Category: Inadmissible Classes

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 However, the applicant adduced evidence that the charges had been withdrawn by the police and also adduced evidence from the complainant where she stated that the allegations were all false.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 The Court noted that the fact that the state where the charges had occurred had withdrawn them was particularly significant.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

The Court upheld a finding of inadmissibility based on the repeated refusal of the applicant to answer questions put to him in relation to his activities while working for the Iranian government.

This is another noteworthy case. it is important because it deals with a series of novel issues related to medical inadmissibility---does the officer have to consider medical and non medical factors; what is the duty of fairness; whether there is a requirement for reasons.

The case is very interesting because the court holds that when assessing excessive demands you have to consider the provincial legislation and make a reasonable finding based on the evidence regarding the provincial law. The Court finds error in the holding that the provincial government will pay, error in failing to assess the evidence regarding provincial payment and error in not considering the family's ability to pay.