Judgement of this video: Click Here!
IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements
Applicants were citizens of India and members of Sikh minority — Their refugee protection claim stemmed from family dispute over lands that were owned by male applicant’s grandfather, who passed away in 2000
Judgement of this video: Click Here!
IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements
Applicant was citizen of Pakistan who feared returning there because he had been persecuted for being of Ahmadi faith — His daughter in Canada, with whom applicant was living, remained steadfastly opposed to Ahmadi faith and his conversion was hidden from her until he returned to Pakistan
Judgement of this video: Click Here!
Refugee status — Procedure
Duty owed by board to self represented claimants — Refugee claimants were self represented — Board denied claim on grounds that claimants had not rebutted presumption of state protection and internal flight alternatives (“IFAs”) existed for claimants.
Hakobyan v. Canada This is an IMMIGRATION case, — Visitors — Employment authorizations
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
Visa officer denied work permit to applicant — Officer was not satisfied that employment offer in Canada was genuine — Officer found documentation submitted in relation to applicant’s pre-existing employment in country of origin lacked authenticity — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — Officer’s finding of lack of authenticity in documentation relating to applicant’s employment in country of origin did not have any effect on officer’s finding of non-genuineness of job offer — Though officer relied on scant evidence to conclude offer of employment was non-genuine, lack of evidence was failing of applicant and/or prospective employer, not of officer — Officer’s finding that evidence failed to establish that prospective employer was actively engaged in business in respect of which offer of employment was made, and that offer of employment was not genuine, was reasonable
Hakobyan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (April 20, 2015, George R. Locke J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 457
Counsel for the Applicants proposed three questions for certification: 1. Within the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD]’s statutory framework where the appeal proceeds on the basis of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] record of the proceedings, what is the level of deference, if any, owed by the RAD to the RPD’s findings of fact or mixed fact and law? Page: 4 2. What is the scope of the Refugee Appeal Division’s review when considering an appeal of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division? 3. Does the duty of fairness require the Immigration and Refugee Board to supply an appellant to the Refugee Appeal Division a transcript of the hearing at the Refugee Protection Division where the appellant raises an issue which can be determined only on the basis of what was said at the hearing?
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application is allowed, the decision of the RAD is quashed and the appeal is remitted back to be determined by a differently constituted panel, and the following question is certified: What is the scope of the Refugee Appeal Division’s review when
considering an appeal of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division?
Here is another IMMIGRATION case, Bermudez v. Canada — Selection and admission — General — Cessation 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
Foreign national was citizen of Colombia who had been approved for refugee protection from within Colombia as member of Source Country Class and who entered Canada in 2006 as refugee and permanent resident — Foreign national returned to Colombia on two occasions in 2008 and 2009 in order to marry his fiancée and bring her with him to Canada however marriage did not take place and foreign national returned to Canada — After returning from trip to Mexico in 2014 Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) noticed foreign national’s Colombian passport and previous trips to Colombia and forwarded his case for cessation consideration — Minister contended that as foreign national had used his Colombian passport to travel to Colombia twice, to United States at least eight times and to Mexico once foreign national had voluntarily re-availed himself of protection of his country of nationality, as described in s. 108(1)(a) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.) — Minister referred foreign national to refugee Protection Division for cessation determination — Foreign national applied for judicial review — Application granted; matter was remitted for reconsideration by another Hearings Officer — Hearings Officer retains discretion not to make cessation application when she is of view that evidence before her does not support re-availment determination under s. 108 — To arrive at that determination, she must have regard to submissions of individual concerned and not simply to their travel history — Officer in this instance failed to consider relevant submissions and for that reason application must be granted — Question certified : Does CBSA hearings officer, or hearings officer as Minister’s delegate, have discretion to consider factors other than those set out in s. 108(1), including H&C considerations and best interests of child, when deciding whether to make cessation application pursuant to s. 108(2) in respect of permanent resident
Bermudez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (June 8, 2015, Richard G. Mosley J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 711
Here is another IMMIGRATION case Dolma v. Canada about Nationality, — Refugee status — Requirements — Effective nationality —
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 http://reportersreport.com as a pdf document
Refugee claimant who was born in India in 1982 claimed refugee status on ground Indian authorities would not recognize her as citizen if she returned there since she was ethnic Tibetan — Claimant alleged that Indian authorities would deport her to China, where she would be persecuted as ethnic Tibetan and follower of Dalai Lama — RPD considered citizenship laws of India which stated that individual born in India on or after January 26, 1950 but before July 1, 1987 was citizen by birth and concluded that Indian citizenship was therefore within claimant’s control. — Refugee Protection Division denied claim — Claimant applied for judicial review — Issue whether RPD erred in concluding that India was country of reference for assessment of refugee claim because claimant was legally entitled to Indian citizenship by birth, and regardless of whether she would have difficulties obtaining recognition of that citizenship — Application granted — Board erred in law by failing to consider difficulty claimant would face in obtaining recognition of her Indian citizenship and rights and privileges that attached thereto, finding instead that her legal entitlement to citizenship was determinative — Nationality must be effective, rather than merely formal — Elements in concept of “effective nationality” include recognition of nationality by state of nationality and absence of practical impediments to accessing benefits of nationality — Where citizenship in country is purely formal rather than pragmatically effective, country should not be considered as country of reference — Given humanitarian objects of Refugee Convention, it could not have been intended that person would be denied international protection by virtue of formal but relevantly ineffective nationality
Dolma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (June 3, 2015, Danièle Tremblay-Lamer J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 703
This is a interesting IMMIGRATION pertaining to person from Southern India, Gnanasundaram v. Canada — Person in need of protection —
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 India who alleged that he had been victim of politically-motivated threats and violence by supporters of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (“DMK”) — He made his way through United States and into Canada, where he applied for refugee protection — Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) determined that applicant was neither Convention refugee nor person in need of protection — RPD concluded that applicant did not fear persecution because his credible fear interview in United States was successful and he had chosen to abandon that claim and come to Canada — RPD also found that New Delhi was viable internal flight alternative (“IFA”) — RPD said applicant had exaggerated his risk from supporters of DMK and had not proven any risk from police in New Delhi — Applicant applied for judicial review of decision of RPD — Application granted — It was illogical and therefore unreasonable for RPD to use Responses to Information Requests (“RIR”) about Punjabi Sikhs as basis for its conclusion that police would not pursue applicant beyond borders of his rural town — That conclusion was central to RPD’s finding of there being IFA for applicant in New Delhi, but it could not be justified because RIR had no relevance whatsoever to applicant’s personal profile as politically active Hindu Tamil from his town, and RIR itself contained some evidence that contradicted RPD’s determination that police would not pursue applicant beyond borders of his town — Matter was remitted to different member of RPD for re-determination
Gnanasundaram v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (June 26, 2015, Keith M. Boswell J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 692
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
