Bringing clarity to the most complex immigration cases.

Pre-Removal Risk Assessment applicants from Israel. The applicants claimed to be at risk as an Arab-Israeli LGBT couple. IRCC rejected their PRRA application. We successfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court on the basis that the officer had refused to consider a news report of an “honour killing” in their family. The Court ordered IRCC to reconsider the application.

Study permit applicant from Iran. IRCC rejected her application finding that her study plan was not logical in light of her education history. We successfully appealed to the Federal Court, arguing that the reasons were insufficient to justify the decision, and the application was sent back to IRCC for reconsideration.

Refugee claimant from Albania. For a decade, he fought his case with the Minister at the Refugee Protection Division, who argued that he should be excluded from protection because of a criminal conviction. We successfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court on the basis that he was wrongfully convicted in his absence, and the RPD was ordered to redetermine his claim.

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.

Convention refugee from Bangladesh. She applied for permanent residence as a protected person, however IRCC refused the application upon finding that she had failed to disclose another identity in the United States. We successfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court on the basis that IRCC had not provided her with evidence of a fingerprint match in breach of procedural fairness.

Family of permanent residents from Iran. After acquiring PR status, they were only in Canada for a few weeks to a year in their first four years, and so IRCC issued removal orders against them for failure to meet their residency obligation. We successfully appealed the decision to the Immigration Appeal Division, explaining that Canada would benefit from their professional experience, and they would suffer hardship in Iran, in particular the children who faced disruption of their education and required military service. They were allowed to remain in Canada as permanent residents.

Family of refugee claimants from Lebanon. On two occasions, the Refugee Protection Division refused their claims. Both times, we successfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court, first establishing that the incompetence of previous counsel had resulted in an unfair hearing, and second convincing the Court that the RPD had made unreasonable credibility findings and applied the wrong legal test. The Court ordered the RPD to reconsider their claims.

Overseas spousal sponsorship from India. IRCC rejected their PR application on the basis that the arranged marriage was not genuine. We successfully appealed the decision to the Immigration Appeal Division, showing evidence of how the marriage was arranged, how the wedding took place, that they were having a child, and explaining their complicated prior marital history. IRCC was ordered to process the visa application.