Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law is one of the top law firms in Mississauga, Ontario, Brampton, Toronto, Hamilton in Canada. In our law office, get assistance from our lawyer to help you in licence appeal tribunal law, administrative law, professional regulation disciplinary law, commercial land development mediator arbitrator law, corporate law, Immigration related cases. For more details visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir & Associates specializes in all aspects of creating, growing, and protecting incorporated businesses. We help you develop an internal structure that is in compliance with all corporate law statutes. Before you make any significant changes or investments, reach out to Gahir & Associates’s finest corporate lawyers. For more details visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
This document outlines the pre-trial stipulation for a case between plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu and defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashanda. It summarizes the facts of the case, including that the plaintiff was transferred to the Dismas facility to serve out his sentence before release, but was then returned to prison for violating rules. It lists the contested issues to be litigated including whether the defendants violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights and whether he sustained damages. It also lists the motions that have been filed, witnesses and exhibits to be presented at the estimated 4-5 day trial.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
This document is a response brief filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota) in response to the plaintiff's (Traian Bujduveanu) motion to strike the defendants' response brief to the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's motion to strike should be denied because the defendants properly responded to all discovery requests. The defendants also argue that the plaintiff provides no valid legal basis to strike the defendants' response brief and is simply attempting to argue the merits of the case rather than the discovery issues. The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied and sanctions be granted against the plaintiff.
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law is one of the top law firms in Mississauga, Ontario, Brampton, Toronto, Hamilton in Canada. In our law office, get assistance from our lawyer to help you in licence appeal tribunal law, administrative law, professional regulation disciplinary law, commercial land development mediator arbitrator law, corporate law, Immigration related cases. For more details visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir & Associates specializes in all aspects of creating, growing, and protecting incorporated businesses. We help you develop an internal structure that is in compliance with all corporate law statutes. Before you make any significant changes or investments, reach out to Gahir & Associates’s finest corporate lawyers. For more details visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
This document outlines the pre-trial stipulation for a case between plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu and defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashanda. It summarizes the facts of the case, including that the plaintiff was transferred to the Dismas facility to serve out his sentence before release, but was then returned to prison for violating rules. It lists the contested issues to be litigated including whether the defendants violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights and whether he sustained damages. It also lists the motions that have been filed, witnesses and exhibits to be presented at the estimated 4-5 day trial.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
This document is a response brief filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota) in response to the plaintiff's (Traian Bujduveanu) motion to strike the defendants' response brief to the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's motion to strike should be denied because the defendants properly responded to all discovery requests. The defendants also argue that the plaintiff provides no valid legal basis to strike the defendants' response brief and is simply attempting to argue the merits of the case rather than the discovery issues. The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied and sanctions be granted against the plaintiff.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a response brief filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota) in response to the plaintiff's (Traian Bujduveanu) motion to strike the defendants' response brief to the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's motion to strike should be denied because the defendants properly responded to all discovery requests. The defendants also argue that the plaintiff provides no valid legal basis to strike the defendants' response brief and is simply attempting to argue the merits of the case rather than the discovery issues. The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied and sanctions be granted against the plaintiff.
State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorn...Rich Bergeron
After two straight motions with no response, Tara Heater finally has something to say and doesn't want the case thrown out. Judge O'Neill will no doubt give her whatever she wants, no matter how poorly she is prepared for trial. See more at www.nhdrugtaskforce.com
This document is a response by the defendants to the plaintiff's motion to supplement his motion to compel discovery responses. The defendants argue that their discovery responses have been timely and proper. They assert that the plaintiff's motion is an attempt to argue the merits of the case rather than the sufficiency of the discovery responses. The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied and sanctions be awarded against the plaintiff.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a response by the defendants to the plaintiff's motion to supplement his motion to compel discovery responses. The defendants argue that they have properly responded to all of the plaintiff's discovery requests. They assert that the purpose of the motion to compel is to compel responses when the other side has not responded, which is not the case here. The defendants believe the plaintiff is trying to force them to change their discovery answers to ones more favorable to the plaintiff through this motion. They request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
- The Immigration Judge found that they did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's application for adjustment of status because the respondent was an arriving alien.
