Federal Court


Officer failed to provide reasons why applicants would not face persecution in Afghanistan

Application for judicial review of officer’s decision refusing applicants’ application for permanent residence under Convention Refugees Abroad and Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad category. Principal applicant, and his wife, and their children were citizens of Afghanistan who claimed to be resident in Pakistan. Applicants say they fled Afghanistan for Pakistan sometime around 1982 as result of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Applicants were sponsored by group of Canadian citizens. Officer decided applicants were resident in Afghanistan and not refugees residing in Pakistan. Officer further found applicants did not have well founded fear of persecution. Application granted. Decision was set aside. Matter was remitted for redetermination by different immigration officer. Officer erred in his credibility finding and failed to provide reasons to find why applicants would not face persecution in Afghanistan. Officer’s finding that applicants were not members of either Convention Refugee Abroad class or Country of Asylum class was unreasonable.

Hussaini v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

(Feb. 21, 2012, F.C., Mandamin J., File No. IMM-4343-11) 213 A.C.W.S. (3d) 731 (14 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?