Charles J. Jubenville

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia subject to a deportation order for serious criminality, brought a motion to stay her removal pending an application for leave and judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.

The Court granted the stay, finding she met the tripartite test.

The underlying application raised serious questions about the PRRA officer's credibility and evidentiary findings regarding her fear of a paramilitary group.

The applicant would suffer irreparable harm if removed, as her application would become moot and she would lose the right to an effective remedy.

The balance of convenience favoured the applicant despite the public interest in executing removal orders.

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

The Federal Court found that the officer's failure to consider the impact of removal on the applicant's mental health rendered the decision unreasonable.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a Senior Immigration Officer's decision refusing her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

The officer found insufficient evidence regarding the applicant's establishment in Canada, the conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the best interests of her nephew.

The Federal Court held that the decision was reasonable, emphasizing that the applicant bears the burden of establishing the facts on which her claim rests and that she failed to provide adequate evidence to support her H&C application.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of China, applied for a temporary resident visa but failed to disclose previous criminal charges on her application, marking the third time she had omitted this information on immigration forms.

An immigration officer found her inadmissible to Canada under section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for misrepresentation.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the officer failed to adequately explain how the misrepresentation could induce an error in the administration of the Act and erred in not exercising discretion based on her personal circumstances as a victim of abuse.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the officer's decision was reasonable given the applicant's concession of the misrepresentation and its materiality, and that the officer reasonably declined to exercise discretion to overlook the misrepresentation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that confirmed the rejection of her refugee claim.

The RAD found the applicant had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in the Philippines and refused to admit new evidence on appeal.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the applicant failed to prove the proposed IFAs were unreasonable and that the RAD properly applied the criteria for admitting new evidence under s. 110(4) of the IRPA.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.