| August - 2021 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sr. no. | Case Name | Topic | Decision |
| 1 | Quach v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 855 | Work Permit Refusal – Misrepresentation finding based on undisclosed U.S. visa cancellation | Unsuccessful |
| 2 | Hasham v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 881 | Work Permit Refusal – Misrepresentation finding based on employment history and previous visa refusal disclosure | Unsuccessful |
| 3 | Obafemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 886 | Work Permit Refusal – Misrepresentation finding contradicted application evidence and PFL response | Successful |
| 4 | Feng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 854 | Work Permit Refusal – Employment history inconsistencies supported misrepresentation finding | Unsuccessful |
| 5 | Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 828 | Work Permit Refusal – Innocent misrepresentation explanation was not properly assessed | Successful |
| 6 | Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 756 | PR Refusal – Procedural fairness breach prevented consideration of applicant submissions | Successful |
| 7 | Carrero v. Canada (Citizenshp and Immigration), 2021 FC 891 | PR Refusal – CSQ cancellation and application delays were improperly assessed | Successful |
| 8 | Ugboh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 876 | Express Entry PR Refusal – Primary occupation and work experience requirements were not satisfied | Unsuccessful |
| 9 | Sllamniku v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 893 | Exclusion Order – Officer reasonably found intention to remain permanently in Canada | Unsuccessful |
| 10 | Meza Camargo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 878 | IAD Removal Order – Criminality, rehabilitation and H&C factors were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 11 | Kim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 902 | H&C Refusal – Officer failed to assess family ties and child’s best interests | Successful |
| 12 | Pretashi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 817 | H&C Refusal – Establishment and hardship factors were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 13 | Y.A. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 840 | H&C Refusal – Establishment, medical and hardship factors were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 14 | Pham v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 757 | H&C Refusal – Family support and BIOC factors were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 15 | Madera v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 883 | H&C Refusal – Financial hardship and establishment factors were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 16 | Daniyan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 884 | H&C Refusal – Inadmissibility factors were not properly balanced with H&C considerations | Successful |
| 17 | Harris v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 833 | H&C Refusal – TRP issuance and removal concerns were reasonably considered | Unsuccessful |
| 18 | Liao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 857 | TRP Refusal – BIOC assessment did not properly consider children’s interests | Successful |
| 19 | Sangha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 760 | TRV Refusal – Financial evidence, ties and purpose of visit were unreasonably assessed | Successful |
| 20 | Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 841 | Study Permit Refusal – Credential concerns supported misrepresentation finding | Unsuccessful |
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst





