Judgement for this Case: Click here!
CITIZENSHIP — Appeal — Application for citizenship by child adopted by Canadian citizen — Adoptive mother was Canadian citizen who had applied to adopt five year old daughter of her cousin in St Vincent, who was single mother — Adoptive mother began adoption process in 2010 when child was baby — In 2010 court in St Vincent granted adoption of child to adoptive mother — In December 2013 adoptive mother submitted application for Canadian citizenship for child — Throughout interview both adoptive mother and biological mother gave same motivation/reasons for adoption i.e. comparatively superior medical care and schooling in Canada as opposed to St. Vincent — Adoptive mother wished to offer benefits of Canadian citizenship to child — Officer rejected application on ground adoptive mother had failed to establish that adoption was in best interests of child and had not created genuine parent child relationship as required by s. 5.1(1)(b) of Citizenship Act (Can.) — Officer further concluded that adoption was entered into primarily for purpose of acquiring citizenship status for child — Adoptive mother applied for judicial review — Application granted — Legal relationship between biological mother and child was severed by St. Vincent court via grant of adoption — Fact that adoptive and biological parent wished to give child better life in terms of access to medical care and schooling could not support finding that primary intention of adoption was to evade immigration laws — Officer did not consider positive home study report, evidence that adoptive mother did not have children, was married with good income and wished to help others — Officer erred in making a finding that adoption was entered into primarily for acquiring benefit of immigration or citizenship and in finding that adoption was not in best interests of child — Officer also failed to consider steps adoptive mother would take, going forward, in order to establish genuine relationship with child, including fact that adoptive mother intended to take nine months maternity leave when child arrived in Canada

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

IMMIGRATION — Person in need of protection — Applicant received negative pre-removal risk assessment — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — Officer’s views were within bounds of reasonableness

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

IMMIGRATION — Inadmissible and removable classes — Misrepresentation — Mens rea — Material fact — Foreign national was citizen of Iran who applied for permanent residence under Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) category — Foreign national listed former positions as work experience on application but did not disclose position at A which she held full time at time of application — Foreign national contended that she did not believe that it was necessary to report this employment since she had already fulfilled employment experience requirements of FSW class — Foreign national contended that she did not intentionally withhold this information and had honestly believed that it was immaterial to her application — Program Manager refused application on basis that foreign national had misrepresented her employment under s. 40(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.) and therefore did not qualify for permanent residence in Canada — Program Manager found that misrepresentation or withholding of this/these materials fact(s) induced or could have induced errors in administration of Act because complete and accurate employment history was material to assessment of her eligibility and admissibility — Foreign national applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — Foreign national was clearly aware that she was employed at A at time of application, so her statement that she did not know she was making misrepresentation within meaning of s. 40 of Act lacked merit — Even if foreign national’s omission could be characterized as innocent mistake, it would still fall within s. 40(1) of Act because it has been held to encompass innocent failures to provide material information — Misrepresentation need not be decisive or determinative to be material; it must only be important enough to affect process — Failure (innocent or otherwise) to supply truthful, complete and correct application is material because it prevents reviewing officer from assessing all of foreign national’s personal facts and to verify all of information concerning foreign national to determine whether he or she was properly admissible to Canada

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Procedure — Applicant’s claim for refugee protection was rejected — Member and applicant were in same room for hearing, but interpreter was in another city and telephone connections were terrible — Many communications to and from interpreter were inaudible or indecipherable or misunderstood — There were concerns about arrest warranted that were not put to applicant — Applicant sought judicial review — Application granted — Member ascribed some of answers given by applicant that in reading transcript were clearly misunderstood or later corrected — Given critical nature of arrest warrants it was error not to put concerns to applicant

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — Humanitarian and compassionate grounds — Respondent was 52 years old and citizen of Jordan — He became a permanent resident of Canada on November 4, 2005 — Respondent was pharmacist, and he immigrated to Canada as skilled worker with his wife and three children — Respondent was unable to find work in Canada as pharmacist, and three months after his entry he returned to Jordan to work — His wife and children remained in Canada and became Canadian citizens — Over next several years, respondent visited Canada from time to time — His fourth child was born in Canada in October 2006 — He was most recently in Canada in October 2010 — Respondent’s permanent resident card expired on November 22, 2010 — On January 2, 2012, he applied for travel document to return to Canada — Visa officer denied application on basis that respondent had not complied with residency obligation under s. 28 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.) — Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”) allowed respondent’s appeal on basis that humanitarian and compassionate grounds outweighed statutory obligation that persons granted permanent residence in Canada must live in this country for certain minimum periods of time or must otherwise fulfill their residency obligations — Minister applied for judicial review of IAD decision — Application dismissed — IAD’s finding that it was reasonably foreseeable that family might not be able to manage in future, in which case children’s best interests were to have their father in their lives as active parent, was not unreasonable — It was open to IAD to reach conclusion that circumstances of case warranted special relief

