Canada Immigration, Case Law Lai v Canada (May 19 2015 Cecily Y. Strickland Federal Court)

Benit Varghese Caselaws Leave a Comment

Here is a case, Lai v. Canada. This is an Immigration case, Selection and admission — Humanitarian and compassionate grounds

Case law is not meant for people interested to apply for immigration to Canada, but may be used by those who feel the system is not fair, to gain an understanding of the recourse available in Canada. Content for this video is sourced from information distributed by Thomson Reuters. Judgement for this case is attached in my blog reportersreport.com as a pdf document

Refugee claimant was citizen of China who came to Canada with husband and daughter in February 2009 and in November 2009 made refugee claim based on her fear of arrest in China because of her Christian activities there — Claimant and her husband separated in November 2009 and later divorced — Refugee Protection Division denied refugee claim on ground claimant’s assertion that she was being persecuted as member of underground church lacked credibility — Claimant made H&C application and pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application, alleging new risk, i.e. that she feared harm from her ex-husband should she return to China — Claimant sought stay of removal order which was denied and claimant and daughter were removed December 9, 2013 — PRRA application was dismissed as moot — In support of her PRRA application claimant filed April 30, 2013 report of social worker with expertise in area of domestic abuse (Expert Report) — Officer made no mention of the Expert Report in the PRRA or H&C decision — Officer also failed to address evidence in record indicating that domestic violence was significant problem in China and one that public security forces often ignored — H&C application granted — Officer simply did not engage with content of the Expert Report or question of the availability of state protection in context of domestic violence in China — Nor did officer address letter of claimant’s sister, either in PRRA decision or H&C decision, in which sister stated that claimant’s husband said that he would go back to China to kill claimant and then would kill himself — Accordingly, officer’s decision was unreasonable

Canada Immigration,Case Law v. Patmore .Canada (June 1, 2015, J.Federal Court)

Benit Varghese Caselaws Leave a Comment

This is a CITIZENSHIP case, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Patmore — Appeal —

Case law is not meant for people interested to apply for immigration to Canada, but may be used by those who feel the system is not fair, to gain an understanding of the recourse available in Canada. Content for this video is sourced from information distributed by Thomson Reuters. Judgement for this case is attached in my blog reportersreport.com as a pdf document

Foreign national was citizen of United Kingdom who was landed as permanent resident of Canada January 2, 2008 — Citizenship judge approved application for citizenship applying test in Papadogiorgakis, Re [1978] 88 D.L.R. (3d) 243, 2 A.C.W.S. 482 (Fed. T.D.), concluding that foreign national had centralized her mode of living with her family in Canada despite absences to pursue legal studies in France and England — Foreign national had shortfall of 818 days of legislated requirement of 1195 days — Minister applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — Citizenship judge had opportunity to interview foreign national and to assess her commitment to Canada — Citizenship judge came to conclusion that she had centralized her mode of living in Canada, that her initial establishment with her family and her subsequent visits could not properly be referred to as “visits or stay”, that she was significantly engaged with Canadian society when in Canada to extent her studies permitted, and that she intended to qualify as lawyer in Canada and practice law here — Issue for Court was not whether it would have come to same conclusion, but whether Citizenship judge could reasonably come to his conclusion on basis of record that was before him — While reasons could have been more articulate, it could not be said that they lacked intelligibility or that they were not supported by evidence — As such, reasons were defensible and met standard of reasonableness

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Patmore (June 1, 2015, Yves de Montigny J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 550

Canada Immigration Case Law,Michel M.J, Canada,(June 12 2015 J.Federal Court )

Benit Varghese Caselaws Leave a Comment

This is an IMMIGRATION case, Ion c. Canada — Inadmissible and removable classes — Criminality —

Case law is not meant for people interested to apply for immigration to Canada, but may be used by those who feel the system is not fair, to gain an understanding of the recourse available in Canada. Content for this video is sourced from information distributed by Thomson Reuters. Judgement for this case is attached in my blog reportersreport.com as a pdf document

 

Applicant was permanent resident who was arrested in course of police operation — Applicant pleaded guilty and received suspended sentence and probation order — Applicant was subject of report pursuant to ss. 44(1) and 37(1)(a) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.) — Immigration Division (ID) concluded that applicant’s conviction and fact that applicant was represented by lawyer during guilty plea were sufficient to conclude that applicant engaged in activities related to criminal organization in accordance with s. 37(1)(a) of Act — Evidence showed applicant as facilitator in commission of two robbery attempts, and as having role essential to modus operandi of criminal organization — ID determined that organization did not randomly form with purpose of committing single offence — Applicant brought application for judicial review — Application dismissed — It was reasonable for ID to conclude that there were reasonable grounds to believe organization was criminal organization pursuant to s. 37(1)(a) of Act — Applicant was key player in criminal activities for which he was charged and convicted — In light of evidence, it was reasonable for ID to conclude that applicant’s conviction in respect of charges brought against him was sufficient to determine that applicant was engaged in activities related to criminal organization pursuant to s. 37(1)(a) of Act — Since structure of criminal organizations varies, ID was to have discretion in assessing all evidence in light of Act’s purpose

Ion c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration) (June 12, 2015, Michel M.J. Shore J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 686

Canada Immigration Case Law ,Mojahed v,Canada,( May 28, 2015, J.Federal Court )

Benit Varghese Caselaws Leave a Comment

This is again an IMMIGRATION case, Mojahed v. Canada — Inadmissible and removable classes — Loss of permanent resident status

Case law is not meant for people interested to apply for immigration to Canada, but may be used by those who feel the system is not fair, to gain an understanding of the recourse available in Canada. Content for this video is sourced from information distributed by Thomson Reuters. Judgement for this case is attached in my blog reportersreport.com as a pdf document

Refugee claimant was born in Iran — Claimant alleged that he was vocal supporter of monarchist cause in Iran and as result was threatened by agents of Iranian government in Iran and Austria — Claimant became permanent resident of Austria in December 2004 — Claimant subsequently left Austria for St Martens where he worked for uninterrupted period of one year outside of Austria and European Economic Area and as result lost his permanent resident status in Austria — Austrian authorities had also issued arrest warrant against him for various fraud-related offences and Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that possibility of claimant be allowed by into Austria was mixed — Claimant came to Canada as visitor in 2011 and Citizenship and Immigration refused to extend his visa — Claimant filed refugee claim in Canada in 2012 — RPD found that claimant was excluded from refugee protection pursuant to art. 1E of Convention because he had voluntarily allowed his permanent residence status in Austria to lapse — Claimant applied for judicial review — Application dismissed — Claimant had rights and obligations similar to national of safe country and voluntarily failed to maintain his status, and this factor could be weighed against him by RPD — Possibility of re-admission of claimant to Austria for purpose of prosecuting him did not guarantee that he would thereafter be reinstated in his permanent resident status — This is type of weighing exercise to which Court should defer on reasonableness standard of review, in light of specialized nature of RPD and its complete jurisdiction to determine plausibility of testimony, to gauge credibility of account and to draw necessary inferences

Mojahed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (May 28, 2015, Yves de Montigny J., Federal Court) 255 A.C.W.S. (3d) 687