Zoé Richard

The applicant, a permanent resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) refusing his appeal of a departure order issued for failing to meet his residency obligations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The applicant argued the IAD applied incorrect tests regarding the best interests of the child and dislocation of family members, and made erroneous findings regarding his reasons for departure.

The Federal Court found the IAD's decision reasonable, concluding it correctly applied the law and reasonably weighed the evidence regarding humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing his appeal regarding the loss of his permanent resident status for failing to comply with residency obligations.

The applicant argued that his seven-year absence from Canada was justified by the need to care for his sick mother in Pakistan.

The Court found the IAD's determination that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to retain status was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a Moroccan citizen, applied for judicial review of a decision by a Minister's Delegate to issue an exclusion order against him.

He had completed a co-op placement without a required work permit.

When he subsequently applied for a post-graduation work permit, it was refused because he had engaged in unauthorized work within the previous six months.

The Delegate issued an exclusion order based on his inadmissibility for seeking to enter to work without a permit.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's decision reasonable as it was based on his current lack of required documentation, not merely past non-compliance, and the Delegate reasonably concluded he might work illegally in the future.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her work permit application for misrepresentation under s. 40(1)(a) of the IRPA.

The applicant failed to disclose that her US visa had been previously cancelled, answering negatively when asked if she had ever been refused a visa or denied entry to any country.

The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, noting that omitting the cancellation of a US visa can qualify as misrepresentation when it is not an innocent mistake.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, Julienne Malanda and her son Aristide Koudiatou, sought judicial review of a decision refusing to process a sponsorship application.

The son attempted to sponsor his mother under paragraph 117(1)(h) of the IRPR to avoid the Ministerial Instructions that paused parent sponsorships.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, as the mother could be sponsored as a parent under paragraph 117(1)(c), precluding the use of paragraph 117(1)(h).

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).

Prior to the PRRA hearing, the applicant's counsel was temporarily disbarred.

At the hearing, the applicant was represented by an unauthorized office staff member who failed to disclose the disbarment.

The officer subsequently discovered the issue but sent a notice to an incorrect email address, depriving the applicant of the opportunity to secure a new representative.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding a breach of procedural fairness due to fundamentally incompetent representation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a border service officer's refusal of his work permit application.

Subsequent to the filing of the application for leave and judicial review, the respondent acknowledged errors in the refusal decision and cancelled it.

The respondent brought a motion for an extension of time to file a supplementary memorandum, which the court granted.

The respondent argued the application for judicial review was moot.

The applicant argued the cancellation decision was unlawful based on the doctrine of functus officio.

The court held that the controversy arising from the refusal decision had been resolved by its cancellation, rendering the application moot.

The court declined to apply the functus officio doctrine strictly in this non-adjudicative context, finding it would be impractical and contrary to the informal nature of the process.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the refusal of his refugee claim.

The RPD and RAD found the applicant lacked credibility and rejected new evidence.

The Federal Court found the RAD's rejection of new evidence regarding deaths in Nigeria reasonable, as it was available before the RPD decision.

However, the Court granted the application because the RAD failed to adequately consider uncontested new evidence from a church pastor corroborating the applicant's refuge and flight, rendering the credibility finding unreasonable.

The applicant, a permanent resident, sought judicial review of an IAD decision that confirmed a visa officer's refusal to issue a travel document due to his failure to meet the residency obligation.

The applicant had been absent from Canada primarily to care for his ill father.

The IAD determined that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to warrant special relief.

The Federal Court found the IAD's decision reasonable, noting that the tribunal adequately considered the applicant's degree of establishment in Canada, his reasons for being absent, and the applicable legal tests.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing his appeal of a removal order for misrepresentation under s. 40(1)(a) of the IRPA.

The applicant had failed to disclose a Jordanian passport to Canadian authorities.

The IAD rejected his appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The parties acknowledged that the IAD erred by raising unprompted doubts about the authenticity of CIC's documents and improperly using those doubts to draw a negative credibility inference against the applicant, which tainted its H&C assessment.

The Federal Court found this error fatal to the reasonableness of the decision and allowed the application.

The applicant, a citizen of Burkina Faso, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) confirming a removal order.

The applicant spent only 76 days in Canada out of a five-year reference period.

The IAD determined that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant special relief under paragraph 67(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the IAD's analysis transparent, reasonable, and justified on the facts and law.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of her refugee claim based on credibility.

The applicant argued the RAD misinterpreted evidence and breached procedural fairness by relying on her delay in leaving Djibouti without notice.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings reasonable and held there was no breach of procedural fairness as the findings were based on evidence known to the applicant and credibility was already in issue.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of their refugee claim on the basis of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

They feared persecution from family members involving female genital mutilation and tribal markings.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting the applicants failed to establish the reach of the agents of persecution or that the IFA was unreasonable.

The Court also held the RAD's limited reliance on a revoked jurisprudential guide did not render the decision unreasonable.

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

The applicant alleged a risk of persecution in Slovakia based on his Hungarian Roma origin and his homosexuality.

The PRRA officer refused the application, finding insufficient evidence to establish a risk of persecution and determining that an oral hearing was not required.

On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the officer reasonably applied the statutory factors in deciding not to hold an oral hearing, as the issue was sufficiency of evidence rather than credibility.

The Court also found the officer's assessment of the risk evidence to be reasonable and adequately justified.