Gebru v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1563
In Gebru v. Canada (MCI), the Court examined the Immigration Division’s decision to find the Applicant inadmissible to Canada pursuant to ss.34(1)(f) and 34(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for being a member of Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). On judicial review, the Court found that the Immigration Division had erred by failing to address the accuracy of the Applicant’s original BOC Narrative. Furthermore, the Court found that the Immigration Division ignored the Applicant’s statements to the CBSA Officer wherein he told the Officer various times that he was not a member of the TPLF. The Immigration Division’s decision was set aside and the application for judicial review was allowed.
Adeshina v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1559
In Adeshina v. Canada (MCI), the Court examined the Refugee Protection Division’s decision to refuse the Applicants’ FGM refugee claim on a “no credible basis” finding (ss. 107(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act). On judicial review, the Court determined that the Refugee Protection Division’s determination was unreasonable as the “no credible basis” finding was not clearly excisable from decision due it being intertwined into other parts of the reasoning. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Engenlbers v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1545
In Engenlbers v. Canada (MCI), the Court assessed the Refugee Protection Division’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s refugee claim on the basis of an IFA. On judicial review, the Court found that the RPD’s IFA determination was unreasonable under both branches of the IFA test. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Sadr Nouri v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1536
In Sadr Nouri v. Canada (MCI), the Court examined the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision to dismiss the Applicant’s claim, confirming the decision of the of the Refugee Protection Division that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. On judicial review, the Court found that the Refugee Appeal’s decision exhibited internally inconsistent reasoning on the religion claim and ignored the grounds on which the Applicant based his objection to conscription. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Aryan v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1527
In Aryan v. Canada (MCI), the Court examined the Officer’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s application for permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada [SCLPC] class on inadmissibility grounds. The Court looked at the two stages of the permanent residence application process, the first stage determining whether the eligibility requirements were met, and the second stage addressing whether there were any inadmissibility grounds. On judicial review, the Court found that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable as it failed to take into consideration the humanitarian and compassionate factors due to the Officer’s view that the Applicant’s failure at the second stage of the application process was unavoidable. The application for judicial review was allowed.