Category: Inadmissible Classes

The Court granted a declaration that found that the Minister erred in refusing to grant permanent residence status to the applicant when he had met all the requirements of being a permanent resident at the time he was called in but the officer refused to grant it.

This case provides a very broad definition of the term espionage but will define the meaning of this term in an immigration context.

The Court upheld a finding that the applicant was inadmissible due to his refusal to answer questions hence he was withholding information and was properly found to be inadmissible.

The Court set aside a medical inadmissibility finding because the officer made unreasonable findings and engaged in speculation and ignored the evidence of family support.

The Court set aside a decision that the applicant was inadmissible on grounds of espionage. The reasons failed to disclose why the applicant was found to be inadmissible

The Court of Appeal upheld an exclusion finding based on commission of serious non political offences. The tribunal did not err in relying on the Chinese warrant and properly rejected the claimant's assertions that he was innocent.

in Lu v MCI 2008 FCJ 1390 the Court set aside a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board that found that there were serious reasons to believe that the applicant had committed serious non political crimes. The Court found breaches of natural justice but also concluded that the tribunal had erred in not considering the evidence before it that the evidence emanating from China was likely the product of torture.

In the Federal Court upheld a decision that the applicant had committed an offence in the United States. The Member had before her the indictment, a letter from the United States Department of Justice and a press release. In addition, although the applicant testified, the Member found his testimony to not be credible and preferred the evidence from the US authorities.

in Pineda v MCI 2010 FC J 538 the Federal Court set aside a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board that had found that there were serious grounds to believe that the applicant had committed and offence and was hence excludable under Article 1 F (b). In that case the Member had before him the statements of the victim together with the warrant for arrest. However, the applicant adduced evidence that the charges had been withdrawn by the police and also adduced evidence from the complainant where she stated that the allegations were all false. The Member decided to give greater weight to the original statements and found against the Applicant. The Court held that the fact that the charges had been dismissed was not dispositive of the case and that it might be possible to render an adverse finding despite the dismissal. However the Court set aside the decision concluding that the tribunal had erred by not giving any weight to the withdrawal and by failing to consider the statement of the witness. The Court noted that the fact that the state where the charges had occurred had withdrawn them was particularly significant.

The Court set aside a decision that the applicant's son was medically inadmissible finding a breach of natural justice and unreasonable findings of fact based on speculation