Read about Lee & Company's reported decisions below. Click through each of the categories, and scroll within each section to read the various success stories delivered by Lee & Company.
Court File No.: IMM-736-16; 2015 F.C.J. 1407
After receiving a significant contract for metal work, the Applicant’s business sought to hire a qualified worker. When it could not find a suitable candidate within the region it sought to hire a to hire a copper sheet metal worker as a Temporary Foreign Worker. Therefore, the Applicant applied under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for a Labour Market Impact Assessment.
The officer refused the LMIA upon finding that the Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient efforts to hire Canadians and because the employment of a foreign national was not likely to fill a labour shortage. In making this decision, the officer considered extrinsic evidence which the Applicant was not afforded an opportunity to challenge.
Result: Application for judicial review was granted and the officer’s decision was quashed. In its reasons, the Federal Court noted that the officer’s failure to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to extrinsic evidence breached the duty of procedural fairness to which the Applicant was entitled.
Court File No.: IMM-5388-15, IMM-5410-15, IMM-5660-15, IMM-5716-15, IMM-5786-15, IMM-5839-15, IMM-5863-15, IMM-5884-15, IMM-5885-15, IMM-5886-15, IMM-5887-15, IMM-5888-15, IMM-5889-15, IMM-5890-15, IMM-5891-15, IMM-5892-15, IMM-5893-15, IMM-5894-15, IMM-5895-15, IMM-14-16, IMM-134-16, IMM-135-16, IMM-137-16, IMM-138-16, IMM-139-16, IMM-140-16, IMM-141-16, IMM-143-16, IMM-144-16, IMM-145-16, IMM-281-16, IMM-282-16, IMM-283-16, IMM-284-16, IMM-285-16, IMM-286-16, IMM-287-16, IMM-288-16, IMM-289-16, IMM-292-16, IMM-394-16, IMM-420-16, IMM-444-16, IMM-445-16, IMM-446-16, IMM-447-16, IMM-448-16, IMM-473-16, IMM-474-16, IMM-475-16, IMM-476-16, IMM-477-16, IMM-478-16, IMM-479-16, IMM-480-16, IMM-481-16, IMM-387-16 ; 2017 F.C.J. 616
A large number of applications for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker class were refused when the officer determined that the applications had been prepared with the assistance of an unauthorized and undisclosed immigration representative.
Result: Lee and Company joined several other law firms in litigation that saw 57 applications for Judicial Review proceed to Federal Court. After finding that the officer did not meet her obligation of procedural fairness, the Court set aside the refusals and referred the applications back for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
Court File No.: IMM-5185-16; 2017 F.C.J. 677
The Applicant’s pre-removal risk assessment failed when the immigration officer determined that the Applicant would not be subject to risk of torture, be at risk of persecution, or face a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment if removed to her Hungary, her country of nationality.
Result: Lee & Company commenced an application for Judicial Review at the Federal Court to challenge the decision. The decision was set aside when the Court found that the immigration officer decision failed to convoke a hearing with the Applicant to discuss his credibility findings or otherwise provide the Applicant with an opportunity to disabuse those concerns..
Court File No.: IMM-2706-17; 2017 F.C.J. 1260
The Immigration Division of the IRB issued an exclusion order on a finding that the Applicant had misrepresented material facts by entering into a marriage of convenience. Whereas the Applicant did request humanitarian and compassionate relief, the panel member opted against exercising his discretionary jurisdiction in the Applicant’s favour as he was of the opinion that the Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient remorse.
Result: Application for judicial review was granted and the Adjudicator’s decision quashed. In its reasons, the Federal Court noted a closed mind and lack of compassion on the adjudicator’s part. The Court was particularly moved by the failure of the IAD to consider the impact the Applicant’s removal would have on her family members in Canada.
Court File No.: IMM-2320-17; 2017 F.C.J. 1248
The Applicant’s parents were denied permanent resident visas owing to the Applicant’s father being found medically inadmissible to Canada on account of his HIV-positive status.
Result: Lee & Company commenced an application for Judicial Review at the Federal Court to challenge the refusal. Following a successful judicial review, the Federal Court found the decision of the Immigration Appeal Division to be unreasonable as it showed a “complete lack of empathy or compassion.” Similarly, the Court strongly objected to the IAD’s judgements against the moral character of the Applicant’s father. Accordingly, the decision of the Immigration Appeal Division was set aside and the matter was referred back for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.
Court File No.: IMM-5408-03; 2004 FC 1407
The applicant’s claim for refugee protection was refused. On the date of his hearing, the applicant’s previous lawyer withdrew from the case. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board granted an adjournment of just 2 days and proceeded to hear and refuse Mr. Abasalizadeh's claim.
Result: Judicial review of the Board's decision was sought on the grounds that the applicant was denied natural justice and procedural fairness. The application for judicial review was granted and the court ordered the matter to be remitteNext page›d for a new hearing and re-determination. The claimant hired our firm for his re-hearing of his refugee claim, and he was granted protection.
Court File No.: IMM – 8073 – 04
The Applicant’s application for Permanent Residence under the Skilled Worker Category was refused.
Result: Lee & Company commenced an application for Judicial Review at the Federal Court to challenge the refusal. The matter was resolved through an offer to settle by the Department of Justice representing the Respondent. We accepted the offer to settle and discontinued the litigation. The refusal of the visa officer was quashed, and the matter sent back to another officer for re-consideration.
Court File No.: IMM – 5527-05
The Applicant’s application for Permanent Residence was refused by the Respondent’s visa post in London.
Result: The Applicant retained Lee & Company to commence an application for judicial review of the decision of the immigration officer. An offer to settle the case was received from the Respondent; the decision of the visa officer was quashed and the application sent back to a different officer for re-consideration. After the litigation, we continued to assist the client and his permanent residence application approved.
Court File No: T-1853-06; 2007 FC 1118
Court File No.: T-1852-06; 2007 FC 1117
In these two cases, the Applicants were travelling from Jamaica to Canada when both encountered problems under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorism Financing Act (the Act). By a decision by the Minister’s delegate, the amount of money they declared at the time of entry into Canada was returned ($15,000.00) and the balance of the money then held was forfeited to the Crown.
Result: Application for judicial review was granted and the Adjudicator’s decision quashed. The matter was remitted to the Minister to be reviewed de novo by a different official.
Court File No.: IMM-3224-07; 2008 FC 577
The applicant’s application for permanent residence in Canada was refused by the visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. The visa officer’s basis for refusing the application was that the applicant failed to accumulate sufficient points as a skilled worker and was not likely to become economically established in Canada.
Result: An application for judicial review of the decision was commenced. The Court granted the judicial review and the decision of the visa officer dated July 12, 2007 was set aside. The matter was remitted to another visa officer for re-determination.
Court File No.: IMM 6747-06
The applicant was a national of India whose application for a Temporary Resident Permit was refused by the visa post in New Delhi. The applicant’s immigration consultant referred the applicant to Lee & Company and a Judicial Review was commenced on behalf of the Applicant.
Result: Judicial Review was allowed and an offer to settle was received from the Respondent to consent to have the Applicant’s application for Temporary Resident Permit sent back to the visa post for reconsideration.
Court File No.: IMM- 6746-06; 2008 FC 243
The officer refused the Applicant’s application for a permanent resident visa and did not consider positive discretion although requested by the applicant to do so pursuant to Section 76(3) if the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
Result: Application for Judicial Review was commenced by Lee & Company. Judicial Review was allowed and it was determined that the Visa Officer erred in law in not exercising discretion under subsection 76(3) when requested by the applicant. The Visa Officer’s decision was set aside and the application was referred back to another visa officer for reconsideration.
Court File No.: IMM- 7783 –05
The Applicant’s application for work permit had been refused. The Applicant retained Lee & Company and an Application for Judicial Review of this decision was commenced.
Result: The Court granted the judicial review of the Applicant’s refusal of her work permit. The Federal Court sent the file back for re-determination by another visa officer after reading the materials filed and hearing the submissions of counsel. The client continued to retain our firm to assist her when she qualified to apply for permanent residence and we helped her obtain her permanent resident status in Canada.
Court File No.: IMM-7550-05
The visa officer had determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada as a permanent resident under the skilled worker class. Lee & Company sought judicial review of the decision of the visa officer.
Result: The application was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration by another visa officer in accordance with the reasons provided.
Court File No.: IMM-4902-06; 2007 FC 1326
The Applicant was a Pakistani citizen of Chinese ethnicity. Her parents and siblings had all immigrated to Canada, with her siblings becoming Canadian citizens, and the applicant had no family remaining in Pakistan. She was alone in Pakistan by herself and wanted to join her family in Canada. Lee and Company assisted her to apply for permanent residence under the humanitarian and compassionate consideration. The exemption request from the visa requirements under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 IRPA on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds was not considered by the visa officer but was overlooked and the application rejected. Litigation was started and the case was settled by the Department of Justice offering to send the file back to the Pakistan visa office for reconsideration. However, the second review was also refused by the visa post in Pakistan and judicial review of that decision was sought at the Federal Court.
Result: Application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted back to another officer for reconsideration. After two refusals from the visa post in Pakistan, the applicant was finally approved and able to join her family in Canada.
Court File No.: IMM-4222-07
The Applicants were a family of South Korean nationality who came to Lee & Company with a negative decision of an humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application denying the applicants’ application for permanent residence from within Canada. An application for judicial review was commenced by Lee & Company.
Result: The court ordered that the application for judicial review be allowed and the matter referred to a different H&C officer for re-determination.
Court File No.: IMM – 4902-05
The Applicant’s application for a Temporary Resident Visa was refused by the Respondent’s visa post in India, and the applicant retained Lee & Company to challenge the officer’s decision.
Result: The refusal of Temporary Resident Visa was challenged and an application for judicial review was commenced. The Respondent offered to settle the case and the matter was sent back to the visa office in Chandigarh to be re-determined by a different Visa Officer.
Court File No.: IMM-6980-04, 2005 FC 891
The Applicants were nationals of India who, as Muslims, feared persecution from Hindu extremists and gangsters. The Applicants’ claim for Refugee Protection was denied.
Result: Application for Judicial Review was allowed. The Refugee Protection Division's decision was set aside the matter referred back to a differently constituted panel for re-determination.
Court File No.: IMM-4836-06 2007 FC 1349
The Applicants were citizens of the Philippines who were sponsored by daughter. They had completed their application forms in April 2003. In early March 2006, their application was approved and visas were printed. However, before they got their visas, on March 21, 2006, the sponsor faxed the immigration officer advising that one of the applicants had given birth to a baby during the processing of her immigration papers. The baby was born on July 2004. When the birth of the baby was disclosed to immigration, the applicants’ visas had been approved but not delivered to the applicants. The immigration authorities on July 14, 2006, refused the sponsorship application on the basis that the applicants had failed to disclose the birth of the baby in a timely fashion and on the basis of s.40()(1)(a) “ ... directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the Act.”
Result: Lee & Company commenced an application for judicial review of the negative decision. The Federal Court agreed with the submissions of the Applicants that there was no “misrepresentation” or withholding of a material fact that induced or could have induced an error in the administration of the Act. The application for judicial review was granted by Chief Justice Lutfy of the Federal Court and the matter referred for re-determination by a different immigration officer in a manner consistent with the reasons for judgment given by the Court. The visa post approved the sponsorship application and issued the visas to allow the Applicants to come to Canada.
MIRZAII v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM-5822-01; 2003 FCT 164
The Applicant was an Iranian citizen whose application for a student authorization to enter Canada to take a course in computer programming was refused. An application for judicial review of the decision of the Visa Officer was commenced.
Result: The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for re-determination by a different visa officer. The applicant was able to come to Canada to pursue his studies.
MURAII v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM-1541-05; 2006 FC 186
The Applicant was a Hungarian citizen who first came to Canada as a visitor. The applicant’s application for an extension of time to remain in Canada was refused. Her subsequent application for refugee status, humanitarian and compassionate leave application, and application to defer the removal order were all denied. The applicant subsequently left Canada.
The Applicant was trained as a caregiver and eventually submitted an application for a Work Permit as a live-in caregiver. The application was refused on the grounds that the officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay per section 183(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
Result: Lee & Company commenced an application for Judicial Review of the decision of the Officer. Judicial Review was allowed, the decision of the Visa Officer set aside and the matter is referred back to another visa officer for reconsideration. This case sets an important precedent on how immigration officers are to assess an applicant’s previous immigration history in Canada. The visa should have asked himself “will this person stay illegally in Canada if not successful under the program?” Based on the applicant’s past history in this case, any reasonable person would say “no,she would not stay in Canada illegally” as she was law abiding and only after exhausting all her legal remedies she left Canada and applied subsequently under the Live-In Caregiver Program.
NAYYAR v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File: IMM-57-06; 2007 FC 199
The Applicant’s application for permanent residence as a member of the economic class was refused. The applicant’s point assessment did not meet requirement under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Result: An application for Judicial Review was commenced on grounds that no consideration was given to exercising positive discretion or positive substituted evaluation in Applicant’s favour. Judicial Review was allowed and it was determined that the decision was made in breach of procedural fairness. The application was referred back to Respondent for consideration of exercise of positive discretion under the former Immigration Act or exercise of positive substituted evaluation under the current Immigration Refugee Protection Act by a different officer.
PANCHAL et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM-3834-05
The Applicants application for permanent residence under the Independent Immigrant Class as defined in the former Immigration Regulations, 1978, was refused. The Applicants were referred to Lee & Company by their immigration consultant to challenge the refusal of their permanent residence application by the Respondent’s visa officer in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and represent them in Federal Court.
Result: Application for Judicial Review was commenced. Judicial Review was allowed and an offer to settle was received from the Respondent; the matter was settled and the application was sent back for re-determination by another officer.
RADICS v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM-3966-04; 2004 FC 1590
The applicant's request for restoration of his temporary resident status was denied. An application for Judicial Review was commenced by Lee & Company.
Justice Kelen of the Federal Court writes:
(10) Pursuant to section 182 of the Regulations, an immigration officer is required to restore an applicant's temporary resident status if he meets the initial requirements for his stay and if he has not failed to comply with any other conditions imposed. Section 179 sets out the initial requirements for the issuance of a temporary resident visa. Among other things, the applicant must have properly applied as either a visitor, worker or student and it must be established by the immigration officer that the applicant will leave Canada by the end of his authorized stay. In determining whether an applicant will leave Canada at the end of his stay, an officer will usually consider the applicant's purpose for wanting to be in Canada. This permits an officer to gauge whether it is likely that the applicant has a temporary reason for being here, and thus, whether it is likely that he will leave when required.
(11) The fact that the applicant applied to restore his visitor's status in Canada, and did not evade authorities, suggests that he is law abiding and that he will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for his stay. This material fact was ignored by the immigration officer in finding that:
Result: The application was allowed and the matter remitted to another immigration officer to make the decision in accordance with the reasons given by the Court.
SINGH v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM-1890-05; 2006 FC 684
The applicant’s application for a work permit as a live-in caregiver to look after two young children at the home of his sister-in-law in Brampton, Ontario was refused because the officer determined that he did not have the requisite training or work experience in the field of child care. The applicant had experience as a geriatric caregiver. Lee & Company commenced an application for judicial review of the decision of the Visa Officer. The Court stated in this case:
¶ 14 To my thinking, this is the same approach that should have been taken to the Applicant's request for a work permit in this case. The Visa Officer should have considered the caregiving skills acquired by the Applicant during his more than ten (10) years of hospital nursing employment to determine if they would be adequate to meet the employment demands for the position he had been offered. It is not sufficient in assessing prior experience to focus solely upon the characteristics or age of the intended beneficiaries of care. What is required is a comparison of the Applicant's caregiving experience with the likely needs of the beneficiaries to determine whether a sufficient match exists to justify the issuance of a work permit. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that more than ten (10) years of experience as a hospital nurse would not result in the acquisition of many skills and aptitudes which would be readily applicable to the provision of child care in a home setting.
¶ 15 This matter should be remitted to a different Visa Officer for reconsideration of the application on the merits because the Visa Officer erred in her interpretation of the requirements of section 112 of the Regulations.
Result: The application for judicial review was allowed, and the matter remitted to a different Visa Officer for reconsideration.
SINGH, Tathgur Rupinder v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM-4468-06; 2007 FC 1293
The Applicant was a citizen of India whose application for Permanent Residence as a member of the skilled worker class was refused.
Result: Application for Judicial Review was commenced. Application was allowed. The original decision of visa officer was quashed and the application was sent back to a different officer for re-consideration.
SINGH, Tirath Pal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM 4793-06
The Applicant’s application for a Work Permit as a Live-In-Caregiver was refused. The Applicant retained Lee & Company to challenge the decision and an application for Judicial Review was commenced.
Result: The Respondent consented to have the Applicant’s application for a work permit as a Live-In-Caregiver sent back for a re-determination to its visa post in Sri Lanka.
SANDRA Surendra Naidu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM – 7605-05
The Applicant was an Indian national whose application for Permanent Residence under the Skilled Worker Category had been refused. The Applicant retained Lee & Company to challenge the decision.
Result: Application for judicial review of the visa officer’s decision was commenced by Lee & Company. The matter was resolved following an offer to settle from the Respondent and the refused decision was set aside.
YEH, C.H.Y. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM-2194-01
The Applicant’s application for a Student Authorization was refused. The Applicant retained Lee & Company to challenge the refusal.
Result: A Writ of Certiorari was sought to quash the decision of the visa officer in refusing the Applicant's Application for a student authorization. An offer to settle the matter was received from the Department of Justice, and the matter was settled on Consent. The application was sent back to another Visa officer for re-determination. The applicant was able to come to Canada on a study permit.
ZHAO v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: 7494-05
The Applicants applied for refugee protection on the grounds of religious persecution in China against them as Christians. The Immigration and Refugee Board determined that the Applicants were not Convention refugees finding that the claim had no credible basis. Lee & Company sought judicial review of that determination on behalf of the Applicants.
Result: The application for judicial review was granted. The decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board was quashed and the matter remitted back for a new determination by a different panel.
BAE et. al. v. Canada (The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Court File No.: IMM- 2634 –07, Date: July 6, 2007
The Applicants were scheduled for removal to South Korea. Lee & Company was retained to defer the removal date.
Result: The Court granted a stay of removal of the Applicants to South Korea. Lee & Company continued to assist the applicant’s Humanitarian and Compassionate application and was successful in obtaining an approval of their application.
BURQ AMJAD IQBAL v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM- 2095 – 04 and IMM – 2514 – 04
The Applicant had applied for Permanent Resident on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds and was still awaiting for a decision on his application, when a removal date was set for the applicant to leave Canada. Lee & Company was retained to seek a deferral of the removal date.
Result: The Applicant’s Motion Record for stay of removal was served & filed with the Court; the Respondent consented to grant a stay of removal until the final determination of the Applicant’s Humanitarian and Compassionate application.
BATHAN v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
(Court File No.: IMM-3602-07)
The Applicant had filed a Humanitarian & Compassionate application, however due to backlogs in the system, a decision had not yet been made on her application when the Applicant was scheduled for removal to the Philippines. The Applicant’s lawyer retained Lee & Company to help with deferring the client’s removal date until her Humanitarian application was assessed.
Result: The Federal Court granted a stay of removal for the Applicant, and the Applicant was allowed to remain in Canada. The applicant’s humanitarian application was also approved by immigration.
CEN, Du Bin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
(Court File No. : IMM 1689-07 and IMM – 1220-07 )
After living 16 years in Canada with his common-law partner and his three children, the Applicant was directed to report for removal to China; he had been unable to marry his common-law partner due to having been unable to obtain a legal divorce from his previous wife and had not been able to submit an application for permanent residence. The Applicant feared facing separation from his common-law partner and three children, who were ages 15, 13 and 12 at the time and retained Lee & Company to try to stop the deportation. A motion for stay at the Federal Court was filed.
Result: An offer to settle the matter was made by the Department of Justice party prior to the court date. The client’s direction to report was cancelled, and the Applicant was allowed to stay in Canada. We also helped him finally stabilize his status and get permanent residence in Canada.
GERGELY v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM- 1174-02
The Applicants were Hungarian nationals who were scheduled to be removed from Canada. Lee & Company was retained to seek a Stay of the removal order.
Result: Upon filing the Applicants’ motion for stay at the Federal Court and hearing the arguments, the Court granted a stay of removal of the applicants to Hungary. The clients were subsequently accepted as permanent residents under the Humanitarian and Compassionate category.
HWANG v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM-6457-02; 2002 FCT 1330
The applicants approached our firm at the last hour, to request a stay of the removal order as they were scheduled to be removed on New Years’ day, January 1, 2003. The applicants wished to have the removal order stayed in order to submit an application for landing on humanitarian and compassionate grounds ("H & C grounds") pursuant to section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 ("IRPA"). We helped them file a motion to stay their removal which the Federal Court heard on December 31, 2003. Justice Beaudry granted the stay.
Result: Due to the unique circumstances of the applicants, the removal order was stayed to allow filing of an application for landing based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds pursuant to s. 25 of IRPA. We immediately assisted the Applicants to file their humanitarian application. They were approved as permanent residents.
NEMATI v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM-2361-02
The applicants, originally from Iran, sought an order staying the execution of a removal order scheduled for execution, until a decision was made on the applicants’ Application for Leave and Judicial Review of a decision of Post Claims Determination Officer ‘s finding that the applicants did not meet the requirements to be found to be Post Determination Refugee Claimant(s) in Canada.
Result: The court allowed the application for stay and the removal cancelled.
