Lobat Sadrehashemi

The applicants challenged the refusal of their application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The determinative issue was the officer's failure to address the applicants' argument that the inability of their Canadian-born minor child to sponsor them breached his equality rights.

The Federal Court found this omission rendered the decision unreasonable, as the decision-maker failed to grapple with a central issue raised in the submissions.

The application for judicial review was allowed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision which confirmed the Refugee Protection Division's finding that he failed to establish his identity as David Mabirizi.

The applicant had previously applied for visas under a different identity.

The RAD found his birth certificate and passport in the name of David Mabirizi had little weight due to a misspelling on the birth certificate, despite refusing to find it fraudulent.

The Federal Court found this assessment of the probative documents incoherent and unreasonable, as the authenticity of the birth certificate was not definitively determined.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicants, a widow and her two minor daughters from India, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicants argued they would face hardship returning to India due to threats from the deceased husband's creditors and a lack of family support.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding that the officer unreasonably assumed the applicants would have familial support in India, directly contradicting the evidence in the record.

The matter was remitted for redetermination by a different officer.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision affirming the RPD's rejection of his refugee claim.

The RAD found there were viable internal flight alternatives in Peru.

The applicant argued the RAD unreasonably refused to admit new evidence.

The Federal Court held the RAD reasonably applied the statutory requirements for new evidence and that the applicant failed to show how the evidence would have changed the IFA determination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her application for permanent residence under the Interim Pathway for Caregivers Program.

The refusal was based on the applicant's alleged failure to meet the education requirement.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to meaningfully evaluate the education credential equivalency report and did not explain why the applicant's post-secondary training was insufficient to meet the equivalent of a Canadian high school diploma.

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