5 total
Judicial review granted where H&C officer failed to properly assess minor applicant's vulnerability.
The applicants, a mother and her minor son, sought judicial review of an immigration officer's refusal of their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to meaningfully address the minor applicant's learning disability, failed to conduct a global assessment of his vulnerability to gang recruitment as a young Black man with a disability returning to Jamaica, and produced a confusing best interests of the child analysis.
The application for judicial review was allowed.
Judicial review dismissed; finding of inadmissibility for fraudulent bank statement was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of an immigration officer's decision to refuse her study permit application and find her inadmissible for five years due to misrepresentation.
The officer found that a bank statement submitted with the application was not genuine.
The Federal Court held that the procedural fairness letter sufficiently informed the applicant of the case to meet and that the officer's decision to reject the applicant's explanation of a banking error was reasonable.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD's finding of a viable internal flight alternative in Lima was reasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision dismissing their appeal of a negative refugee determination.
The Refugee Protection Division and RAD found they had a viable internal flight alternative in Lima, Peru.
The applicants argued the RAD placed too much emphasis on omissions in the basis of claim form and failed to conduct an independent analysis.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's assessment of the evidence and its conclusion regarding the internal flight alternative to be reasonable.
Judicial review dismissed; refusal of permanent residency application and reconsideration request was reasonable and procedurally fair.
The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of her permanent residency application under the Canadian Experience Class and the subsequent refusal to reconsider that decision.
The Officer raised concerns about the credibility of her declared work experience as a dispatch supervisor, which were not alleviated by the applicant's response to a procedural fairness letter.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the Officer reasonably concluded the applicant's business education did not provide the necessary skills, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the process or in refusing to interview the applicant.
The refusal to reopen the application was also found to be reasonable.
Judicial review granted; ID failed to properly apply the Ezokola test for complicity.
The applicant, a former police officer in Pakistan, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division finding him inadmissible to Canada under s. 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for complicity in crimes against humanity committed by the police force.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the Immigration Division's assessment of complicity unreasonable for failing to properly engage with the mandatory factors established in Ezokola.
