burdening the respondent and the Court with voluminous materials on short notice.

The applicants, a mother and her minor children from China, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their refugee claim.

The RAD found their claim not credible, concluding that a subpoena from Chinese authorities was fraudulent and discounting other evidence.

The Federal Court found the RAD's authenticity analysis of the subpoena unreasonable because it relied on minor formatting discrepancies between the tendered subpoena and a sample document, rather than substantive content.

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

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicant had lost her immigration status due to the alleged negligence of an immigration consultant.

The Federal Court found that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with the applicant's evidence regarding the consultant's negligence when assessing her non-compliance with immigration laws.

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

The applicants sought a stay of their removal to Nigeria pending their application for leave and for judicial review of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.

The PRRA officer had found the applicants not credible and identified Port Harcourt as a safe Internal Flight Alternative.

The Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicants failed to establish a serious issue regarding the officer's findings or irreparable harm, as the alleged risks had already been reasonably assessed and rejected.

The applicant sought an interlocutory stay of his removal to Sierra Leone pending judicial review of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment rejection.

The applicant, a former child soldier suffering from PTSD, had extensive criminal convictions in Canada.

The Federal Court granted the stay, finding a serious issue in the PRRA officer's failure to consider the "compelling reasons" exception under s. 108(4) of the IRPA.

The Court also found irreparable harm based on medical evidence of severe psychiatric risk upon return, and concluded the balance of convenience favoured a stay despite his criminal history.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of his refugee claim on credibility grounds.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding that the RAD erred by unreasonably assessing medical evidence regarding the applicant's cognitive limitations and by improperly refusing to admit new evidence on the basis of circular reasoning.

The Minister of National Revenue brought an ex parte application for a jeopardy order under subsection 225.2(2) of the Income Tax Act to permit immediate collection action regarding a tax debt.

The respondent corporation had received over $480,000 in Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS) funds shortly after incorporating and opening a bank account.

Investigation revealed the lease agreements used to claim the subsidy were fraudulent and the respondent had no real business activity or other significant assets.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding reasonable grounds to believe the taxpayer had acted fraudulently and that collection of the debt would be jeopardized by delay.

The applicants, a mother and her two children, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer applied the wrong test for the best interests of the children by requiring evidence of significant detriment, failed to properly consider psychological evidence, and erroneously required direct evidence linking the female applicants to a threat of gender-based violence in India.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his second request to reopen a Danger Opinion.

The decision-maker had rejected new evidence regarding his release from immigration detention, rehabilitation efforts, and a diagnosis of depressive disorder as not materially relevant.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the decision-maker failed to provide transparent and intelligible reasons for rejecting the new evidence, particularly given findings in the original decision.

The application for judicial review was allowed, and the matter was referred back for redetermination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision rejecting his refugee claim on credibility grounds.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding that the RPD unreasonably ignored or misconstrued documentary evidence, including support letters, that contradicted its negative credibility findings.

The applicant, a citizen of Hong Kong who lived in Canada on temporary status for over a decade to care for her Canadian-born daughter, applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

A senior immigration officer refused the application.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the officer unreasonably assessed her establishment in Canada and family reunification factors.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, noting the officer appropriately considered the applicant's community involvement, letters of support, and the possibility of returning to Hong Kong with financial support from her sister.

The Court also held the officer reasonably assessed the relationship with her adult daughter and concluded the circumstances did not warrant H&C relief.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of an officer's decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

The applicants based their H&C application on their establishment in Canada, the best interests of their children, and fears of anti-Semitism and gun violence in the USA.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, noting the officer appropriately considered the evidence and country conditions, and concluded the risks were generalized and did not justify an exemption.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision rejecting his second Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA).

He alleged risk from a gang in the Bahamas.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer required objective corroborating evidence of the applicant's claims without making a clear credibility finding or explaining why the applicant's sworn statements were insufficient.

The officer also failed to adequately engage with the applicant's evidence regarding the operational inadequacy of state protection.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of their claim for refugee protection based on negative credibility findings.

The applicants argued procedural unfairness due to ineffective assistance of counsel, flawed credibility assessment, and improper refusal by the RAD to admit new evidence or hold an oral hearing.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to establish incompetent counsel, that the credibility assessment was reasonable, and that the RAD reasonably refused to admit new evidence that could have been presented earlier.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their claims for refugee protection.

The principal applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, based her claim on a fear of her former husband's family.

The RPD found her not credible due to omissions in her Basis of Claim narrative, and the RAD upheld this finding.

On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the RAD erred by failing to meaningfully apply the Chairperson's Gender Guidelines when assessing the omissions in the principal applicant's testimony.

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

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the RPD's finding that they are not Convention refugees and had a viable internal flight alternative in Bogotá.

The applicants had received death threats related to a land restitution claim in Colombia.

The RAD refused to admit new country condition evidence regarding the presence of the Black Eagles paramilitary group in Bogotá, and concluded it was reasonable for the applicants to abandon their land claim.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the RAD erred by refusing to admit the new evidence under the Raza test and acted unreasonably in suggesting the applicants should abandon their land claim to live safely.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) dismissing his complaint against an Alberta Provincial Court judge and three Alberta Court of Appeal judges.

The applicant alleged the judges were biased and made legal errors regarding his criminal convictions, which led to his deportation.

The CJC dismissed the complaint on the basis that it related to judicial decision-making, not judicial conduct.

The Federal Court held that the CJC's decision was reasonable, as the applicant's complaints were essentially disagreements with the judges' rulings, which fall outside the CJC's mandate to review judicial conduct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, a citizen of Honduras with a criminal record in Canada, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

He argued the officer erred in assessing his establishment, the best interests of his Canadian-born children, and the adverse country conditions in Honduras.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable, noting the officer failed to meaningfully consider the emotional interdependence of the applicant and his spouse, inadequately assessed the best interests of his two young Canadian-born sons for whom he provides primary care, and unreasonably dismissed evidence of severe gang violence in Honduras.

The application for judicial review was granted.