4 total
Judicial review granted; exclusion order quashed as delegate unreasonably assessed applicant's dual intent.
The applicant, a citizen of South Korea, was issued a one-year exclusion order by a minister's delegate after an interview at the border, on the basis that he sought to enter Canada permanently without a visa.
The applicant had previously held permanent resident status but abandoned it, returning for extended visits.
During the interview, he stated he was considering applying for permanent resident status or a super visa.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the delegate's decision unreasonable.
The Court held the delegate ignored the applicant's history of compliance and erroneously concluded that an intent to become a permanent resident meant the applicant would not leave at the end of his authorized stay, contrary to the dual intent provisions in subsection 22(2) of the IRPA.
Judicial review granted where visa officer failed to explain reasons for work permit refusal.
The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's refusal of her applications for a work permit and a temporary resident visa to work as an in-home childcare provider.
The officer refused the application on the grounds that the applicant lacked sufficient experience to perform the job and that she would not leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable because the officer failed to explain why the applicant's experience and education, which exceeded the employer's requirements and the NOC profile, were insufficient.
The officer also failed to explain the basis for finding the applicant to be an overstay risk, ignoring evidence of her ties and past compliance.
The application for judicial review was granted, and the matter was remitted for redetermination.
Judicial review allowed; visa officer's TRV refusal was unreasonable due to unwarranted adverse inferences.
The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing his application for a temporary resident visa to explore an agricultural investment opportunity in Canada.
The officer refused the application on the basis that the applicant failed to establish he would leave Canada and questioned the legitimacy of the business purpose.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable.
The officer made unwarranted adverse inferences without putting them to the applicant and failed to consider key factors indicating the applicant was not an overstay risk, such as his extensive business assets and family ties in India.
The matter was remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
Judicial review allowed because IAD's procedural fairness finding was internally inconsistent and lacked rational coherence.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing her appeal against the refusal of a permanent resident visa for her parents.
The refusal was based on the applicant's father's inability to complete an immigration medical examination due to hospitalization.
The officer rejected the application before the extended deadline.
The IAD found the refusal did not breach procedural fairness because the outcome was inevitable.
The Federal Court found the IAD's decision unreasonable due to internal inconsistencies, particularly in finding the outcome inevitable while simultaneously noting other avenues were available.
The application for judicial review was allowed.
