2019 FC, 2019 FC 1530

Date: 20191202 Dockets: IMM-5745-18 IMM-6365-18 Citation: 2019 FC 1530 Ottawa, Ontario, December 2, 2019 PRESENT: Mr.

Justice Sébastien Grammond Docket: IMM-5745-18 BETWEEN: BASEIM ANWAR ABDELBASIT ELLOLO ADHAM BASEIM ANWAR ELLOLO NADA BASEIM ANWAR ELLOLO LENDA ZIAD SOBHI RADY Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Docket: IMM-6365-18 AND BETWEEN: BASEIM ANWAR ABDELBASIT ELLOLO ADHAM BASEIM ANWAR ELLOLO NADA BASEIM ANWAR ELLOLO LENDA ZIAD SOBHI RADY Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent ORDER AND REASONS [ 1 ] The applicants ask that their applications for leave and judicial review be held in abeyance while a similar matter is before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Indeed, this is a test case for a class of similar cases challenging the constitutional validity of the denial of a right of appeal within the process for the determination of refugee status. [ 2 ] I am granting this motion. As I will explain below, refusing to hold these matters in abeyance would require the parties to pursue two applications at the same time, before the Supreme Court’s decision clarifies which one of them is the proper course of action. Moreover, it would jeopardize the applicants’ Charter rights before the Supreme Court defines their scope. I. Background A.

The STCA RAD Bar [ 3 ] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [the Act ], entrusts the determination of asylum claims to the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB]. Two divisions of the IRB are tasked with hearing those claims: the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] and the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD].

Most persons whose claim for asylum is rejected by the RPD have a right to appeal to the RAD. [ 4 ] Under the Safe Third Country Agreement [STCA], foreign nationals are normally not allowed to claim asylum in Canada if they seek to enter at a port of entry located on the Canada-United States land border: section 101(1) (

e) of the Act . There are, however, certain exceptions to that rule, set out in

section 159.5 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 . Foreign nationals who fall within those exceptions may claim refugee status, but, according to section 110(2) (

d) of the Act , they do not have a right to appeal to the RAD. This exclusion came to be known as the " “STCA RAD bar.” " B. The Kreishan Case [ 5 ] The constitutional validity of the STCA RAD bar has been challenged on the basis that it is inconsistent with

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . In Kreishan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 481 , the applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the RAD that declined jurisdiction on the basis of section 110(2) (d). This Court dismissed their application in May 2018. The applicants in that case then brought the matter before the Federal Court of Appeal. [ 6 ] The applicants in Kreishan were not alone in this situation. Similar applications were filed in this Court while Kreishan was under reserve.

On an ad hoc basis, some of those applications were put in abeyance until the issuance of the judgment of this Court. When that judgment was issued and the matter was brought before the Federal Court of Appeal, further motions to put matters in abeyance were filed. It became apparent that a large number of files would be involved. For that reason, I directed that three such motions be heard as

test cases. In Buyu Luemba v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 681 [Buyu Luemba], I ordered that these matters be heldin abeyance pending the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. I have since issued similar abeyance orders in approximately 150similar cases. [7] Buyu Luemba was an application for judicial review of a decision of the RAD, which held that it did not have jurisdiction because ofthe STCA RAD bar. Many applicants in that situation simultaneously filed an application for judicial review of the decision of the RPDthat denied their claim for refugee status.

Those applicants also asked that these matters be held in abeyance pending the decision of theFederal Court of Appeal. I granted a large number of such motions. [8] The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from this Court’s decision in August 2019: Kreishan v Canada (Citizenship andImmigration), 2019 FCA 223. The applicants in that case announced their intention to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court ofCanada.

That application was filed on October 18, 2018, under file no. 38864. [9] Counsel in a number of matters that were held in abeyance until the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal then communicated withthe registry and expressed the desire to extend the abeyance until the final disposition of the Kreishan case by the Supreme Court ofCanada. It was agreed that a test case would be selected, that a motion for abeyance would be heard in that case and that the decisionwould apply to the whole class of similar cases. The present applicants’ case was selected to be the test case.

I also issued an orderholding a class of similar cases in abeyance until the disposition of the present motion. [10] On November 7, 2019, the Chief Justice ordered that these proceedings continue as specially managed proceedings, appointed meas the case management judge and assigned my colleague Prothonotary Sylvie M. Molgat to assist me in the management of these files. C. The Applicants’ Claim [11] The applicants are a family of stateless Palestinians who used to reside in Saudi Arabia. They came to Canada through the UnitedStates in order to claim asylum.

The applicants availed themselves of one of the exceptions to the STCA and were allowed to make aclaim for refugee status. [12] The RPD dismissed their claim. They appealed to the RAD. Consistent with its practice in similar cases, the RAD summarilydismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction, given the STCA RAD bar. The applicants filed separate applications for judicial review ofthe decisions of the RPD and RAD. I ordered that these applications be held in abeyance pending the decision of the Federal Court ofAppeal in Kreishan. II. Analysis [13] Paragraph 50(1)(

b) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, allows this Court to stay a proceeding "“where . . . it is in theinterest of justice.”" As I mentioned in Buyu Luemba, the criteria used when granting an interlocutory injunction (serious issue to betried, irreparable harm and balance of convenience) are not, strictly speaking, applicable, but they may nevertheless constitute usefulguides: RJR — MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311. A.

Applications in respect of RAD decisions [14] With respect to the applications for judicial review of decisions in which the RAD declines jurisdiction, the reasoning I adopted inBuyu Luemba remains largely valid today. [15] I cannot predict how the Supreme Court will decide the Kreishan case. However, I cannot say that the case is without merit. Thereis a possibility that Kreishan will be reversed and that the STCA RAD bar will be declared unconstitutional. The applicants would beprejudiced if that were to happen after a final disposition of their case.

In all likelihood, they would not be able to benefit from thedecision of the Supreme Court: see, for example, Lesly v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 272; Pham v Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1251.

While there is a general interest in the expeditious adjudication of refugee claims, thisshould not override the applicants’ Charter rights. [16] Counsel for the Minister sought to distinguish the present case from cases that were held in abeyance pending a decision of theSupreme Court of Canada on the basis that the Supreme Court had already granted leave when those files were put in abeyance: Mangatv Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1201 at paragraph 7; Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Khalil,2014 FCA 213 at paragraph 16; Appulonappar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 914 at paragraph 2.

I do not agree thatthe granting of leave to appeal is a threshold requirement for obtaining interim relief when a similar case is before the Supreme Court.See, for instance, Baier v Alberta, 2006 SCC 38, [2006] 2 SCR 311. I will simply note that the issue that forms the basis of theapplication for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in Kreishan was certified by a judge of this Court as a "“serious question of generalimportance”" deserving consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal.

Thus, the application for leave to appeal cannot be said to bedevoid of merit. [17] In my view, the practical impact of not holding these files in abeyance at this time remains a highly relevant factor in this motion.Considerable resources would be wasted in perfecting a large number of applications raising exactly the same issue.

Moreover, if, duringthis process, the Supreme Court were to grant leave in Kreishan, the applicants would likely renew their motion to hold their files inabeyance. [18] In contrast, if the files are put in abeyance now, the parties will be able to dispose of them more simply and quickly when theSupreme Court makes a final decision in Kreishan. [19] It may be that, at the end of the day, the Supreme Court will deny leave and the only practical effect of holding these cases in

abeyance will be to delay the removal of the applicants from Canada. That additional delay, however, is not decisive if the applicants’ Charter rights are in the balance. In fact, I would be showing disrespect to the Supreme Court if I were to deny this motion on the assumption that it will not grant leave in Kreishan . B. Applications in respect of RPD decisions [ 20 ] The applicants are also seeking an abeyance order with respect to their application for judicial review of the decision of the RPD that denied their claim for refugee status. Such an application was not in issue in Buyu Luemba .

As I mentioned above, however, I have granted abeyance orders in respect of many such applications, while waiting for the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. [ 21 ] The Minister argues that such applications raise different considerations. The issue in those applications is not the same as in Kreishan . Rather, it is the merits of each applicant’s claim for refugee status and the reasonableness of the RPD’s decision. It is, by nature, a case-specific issue. Hence, according to the Minister, those applications should proceed normally. [ 22 ] There is some merit in the Minister’s position.

However, once again, practical considerations weigh heavily in the balance. The applicants have a recourse against the decision of the RPD denying their claim for refugee status. This recourse is either an appeal to the RAD (if the Supreme Court reverses Kreishan ) or an application for judicial review before this Court. But it cannot be both, as section 72(2) (

a) of the Act provides that an application to this Court " “may not be made until any right of appeal that may be provided by this Act is exhausted.” " [ 23 ] Thus, if applications for leave and judicial review of RPD decisions are allowed to proceed according to the usual timelines and the decision in Kreishan is ultimately reversed, an awkward situation may result. Resources will have been expended on applications that this Court will not be able to entertain. Moreover, the applicants would have been forced to proceed first on the recourse that affords them narrower grounds for challenging the RPD decision.

Thus, if this Court has already dismissed their application for leave and judicial review if and when the Supreme Court reverses Kreishan , the applicants would presumably want to appeal the RPD decision to the RAD, despite the dismissal of their application for leave and judicial review, as the grounds for appealing are wider than the grounds for judicial review.

In that situation, however, this would lead to the possibility or perception that the RAD would feel bound by this Court’s decision. [ 24 ] Hence, we will not know for sure which recourse is appropriate until the Supreme Court makes a final decision in Kreishan . In my view, it would be unwise to force the applicants to pursue one of those recourses, or both, before the situation is definitively clarified. Doing so would hinder access to justice, as it would require applicants to incur legal fees in perfecting applications that may turn out to be an inappropriate recourse.

This would also put an undue strain on the Court’s resources. [ 25 ] I have considered the possibility of ordering the parties to perfect their applications and, when that is done, to hold them in abeyance until the Supreme Court makes a final determination in Kreishan . That would potentially accelerate the processing of those applications, especially if the Supreme Court denies leave.

However, as the application for leave to appeal in Kreishan will be perfected in a matter of days, and given the short time-frame in which the Supreme Court usually decides such applications, the potential gain might be quite limited. This limited gain does not outweigh, in my view, the disadvantages of proceeding immediately when the proper procedure is not yet known with certainty. III. Disposition [ 26 ] As a result, I will grant the applicants’ motion and I will order that these applications, as well as the applications listed in the

schedule to this order, are held in abeyance pending the final decision of the Supreme Court in Kreishan . [ 27 ] I anticipate that applications raising the same issues will continue to be filed. My order sets out a

summary process whereby such applications may be put in abeyance and added to the list of proceedings covered by this order. It also allows parties covered by this order to withdraw from it and to have their applications considered according to the usual timelines. ORDER in IMM-5745-18 and IMM-6365-18 THIS COURT’S ORDER is that : 1. This order applies to files IMM-5745-18 and IMM-6365-18, as well as all files listed in the

schedule to this order and any other files subsequently added to this list pursuant to paragraph 5. 2. These files are held in abeyance until the Supreme Court of Canada finally disposes of the application for leave to appeal and, as the case may be, the appeal in Kreishan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , file no. 38864. 3.

If the Supreme Court denies leave to appeal in Kreishan , the applicants in all the applications for leave and judicial review covered by this order will have 30 days from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court to file their application records or, where the application record has already been filed, the parties will have 30 days to complete the next step in the proceedings. 4.

If the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal in Kreishan , a further case management conference will be held at the earliest opportunity after the final decision of the Supreme Court to determine the next steps in the files covered by this order. The parties will provide their availability to the registry within 15 days of the decision of the Supreme Court. 5. New applications raising similar issues may be brought under the present order upon the applicant making an informal request by way of a letter, if the Minister consents to or does not oppose the request.

Upon receipt of such an informal request by the registry, with the

confirmation that the Minister consents to or does not oppose the request, such applications will continue as specially managed proceedings and will be held in abeyance, subject to the terms of this order. Where the Minister opposes the request, the matter may be brought before Prothonotary Molgat for decision. 6. An applicant in a matter covered by this order may, by way of informal request made by letter, withdraw from this order. Upon receipt of such an informal request by the registry, the application in question will cease to be held in abeyance and the parties will have 30 days to complete the next step in the proceedings. “Sébastien Grammond” Judge

Schedule IMM-1013-19 MOHSIN AMIN v. MCI IMM-1019-18 MAX MWANA KASON KAMWANGA v. MIRC IMM-1021-18 JAVIER ALEXANDER SANTANDER HERNANDEZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-1028-17 MOHADESE MIRZAEE v. MCI IMM-1036-18 MAMPUYA FERNAND NZAMA c. MCI IMM-107-19 ERNST DESROCHES v MCI IMM-1082-19 LISBETH YANIRA HERNANDESZ DE SAMOYOA AND AL. V. MCI IMM-1084-18 ANDERSON MAQUILON ROMERO v. MCI IMM-1087-19 LISBETH YANIRA HERNANDEZ DE SAMAYOA AND AL. V. MCI IMM-1100-19 DUMAR ROJAS RAMIREZ et al. c. MCI IMM-110-19 JACQUES NOIZAIRE c. MCI IMM-1126-18 CARMEN SHIRLEY MUNOZ GUITIERREZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-1150-19 OMAR LEONARDO ARANGO TORRES ET AL v.

MCI IMM-1163-19 VOLODYMYR KHOMITSKYI ET AL v. MIRCC IMM-1189-18 SAMIRA HASSAN SHAYALL AL-AJRAWI ET AL v. MCI IMM-1210-18 HANAN AM SAFI v. MCI IMM-1262-19 LINA MARCELA CARDOZO BASTIDAS v. MCI IMM-1295-19 ERNST DESROCHES v. MCI IMM-1359-18 MILKIAS KASSAYE v. MIRC IMM-1385-19 CARLOS EUGENIO MEJIA CORDERO ET AL v. MIRC IMM-1405-18 DAUD MUKHAMMAD ET AL v MCI IMM-1443-18 TSERING DOLMA v. MCI IMM-1475-18 JOKE OGUNSEYE ET AL v. MIRC IMM-1477-19 JOANA PAXI ET AL v. MCI IMM-1491-19 SHAHID ABBAS v. MCI IMM-1519-19 MOHSIN AMIN v. MCI IMM-1521-18 HANAN AM SAFI v. MCI IMM-1556-19 JEAN BALMIR ANTOINE et al. c.

MCI IMM-1576-19 WINSON LAGUERRE v. MCI IMM-1577-19 JUNIAL JEAN v. MCI IMM-1629-17 DOROTHY MANGWIRO ET AL v. MCI IMM-1681-19 MARYSOL SOLARTE ORTEGA ET AL c. mircc IMM-1693-18 MAMUN AHMED ET AL v. MIRC IMM-1725-18 CARMEN SHIRLEY MUNOZ GUITIERREZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-173-17 KHATIRA GAYRAT ET AL v. MCI ET AL IMM-1756-17 MOATAZ EL ALI ET AL v. MCI IMM-1759-19 NADYA KARINA TELLEZ RODRIGUEZ ET AL v MCI IMM-1788-17 MARION GAILOR KARNGBAYE v. MCI IMM-1825-17 BISRAT ERSTU WELDESENBET v. MCI IMM-1826-17 BERHANE KIDANE WELDEGERGISH v MCI IMM-1837-18 KHODEZA BAGUM ET AL. v. MCI IMM-1838-18 AHMED AFEEF TAYE BANISHAMSA v.

MCI IMM-1844-19 MARIA DEL PILAR RIOS RONCAL v. MCI IMM-1850-18 FABIAN DARIO HOYOS SOTO et al v. MCI IMM-1874-18 DAUD MUKHAMMAD et al v. MCI IMM-1914-19 JULIE DECIUS-JOSEPH et al. c. MCI IMM-1967-18 RAKESH KUMAR SOOD ET AL v. MCI IMM-2006-19 JOANA PAXI ET AL. v. MCI IMM-201-18 ANDERSON MAQUILON ROMERO v. MCI IMM-2038-19 DIEGO FERNANDO SIERRA QUIMBAYO ET AL v. MCI IMM-2039-18 MIGUEL ANGEL GUERRORO CHICA v. MCI

IMM-2042-19 DIEGO FERNANDO SIERRA QUIMBAYO ET AL v. MCI IMM-2065-19 SHAHID ABBAS v. MCI IMM-2066-17 MOHADESE MIRZAEE v. MCI IMM-2076-18 HUSSAIN RAZA ET AL v. MIRC IMM-2086-19 OSCAR NOE PALMA LOPEZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-2204-19 MOHAMED GAMIL ABOUELELA IBRAHIM ET AL v MCI IMM-2238-18 GLORIA FARKAS ET AL v. MCI IMM-2245-17 OLUWASEYE JIBOKU, ET AL v. MIRC IMM-2251-18 EVANS TADGUIN v. MCI IMM-2278-18 WILMEN DAMIAN RAMIREZ CHACIN ET AL v. MCI IMM-2290-19 KLAUS FABIAN JIMENEZ MARTIN ET AL v. MIRCC IMM-2308-19 MARIA DEL PILAR RIOS RONCAL v. MCI IMM-2356-17 MOATAZ EL ALI ET AL v. MCI IMM-2456-18 SALINA SIKDER v.

MCI IMM-2458-18 ANA LUCIA VALENCIA HERNANDEZ v. MCIC IMM-2465-17 HENDRICK MUKENDI TSHISUMPA v. MCI IMM-2476-18 SAMREEN JAMSHAID ET AL v. MCI IMM-25-18 MUSTAFA IBRAHIM EL ATRASH v. MCI IMM-2553-17 JAMPA LOBSANG v. MCI IMM-256-18 PETER AKHIGBEMEN v. MIRC IMM-2563-18 KHODEZA BAGUM ET AL. v. MCI IMM-258-19 VOLODYMYR KHOMITSKYI ET AL v. MIRC IMM-2630-18 SOPIKO MESHVELIANI ET AL v. MCI IMM-2664-17 RAFIQUE JOSEPH ET AL c. MCI IMM-2687-19 ADIL YOUSUF v. MCI IMM-2701-17 NGAWANG LODOE v. MCI IMM-2701-18 RAKESH KUMAR SOOD ET AL v. MCI IMM-2710-18 LEONIDA GJURAJ v. MCI IMM-2715-18 XIALI LIU ET AL v.

MCI IMM-2725-17 DEDLEY AUREPHAR ET AL c. MCI IMM-2726-18 RAMI ALKURD ET AL v. MCI IMM-2727-17 BELIZAIRE JOINIS c. MCI IMM-2773-19 JORGE WILLIAM ROSAS PEDRAZA ET AL c. MCI IMM-2774-19 SOUNI IDRISS MOUSSA c. MCI IMM-2779-18 HUSSAIN RAZA ET AL v. MIRC IMM-2801-18 CARDENAS CORONEL, MARIA MERCEDES IMM-2806-17 CLARISSE BUYU LUEMBA v. MIRC IMM-2828-19 DOMITILA RIVERA DE MARENCO ET AL. v. MCI IMM-2830-19 RENOLD LOUIS c. MCI IMM-2836-17 MOHAMAD AHMED MOHAMAD ZAKRIA et.al. v. MIRC IMM-2846-18 GIORGI GELAZANIA v. MIRC IMM-2853-19 OSCAR NOE PALMA LOPEZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-2898-17 VIVEKSON KAMALANATHAN v.

MCI IMM-2899-17 VERONIQUE LUGIE MUTEDIA v MCI IMM-2914-18 LIBRADO ALBERTO ESCOBEDO GONZALEZ v. MCI IMM-2927-18 ESTHER MWAITA MANYAYA v. MIRCC IMM-2947-18 NATACHA ROSELYN GOLI EPSE DACOURI ET AT v. MCI IMM-2985-19 ALFONSO VLADIMIR RODRIGUEZ BARBOSA v. MCI IMM-3068-19 CARLINE RAYMOND ET AL. c. MCI IMM-3079-17 JOSE ILDEFONSO ROGRIGUEZ ALCANTARA et al. v. MCI IMM-3092-19 RAFAEL ARMANDO CACERES FLORES et al. c. MCI IMM-3094-18 CAROLINA JIMENEZ ET AL v. MIRC IMM-3159-18 LEONIDA GJURAJ v. MCI IMM-3162-19 AHSAN MUNIR ET AL v. MCI IMM-3163-19 MARTINE ESTIMABLE ET AL c. MIRCC IMM-3184-18 WAQAS MUNIR ET AL v.

MCI & MPSEP IMM-3190-19 JENIFER ALZATE ECHAVARRIA ET AL. v. MCI IMM-3201-16 JUAN VICTOR LASALA SALGADO ET AL. c. MCI IMM-3220-19 MORENCY PIERRE, VASTHI c. MCI IMM-3222-19 OMAR BUITRAGO GARCIA et al. c. MIRC IMM-3233-19 NEISSER GIANFRANCO MORA ALCCA et al c. MCI IMM-3240-19 ROSMY KARL ERGY EXANTUS c. MCI IMM-324-19 LIDA MAYERLY ACOSTA BARRETO et al. c. MCI IMM-1013-19 MOHSIN AMIN v. MCI

IMM-3256-16 ELEONORE AUBIERGE KOUKA ET AL v. MCI IMM-3266-19 ERIC ANDRES CASTRO TIRIA v. MCI IMM-3304-17 DOLMA TSERING v. MCI IMM-3330-19 ALEX JOSEPH c. MCI IMM-3333-17 HERNAN DARIO NEIRA GIRALDO ET AL v. MCI IMM-335-18 TEMILOLA TEMITOPE ALLI ET AL v. MIRC IMM-3377-19 RUTH EMELY HERNANDEZ VASQUEZ ET. AL. v. MCI IMM-3383-19 OLUWASEUN MICHAEL IGE ET AL. v. MCI IMM-3386-19 OLUWASEUN MICHAEL IGE ET AL. v. MCI IMM-3406-18 LIYISED FIGUEREDO SANTANA v. MCI IMM-3428-19 JOHN ESERO KIZITO v. MCI IMM-3469-19 SAMINA KOUSAR, ET AL v. MCI IMM-3495-18 JOHN EDISSON CASTILLA GUTIERREZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-3513-17 NGAWANG LODOE v.

MCI IMM-3552-18 MARIA LIZETH DIAZ RUIZ ET AL v. MIRC IMM-3558-18 TENZIN SALDON v. MCI IMM-3580-17 SURESH SABAPATHIPILLAI v. MCI IMM-3588-18 EVANS TADGUIN v. MCI IMM-3606-18 TOLGAY YILMAZ v. MCI IMM-3617-18 MAX MWANA KASON KAMWANGA v. MIRC IMM-3633-17 DINDUP TSERING v. MCI IMM-3633-18 ALLAMBA KAMSOULOUM c. MCI IMM-3636-19 JOSE SAUL MONTES TORRES et al v MIRCC IMM-3643-18 HARDEEP SINGH c MIRCC IMM-3652-19 OMAR LEONARDO ARANGO TORRES ET AL v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION IMM-3664-18 ESTHER MWAITA MANYAYA v. MCI IMM-3664-19 BRAYAN ENRIQUE ROJAS CELIS ET AL v. MCI IMM-3699-18 GIORGI GELAZANIA v.

MIRC IMM-370-18 JAVIER ALEXANDER SANTANDER HERNANDEZ ET AL. v. MCI IMM-3735-18 ELMERLIN PIERREVIL v. MCI IMM-3745-18 MARIA DOLORES AYALA AGUILAR v. MCI IMM-3759-17 ABIMBOLA FOLASADE SUMBADE ET AL v. MIRC IMM-3773-18 NADINE PIERRE LOUIS c. MCI IMM-3790-17 HERNAN DARIO NEIRA GIRALDO ET AL v. MIRC IMM-3799-17 MOHAMED AHMED MOHAMED ZAKRIA ET AL v. MIRC IMM-3805-17 NATIA SHINJIKASHVILI v. MCI IMM-3812-17 OLUWATIMILEYINI ANNI v. MPSEP IMM-3818-19 JOHAN BUENO GARCIA ET AL. v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION IMM-3823-19 FIONA TURATSINZE UWASE ET AL v. MCI IMM-3824-17 DOLMA TSERING v.

MCI IMM-3826-19 DOMITILA RIVERA DE MARENCO ET AL v. MCI IMM-3827-19 JOHN ESERO KIZITO v. MCI IMM-3831-19 WILMAR ANDRES ROJAS RODRIGUEZ, et al. c. MCI IMM-3881-19 KLAUS FABIAN JIMENEZ MARTIN ET AL. v. MCI IMM-3953-18 NIROSHA LAKMANI PREMARATNE (NIRISHA LAKMANI PREMARATNE) ET AL v. MCI IMM-3959-17 KUNGA PHUNTSOK v. MCI IMM-3960-19 CETOUTE SAINT-LOUIS, ROBERNISE ET AL c. MCI IMM-3997-19 RUTH EMELY HERNANDEZ VASQUEZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-4019-17 NIM PHUTTY SHERPA ET AL v. MCI IMM-4026-19 SANDRA HAYDE MONTANO ALARCON ET AL v. MCI IMM-404-18 MILKIAS KASSAYE v. MIRC IMM-4057-19 ADIL YOUSUF v.

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION IMM-4097-16 MAJURAN SRIKANTHAN v. MCI IMM-4107-19 GENIS JOSEPH c. MCI IMM-4113-19 KOKILAVANAN ALAGARATHNAM v. MCI IMM-4148-17 DICKYI SANGMO v. MCI IMM-4154-18 EMINE KARANFIL ET AL. v. MCI IMM-4170-17 BENVINDA LAULINDA MASSUNDA v. MCI IMM-4290-18 S M ISMAIL HOSSAIN ET AL v. MCI IMM-4305-19 PARVEEN AKHTAR ET AL v. MCI IMM-4319-19 ABDALLAH F M ABUSAMRA ET AL v MCI IMM-1013-19 MOHSIN AMIN v. MCI

IMM-4358-18 JUVENS CARASCO c. MCI IMM-4360-18 MARIA LIZETH DIAZ RUIZ ET AL v. MIRC IMM-4362-17 LEVENT AYDEMIR v. MIRC IMM-4418-17 TENZING LHANZEY v. MCI IMM-4419-17 LHAKPA DOLMA v. MCI IMM-4425-18 ANA LUCIA VALENCIA HERNANDEZ v. MCI IMM-4430-18 NIROSHA LAKMANI PREMARATNE ET AL v. MCI IMM-4432-17 WAFAA M M RADWAN ET AL v. MCI IMM-4452-17 JOSE RAFAEL MITRE DOLORES ET AL v MCI IMM-4457-19 ABDALLAH F M ABUSAMRA ET AL. v. MCI IMM-4465-18 CHRISTINA MARGARITA CARBAJAL TORRES v MCI IMM-4475-18 JESUS ALEJANDRO GARCIA LOPEZ v. MCI IMM-4496-19 BRAYAN ENRIQUE ROJAS CELIS, ET AL v.

MCI IMM-4499-18 GENIEUSE PIERRE-BRUN et al. c. MCI IMM-4516-15 MOHAMMED ZAKIR HOSSAIN v. MCI IMM-4527-18 DANIEL MERIUS CALIXTE ET AL v. MCI IMM-4550-17 Betie MARINDO v. MCI IMM-4569-17 BENVINDA L. MASSUNDA v. MCI IMM-4608-18 NELCY HERRERA VARGAS ET AL v. MCI IMM-4609-18 MARIA DOLORES AYALA AGUILAR v MCI IMM-4611-18 DONMOR JEAN v. MCI IMM-4614-17 STELLA MBULA-KOLELA ET AL. v. MCI IMM-4619-18 DORIS OMONIGHO AREGBE ET AL v. MCI IMM-4632-19 SAMINA KOUSAR ET AL v. MCI IMM-4664-18 JOHN EDISSON CASTILLA GUTIERREZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-4665-18 RICARDO CAMARGO JARAMILLO ET AL v. MCI IMM-4704-18 YIASMIN HUSSAIN ZARATE c.

MCI IMM-4710-19 IFEOLUWAPO DAPO-ELEGBEDE ET AL v. MCI IMM-4712-18 ANA ETHELIA CARRILLO RAMIREZ v. MCI IMM-4761-19 HEYAM M M ALKAHLOUT ET AL v. MCI IMM-4764-19 RAMI HAMAD v. MCI IMM-4787-19 JOHAN BUENO GARCIA ET AL. v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION IMM-4848-19 KOKILAVANAN ALAGARATHNAM v MCI IMM-4870-17 LEVENT AYDEMIR v. MIRC IMM-4928-18 CHRISTINA MARGARITA CARBAJAL TORRES v. MCI IMM-4948-17 DICKYI SANGMO v. MCI IMM-4961-18 DORIS OMONIGHO AREGBE ET AL v. MCI IMM-4970-18 JESUS ALEJANDRO GARCIA LOPEZ v. MCI IMM-4993-17 MAHMOUD YOUSSEF MOHAMMED FERWANA v.

MCI IMM-5002-17 JULIO CESAR ORELLANA GONZALEZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-5004-17 LIYISED FIGUEREDO SANTANA v MCI IMM-5029-17 REBKA FEKADE TEREFE ET AL v. MIRCC IMM-5065-17 JOSE RAFAEL MITRE DOLORES ET AL v. MCI IMM-5084-18 EMINE KARANFIL, ET AL v. MCI IMM-5092-19 JHONATAN ALMARALES BAUTISTA ET AL v. MIRC ET AL IMM-5138-18 DANIEL MERIUS CALIXTE ET AL. v. MCI IMM-5158-17 LHAKPA DOLMA v. MCI IMM-5164-19 ANA TEOTISTE CAMACHO DE RODRIGUEZ v MCI IMM-5212-18 FAREED ANTON MNASSOOR DIUO v. MCI IMM-5213-17 TENZING LHANZEY v. MCI IMM-5224-18 PIRONIA DAOWD HURMIZ v. MCI IMM-5239-18 ANA ETHELIA CARRILLO RAMIREZ ET AL v.

MCI IMM-5240-17 SIMPHIWE ZWELET SIMELANE ET AL v. MIRC IMM-5256-19 JENIFER ALZATE ECHAVARRIA ET AL v. MCI IMM-5311-18 JULIO EDGARDO VALLADARES GOCHEZ v. MCI IMM-5344-17 SIMPHIWE ZWELET SIMELANE ET AL v. MCI IMM-5385-18 RUTH CHITSINDE v. MCI IMM-5411-19 ANA MILENA RODRIGUEZ CORTEZ v MCI IMM-5413-19 THANANCHAYAN SATCHITHANANTHAN v. MCI IMM-5420-18 PAUL JUNIOR MOISE ET AL. c. MIRC IMM-5421-18 ALI MUDHAFAR SALEH MUBAREKA v. MCI IMM-5445-19 THEIVENDRAM KANDIAH v. MCI IMM-1013-19 MOHSIN AMIN v. MCI

IMM-5458-17 ATILIO ALEJANDRO CASTRO DUKE ET AL. v. MCI IMM-5462-19 PARVEEN AKHTAR ET AL v. MCI IMM-5485-17 WAFAA M M RADWAN ET AL v. MIRCC IMM-5490-17 ESEOGHENE CYNTHIA OKORO ET AL v. MIRC IMM-5496-17 SAMIRA HASSAN SHAYALL AL-AJARAWI ET AL. v. MCI IMM-5514-17 MAHMOUD YOUSSEF MOHAMMED FERWANA v. MCI IMM-5551-18 PABLO RODRIGUEZ BONILLA ET AL. v. MCI IMM-5571-17 JULIO CESAR ORELLANA GONZALEZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-559-18 NADIA FARQAN ET AL. v MCI IMM-5611-17 TENZIN NYINJEY v. MCI IMM-5669-18 PIRONIA DAOWD HURMIZ v.

MCI IMM-5685-19 ONYEKA MARY ANONYAI ET AL v MCI IMM-5685-19 ONYEKA MARY ANONYAI ET AL v MCI IMM-5693-19 RAJEEVAN MARIY ASEELAN v. MCI IMM-57-18 ROOBINS CLERVILUS c. MCI IMM-5718-18 NATALY LUBO FRANCO ET AL. v. MCI IMM-5742-19 ROBERTO ENRIQUE RIGUAL ALVAREZ v. MCI IMM-5742-19 ROBERTO ENRIQUE RIGUAL ALVAREZ v. MCI IMM-5744-18 NELCY HERRERA VARGAS ET AL v. MCI IMM-5745-18 BASEIM ANWAR ABDELBASIT ELLOLO ET AL v. MCI IMM-5789-18 TAFARA MUCHENJE v. MCI IMM-5791-18 DONMOR JEAN c. MCI IMM-5805-19 SHABANA KOUSAR ET AL v. MCI IMM-5806-19 SHABANA KOUSAR ET AL v. MCI IMM-585-19 JOSE LEONEL HERNANDEZ SANDOVAL v.