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements — Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected applicant’s claim for refugee protection — Board did not find applicant’s claim credible — Board found applicant was victim of extortion — Board concluded applicant failed to link crime that he feared to Convention ground — Board found that risk applicant feared on return to country of origin was risk generally faced by other individuals in country of origin — Board found country conditions improved — Applicant sought judicial review — Application granted — Real basis for decision was that applicant lacked history or profile for someone at risk, except risk of extortion, which was generalized risk and was excluded — Board erred in failing to consider that extortion in current case had distinct racial element to it — Evidence before board indicates that groups were not targeting applicant solely for economic purposes, but rather they were targeting young, Tamil men from Jaffna because they could use threat of denunciation to support extortion demands — Only Tamil males could face risk of extortion with threat of denunciation as LTTE supporter

Judgement for this Case: Click here!
IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements — Applicant fled country of origin and travelled to Spain, Cuba, Bahamas and United States spending almost two months there — Refugee and Protection Division of Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (“board”) denied applicant refugee protection — Board made negative credibility findings and concluded there was no reasonable chance or serious possibility that applicant would be persecuted on convention ground or that he would face risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment if he were returned to country of origin — Board found applicant’s failure to seek refugee protection in Cuba, Bahamas or United States detracted from his subjective fear — Applicant asserted board breached duty of procedural fairness because of quality of translation provided to applicant at hearing — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — Applicant did not establish any breach of procedural fairness arising from translation — Applicant did not establish that any alleged errors in translation were departure from expected standard — Applicant did not establish that alleged errors were material to board’s findings or would have resulted in different determinative finding — Board did not err in finding that applicant’s failure to seek refugee protection in Cuba, Bahamas, and United States was inconsistent with his allegations of well-founded fear of persecution — There was no error in board’s overall assessment of applicant’s credibility — Board did not microscopically assess applicant’s credibility — There was no breach of procedural fairness arising from translation of board’s questions or applicant’s answers that had any bearing on board’s adverse credibility findings — Decision was justified, transparent and intelligible and fell within range of reasonable outcomes — Cumulative nature of credibility findings amply supported decision

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — Permanent residence applications — Applicant applied for permanent residency visa under skilled-worker class — Applicant failed to disclose all of her previous employment — Application was denied based on finding that applicant withheld information about her work experience that could have induced error in administration of law — Applicant sought judicial review asserting information was immaterial in that omitted employment was only part-time and was not needed to establish threshold of teaching experience required — Applicant asserted she did not intend to deceive — Application dismissed — Officer’s finding applicant breached statutory obligation of full disclosure by withholding material information from her visa application was reasonable — Application of s. 40 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.), did not depend on applicant’s intentions or motives for failing to disclose information — Test was whether failure to disclose foreclosed avenues of enquiry into matters that were potentially relevant to pending decision — Applicant was author of her own misfortune — Applicant knowingly omitted some of her employment because she did not think it to be important — Department was initially deprived of opportunity to make relevant enquiries and that was sufficient to apply s. 40 to applicant’s application — It was not open to visa applicant to selectively disclose relevant and required personal information on basis she did not think it would make any difference

Judgement for this Case: Click here!

IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements — Well founded fear of persecution — Credibility — Refugee claimant was citizen of Guatemala who alleged fear and risk to his life at hands of kidnappers who were aware that he witnessed kidnapping — Refugee Protection Division (RPD) noted discrepancies between claimant’s amended Personal Information Form and his oral testimony and when claimant could not provide reasonable explanations for discrepancies board drew negative inference as to credibility — Board concluded claimant lacked credibility and denied claim — Claimant applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — Claimant was asking court to reweigh evidence before RPD — RPD’s reasons were justified, transparent and intelligible — Taken and read as whole, decision fell within range of possible, acceptable outcomes which were defensible in respect of facts and law

Judgement for this Case: Click here!
IMMIGRATION — Selection and admission — Humanitarian and compassionate grounds — Applicants were denied refugee status and received negative pre-removal risk assessment — Applicant’s humanitarian and compassionate application for permanent residence was dismissed — Applicants had Canadian-born child who had health issues — Officer was not satisfied that Canadian-born child suffered from medical condition for which treatment would be unavailable in country of origin — Officer concluded there was insufficient objective evidence to establish that applicants’ removal from Canada would adversely affect their children — Applicants sought judicial review — Application dismissed — Decision was not unreasonable — Officer’s weighing of evidence and conclusion reached was not unreasonable — More ought to have been put before officer regarding Canadian-born child’s medical condition