
Immigration & Refugee judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
A person seeking a temporary resident a person had their application reviewed by the Federal Court after an immigration officer made an error in not considering new documents. The court ruled that the original refusal should be reconsidered by a different officer.
The Federal Court granted an application for judicial review, setting aside a decision on a temporary resident visa application and ordering a redetermination by a different officer. The court found that the original decision was made without considering updated documentation.
A person seeking refugee status had their Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application denied by an officer who did not properly consider personal experiences and misinterpreted evidence about conditions in Sri Lanka. The Federal Court overturned this decision, finding it to be unreasonable.
A court upheld an immigration officer’s refusal to grant a work permit and temporary resident a person due to lack of sufficient proof of financial stability. The claimant argued that the officer's decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair but failed to convince the Court otherwise.
In this case, the Federal Court reviewed a decision by an immigration officer who refused a temporary resident visa (TRV) application. The court found that the officer’s decision was unreasonable because it did not properly consider all of the applicant's evidence about their family and financial connections outside Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed an appeal against a decision made by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) regarding a family’s refugee claim from India. The court upheld a person’s conclusion that the applicants' claims lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and insufficient supporting evidence.
The Federal Court overturned a decision denying permanent residence to a claimant on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The Court found the officer's assessment of the claimant's establishment in Canada unreasonable.
A person seeking permanent residency was denied by an immigration officer on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The Federal Court granted judicial review, stating that the officer did not properly assess the applicant's specific situation and potential risks if returned to their home country.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review application challenging decisions refusing Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) applications based on alleged risks in India. The officer's a person was found reasonable as it properly considered the statutory risk framework and available evidence, despite new materials submitted after the a person.
In a Federal Court case, a judicial review was granted due to a breach of procedural fairness. The officer failed to give the applicant a fair chance to respond to concerns about their job abilities and the authenticity of the job offer.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently clarified that judges cannot make findings of fact and law based on privileged human source information in civil proceedings, ensuring the confidentiality of such information is maintained.
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review challenging a PRRA decision refusing protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. The court found the decision reasonable and meeting the statutory thresholds.
A federal court judge overturned an immigration decision denying a woman's request to stay permanently in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The judge found the original decision unreasonable and sent it back for another officer to reconsider.
The Federal Court overturned a work permit refusal because the decision-maker did not give the applicant enough chance to address concerns about her job skills and the legitimacy of the job offer. This highlights the importance of fair procedures in immigration decisions.
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision denying refugee protection status to a Mexican citizen. The court found that a person's refusal to admit new evidence was reasonable and that the claimant failed to establish viable internal flight alternatives or show that relocation would be unreasonable.