Lisa Maziade

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal and finding her not to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection based on her sexual orientation.

The RAD found that she had not rebutted the presumption of state protection.

The Federal Court held that the RAD reasonably considered the applicant's profile and the objective documentary evidence regarding Colombia's legislative improvements for LGBT individuals.

The Court concluded the RAD's finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate state protection was unavailable, having contacted the police only once, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division upholding a visa officer's refusal of a sponsorship application based on misrepresentation.

The IAD found it lacked credible evidence that the applicant's first wife was deceased and raised authenticity concerns regarding the applicant's second marriage documents.

The Federal Court found the IAD's decision unreasonable because it failed to account for material eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence regarding the first wife's death and the subsequent marriage, and provided inadequate justification for negative credibility findings.

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

The applicant applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicant inadmissible under s. 35(1)(a) of the IRPA for complicity in crimes against humanity during his military service in Lebanon.

The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable.

The officer exaggerated the applicant's role, misunderstood the structure of the Lebanese military and security services, and unreasonably concluded he was complicit in torture.

The matter was remitted for reconsideration by a different officer.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the Refugee Protection Division's rejection of their refugee claims based on credibility.

The principal applicant alleged extortion by a Mexican cartel.

The RAD found his testimony not credible due to inconsistencies regarding his delayed departure, return to Mexico, and delay in seeking police protection.

The Federal Court held the RAD's credibility findings were reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a permanent resident of Canada and citizen of El Salvador, was found inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality following a conviction for assault with a weapon.

The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissed his appeal to stay the removal order on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding that the IAD's decision lacked reasonableness because it failed to consider contemporary evidence from the applicant's sister in El Salvador regarding the dangerous conditions and street gangs.

The matter was remitted for reconsideration.