Positive Cases February-July 2011

February 2011

Tomchin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 231
Cunanan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 220

Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 219
Toussaint v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 216 

JMS v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 208 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc208/2011fc208.html)

Bledy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 210 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc210/2011fc210.html)

Zolotova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 193 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc193/2011fc193.html)

Singh Dhaliwal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 201 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc201/2011fc201.html)

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. B386, 2011 FC 175  (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc175/2011fc175.html)

Martinez Paneque v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 194 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc194/2011fc194.html)

Sunarti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 191 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc191/2011fc191.html)

Huot v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 180 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc180/2011fc180.html)

Chiwara v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 188 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc188/2011fc188.html)

Sirisena Kalansyriyage v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 183 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc183/2011fc183.html)

Dieujuste-Phanor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 186 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc186/2011fc186.html)

Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Gyekye, 2011 FC 185 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc185/2011fc185.html)

Zheng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 181 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc181/2011fc181.html)

Q.A. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 168 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc168/2011fc168.html)

Flores Alcazar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 173 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc173/2011fc173.html)

Abid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 164 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc164/2011fc164.html)

Akinmayowa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 171 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc171/2011fc171.html)

Grewal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 167 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc167/2011fc167.html)
Alexandre-Dubois v. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2011 FC 189 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc189/2011fc189.html)

March 2011

Balili v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 396 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc396/2011fc396.html)

Bano v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 401 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc401/2011fc401.html)

Spencer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 397 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc397/2011fc397.html)

Echeverri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 390 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc390/2011fc390.html)

Perez Vargas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 391 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc391/2011fc391.html)

Marino Gonzalez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 389 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc389/2011fc389.html)

Hamdar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 382 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc382/2011fc382.html)

Pasichnik v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 384 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc384/2011fc384.html)

Kamran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 380 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc380/2011fc380.html)

Ayala v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 385 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc385/2011fc385.html)

Young Marr v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 367 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc367/2011fc367.html)

Budakh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 374 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc374/2011fc374.html)

Ventura v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 386 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc386/2011fc386.html)

John v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 387 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc387/2011fc387.html)

Rabeya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 370 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc370/2011fc370.html)

Sandramoorthy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 358 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc358/2011fc358.html)

Warner v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 363 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc363/2011fc363.html)

Torishta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 362 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc362/2011fc362.html)

Park v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 353 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc353/2011fc353.html)

Bokhari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 354 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc354/2011fc354.html)

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh Gondara, 2011 FC 352 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc352/2011fc352.html)

Abebe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 341 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc341/2011fc341.html)

Sharma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 337 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc337/2011fc337.html)

Martinez Munoz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 325 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc325/2011fc325.html)

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. B004, 2011 FC 331 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc331/2011fc331.html)

Parlak v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 321 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc321/2011fc321.html)

Luna v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 320 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc320/2011fc320.html)

Giraldo Cortes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 329 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc329/2011fc329.html)

Valencia Lourdes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 326 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc326/2011fc326.html)

Lin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 316 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc316/2011fc316.html)

Hamadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 317 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc317/2011fc317.html)

Noor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 308 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc308/2011fc308.html)

Kim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 304 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc304/2011fc304.html)

Reyad Gad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 303 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc303/2011fc303.html)

Ramirez Meza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 274 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc274/2011fc274.html)

Miranda Ramos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 298 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc298/2011fc298.html)

Martinez de la Cruz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 259 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc259/2011fc259.html)

Martinez Garcia Rubio v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 272 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc272/2011fc272.html)

Campos Quevedo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 297 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc297/2011fc297.html)

Raad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 256 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc256/2011fc256.html)

Arteaga Sanchez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 258 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc258/2011fc258.html)

St. Clair v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 250 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc250/2011fc250.html)

Kamara v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 243 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc243/2011fc243.html)

Arora v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 241 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc241/2011fc241.html)

Ibrahim Dirar v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 246 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc246/2011fc246.html)
Martinez Munoz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 325 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc325/2011fc325.html)
Youssef v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 399 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc399/2011fc399.html)

April 2011

Pena Torres v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 500 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc500/2011fc500.html)

Es Sayyid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 489 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc489/2011fc489.html)

Glen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 488 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc488/2011fc488.html)

Reyes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 460 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc460/2011fc460.html)

Garcia Vasquez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 477 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc477/2011fc477.html)

Mescallado v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 462 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc462/2011fc462.html)

Kargbo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 469 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc469/2011fc469.html)

Husain v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 451 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc451/2011fc451.html)

Evans v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 444 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc444/2011fc444.html)

Griffiths v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 434 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc434/2011fc434.html)

Thamotharampillai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 438 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc438/2011fc438.html)

Weng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 422 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc422/2011fc422.html)

Walcott v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 415 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc415/2011fc415.html)

Barrios Pineda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 403 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc403/2011fc403.html)

May 2011

Romhaine v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 534
Valdez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 580
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lopez Velasco, 2011 FC 627
Butcher v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 619
Dhurmu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 511 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc511/2011fc511.html)
Beltran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 516 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc516/2011fc516.html)
Ghirmatsion v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 519 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc519/2011fc519.html)
Zenawi Kidane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 520 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc520/2011fc520.html)
Woldesellasie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 522 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc522/2011fc522.html)
Weldesilassie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 521 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc521/2011fc521.html)
El Ocla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 533 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc533/2011fc533.html)
Liang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 541 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc541/2011fc541.html)
Gnanaguru v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 536 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc536/2011fc536.html)
Vargas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 543 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc543/2011fc543.html)
Uo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 557 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc557/2011fc557.html)
Park v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 564 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc564/2011fc564.html)
Jardine v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 565 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc565/2011fc565.html)
Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 571 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc571/2011fc571.html)
Kaya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 597 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc597/2011fc597.html)
Brown v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 585 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc585/2011fc585.html)
Nasufi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 586 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc586/2011fc586.html)
Demirtas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 584 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc584/2011fc584.html)
Kwakye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 583 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc583/2011fc583.html)
Daniel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 589 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc589/2011fc589.html)
Amayeanvbo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 621 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc621/2011fc621.html)
Randhawa v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 625 (http://canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc625/2011fc625.html)

