Raj Sharma

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying a permanent stay of proceedings for abuse of process and granting the Minister's application to vacate his refugee status under s. 109(1) of the IRPA.

The applicant claimed that a 9-year delay by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) in bringing the vacation application amounted to an abuse of process.

The RPD found the delay did not cause significant prejudice or taint the proceedings, and accepted evidence that the applicant used undisclosed alternate identities and misstated his residency.

The Federal Court held the RPD correctly applied the Blencoe test for abuse of process and reasonably determined the delay was outweighed by the public interest in removing refugee protection gained by misrepresentation.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review of an IAD decision which found that the respondent had not lost her permanent residency status.

The IAD concluded she never received a 2014 decision letter refusing her permanent resident travel document due to failing residency requirements.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the IAD failed to grapple with evidence indicating the refusal letter had been sent and received.

The applicant, a permanent resident convicted of mortgage fraud and forgery, sought judicial review of a CBSA officer's report under s. 44(1) of the IRPA, a Minister's delegate's decision to refer her to an admissibility hearing under s. 44(2), and the resulting deportation order.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable because they overlooked her ex-husband's role in the fraud, overemphasized the cost to taxpayers, and ignored evidence of her relationship with her daughter.

She also claimed her procedural fairness rights were breached.

The Federal Court dismissed the applications, finding the decisions were reasonable and justified based on the evidence before the decision-makers, and that the applicant was afforded adequate procedural fairness through the opportunity to respond to the initial procedural fairness letter.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) that vacated a previous decision allowing her claim for refugee protection.

The RPD found that the applicant had obtained refugee status using fraudulent documents and that her general credibility was fatally affected.

The Federal Court found the RPD's decision reasonable, concluding that there was insufficient evidence without the fraudulent documents to justify refugee protection, and that the lack of a transcript from the initial hearing did not breach procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.