MCI IMM-5861-18 ANA VILMA BARILLAS MENDEZ v. MCI IMM-5894-19 MIRELA IORDAICHE v MCI IMM-5901-18 MUHAMMAD NAZIR v. MCI IMM-5935-18 LEONARDO PELAEZ BARRIOS ET AL v. MIRCC IMM-5956-18 GUILLERMO MORENO GUERRA ET AL v. MCI IMM-5958-19 ANA TEOTISTE CAMACHO DE RODRIGUEZ v MCI IMM-604-18 TSERING DOLMA v. MCI IMM-606-19 HENRY EDGARDO ELIAS MORAN v. MCI IMM-6062-19 JHONATAN ALMARALES BAUTISTA ET AL v MCI IMM-6113-18 HENRY EDGARDO ELIAS MORAN v. MCI IMM-1759-19 WILLIAM MOISES CAMPOS SANDOVAL v. MIRC IMM-6214-18 MARC DAVID CHERY ET AL c. MCI IMM-6238-18 TAFARA MUCHENJE v.

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION IMM-632-19 WINSON LAGUERRE v. MCI IMM-6331-19 THANANCHAYAN SATCHITHANANTHAN v MCI IMM-6350-18 FEDNEL ELIACIN ET AL c. MCI IMM-6365-18 BASEIM ANWAR ABDELBASIT ELLOLO ET AL v. MCI IMM-6372-18 WILLIAM MOISES CAMPOS SANDOVAL v. MIRCC IMM-6391-18 JULIO EDGARDO VALLADARES GOCHES v. MCI IMM-6420-18 DERLINE JEAN ET AL. c. MIRCC IMM-644-18 PETER AKHIGBEMEN v. MIRC IMM-6488-18 ANA VILMA BARILLAS MENDEZ v. MCI IMM-6491-18 LEONARDO PELAEZ BARRIOS ET AL v. MIRC IMM-6532-19 MIRELA IORDAICHE v MCI IMM-6552-18 JUNIAL JEAN v. MIRC IMM-6553-18 CARLOS EUGENIO MEJIA CORDERO ET AL v.

MCI IMM-6581-18 RUTH CHITSINDE v. MCI IMM-676-19 LINA MARCELA CARDOZO BASTIDAS v. MCI IMM-7-19 LILIAN MARILU PORTILLO VALLE ET AL v. MCI IMM-72-17 BILAL HAMDAN ET AL. v. MIRC IMM-75-19 EMMANUELA OSCAR ET AL v. MCI IMM-766-18 TEMILOLA TEMITOPE ALLI ET AL v. MIRCI IMM-769-18 ROOBINS CLERVILUS v. MCI IMM-80-19 EMMANUELA OSCAR ET AL v. MCI IMM-840-19 NADYA KARINA TELLEZ RODRIGUEZ ET AL v. MCI IMM-868-18 LALA KAZAKOVA ET AL. v. MIRC IMM-869-18 LALA KAZAKOVA ET AL. v. MIRC IMM-944-18 ADRIANA JUDITH PACHECO PINZON et.al. v. MIRC IMM-1013-19 MOHSIN AMIN v. MCI

IMM-949-18 TENZIN NYINJEY v. MCI IMM-976-19 FRITZNER CHARPENTIER c. MCI IMM-983-18 JOKE OGUNSEYE ET AL v. MIRC IMM-5666-19 FRANK LOZANO GUTIERREZ v. MCI IMM-6880-19 FRANK LOZANO GUTIERREZ v. MCI IMM-1086-17 BISRAT ERSTU WELDESENBET v. MCI IMM-1013-19 MOHSIN AMIN v. MCI FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Dockets: IMM-5745-18 AND IMM-6365-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: BASEIM ANWAR ABDELBASIT ELLOLO, ADHAM BASEIM ANWAR ELLOLO, NADA BASEIM ANWAR ELLOLO, LENDA ZIAD SOBHI RADY v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: November 20, 2019 ORDER AND REASONS: GRAMMOND J.

DATED: december 2, 2019 APPEARANCES : Jacqueline Bonisteel Samuel Loeb For The Applicants David Tyndale Amy King Meva Motwani For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Corporate Immigration Law Firm Barristers and Solicitors Ottawa, Ontario Refugee Law Office Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicants Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent