Federal Court of Canada:
- 2020 FC 214 Singh v Canada:
The Federal Court of Canada held that assessing humanitarian and compassionate considerations with reference to a country where the applicant has no legal status is an error. The status of the person must be examined based on his right at the date the assessment is made to relocate to any particular country. It cannot be made based on what might occur in the future.
- 2020 FC IMM 4516-19
The Federal Court ordered that the IAD must provide the Applicant an opportunity to provide oral testimony in a show-cause hearing. Failure to do so is a breach of the Applicant’s procedural fairness protections.
- 2020 FC IMM-24-20
The Federal Court ordered that the Applicant’s procedural fairness protections were violated when the CBSA turned an interview into an admissibility hearing without notice. (This was a serious violation of the Applicant’s rights and resulted in the Removal Order being set aside.)
- 2020 FC IMM-6225-19
The Federal Court ordered that the Visa Officer failed to sufficiently consider and assess responsive evidence to a procedural fairness request. (Always ensure sufficient evidence and documentation is included to ensure a sufficient assessment by the Visa Officer)
- 2020 FC IMM-6588-19
The Federal Court ordered that the Visa Officer failed to consider various pieces of evidence provided by the Applicant. Thus, the Visa Officer erred in decision making, rendering an unreasonable decision that was not defensible on the evidence and facts.
Immigration Appeal Division:
- Sandhu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2019 CanLII 128360
The Appellant was convicted of two counts of assault. Accordingly, five years have not yet elapsed from the completion of the sentence.
The test to be applied with respect to discretionary jurisdiction of the IAD is whether, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, there are sufficient humanitarian or compassionate considerations that warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.
“The Appellant has met the onus of proof. In the circumstances of this case, the positive factors in favour of granting special relief outweigh the negative factors. Based on the evidence and on a balance of probabilities, although the refusal is valid in law, taking into account the best interest of the children directly affected by the decision, I find that there are sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations that warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of this case. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.”
2. Dhaliwal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2019 CanLII 127432
“I find, on a balance of probabilities, there was sufficient credible evidence to indicate a genuine spousal relationship between the Appellant and the Applicant. Therefore, based on the evidence before me and on a balance of probabilities, I find the marriage is genuine.
The determination of whether or not this marriage was entered into to gain a status or privilege under the Act is the other test.
In considering the evidence in relation to this marriage, the Appellant and the Applicant provided generally consistent and credible evidence regarding the genesis and development of a genuine spousal relationship and future plans. The witnesses provided satisfactory explanations for most of the immigration officer’s and Minister’s counsel’s concerns. Based on the evidence and on a balance of probabilities, I find the marriage was not entered into primarily for the Applicant to gain a status or privilege under the Act.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed.”
- Brar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) VB8-06051
Removal Order stayed for a drug addict with criminal convictions.