Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.Liu

IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — General

Applicant, citizen of China, applied for Quebec selection certificate, with spouse, under investor category — Applicant alleged ownership of buildings in Beijing was financed by friend’s loan and mortgage — Minister found contradictions between narrative and documents and granted applicant 60 days to explain inconsistencies — Minister dismissed applicant’s application for selection certificate — Applicant applied for judicial review of Minister’s decision — Application dismissed — Applicable standard of review was reasonableness — Pursuant to s. 3.2.1. of An Act Respecting Immigration to Quebec (Que.), Minister may refuse any application containing false or misleading information or document — Minister had vast discretion — Applicant provided false and misleading information — One of alleged real estate holdings did not physically exist — Minister’s decision was not unreasonable — Application for judicial review, moreover, was brought more than three months after Minister’s decision, and not within “reasonable delay”

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Keil

IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements

Applicants’ claim for refugee protraction was rejected — Member of Refugee Protection Division found applicants to be credible — Member found country of origin afforded adequate state protection to applicants — Applicants sought judicial review — Application granted — Finding on state protection was unreasonable — Police told applicants to leave country — State protection was inadequate for applicants and it was unreasonable to expect them to return to country of origin

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kanagendren

IMMIGRATION — Inadmissible and removable classes — Terrorism

Applicant was member of Tamil National Alliance (“TNA”) — Immigration Division found that applicant’s membership in TNA constituted membership in Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”), which had engaged in terrorism — Immigration Division found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that applicant engaged or would engage in terrorism — Applicant was found to be inadmissible under s. 34(1)(f) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.) — Applicant applied for judicial review — Application was dismissed — Applicant appealed — Appeal dismissed — Judge certified question of whether Ezokola c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyennete & de l’Immigration) (2013), 229 A.C.W.S. (3d) 836 (S.C.C.), changed existing legal test for assessing membership in terrorist organizations for purpose of assessing inadmissibility under s. 34(1)(f) of Act — Ezokola did not modify test for assessing membership in terrorist organization under s. 34(1)(f) of Act — Under s. 34(1), inadmissibility finding flowed from engaging in terrorism or membership in organization that engaged in terrorism and nothing in s. 34(1)(f) required complicity analysis in context of assessing membership in terrorist organization — Textual analysis of s. 34(1)(f) of Act was supported by contextual and purposive considerations — Immigration Division’s finding that applicant’s membership in TNA constituted membership in LTTE was reasonable — There were reasonable grounds to believe that facts giving rise to inadmissibility were present

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ismail

IMMIGRATION — Exclusion and expulsion — Removal orders

Principal applicant was citizen of Egypt who applied to come to Canada under skilled workers program — She submitted language testing certificate (“IELTS”) and was granted permanent resident visa, along with her co-applicants husband and daughter — When applicants arrived at airport in Toronto they presented their permanent resident visas and were examined by immigration officer — When principal applicant was not able to answer simple questions in English, officer checked computer database and noticed that visa officer in Cairo had determined that IELTS results submitted were fraudulent — Visas were nonetheless issued, likely because of civil unrest in Egypt at time, which resulted in interruption in processing — Applicants were permitted to enter Canada under s. 23 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.), for purpose of attending examination at later date — On November 23, 2011, visa officer revoked applicants’ permanent resident visas — Applicants then attended examination on December 2, 2011, and exclusion orders were issued against all three, given that they did not have valid visas — Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”) dismissed applicants appeal of decision — IAD found that applicants had not shown, on basis of information provided, that they had right of appeal in circumstances — Applicants applied for judicial review of decision of IAD — Application dismissed — There was no doubt that visa could be revoked at any time after having been issued — It was clear from textual, contextual and purposive analysis of s. 63(2) and Act as whole that right of appeal was granted only to person who held valid permanent resident visa at time exclusion report was issued — Foreign nationals who were found to be inadmissible at port-of-entry or at deferred examination would have right of appeal to IAD only when their inadmissibility did not relate to absence of permanent resident visa

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Hossain

IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements

Applicants were citizens of Bangladesh who had appeal dismissed by Immigration and Refugee Board — Respondent found that applicants were neither convention refugees nor persons in need of protection — Applicant brought application for judicial review — Application dismissed — Given numerous credibility findings, decision was deemed reasonable — Evidence supporting respondent’s findings was correctly assessed

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ganapathy

IMMIGRATION — Inadmissible and removable classes — Criminality

Applicant was convicted of driving under influence — Applicant married Canadian woman who was now pregnant — Applicant’s application for in-Canada spousal sponsorship for temporary resident permit was refused on ground of inadmissibility for criminality — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — Notes showed that officer considered and gave ample regard to relevant factors.

Judgement of this video: Click Here!

Keywords: CITIZENSHIP — Loss of citizenship

Summary: Citizenship obtained by false representation or fraud — Foreign nationals were granted citizenship in 2004 — In January 2005, Immigration Review Board (“IRB”) advised Minister that proceedings were underway to vacate foreign nationals’ refugee status.

judgement of this video: Click here!

CITIZENSHIP — Qualifications — Knowledge of Canada

Citizenship judge determined appellant failed to meet knowledge requirement and would not make recommendation to Minister to waive on compassionate grounds.

Judgement of this video:Click here!

Exclusion and expulsion — Removal orders

Pre-Removal Risk Assessment — Foreign national was citizen of Uganda who came to Canada in 1999 on student visa and remained here without status after visa expired in 2006 — Foreign national gave birth to daughter in 2003

Judgement of this video:Click here!

IMMIGRATION — Exclusion and expulsion — Departure notices

Pre-Removal Risk Assessment — Allegation of risk based on homosexuality — Foreign national was citizen of Uganda who came to Canada in 1999 on student visa and remained here without status after visa expired in 2006.