Applicant’s claim for refugee protection was rejected — Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) found applicant’s failure to disclose her HIV condition in her original PIF created negative inference — RPD found applicant failed to take reasonable steps to avail herself of state protection and applicant failed to show state protection was inadequate — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — Finding applicant was not credible was reasonable — Applicant did not seek protection whether from police or any other state or private agency
Applicants were Czech nationals of Roma ethnicity — Applicants claimed there were number of incidents that constituted persecution, including several attacks by skinheads, racial insults on public transport and being forced off transport and being removed from soccer team — There were claims of forced sterilization and of petitions to remove Romas from rental properties — One applicant suffered from mental illness and was enrolled in special needs school, without parents’ consent, where he was constantly harassed, attacked and injured — Reports of attacks were made to police but no arrests were made — Applicants claimed refugee protection — Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied refugee protection status based on credibility concerns, finding that incidents did not rise to level of persecution and that applicants had not rebutted presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence — Applicants applied for judicial review — Application granted — It was unreasonable and unfair for RPD to lump all applicants into concerns about credibility of one applicant — RPD found applicant to be credible except for two incidents and expressed no substantive credibility concerns about other applicants — RPD’s credibility findings could not stand — RPD failed to provide analysis of cumulative effects of incidents or explanation of why incidents of discrimination did not reach level of persecution — Applicants were entitled to know why incidents did not rise to level of persecution — Issue of state protection was live issue and RPD failed to consider operational adequacy, which it was required to do — State protection analysis was incomplete
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
Refugee Protection Division allowed respondent’s claim for refugee protection — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — Analysis by member of issues of state protection and internal flight alternative was adequate and conclusions were reasonable
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
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khedri
IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — Permanent residence applications
Applicant had spouse and five children who would be accompanying him to Canada — Applicant was refused permanent residence as member of Convention refugee abroad class or country asylum class — Officer was not satisfied that applicant had well-founded fear of persecution based on Convention ground — Officer was not satisfied that applicant would be targeted in every region of country or that he had explored any other solutions — Officer was not satisfied that applicant did not have durable solution — Applicant sought judicial review — Application granted — Decision and CAIPS notes did not contain any reference to or assessment of applicant’s personal circumstances, statutory requirements, or country conditions in relation to country of asylum class — Considerations for convention refugee abroad and country of asylum class situations were different, so reasons officer gave with regard to claim under convention refugee abroad class could not be used to supplement decision under country of asylum class — Finding applicant was not refugee was reasonable — There was little evidence other than applicant’s own testimony to suggest applicant fled due to any political motivation — Making police report and resisting criminality did not necessarily impute political opinion — Applicant’s situation was reasonably characterized as fear of criminality
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Yafu
IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements
Applicant claimed to fear persecution from loan shark his father borrowed money from — Applicant was sent to Canada to work to pay off debt — Applicant came to Canada on work permit and remained in Canada after permit expired — Applicant claimed that if he returned to Thailand loan shark would find him and he would be in danger — Applicant filed for refugee protection — Immigration and Refugee Board denied applicant’s claim on basis that he was not credible, he did not have subjective fear and that he had internal flight alternative in Bangkok, Thailand — Applicant applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — Board’s finding of internal flight alternative in Bangkok was reasonable and applicant could not be afforded protection under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.) — Applicant had not discharged burden of showing he would be at risk in Bangkok
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vijayan
CITIZENSHIP — Qualifications — Residence
Respondent had shortfall in his physical presence in Canada, but failed to declare 12 trips in citizenship application — Respondent’s absences from Canada could not be verified because of missing passport stamps — Respondent renewed his passport years before it would have expired — There were entries of “Visa in other passport” in respondent’s passport that suggested he had fourth passport that was not submitted in his application — Respondent waited nearly two years before seeking permanent residence in Canada for his child born in United States — Little documentation was provided about respondent’s activities for specified period — Respondent’s credit card statements showed transactions in United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) during time that respondent claimed to be in Canada — Respondent was granted citizenship — Applicant filed application for judicial review late, but well in advance of deadline respondent erroneously believed to be in force — Application granted — Citizenship Judge’s finding that respondent met physical presence threshold was premised on unexplained reduction of declared absences; attribution of internally inconsistent duration to undeclared absences; and possible unstated counting of presences which pre-dated relevant period — Mathematical error alone would not necessarily render decision unreasonable, in present case it informed citizenship judge’s approach in conducting cursory analysis citizenship judge incorrectly assumed that respondent met physical presence test as alternative basis for his decision — Citizenship judge omitted undeclared absences altogether in Approval Synopsis and Notice to Minister — There was no corroborating evidence as to duration of respondent’s undeclared absences and it was not open to citizenship judge to draw arbitrary assumptions from respondent’s testimony to relieve him of his burden to substantiate his application for citizenship — Citizenship judge erred by failing to explain and justify decision in light of possible misrepresentations and did not reasonably assess respondent’s credibility — Citizenship judge did not offer transparent reasons for trusting respondent — Citizenship judge erred by assigning speculative duration to respondent’s undeclared absences without expressly considering whether his failure to declare 12 trips affected his overall credibility — Citizenship judge dismissed citizenship officer’s concerns with credit card activity in UAE currency — Citizenship judge did not ground his conclusion that respondent has centralized his existence in Canada on transparent and intelligible reasons
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Rutagayintabaza
IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements
Applicant was from Rwanda — Applicant claimed refugee status based on fear of persecution by persons that were associated with 1994 genocide and who murdered members of his family — Immigration and Refugee Board found that applicant had been persecuted but refused his claim because it found that he could live safely in Town of Remera — Applicant applied for judicial review — Application granted — Applicant was not treated unfairly — It was not unfair for board to consider whether Remera would offer applicant safe place to live — Applicant was aware that viable internal flight alternative was issue at hearing and he could not have been taken by surprise by board’s consideration of that issue — However, board’s finding that there was internal flight alternative was unreasonable — Board failed to take into account applicant’s testimony that he felt his safety was constantly at risk in Remera and he could not find job there
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Rasakumar
IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — Humanitarian and compassionate grounds
Applicant left country of origin and his claim for asylum in United States was granted preliminary acceptance — Applicant’s claim for refugee protection in Canada was rejected — Officer of Citizenship and Immigration refused applicant’s application for exemption from visa requirements for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — Officer’s decision was reasonable — Officer did not fetter is discretion by referring to Refugee Board decision — Officer was correct in stating that evidence was materially same
