Kokareva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 189 (FC)
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Judge | Simpson, J. |
| Court | Federal Court (Canada) |
| Subject Matter | IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE,PRACTICE,FAMILY LAW |
| Citation | [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 189 (FC),[2015] F.T.R. Uned. 189,2015 FC 451 |
| Date | 08 April 2015 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
2 practice notes
-
Rahman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2016] F.T.R. Uned. 298
...that it is unreasonable for a visa officer to be dismissive of an applicant's evidence ( Kokareva v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 451 at para 12 [ Kokareva ]). [8] With respect to the facts in the present case, the Applicant says the GCMS notes do not mention the support le......
-
Peng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1230
...for judicial review. [28] The Applicant relies on a case that is similar to hers. In Kokareva v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 451 [Kokareva], the Court allowed the application for judicial review on the basis that the visa officer failed to consider evidence that was relevan......
2 cases
-
Rahman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2016] F.T.R. Uned. 298
...that it is unreasonable for a visa officer to be dismissive of an applicant's evidence ( Kokareva v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 451 at para 12 [ Kokareva ]). [8] With respect to the facts in the present case, the Applicant says the GCMS notes do not mention the support le......
-
Peng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1230
...for judicial review. [28] The Applicant relies on a case that is similar to hers. In Kokareva v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 451 [Kokareva], the Court allowed the application for judicial review on the basis that the visa officer failed to consider evidence that was relevan......