• NEWS & LEGAL CENTER - Immigration - Refugee Law - Case Law - Toronto Immigration Law, Toronto Refugee Law, Levine Associates - Firm News - Toronto Immigration Law, Toronto Refugee, Levine Associates, Blog

The Trumpist Contagion

The Trumpist Contagion?   The sequence of facts I am about to reveal sounds so far fetched, so Orwellian in its bureaucratic absurdity that one would assume I am either writing a piece of fiction or describing a sequence of events in some far off dysfunctional country in Africa or the Middle East.  Sadly, this…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Immigration Refugee Law Case Law Toronto Immigration Law, Toronto Refugee Law, Levine Associates Firm News Toronto Immigration Law, Toronto Refugee, Levine Associates, Blog |

Understanding the “First Safe Country” Concept and Why it’s Obsolete

  Understanding the “First Safe Country” Concept and Why it’s Obsolete Until the Syrian refugee crisis, it was accepted by those who practice refugee law that a claimant’s failure to make a claim in the First Safe Country—also known as Forum Shopping—could be interpreted by decision makers as evidence that a claimant lacked a subjective…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Refugee Law In the Media Case Law Toronto Immigration Law, Toronto Refugee Law, Levine Associates Toronto Immigration Law, Toronto Refugee, Levine Associates, Blog |

Board Abolishes Screening Forms

In the recent case of Zhen Xiang, 2013, FC 256, lawyers from Levine Associates argued that the Board member had erred by failing to put the claimant on notice, prior to the hearing, that it had concerns about the accuracy of the photograph in the claimant’s Resident Identity Card. The Court noted that the Screening…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Refugee Law Case Law |

Success at the Federal Court – Ye, Cungui v. M.C.I. – IMM-9703-11

Mr. Justice Zinn has handed down a very clear decision accepting the claimant’s application for Judicial Review.   The Court concluded that the Board’s decision was wholly based on a misinterpretation of the CHN42444.  Mr. Justice Zinn noted that unlike some of the other cases dealing with the issue of summonses, in the present case…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Jie Ming Ma V. M.C.I., Imm-5821-11

Facts:  Claimant is a Christian and sought protection because of religious persecution in China.  The panel accepted the claimant was a genuine Christian but did not accept that he was being sought by the police in China.  The panel’s finding in this regard was based upon its finding that the summons tendered by the claimant…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Li Hua Su v. M.C.I., 2012 FC 586

Facts: The applicant is a Christian from Guangdong province and fears returning to China for reasons of religious persecution.  The panel accepted the applicant was a genuine Christian.  The only issue was whether she would face persecution upon return to China.  The RPD determined that if the applicant was to return to her home province…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Yu Chen v. M.C.I., 2012 FC 510

Yu Chen v. M.C.I., 2012 FC 510 Facts: The applicant is a 22 year old Christian from Liaoning Province in the PRC and seeks refugee protection.  The applicant’s house church was raided.  The applicant was given notice of the raid and escaped.  After going into hiding the applicant learned that the PSB were looking for…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Jiu Xin Wang v. M.C.I. [2011] F.C.J. no. 1191

Application by Wang for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board refusing his application for refugee or protection status. The applicant was a recent convert to Christianity. He attended an underground church that was raided by the P.S.B. The applicant went into hiding during which time the PSB visited his home and left a summons with his wife. The applicant fled to Canada using a fraudulent passport and claimed refugee protection.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Mao Qin Wang v. Canada

Application for judicial review.

Wang feared that if returned he would be unable to practice his Roman Catholic religion freely. The panel found Wang was never a genuine practicing Roman Catholic, and his level of religious knowledge was below what would be expected for three years of practice.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Xiao Hong Liu v. M.C.I.,[2010] F.C.J. No. 162

Application allowed. The Board’s finding that the claimant’s story was “too fortuitous to be true” was not reasonable The fact that a summons was not left for the claimant was corroborated by the documentation which indicates that the practice of issuing summons is inconsistent. The Board’s finding that the claimant could practise at a state sanctioned…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Y.J.C. v. M.C.I., [2010] F.C.J. No. 293

Panel determined the applicant was not a Convention Refugee because she could return to China and practise her religion a state church without any doctrinal constraint on the practice as a genuine Christian.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Lin Yang v. M.C.I., [2010] F.C.J. No. 549

he Board’s found that the applicant had a good grasp of Christianity but did not appear to have an emotional commitment to the religion.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Shoupeng Wei v. M.C.I., [2010] F.C.J. No. 832

The Board’s found that the applicant had a good grasp of Christianity but did not appear to have an emotional commitment to the religion.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Chao Jian Ni, v. M.C.I., [2010] F.C.J. No. 1672

The panel found that the claimant’s fear of religious persecution was not credible in light of the lack of objective documentation corroborating that church raids in China occur.  The Court overturned the panel’s decision because the panel failed to make a clear finding of fact that the claimant’s house church was not raided.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Sen Lin Li v. M.C.I., [2010] F.C.J. No. 1596

 Panel determined the case negative in a bench decision.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Dong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 314 (CanLII)

Dong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 314 (CanLII) Date: 2006-03-10 Docket: IMM-2792-05 URL: http://canlii.ca/t/1mv9g Citation: Dong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 314 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1mv9g> retrieved on 2012-05-29 Share: Noteup: Search for decisions citing this decision Date: 20060310 Docket: IMM-2792-05 Citation: 2006 FC 314 Toronto, Ontario, March 10th,…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Xu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1528 (CanLII)

(Given orally from the bench and subsequently written for clarification and precision)     [1]                This is an application for judicial review of the March 2, 2005 decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the ABoard@) where the Applicant was held to be neither a…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Zheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1176 (CanLII)

Zheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1176 (CanLII) Date: 2004-08-25 Docket: IMM-6933-03 URL: http://canlii.ca/t/1hvqw Citation: Zheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1176 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1hvqw> retrieved on 2012-05-29 Share:   Noteup: Search for decisions citing this decision     Date: 20040825   Docket: IMM-6933-03   Citation: 2004 FC…
Learn More   

Read the rest of this entry

Posted in Case Law |

Please note: There is no solicitor-client privilege attached to this communication.  Sending an e-mail to Levine Associates will not make us your lawyers.  You will not be considered a client of the firm until we have agreed to act for you in accordance with our usual policies for accepting clients.  Unless you are a current client of Levine Associates, please do not include any confidential information in your e-mail, because no information you send us can be held in confidence, and no information we provide to you can be treated by you as legal advice, unless and until we have agreed to act for you.  There is no solicitor-client privilege attached to this communication.