OSIFO et.al. V. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM 5888-05; IMM 5887-05
The Applicants were nationals of Nigeria. Lee & Company was retained to seek a deferral of their removal to Nigeria. A motion for stay was filed at Federal Court.
Result: The Department of Justice consented to the matters before the client’s court date. The clients were allowed to stay and Lee & Company subsequently assisted the clients in obtaining approval of their application for permanent residence. The entire family became landed immigrants.
RACZ v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
(Court File No.: IMM-3832- 07)
A motion was filed by Lee & Company on behalf of the applicant for an order staying his removal from Canada to Hungary.
Result: The applicant’s removal was stayed by the Federal Court. We continued to help our client until he obtained permanent resident visa and became a landed immigrant.
RIZVI et. al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
(Court File No.: IMM-3832- 07)
The Applicants were nationals of Pakistan who had previously left their country to live in the Gulf States. While living in Dubai, legislation came into place restricting anyone over 60 from working, with few exceptions. As the father was over 60, the family could not support themselves in Dubai, however they were also unable to return to Pakistan due to the religious strife in their homeland. The family claimed refugee protection in Canada, however this was denied as was their Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application. The family was given a Direction to Report for removal. When they approached Lee & Company for help, no Humanitarian and Compassionate application for permanent residence had been filed on their behalf.
Result: A motion for stay of removal was filed at Federal Court by Lee & Company. The motion was granted, and the family was allowed to remain in Canada. An application for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds was submitted on their behalf. The Applicants received an approval in principal of their application.
SHAYESTEH et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court File No.: IMM - 5465 - 02
The Applicants were an elderly couple from Iran, who feared facing removal back to their country. Their children who were permanent residents retained our firm to help their parents stay in Canada.
Result: A motion for stay was filed at Federal Court and a stay of removal was granted. The deportation was halted.
SUN v. Canada (Minister of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness)
(Court File No.: IMM-974-07)
The Applicant was a Chinese national who had been instructed to leave Canada within one week from the date of her notice. She travelled from Ottawa to Toronto to seek counsel to try and stop the removal. Upon consultation with several lawyers, she was advised that she did not have a chance of staying in Canada. She retained Lee & Company to launch an urgent motion at the Federal Court to be allowed to stay in Canada.
Result: The court granted the Motion for Stay and the Applicant’s removal was stayed. We subsequently worked on her application for permanent residence and she was approved.
VILLALOBOS et. al. v. Canada (Minister of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness)
(Court File No.: IMM- 1078-07)
A family from Costa Rica faced imminent removal from Canada and retained Lee & Company to stop the removal. One of the family members had suffered a serious motor vehicle accident and required medical treatment. An urgent motion for a stay of removal was submitted to the Federal Court. Though a stay of removal was not granted by the court, upon hearing the Motion for Stay, the judge encouraged the Department of Justice to speak to their client to re-examine the family’s situation.
Result: In a highly rare initiative, the lawyer for the Department of Justice discussed our clients’ situation with us, he respected and followed the Court’s orbiter comments, and in a very short period of time, the Canadian Border Services Agency granted an administrative stay of removal. Lee & Company took carriage of the family’s Humanitarian and Compassionate application and provided additional legal submissions. We monitored the file until the family’s application for Permanent Residence was finally approved.
Parent Sponsorship Appeal - Tratikhosroshahi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2016) I.A.D.D. No. 219
I.A.D.D. No. TB3-05711
The Appellant and her spouse had applied to sponsor her parents to Canada from Iran. The file was assessed some four years later at which time the Appellant’s spouse indicated that he wished to withdraw from the sponsorship arrangement. Shortly thereafter, the spouse had a change of heart and indicated that he did indeed want to participate in the sponsorship. Nevertheless, when deciding the application, the reviewing officer failed to consider the spouse’s willingness to act as a sponsor and denied the application after determining that the Appellant, as an individual, did not have sufficient income to satisfy the Minimum Necessary Income (MNI) under section 133(1)(j)(i) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
Result: The Immigration Appeal Division allowed the appeal and set aside the officer’s decision to refuse a permanent resident visa. Thereby, the officer was required to continue to process the application. In its decision, the IAD found that the officer did not meet the duty of procedural fairness by not considering the spouse’s willingness to be reinstated as a sponsor.
Spousal Sponsorship Appeal - Cheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2016) I.A.D.D. No. 1096
IAD File No. TB4-00580
The Appellant had applied to sponsor his wife to Canada. However, when reviewing the application, an officer from the Hong Kong visa office found that the marriage between the Appellant and Applicant was not a genuine marriage and was entered into primarily for the purposes of acquiring status or privilege under section 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Accordingly, the officer refused the Applicant’s permanent resident visa application.
Result: The matter proceeded to the Immigration Appeal Division where Lee & Company demonstrated the genuine nature of the marriage. The decision to refuse a permanent resident visa was set aide and an order was issued for the visa office to continue to process the application.
Spousal Sponsorship Appeal - Nguyen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2017) I.A.D.D. No. 325
IAD File No. TB3-09475
The Appellant’s wife was refused a permanent resident visa when a visa officer in Singapore determined that the relationship was not genuine and was entered into for the primary purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Result: Lee & Company successfully appealed the officer’s finding by establishing the genuine nature of the marriage. After the examination of both the Appellant and her husband, Minster’s counsel’s conceded that the evidence was sufficient to show that the marriage was genuine. Therefore, the decision to refuse a permanent resident visa was set aside and an order was issued for the application to continue to be processed.
Removal Order Appeal - Lin v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), (2017) I.A.D.D. No. 315
IAD File No. TB2-07939
An Exclusion Order was issued against the Appellant following a determination that the Appellant acquired permanent resident status through a marriage of convenience. The Appellant appealed the Exclusion Order to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
Result: Despite the seriousness of the misrepresentations, the panel ruled that there were considerable Humanitarian and Compassionate considerations such as the best interests of the child, family ties in Canada, establishment, and dislocation of the Appellant and her family. In light of all the circumstances of the case, the appeal was allowed and special relief was granted on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds.
Sponsorship Appeal – Alternative Dispute Resolution (Iran)
File No: TA7 – 01038 (2007)
Client retained Lee & Company to assist in the appeal of the refusal of the sponsorship of his wife from Iran.
Result: The matter was successfully settled at Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Sponsorship Appeal - Alternative Dispute Resolution (Pakistan)
File No.: TA6 – 11047 (2007)
Sponsor’s second marriage to her husband was refused by the visa post in Pakistan. It was the sponsor’s second marriage. Client retained Lee & Company in her sponsorship appeal at the IAD.
Result: The matter was successfully settled at Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Sponsorship Appeal – Full Hearing (India)
File No.: TA5-12012
This was a sponsorship appeal of a refusal of the Sponsor’s wife from India
Result: Lee & Company successfully appealed the refusal following a full hearing at the Immigration Appeals Division.
Sponsorship Appeal – Written Submissions (Serbia)
File No.:: TA6-06348
The client’s sponsorship of her common-law husband had been refused. At issue was whether it was possible that a common law test of a “real and substantial” connection with Serbia and subsection 22(3) of the Divorce Act would mean that a divorce obtained in Serbia would be recognized as valid in Canada without the residency requirement of one year found in subsection 22(1) of the Divorce Act. Lee & Company argued that the Applicant’s marriage to her present spouse from Serbia was valid and she should be able to sponsor him for immigration to Canada. Lee & Company submitted legal memorandum of argument in support of the Applicant’s appeal to the Immigration Appeals Division.
