
Immigration & Refugee judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
In an immigration case, the Federal Court refused to certify a question about whether decision makers need to consider complicity when evaluating if someone's acts meet the nature and severity test under IRPA. The court found this issue did not arise in the specific case before it.
The Federal Court ruled that an Officer's decision to reject a work permit application was unreasonable because the Officer did not provide clear reasons for the rejection, despite the claimant providing substantial evidence of their qualifications.
The Federal Court denied certification of a question regarding the necessity of considering the concept of complicity in assessing the nature and severity of acts committed under security grounds inadmissibility. The Court ruled that the issue was not dispositive of the appeal and had not been raised or dealt with in the decision under review.
A federal judge ruled that an immigration officer's refusal of temporary resident visas was unreasonable because the officer did not properly consider all relevant evidence. The case highlights the importance of thorough review processes in visa applications.
In this case, the Federal Court rejected an appeal against a previous decision to deny refugee status. The court agreed with the Refugee Appeal Division's assessment that the claimants' stories were not credible and that they did not face enough danger in their home country to qualify for refugee protection.
A person seeking refugee status in Canada had their visa application denied due to concerns raised by an officer based on personal knowledge rather than information provided by the applicant. The Federal Court ruled this violated procedural fairness and ordered a new review with proper notice given.
The Federal Court allowed a construction worker's appeal against a work permit refusal. The court ruled that the immigration officer's decision was unclear and lacked sufficient explanation for rejecting evidence provided by the applicant.
The Federal Court upheld a visa officer's decision to refuse a work permit to a foreign worker. The officer determined that the applicant was not financially stable in India and had strong ties to Canada, making it unlikely that the applicant would return home after the work permit expired.
The court granted judicial review of a decision refusing a temporary resident visa (TRV) application. The applicant wanted to write an exam for the Federal Skilled Trades immigration program but was refused a TRV due to concerns about family ties and financial stability. The judge found that these reasons were incomplete as they did not consider the applicant's long-term goal of permanent residency.
A a person's application for permanent residence was refused by a person because of discrepancies between her current application and an earlier temporary resident visa application. She challenged this decision in court but lost, as the judge found that she should have been more proactive about correcting inaccuracies.
A court ruling has overturned a previous decision that took away someone’s a person. The Federal Court found this decision was not fair because it didn't properly consider important facts or respond well to key arguments presented by the person seeking refuge.