- The respondent appealed, arguing that the Immigration Judge erred in finding a lack of jurisdiction. The respondent also filed a motion to remand.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals granted the respondent's motion to remand, finding that the Immigration Judge did have jurisdiction. The Board remanded the case back to the Immigration Court for further proceedings.
Recent Developments in Rhode Island Law 2015 - State Courts and Civil ProcedureNicole Benjamin
Recent Developments in Rhode Island Law 2015 - State Courts and Civil Procedure, including issues of first impression and issues related to civil and appellate procedure.
This judgment involves two related matrimonial appeals. The High Court of Kerala upheld the family court's judgment granting a divorce to the wife on the grounds of cruelty by the husband. The court found that the husband treated the wife as a source of money, constantly harassing her and her family for funds. He mismanaged his real estate business and spent money lavishly. He also physically and sexually abused the wife, even during her pregnancy. The husband further levelled false allegations of adultery against the wife. Taking all the circumstances into account, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the divorce.
1) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former federal inmate against a residential reentry center and its employees.
2) The plaintiff violated conditions of his release from federal prison by driving a car and possessing a cell phone. As a result, he was sent back to federal prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action against them because the federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, made the decision to return the plaintiff to prison for his violations of rules. Therefore, the defendants should be granted summary judgment.
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...Rich Bergeron
Answering a pile of documented accusations with a couple pages of complete BS, Attorney Tara Heater still hasn't provided any affidavits to back up her lies. This is her objection to my latest motion, which basically says she'd like to rely on her objection to the last motion for sanctions. Total laziness and obviously now a matter of being afraid to dig herself deeper.
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding an application seeking revision of a High Court order concerning the return of two children to Australia under the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act. The court addressed several preliminary objections raised by the father (1st respondent) regarding the mother's (petitioner) locus standi to file the revision application, whether she was guilty of laches, and other issues. The court overruled the objections, finding that the mother had a right to file as an aggrieved party, the two month delay was not unreasonable, and that there is no right to appeal such orders under the relevant Act.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
This document is a judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) rejecting an applicant's appeal of a visa officer's refusal to issue a permanent resident visa to her spouse. The Federal Court judge identifies three issues: whether the IAD ignored the cultural context of the arranged marriage; whether the IAD erred in assessing the applicant's marriage; and whether the IAD failed to consider the totality of evidence. The judge finds that the IAD made several errors, including failing to properly consider the cultural context of the arranged marriage and placing undue focus on the spouse's immigration history. The judge allows the application and remits the case to a new panel of the IAD to reconsider according to the legal test
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
The Immigration Appeal Division allowed the appeal of Harjit Kaur Uppal regarding the refusal of a permanent resident visa application made by her spouse, Avtar Singh Gill. An immigration officer had refused the application, finding the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for immigration purposes. However, the Minister recommended allowing the appeal after reviewing evidence and hearing testimony. The panel agreed, finding the marriage genuine based on the couple's ongoing relationship and communications, as well as the birth of their child. The refusal was set aside and the application ordered to be further processed.
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Lawyers in Brampton Ontario | Business Lawyers in Brampton | Top Lawyers in C...Gahir & Associate Lawyers
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
This document is a court order regarding an application for suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of an appeal. The appellant has appealed his conviction for rape under false promise of marriage. The appellant's lawyer argues there are flaws in the prosecution's evidence and the trial court failed to consider crucial evidence favoring the appellant. The prosecution opposes bail, arguing the complainant was misled by a promise of marriage. The court notes some issues raised by the appellant require deeper scrutiny and consideration. While not reassessing evidence, the court finds infirmities pointed out need review. Considering these factors, the court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant pending the appeal's disposal.
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Appeal Division, dismissing his appeal from a finding by a Visa Officer that his marriage was not genuine within the meaning of subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 and accordingly, that his wife is not a member of the family class as defined in paragraph 117(1)(a) of the Regulations.
