
Immigration & Refugee judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Federal Court granted an application for judicial review of an immigration officer's decision. The court found the officer's reasons for determining the applicant's credibility insufficient and the officer's failure to fully assess the applicant's eligibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act unreasonable.
A person seeking refugee protection in Canada appealed a negative risk assessment decision but was unsuccessful. The Federal Court found that the decision was based on proper legal reasoning and evidence, and there were no procedural issues affecting fairness.
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review brought by someone seeking a study permit. The applicant argued that delays in processing their application amounted to a breach of legitimate expectations and sought mandamus relief. However, the court found that the applicant did not establish a clear public legal duty or right to performance, leading to dismissal.
The Federal Court rejected an application for judicial review challenging the denial of refugee status. A claimant argued they faced persecution in India but the court found their claims lacked credibility based on inconsistencies and omissions in their testimony.
The Federal Court dismissed a self-represented litigant's application for judicial review of a refugee claim decision. The court affirmed the Refugee Appeal Division's ruling, stating that the claimant's allegations of persecution lacked credibility and did not establish a serious risk of harm.
The Federal Court upheld a decision to refuse a study permit for a student from Iran who wanted to complete grade 12 in Canada. The court found that there was insufficient evidence of financial means and reasonable purpose for studying in person, rather than virtually.
The Federal Court rejected an application for mandamus and declaratory relief, ruling that the claimant did not prove a clear public legal duty owed to them and an unreasonable delay by the respondent.
A person seeking refugee status in Canada had their case dismissed by the Federal Court after challenging an adverse decision from the Refugee Appeal Division (a person). The court ruled that a person's process was fair and its reasoning was sound based on the available evidence.
The Federal Court overturned a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (a person) which had ceased an individual’s refugee status. The court found that the a person made unreasonable adverse credibility findings based on incomplete information, leading to an unjustified cessation of refugee protection.
A person challenged a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division that denied them special permission to stay in Canada despite their misrepresentation on immigration forms. The Federal Court reviewed this decision and upheld it, finding that a person’s reasoning was clear and fair.
The Federal Court granted a judicial review application after finding that an officer's refusal of a refugee application was based on unreasonable credibility concerns. The officer had raised doubts about the applicant's credibility based on perceived contradictions in his testimony, but the court found that these contradictions were not real.
The Federal Court dismissed a challenge to the refusal of a work permit application under the start-up visa program. The claimant argued that her commitment certificate remained valid despite having expired. However, the court ruled that the certificate must be valid at the time of the work permit application submission.
The Federal Court granted judicial review of an a person (a person) decision to refuse a refugee application based on perceived inconsistencies in testimony. The court found that the a person officer's concerns about contradictions were unfounded and unreasonably dismissed the applicant’s explanations.
The Federal Court dismissed a claimant's application to review a a person officer's decision to refuse their study permit and find them inadmissible for misrepresentation. The court found that the officer's decision was reasonable based on the information available at the time of the decision.