Kevin Spykerman

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision denying their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

The principal applicant and her daughter previously had their refugee status vacated for failing to disclose their South Korean citizenship.

The husband was in Canada on a work permit.

The Court held the decision was unreasonable because the Officer assumed, without evidence, that the husband would return to South Korea with the family if the application was denied.

This assumption fundamentally flawed the analysis of hardship and the best interests of the child.

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

They alleged a fear of forced sterilization in China due to family planning policies.

The RAD found their documentary evidence lacked credibility and that country condition evidence did not support a risk of forced sterilization in their province.

The Federal Court found the RAD's assessment of the evidence and conclusion that the applicants lacked a personalized risk to be reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an IAD decision dismissing his appeal of a visa officer's refusal to issue a permanent resident visa to his wife.

The visa officer found the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for acquiring status.

The IAD found multiple discrepancies in evidence regarding the development of the relationship and financial transfers.

The Federal Court held the IAD's decision was reasonable, noting it adequately weighed the positive evidence against the discrepancies and did not inappropriately rely on speculation or the age difference.