| February - 2020 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sr. no. | Case Name | Topic | Decision |
| 1 | Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 279 | Study Permit Refusal – Prerequisite course was unreasonably disregarded | Successful |
| 2 | Mekhissi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 230 | Study Permit Refusal – Motivation finding was unreasonably explained | Successful |
| 3 | Musadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 316 | Study Permit Refusal – Family ties and study plan were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 4 | Nimely v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 282 | Study Permit Refusal – Study plan, ties and finances were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 5 | Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 262 | Study Permit Extension – Third-party document did not support misrepresentation | Successful |
| 6 | Mekhissi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 230 | Study Permit Refusal – The motivation finding was unreasonable | Successful |
| 7 | Ul Zaman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 268 | Work Permit Refusal – Family ties and job offer were overlooked | Successful |
| 8 | Ponican v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 232 B10 | Work Permit Refusal – Language, training and experience concerns were reasonable | Unsuccessful |
| 9 | Sheikh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 199 B12 | Parent Sponsorship – Typographical discrepancy did not make refusal unreasonable | Unsuccessful |
| 10 | Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ogunseitan, 2020 FC 194 | Misrepresentation – “Could have induced” test was not properly applied | Successful |
| 11 | Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 244 | Misrepresentation Refusal – Procedural fairness was breached over PFL notice | Successful |
| 12 | Lopez Bidart v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 307 | H&C Refusal – Spousal separation was overlooked and establishment was misweighed | Successful |
| 13 | Abdelsalam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 195 | H&C Refusal – Gender risk and mental health were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 14 | Abraham v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 246 | H&C Refusal – Identity finding lacked evidentiary support | Successful |
| 15 | Egwuonwu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 231 | H&C Refusal – BIOC and medical evidence were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 16 | Osun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 295 | H&C Refusal – BIOC was improperly replaced with a hardship analysis | Successful |
| 17 | Lopez Bidart v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 307 | H&C Refusal – Spousal separation and establishment were not properly assessed | Successful |
| 18 | Lada v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 270 | H&C Refusal – Establishment and BIOC evidence were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
| 19 | Garcia Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 300 | H&C Refusal – State protection and hardship findings were reasonably assessed | Unsuccessful |
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst





