Explore Brij Mohan & Associates’ immigration trial experience, including immigration appeal cases, Federal Court immigration cases and reported immigration decisions. This archive highlights decades of immigration litigation, appeals and reviews before Canadian tribunals and courts.
Preserved
Published Record
Immigration Matters
Canadian Decisions
This archive retains every linked decision from the firm’s existing Immigration Trial Experience page. Select a time period below, then open any case to read the original published decision.
A case summary does not replace the complete reasons. The full decision may contain facts, procedure and legal limits not repeated here.
ABOUT THE DECISIONS
These immigration case studies summarize selected reported decisions connected with Brij Mohan & Associates. The matters include family sponsorship appeals, removal-order appeals, temporary-resident applications, work and study permits, and Federal Court judicial reviews.
Immigration decisions depend on the evidence, the legal test and the record before the decision-maker. A result in one matter does not predict the result in another. Some decisions allow an appeal, some dismiss it, and others return an application for a new decision.
For advice about an immigration refusal, appeal or court application, call Brij Mohan & Associates toll-free at 1 (800) 871-1196 to request a confidential consultation.
Call Brij Mohan & Associates to request a confidential consultation.
BEFORE YOU BEGIN
Canadian immigration case studies provide a short account of the issue, the evidence and the outcome. Immigration case summaries do not replace the complete reasons. The full decision may contain important facts, procedural details and legal limits that are not repeated here.
Immigration appeal decisions and IAD appeal cases are decided by the Immigration Appeal Division. The IAD hears eligible appeals involving refused family sponsorships, removal orders, residency obligations and certain decisions challenged by the Minister.
Federal Court immigration cases are different. In immigration judicial review cases, the Court reviews the legality or fairness of a decision. If an application succeeds, the usual remedy is to set aside the decision and send the matter back for reconsideration. The Court does not usually issue the requested visa itself.
Spousal sponsorship appeal cases often focus on whether a marriage or partnership is genuine and whether it was entered into mainly to obtain immigration status. Family sponsorship decisions may examine testimony, travel, communication, financial support, family knowledge and future plans.
Removal and admissibility cases may involve misrepresentation, criminality or another ground of inadmissibility. Deportation appeal cases can also require the IAD to weigh establishment in Canada, rehabilitation, family support, hardship and the best interests of a child.
Recent reported decisions concerning removal, family sponsorship and continued application processing.
A permanent resident appealed a deportation order based on serious criminality after a conviction for assault with a weapon. He accepted that the removal order was legally valid and asked the IAD to stay his removal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The IAD accepted a joint recommendation for a stay of two and a half years. The decision considered the seriousness of the offence, remorse, rehabilitation, establishment in Canada, family support, hardship and the best interests of three children. The stay included reporting, treatment and crime-free conditions, followed by a future review.
A Canadian citizen appealed the refusal of her husband’s permanent resident application. A visa officer had concluded that the marriage was not genuine and that its main purpose was to secure immigration status. An earlier IAD dismissal had already been set aside by the Federal Court, leading to a new hearing.
The appeal was allowed. The IAD accepted the testimony and considered repeated visits to India, the spouses’ knowledge of each other, continuing communication, family acceptance and consistent future plans. The refusal was set aside, and an officer was directed to continue processing the application.
This matter involved an appeal from the refusal of a sponsored permanent resident visa. After reviewing the appeal and the parties’ consent or joint recommendation, the IAD allowed the appeal in law.
The officer’s refusal was set aside, and processing of the application was directed to continue. The concise decision shows that an immigration appeal may resolve through a joint recommendation when the evidence and legal position support that result.
A Canadian citizen appealed after a visa officer refused the sponsorship application for his wife. The refusal raised concerns about two previous marriages, the couple’s compatibility and an undisclosed anonymous allegation that money had been paid for the marriage.
The IAD allowed the appeal. The couple gave consistent evidence about the development of the relationship. Return visits, ongoing communication, financial support and knowledge of each other also supported genuineness. The anonymous letter received no weight because it was not filed as evidence at the hearing.
Selected decisions involving the legal definition, genuineness and purpose of family relationships.
The sponsor appealed the refusal of a permanent-resident application made by his conjugal partner and their two children. The IAD had to decide whether the applicant met the regulatory definition of a conjugal partner and whether the relationship was genuine rather than created for immigration purposes.
The IAD found that the definition was met. It also accepted that the relationship was genuine and was not entered into for immigration purposes. The appeal was allowed, the refusal was set aside, and the application was returned for continued processing.
A sponsor appealed the refusal of her spouse’s permanent-resident application. The decision addressed the legal test for determining whether a marriage is genuine and whether it was entered into primarily to obtain a status or privilege under immigration law.
The IAD found sufficient credible evidence that the marriage was genuine and was not entered into mainly for immigration purposes. The appeal was allowed, the refusal was set aside, and processing was directed to continue.
A sponsor appealed the refusal of her spouse’s permanent-resident application. The IAD examined whether the marriage was genuine and whether it had been entered into primarily for immigration status. Credibility became central because the oral evidence conflicted with documents about disability assistance, employment and other circumstances.
