| January - 2018 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sr. no. | Case Name | Topic | Decision |
| 1 | Malit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 16 | Work Permit Refusal – Financial capacity and employment ties were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 2 | Chamma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 29 | Work Permit Refusal – ICT eligibility and ties were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 3 | Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 72 | CEC Refusal – Innocent misrepresentation and consultant involvement were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 4 | Dimgba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 14 | Skilled Workers PR Refusal – Procedural fairness was breached over employment concerns | Successful |
| 5 | Asbagh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 85 | PR Refusal – Misrepresentation finding relied on an incorrect identity number | Successful |
| 6 | Xu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 9 | PR Reconsideration – Communication breakdown did not make refusal unreasonable | Unsuccessful |
| 7 | Catindig v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 92 | H&C & TRP Refusal – TRP request was not considered | Successful |
| 8 | Islam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 80 | Residency Obligation – Credibility and H&C factors were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 9 | Moretto v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 71 | Removal Stay – Automatic cancellation under s.68(4) did not violate Charter rights | Unsuccessful |
| 10 | Damir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 48 | Security Inadmissibility – Duress and membership were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 11 | Guo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 15 | Removal Order – The appeal was reasonably treated as abandoned after repeated non-response | Unsuccessful |
| 12 | Tong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 6 | Removal Stay – H&C factors and compliance with stay conditions were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 13 | Farghal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 3 | Citizenship Refusal – Residency evidence and credibility concerns supported the refusal | Unsuccessful |
| 14 | Emesiobi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 90 | Study Permit Refusal – Study plan and career change were not reasonably assessed | Successful |
| 15 | Taiwo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 91 | Study Permit Refusal – Career change and study purpose were unreasonably assessed | Successful |
| 16 | Igiewe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 101 | Spousal Sponsorship – Marriage genuineness findings were reasonably supported | Unsuccessful |
| 17 | Maduekwe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 75 | Family Sponsorship – Sponsor eligibility did not depend on the other sponsorship's success | Unsuccessful |
| 18 | Amandeep v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 27 | Spousal Sponsorship – Common-law status was reasonably established from objective evidence | Unsuccessful |
| 19 | Cordero v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 24 | Spousal Sponsorship – Procedural fairness was breached over inadmissibility concerns | Successful |
| 20 | Ferraro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 22 | Spousal Sponsorship – Marriage genuineness was unreasonably assessed | Successful |
| 21 | Cobina v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 8 | Spousal Sponsorship – Common-law status was reasonably determined from the evidence | Unsuccessful |
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and
Statistics Analyst





