Erica Louie

The applicant sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision finding him inadmissible for serious criminality under s. 36(1)(b) of the IRPA based on a 1995 conviction in China.

The applicant argued the conviction was obtained by torture and that the foreign offence did not equate to a Canadian offence.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the ID to disbelieve the torture claim due to significant omissions in the applicant's BOC form and interview, and reasonable to find the foreign offence equivalent to assault causing bodily harm.

The applicant, an 83-year-old Chinese citizen residing with her son in Canada, sought judicial review of a decision rejecting her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

She submitted a psychological report opining that her mental health would deteriorate if returned to isolation in China.

The officer refused the application, noting an absence of ongoing treatment and an inability to show that treatment was unavailable in China.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to analyze the psychological evidence regarding the effect that leaving Canada and family separation would have on the applicant's mental health, as required by Kanthasamy.

The applicants sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision denying their applications for temporary resident status and work permit extensions.

The officer found the principal applicant was no longer in Canada based on his Electronic Travel Authorization application.

The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to justify their finding in relation to the IMM 5710 form submitted with the work permit application, which indicated the applicant lived in Canada.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The Minister applied for judicial review of a citizenship judge's decision to grant the respondent's citizenship application.

The matter had previously been returned for redetermination after an earlier refusal was set aside due to a double-counting error.

On redetermination, the second citizenship judge concluded she was bound by the prior Federal Court decision's mathematical findings on physical presence and explicitly declined to consider new evidence and submissions.

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, holding that the citizenship judge unreasonably fettered her discretion and failed to account for new evidence on redetermination.

The applicants sought judicial review of an immigration officer's decision denying their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The officer had erroneously assessed the application by treating the dependent spouse as the principal applicant, thereby improperly holding his lack of language skills and expired immigration status against the true principal applicant.

The Federal Court found this error fundamental to the officer's analysis on establishment and allowed the application, remitting the matter for reconsideration.