Dov Maierovitz

The applicant sought judicial review of an officer's decision refusing his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to transparently consider the applicant's establishment in Canada relative to the best interests of his minor child, and treated his Canadian employment history inconsistently.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions: a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) and a negative Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application.

The applicant claimed she would face religious persecution as a Christian if returned to China.

The Officer found no risk of persecution.

The applicant also claimed H&C relief based on establishment in Canada and domestic abuse.

The Officer afforded little weight to the establishment and relied on negative credibility findings from the Immigration Appeal Division.

The Federal Court held that the decisions were reasonable and dismissed the applications.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the rejection of their refugee claims.

The claims were rejected based on significant credibility issues, including inconsistencies regarding where the principal applicant lived, where her child was born, and her family composition.

The RAD reasonably concluded that psychological evidence did not explain the central inconsistencies.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, citizens of Nepal, sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the refusal of their refugee claims based on the existence of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Biratnagar.

The principal applicant feared persecution due to his perceived political opinions and membership in the Nepali Congress Party.

The RAD concluded there was insufficient evidence of a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA and that relocation was not unreasonable.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting it appropriately analyzed the evidence regarding the activities of Maoist factions and the applicants' ability to establish themselves in the IFA.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing her appeal of a refusal to sponsor her first husband for permanent residence.

The IAD found that the applicant's first marriage was dissolved primarily to acquire immigration status through a subsequent marriage of convenience, and that she resumed a relationship with her first husband before the second marriage ended, thereby engaging section 4.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The Federal Court found the IAD's decision was reasonable, concluding the IAD properly considered the evidence regarding the timeline of events and the applicant's motivations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.