Reported Decisions

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.

Parental Sponsorship Appeal – MNI income requirement - Ho v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 138288 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/j85xg>

The appellant, appealed a visa officer’s refusal of her sponsorship application for her father, mother, and her younger sister. At that time, her two younger brothers were not included as accompanying the principal applicant to Canada because they were "over-age" and no longer dependents.

The visa officer found the family relationships between the appellant and the applicants to be genuine and bona fide. However, the refusal was based on the fact that the appellant did not meet the Minimum Necessary Income (MNI) threshold required for sponsorship under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) at the time of the determination. Despite the shortfall, the appeal was allowed based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) considerations. Her strong commitment to supporting her family, the credible testimony about her readiness to accommodate the applicants in Canada, and the fact that her income and her husband’s combined income exceeded the 2018 MNI requirement were all positive factors.

The panel accepted that the family would be able to support themselves in Canada without becoming a burden. The appellant’s determination in pursuing the application, the positive impact on family reunification, and the best interests of the child were also considered in allowing the appeal. Despite the legal validity of the refusal, sufficient H&C grounds were found to overcome the appellant's failure to meet the MNI, leading to the appeal being allowed.

Residency Obligation - s.28 IRPA - Culum v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 134215 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jlj32>

The applicant became a permanent resident of Canada on July 8, 2014. However, she spent significant time outside Canada, eventually returning to Bosnia and Herzegovina on March 30, 2019. On August 31, 2020, she applied for a travel document to return to Canada, but her request was denied because she had not met the residency obligation outlined in s.28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which requires a permanent resident to be physically present in Canada for at least 730 days within a five-year period, she had only spent 348 days in Canada. Although she acknowledged her non-compliance with the residency obligation, she sought special relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under section 67(1)(c) of the Act.

During the hearing, Culum and her son testified. The extent of her non-compliance and her lack of establishment in Canada were noted as negative factors. Despite this, her strong family ties in Canada, particularly with her son and grandchildren, were recognized as significant positive factors. The tribunal was satisfied that she was ready to reside in Canada permanently and could successfully integrate into the country.Given her close relationship with her Canadian family and the importance of family reunification as an objective of the Act, the panel found sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to grant special relief, allowing her appeal.

Authorization to Return – s.52(1) IRPA - Spousal Appeal - Kemenczy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 24239 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/h3fvb>

The Immigration Appeal Division reviewed the appeal of the appellant regarding the refusal to grant a permanent resident visa to his wife. Although the visa officer acknowledged that their marriage was genuine and not entered into for immigration purposes, the officer refused to issue the wife an authorization to return to Canada, as she had been deported in 2013.

Initially, the appellant and the Minister held opposing positions, with the appellant challenging the refusal on legal and humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. However, after hearing the appellant's emotional testimony and finding him to be a credible witness, the Minister partially shifted his position. The Minister maintained that the refusal was legally valid but agreed that the appellant's circumstances aligned with those in the Chirwa case, warranting reconsideration despite the applicant's immigration history.The Board in assessing the appellant's testimony, also found him credible and compelling. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on H&C grounds.

Residency Obligation Appeal - non-compliance – s.28 IRPA - Ashtar v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 CanLII 27460 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/h3nxb>

The appellant appealed a departure order issued against him under section 41(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) for not meeting his residency obligations under section 28 of IRPA. The appellant had been present in Canada for only 228 days out of the required 730, making his non-compliance significant. The appellant explained that after initially landing in Canada, he had returned to the UAE due to family obligations and children’s schooling. He had to sponsor his family from Syria to the UAE and maintain employment there to support them. This process delayed his ability to settle in Canada. The panel found his reasons credible and considered them a positive factor.

The Panel allowed the appeal considered his immediate family, excluding his eldest son, was in Canada. The panel recognized the emotional hardship his family would face due to long-term separation. The panel found the Minister’s Delegate’s decision and the Departure Order legally valid but determined that, given the best interests of the children and other humanitarian considerations, there were sufficient grounds that warrant special relief.

