
Immigration & Refugee judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Federal Court overturned an immigration officer's decision to deny a work permit application after finding that the officer failed to properly consider the applicant's financial evidence, including affidavits and a valuation report.
A Federal Court judge ruled that a a person officer's decision to deny temporary resident visas was unreasonable because it did not provide clear reasons for the refusal. The court found that the officer's explanation was insufficient and lacked transparency, making it difficult to understand how the decision was made.
A person seeking permanent resident status through their spouse faced rejection by a Federal Court judge after challenging a a person officer's decision. The court ruled against granting an exception based on humanitarian reasons, upholding the original denial of the application.
The Federal Court granted a request for judicial review and overturned a visa officer's decision to deny temporary resident visas to a family. The court found the visa officer's decision was unreasonable because it lacked sufficient reasoning to justify the denial.
The Federal Court rejected an application for an exemption to allow permanent residence. The court upheld the officer's decision based on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, stating that the applicant's failure to declare a relationship was not an innocent mistake.
The Federal Court dismissed applications seeking judicial review of visa refusals for two Iranian women who wanted to visit Canada. The court found that the decisions were reasonable because the applicants did not provide enough evidence showing they would leave Canada at the end of their stay and had strong ties outside Canada.
A person who submitted fake documents for a work permit application was denied judicial review by the Federal Court. The court ruled that submitting false information makes someone ineligible for Canadian entry for five years, unless they prove an honest mistake occurred.
The Federal Court ruled that a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (a person) excluding an individual from refugee protection was flawed. The court found that the a person did not properly consider where the applicant’s crimes would fall within Canada's sentencing range, leading to a remand for further review.
A person applied for a work permit in Canada but their application was refused because key supporting documents were unreadable. They challenged this decision through judicial review, arguing it was procedurally unfair. The Federal Court dismissed the challenge, ruling that there was no breach of procedural fairness and the officer's refusal was reasonable.
A family from Nigeria applied for extensions to their a person permits but were denied. They then sought judicial review, which was dismissed by the Federal Court because the claimant’s permanent residency application had been refused, making the issue moot and no longer relevant.
In this case, the Federal Court found that a refusal of a sponsored family class application for permanent residence was unreasonable because it lacked transparency and accurately reflected the evidence provided by the applicant. The court returned the matter to a different Officer for redetermination.
The Federal Court allowed an application for judicial review, overturning a PRRA decision due to reliance on outdated information. The court found that the PRRA Officer failed to consider recent country condition documents, leading to an unreasonable evaluation of the risks faced by the applicant.
The Federal Court overturned a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division, ruling that it was unreasonable to expect a refugee claimant with breast cancer and her family to relocate due to medical and gender-based concerns. The court highlighted the importance of considering intersectional factors such as health conditions and violence against women when assessing internal flight alternatives.