A visa officer refused a sponsorship application, believing the marriage was entered into solely for immigration purposes. The officer had several concerns, including that the couple did not spend significant time together before or after marriage, wedding photos did not follow cultural traditions, and the applicant had little knowledge of the sponsor's life. An interview revealed language barriers and discomfort discussing the sponsor's previous relationship. The application was refused due to concerns over the purpose and genuineness of the marriage. The decision was appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division, which would allow the appeal if finding the marriage was not entered into for immigration purposes based on a balance of probabilities.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a response brief filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota) in response to the plaintiff's (Traian Bujduveanu) motion to strike the defendants' response brief to the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's motion to strike should be denied because the defendants properly responded to all discovery requests. The defendants also argue that the plaintiff provides no valid legal basis to strike the defendants' response brief and is simply attempting to argue the merits of the case rather than the discovery issues. The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied and sanctions be granted against the plaintiff.
State's Objection to Motion to Dismiss (Filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorn...Rich Bergeron
After two straight motions with no response, Tara Heater finally has something to say and doesn't want the case thrown out. Judge O'Neill will no doubt give her whatever she wants, no matter how poorly she is prepared for trial. See more at www.nhdrugtaskforce.com
This document is a response by the defendants to the plaintiff's motion to supplement his motion to compel discovery responses. The defendants argue that their discovery responses have been timely and proper. They assert that the plaintiff's motion is an attempt to argue the merits of the case rather than the sufficiency of the discovery responses. The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied and sanctions be awarded against the plaintiff.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a response by the defendants to the plaintiff's motion to supplement his motion to compel discovery responses. The defendants argue that they have properly responded to all of the plaintiff's discovery requests. They assert that the purpose of the motion to compel is to compel responses when the other side has not responded, which is not the case here. The defendants believe the plaintiff is trying to force them to change their discovery answers to ones more favorable to the plaintiff through this motion. They request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge William Cassidy 01/01/2014-05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
- The Immigration Judge found that they did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent's application for adjustment of status because the respondent was an arriving alien.
- The respondent appealed, arguing that the Immigration Judge erred in finding a lack of jurisdiction. The respondent also filed a motion to remand.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals granted the respondent's motion to remand, finding that the Immigration Judge did have jurisdiction. The Board remanded the case back to the Immigration Court for further proceedings.
Recent Developments in Rhode Island Law 2015 - State Courts and Civil ProcedureNicole Benjamin
Recent Developments in Rhode Island Law 2015 - State Courts and Civil Procedure, including issues of first impression and issues related to civil and appellate procedure.
This judgment involves two related matrimonial appeals. The High Court of Kerala upheld the family court's judgment granting a divorce to the wife on the grounds of cruelty by the husband. The court found that the husband treated the wife as a source of money, constantly harassing her and her family for funds. He mismanaged his real estate business and spent money lavishly. He also physically and sexually abused the wife, even during her pregnancy. The husband further levelled false allegations of adultery against the wife. Taking all the circumstances into account, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the divorce.
1) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former federal inmate against a residential reentry center and its employees.
2) The plaintiff violated conditions of his release from federal prison by driving a car and possessing a cell phone. As a result, he was sent back to federal prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action against them because the federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, made the decision to return the plaintiff to prison for his violations of rules. Therefore, the defendants should be granted summary judgment.
State's Objection to Motion For Sanctions Against Tara Heater, Martha Ann Hor...Rich Bergeron
Answering a pile of documented accusations with a couple pages of complete BS, Attorney Tara Heater still hasn't provided any affidavits to back up her lies. This is her objection to my latest motion, which basically says she'd like to rely on her objection to the last motion for sanctions. Total laziness and obviously now a matter of being afraid to dig herself deeper.
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding an application seeking revision of a High Court order concerning the return of two children to Australia under the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act. The court addressed several preliminary objections raised by the father (1st respondent) regarding the mother's (petitioner) locus standi to file the revision application, whether she was guilty of laches, and other issues. The court overruled the objections, finding that the mother had a right to file as an aggrieved party, the two month delay was not unreasonable, and that there is no right to appeal such orders under the relevant Act.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
This document is a judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) rejecting an applicant's appeal of a visa officer's refusal to issue a permanent resident visa to her spouse. The Federal Court judge identifies three issues: whether the IAD ignored the cultural context of the arranged marriage; whether the IAD erred in assessing the applicant's marriage; and whether the IAD failed to consider the totality of evidence. The judge finds that the IAD made several errors, including failing to properly consider the cultural context of the arranged marriage and placing undue focus on the spouse's immigration history. The judge allows the application and remits the case to a new panel of the IAD to reconsider according to the legal test
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
The Immigration Appeal Division allowed the appeal of Harjit Kaur Uppal regarding the refusal of a permanent resident visa application made by her spouse, Avtar Singh Gill. An immigration officer had refused the application, finding the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for immigration purposes. However, the Minister recommended allowing the appeal after reviewing evidence and hearing testimony. The panel agreed, finding the marriage genuine based on the couple's ongoing relationship and communications, as well as the birth of their child. The refusal was set aside and the application ordered to be further processed.
