Chantal Chatmajian

The applicants filed an application for leave and judicial review of a negative Refugee Appeal Division decision 37 days after it was mailed.

The Minister brought a motion to strike the application as being out of time.

The Court found this to be an exceptional case where it is plain and obvious the application is statute-barred, as no extension of time was sought and the motion was uncontested.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Migration Officer's decision refusing his application for a permanent resident visa as a family member of his spouse.

The Officer found that the applicant and his spouse were not in a genuine spousal relationship.

The applicant's spouse, a citizen of Nigeria, had successfully claimed refugee protection in Canada based on her sexual orientation.

The Federal Court found the Officer's decision reasonable, noting limited evidence of communication, a lack of shared future plans, and contradictions in the applicant's statements regarding his spouse's sexual orientation and relationship with another woman.

The Court also held that the Officer was not required to conduct a formal best interests of the child analysis when determining the genuineness of the relationship.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Minister sought judicial review of an IAD decision reopening the respondent's appeal of a departure order.

The respondent had previously abandoned her appeal, allegedly due to mental health issues impairing her ability to attend the hearing.

The IAD granted the reopening based on a 2019 psychiatric report and perceived counsel shortcomings in 2017.

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the IAD failed to properly apply the test for reopening under section 71 of the IRPA, failed to make a finding of counsel incompetence amounting to a breach of natural justice, and ignored contemporaneous medical evidence indicating the respondent was coherent in 2017.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of their claims for refugee protection.

The RAD found no breach of procedural fairness despite the applicants proceeding without counsel and alleging inadequate interpretation, noting they never requested counsel and failed to identify material translation errors.

The RAD also upheld the RPD's negative credibility findings based on significant omissions in the Basis of Claim Forms.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicants, citizens of Haiti and Brazil, sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the RPD's rejection of their refugee protection claim.

The RAD found they had not established a lack of state protection in Brazil or that the discrimination they faced amounted to persecution.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the applicants had not sought police assistance and failed to provide convincing evidence rebutting the presumption of state protection.

The applicants, Romanian citizens of Roma ethnicity, sought a stay of their scheduled removal to Romania.

They argued their withdrawal of asylum claims at the airport was involuntary and obtained without counsel.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while the applicants raised a serious issue, they failed to establish irreparable harm given their lack of supporting evidence in their PRRA applications and prior declaration of safety.

The balance of convenience favoured the respondent's duty to enforce immigration laws, particularly considering the applicants' criminal records and apparent attempts to evade Romanian authorities.