Ortiz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.059

JudgeShore, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateSeptember 16, 2015
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations[2015] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.059;2015 FC 1090

Ortiz v. Can. (M.C.I.), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.059

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for F.T.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

[English language version follows French language version]

[La version anglaise vient à la suite de la version française]

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.059

Wilfredo Romero Ortiz (demandeur) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration (défendeur)

(IMM-8320-14; 2015 CF 1090; 2015 FC 1090)

Indexed As: Ortiz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Shore, J.

September 17, 2015.

Summary:

The Immigration Division (ID) of the Immigration and Refugee Board issued a removal order against the applicant, a citizen of Honduras, because he was inadmissible to Canada on grounds of serious criminality and criminality. That determination made his refugee protection claim ineligible. The applicant applied for judicial review, arguing that the ID erred in determining that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions to be deemed to have been rehabilitated.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the ID's decision was reasonable.

Aliens - Topic 1746

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Persons convicted of crime - See paragraphs 12 to 18.

Aliens - Topic 1755

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Exceptions - Criminal rehabilitation - See paragraphs 12 to 18.

Counsel:

Manuel Centurion, for the applicant;

Alain Langlois, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Manuel Centurion, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on September 16, 2015, by Shore, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision in Montreal, Quebec, on September 17, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Abdulqayum v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 862
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • June 13, 2022
    ...term of at least ten years” under subsection 36(1) of the IRPA means “ten years or more” (Ortiz v. Canada (MCI), 2015 FC 1090 [Ortiz] at paragraph 15); and The ID must have reasonable grounds to believe that certain facts have occurred and may use witness statements to ......
1 cases
  • Abdulqayum v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 862
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • June 13, 2022
    ...term of at least ten years” under subsection 36(1) of the IRPA means “ten years or more” (Ortiz v. Canada (MCI), 2015 FC 1090 [Ortiz] at paragraph 15); and The ID must have reasonable grounds to believe that certain facts have occurred and may use witness statements to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT