Simone Truong

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision rejecting her application for permanent residence in the skilled worker category.

The Officer found the applicant's proof of employment was undated and could not establish the required one year of continuous full-time work experience.

The applicant argued the Officer breached procedural fairness by not requesting clarification and that the decision was unreasonable given other submitted documents, like bank statements.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant bore the onus to submit a complete application and the Officer had no duty to request clarification.

The Court also found the decision reasonable as the bank statements did not demonstrate the duties performed or establish the required work experience.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of his refugee claim based on an adverse credibility finding.

The RPD and RAD found the applicant lacked credibility due to numerous omissions, contradictions, and discrepancies between his port of entry declarations, basis of claim narrative, and testimony regarding his political activities in Chad and a prior asylum claim in France.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility assessment was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a resident of Quebec, applied to sponsor her mother but lost her source of income and did not request a Quebec Selection Certificate (CSQ).

She requested her sponsorship application be refused and appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The IAD dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding the failure to request a CSQ meant a valid application had not been filed under the IRPA.

The Federal Court upheld the IAD's decision as reasonable, noting that failing to complete provincial requirements renders a sponsorship application invalid for appeal purposes.

The applicant, a citizen of Cameroon, applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision denying her application for a study permit.

The officer found the applicant would not leave Canada at the end of her stay and lacked sufficient financial resources.

The Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable, as the officer improperly used a lack of travel history as a negative factor and made findings regarding the applicant's financial circumstances and guarantors that contradicted the evidence.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter sent back for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment.

The applicant feared a blood feud in Albania.

The officer refused the application due to insufficient evidence of ongoing risk and found no oral hearing was required.

The Federal Court held the decision was reasonable and an oral hearing was not required because the determinative issue was insufficient evidence, not credibility.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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

The applicant alleged persecution in Colombia due to his work as a volunteer topographer assisting with land restitution.

The Refugee Protection Division found him not credible.

The RAD upheld the decision and refused to admit new evidence submitted by the applicant, finding it irrelevant.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the RAD reasonably assessed the new evidence and that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.