Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of an IAD decision refusing H&C relief for residency-obligation non-compliance and upholding a departure order.
The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the RAD unreasonably preferred general Italian source material over a consular response specific to the applicant’s status.
The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the RAD unreasonably applied Article 1E by failing to assess whether the applicants’ U.S. status was truly substantially similar to nationals.
The Federal Court upheld the RAD’s Article 1E exclusion of a Canadian permanent resident, finding the decision reasonable despite the applicant’s imminent loss of status and PRRA concerns.
The Appellants hold Italian permanent resident status that confers substantially the same rights as nationals; they failed to prove their status had been revoked and they failed to rebut the presumption of operationally adequate state protection in Italy (they did not seek police protection and produced no evidence of state failure); therefore they are excluded under Article 1E and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Applying Zeng, the tribunal found a viable family reunification route in Brazil for the non‑Brazilian appellants which would permit restoration of a status substantially similar to nationals; their loss of Brazilian permanent resident status did not prevent exclusion under Article 1E, and the appellants failed to prove involuntary departure or persecution in Brazil, therefore they are excluded and the appeals are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court set aside an H&C refusal because the officer’s best-interests-of-the-child analysis imported an improper hardship threshold and remitted the matter.
Appellant is excluded under Article 1E because she is a permanent resident of South Africa who enjoyed the same fundamental rights as nationals (work, study, indefinite residence, access to healthcare), she failed to demonstrate subjective fear given multiple international travels without seeking asylum, and the violent incidents were generalized criminality not personalized persecution; therefore the RPD decision excluding her from Convention protection was correct.
Source excerpt
Appellants had Brazilian permanent resident status evidenced by PR cards; they had been absent from Brazil for over two years and voluntarily failed to preserve or contest loss of that status; Brazilian permanent residence confers rights substantially similar to nationals and appellants could return or obtain appropriate visa/citizenship via their Brazilian child; there is no serious possibility of persecution on return; therefore appellants are excluded under Article 1E and are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under section 98 of the Act.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because on balance the Appellants held permanent resident status in the Philippines conferring rights and obligations substantially similar to nationals, meaning they are excluded from Convention refugee status under Article 1E and section 98 IRPA; the RPD's finding that there is no longer a serious possibility of persecution in the Philippines was correct; most proffered evidence was not new and the limited evidence accepted did not raise credibility issues warranting an oral hearing.
Source excerpt
Explore more
