An interesting IMMIGRATION case for Judicial review, McKenzie v. Canada— General

Case law is not meant for people interested to apply for immigration to Canada, but may be used by those who feel the system is not fair, to gain an understanding of the recourse available in Canada. Content for this video is sourced from information distributed by Thomson Reuters. Judgement for this case is attached in my blog reportersreport.com as a pdf document

New evidence — Foreign nationals’ visitor status expired in 2012 — Female foreign national was granted student visa but it was never issued since she never appeared at port of entry as required — Female foreign national had not been advised of this requirement by immigration consultant — Foreign nationals unsuccessfully applied for exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds from requirement that applications for permanent residence be made from outside Canada — Foreign nationals would have presented further evidence but for alleged incompetence of immigration consultant — Foreign nationals brought application for judicial review and submitted further evidence — Voir dire was conducted to determine admissibility of evidence — Evidence admissible in part — Evidence relating to status of complaint against immigration consultant was admissible — This evidence went to proving alleged incompetence of immigration consultant — Evidence that would have been submitted but for alleged incompetence of immigration consultant was admissible for same reason — Evidence relating to progress of foreign nationals’ Canadian-born child and male foreign national’s recent work was inadmissible since it had not been before immigration officer

McKenzie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (June 8, 2015, John A. O’Keefe J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 715

An interesting IMMIGRATION case, Krishnapillai v. Canada — Judicial review — General —

Case law is not meant for people interested to apply for immigration to Canada, but may be used by those who feel the system is not fair, to gain an understanding of the recourse available in Canada. Content for this video is sourced from information distributed by Thomson Reuters. Judgement for this case is attached in my blog reportersreport.com as a pdf document

Applicant was citizen of Sri Lanka and was young Tamil from northern part of country and he sought refugee protection — Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that applicant was not credible — Applicant appealed to Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) — RAD found that RPD’s credibility analysis was reasonable but it failed to deal with issue at heart of claim, whether applicant’s identity as young male Tamil was reasonable basis for subjective fear of persecution — RAD did own analysis of risk profile for young Tamil males returning to Sri Lanka and concluded that there was only mere possibility that applicant would face persecution — Applicant applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — RAD did not err in applying reasonableness standard to credibility findings made by RPD — RAD acted within its jurisdiction in conducting independent risk profile analysis — RAD’s risk assessment was reasonable — RAD reasonably found that applicant was not perceived to be member or supporter of LTTE — Finding that being young Tamil male from north of Sri Lanka was not sufficient for refugee protection was reasonable — RAD reasonably relied on UNHCR Guidelines and acknowledged evidence contrary to its conclusions — Decision as whole was reasonable

Krishnapillai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (June 24, 2015, Russel W. Zinn J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 688

This is again an IMMIGRATION case, Mojahed v. Canada — Inadmissible and removable classes — Loss of permanent resident status

Case law is not meant for people interested to apply for immigration to Canada, but may be used by those who feel the system is not fair, to gain an understanding of the recourse available in Canada. Content for this video is sourced from information distributed by Thomson Reuters. Judgement for this case is attached in my blog reportersreport.com as a pdf document

Refugee claimant was born in Iran — Claimant alleged that he was vocal supporter of monarchist cause in Iran and as result was threatened by agents of Iranian government in Iran and Austria — Claimant became permanent resident of Austria in December 2004 — Claimant subsequently left Austria for St Martens where he worked for uninterrupted period of one year outside of Austria and European Economic Area and as result lost his permanent resident status in Austria — Austrian authorities had also issued arrest warrant against him for various fraud-related offences and Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that possibility of claimant be allowed by into Austria was mixed — Claimant came to Canada as visitor in 2011 and Citizenship and Immigration refused to extend his visa — Claimant filed refugee claim in Canada in 2012 — RPD found that claimant was excluded from refugee protection pursuant to art. 1E of Convention because he had voluntarily allowed his permanent residence status in Austria to lapse — Claimant applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — Claimant had rights and obligations similar to national of safe country and voluntarily failed to maintain his status, and this factor could be weighed against him by RPD — Possibility of re-admission of claimant to Austria for purpose of prosecuting him did not guarantee that he would thereafter be reinstated in his permanent resident status — This is type of weighing exercise to which Court should defer on reasonableness standard of review, in light of specialized nature of RPD and its complete jurisdiction to determine plausibility of testimony, to gauge credibility of account and to draw necessary inferences

Mojahed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (May 28, 2015, Yves de Montigny J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 687

This is an IMMIGRATION case, Ion c. Canada — Inadmissible and removable classes — Criminality —

Case law is not meant for people interested to apply for immigration to Canada, but may be used by those who feel the system is not fair, to gain an understanding of the recourse available in Canada. Content for this video is sourced from information distributed by Thomson Reuters. Judgement for this case is attached in my blog reportersreport.com as a pdf document

Applicant was permanent resident who was arrested in course of police operation — Applicant pleaded guilty and received suspended sentence and probation order — Applicant was subject of report pursuant to ss. 44(1) and 37(1)(a) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.) — Immigration Division (ID) concluded that applicant’s conviction and fact that applicant was represented by lawyer during guilty plea were sufficient to conclude that applicant engaged in activities related to criminal organization in accordance with s. 37(1)(a) of Act — Evidence showed applicant as facilitator in commission of two robbery attempts, and as having role essential to modus operandi of criminal organization — ID determined that organization did not randomly form with purpose of committing single offence — Applicant brought application for judicial review — Application dismissed — It was reasonable for ID to conclude that there were reasonable grounds to believe organization was criminal organization pursuant to s. 37(1)(a) of Act — Applicant was key player in criminal activities for which he was charged and convicted — In light of evidence, it was reasonable for ID to conclude that applicant’s conviction in respect of charges brought against him was sufficient to determine that applicant was engaged in activities related to criminal organization pursuant to s. 37(1)(a) of Act — Since structure of criminal organizations varies, ID was to have discretion in assessing all evidence in light of Act’s purpose

Ion c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration) (June 12, 2015, Michel M.J. Shore J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 686