Search - considered

The next sentence, omitted by the Officer, shows that the Applicants would be considered apostates: The constitution and the law accord primacy to sharia, however, which prohibits Muslims from converting to another religion. Under sharia, converts from Islam are still considered Muslims but regarded as apostates. [24]   The Officer does not examine the risk of being an apostate, but that risk was specifically put before the Officer. ...

The RPD considered the Applicant’s evidence that he would have difficulty getting a job because he is Muslim but found insufficient evidence that he would not be able to do so. ... In my assessment, both the material from the UNHCR Handbook cited by the RPD, and its subsequent reasoning in arriving at its determination, demonstrate an understanding of the required analysis. [23]   In conclusion, having considered the Applicant’s arguments, I find no reviewable error in the RPD’s analysis of the availability of a viable IFA, including the required assessment of whether that the Applicant would experience discrimination rising to the level of persecution. ...

The “clean hands” maxim is best understood as a very general catch-all phrase encompassing many discretionary factors better considered in more precise terms.   ... “John Norris” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5507-19   STYLE OF CAUSE: FUNDU NSUNGANI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ET AL   INFORMAL MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO ORDER AND REASONS: NORRIS J.   ...

The respondent also alleges that under paragraph 216(1)(b) of the IRPR, the person applying for a study permit bears the burden of establishing that he or she will leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay (Solopova v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 690 at para 22 [Solopova]). [12]   It is the respondent’s opinion that the status of the applicant’s mother and sister in Canada is a factor which could be considered by the immigration officer: the latter had to be satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada after her stay, but her family situation [translation] “[is] a factor which could prompt the applicant to remain in Canada”. [13]   The respondent adds that [translation] “the current socio-economic situation in Haiti is a significant push factor”. ... The respondent further adds that [translation] “the officer did not generalize, but instead considered this factor in light of the applicant’s personal situation, namely, her family and economic ties to Haiti”. [14]   With respect to the applicant’s argument that the immigration officer erred in requesting evidence about her guarantor’s assets and liabilities, the respondent does not consider this to be an error since the immigration officer needed to obtain a full picture of the guarantor’s finances in order to decide in favour of the applicant. ...

In the end, I have considered the documents only to the extent that they provide the necessary context for the applicant’s allegation that there was a breach of procedural fairness (cf. ... The absence of any explanation whatsoever from the Commission for why the applicant’s additional materials would not even be considered despite the fact that the Commission has the discretion to accept submissions longer than ten pages leaves the decision to do so lacking in justification, transparency and intelligibility.   ...

Haroun had faked this pregnancy to make her account more dramatic. [23]   With respect to the letters from the doctor and social worker in Montréal, the RPD considered that they essentially reiterated Ms.  ... Haroun, the RPD considered the fact that she is an educated woman and has an undergraduate degree and a diploma in accounting and finance. [33]   It is therefore my opinion that in light of all the evidence before it, the RPD was justified in rejecting Ms. ...

Given that her son is aware of the facts and educated, the RPD did not believe this explanation. [16]   The RPD also considered the applicant’s profile (her age, her education, her ties to Haiti, etc.) in order to assess whether she faced a serious possibility of persecution because of her status as a woman in Haiti. [17]   Because of the applicant’s social and family network in Haiti, the land that she allegedly owns there and the continued help from her children living in Canada, the RPD concluded that there was no serious possibility of persecution because of her profile.   ... In doing so, this Court is of the view that the applicant should be considered for family reunification on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and suggests to decision-makers to act on this in due course. ...

They also argue that the RPD failed to consider medical evidence in the record regarding the trauma and concussions they suffered in Georgia that, in turn, affected their ability to recall evidence and provide testimony. [21]   The Respondent submits that the RPD reasonably considered the documentary evidence for Georgia which spoke to the operational effectiveness of measures in Georgia combating vendettas and murder. ... It is the operational effectiveness of the country’s state protection apparatus that is critical (Lakatos v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 367 at para 21; Koky at para 14). [24]   The RPD considered the country condition evidence for Georgia in the National Documentation Package (NDP). ...

He then turned to subsection 1(3) of the 2017 Regulations, which defined “family member” as “(a) the spouse or common-law partner of the person; (b) a dependent child of the person or of the person’s spouse or common-law partner; and (c) a dependent child of a dependent child referred to in paragraph (b).” [8]   The Officer then considered the definition of “dependant child” as it was defined in section 2 of the Regulations immediately prior to August 1, 2014. ... The Officer also considered compassionate and humanitarian considerations with respect to the Applicants and Diego’s son. ...

Analysis [26]   As a preliminary matter, the Minister submits that evidence contained in the Applicant’s April 3, 2019 affidavit that was not before the Officer should not be considered. I agree. [27]   To the extent that it differs from the August 24, 2018 affidavit that was before the Officer, the evidence in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Applicant’s April 3, 2019 affidavit will not be considered. ...