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Lawyers in Brampton Ontario | Business Lawyers in Brampton | Top Lawyers in C...Gahir & Associate Lawyers
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
This document is a court order regarding an application for suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of an appeal. The appellant has appealed his conviction for rape under false promise of marriage. The appellant's lawyer argues there are flaws in the prosecution's evidence and the trial court failed to consider crucial evidence favoring the appellant. The prosecution opposes bail, arguing the complainant was misled by a promise of marriage. The court notes some issues raised by the appellant require deeper scrutiny and consideration. While not reassessing evidence, the court finds infirmities pointed out need review. Considering these factors, the court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant pending the appeal's disposal.
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Appeal Division, dismissing his appeal from a finding by a Visa Officer that his marriage was not genuine within the meaning of subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 and accordingly, that his wife is not a member of the family class as defined in paragraph 117(1)(a) of the Regulations.
A visa officer refused a sponsorship application, believing the marriage was entered into solely for immigration purposes. The officer had several concerns, including that the couple did not spend significant time together before or after marriage, wedding photos did not follow cultural traditions, and the applicant had little knowledge of the sponsor's life. An interview revealed language barriers and discomfort discussing the sponsor's previous relationship. The application was refused due to concerns over the purpose and genuineness of the marriage. The decision was appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division, which would allow the appeal if finding the marriage was not entered into for immigration purposes based on a balance of probabilities.
1. Amit Gupta and Neha Gupta filed a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. They got married in 2011 and have one daughter together but have been living separately since 2012 due to temperamental differences.
3. They reached an agreement on settlement terms including payment of money, return of belongings, custody of daughter, and withdrawal of legal cases.
The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring her a foreigner who entered India after 1971. She provided 11 documents to prove her citizenship but the Tribunal found flaws. It noted discrepancies in names in voter lists from different villages and years. Certificates from village heads were inadmissible without examining authors. Land records did not prove inheritance from parents before 1971. Witnesses could not establish linkage to parents. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's opinion, finding no infirmity in its appreciation of evidence and fulfillment of principles of natural justice. The petition was dismissed.
The document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a writ petition filed by Asor Uddin challenging a ex-parte order from the Foreigners' Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the ex-parte order, and remanded the matter back to the Foreigners' Tribunal for fresh proceedings. However, the petitioner was ordered to remain on bail, appear before the Superintendent of Police, and the Foreigners' Tribunal by certain dates or the ex-parte order would be revived.
This appeal concerns a dispute over ownership of a piece of land between the plaintiff who purchased the land in 2005 and the defendants who claim inheritance rights. The High Court had ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The key issues are:
1) Whether the High Court erred in setting aside a 2010 default judgment and consent order obtained in a previous 2004 case regarding the land.
2) Whether the principle of res judicata applies given the plaintiff's failed application to intervene in the 2004 case.
3) Whether the plaintiff's title to the land is indefeasible as a bona fide purchaser, or if he had notice of the defendants' claim due to his lawyer's involvement in the 2004 case.
RTI dated 7.12.22 against suppression of Gang Rape matter.pdfOmPrakashPoddar1
Supreme Court of India is main accused in Non Bail able Warrant and Gang Rape matter W.P.(Crl.) D.NO. 18546/2022. Sixteen petitions (SLP. Writ, Review, Curative and M.A) have been filed against interlinked with this matter since 2012 to till date, yet no rescue of 18 year ago kidnapped pregnant wife Rina Kumari (Guddi) and abducted unseen minor daughter from the clutches of sex Abusers State by Supreme Court of India and Union of India as on date
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Barshi at Barshi, India. It details a lawsuit filed by Trimbak Aagatrao against the Grampanchayat Khandvi and several individuals. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed land and sought an order directing the Grampanchayat to record his name and an injunction preventing obstruction of his possession. The court examined documents establishing the plaintiff's title and found in his favor, directing the Grampanchayat to record his name and restraining the other defendants from obstructing his possession. Costs were not awarded to either party to prevent further conflict.
