1,035 result(s)
-
351.
Oyerinde v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 53 - 2016-01-19
Federal Court Decisions[1] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA or the Act] of a decision by an immigration officer [the Officer] from the High Commission of Canada in the United Kingdom finding the Applicant inadmissible for permanent residence on [...] He applied for permanent residence in Canada under the skilled worker scheme. [...] FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7309-14 STYLE OF CAUSE:
-
352.
Tariq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 59 - 2016-01-19
Federal Court Decisions[1] Sadia Tariq, [the Applicant] has applied for judicial review of a Decision dated April 10, 2015 in which Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) refused her application for permanent residence in the Federal Skilled Worker category (the Decision). [...] She currently resides in Karachi with her husband. [3] The Applicant applied for permanent resident status (the PR Application) in December of 2014 in the occupation category “Dietitians & Nutritionists”. [...] This meant that she received 66 of the 67 points she needed to qualify for permanent residence.
-
353.
Seraj v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 38 - 2016-01-12
Federal Court DecisionsSC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] of a decision by an immigration officer [Officer] dated April 10, 2015, wherein the Officer rejected the Applicant’s permanent residence application under the Federal Skilled Worker class and held that the Applicant is inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA. [...] [4] The Applicant applied for permanent residence status under the Federal Skilled Worker class (NOC 2113) in May 2014. [...] FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2435-15 STYLE OF CAUSE:
-
354.
Rani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1414 - 2015-12-22
Federal Court DecisionsIn April 2013, the Principal Applicant applied to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) for permanent residence under the provincial nominee class, together with her husband and two children (“Applicants”). [...] [6] The Officer refused the Principal Applicant’s application for permanent residence on March 13, 2015. [...] FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1790-15 STYLE OF CAUSE:
-
355.
El Dor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1406 - 2015-12-21
Federal Court DecisionsShe submitted an application for a permanent resident visa in the “Quebec‑selected skill worker” class to settle in Canada with her husband and two minor children, Rayan and Jad. In October 2013 as part of Ms. El Dor’s application review, Jad, who is suffering from autism spectrum disorder, underwent a cognitive assessment [...] Ms. El Dor stressed that this assessment amounted to denying permanent residence in Canada to all persons who could require a special‑needs education in the country, regardless of their financial situation. [...] The decision of the officer who denied her application for permanent residence on health grounds is transparent and intelligible, and falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.
-
356.
Mohitian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1393 - 2015-12-17
Federal Court Decisions2. Did the Officer make unreasonable findings of fact in determining that the Applicant did not qualify for permanent residence in the self-employed category? [...] [14] Earlier in his affidavit (at paragraph 4) Mr. Milic also refers to Mr. Mohitian’s “application for a permanent resident visa as a member of the skilled worker [class]” (emphasis added), which is clearly incorrect. [...] B. Did the Officer make unreasonable findings of fact in determining that the Applicant did not qualify for permanent residence in the self-employed category?
-
357.
Yasmin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1346 - 2015-12-04
Federal Court DecisionsOtherwise the granting of permanent residency would be based upon a contingent outcome in the future. [...] 791 cited by the Applicants where it was found that the officer was applying the criteria from the skilled worker class is distinguishable inasmuch as there is no suggestion here that a language skill is not relevant to being able to perform the job, whether or not it is also a factor for a skilled worker NOC evaluation. [...] FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-8464-14 STYLE OF CAUSE:
-
358.
Osba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1294 - 2015-11-19
Federal Court Decisions[1] Mr Kefah Abu Osba arrived in Canada in 2003 with his wife and son as a permanent resident under the federal skilled worker program. [...] II. The Residency Requirement [7] IRPA states that a permanent resident will meet the obligation to reside in Canada if he or she is physically present for at least 730 days during a five-year period (s 28(2)(a)(i). [...] (a) a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are
-
359.
Waraich v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1289 - 2015-11-19
Federal Court Decisions72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA or the Act] challenging a decision by an Immigration Officer from the Immigration and Medical Services Division of the High Commission of Canada in London, U.K. [the Officer] refusing the Applicant’s skilled worker permanent resident visa application. [...] On May 18, 2010, the Applicant applied for a permanent resident visa as skilled worker under the Information Systems Manager (NOC 0231) occupation. [...] FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1600-15 STYLE OF CAUSE:
-
360.
Ocampo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1290 - 2015-11-18
Federal Court DecisionsIn 2015, the applicant applied for permanent residence on H&C grounds, based on his degree of establishment in Canada, his personal relationships in Canada and Colombia, and his fear of discrimination in Colombia as an Afro-Colombian. [...] [3] The Officer did not find the applicant’s personal circumstances were such that the requirement of having to obtain a permanent resident visa from outside Canada would constitute unusual or disproportionate hardship. [...] FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1721-15 STYLE OF CAUSE:
-
361.
Zahid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1263 - 2015-11-10
Federal Court Decisions[1] Ms. Zahid’s application for a permanent resident visa was denied. [...] [5] As a provincial nominee, her application fell within the Federal Skilled Worker Class of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. [...] Section 87 thereof provides that this class is “... a class of persons who may become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada.” Section 87(3) of the Regulations goes on to provide that the certificate, in this case the one issued by Saskatchewan, may not be a sufficient
-
362.
Sharma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1253 - 2015-11-05
Federal Court Decisions[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the First Secretary (Immigration) of the High Commission of Canada in New Delhi, India, dated February 15, 2014, wherein the First Secretary refused the applicant’s application for a permanent resident visa in Canada under the federal skilled worker category [...] He submitted an application for permanent residence in Canada under the federal skilled worker class. [...] This employment was used to fulfill the work experience requirement under the federal skilled worker program.
-
363.
Majeed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1204 - 2015-10-26
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Applicant applied in 2004 in the skilled worker category for a permanent residence visa. [...] [3] This is not the first time the Applicant has sought judicial review of his application for permanent residence. [...] [5] It is noteworthy that neither the 1st nor the 2nd CTR contain any notes entered into the Global Case Management System [GCMS] by the medical officers who reviewed the Applicant’s application for permanent residence.
-
364.
Paul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1179 - 2015-10-19
Federal Court DecisionsIn October 2014, the Applicant applied for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker class and identified, in his application, Senior Manager under two separate managerial occupations (NOC 0013 and NOC 0015) but only identified NOC 0015 as is current occupation. [...] [7] The assessment by an Officer of the Applicant’s eligibility to permanent residence pursuant to the Federal Skilled Worker class is a determination of mixed fact and law reviewable under a standard of reasonableness (Ansari v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 849; Shirazi, above). [...] [8] It is well established that a high degree of deference is owed to decisions of an Officer on an assessment of an application for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker class (Katebi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 813 at para 36 [Katebi]; Shirazi, above at para 15; Taleb, above
-
365.
Abid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1160 - 2015-10-14
Federal Court Decisions[1] Ms. Abid, a single mother with two minor children, sought to emigrate from Pakistan as a permanent resident. [...] She applied within the federal skilled worker class of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, more particularly as a member of a subset thereof, the Provincial Nominee Class. [...] 1. The application for judicial review of the decision of the visa officer, dated 11 November 2014, denying the applicant’s provincial nominee class permanent residence application is dismissed.
-
366.
Hardy Estate v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FC 1151 - 2015-10-08
Federal Court Decisions[40] In Samimifar, the plaintiff sought damages for failure of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to process his claim for permanent residence in a timely way. [...] Mr. Samimifar arrived in Canada in 1985 and for some 21 years while in Canada sought legal status as a permanent resident. [...] Through “inattention, inaction, and delay” his application did not proceed in a timely way and finally in 2003 he was denied permanent residence status on the grounds that he was a member of a terrorist organization.
-
367.
Shaukat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1120 - 2015-09-25
Federal Court DecisionsThe High Commission received the applicant’s application for permanent residency under the provincial nominee class in November of 2013. [...] Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Province of Saskatchewan’s statements relating to the availability of employment in Saskatchewan and the demand for skilled workers was contrary to the finding of the officer that the applicant will be unable to find work and become economically established in Canada. [...] FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-8237-14 STYLE OF CAUSE:
-
368.
Ransanz v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2015 FC 1109 - 2015-09-23
Federal Court Decisions9. (1) Where a province has, under a federal-provincial agreement, sole responsibility for the selection of a foreign national who intends to reside in that province as a permanent resident, the following provisions apply to that foreign national, unless the agreement provides otherwise: [...] [19] The respondent further argues that different requirements apply for applicants falling within the Provincial Nominee Class as a class of skilled workers, and for those who are selected by the province as investors. [...] [27] To summarize, under the IRPA, it is the federal government who has the final authority to grant permanent resident visas to foreign nationals.
-
369.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1088 - 2015-09-17
Federal Court Decisions[8] On December 14, 2006, Mr. Raghani’s application for permanent residence was approved. [...] [21] Second, the applicant submits that she met the requirements of a federal skilled worker on her own. [...] [30] Third, the respondent submits whether the applicant was a skilled worker is irrelevant because she did not arrive in Canada based on an independent application as a skilled worker.
-
370.
Chaudhry v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1072 - 2015-09-11
Federal Court DecisionsThe permanent resident visa application was subsequently transferred to the High Commission for consideration. [...] [24] The respondent also submits that Rezaeiazar is not on point, because it related to qualifications under a federal skilled worker application, in which the Court noted that the selection criteria do not apply to the provincial nominee class in the same way they do to federal skilled workers. [...] [26] In order to immigrate to Canada as a permanent resident, a foreign national must file a permanent resident visa application within a family class or economic class or as a refugee (s. 12 of the IRPA).
-
371.
Guerrero v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1048 - 2015-09-04
Federal Court DecisionsHe applied for permanent residence in November 2010 under the Federal Skilled Worker Program. [...] [6] On November 15, 2013, Guerrero attended the port of entry at Carway, Alberta to finalize his permanent residence. [...] [12] As a result, the application for permanent residence was refused and the Applicant was found to be inadmissible to Canada for a period of five years from the date of the letter and pursuant to subsection 40(3) of the IRPA. He may not apply for permanent resident status during this five year period.
-
372.
De Azeem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1043 - 2015-09-02
Federal Court Decisionsand Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], seeking to set aside a decision, rendered on August 4, 2014 by a visa officer at the Embassy of Canada in Mexico whereby the application for a permanent resident visa within the Federal Skilled Worker Class of Ms. Maria Isabel Angel de Azeem (the applicant) was refused. [...] [8] On July 8, 2011, Ms. Angel de Azeem filed an application for a permanent resident visa within the Federal Skilled Worker Class, with her two daughters as dependents. [...] [24] The visa officer’s evaluation of the permanent resident visa application in the Federal Skilled Worker Class and determination that the applicant is inadmissible for misrepresentation engages questions of fact and mixed law and fact.
-
373.
Dhaliwal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1010 - 2015-08-26
Federal Court Decisions[5] On May 21, 2010, the Applicant, a citizen of India, filed an application for permanent residence under the Federal Investor Class. [...] The applicants in that case challenged a similar provision, section 87.4(1) of the Act, which had terminated permanent resident visa applications of foreign nationals who applied before February 27, 2008 as members of the Federal Skilled Worker class. [...] Shukla was an early ruling on section 87 of the Act, where a Federal Skilled Worker applicant, who had filed at the New Delhi Visa office, declined a refund of fees from New Delhi when the law changed, and resubmitted his application with new forms.
-
374.
Kim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 122 - 2015-08-19
Federal Court Decisions[1] In a decision dated March 27, 2014 [the Decision], the Applicant’s application for permanent residence as a skilled federal worker was refused because a Visa Officer [the Officer] decided (i) that the Applicant and her husband were inadmissible for two years because they had made a material misrepresentation; and (ii) [...] This concerns your application for permanent residence in Canada. Upon review of your case, the following documents for Sewoon Choi are required: [...] 36. (2) Emportent, sauf pour le résident permanent, interdiction de territoire pour criminalité les faits suivants :
-
375.
Rezvani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 951 - 2015-08-06
Federal Court Decisions[1] This is an application for judicial review of the June 8, 2012 decision (the Decision) of a Visa Officer (the Officer), which refused the applicant’s application for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) program. [...] According to Operational Bulletin 120 - June 15, 2009, Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) Applications – Procedures for Visa Offices, descriptions of duties taken verbatim from the NOC are to be regarded as self-serving. [...] [27] I therefore find that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the Officer’s processing of the applicant’s application for permanent residence.