K.M. v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1726 In K.M. v. Canada (MCI), Justice Strickland examined the Minister’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s Pre-Removal Risk Application (PRRA) due to lack of forward-looking risk. The Applicant originally made a successful refugee claim and became a permanent resident in 2010. However, due to the Applicant’s multiple trips to back to her country of ...
Thind v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1644 In Thind v. Canada (MCI), Justice Ahmed assessed an Immigration Officer’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) application on the grounds of lack of unique circumstances to overcome their inadmissibility. On judicial review, Justice Ahmed found the Officer’s decision unreasonable as it failed to properly consider pivotal evidence, resulting in ...
Brown v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1607 In Brown v. Canada (MCI), Justice Sadrehashemi examined the Applicants’ refugee appeal refusal. At issue was whether the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) breached procedural fairness by drawing negative credibility inference from the Applicants’ inability to provide corroborative evidence. On judicial review, Justice Sadrehashemi found that an “omission should not be used to impugn ...
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 ...
AB v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1540 In AB v. Canada (MCI) the Court examined the Officer’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s humanitarian and compassionate application on the grounds of "moderate" BIOC impact . On judicial review, the Court found that the Officer did not fully engage with the evidence presented on the BIOC. Furthermore, the Court observed a lack ...
Menjivar v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1490 In Menjivar v. Canada (MCI), the Court explored the IAD’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s appeal on H&C grounds under section s.67(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, on the basis that the applicant had engaged in misrepresentation and failed to show a lack of remorse. Upon Judicial Review, the Court found ...