Ducasse et al v. M.C.I. IMM-303-26
Our client had submitted an application for sponsorship of her mother under the Parent Grand Parent Program (PGP); however, her application was refused because she did not meet the minimum necessary income (MNI). Representing herself, she appealed that refusal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
She did not challenge the legality of the refusal on appeal, but sought to the have her appeal allowed based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, taking into account the best interests of the child directly affected by the decision, namely, a minor child living with her, who has a number of challenging medical conditions. Her appeal was dismissed.
Following the dismissal of her appeal, she retained Eastman Law Office to challenge the dismissal of her appeal in the Federal Court by filing an application for leave and judicial review. However, the deadline for filing in the Federal Court had passed by the time she retained our law office and therefore, we had to make extension of time submissions on why the court should hear her matter despite the late filing.
Upon looking over her case, our law office found it evident that the IAD had made a number of procedural and substantive errors in arriving at their decision to dismiss her appeal. With our guidance Ms. Ducasse filed an application for leave and judicial review, bringing into question the IAD’s decision, and appealing to have her sponsorship application looked at again.
We successfully argued that the IAD member had ignored the best interests of the child, and made fundamental reviewable errors in assessing the hardship our client’s mother would face if forced to return to her country, both going to the heart of their decision dismissing the Applicants’ appeal, thereby rendering that decision unreasonable.
After filing our client’s Application Record (affidavit evidence and written argument) in the Federal Court and serving a copy on the Respondent’s lawyers, the Respondent (Immigration Canada) quickly sought to have our client settle on the promise that they send her appeal back to the IAD to be reconsidered by a different IAD member.
From the time she retained us until the time of settlement, only a few months had passed.
Needless to say, our client was elated. We saved her time, a significant amount of litigation costs, and she got what she was hoping for, her appeal to the IAD to be reopened and reheard.
