Xu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

JurisdictionFederal Jurisdiction (Canada)
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Date04 June 2024
Citation2024 FC 839

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
3 practice notes
  • Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1184
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 3, 2025
    ...for the Reconsideration Decision to have been communicated to the MP who made the request (Xu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 839 at para 27). I agree with the Respondent that the evidentiary burden was on the Applicants to show that, despite the earlier communication of the......
  • Rasheed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1503
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 11, 2025
    ...agree. [5] The jurisprudence makes it clear that the Officer had the jurisdiction to reconsider: Xu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2024 FC 839 at paras 19-21. When a request for reconsideration is made there is a two-step process – first, the officer must consider whether there is s......
  • Bolies v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 8, 2024
    ...abstract, without also looking at the previous decision underlying the reconsideration request (Xu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 839 at para 26 [26] The Respondent argued arduously that the Procedural Fairness Letter was not ambiguous. The Respondent contends that the Appl......
3 cases
  • Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1184
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 3, 2025
    ...for the Reconsideration Decision to have been communicated to the MP who made the request (Xu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 839 at para 27). I agree with the Respondent that the evidentiary burden was on the Applicants to show that, despite the earlier communication of the......
  • Rasheed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1503
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 11, 2025
    ...agree. [5] The jurisprudence makes it clear that the Officer had the jurisdiction to reconsider: Xu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2024 FC 839 at paras 19-21. When a request for reconsideration is made there is a two-step process – first, the officer must consider whether there is s......
  • Bolies v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 8, 2024
    ...abstract, without also looking at the previous decision underlying the reconsideration request (Xu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 839 at para 26 [26] The Respondent argued arduously that the Procedural Fairness Letter was not ambiguous. The Respondent contends that the Appl......