Bringing clarity to the most complex immigration cases.

After appealing to the Federal Court, PRRA applicants from Israel reconsidered.

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.

Musa v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2012 FC 298)

A study permit applicant from Iran has application reconsidered by IRCC after an appeal to the Federal Court.

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.

M.M. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2022 FC 1098)

Refugee Protection Division ordered to redetermine refugee claim from Albania because of wrongful criminal conviction.

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.

Doresi v Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (2022 FC 1300)

Study Permit application from Albania reconsidered by IRCC after appeals to the Federal Court.

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.

D.G. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2021 FC 1468)

Conjugal partner PR application rejected by IAD returned to IRCC for processing after appeal to the Federal Court.

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.

A.H. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2020 FC 530)

PRRA applicant wins appeal to Federal Court after IRCC rejected her application.

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.

O.J. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2019 FC 684)

Federal Court orders IRCC to reconsider PRRA application of Iranian man.

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.

A.M. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2019 FC 270)

LGBT refugee claimant from Jamaica gets claim redetermined after appeal.

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.

Downer v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2018 FC 45)

PR application reconsidered after appeal, IRCC breach of procedural fairness.

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.

Yasmin v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2018 FC 265)

Family from Iran allowed to remain in Canada after appeal to Immigration Appeal Division.

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.

J.R. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2018 CanLII 54731)

Family of refugees from Lebanon, twice refused by RPD, have claims reconsidered upon appeal to the Federal Court.

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.

El Kaissi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2011 FC 1234 and 2013 FC 234)

Visa application rejected by IRCC processed for spousal sponsorship from India after an appeal to the IAD.

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.

Guraya v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2012 CanLII 46512)

Displaying 12 of 55 matching results