<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Legal &#8211; Legally Canadian &#8211; Immigration Law Firm</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2022 21:17:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Court rules: Majority ownership and acting as President of the Canadian company are not eligible for the Canadian Experience Class PR application.</title>
		<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/court-rules-majority-ownership-and-acting-as-president-of-the-canadian-company-are-not-eligible-for-the-canadian-experience-class-pr-application/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jenny Rokhline]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legalese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skilled worker]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://test.legallycanadian.com/?p=17231</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[It is a known fact that self-employment in Canada on its own does not meet the requirements to immigrate to Canada under the Canadian Experience Class stream: 87.1(2) A foreign national is a member of the Canadian experience class if (a)they have acquired in Canada, within the three years before the date on which their application [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada (CIC) v Esfand, 2015 FC 1190: Dependent Family Member of a Convention Refugee who’s Claim was Determined by a Visa Office Abroad is not a Convention Refuge under IRPA.</title>
		<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/canada-cic-v-esfand-2015-fc-1190-dependent-family-member-of-a-convention-refugee-whos-claim-was-determined-by-a-visa-office-abroad-is-not-a-convention-refuge-under-irpa/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Legally Canadian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:17:17 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://test.legallycanadian.com/?p=16101</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Court concludes that a dependent family member who obtained a permanent resident status as an accompanying family member of a Convention refugee determined by a visa officer abroad will not lose her status because of returning to her country of origin or through apparent re-availment. The Facts The respondent is a citizen of Iran [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Confirmation of provincial support is not sufficient to trump federal officer&#8217;s assessment of an application. Shaukat v Canada, 2015 FC 1120</title>
		<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/confirmation-of-provincial-support-is-not-sufficient-to-trump-federal-officers-assessment-of-an-application-shaukat-v-canada-2015-fc-1120/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jenny Rokhline]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 18:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skilled worker]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://test.legallycanadian.com/?p=15931</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Applicants sought to set aside a decision from a Visa Officer in London rejecting their application for permanent residency under the provincial nominee class. The Application was dismissed. The Court found that it was reasonable for the federal government to conduct an independent assessment of the Applicant’s ability to become economically established in Canada [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Awet v Canada, 2015 FC 759 : The debate continues regarding admission of new evidence before the RAD &#8211; Justice Barnes: the test is more generous than for a PRRA.</title>
		<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/awet-v-canada-2015-fc-759-the-debate-continues-regarding-admission-of-new-evidence-before-the-rad-justice-barnes-the-test-is-more-generous-than-for-a-prra/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Legally Canadian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2015 21:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legalese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RAD]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://test.legallycanadian.com/?p=15271</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[On June 17, 2015, Justice Barnes contributed to the discussion concerning the test for admission of the new evidence before the newly created Refugee Appeal Division (&#8220;RAD&#8221;) &#8211; leaning in favour of a more relaxed test beyond that of Raza for Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (&#8220;PRRA&#8221;) applications. &#160; Facts of the case: -The Applicants claim to be citizens [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36</title>
		<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/agraira-v-canada-public-safety-and-emergency-preparedness-2013-scc-36/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Legally Canadian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2013 16:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legallycanadian.wordpress.com/?p=315</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#160; The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the definition of the “national interest” is broader than public safety and national security.  As such, it would be absurd for the relief under subsection 34(2) of the IRPA not to be available solely because an individual is inadmissible under 34(1).  In this case, the Court found [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The caselaw on the two-pronged test under subsection 4(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the “bad faith” marriage test</title>
		<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/caselaw-on-two-pronged-test-under-irpr-bad-faith-marriage-test/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Legally Canadian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2013 02:56:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sponsorship]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legallycanadian.wordpress.com/?p=303</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The following research of the caselaw explores the difference between the two prongs of the bad faith marriage test under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).&#160; According to subsection 4(1) of IRPR, it is possible that a marriage that satisfies the 4(1)(b) prong of the test, that is a marriage that is found genuine, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Best Interests of Children is an Important Factor in Discretionary Decision-making but it is Just One of the Factors: Baker V Canada (MCI), [1999] 2 SCR 817</title>
		<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/best-interests-of-children-just-one-of-factors-baker-v-canada-1999/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Legally Canadian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:37:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRB decision]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legallycanadian.wordpress.com/?p=178</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In this case the Supreme Court has looked at the role of the best interests of children in humanitarian and compassionate [H&#38;C] decisions. The case is also helpful for its summary of factors that a court may consider when evaluating procedural fairness. Facts Marvis Baker is a Jamaican citizen, who entered Canada with a visitor’s [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two times a charm? FC overturns IRB&#8217;s decision for the second time.</title>
		<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/two-times-a-charm-fc-overturns-irbs-decision-for-the-second-time/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jenny Rokhline]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legallycanadian.wordpress.com/?p=140</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[For the second time the Federal Court overturned the Immigration and Refugee Board&#8217;s decision denying applicant&#8217;s asylum claim, Ottawa Citizen reports. Gabino Zacarias fled his home country Guatemala were he and his family were targeted and threatened by the leader of a street gang. After moving his family to another village, Zacarias came to Canada [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Correctness and Reasonableness are the Two Standards for Judicial Review of Administrative Tribunal Decisions: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, [2008] 1 SCR 190</title>
		<link>https://www.legallycanadian.com/legal/correctness-and-reasonableness-standards-for-judicial-review-dunsmuir-v-new-brunswick-2008/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Legally Canadian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legallycanadian.wordpress.com/?p=95</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This seminal case lays out a standard for judicial intervention of administrative tribunal decisions.&#160; Dunsmuir arises out of a labour dispute, but the standard of judicial review presented in the case has universal application to tribunal decisions, including administrative tribunal decisions on immigration. Facts David Dunsmuir, the appellant, was employed by the Department of Justice [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