June 2011

Diaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 705
Sow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 646
Prasad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 645
Adan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 655
Kikeshian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 658
H. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 665 (view at CanLII)
Pourjamaliaghdam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 666
Farenas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 660
Quevedo Cruz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 680
Paz Ospina v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 681
Nyota v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 675
Guadaloupe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 679
Kaberuka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 698 
Singh Brar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 691
Faisal v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 685 
Gnanaseelan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 704 
I.M.P.P. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 712
Alvarez Castaneda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 724 
Luna Rojas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 710 
Otapo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 711
Anibal Diaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 705
Isik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 718
Nagy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 723
Corneau v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 722
Singh Sahota v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 739 
Perez Arias v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 757
Thangarajah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 754 
Martinez Caicedo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 749 
Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 770
Lin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 771 
Chirmatsion v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 773
Xu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 784
Salazar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 777
Mangru v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 779
Touraji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 780
Hazime v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 793
Urrea Bohorquez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 808

July 2011

Castor Ruiz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 803
Zaree v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 889
Romero Quiroz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 864
Sellathurai v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FCA 223
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ekanza Ezokola, 2011 FCA 224 (Minister's appeal mostly denied)
Yu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 819 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc819/2011fc819.html)
Mihura Torres v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 818 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc818/2011fc818.html)
Warnakulasooriy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 830 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc830/2011fc830.html)
Gaziev v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 826 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc826/2011fc826.html)
Firouz-Abadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 835 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc835/2011fc835.html)
Jara Guerrero v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 860 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc860/2011fc860.html)
Charles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 852 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc852/2011fc852.html)
Winifred v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 827 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc827/2011fc827.html)
Cramer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 854 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc854/2011fc854.html)
Elahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 858 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc858/2011fc858.html)
Mohan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 847 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc847/2011fc847.html)
Kinobe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 845 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc845/2011fc845.html)
Rojas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 849 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc849/2011fc849.html)
Kindie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 850 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc850/2011fc850.html)
Neheid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 846 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc846/2011fc846.html)
Jamil v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 865 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc865/2011fc865.html)
Singh Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 863 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc863/2011fc863.html)
Adetunji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 869 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc869/2011fc869.html)
Chhetri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 872 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc872/2011fc872.html)
Zhuravel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 870 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc870/2011fc870.html)
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2011 FC 887 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc887/2011fc887.html) Minister's motion denied
Chernikov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 885 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc885/2011fc885.html)
Hadwani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 888 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc888/2011fc888.html)
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. B031, 2011 FC 878 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc878/2011fc878.html) Minister's applications dismissed
Vassey v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 899 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc899/2011fc899.html)
Ortiz Reyes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 903 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc903/2011fc903.html)
Botezatu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 917 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc917/2011fc917.html)
Mkrtchytan v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 921 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc921/2011fc921.html)
Alfaro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 912 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc912/2011fc912.html)
Medica v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 927  (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc927/2011fc927.html)
Stephenson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 932 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc932/2011fc932.html)
Ru v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 935 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc935/2011fc935.html)
Valencia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 939 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc939/2011fc939.html)
Aguilar Valdes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 959 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc959/2011fc959.html)
Kgaodi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 957 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc957/2011fc957.html)
Theophile v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 961 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc961/2011fc961.html)
Shu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 958 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc958/2011fc958.html)
Mico v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 964 (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc964/2011fc964.html)
Spencer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2011 FC 397)
Level v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2010 FC 251)
Romhaine v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2011 FC 534)

Summary of February 2011 Cases Part 4: B386, Leal Alvarez, Demiraj

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. B386, 2011 FC 140

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc140/2011fc140.html)

Judge: Chief Justice Lutfy; Date heard: January 19, 2011; Date decided: February 8, 2011; Counsel for B386: Gabriel Chand; Counsel for Minister: Hilla Aharon; Place of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia

This was a decision of the Federal Court upholding the decision of the Immigration Division releasing one of the persons who arrived on the MV Sun Sea. The  ID Member had allegedly erred by deciding that the person could be released with a bod and terms and conditions. She then offered Minister’s counsel a chance to cross-examine the bondsperson, and Minister's counsel declined. It is not clear from the decision what the Minister-Applicant's objection was to this, but it may have been the appearance that the decision had been made before the Minister's counsel was able to cross-examine the proposed bondsperson. In any event, the Court stated that detention reviews are often “rough-and-ready” proceedings and that both sides had made submissions, so this was not an error sufficient to overturn the decision.

The Minister-Applicant also argued that the Member had ignored the detained person’s possible vulnerability to smugglers or traffickers, having arrived by Canada on a boat, or the person’s ties to the community. On the contrary, the Court found that the Member had considered both these points.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leal Alvarez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 154

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc154/2011fc154.html)

Judge: Justice Rennie; Date heard: January 19, 2011; Date decided: February 9, 2011; Counsel for Leal Alvarez: Michael Crane; Counsel for Minister: Deborah Drukarsh; Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

The Applicants were citizens of Colombia, and the principal Applicant was the only one alleging persecution, on the basis violence and threats from the guerilla group FARC. The RPD found against the Applicant on credibility: the Applicant was a secretary or assistant in a program run by the municipal government, and the RPD found that she was too low-placed to be targeted by FARC. Justice Rennie found the the RPD had erred in focusing on the Applicant’s job title and not the uncontested evidence that she worked with villages and displaced persons, specifically against FARC.

Justice Rennie also found that the RPD made two legal errors. the Applicant alleged she had been beaten and kidnapped by FARC, and the RPD stated that it needed “conclusive proof” of this event. The RPD also stated that it was not satisfied that the Applicant was targeted “on a balance of probabilities”. The Court noted that both of these tests are too high; the correct test is whether there is a “serious possibility of persecution or harm”.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demiraj v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 161

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc161/2011fc161.html)

Judge: Justice Heneghan; Date heard: February 8, 2011; Date decided: February 10, 2011; Counsel for Demiraj: Jonathan Fedder; Counsel for Minister: David Cranton; Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

The Applicants were Albanian citizens who claimed protection in Canada on the basis of a blood-feud. They submitted a PRRA and an H&C, both of which were denied. Justice Henghan upheld the negative PRRA, but on the H&C, found that the officer had applied the wrong test: “The Officer reasons that because there is state protection available in Albania, the Applicants face no risk to life, and therefore, that there will be no undue, undeserved or disproportionate hardship.” This conflation of the tests, and the underlying assumption that the existence of state protection means that there is no hardship is an error of law.

Summary of February 2011 Cases Part 2: Moretto, Woldeghebrial, Paul

Moretto v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 132

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc132/2011fc132.html)

Judge: Chief Justice Lutfy; Date heard: January 20, 2011; Date decided: February 4, 2011; Counsel for Moretto: Adrian Huzel; Counsel for Minister: Kimberly Shane; Place of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia

Mr. Moretto was an Italian citizen born in 1969, who had lived Canada since before his first birthday. In 1997, following a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, he began developing a criminal record, and in 2002 he became addicted to crack cocaine. In 2009 he was ordered removed, and his appeal to the IAD was unsuccessful.

This refusal by the IAD was the issue of the JR application. The Chief justice found that the IAD Member had misapprehended the evidence, in particular the hardship to Mr. Moretto if removed. The Member assumed that he could reintegrate into Italian society, despite his having only vague memories of a single vacation there. The Member did not properly consider how separation from his family would cause further deterioration of his condition, and wrongly assumed that this support could be taken over by his Italian relatives, whom he did not know. The Member also failed to consider Mr. Moretto’s relationship with his daughter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Woldeghebrial v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 126

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc126/2011fc126.html)

Judge: Justice O’Reilly; Date heard: January 18, 2011; Date decided: February 4, 2011; Counsel for Woldeghebrial: Clifford Luyt; Counsel for Minister: Margherita Braccio; Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

Ms. Woldeghebrial claimed protection on the basis of persecution in Ethiopia as a) a person of Eritrean ethnicity and b) a person with serious mental health challenges.

The RPD found that Eritreans are threated badly in Ethiopia, and denied basic rights, but found that this amounted to discrimination rather than persecution. Furthermore the RPD found that the mentally ill did not receive adequate treatment in Ethiopia and were persecuted as being “evil”, but that Ms. Woldeghebrial had family to care for her.

Justice O’Reilly found that the RPD erred in that it did not explain why the poor treatment of Eritreans could only be considered discrimination and not persecution, and furthermore failed to explain how the ability of her family to supplement inadequate medical care would protect her from persecution. Therefore the claim was ordered re-heard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 135

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc135/2011fc135.html)

Judge: Justice Boivin; Date heard: January 25, 2011; Date decided: February 7, 2011; Counsel for Paul: Viken G. Artinian; Counsel for Minister: Thi My Dung Tran; Place of Hearing: Montréal, Quebec

Justice Boivin overturned a negative decision of an H&C claim. The Applicants were a mother and son who had faced domestic abuse in St. Vincent. They had previous filed a refugee claim, which was denied. The Applicant’s were also subject to a removal order and an arrest warrant had been issued. While the issue was before the Court, the Applicants had presented themselves to CBSA and had been released. The Court considered the “clean hands” issue, and found that the facts were distinguishable from other cases, e.g. Wong v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 569, and that the Applicant’s had not been underground.

The Court also found that while the officer had properly set out the test for H&C, the test had not properly been applied. The officer set the threshold for risk too high. The officer conflated the H&C test with the test for the PRRA, and assessed risk instead of hardship.

Summary of February 2011 Cases Part 1: Allen, Gunaratnam, Aghdam

Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Allen, 2011 FC 124

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc106/2011fc106.html)

Judge: Justice Heneghan; Date heard: January 27, 2011; Date decided: February 3, 2011; Counsel for Allen: Omar Khan; Counsel for Minister: Maria Burgos; Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

Justice Heneghan denied the Minister’s application to overturn the decision of the IAD staying a removal order against the Respondent Mr. Allen.

The Respondent was a PR and citizen of Jamaica with a criminal record in Canada including crimes of a sexual nature against a minor. A removal order was issued by the ID. Mr. Allen did not challenge the legal validity of the order, but asked the IAD to grant a stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The IAD noted that the appellant had not had further problems since this release from custody three years previous, and was successfully receiving psychological treatment (the continuation of which was a condition of the stay of removal).

The Applicant stated that the IAD did not have expertise in weighing rehabilitation. The Court found, on the contrary, that all the factors in Ribic (as approved in Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 3) and dismissed the application.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gunaratnam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 122

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc122/2011fc122.html)

Judge: Justice Mactavish; Date heard: January 26, 2011; Date decided: February 3, 2011; Counsel for Gunaratnam: Barbara Jackman; Counsel for Minister: Ada Mok; Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

Justice Mactavish overturned the denial of a pre-removal risk assessment of the Applicant, who was a young male Tamil alleging persecution by the EPDP who believed he was an LTTE supporter. The PRRA officer made credibility findings against the Applicant because he had given his parents’ address as the same address since 2009, but also stated that they’d been in hiding. The Applicant stated to the Court that the address he gave was his parents’ permanent address.

Furthermore, the PRRA officer relied on documentary evidence that contradicted the Applicant’s application without putting the contradictions to the applicant. The Court noted that putting contradictory evidence to an applicant may be a requirement of procedural fairness, particularly where a) the contradictory evidence is not readily available in common sources, and b) the country is in a state of turmoil and country conditions rapidly changed (citing Pathmanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 885).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aghdam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 131

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc131/2011fc131.html)

Judge: Justice Mactavish; Date heard: February 2, 2011; Date decided: February 4, 2011; Counsel for Aghdam: Raoul Boulakia; Counsel for Minister: James Todd & Sybil Thompson; Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario

Justice Mactavish granted a mandamus application for Ministerial Relief. Ms. Aghdam had applied for permanent residence in 1992, having been found to be a refugee in 1986. She was interviewed regarding her possible involvement in Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), which is currently a listed terrorist entity. She was interviewed in 1993 and 1996. In 2000 she was advised that her application might be denied. She was interviewed again in 2001, which she believed but the Court disagreed was the time when Ministerial relief began to be considered.

In 2005, Ms. Aghdam filed a written application for Ministerial Relief (under a provision of the IRPA which states that a person who is technically inadmissible may be admitted to Canada if they satisfy the Minister that their presence would not be detrimental to the national interest). She was interviewed in 2005 and made further submissions in response to a negative recommendation. In the intervening 6 years, there did not appear to be movement on the file, and it did not appear that there was an ongoing investigation to justify the delay (although further submissions were made shortly before the hearing of the application).

The Court found that the delay was unreasonable. Furthermore, it found that it was so unreasonable that it made an award of costs against the Minister in the amount of $3500.

Perez Villegas—failure to conduct proper analysis of membership or terrorism

Perez Villegas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 105 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice O’Keefe

Date heard: September 21, 2010

Date decided: February 2, 2011

Counsel for Perez Villegas: Lorne Waldman

Counsel for Minister: Angela Marinos

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

Decision Under Review: refusal of permanent residence on the basis of inadmissibility (s. 34(1)(f))

The Applicant was a citizen of Mexico who in the mid-1990s had raised money and supplied for the indigenous people of Chiapas; he gave these material to Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional (EZLN) for distribution, since the Mexican Army has cut off access to the region (para. 4). The Applicant was threatened and sought asylum in Canada, which was granted in 1998 (para. 5). He stated on both the Personal Information Form for his refugee case, and on the application form for permanent residence (PR), that he was a member of EZLN (para. 6). His PR  application was approved in principle in December 1998, however, the ensuing background check took ten years and he was eventually called in for an interview in June 2009 (para. 7).

The officer found that EZLN was a group about whom there were reasonable grounds to believe that they had engaged in terrorist activities, and that while the Applicant was not a formal member he was a member, although the officer did acknowledge “that the applicant worked with the EZLN because it was the only network which could deliver supplies to the poor in Chiapas” (paras. 9-20).

Justice O’Keefe found that the officer had erred in that his reasons “did not explain how his findings amount to membership based on the jurisprudence or the CIC enforcement manual definition of membership”, but rather relied on the Applicant’s previous statements that he was a member (para. 48). The officer made factual findings about the Applicant’s relationship with EZLN but provided no analysis as to whether or how they contributed to a finding of membership (paras. 49-50). Noting that “any finding of inadmissibility ‘should be carried out with prudence, and established with the utmost clarity’”, Justice O’Keefe found that the officer’s finding was unreasonable (para. 51, citing Daud v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 701).

Similarly, on the issue of whether EZLN was a terrorist organization, Justice O’Keefe found that the officer had erred in simply stating the definition of terrorism from Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 and then asserting that EZLN’s activities fit that definition (para. 56).

There is a two-step analysis: “First, the decision-maker must show the evidentiary foundation to support a finding that an organization was engaged in acts of terrorism” (para. 54, citing Daud; Jalil v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2006 FC 246; Fuentes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),2003 FCT 379; and Alemu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 997)

In the second step, “…the decision maker must provide analysis of the acts the organization has committed and explain how they meet the definition of terrorism. This requires showing the link between the acts and the definition of terrorism provided” (para. 55, citing Naeem v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1735, and Fuentes).

Justice O’Keefe found that this analysis was not done:

Even if this Court reviews the officer’s assessment of the EZLN from the previous section, which was not part of his terrorism analysis, the officer does not indicate which evidence he is relying on to conclude that terrorist acts occurred. Moreover, there is no discussion at any point about how any acts of the EZLN were “. . . intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict . . .” …. In fact, the officer mentions civilians only twice in the assessment of the EZLN, both times to note that civilians were killed. He does not analyze how these civilians were killed, by whom, or whether the EZLN condoned or encouraged the killing. The officer mentions one report that said the EZLN had killed non-combatants but, again, the officer did not assess whether they were targeted or intentionally killed. As in Fuentes above, while the officer described some violent acts in the section entitled assessment of the EZLN, he does not show how these acts fit within the Suresh above, definition of terrorism (para. 57).

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Oliveros Rubiano—no need to exhaust state protection if reasonable efforts made

Oliveros Rubiano v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 106 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice O’Keefe

Date heard: September 22, 2010

Date decided: February 2, 2011

Counsel for Oliveros Rubiano: Jonathan E. Fedder

Counsel for Minister: Kareena Wilding & Veronica Cham

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

Decision Under Review: negative pre-removal risk assessment

The Applicant fled Colombia with his family, after having become the target of an extortion scheme by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and having reported it to the Colombian army (para. 4). He suffered detention, threats, the murder of family members, and in 2005 he himself was shot, which he reported (paras. 4-5). The family fled to Ecuador in September 2005, but upon finding out that there was no assistance with food, shelter, or legal counsel, the returned to Colombia (para. 6).

In April 2006, the Applicant and his family entered the United States as visitors (para. 7). They travelled to the Canadian border but the Applicant was denied eligibility to make a refugee claim in Canada because of the Safe Third Country Agreement. He applied for but was refused asylum in the US, and he subsequently crossed the border illegally and made a claim in Canada which was also refused (para. 7).

In November 20098 the Applicant filed a pre-removal risk assessment application and expressly requested an oral hearing (para. 8).

The officer found that the Applicant had not submitted sufficient evidence that he had been or was targeted, or that he had a similar situation to his cousins who had been murdered (paras. 9-10). The officer gave little weight to the affidavits of his mother and cousins, finding that they were interested parties and that their evidence was not supported by the objective evidence (para. 11). The officer found the Applicant had not demonstrated subjective fear, in that he had returned to Colombia from Ecuador (para. 12). Furthermore, the Applicant still had family in Colombia who had not been targeted, and failed to show a lack of state protection (paras. 13-14).

Citing Farias (Farias v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),2008 FC 1035, cited at para. 34), Katwaru (Katwaru v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2007 FC 612, cited at para. 35), and Gilvaja (Gilvaja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 598 cited at para. 38) Justice O’Keefe found that the PRRA officer had “erred in law by requiring the applicant to show that he had exhausted all avenues of state protection”, since the Applicant had shown that he had made reasonable efforts to no avail (para. 39).

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Dobson—ignored evidence of genuine marriage

Dobson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 121 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Heneghan

Date heard: November 10, 2010

Date decided: February 2, 2011

Counsel for Dobson: David Matas

Counsel for Minister: Aliyah Rahaman

Place of Hearing: Winnipeg, MB

The Applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division upholding a visa officer’s decision refusing the permanent resident application of her sponsored spouse (para. 1).

The Applicant was a Canadian living in Edmonton. The spouse, Mr. Ali, was a 40-year-old citizen of Egypt. He had been married before; his first marriage was in Egypt and he had one child from it, his second marriage was in the United States in an apparent attempt to get status there, and his third was a common-law marriage with a woman with whom he had three children, and during which he fathered a fourth child with his first ex-wife (paras. 2-4).

The Applicant met her husband in September 2006 and their relationship began soon after.  She visited him in New York. He was not able to obtain a visa to visit her in Canada. They married in March 2007 and their application was refused in January 2008 on the basis that it was not a genuine marriage (paras. 5-7).

The Applicant and her husband maintained written and telephonic contact and she visited him seven times between March 2007 and August 2008. Their daughter was born in October 2008 in Edmonton; at which time Mr. Ali had moved back to Egypt (paras. 8-9). The IAD hearings took place in May, July, and August 2009, and in August 20098 the Applicant and daughter visited Mr. Ali and his family in Egypt (paras. 10-11).

The IAD considered the daughter and the evidence of ongoing contact, and nevertheless found that the marriage was not genuine (paras. 12-13). Justice Henghan found the IAD made factual findings that were “unreasonable, as they lack justification and intelligibility” (para. 16).

The IAD found the Applicant and her husband “had not addressed their religious incompatibility” (para. 17). She was a casually observant member of the United Church, and he was a non-practising Muslim (para. 18). They testified that there plan was to expose their daughter to both religions and allow her to choose; Heneghan found there was sufficient evidence that they has “addressed their religious differences”, such as they were, and that the IAD’s conclusion on this point was unreasonable (para.  19).

The IAD found that the Applicant had not discussed her husband’s fathering a child with his ex-wife; Henghan found to the contrary that the Applicant had testified that she had specifically discussed this with him (paras. 20-21).

The IAD found that “the Applicant and Mr. Ali had not discussed their future plans, and that the Applicant had not taken sufficient steps to integrate Mr. Ali into her life” (para. 22). Heneghan found that there was evidence of discussion of future plans and of integrating their finances, and that given the fact the Mr. Ali lived outside of Canada, “it is not clear how the Applicant would have further integrated Mr. Ali into her daily life” (paras. 23-24).

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Beharry—failure to assess actual adequacy of state protection, not merely efforts made

Beharry v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 111 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Mactavish

Date heard: January 27, 2011

Date decided: February 1, 2011

Counsel for Beharry: Krassina Kostadinov

Counsel for Minister: Veronica Cham

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

The Applicant and her two children, citizens of Guyana, filed an application for pre-removal risk assessment. a previous refugee claim had been rejected on the grounds that state protection was available, although the RPD believed that they had been subjected to “brutal home invasion, during which Ms. Beharry was physically and sexually assaulted” (para. 1). The PRRA Officer rejected the application on the basis that state protection was available (para. 2).

The family submitted evidence that the situation in Guyana had worsened since their refugee hearing (para. 5). The officer reviewed the  evidence and ‘concluded that the government of Guyana had “made efforts’ to address crime in Guyana” (para. 8). Justice Mactavish found that it was an error for the officer to focus on whether the government was making efforts, when he ought to have assessed “whether those efforts have actually translated into adequate state protection” (para. 9, citing Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FCA 94). Furthermore, Mactavish found that the evidence did not lead to a reasonable finding that there was adequate state protection.

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Dhondup—mandamus

Dhondup v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 108 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Near

Date heard: January 19, 2010

Date decided: January 31, 2011

Counsel for Dhondup: Geraldine Sadoway

Counsel for Minister: Michael Butterfield

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

The Applicant applied for a writ of mandamus to compel the Minister to make a decision on the application for temporary residence permits for his de facto dependents (paras. 1-3).

The Applicant was an ethnic Tibetan from India, who obtained refugee status in July 2002 and became a permanent resident in May 2003. He attempted to sponsor his wife, their daughter, and two children from an “alleged” previous common law relationship, Yonten and Yeshi (para. 4). These last two were the subject of the present application.

In July 2003, the sponsored family attended an interview, where an officer expressed doubt about the relationship between the Applicant and Yonten/Yeshi and requested DNA testing (para. 5). The Applicant was surprised to discover that he was not their biological father (para. 6). The children were therefore excluded, but the Applicant re-submitted the application on the basis that they were de facto family members (para. 7-8).  The Applicant was informed that the application was closed, filed an application for judicial review, and the case was settled with an undertaking from the Minister to re-consider (paras. 9-10). The new application was submitted May 2005 (para. 10).

At that point, confusion arose about the application, wherein the visa post seemed to assume that the Applicant intended to adopt the children (paras. 11-16). According to the Minister, the application—as children intended to be adopted—was finalized in June 2006 and there was an interview in November 2006 (paras. 16-17). The Applicant continued to attempt to clarify the matter, stating that among other issues, he could not afford to formally adopt the children (para. 18).

Further confused communications were exchanged between winter 2006 and summer 2008 (paras. 19-22). The Minister only became clear that the Applicant wanted the application processed as an H&C and not an adoption in June 2008 (para. 22-23). The Applicant could not obtain adoption from the Indian government because they found he was already the children’s legal guardian and parent (paras. 24-25).

Further communications continued to be exchanged between summer 2008 through winter 2010, with the Minister not understanding or ignoring the Applicant’s submissions (paras. 26-29). In September 2009, the Applicant made a formal request for TRPs (as opposed to the permanent residence) (paras. 27-29). The Minister continued to not understand the situation (paras. 29-33).

In the decision, Justice Near summarizes the case law on mandamus (paras. 35-36).

The Minister noted that the Applicant had never filed a death certificate for his wife, but Justice Near disregarded that argument since it was never brought to the Applicant’s attention until the court materials were filed (para. 39). He finds that the passage of additional time would be unlikely to clear up the Minister’s concerns (para. 40). The Minister argued that it cannot accept the Indian court’s finding that the Applicant is the children’s biological father, since this is not the case; however, Justice Near points out that the Indian court only said that the Applicant was the father (paras. 42-43).

Justice Near found that all conditions precedent were met (para. 44).

Justice Near then turned to the facts of the case, and found that the delay was indeed unreasonable (paras. 45-53). The Minister’s argument that there are special circumstances is no excuse, given the Applicant’s repeated submission of the accurate and material evidence and applications.

MANDAMUS ALLOWED

Davis—failure to assess hardship, ignoring psychological evidence

Davis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 97 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Mactavish

Date heard: January 26, 2011

Date decided: January 27, 2011

Counsel for Davis: Michael Crane

Counsel for Minister: Laoura Christodoulides

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

The Applicant was a failed refugee claimant from St. Vincent; the RPD did not take issue with the history she presented of “significant physical and sexual abuse as a young child” (paras. 1-4). Her H&C/PRRA, which included psychological reports, argued that she would suffer a deterioration of her mental health if removed and if separated from her father who lives in Canada.

A previous application had been denied, and that decision was overturned on judicial review in 2009 (paras. 5-7). That decision was overturned because the officer had relied on a WHO document not put to the Applicant.

In this second decision, the new officer “committed precisely the same error as the first Officer” (para. 9). The second officer relied on a different report, this one from the Pan American Health Organization, which was sufficiently detailed and technical that it ought to have been put to the Applicant (paras. 8-10). This was implicitly contrasted with human rights reports which are general and do not need to be put to the applicant.

Furthermore, the Applicant had put evidence before the PRRA officer which was both more recent and more direct, as it came from the St. Vincent government (paras. 10-14).

Furthermore, the officer ignored evidence of the Applicant’s emotional dependence on her father, drawing conclusions in direct opposition to the psychological evidence (paras. 15-17).

Finally, the officer erred in focusing on the availability of mental health care in St. Vincent, without assessing “whether requiring Ms. Davis to return to St. Vincent to access that care would amount to undue, undeserved or disproportionate hardship.” (paras. 18-19)

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Ranu—circular reasoning and inadequate reasons

Ranu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 87 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Heneghan

Date heard: September 14, 2010

Date decided: January 26, 2011

Counsel for Ranu: Hilete Stein

Counsel for Minister: Angela Marinos

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

The Applicant applied for judicial review of the IAD’s decision that she was inadmissible “on the basis of an indirect misrepresentation, that is because her marriage to Sukhdev Singh Hansra was not genuine.” (para. 1).

The Applicant married Hansra in September 2001. She was sponsored and landed in March 2003 (para. 2).

Hansra had previously been married to the Applicant’s first cousin, and although they legally divorced in June 2001, they continued their relationship and had a child in late 2002 (about four months before the Applicant was landed) (para. 3). Hansra and the Applicant separated two months after she was landed and divorced in September 2004 (para. 4).

The Applicant was match-made with a Mr. Ranu. They were married in March 2005 and a sponsorship was begun in June 2005 (para. 5).

In June 2006, an officer interviewed the Applicant and Mr. Hansra regarding the alleged non-genuineness of their marriage (para. 6); at this point, they had been legally divorced for nine months.

The officer found that the marriage had not been genuine and referred the Applicant to a hearing, and in May 2008 the Immigration Division upheld the finding and issued an exclusion order (paras. 6-7).

The IAD found that although “the Applicant may have believed that her marriage to Mr. Hansra was genuine”, it was nevertheless a marriage of convenience. (para. 8).

Justice Heneghan found the IAD’s credibility assessment flawed; for example, in one place it found the Applicant not credible, and later in the decision it stated she was credible (paras. 13-14).

In my opinion, these statements are contradictory, and render the Board’s decision unintelligible. According to Dunsmuir, an unintelligible decision does not meet the standard of reasonableness. (para. 14)

The Justice also found that the Board’s reasons did not explain it findings, “the Board failed to show its reasoning process” (paras. 16-17). Therefore the reasons were inadequate.

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Mings-Edwards—PRRA officer ignored one of two grounds of risk presented

Mings-Edwards v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 90(CanLII)

Mings-Edwards v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 91 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Mactavish

Date heard: Januray 25, 2011

Date decided: January 26, 2011

Counsel for Mings-Edwards: Aadil Mangalji

Counsel for Minister: Kareena Wilding

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

The Applicant filed a pre-removal risk assessment on the basis of two grounds: fear of her abusive spouse, and her status as an HIV+ woman (para. 1).

The PRRA officer focused on the availability of state protection in Jamaica; Justice Mactavish found that this unreasonably ignored the second ground (para. 2).

The PRRA officer disregarded the single personal document attesting to the difficulty the Applicant would face as an HIV+ woman in Jamaica, stating that it was uncorroborated and speculative; he ignored the large volume of general country conditions evidence presented which corroborated her evidence (paras. 3-7). The officer wrongly disregarded this country conditions evidence as “generalized” (para. 7). The officer failed to address whether the discrimination described amounts to persecution or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (para. 8).

Furthermore, the officer stated that there was state protection in Jamaica, but the entire analysis of state protection referred to the domestic violence ground and not the HIV status ground (para. 9).

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

B188–release from detention reasonable in all the circumstances, onus on Minister

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. B188, 2011 FC 94 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Heneghan

Date heard: December 16, 2010

Date decided: January 26, 2011

Counsel for B188: Gabriel Chand

Counsel for Minister: Banafsheh Sokhansanj

Place of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia

The Minister applied for judicial review of the decision of Member Marc Tessler releasing the Respondent (B188) from detention (para. 1).

Justice Mosley stayed the release at in November 2010 (para. 2).

The respondent C188 was a Sri Lankan man who had worked for a newspaper in an LTTE-controlled area of north Sri Lanka, and about whom Canada Border Services Agency had alleged he was an LTTE member (paras. 3-8). He had arrived in Canada on the MV Sun Sea, and made a refugee claim. Upon arrival he had a debt of several thousand dollars for the passage, and he stated that his brother, a resident of France, could assist him in paying the debt (para. 9).

At about his fifth detention review, Member Tessler rejected the Minister’s argument that B188 was a flight risk and that the debt increased the risk that he would be “vulnerable for coercion from the smuggler”, and that the allegations of LTTE membership was not straightforward (para. 13). The Member found that terms and condition could be opposed which would mitigate the risk (para. 14).

The Applicant Minister submitted that the Member focused on whether the Applicant could defend the charge of LTTE membership, and not on whether he would appear for removal (paras. 27-28).

Following Justice de Montigny’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B157, 2010 FC 1314, Justice Heneghan cited the following:

“[45]           There were good reasons for the Member to focus on the next immigration proceeding rather than the removal.  An officer may always, with or without a warrant, re-arrest the Respondent if he has reasonable grounds to believe he is inadmissible (an easily-met condition if the Respondent were found inadmissible by the Immigration Division) and is unlikely to appear for his removal: s. 54 of IRPA.

…

[47]           In light of these further proceedings that are set to occur before removal and of the possibility of re-arresting the Respondent, the Member’s failure to conduct a premature analysis of the likelihood to appear for removal, as compared to the probability of appearing for the inadmissibility hearing, does not represent a fatal flaw in his decision.” (para. 32)

Justice Heneghan further found that the Member did make a proper assessment of flight risk (paras. 34-36).

Furthermore, Justice Heneghan found that the Board properly assessed the factor of the debt, given that the onus is on the Minister to show that the Respondent is a flight risk and given the evidence on the record (paras. 37-43).

Finally, Justice Heneghan found that the terms and conditions were reasonable, noting in particular that the Member imposed all the terms and conditions requested by the Minister at the Detention Review, “except for two, which the Board determined to be either irrelevant or redundant, but refused to impose a cash bond.” (paras. 46-50).

MINISTER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW REFUSED

Ortiz Torres–misconstrued evidence leading to faulty credibility analysis

Ortiz Torres v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 67

Judge: Justice Shore

Date heard: January 17, 2011

Date decided: January 26, 2011

Counsel for Ortiz Torres: Adela Crossley

Counsel for Minister: Kareena R. Wilding

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

The Applicants were a family from Mexico, who claimed on the basis that they were in fear of the Los Zetas gang, which had influence with every level of police in every region of Mexico (paras. 1-5).

Justice Shore pointed out a number of errors. The RPD wrongly relied on a translation of documents that said the principal Applicant was a “Police Service Technician” or a “non-commissioned officer” in finding that he was not credible when he testified that he was a police officer (paras. 6-8). The Board ignored relevant evidence and misconstrued the evidence before it (paras. 20-21). The Board refused to consider the fact that documents en route to the Applicant had been seized by Canadian customs, despite the Applicant proffering evidence (paras. 22-24). Because of its errors, the Board’s negative credibility assessment was flawed. It therefore also erred in its general analysis of risk and IFA (paras. 32-33).

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Cruz Pineda—gang violence as particularized risk

Cruz Pineda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 81 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Kelen

Date heard: January 12, 2010

Date decided: January 24, 2011

Counsel for Cruz Pineda: Patrick J. Roche

Counsel for Minister: Jane Stewart

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

The Applicant requested judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying the Applicant’s claim for refugee status on the basis of his fear of a gang in his native Honduras (para. 2).

The Applicant worked as a delivery and cash pick-up person for a large grocery chain in Tula, Honduras (para. 3). In January 2006, he and his assistant were attacked by proclaimed members of the Mara Salvatrucha (“MS-13”) gang; the Applicant was beaten and warned off from telling the police, although he did tell his employers (para. 5).

The Applicant quit his job and began working for another company. In June 2007, the Applicant was again attacked on the road by the same men from MS-13; after injuring the Applicant they told him they would spare his life only if he told them about the best trucks to rob (paras. 5-6). The Applicant agreed but instead quit his job and moved, eventually fleeing to Canada (paras. 7-9).

The RPD found that what the applicant feared had no nexus to the Convention as he was a victim of crime (paras. 12-16).

The RPD made comments that the Applicant had been targeted, namely “‘the claimant became personally subjected to the risk of the MS’” (para. 17). However, the RPD then found that the applicant faced generalized, as opposed to personalized risk (para. 19). The RPD also found that the Applicant had an Internal Flight alternative (IFA) (paras. 21-23).

The Court found that the RPD had erred in finding that the Applicant was subject to only a generalized risk, in part because of an expert opinion letter noting that people who are perceived as having crossed or slighted MS-13 were at particular risk (paras. 37-39).

In the same vein, the RPD’s finding of an IFA was unreasonable since the RPD itself recognized that MS-13 operated throughout Honduras, and the same expert evidence was clear that the Applicant would be especially targeted (paras. 40-44).

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Wisdom—insufficient weight to psychiatric assessment

Judge: Justice Beaudry

Date heard: January 18, 2010

Date decided: January 21, 2011

Counsel for Wisdom: Debbie Mankovitz and Simon Gruda

Counsel for Minister: Sébastien Dasylva

Place of Hearing: Montréal, Quebec

This was a review of the refusal of the Applicant’s application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (para. 1). The Applicant asserted that he was a national of Sierra Leone, although that was not determined (para. 3).

The Applicant was approximately 17 years old when he came to Canada, having spent time in Nigeria, Gabon, the Netherlands, and Brazil. In the latter two countries, he made refugee claims which were refused (para. 4). His Canadian refugee claim was refused in August 2006, in part because the RPD found him excluded under Article 1F(a) and 1F(c) because of a tattoo which allegedly identified him as a member of a rebel group “responsible for serious crimes against humanity in Sierra Leone” (para. 5).

Six months after the refusal (in early 2007), the Applicant was hospitalized for psychiatric reasons for five months (para. 6).

In judging the H&C application, the officer found that the applicant had not made sufficient efforts to integrate, and gave weight to the RPD’s finding that the applicant’s identity was not establish (paras. 8-9). Reference letters and the reports of a social worker and psychiatrist were given little weight (paras. 10-11).

The Court found that the officer put too much weight on the question of whether the Applicant’s identity was objectively determined, and therefore put too little weight on the medical/psychiatric evidence (paras. 13-14).

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Anthonipillai—unreasonable credibility assessment

Anthonipillai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 66 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Shore

Date heard: January 18, 2010

Date decided: January 21, 2011

Counsel for Anthonipillai: Krassina Kostadinov

Counsel for Minister: Lorne McClenaghan

Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario

In this extremely brief decision, Justice Shore notes that “The Applicant has countered every single finding the RPD made in its brief reasons on the Applicant’s credibility in a manner that casts serious doubt on the essence and substantiation of the findings” (para. 7). Furthermore, “In this matter, the RPD did make core findings that were unsubstantiated by the evidence before it …” (para. 9).

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

MPSEP v. Nosa—detention review, JR moot

Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Nosa, 2011 FC 76 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Martineau

Date heard: October 6, 2010

Date decided: January 21, 2011

Counsel for Nosa: Idorenyin E. Amana, Esq.

Counsel for Minister: Helen Gray

Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario

The Minister applied for a judicial review of a Member of the Immigration Division’s (ID) decision to release Nosa from detention (para. 1). The Court declined to decide the decision on its merits, finding it was moot (para. 23).

Nosa arrived in Canada with another person’s passport (Mavis Idemudia), but when asked gave the name of Noah Sho-Silva, although he had no documents to confirm this identity (para. 2). He stated that he had used his genuine documents to enter the US, and had purchased false documents and entered Canada on those (para. 3). Evidence on his person did not match the refugee claim he made (para. 4).

Since Nosa’s identity was not confirmed, he was detained. This detention was upheld at a 48-hour review, and again at a 7-day review (paras. 5-7). His detention continued to be upheld on the basis that the CBSA was making reasonable efforts to confirm his identity while he was not being fully cooperative (paras. 8-10). Then in an April decision, the ID found that Nosa had recently been cooperative, whereas the CBSA had not continued making reasonable efforts. Therefore, the ID released Nosa on the basis of reporting conditions and a $3000 bond (para. 11-12).

The procedural issues raised by the Respondent were rejected by the Court (paras. 15-21).

The Court found the issue moot (para. 23). The Court noted that Nosa had been released 9 months previously, and that the Minister had not sought to stay the release (para. 26).

The evidence submitted by the Minister was about the alleged errors in the ID decision. However, the Court notes that given the language of IRPA, the issue is one of present concern with the detained person’s identity. The Minister submitted only evidence which was 9 months old (paras. 28-29). The Court further notes that there was no evidence of a continuing adversarial context, nor that judicial economy militated in favor of hearing the application (para. 33). 

MINISTER’S JUDICIAL REVIEW DISMISSED

Gomes Sousa—failure to assess gender issues in state protection

Gomes Sousa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 63 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Noël

Date heard: January 17, 2011

Date decided: January 20, 2011

Counsel for Gomes Sousa: Laura Setzer

Counsel for Minister: Helene Robertson

Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario

The applicant and her son (the minor applicant) were nationals of Brazil. They fled the abuse of the applicant’s former spouse, Marcus, who had substance abuse and other psychiatric issues. The applicant had complained to the police but was told there was little they could do (paras. 1-2). The applicant initially had some support from her parents-in-law, but they blocked the involvement of the police because the father-in-law was himself involved in criminal activity, and he subsequently threatened the applicant (para. 3).

The Court determined that main issue was sufficiently of state protection and the application of the Gender Guidelines (para. 5).

The Court relied on Dean v Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 772 for the proposition that while a subjective unwillingness to go to the authorities was not, itself, sufficient to rebut state protection, circumstances may be such that they do not. The judge noted that in this case: “proper consideration of the Gender Guidelines may have led to a finding that this reticence to engage the proper authorities was more than subjective” (para. 7). The Court notes that the RPD failed to consider the Gender Guidelines when analyzing the applicant’s failure to approach the police (para. 8).

The RPD found that the applicant’s narrative about the father-in-law was implausible; the judge noted that “implausibility findings must only be made in the clearest of cases” (citing Valtchev v Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 776) (paras. 9-10). The decision concluded:

Hence, the Board’s decision in regards to the sufficiency of state protection is flawed in two aspects. Firstly, it failed to adequately assess the Gender Guidelines in order to fully address the reasons for which state protection was not sought, and secondly, it made an unreasonable plausibility finding, thus depriving the Applicants of a full and proper assessment of the reasons for which state protection was not sought. As such, the decision falls outside the range of acceptable outcomes defensible in fact and in law. The proper remedy is to send the matter for redetermination before a newly constituted panel of the Board. (para. 11)

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED

Umubyeyi—interpretation errors

Umubyeyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 69 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Noël

Date heard: January 17, 2011

Date decided: January 19, 2011

Counsel for Umubyeyi: Isaac Owusu-Sechere

Counsel for Minister: Korinda McLaine

Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario

The applicant is a Rwandan national whose refugee claim was denied on the basis that her testimony was vague, and the applicant alleged on the basis on improper translation (para. 1-2).

The decision notes that the procedural fairness issues of interpretation are to be reviewed on a correctness standard (para. 4). The Court did not review the recording of the hearing and does not speak the language of interpretation, therefore it relied on an affidavit which attested that “there were indeed discrepancies in the translation” (para. 5). The Court noted that the right to interpretation is grounded in s. 14 of the Charter, which is supported by the case law, and gives an applicant a right  to translation “the is “continuous, precise, competent, impartial and contemporaneous” (paras. 6-7).

The judge noted that applicant ought to raise the issue of interpretation at the RPD hearing (para. 7). However, this may not be possible where the language barriers are such that no one can appreciate errors are being made (para. 8).

The judge also noted that there is some division in the jurisprudence on how error-free the interpretation must be to attract reversal by the Court(para. 9). However, “the affidavit evidence is sufficient to establish a concern of the adequacy of the translation at the Board hearing” (para. 10). Specifically, there were translation errors that led the RPD to make a negative credibility finding (para. 11).

As there was nothing to suggest that the RPD Member made any errors (since the interpretation errors were not known during the hearing), the case was sent back to be reheard by the same Member.

JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED