IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — Humanitarian and compassionate grounds

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Applicant was denied refugee protection and received negative pre-removal risk assessment — Applicant’s ex-husband was deported back to country of origin and applicant fears for her safety at his hands were she deported to country of origin — Applicant had Canadian child who suffered from seizures and speech problems — Applicant worked briefly after birth of child and was convicted of several criminal offences in Canada, including theft, fraud and forgery — Officer rejected applicant’s application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds — Applicant sought judicial review — Application granted — Officer overlooked issue of violence at hands of ex-husband

IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — Sponsorship

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Foreign national was citizen of China who first entered Canada in 2006 on tourist visa — Foreign national met sponsor in 2009 and married him in March 2010 — Foreign national submitted in-Canada spousal sponsorship application — During interview officer noted several discrepancies in answers provided by foreign national and sponsor, and found their explanations for discrepancies were not reasonable — Officer also commented negatively on demeanor of foreign national and sponsor during interview — Officer found that foreign national had failed to demonstrate that she was in bona fide relationship not entered into primarily for immigration purposes and denied application — Foreign national applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — Although officer only discussed evidence that pointed away from bona fides of relationship, officer’s conclusions were reasonable on evidence, and her reasons were intelligible and transparent — Officer’s doubts about foreign national’s and sponsor’s credibility were entirely reasonable — Officer’s conclusions with respect to discrepancies in testimony of foreign national and sponsor at interview were reasonable and cast serious doubts on parties’ credibility

IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — Permanent residence applications

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Applicant was arrested after his visa expired — After his release on bond applicant was arrested again for failing to comply with conditions of his release — Applicant was third time arrested for failing to comply with conditions of his release — Applicant was released with his aunt as bondsperson and as condition of release applicant was to reside with aunt at her residence — Applicant married spouse — Applicant and spouse never cohabited because of release conditions — Applicant’s request to vary release condition so that he could live with spouse was refused — Immigration officer denied applicant permanent residence as member of spouse or common law partner in Canada class because there was insufficient proof of cohabitation — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — It was reasonable for officer to reject applicant’s explanation for why he was not cohabiting with his spouse — Finding that applicant did not meet cohabitation requirement fell within range of possible, acceptable outcomes — Applicant could have explored option to live with spouse at aunt’s residence

IMMIGRATION — Visitors — General

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Applicant applied to Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (“SINP”) under Farmer Entrepreneur Category — SINP invited applicant to visit Saskatchewan — Applicant sought temporary resident visa — Officer noted applicant did not disclose that applicant was previously asked to leave United States 19 years ago — Applicant was provided 30 days to respond to officer’s concerns — Applicant asked officer to consider that removal was result of his overstaying his time in United States following failed refugee claim and not due to criminal or medical inadmissibility — Applicant also said that had he declared such removal, it would not have resulted in refusal of admittance to Canada — Applicant’s application for temporary resident visa was refused — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — There was misrepresentation — It was not for applicant to decide what was relevant — Applicants were required to make full disclosure — It was for officer to decide what was relevant and what weight to give any particular fact disclosed — It was not whether visa would have been refused had full disclosure been made but rather point was that it could have induced error because it could have impacted officer’s decision on whether applicant would leave at end of visa period, and it could have induced error if there were other inadmissibilities — Applicant’s failure to understand clear wording could not be used to avoid consequences of misrepresentation — Given clear questions and instructions on form, it was not reasonable for applicant to believe that he was not misrepresenting material fact when he decided to omit information of which he was fully aware — Misrepresentation was clearly material to decision that had to be made — Reasons were adequate — GCMS notes were part of reasons and notes clearly explained why non-disclosure was found to be material misrepresentation

IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — Sponsorship
Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Applicant was born in Sri Lanka and became Canadian citizen in 1990 — Applicant was on welfare because he lost his fingers to frostbite in 1994 — Applicant suffered from depression and was diagnosed with schizophrenia — In 2009 applicant married wife, Sri Lankan national, and applied for sponsorship — Visa officer refused to grant applicant’s wife permanent resident visa in spousal sponsorship category — Visa officer came to conclusion that marriage was not genuine — Applicant appealed — Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) upheld visa officer’s decision — Applicant applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — Appeal revolved around particular facts of case and interpretation by IAD — There was no patent error of fact — This was not case where questionable of findings of fact made by IAD cumulatively rendered its final conclusion unreasonable — Based on evidence, conclusion that marriage was not genuine was open to IAD, considering wife’s lack of knowledge of applicant’s mental illness, his loss of fingers and various contradictions in her testimony — It was open to IAD to conclude that wife was not able to explain why she was genuinely committed to marriage with applicant other than to acquire status in Canada — IAD’s decision was reasonable

IMMIGRATION — Exclusion and expulsion — Removal orders
Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Right of refugee claimant to judicial review after removal — Refugee claimants were Roma citizens of Hungary who had made unsuccessful refugee claim — Claimants’ motion for stay of removal was dismissed and claimants departed Canada and returned to Hungary in November 2014 — Claimants had brought application for judicial review of denial of refugee claim — Minister contended that s. 96 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.), required that refugee claimants be outside their country of nationality, and s. 97 of Act required that claimants be physically present in Canada, and therefore application for judicial review should be dismissed on ground that it had become moot — Motion to dismiss on ground of mootness denied; application to be set down for hearing on its merits — Parliament did not intend to preclude court and board from hearing claim for refugee protection after person had been removed from Canada pursuant to s. 48(2) of Act — In absence of express statutory language rights conferred on refugee claimants by Act were not rendered nugatory by performance of Minister’s duty to execute removal order as soon as reasonably practicable — Even if matter had become moot, this was appropriate case in which court should exercise its discretion to deal with matter on its merits — As interlocutory judgment concerned jurisdiction of Refugee Protection Division to reconsider decision after applicant for refugee protection has been removed from Canada was separate, divisible, judicial act, question was certified: Is application for judicial review of decision of Refugee Protection Division moot where individual who was subject of decision has involuntarily returned to his or her country of nationality, and, if yes, should court normally refuse to exercise its discretion to hear it?