
Immigration & Refugee judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Federal Court dismissed a claimant's judicial review application regarding an incomplete refugee sponsorship application under a Temporary Policy. The court ruled that the officer acted reasonably in returning the application due to non-compliance with procedural instructions and timing issues.
A retired Pakistani citizen applied for a temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit family in Canada but was refused. The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer's decision was unreasonable due to errors in assessing the claimant’s ties to Pakistan and dismissing important evidence.
The Federal Court dismissed a refugee claimant's challenge to the denial of his appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division. The Court upheld the finding that the claimant had an internal flight alternative in Mérida, Mexico, as there was no objective evidence to substantiate a fear of returning to the location.
The Federal Court dismissed an application by a person seeking refugee status who argued they could not safely return to Mérida, Mexico due to threats from a criminal cartel. The court found that there was no evidence supporting the claimant's fear of persecution in Mérida and upheld the decision denying their appeal.
A person challenged the decision by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to revoke their a person for misrepresenting their criminal history when applying for citizenship. The Federal Court dismissed this challenge, finding that IRCC's decision was reasonable and fair.
The Federal Court dismissed a challenge to the revocation of citizenship due to false representation and fraud. The court found the decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.
The Federal Court rejected an appeal challenging a decision by immigration officials to deny refugee status to a person from Pakistan who faced threats for being involved with the Shia community. The court found that despite some inconsistencies in the claimant's testimony, the overall decision was reasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a rejected refugee claim, emphasizing the need for objective evidence and a proper assessment of the claimants' circumstances.
The Federal Court found the decision on the applicant's rehabilitation application unreasonable because the delegate failed to properly assess the evidence presented by the applicant, leading to the decision being set aside and remitted for redetermination.
The Federal Court ruled that a delegate's decision denying someone's application for a person was not reasonable because it did not fairly consider all the evidence presented, including personal testimony about rehabilitation and risk of reoffending. The court ordered the case to be reconsidered by another delegate.
In this case, the Federal Court granted a judicial review application challenging an immigration officer's refusal of a a person a person. The court found that the officer's decision was unreasonable because it lacked clear reasoning about why the applicant would not leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
A family from India sought refugee protection in Canada due to threats from the husband. Their application was rejected by both the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division. They then applied for judicial review of this decision, which was also dismissed by the Federal Court because they did not provide sufficient evidence of persecution.
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (a person) decision, finding it unreasonable because the a person failed to adequately consider objective country condition evidence when assessing the claimant's risk of persecution upon return to Cuba. The court determined that a person with similar profiles had been imprisoned for their political activities.