Search - considered

Section 4 of the Regulations states that a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership (a)  was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; or (b)  is not genuine. ... Wong’s arguments on procedural fairness. [16]   Subsection 4(1) of the Regulations provides that a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership (a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; or (b) is not genuine. [17]   It is well-established that this test is disjunctive and includes a temporal distinction. ...

A cursory review of the Arbitrator’s decision confirms that it contains no information that may be considered commercially-sensitive. ... MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: FOTHERGILL J. ...

Saint-Félix: (1) he would be considered a wealthy person because of his family members, who are Canadian, and his long stay abroad; (2) he would be persecuted by reason of his membership in a particular social group, [translation] “criminals deported from North America” and could be detained and [translation] “lynched”; (3) he would be forced to live in insecurity with his two sons since he would have no financial support in Haiti; and (4) following the earthquake, there is uncertainty and economic problems in Haiti. [9]   In his detailed examination of the documents produced by Mr. ... Deportees are reportedly detained upon arrival if they are considered to be “serious” criminals by the Haitian authorities.... ...

Here, the Officer considered the evidence but found it to be insufficient. [18]   Furthermore, the Officer’s finding that the Applicant was credible is reasonable.   ... Consistent with Ferguson, it was open to the Officer to assess the weight and probative value of the evidence without considering whether or not the evidence is credible. [27]   On judicial review, it is not the role of this Court to reassess or reweigh the evidence considered by the PRRA Officer (Khansary at para 44 and Ferguson at para 33). [28]   The Applicant argues that the Officer did not specifically address the issue of “night letters” being sent by the Taliban as noted in some of the country condition information.   ...

The Officer nevertheless considered the letter and affidavit, but rejected this evidence for three reasons: (a) it was similar to evidence previously considered by the RPD and RAD; (b) it did not originate from impartial sources; and (c) it was insufficient to overcome the overwhelming credibility concerns identified by the RPD and RAD. [20]   Counsel for the Minister concedes that the evidence could fairly be characterized as “new”, and could not be rejected solely because it originated from interested parties (Kailajanathan at para 16; Tabatadze v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 24 at paras 6-7). [21]   However, the Officer’s finding that the new evidence could not overcome the overwhelming credibility concerns identified by the RPD was reasonable. ...

Legislation [10]   The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 specifically state that if there is an existing marriage to another person at the time of the marriage of a foreign national and a sponsor, the foreign national shall not be considered a member of the spouse in Canada class: 125 (1) A foreign national shall not be considered a member of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class [...] if (c) the foreign national is the sponsor’s spouse and (i) the sponsor or the spouse was, at the time of their marriage, the spouse of another person, 125 (1) Ne sont pas considérées comme appartenant à la catégorie des époux ou conjoints de fait au Canada [...] c) l’époux du répondant, si, selon le cas: (i) le répondant ou cet époux était, au moment de leur mariage, l’époux d’un tiers,   IV.   ...

Given that no “new evidence” was admitted under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD denied the request for an oral hearing. [6]   Second, the RAD found nothing in the record to rebut the presumption that the RPD considered the evidence before it. ... I note that the RAD also explicitly considered his arguments regarding the “stressful nature of refugee hearings” and the “use of translators,” but rejected them in light of the numerous opportunities provided at the hearing to elaborate upon any concerns regarding the hearing, that took place over three hearing dates, over a period of three months before the RPD. [16]   The Applicant further argues that the RAD repeated the RPD’s error of conducting a microscopic analysis of the evidence, thereby ignoring or misconstruing relevant evidence, and applying a Western perspective to non-Western issues. ...

Justice Pentney discussed and considered the parties’ competing interests and found that on balance, the interest of justice favoured adding Taro and Sandoz’s cases to the common hearing of invalidity issues of Teva and Apotex’s. [11]   Notwithstanding the pending appeal and recognizing that different judges may exercise their discretion to reach a different result on identical facts, I would, all things being equal, have reached the same conclusion as Justice Pentney. ... REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD AND OTHERS PLACE OF HEARING: CONSIDERED IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE   ORDER AND REASONS: TABIB P.   ...

Mr Nugent then requested a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) alleging that, as a bisexual male, he would be at risk of serious harm if he returned to Jamaica. [3]   The officer who considered Mr Nugent’s PRRA application dismissed it because, in his view, Mr Nugent had provided insufficient supporting evidence. ... The officer also considered Mr Nugent’s psychological evaluations, but found that they did not show that Mr Nugent could not obtain appropriate medical services in Jamaica. ...

Mirkarimi’s refugee protection claim then became inadmissible and could no longer be considered. [6]   On October 26, 2016, CIC informed Mr. ... Mirkarimi had been found inadmissible on security grounds under paragraphs 34(1)(c) and (f) of the Act, his PRRA application could be considered only on the basis of factors set out in section 97, in accordance with subsection 113(d) of the Act. [7]   On October 29, 2018, the Officer rendered his decision. ...