Result: Lee & Company accepted an offer to settle the matter on behalf of the appellant before the case went to a hearing.
Sponsorship Appeal – Full Hearing (India)
Dhillon File No.: TA5-07417; (2007) I.A.D.D. No. 1131
Lee & Company assisted the sponsor in preparing him for the hearing before the Immigration Appeals Division on the refusal of his wife’s sponsorship. It was the sponsor’s third marriage. His first wife used him to gain immigration to Canada, and shortly after coming to Canada left him and returned to India to marry her boyfriend and bring him to Canada. His second wife did not want to live with him in Canada and wished to continue living in the US where her family was residing. The visa officer did not believe this third marriage was genuine and refused the application.
Result: After hearing the evidence presented, the Immigration Appeals Division was satisfied the third marriage was indeed genuine and allowed the appeal.
Sponsorship Appeal – Full Hearing (India)
Baidh File No.: TA4-19647 (2006) I.A.D.D. No. 2510
The Appellant appealed the refusal of his wife’s application. At the de novo hearing before the Appeals Division, the Panel directed the Appellant to get DNA evidence concerning the paternity testing of the son born to the Applicant.
Result: After the DNA evidence was submitted, the Minister’s counsel no longer contested the appeal and the appeal was allowed.
Sponsorship Appeal – Full Hearing (India)
Toor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) No. TA5-12012 (2006) I.A.D.D. No. 1107
The Appellant is a Canadian citizen residing in Burlington, Ontario. He sponsored his wife to come to Canada. It was his second marriage. His sponsorship application of his wife was refused. He retained our firm to help him with his appeal.
Result: The Panel found the marriage to be genuine and not entered for the purposes of immigration. The appeal was allowed.
Sponsorship Appeal – Full Hearing (Austria)
Aneroussos File No: TA5-03686
The Sponsor had a successful Alternative Dispute Resolution and her sponsorship application to sponsor her husband was sent back for re-determination at the Vienna post for processing. Unfortunately, the visa officer again refused the sponsorship application over the genuineness of the marriage. The sponsor retained Lee & Company to assist her in the second Immigration Appeals Division hearing.
Result: The Board Member was satisfied that the marriage was genuine and allowed the appeal after hearing all the evidence presented.
Spousal Appeal – Full Hearing (Mexico)
MGMA v. MCI, No. TA6-13471 (2008) I.A.D.D. No. 1826
The Appellant married his wife in 2005 and attempted to sponsor her and her daughter as members of the family class. The application was refused by a visa officer on the basis that the applicant is criminally inadmissible to Canada pursuant to section 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Result: The Panel found that - the appellant has met his onus of establishing that, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case. While I do not accept the testimony of the applicant with respect to the circumstances of the offence that led to her being criminally inadmissible, taking into account the Court's disposition, I find on a balance of probabilities that the offence was an isolated occurrence, that she is unlikely to reoffend and that she does not pose a risk to public safety in Canada. The nature of the relationships involved weigh in favour of granting the appeal and, most significantly, it is in the minor applicant's best interests that she be reunited with her father in Canada.”
Spousal Sponsorship Appeal – Full Hearing (South Korea)
Shon v. MCI (2005) I.A.D.D. No. 790 ; No. TA4-01744
Sponsorship appeal of husband from South Korea was allowed by the IAD. The application for permanent residence was denied because it was the wife’s second marriage to a man younger than her, who had never been married.
Result: Upon hearing the testimony of the husband and wife, the Board was satisfied that the couple had a genuine marriage, notwithstanding the age difference.
Adoption Appeal – Full Hearing (India)
Ghinger v. MCI. No. TA6-07022 ; (2009) I.A.D.D. No. 47
The Appellant sponsored his adopted child to Canada. The adopted child is his brother’s daughter. The visa officer found that the adoption between the appellant and the daughter is not legally valid, and is not genuine and was entered into primarily for the purpose of the applicant acquiring status under IRPA.
In analyzing the genuineness of the adoption, the Panel writes:
Genuineness may be assessed by reviewing a number of factors. While each appeal is unique and the importance of individual factors will vary, a non-exhaustive list of indicia would include the following:
• Motivation of the adopting parents(s), and to a lesser extent the motivation and conditions of the natural parents.
• Authority and suasion of the adopting parent over the adopted child.
• Supplanting of the authority of the natural parents by the adopting parents.
• Relationship of the adopted child with the natural parent after adoption.
• Treatment of the adopted child versus natural children by the adopting parent.
• Relationship between the adopted child and the adopting parents before the adoption.
• Changes flowing from the new status of the adopted child e.g. records, entitlements. including documentary acknowledgement that he/she is the son/daughter of the adopting parents
• Arrangements and planning for the adoptive child
Result: The Panel found that the adoption is legally valid and, that the adoption is genuine and was not entered into primarily to acquire status under IRPA. The daughter was able to join her adoptive parents in Canada.
Parent Sponsorship Appeal - Medical Inadmissibility (Pakistan)
Gill v. MCI, File No.: TA4 – 12302; (2006) I.A.D.D. No. 1971
Lee & Company represented the applicants who were refused on medical grounds. They were being sponsored by their son. They appealed to the Immigration Appeals Division.
Result: The appeal was allowed by the Board who found the testimony “heartfelt” and the appeal was allowed under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Residency Appeal (Peru)
(MILLER), v. Canada (MCI), Immigration Appeal Division, File No. TA3-24354
(2005) I.A.D.D. No. 1794
The Canadian Embassy in Peru held that the appellants were inadmissible to Canada pursuant to section 41(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, for failing to comply with the residency obligation set out in section 28 of IRPA. The appellants were landed in Canada on April 21, 1990 but due to the serious health problems of the father, who eventually died in Peru in 2000, were unable to maintain their residency obligation. In 2003 they sought to return to Canada, at which time their residency obligation was determined, and they were refused entry to Canada.
Result: Lee & Company sought the discretionary relief of the Board and was granted special relief in light of the compelling humanitarian and compassionate factors in this case. The Appellants were allowed to keep their permanent resident status in Canada.
Residency Appeal (Cameroon)
YOPA, J v. Canada (MCI), Immigration Appeal Division, File No.: TB0-09937
An elderly lady returned to Cameroon to attend to her sick mother who later died. As she did not have time to renew her PR card, prior to leaving Canada, she was unable to return to Canada without it. When she applied for a Travel Document she was refused and the visa officer determined that she did not meet the residency requirement.
Result: On appeal, the Panel was satisfied that our client did in fact meet her residency requirement and allowed her appeal.
Parent Sponsorship Appeal (Iran)
(IAD No.: TA4-02994)
(Copy of Order with Reasons is available)
The Board allowed the sponsorship of the clients parents from Iran based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Wife Sponsorship Appeal (India)
Patel v. MCI File No.: TA3 – 00167; (2005) I.A.D.D. No. 411
The sponsor’s sponsorship appeal to sponsor his wife from Gujarat, India was successful following an appeal to the IAD.
Removal Order Appeal
IAD No.: TA2-15068
A Removal Order was made against the Appellant pursuant to a Section 27 Report based on misrepresentation. The Appellant originally from Iraq faced the prospect of being removed to Iraq.
