David Shiroky

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision to deny her work permit application.

She had obtained a support letter from the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program to open a bubble tea shop.

The officer concluded she had not demonstrated an ability to adequately perform the work or that her work would create significant benefit to Canada, citing issues with her business location, lack of specificity in her business plan, financial questions, and inconsistent statements regarding her common-law relationship.

The Federal Court held the officer's decision was reasonable, the reasons were adequate, and no breach of procedural fairness occurred.

The applicant, a citizen of Eritrea who had resided in South Africa as a recognized refugee since 2007, sought judicial review of an immigration officer's decision refusing his permanent resident visa application.

The officer found the applicant had a durable solution in South Africa and was not credible regarding his claim of religious persecution as a Pentecostal Christian.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the officer's finding of a durable solution in South Africa was reasonable and determinative.

The Court also found the officer's credibility findings regarding the applicant's religious practices were supported by the evidence and reasonable.

The applicants filed a motion for a stay of removal, scheduled for the end of the week.

The principal applicant suffered a severe work-related accident in Canada on an oil stack in Alberta, resulting in permanent and serious disability that put the family's livelihood at grave risk.

The Federal Court found that the applicants satisfied all three criteria of the Toth test for a stay of removal.

The motion for a stay of removal was granted until the final determination of the pending judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing her appeal of an exclusion order for misrepresentation.

The applicant argued that she was denied procedural fairness due to inadequate interpretation at her hearing and that the panel's decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of material interpretation errors and concluding that the panel reasonably assessed the best interests of the child.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review of an IAD decision which found that the respondent had not lost her permanent residency status.

The IAD concluded she never received a 2014 decision letter refusing her permanent resident travel document due to failing residency requirements.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the IAD failed to grapple with evidence indicating the refusal letter had been sent and received.