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application hearing for a case involving charges of rape, fraud, criminal intimidation, and unlawful religious conversion. The applicant, Sonu Rajpoot, sought bail while awaiting trial. The court summarized the arguments of the applicant's lawyer, who argued that the victim was a consenting adult and the applicant was falsely accused due to a religious conversion dispute. The prosecution opposed bail. Considering the circumstances, lack of evidence tampering, and consent between the applicant and victim, the court granted bail to the applicant with conditions including not harassing the victim.
The document is a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals regarding an appeal by Joy Atila Litaba, a citizen of Kenya, of an immigration judge's denial of a continuance. The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded the case to allow Litaba more time to consult with her attorney and seek relief from removal, noting her youth, desire for more time to seek counsel, and the absence of a formal notice of representation. The Board ordered further proceedings consistent with providing Litaba a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel and seek relief.
Recent Developments in Rhode Island Law 2014 - State Courts and Civil ProcedureNicole Benjamin
This document summarizes recent developments in Rhode Island law from 2014, focusing on state courts and civil procedure. Key points include: the launch of electronic filing in civil cases beginning in November 2014; changes to the Providence County civil non-dispositive motion calendar eliminating the call of the calendar; and several issues of first impression addressed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court during the 2013-2014 term related to admiralty law, appellate practice, attorneys, class actions, commercial law, and medical malpractice.
The court remanded the case back to the Foreigners Tribunal to pass a reasoned order after reviewing the records of two previous cases regarding the petitioner's citizenship status. An earlier opinion declaring the petitioner not a foreigner lacked reasons and was therefore not a valid basis for the principle of res judicata to apply. However, in the interest of justice, the court ordered the Tribunal to consider materials from both previous cases and issue a new reasoned ruling, while no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner until then. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaintsseoglobal20
Our company bridges the gap between registered users and experienced advocates, offering a user-friendly online platform for seamless interaction. This platform empowers users to voice their grievances, particularly regarding online consumer issues. We streamline support by utilizing our team of expert advocates to provide consultancy services and initiate appropriate legal actions.
Our Online Consumer Legal Forum offers comprehensive guidance to individuals and businesses facing consumer complaints. With a dedicated team, round-the-clock support, and efficient complaint management, we are the preferred solution for addressing consumer grievances.
Our intuitive online interface allows individuals to register complaints, seek legal advice, and pursue justice conveniently. Users can submit complaints via mobile devices and send legal notices to companies directly through our portal.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
Lawyers in Ontario Canada
1. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision
SPONSORSHIP
Appellant(s) SATWANT SINGH MANGAT Appelant(e)(s)
Respondent The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Intimé(e)
Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration
Date(s) and Place of
Hearing
September 2, 2011
November 4, 2011
Date(s) et lieu de
l’audience
Toronto, Ontario
Date of Decision November 18, 2011 Date de la décision
Panel Donald V. Macdougall Tribunal
Counsel for the
Appellant(s)
Harinder S Gahir
Conseil(s) de
l’appelant(e) / des
appelant(e)(s)
Barrister and Solicitor
Counsel for the
Minister Diana Kusztra
Conseil du
ministre
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)
2. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction and Issue
[1] The appellant appeals pursuant to section 63(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act1
(IRPA) from a decision of the immigration officer not to issue a permanent
resident visa to his applicant wife, on the basis that the marriage is not genuine and that it was
entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act.
[2] The issue is whether the appellant has proven that the applicant is to be considered his
spouse, and therefore a member of the family class, pursuant to Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations2
(IRPR) sections 117(1)(a) and 4.
Decision
[3] Having considered the evidence and submissions, the panel finds that the appellant has
proven on a balance of probabilities that the marriage is genuine and that it was not entered into
primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act. The appeal is
allowed pursuant to section 66(a) of IRPA.
