3 total
Judicial review of negative PRRA dismissed where determinative issue was insufficient evidence, not credibility.
The applicant sought judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment.
The applicant feared a blood feud in Albania.
The officer refused the application due to insufficient evidence of ongoing risk and found no oral hearing was required.
The Federal Court held the decision was reasonable and an oral hearing was not required because the determinative issue was insufficient evidence, not credibility.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review granted; IAD unreasonably conflated genuineness of marriage with intention at time of marriage.
The Minister sought judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision that allowed the respondent's appeal from a visa officer's refusal of her husband's application for permanent residence as a spouse.
The visa officer had found the marriage was not genuine and was entered into for immigration purposes.
The Federal Court found the IAD's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly apply the two-part disjunctive test under subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, specifically by conflating the assessment of the marriage's genuineness with the assessment of the parties' intention at the time of entering the marriage.
The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a different panel of the IAD.
Judicial review of inadmissibility decision for complicity in crimes against humanity dismissed.
The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria and former police officer, sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision declaring him inadmissible to Canada under s. 35(1)(a) of the IRPA for complicity in crimes against humanity committed by the Nigerian Police Force.
The ID found reasonable grounds to believe the applicant made a voluntary, knowing, and significant contribution to the crimes or criminal purpose of the police force, applying the Ezokola test.
The Federal Court found the ID's decision reasonable, noting contradictions in the applicant's testimony and significant documentary evidence of crimes committed by the units in which he served.
