Samina Essajee

The applicant, a citizen of Jamaica, applied for judicial review of a Visa Officer's decision refusing her permanent resident application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicant had entered Canada, married a Canadian citizen, and experienced domestic violence, leading to the withdrawal of her spousal sponsorship application.

The Court found the Officer's assessment of her establishment, the best interests of her child in Jamaica, risk and adverse country conditions, and domestic violence was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal and confirming they were not Convention refugees.

The applicants claimed fear of persecution in Nigeria for refusing a religious position.

The RAD found they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Abuja or Port Harcourt.

The Federal Court held the RAD reasonably excluded certain new evidence and reasonably found the proposed IFAs were viable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a Tamil male from Sri Lanka, sought judicial review of a decision rejecting his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application.

The Court found the decision unreasonable because the Officer essentially adopted the reasons of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) without independently engaging with the evidence submitted for the PRRA.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision upholding the rejection of her refugee claim.

The applicant alleged a fear of her abusive father in Mexico, but the RAD found her father had abandoned her, negating forward-looking risk.

The applicant argued the RAD unreasonably failed to assess whether there were compelling reasons arising out of past persecution to grant protection under subsection 108(4) of the IRPA.

The Federal Court held the RAD unreasonably ignored the issue of past persecution, rendering its failure to conduct a compelling reasons analysis circular and flawed.

The application was granted and the matter remanded for redetermination.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the refusal of their refugee claims based on the principal applicant's sexual orientation.

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings due to omissions, inconsistencies, and a lack of corroborative evidence.

The Federal Court found the RAD's assessment reasonable, noting the late disclosure of a current relationship and the failure to provide hotel receipts.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Georgia whose refugee claim based on alleged political persecution was previously rejected, applied for judicial review of a decision refusing his pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).

He submitted new letters from family and friends alleging continued targeting by the ruling party.

The PRRA Officer found the letters lacked probative value and rejected the request for an oral hearing.

Applying the Vavilov standard of reasonableness, the Federal Court held that the Officer's concerns regarding the letters' probative value were valid and did not constitute veiled credibility findings.

The Court concluded the decision was reasonable and no oral hearing was required, dismissing the application.