Category: Recent Cases

the Court upheld a finding that a person was ineligible to make a claim. The person had been granted withholding of removal in the USA and the Court concluded that this was equivalent to refugee status.

The Court set aside a decision by the Minister refusing ministerial relief. The Court found that the conclusions made by the Minister were unreasonable.

The Court overturned an order for release. The Court considered the provision which allows for the detention of a person where the Minister has a reasonable suspicion that the person may be inadmissible on grounds of security. The Court held that the Immigration Division is required to give deference to the Minister's conclusion that there is a reasonable suspicion and not make a de novo determination. "[16] The question that must be answered by the Board is not whether the evidence relied upon by the Minister is true or compelling, but whether that evidence is reasonably capable of supporting the Minister’s suspicion of potential inadmissibility. Evidence which is objectively ascertainable may be circumstantial, as it was in this case, and it may be open to more than one interpretation. It may also be contradicted by other available evidence. But the question that remains is whether the evidence, when considered globally, could support the possibility of inadmissibility."

The Court ordered disclosure of neutralized information to the named person.

The Court rejected an application by Harkat for disclosure holding that he had all possible disclosure.

The Court upheld the reasonable grounds threshold as constitutional within the context of security certificates.

The Court held that the appeal division did not err when it considered the fact the appellant was a member of a gang when exercising its discretion and when it considered the fact that the appellant's presence in Canada posed a secondary risk to his close family.

The Court set aside a refusal of an application for permanent residence made outside of Canada. The Court found that the officer erred when he failed to consider the applicant's previous establishment and job offer in his assessment of H & C factors.

The Court set aside a decision of the IRB where the tribunal refused to grant an adjournment to allow newly retained counsel to prepare

The Court overruled an order granting release. The Minister had sought detention argung that there were reasonable suspicion that the respondent was a member of the LTTE. The Member ordered release finding that the evidence was insufficient to justify detention. The Court overturned the order noting: 16] The question that must be answered by the Board is not whether the evidence relied upon by the Minister is true or compelling, but whether that evidence is reasonably capable of supporting the Minister’s suspicion of potential inadmissibility. Evidence which is objectively ascertainable may be circumstantial, as it was in this case, and it may be open to more than one interpretation. It may also be contradicted by other available evidence. But the question that remains is whether the evidence, when considered globally, could support the possibility of inadmissibility: see R. v. Jacques, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312 at 326, [1996] S.C.J. No. 88 (QL) (S.C.C.).