Residency Obligation Appeal - non-compliance – s.28 IRPA - Abdou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 CanLII 87318 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/gw3b4>

The appellant was born in Egypt and had become a permanent resident of Canada on October 20, 2006, with his wife and four children, all of whom were Canadian citizens residing in London, Ontario. The appellant, a cardiologist, spent most of his career in Saudi Arabia. His wife was also a doctor, and two of their children were born in Saudi Arabia. 

On the day of the hearing, the Minister expressed willingness to consent to the appeal, after asking a series of key questions of the appellant. Subsequently, the Minister agreed that there were compelling humanitarian and compassionate grounds to support the appeal. The panel accepted the joint recommendation of counsels and allowed the appeal.

Residency Obligation Appeal – non-compliance – s.28 IRPA - Gaza, Palestine - Omar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 132386 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/hxqdz>

The appellants are all citizens of Palestine. They appealed the decision made by a visa officer on January 10, 2017, which determined that they had not complied with the residency obligation as permanent residents (PRs) under section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). They conceded that they had been physically present in Canada for fewer than the required 730 days during the relevant five-year period. The principal co-appellant had met 21% of the residency requirement, while the others had met only 2.5%, resulting in significant shortfalls.

Counsel for the co-appellants submitted that the circumstances keeping the co-appellants outside of Canada were largely beyond their control, emphasizing that the principal co-appellant's primary motivation was to protect his family from the harsh realities of Gaza. The tribunal concurred with counsel that these appeals present unique circumstances leading to a breach of residency obligations. The departures from Canada and the prolonged stays outside the country were found to be directly related to health concerns, the birth of their daughter in Gaza without legal status in Canada, travel difficulties, and the parents' responsibility to protect their newborn daughter. These reasons were considered positive factors in the assessment of the H&C considerations. However, their lack of establishment in Canada was viewed as a negative factor, while the support from the Canadian community was a minimally positive factor. The hardship experienced by the appellants and the need to protect the children from the ongoing crisis in Gaza were significant positive factors. The appeals were allowed. The Immigration Appeal Division found that the appellants had not lost their permanent resident status.

Removal Order Appeal – s.44(1) Misrepresentation - Simbahan v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2020 CanLII 53055 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/j91jc>

The appellant became a permanent resident status in Canada on February 23, 2012. Immigration authorities determined that the appellant had a dependent child born on August 9, 2011, and he had failed to declare the child at the time he was granted permanent residence, causing an error in the administration of the Act. The appellant did not challenge the legal validity of the exclusion order but sought special relief on humanitarian and compassionate (“H&C”) grounds under section 67(1)(c) of the Act before the Immigration Appeal Division.

The tribunal found the appellant did not demonstrate remorse for his misrepresentation, which was considered a negative factor in his appeal. However, the seriousness of his conduct was deemed low. His time in Canada, where he has been well-established and consistently employed, was viewed as a moderately positive factor. While the appellant has strong family ties to the Philippines, he also has strong ties in Canada, including community support and a supportive employer. He would face some hardship if forced to return to the Philippines, and the best interests of his children would be served by reuniting with him and their mother in Canada. Based on these considerations, sufficient H&C grounds were found to justify granting special relief, and the appeal was allowed.

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 (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.

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
(s.44 Report)

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 principal appellant (PA) is a single mother from the Bahamas accompanied by her children. She alleges that unknown people affiliated to local gangs sought to retaliate against the PA and her family following the murder of her late partner. The appellants testified that they have been threatened repeatedly. The PA’s daughter was also shot on the street but survived.

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) considered the murder of the PA’s late partner was established but there was insufficient credible evidence that the family has been targeted subsequently. The RPD determined the threats they faced was largely based on concerns with the supporting evidence tendered.

The appellants presented new evidence on appeal pursuant to s.110(4) of the IRPA and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) accepted these documents relating to deficiencies that were before the RPD. The RAD found that the RPD’s assessment of their evidence was microscopic, and the new evidence appears credible. They also found that there was inadequate state protection available to the appellants that were targeted by gang violence due to a system-wide corruption. Having found that the appellants were credible, and that state-protection would not be available to them in the Bahamas, the RAD allowed the appeal and declared the appellants as persons in need of protection.

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.