The appeal was dismissed. The IAD found that the contradictory evidence weakened the reliability of the account and that the sponsor had not met the required burden. This decision demonstrates why accurate documents, candid testimony and clear explanations for inconsistencies are essential in sponsorship litigation.
Selected Federal Court decisions involving work permits, temporary visas, study permits and procedural fairness.
A foreign national challenged the refusal of a work-permit application connected with employment as a live-in child-care worker. The visa officer questioned the financial reason for hiring a caregiver and focused on one employer’s income without adequately addressing the combined household income and the approved labour-market assessment.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review. The refusal was set aside, and a different officer was directed to reconsider the application. The decision highlights the need for transparent reasons that respond to the evidence and explain the basis for a refusal.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review. The reasons had misunderstood the purpose of the visit and did not explain why evidence of an established business was insufficient. The application was returned to a different visa officer for expedited reconsideration, with permission to provide additional material.
An international student applied to restore a study permit and co-op work permit. The officer treated exemptions from several courses as reducing the academic portion of the program, which made the work component appear to exceed the permitted share.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review. The decision found that course exemptions did not necessarily change the program itself and that the applicant should have had an opportunity to address the concern. The matter was sent to a different officer for a new decision.
An applicant sought judicial review after a temporary-resident visa was refused. He planned an exploratory business visit to British Columbia and argued that his finances, business interests and family ties to India supported his intention to leave Canada after the authorized stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. It found the officer’s decision reasonable and found no breach of procedural fairness. The applicant had to present sufficient objective evidence with the application, and the officer was not required to request clarification of a deficient record.
Removal and Misrepresentation Appeals
2017 CanLII 23092 (CA IRB)
A permanent resident appealed a removal order based on misrepresentation. The IAD considered whether the order was legally valid and whether humanitarian and compassionate factors justified special relief.
The IAD found the removal order valid and dismissed the appeal. It considered the circumstances of the misrepresentation, establishment, family relationships, hardship and the best interests of the affected children. The decision shows that family hardship is important but must be weighed with every other relevant factor.
Strong immigration evidence does more than add volume to a file. It answers the legal questions that control the application or appeal. Relationship evidence should address genuineness and purpose. Temporary-resident evidence should address the proposed visit, finances and reasons to leave Canada. Removal appeals require proof about establishment, rehabilitation, family impact and hardship.
Decision-makers compare forms, letters, financial records, travel history, interview answers and hearing testimony. An inconsistency may be explainable, but it should be identified and addressed. Evidence that is accurate, organized and supported by independent records is easier to assess.
Strong immigration evidence does more than add volume to a file. It answers the legal questions that control the application or appeal. Relationship evidence should address genuineness and purpose. Temporary-resident evidence should address the proposed visit, finances and reasons to leave Canada. Removal appeals require proof about establishment, rehabilitation, family impact and hardship.
An appeal may allow the IAD to hear evidence and decide the merits within its jurisdiction. Judicial review asks whether the decision-making process or result meets the applicable legal standard. Choosing the correct procedure is important because the available evidence, deadlines and remedies are different.
Immigration statutes, regulations, policies and tribunal procedures change. An older decision may remain useful, but its legal test must be checked against the law in force today. Current advice should be based on the present rules and the facts of the individual matter.
An immigration case study is a plain-language summary of a reported immigration decision. It usually identifies the application or appeal, the main issue, the evidence considered and the result.
The Immigration Appeal Division, or IAD, is part of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. It hears eligible sponsorship, removal-order and residency-obligation appeals, as well as certain appeals brought by the Minister.
An eligible sponsor may appeal a refused family-class permanent-resident visa to the IAD. Appeal rights and limits depend on the refusal ground, the relationship and the applicable legislation. Deadlines can be short, so legal advice should be obtained promptly.
The refusal is set aside, and the application returns to an immigration officer for continued processing. An allowed appeal does not remove every remaining requirement. Medical, security, identity and other admissibility checks may still apply.
Judicial review is a Federal Court process that examines an immigration decision for reviewable error. An applicant must first obtain leave. If the Court allows the application, the usual remedy is reconsideration by a different decision-maker.
Usually, no. The Federal Court generally sets aside an unlawful or unfair refusal and returns the matter for a new decision. The responsible officer or tribunal then decides the application again.
Yes. A conviction can lead to an inadmissibility report or removal order and may restrict appeal rights. The offence, possible sentence, actual sentence and immigration status can all matter. Criminal and immigration advice should be coordinated early.
No. Previous cases can explain legal principles, but they do not guarantee an outcome. Each decision depends on the governing law, the evidence and the decision-maker’s findings.
Brij Mohan & Associates
Brij Mohan & Associates serves clients through offices in Surrey, Brampton, Calgary and Edmonton. The firm assists with immigration applications, sponsorship matters, admissibility issues, immigration appeals and Federal Court proceedings.
Speak with the legal team about an immigration refusal, appeal or court application. Call 1 (800) 871-1196 or contact Brij Mohan & Associates online to request a confidential consultation.
