The following are the court cases that have changed Canadian Immigration Law. These short summaries are prepared for the information of litigants in immigration matters coming before the Canadian Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.
2020
January
SUN KYOUNG MOON // IMM-3086-19 // 2019 FC 1575 // DECEMBER 10, 2019
Ms. Sun Kyong Moon is a South Korean mother who used an immigration consultant to help with 1) her son’s study permit application and 2) her own visa as an accompanying parent. The consultant applied for an unauthorized electronic travel authorization (eTA) on Ms. Moon’s behalf without her knowledge. However, the eTA failed to disclose Ms. Moon’s criminal record, even though it involved just a traffic violation. Ms. Moon’s applications were denied because she failed to disclose her criminality in the previous eTA, even when she reapplied. The failed application was therefore, in part, the consultant’s mistake, as he had simply guessed that Ms. Moon did not have a criminal record.
The officer’s decision was straightforward and unreasonable. The officer did not give the reasons and processes behind why she had simply concluded that Ms. Moon was inadmissible, when the applicant had shown sufficient evidence that the mistake was not hers but that of the consultant’s (a mis-“representation” beyond the applicant’s control). She was able to prove that she had absolutely no knowledge of the eTA being filed, and therefore there was no chance to provide the relevant details to the consultant. The Court further states that a misrepresentation in this case includes a misrepresentation made by an immigration consultant- however Ms. Moon falls into the exemption. Further, the officer did not allow Ms. Moon to understand why she had refused the application.
Immigration’s decision was unreasonable and the application was allowed.
RODRIGO DE CARVALHO // IMM-6186-18 // 2019 FC 1485 // NOVEMBER 21, 2019
Mr. Rodrigo de Carvalho selected on his immigration application that he was coming to Canada as a spouse of a skilled foreign worker. He had two applications filed at the same time: in the first he indicated his marital status as “common law”, while in the second he indicated as “legally separated.” When asked by Immigration Officer about this contradiction he said he did simply did not know that “legally separated” was an option both available and applicable for him. In short, Mr. de Carvalho inaccurately misrepresented his profile, when it was his responsibility to make sure all presented evidence in the application are accurate. The fact that he was aware that his eligibility for a work permit was tied to his marriage to his spouse gave the Immigration Officer the idea that he wanted to out-smart the system and remain in Canada legally, when he simply could not have.
Immigration’s decision was reasonable and the application was dismissed.
ALI MOHAMAD DIRIR // IMM-6153-18 // 2019 FC 1547 // DECEMBER 3, 2019
Mr. Ali Mohamad Dirir applied for an application to return to Canada (ARC) – an application one makes after one is deported – to visit his aunt, Ms. Farah, in Canada. Mr. Dirir had previously made a refugee claim under a false name to gain permanent residency and citizenship in both Canada and the U.S. The Immigration Manager took into consideration Ms. Farah’s ill health as a motive for Mr. Dirir’ return. But, he overstated the role he could play for his aunt in providing comfort. The Immigration Manager also noted that Mr. Dirir’s admission into Canada would bring “no benefit to Canada,” especially since his immigration history (false identity) shows a “contempt” for Canadian laws. In short, the Immigration Manager refused Mr. Dirir’s entry into Canada as his arrival would bring in more risk than good overall.
Mr. Dirir then asked the Court to reassess how the Manager interpreted bringing “benefit to Canada.” The Court dismissed this because it was a non-binding guideline.
Immigration’s decision was reasonable and the application was dismissed.
