Daniel Kingwell.

Citizen from Albania applying for a study permit. IRCC rejected it, stating that her study plan was not reasonable given her education history. She requested reconsideration which IRCC also rejected. We appealed both decisions to the Federal Court and overturned the rejection, the Court agreeing that the officer had ignored her explanation that the course of studies was more specialized than her previous education and necessary for her career advancement. IRCC was required to reconsider her study permit application.

Overseas sponsorship of conjugal partner from Saudi Arabia. IRCC refused the application on the basis that they did not meet the requirements of conjugal partnership, and the Immigration Appeal Division rejected their appeal. We represented them on appeal to the Federal Court, and the judge overturned the decision, agreeing that the officer and IAD had improperly considered their individual and relationship histories. Their PR application was returned to IRCC for processing.

Pre-Removal Risk Assessment applicant. She claimed to be threatened in Nigeria due to her LGBT identity. IRCC rejected her application, rejecting her evidence. We appealed the decision to the Federal Court, and the Court overturned the decision, finding that the officer had failed to consider important evidence of threats to her from her husband, and had also failed to hold a PRRA interview. Her application was returned for review.

Pre-Removal Risk Assessment applicant from Iran. He maintained that he was at risk in Iran for attending political demonstrations. IRCC refused his application, finding that he had not provided sufficient evidence of risk. We appealed to the Federal Court and the decision was overturned, the Court agreeing that the officer had improperly rejected new evidence of ongoing danger. The Court ordered IRCC to reconsider the PRRA application.

Refugee claimant from Jamaica. The Refugee Protection Division had rejected her LGBT claim, finding her testimony not credible, and the Refugee Appeal Division upheld the refusal. We successfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court, on the basis that the RPD had failed to consider incompetence of prior counsel, as well as supporting documents. The Court ordered that her claim be redetermined.