5 total
Judicial review of H&C refusal dismissed as officer's decision was reasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The applicants argued the officer erred in assessing their establishment in Canada, hardship in Nigeria, and the best interests of the children.
The Court found the officer's decision was reasonable, concluding the applicants were essentially asking the Court to reweigh the evidence.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review dismissed; finding that spousal sponsorship was based on non-genuine marriage was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing her appeal of a refused spousal sponsorship application.
The IAD found her marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for immigration purposes.
The applicant argued a breach of procedural fairness occurred because the IAD relied on an anonymous tip about her husband's relationship with another woman.
The Federal Court held the de novo nature of the IAD hearing meant no procedural fairness breach occurred, as the IAD considered the tip but did not find it determinative.
The Court also found the IAD's conclusion on the genuineness of the marriage was reasonable and supported by the evidence.
Judicial review of H&C refusal dismissed; officer's cumulative assessment of hardship and establishment was reasonable.
The applicants applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds, citing hardship in Botswana, the best interests of their children, and establishment in Canada.
A Senior Immigration Officer refused the application, finding that the cumulative assessment of these factors did not justify an exemption.
On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the officer's assessment of establishment, hardship, and the children's best interests was reasonable.
Judicial review dismissed as RAD reasonably rejected new evidence and upheld negative credibility findings.
The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing their appeal from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).
The applicants alleged a fear of persecution from village elders demanding the principal applicant's daughters undergo female genital mutilation.
The RAD rejected new evidence submitted by the applicants, upheld the RPD's negative credibility findings, and determined no separate section 97 analysis was required due to a lack of objective risk.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision justifiable, transparent, and intelligent, and dismissed the application for judicial review.
Judicial review granted; RAD decision unreasonable for failing to analyze mother's claim of persecution.
The applicants, a mother and her two minor daughters from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeals from a negative Refugee Protection Division finding.
The Principal Applicant claimed a risk of persecution because her mother-in-law branded her a witch and threatened her with harm if she did not give up her eldest daughter for female genital mutilation (FGM).
The RAD accepted that the eldest daughter faced a risk of FGM, but found insufficient evidence to support the Principal Applicant's fear of persecution.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision unreasonable because it failed to analyze the Principal Applicant's claim that she faced a risk of persecution due to her refusal to allow FGM to be performed on her eldest daughter, and because its analysis of her claim of persecution due to being accused of witchcraft was unreasonable.