Result: The Immigration Appeal Division allowed the appeal having regard to all the circumstances of the case and ordered that the removal order be quashed and the appellant not be removed from Canada.
Removal Order Appeal
D.S. v. MSEP; IAD File No.: TA9-12148
The appellant came to Canada with a valid visa sponsored by his wife. At the border he informed the immigration authorities that he has twin daughters from an affair he had. His landing was stopped and he was asked to get the medicals done for his daughters. He returned to Serbia and took his daughters to be medically examined and returned to Canada. However, the immigration authorities issued a removal order (exclusion) against him at the Immigration Division for failing to advise the visa office of the birth of the two daughters and that he did not wait for the finalization of the medical reports before arriving in Canada. At the Immigration Appeals Division, the Panel allowed the appeal and set aside the removal order. The case was referred back to the appropriate decision maker to reconsider the appellant’s application for permanent residence.
Deportation Order Appeal
File No.: TA7-04895 (2007)
A permanent resident sought an appeal of his deportation order at the Immigration Appeal Division.
Result: Lee & Company assisted the client in obtaining a Stay of Removal Order (with conditions), offered by the Canada Border Services Agency.
Deportation Order Appeal
HO v. MSEP (2009) I.A.D.D. No. 1214; No. TA7-04456
The Appellant, a permanent resident of Canada, was found to have misrepresented her first marriage to gain immigration to Canada. A Deportation Order was issued against her to return to Vietnam.
Result: After hearing the appeal, the removal order was set aside as the Panel found many humanitarian and compassionate factors to allow the Appellant to keep her permanent resident status and she was allowed to remain in Canada.
Appeal of Refusal of Permanent Resident Application as Entrepreneur
(File No.: TA4-17122
A permanent resident facing a section 44 Report that he did not comply with his terms and conditions of landing as an Entrepreneur retained our firm to assist him and his family through the proceedings. An Appeals Screening Unit for the GTEC Hearings and Appeals provided the Applicants the opportunity for an early settlement without a full hearing at the IAD. The clients were able to maintain their permanent resident status and eventually apply for Canadian citizenship.
RE: Registry File No.: TA4-18293, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A couple from India targeted by leftist insurgents group known as the Naxalites were granted protection by the refugee board.
RE: Registry File No.: TA5-03802, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A woman from India felt targeted for persecution due to her Chinese ethnicity. She feared returning to India and sought protection. She was granted protection in Canada.
RE: Registry File No.: MA5-04651, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A muslim family fled India due to persecution from Hindu fundamentalist groups. Their refugee claim was accepted and they were granted protection in Canada.
RE: Registry File No.: T-A5-16420, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
Claimants from India have been targets of extortion by elements of the security forces. They sought refuge in Canada and were granted protection.
RE: Registry File No.: TA3-15781, Refugee Protection Division - Refugee Claim
A businesswoman from South Korea was harassed by loan sharks and abused by one of the gang members. The Board granted protection to the claimant and the panel was very sensitive and alive to Guideline 4 issued by the Chairperson on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.
RE: Registry File No.: TA3-10849, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A South Korean Claimant operating a furniture business had to flee his country to seek refuge in Canada due to serious threats from loan sharks, if he was unable to repay the loan. The loan sharks sent a collector to Canada to force the claimant to pay. Threats were issued on the claimant and his family’s life. The Board granted protection to the Claimant and his family.
RE: Registry File No. : TA4-18130, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
The firm assisted the client in seeking the original refugee decision quashed and sent back for re-determination (Abasalizadeh v. Canada (MCA) (2004) F.C.J. No.1714). The firm continued to assist the client and represented him in the second refugee proceedings. The Claimant was granted protection by the Board.
RE: Registry File No.: TA5 – 10773, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A young couple married against the wishes of the girl’s family. Fearing for their lives from the girl’s own family they fled to Canada. The Panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board granted the young couple protection in Canada taking into consideration that “Honour Killings” is a serious problem in India.
Re: Registry File No.: MA3-09289, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A young female Hungarian woman who was raped by her former boyfriend, who then wanted to exploit her as a sex trade worker escaped from him. The documentary country conditions noted that trafficking in women for the purposes of sexual exploitation is a serious problem in Hungary. She sought protection in Canada. The Board hearing the claim via teleconference allowed the claim for protection. She was accepted as a refugee.
RE: Registry File No.: TB1 – 05475, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
An Iranian mother taking care of her Canadian born son, who was suffering from an acute medical condition, took comfort in alternative medicine named Faradarmani. Unfortunately, when her immigration status was in jeopardy, and the Canada Border Services required her to leave Canada to return to Iran, she realized that her life was at risk as the leader of Faradarmani had been arrested and jailed by the Iranian authorities. She had no option but to seek protection in Canada. Her claim was accepted and she was granted protection in Canada.
RE: Registry File No.: TB0 –14102, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
The claimant from Jamaica was afraid to return to her home because she was a lesbian. She received threats from her own immediate family as the Jamaican society has a deeply homophobic cultural tradition. She was accepted as a refugee and granted protection in Canada.
RE: Registry File No.: TB0-03423, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
The claimant born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines came to Canada in 2001, however, she was too afraid to submit any application to stabilize her status in Canada. She was afraid, if her application was refused she would have to go back to a country that she could live in. Instead she lived underground for almost a decade in Canada until she was introduced to our firm. Our client’s situation was unique, she came from extreme poverty, from a family with a history of mental illness, including her mother suffering from schizophrenia. She was subjected to parental neglect, homelessness and sexual abuse from an early age and faced severe discrimination in all aspects of her life due to her family’s history of mental illness. Despite a decade of hiding in Canada, we helped her initiate a claim for protection in Canada. The Panel was very sensitive to our client’s vulnerability and granted her refugee protection.
RE: Registry File No.: TB0-13631, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A young Iranian mother with her two children fled an abusive ex-husband and father. She was tortured physically and mentally by her ex-husband. The Board issued a bench decision and accepted her claim.
RE: Registry File No.: TA-9-23587, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A young Iranian was afraid to go back home due to his sexual orientation. He made a claim for protection and was accepted as a refugee as he would face persecution if he were to return to Iran.
RE: Registry File No.: TA-9-00857, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A young Hungarian couple of Roma ethnicity faced severe discrimination in employment, housing, education, and all aspects of their lives because they were Roma. The Panel accepted that they could not receive state protection and the level of discrimination faced by them rises to the level of persecution warranting protection from Canada.
RE: Registry File No.: TA-5-10608, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A young man who was a citizen of Serbia and Montenegro of Hungarian ethnicity was severely discriminated as a minority. He left Vojvodina and came to Canada. He made a claim for refugee protection and was accepted as a refugee.
RE: Registry File No.: TA-8-14733, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A Pano-Christian belonging to the lowest caste in India called the “untouchables” was severely discriminated. His refugee claim was accepted by the Panel issuing a bench decision.
RE: Registry File No.: TA-6-13678, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
A young lady from Cameroon fled her country as she was forced against her will to marry an elderly man to bear him children. She was granted an expedited hearing and upon hearing her testimony, the Refugee Protection Officer recommended that she be accepted as a refugee.
RE: Registry File No.: TA-5-15788, Refugee Protection Division – Refugee Claim
The claimant from El Salvador refused to join the Mara and feared persecution by them. He sought refuge and was granted protection in Canada.
The male Applicant, PJ, from Hungary was financially and emotionally ruined. Despite being a certified Refrigeration and Air Conditioning serviceman he could not find work. The financial stress led to his marriage break-up, with his wife leaving him and taking their two daughters with her. Determined to make his family whole again, the Applicant came to Canada on a Temporary Work Permit and began working as a skilled tradesman. He worked hard to establish a stable life in Canada. He convinced his wife that Canada was a country where the family could get a fresh start, with opportunities for her and their two daughters. She joined him in Canada and the family was reunited. We assisted them in applying for an H&C application within Canada to gain permanent residence and they were approved.
An elderly Iranian couple came to Canada to provide emotional support to their daughter, a Canadian Citizen, who was going through a marriage break-up. This was a devastating event for their daughter, as she had no other family member in Canada. The couple helped their daughter during a difficult period of her life and helped her save her marriage. They completely immersed themselves in Canada and soon found it difficult to leave behind their daughter to return to Iran. They also wanted to avoid the hardship of going back to Iran where they had nothing left, as their only other child, a son, was living in Austria. They sought humanitarian and compassionate consideration to allow them to stay permanently in Canada, which was approved.
A family from Croatia, of Serb ethnicity, fled during the war and found temporary refuge in Serbia. Due to the continuous hardships they suffered as outsiders in Serbia, they came to Canada seeking refugee protection. They had been in Canada for over 4 years, and had set roots in Canada. Both of them found gainful employment, he as carpenter, she as a bakery and deli server, and their minor daughter was doing well in school where she had gained a large circle of friends. Given the prevailing animosity against the Serbs in Croatia, the family could not safely return there; nor could they go back to Serbia where their minor daughter would face extreme and undue hardships. Their request for humanitarian application was approved.
The Applicant and his family, belonging to the Mennonite community, fled Mexico after the murder of his father, fearing that the culprits would pursue the remaining family members. They came to Canada in June of 2008. The Applicant’s family has deep family roots in this country, particularly in southwestern Ontario, by virtue of their membership to the Mennonite community. As the situation in Mexico is tense due to the drug war, the Applicant and his family’s return to Mexico was not a viable option. They sought Permanent Residence in Canada on H&C grounds. Their application was accepted.
Z.A.’s family from Bosnia was denied refuge protection in Canada. They belonged to the Croatian minority and had to flee Bosnia during the civil war. In Croatia where they found temporary refuge, they were perceived as outsiders and subjected to discrimination and hardships. In Canada, once given permission to engage in employment, both parents quickly found good-paying jobs: he as a long distance truck driver; she in a food factory. The three children learned English and became well accepted in school. Given their sound establishment in Canada and the welfare of their children, and taking into account the hardships they would suffer as minorities if returned to Bosnia, their application for H&C was dealt with favorably.
The applicant, AC, came to Canada in January 2001 from Hungary and made a refugee claim, which was subsequently denied. Prior to submitting her H&C application, the applicant had been in Canada for 10 years and had given birth to a Canadian child. The applicant was also a well-settled and productive member of the society. Her H&C application was approved.
B.M.: The applicants were an inter-ethnic couple from Hungary. The male applicant was Roma and his wife was ethnic Hungarian. They came to Canada seeking refuge from discrimination, joblessness, and other hardships felt in Hungary. When their refugee claim was refused and they were scheduled for deportation, they went underground, afraid to appear for removal. They worked as construction site cleaners. Three years later, after their son was born, they could no longer hide underground and approached our firm for assistance. We assisted them in voluntarily surrendering themselves to Immigration authorities and submitted an H&C application based on their establishment in Canada, as well as the best interest of their Canadian born child, pointing to the fact that in Hungary, they would never be able to provide their child the same opportunity they would in Canada. Their H&C application for residence in Canada was dealt with favorably and they were granted permanent residence.
The male applicant, CL, came to Canada from Trinidad and Tobago as a temporary foreign worker and stayed for ten years. He married a Mexican, from the Mennonite community, who had a claim to Canadian citizenship but lost it due to the change in the citizenship laws. They were living in a Mennonite community in Southwestern Ontario, and wished to remain in Canada, where most of the female applicant’s family resided as Canadian citizens or permanent residents. They had Canadian born children and their other children had resided in Canada for a long time. If removed from Canada, he would be sent back to Trinidad and Tobago and she to Mexico, thus the family would have been split up. Both were well established and integrated into the Canadian society, especially the Mennonite community. Instead of returning to Mexico, where the country conditions are very unstable and unsafe, or Trinidad and Tobago, where the country is seeing unpatrolled levels of violence, crime and poverty, where the well-being of their children would have been compromised, they chose to apply for permanent residence, invoking H&C considerations and their application was granted.
M.B.: The applicants were an inter-ethnic family from the former state of Yugoslavia. The adult male applicant was from Croatia as were his sons. However, his wife, was an ethnic Croat from Bosnia & Herzegovina. The children were ill-treated in Croatia due to their mother coming from Bosnia. They were compelled to flee Croatia due to constant and pervasive discrimination, including their son being a victim of physical violence. They have since become productive members of Canadian society, and their H&C application was approved.
M.D.: The applicants were an elderly Catholic Syrian couple, who had come to Canada to visit with their son and his family. Syria was being ravaged by a civil war, and it was no longer safe for the applicants to return, as they were being targeted as members of a religious minority. The applicants’ children in Syria would not be able to provide for them. As there was no visible end to the war, the couple made a request to be allowed to remain with their son and his family in Canada permanently. Their application was allowed.
D.P.: The applicants were a young couple who had fled the instability and problems of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The male applicant had been in Canada since 2006 when he came to play soccer professionally. The female applicant was in the United States, joining her husband later. They learned English and integrated into Canadian society. The couple were working very hard and had amassed savings. They were financially stable and productive members of society. The applicants were very involved in the Serbian community and Church. Their H&C application was approved.
C.D.C.: The applicants were a family consisting of two adults and their two daughters that fled Guatemala due to political instability and corruption. The male applicant truly had a passion for his work: he worked as a dog groomer, and would take dogs for walks. However, he had to provide for his family, and so he took on work as a sales manager for a retail store. He kept in close contact with his friends from his previous job as a dog groomer, and established a network. Through his network of friends – his new Canadian family – the applicant and his family truly established themselves in Canadian culture, rooting for the local sports team, going camping, and spending time with friends during the holidays. The children also immersed themselves in their new multicultural environment in the GTA. They made an application for H&C, on the basis of their establishment. It was granted.
S.S.: The applicants left Croatia in March 2011 to come to Canada escaping serious discrimination and persecution they suffered due to their being from Bosnia. In Bosnia, the family could not live a normal life or be safe. They came to Canada to seek protection where people did not face discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion. In Canada, they became well established and productive members of society. While they sought asylum which was denied, their H&C application was approved.
A mother and her daughter of Hungarian Roma ethnicity came to Canada in 2009, with other family members. The whole extended family sought refugee protection on the basis of the persecution they suffered due to their ethnicity. Nine of the Applicants’ family members received protection but the applicants did not. The mother and daughter did not want to return to Hungary where they would suffer undue hardship. The applicants had integrated well in Canada with their extended family, including learning both official languages. Their H&C application was granted.
