International Law

Federal Court Appearances

By immlawyer

I've appeared before the Federal Court on a number of occasions.

I was going through some of the reported decisions, and remember the work that was involved in getting them before the Court. I find Federal Court practice very challenging, and very rewarding.

One of the more memorable cases was Swarn Singh Sandhu v. Canada (MCI) [2005] FCJ No. 1294, where we were successful in having the decision of a visa officer set aside, largely on the grounds of 'inadequacy of reasons'.

Mr. Sandhu attempt to sponsor one of his two children was forestalled because of the operation of 117(9)(d) of the Regulations (essentially, by failing to list him as a 'dependant' child on his own application for permanent residence).

Another case, Sarkis v. Canada (MCI) FCJ No. 756, involved the breach of residency obligation by a permanent resident, and a negative decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, which oddly found little hardship in returning the appellant to her country of nationality (Iraq, as I recall, and not Jordan as indicated in the Federal Court judgment) and finding another viable country of return as Libya (where she had no status).

In Kaur v. Canada (MCI) FCJ No. 1306, the applicant's status as a widow from India was a central element of her claim for refugee protection. Corroborative evidence was provided post-hearing, but was not referred to (in fact, the decision seemed to indicate that the evidence in question was not provided) in the decision. While it was highly fact specific, the decision is disturbing as it indicate the very serious consequences flowing from a flawed decision (which can only be rectified by the Federal Court, which is no appeal - leave must be obtained, and is rarely given). What was especially strange here, was the fact that while the Board itself characterized the evidence as 'central', Respondent's counsel (the Department of Justice) reiterated that it was instead, peripheral (at odds then with the decision maker who had the benefit of hearing viva voce evidence and is 'specialized' in refugee determination). The Federal Court decision is brief, but to the point.

Full post as published by Canadian Immigration Blawg on December 08, 2008 (boomark / email).