
Immigration & Refugee judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
A federal judge ruled that denying a a person protection request without allowing the applicant to speak in person is unfair. This decision sets aside the original denial, giving the claimant another chance at assessment with proper procedures.
A person seeking a work permit from a person (a person) challenged their refusal in Federal Court. The court found that the a person's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, dismissing the appeal.
The Federal Court granted the claimant's application for judicial review, setting aside the refusal of his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment due to lack of procedural fairness and unreasonable decision. The court ruled that the claimant's fears of persecution were not fairly assessed, and the decision was unreasonable for requiring corroboration of the claimant's allegations without assessing his risks as a gay man.
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review challenging a decision denying refugee status to someone fearing persecution in Uganda due to their sexual orientation. The court found inconsistencies between the claimant's testimony and written statements undermined their credibility, leading to dismissal of the case.
A person applied for a work permit to restore their temporary resident status in Canada but missed the 90-day deadline. The Federal Court ruled against them, stating that applications must be made within this period to qualify for restoration.
A person's application for an electronic travel authorization (a person) was refused by a person because they were found to have misrepresented important information on their application. When they challenged this decision through a judicial review, the Federal Court upheld the refusal, finding that the applicant knew about previous refusals and did not disclose them.
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division, finding that the claimant had a viable internal flight alternative in Ghana. The court determined that a person reasonably concluded that the claimant could relocate to proposed a person without facing serious persecution or risk.
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review, affirming the decision that a claimant had a viable internal flight alternative in Ghana. The court determined that the claimant had not sufficiently proven that he faced a serious risk of persecution in the proposed locations.
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review, upholding a decision that a claimant seeking protection as a bisexual man lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and omitted facts in his Basis of Claim.
The Federal Court dismissed a refugee claim because the claimant's story contained significant inconsistencies and lacked credible evidence to support it. The court upheld the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, emphasizing the importance of consistent and credible testimony in refugee claims.
The Federal Court dismissed an applicant’s request for a work permit because she did not provide enough proof of having stable finances in Canada. The court upheld the original refusal by the immigration officer, stating there were no serious issues with the decision-making process or evidence provided.
In this case, the Federal Court overturned an immigration officer's decision to refuse a work permit and accompanying visas. The court found that the officer did not provide enough explanation about why the applicant was unable to demonstrate he could perform the job adequately, particularly regarding his English language skills.
The Federal Court ruled that an officer's refusal of a work permit application was unreasonable because the officer did not provide enough detail about the applicant's language skills and employment history. The court stressed the importance of clear explanations in such decisions.
A person seeking refugee status in Canada had their case dismissed because they were found not credible due to inconsistencies in their story. The Federal Court upheld this decision after reviewing it.