M.A. & D.A. Two brothers and their families, who were Croatians from Bosnia and Herzegovina, made refugee claims in Canada. Although what drove them out from their countries of citizenship was not considered to be persecution under S. 96 and S.97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the overall situation they would face if they returned would subject them to undeserved or disproportionate hardship. The families had several children, some who were born in Canadian. They also took English classes, upgraded their skills and secured good jobs in the trades and otherwise had successfully adapted to the Canadian society. Their H&C applications were both accepted.
The female Applicant was born and raised in Philippines and was targeted by communist fractions in the Philippines. She hired an unregulated ghost consultant, whom she believed to be a lawyer to assist her with her refugee claim. She was deceived into believing that he was authorized and capable of representing her and charged her thousands of dollars while ghosting on her files. Needless to say, her refugee claim was rejected and she was scheduled to be deported. She approached our firm to help her stop the deportation. We did. We also helped her submit a humanitarian and compassionate application to obtain permanent residence which was approved.
G.P.: The applicants, a family of Bosnian Croats, had sought refuge in Croatia after being displaced by Muslim forces during the Yugoslav wars that resulted in the breakup of Yugoslavia. However, as the social unrest and nationalist tensions continued to be high in Croatia, as Bosnians they suffered from deep discrimination and resulting hardship. Due to this reality they eventually fled the former Yugoslavia and sought refuge in Canada. Although their refugee claim was denied, they applied for permanent residence from within Canada, as they would suffer discrimination and hardship in Croatia, while in Canada they had developed strong ties to the community. Their H&C application was approved and they became permanent residents of Canada.
S.M.: The applicant was a single 44 year old Muslim woman from India. She spent some 20 years taking care of her sick mother. In fact, she even came to Canada to take care of her mother when she was very ill and in a coma for a number of years until her mother passed away. After years of taking care of her mother, the applicant was now too old to marry by Indian cultural norms, and there was nothing for her to return to in India: no prospects of employment and no shelter or security. She feared harassment, violence and serious discrimination against single women if she returned to India. We prepared an H&C application on her behalf which was accepted.
P.K.A.: The applicants were an elderly Indian couple. At their advanced age, they were becoming ever more reliant on the support of their children, who operated a well-known restaurant in Toronto. The elderly couple’s children in Canada were concerned to let their parents return to India due to their advanced age. They sought humanitarian and compassionate consideration and were approved to remain in Canada.
E.A.S.: The applicant was an Iranian Citizen of advanced age. She came to Canada to escape the abuse from her ex-husband. She made a claim for refugee protection which was found to be credible but denied on the issue of re-availement. She was living in Canada with her daughter and son-in-law and their two daughters. In light of her advanced years, she was hoping to spend as much of what remained of her life with her daughter and grandchildren in Canada and to avoid facing the repercussions of getting a divorce from her ex-husband in Iran. Her H&C application was granted.
A single mother and her three daughters from Bangladesh who were in Canada for almost 7 years had previously applied for humanitarian and compassionate consideration but were unsuccessful. We helped them seek the intervention of the Federal Court and have the H&C sent back for reconsideration. They had extended family in Canada. The two adult daughters found employment in the aeronautics industry and the dependent daughter was on track to graduate from high school in 2016, and offered admission to several prestigious Canadian Universities. If returned to Bangladesh, the achievements and success the Applicants had achieved in their life would be lost. Given all the positive factors in this case, the officer exercised positive discretion and granted the H&C application.
M.R. and his family fled Pakistan. Belonging to the Shia minority they were harassed and persecuted in their homecountry. Their refugee claim was rejected. They applied under the Humanitarian and Compassionate category and got approval in principle.
M.W. an elderly Ishmaeli Muslim from Pakistani came to Canada around 2009. She has strong family connections to Canada but if returned would be alone in Pakistan. Her family in Canada was well established and provided her support. The officer agreed that if she were to return to Pakistan she would be subjected to undue, undeserved and disproportionate hardship and approved her in principle.
MT came to Canada in October 1997 to study English. She met her ex-husband and married him in 2002, together they had a son. However, the relationship broke down and the couple officially divorced around April 2003. At that time, our client became a single mom caring for her son, and doing her absolute best to raise him. The child was about 8 years old when our client faced the reality of being removed from Canada. She faced the prospect of returning to Japan with her child, who is a mixed raced child, Afro-Japanese and was very concern of her child being a target of persecution and mistreatment in Japan because of the fact that the child is a visible minority. She applied for humanitarian and compassionate consideration for permanent residence and was accepted.
The applicant, a citizen of Iran of 76 years of age and a widower has only one daughter who lives in Canada with her husband and two children. Although his daughter had submitted a sponsorship application for him, it would take years before it is processed and permanent residence granted. We assisted him to ask the immigration authorities to allow him to remain in Canada and to grant him permanent residence on humanitarian grounds so he would not have to go back to Iran and be separated from his family. His exemption request was granted and he was approved.
The applicants are Russian Evangelical Christians who have been in Canada since 2001. As non-Orthodox they faced oppression and discrimination. Although their refugee claims were refused we assisted the family in their humanitarian application. In Canada, they had established themselves very well in the Evangelical Christian community in particular. They were self-sufficient and contributed positively to the Canadian society. Their application for permanent residence was accepted under the humanitarian and compassionate category and they became permanent residents of Canada.
The Applicants, a Hungarian couple, lived in Canada since 2002. They had sought Permanent Resident status, as well as an extension of their temporary status, but both were refused. They retained our firm around September 2010, to assist them in obtaining permanent residence to allow them to continue staying in Canada. We submitted an application under section 25 for humanitarian consideration. The couple is well established as a butcher and live-in caregiver, with two children married in Canada. Due to their extended stay in Canada, their children and grandchildren being in Canada, and their wide circle of friends in the Hungarian community, the immigration officer agreed with our submissions that it would cause undue hardship for the couple to sever their ties in Canada to return to Hungary. An exemption was granted and they became landed immigrants.
EYA came to Canada to visit her sister and to take a break. She had a tumultuous and difficult life in Korea. While visiting, she met and fell in love with a Canadian. They got married and operated a small restaurant. The husband filed a sponsorship application and her two sons moved to join their mother in Canada. Unfortunately, her husband had difficulty accepting her two sons in their relationship and unbeknownst to her, he withdrew his sponsorship application and left her. Our client was shocked and devastated with her two children to take care of. She returned to her sister’s house while she recuperated from her husband’s abrupt departure. She was able to pull herself together, find two jobs to support herself and her children. We presented her case for humanitarian consideration and both she and her sons were granted approval.
The Applicants born in Tanzania to Kenyan parents applied under the humanitarian and compassionate category. The Applicant and his wife were officially stateless and no longer recognized as citizens of Tanzania or Kenya. They have four children, who were well adjusted to life in Canada and flourishing in Canada. Their application was accepted.
The Applicant and his family are citizens of Guyana who were forced to flee their country for fear of their lives in 2006. He had a tailoring business in Guyana but was subjected to attacks and harassments due to tensions between the Indo-Afro communities. They came to Canada and established peaceful and productive lives here. Their claim for refugee protection was denied and they turned to our firm to help them seek permanent residence status. We applied on their behalf under the humanitarian category and they were approved and landed as permanent residents.
A family from Mexico fled to Canada when one of their sons refused to join the Mara Salvatrucha. Their refugee claim was refused and PRRA was refused but they were approved on their humanitarian application due to the establishment and ties they have made in Canada.