Gregory George

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal of a Refugee Protection Division decision denying their refugee claims.

The applicants claimed fear of persecution in China due to its family planning laws, arguing they faced sterilization and fines because they had children abroad.

The Federal Court held that the RAD reasonably interpreted the Chinese family planning laws as not applying to the applicants' children born in Canada, and reasonably concluded the applicants would not face persecutory fines.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).

The RAD refused to admit new evidence and found the applicant had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Lagos, Nigeria.

The Federal Court held the RAD's assessment of the new evidence, its refusal to hold an oral hearing, and its finding of a viable IFA in Lagos were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of India residing in Canada, applied for judicial review of a Senior Immigration Officer's decision refusing his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

The applicant sought an exemption from the usual in-Canada selection criteria.

The officer determined that the circumstances, including his establishment in Canada, economic support of his overseas family, and the best interests of his children in India, did not warrant an exception.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, noting that the evidence of economic support was ambiguous and the officer sufficiently considered the children's best interests.

The applicants in two related applications for leave and judicial review brought motions in writing for documentary production under Rule 14(2) of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules and for extensions of time to perfect their leave materials.

The underlying applications sought mandamus and prohibition concerning delays in processing permanent residence applications due to ongoing admissibility reviews.

The Federal Court dismissed the document production requests, finding the documents were not necessary for the disposition of the leave applications, though they might be relevant later.

The Court granted the requested 30-day extensions of time and ordered the matters to be considered concurrently by the same judge.

The applicant, a former member of the Armenian Police, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division excluding him from refugee protection under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention and s. 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for complicity in crimes against humanity.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the RPD reasonably applied the test for complicity based on the applicant's role in the police force and that the occasional reference to 'reasonable grounds to believe' instead of 'serious reasons for considering' was not determinative and did not render the decision unreasonable.

The applicant, a permanent resident, was found inadmissible to Canada for serious and organized criminality due to a 2004 extortion conviction in the United States.

While he was granted criminal rehabilitation for serious criminality, he remained inadmissible for organized criminality and applied for ministerial relief in 2015.

After over four years without a decision, he sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Minister to render a decision.

The Federal Court found the delay unreasonable and the administrative considerations advanced by the Minister insufficient to justify it.

The Court issued a writ of mandamus setting out a timeframe for the Minister to decide the application.