
Immigration & Refugee judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
A citizen of India applied for a Canadian work permit to be a general farm worker but was denied because he lacked relevant farming experience. The Federal Court dismissed his appeal, upholding the visa officer's decision that the applicant did not meet the requirements despite having some agricultural knowledge from living in Punjab.
The Federal Court granted a judicial review of an immigration officer's refusal to issue a work permit. The court ruled that the case must be reviewed again by a different officer rather than deciding it directly, as this approach respects the expertise of administrative decision-makers and ensures fairness in the process.
A family from Mexico living in the United States without legal status since their visas expired sought judicial review of an Immigration Officer's refusal to grant a work permit. The Federal Court dismissed the case, ruling that concerns about non-compliance with US immigration laws were reasonable grounds for refusing the permit.
A person applied for a study permit to pursue an MBA in Canada but was denied by an immigration officer. They then asked a judge to review this decision. However, the judge agreed with the officer's reasons and dismissed the case, saying that the officer’s refusal was reasonable based on the information provided.
The Federal Court dismissed an appeal challenging a refusal to grant a work permit under Canada's a person. The claimant, who was seeking to transfer from Iran to manage a proposed school in Vancouver, failed to demonstrate that the a company was a legitimate and continuing part of a a person.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review challenging an immigration officer's refusal of a work permit application for a general farm worker position. The officer reasonably concluded the applicant lacked relevant experience or training.
The Federal Court granted a judicial review of an unreasonable Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) refusal, emphasizing the need for transparent and justified decisions. The Officer's decision was criticized for ignoring relevant evidence and failing to provide clear reasoning.
A person seeking to extend their temporary resident status must be honest about any significant life changes, such as job offers or Labour Market Impact Assessments. In this case, the Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review because the claimant did not disclose a job offer and LMIA approval on an extension request, leading to a finding of misrepresentation under the IRPA.
In this immigration case, the Federal Court reviewed a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) refusal. The court found that the decision was unreasonable because it did not adequately address the applicant's evidence or explain its reasoning clearly. As a result, the court granted judicial review and sent the case back to be decided by another officer.
In a case involving unreasonable delay in processing an immigration application, the Federal Court ordered a person to process the application within 90 days. The decision highlights the need for clear justification of delays due to security screenings.
The Federal Court dismissed the claimant's motion for an extension of time, citing insufficient evidence and non-compliance with procedural requirements. The claimant failed to meet the criteria set forth in Canada (Attorney General) v Hennelly (1999).
In a recent Federal Court decision, an applicant's request to speed up the hearing of an application for judicial review was denied. The court ruled that the applicant had not shown exceptional circumstances that warranted faster treatment.