Background
[4] In May 2008, the appellant and the applicant married in India.3
The applicant applied for
a permanent resident visa;4
the appellant applied to sponsor the applicant as his spouse.5
In
1
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
2
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR, 2002-227, as amended.
3
Exhibit R-1, pp. 10, 41-45.
4
Ibid., pp. 10-16, 26-31.
5
Ibid., pp. 32-39.
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)
3. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
2
October 2009, the immigration officer refused that application for permanent residence, deciding
that the applicant was excluded from being considered a spouse under IRPA.6
The appellant
filed an appeal of that decision.7
[5] At the hearing of this appeal the appellant testified and filed four Exhibits of
documentary evidence; the applicant testified by teleconference from India. The respondent
filed two Exhibits, including the Record. At the end of the hearing, the panel reserved its
decision.
[6] The 41-year-old appellant was born in India, came to Canada in August 1994 and is a
permanent resident. He was married to his first wife from 2002 until their divorce in 2008.8
He
married the applicant in May 2008. 9
He works as a truck driver.
[7] The 41-year-old applicant was born in and is a citizen of India.10
She was not married
before marrying the appellant in May 2008.11
Analysis
[8] A Canadian citizen or permanent resident may sponsor the application of a foreign
national as a member of the family class; a spouse is a member of the family class.12
However,
if the marriage was entered into in bad faith, IRPR section 4 excludes that spouse from the family
class:
4. Bad faith - (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign
national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or
6
Exhibit R-1, pp. 5-8.
7
Ibid., pp. 1-2.
8
Ibid., pp. 35, 40.
9
Ibid., pp. 10, 41-45.
10
Exhibit R-1, p. 10.
11
Ibid., pp. 10, 41-45.
12
IRPR subsections 130(1), 117(1)(a).
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)
4. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
3
a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law
partnership or conjugal partnership
(a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of
acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; or
(b) is not genuine.
[9] In considering whether the marriage is genuine for the purposes of IRPR, the panel
examined a number of factors13
and took into account additional evidence that was not before the
immigration officer.14
The panel is cognisant of the immigration objectives, especially “to see
that families are reunited in Canada.”15
[10] The appellant bears the burden of proof. To allow this appeal, the panel must be satisfied
on a balance of probabilities that the marriage is genuine and that it was not entered into
primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under IRPA. Although IRPR
section 4 was amended,16
the findings in this case would have resulted in allowing the appeal
under either test.
[11] The immigration officer interviewed the applicant in October 200917
and identified a
number of concerns, including that she and the appellant were not compatible in terms of age,
education and marital background; the circumstances of the appellant’s previous marriage were
suspicious; the marriage was hastily arranged and the applicant was vague about the
circumstances; the appellant was casually dressed at one point in the marriage ceremonies; there
was minimal evidence of contact between the appellant and applicant; and that the applicant was
not credible about a number of topics and inconsistent with the application documents.
[12] The panel considers that the immigration officer had reasonable concerns and suspicions
after the applicant’s interview. However, the evidence at the hearing provided reasonable
13
Khera v. M.C.I., 2007 FC 632 (FC) and Chavez, Rodrigo v. M.C.I. (IAD TA3-24409), Hoare, February 11, 2005
14
Kahlon v. M.E.I. (1989), 7 Imm. L.R. (2d) 91 (F.C.A.).
15
IRPA, section 3(1)(d)
16
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR, 2002-227, as amended by PC201-1176.
17
Exhibit R-1, pp. 20-25
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)
5. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
4
explanations for those concerns.
Genuineness of marriage and development of the relationship
[13] The appellant testified that he entered Canada in August 1994 as a refugee claimant from
India; his claim was rejected in December 1995, and judicial review was denied in January 1996.
In 1996 and in February 2000, he made applications to remain in Canada on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds; although the details are unclear, it appears that those applications were
dismissed or not continued. He testified that in January, 2001, he met his first wife in Canada
and they married in Canada in February 2002. He obtained permanent resident status in March
2005, and then separated from his first wife in May 2005, and they divorced in April 2008.18
[14] He explained that he separated from his first wife because he went to India in March
2005 to attend his ill father, his wife did not want to go with him, and when he returned to
Canada his wife had moved out. He learned that she was living with a boyfriend she had before
her marriage. The appellant also said that part of their differences was that he wanted to have
children but she “was not ready.” He testified that he delayed divorce because he wanted to
reconcile, although he also agreed that he viewed it as intolerable that she was living with
another man. Although the respondent submitted that these circumstances were suspicious and
indicative of a marriage of convenience in order for the appellant to gain permanent residence
status, the panel does not find that they are connected to or affect his second marriage or its
genuineness, and finds that they have little weight in this appeal.
[15] The appellant testified that his brother, a police officer in India, arranged a meeting with
his second wife; his brother had known the applicant’s father for about four to five years. The
applicant testified that the families had begun to consider a possible marriage about 1½ months
before they met; the appellant’s brother had arranged photograph exchanges and the appellant
had spoken briefly on the telephone with the applicant. They first met on May 3, 2008 at the
18
Exhibit R-1, pp. 9, 33, 35, 40.
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)
6. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
5
appellant’s brother’s house in India, together with both sets of parents and other family members,
and shared family and personal information. Both the appellant and applicant provided detailed,
similar testimony about this meeting. The appellant and applicant both said they specifically
shared information about the appellant’s refugee claim in Canada, his first marriage, her decision
to delay marriage, the difference in their formal education, and the (disabled) condition of the
applicant’s brother; they both were satisfied that those factors did not negatively affect their
decision to marry and that they found each other suitable. The applicant testified that the final
decision to marry was made the next day. The panel finds that the timing of the appellant’s
divorce and the dates on the divorce documents are not significant when weighed against the
other evidence about the relationship and its genuineness.19
These issues were concerns for the
immigration officer but the panel finds that they were adequately explored and explained at this
appeal hearing.
[16] The appellant and applicant married on May 19, 2008, attended by a large number of
friends and family from both sides.20
Both the immigration officer and respondent’s counsel
submitted that the appellant’s decision to change from formal pants into jeans at one point in the
proceedings showed the appellant’s casual approach to the marriage and was a negative factor in
determining its genuineness; the panel does not agree. There are sufficient photographs showing
the appellant in “formal” pant dress during the more formal part of the ceremony, some of the
other attendees wore “casual” trousers, the appellant and applicant both explained this issue in
their testimony, and from other visits the appellant made, he appears to be a devotee to wearing
jeans.21
[17] The appellant stayed in India with his wife until mid-July 2008. 22
19
See Exhibit R-1, pp. 40, 50.
20
Exhibit R-1, pp. 10, 41-45, 76-81; Exhibit A-1, especially pp. 18, 3, 7-9, 12-13.
21
Exhibit A-1, pp. 1-2, 6-11, 12-13, 14-15, 18-19, 26 and 28; Exhibit A-2, pp. 3-24.
22
Exhibit R-1, p. 50; Exhibit A-1, pp. 44-45.
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)
7. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
6
Post-marriage relationship
[18] The appellant returned to India to be with his wife from mid-July through the end of
August 2010.23
He visited his wife again for three months from February through June 2011.24
The appellant and applicant both described normal marital activities during those times,
including visits with relatives and to religious sites. The photographs submitted illustrate that
they appear comfortable together.
[19] The appellant and applicant also testified that they communicate regularly by telephone.25
[20] The appellant and applicant have been involved in medical fertility treatments, attempting
to have a child.26
They both testified about these ongoing efforts, which have resulted in two
conceptions that have not terminated. They testified that their doctor has assured them that full-
term pregnancy is likely. Additionally, the applicant described that during the appellant’s 2011
visit they arranged a three-day non-stop prayer function at his parent’s home, involving many
relatives and village members, in an effort to obtain blessings for childbirth. They both testified
that if they fail to have a child, they are considering adoption.
[21] The panel finds that the application forms filed by the appellant and applicant presented
some appropriate concerns for the respondent. Most important, there is an indication that the
applicant was three-months pregnant, which both denied in their testimony.27
The applicant told
the immigration officer at her interview that this was incorrect; the appellant testified that this
was an error made by the agent who completed the forms, and referred to the medical
information they filed.28
23
Exhibit A-2, pp. 2-25, 45-51.
24
Exhibit A-2, pp. 27-42, 45-51.
25
Exhibits A-2, pp. 88-114; Exhibit R-1, pp. 52-73.
26
Ibid., pp. 53-87.
27
Exhibit R-1, p. 39.
28
The appellant also agreed that some of the information in Exhibit R-1, pp. 36-39 was incorrect.
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)
8. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
7
[22] Another puzzling aspect of the information filed was the discrepancy about ages and
identities, especially on the “ration card”, which the panel finds was sufficiently explained in the
testimony.29
Additionally, the applicant’s use of her parents’ address on some of the
documentation, although the testimony indicated that she has lived “most of the time”30
with the
appellant’s parents, was adequately explained.31
[23] The panel had the benefit of hearing and seeing the appellant testify under affirmation
and hearing the applicant testify under affirmation. There is a presumption of truth in sworn
evidence, unless there is reason to doubt that truthfulness.32
There was no inconsistency or
implausibility that overcame the presumption of truth from the sworn evidence in this case. The
panel finds that the appellant was sincere and accepts his evidence as being credible, trustworthy
and reliable. The panel also is satisfied that the applicant’s testimony was credible and
trustworthy.
[24] At this hearing, both the appellant and the applicant were questioned about the
development of their relationship and asked about the related insufficiencies and issues identified
by the immigration officers at the applicant’s interview. The two mature witnesses testified in
detail about each other’s lifestyle and personal details and addressed reasonably the interviewer’s
concerns. Although some of the details were puzzling and on their face caused concern, the
panel finds that they were plausibly and reasonably described and that nothing about them deters
from the genuineness of the relationship that developed. The panel does not find that the
evidence was manufactured to defeat the immigration process but finds that both the appellant
and the applicant gave adequate and convincing explanations and that all of the evidence
demonstrated a real and genuine relationship.
29
Exhibit R-2; Exhibit A-3; Exhibit A-4.
30
Appellant’s testimony.
31
Exhibit R-1, pp. 10, 85-86; Exhibit A-2, p. 103.
32
Maldonado v M.E.I., [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.), at 305.
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)
9. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
8
Primary purpose of acquiring status under IRPA
[25] The IRPR section 4 test applies to both sides of the marriage. The importance of
membership in the family class by marriage is that the applicant is largely exempted from other
requirements. The advantage sought in spousal appeals is generally entry to Canada and the
granting of permanent resident status to the applicant as a member of the family class. Whether
the relationship was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege
under IRPA is usually self-evident and self-explanatory.
[26] The applicant has never worked and the marriage may be seen to have economic
advantages for her. Although the respondent posited that the applicant’s purpose for the
marriage might be to sponsor her father and brother to Canada, there was no evidence to support
that and both the appellant and applicant denied it.
[27] The genuineness of the marriage also presents strong evidence that the marriage was not
entered into for the purpose of gaining immigration status.
[28] The panel concludes that the evidence demonstrates that the acquisition of status under
IRPA was not a primary purpose for the marriage of the applicant and appellant.
Conclusion
[29] The appellant has met his evidentiary and persuasive burden. Although, as submitted by
the respondent, there could be some negative inferences from the evidence, the appellant has
provided sufficient evidence concerning the genuineness and purpose of his marriage. The panel
finds that the evidence demonstrates on a balance of probabilities that there is a shared
relationship of some permanence, that there is interdependence between the husband and wife,
that there are shared responsibilities and that there is a serious commitment.33
33
Jin: M.C.I. v. Jin, Keun (F.C., no. IMM-1604-08), Zinn, October 16, 2008, 2008 FC 1172 at paragraph 14.
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)
10. IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TA9-22002
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 3055-2265
9
[30] Having considered the factors and submissions and weighed the evidence, the panel finds
that the appellant has proven on a balance of probabilities that the marriage is genuine and that it
was not entered into primarily to acquire any status or privilege under IRPA. The appeal is
allowed pursuant to section 66(a) of IRPA.
NOTICE OF DECISION
The appeal is allowed. The officer’s decision to refuse a permanent resident visa is set
aside, and the officer must continue to process the application in accordance with the reasons of
the Immigration Appeal Division.
“Donald V. Macdougall”
Donald V. Macdougall
November 18, 2011
Date
Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, you may make an application to
the Federal Court for judicial review of this decision, with leave of that Court. You may wish to get advice from
counsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application.
2011
CanLII
93681
(CA
IRB)