How have the courts interpreted the words "serious reasons for considering" in Section F of the Employment and Immigration Act?
Canada (Federal), Canada
The following excerpt is from Shrestha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 887 (CanLII):
17 Section F uses the words "serious reasons for considering" to qualify the burden of proof to be met by the Minister. In Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 8540 (FCA), [1992] 2 F.C. 306, at page 311, MacGuigan J. A. stated "[t]he words "serious reasons for considering" [...] must be taken [...] to establish a lower standard of proof than the balance of probabilities."
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have the courts interpreted the interpretation of reasons in cases involving judicial review in the immigration context? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
How have the courts interpreted section 56(2) of the Income Tax Code in the context of Section 56(1) and Section 5(2)? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
Can a Minister of Employment and Immigration (minister of employment and immigration) bring a claim against the Minister of Justice for Ministerial Responsibility for Immigration and Refugee Protection Division in a federal civil case? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the word "harvesting" in the context of a federal immigration case? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does Section 241(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Act apply to aliens who gain entry as a result of fraud in obtaining immigrant visas or fraud upon being inspected as immigrants at the point of entry? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Can a defendant waive his right to receive translation services provided by a court interpreter under the Court Interpreters Act? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether there genuinely are serious reasons for considering that a claimant may be complicit in the commissioning of crimes under section 1F of the Convention on Human Rights? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
How have federal courts interpreted the "last reasoned decision" by a state court addressing the merits of a claim? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
How has reasonable doubt been interpreted by courts in defining reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted section 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) of the Immigration Code and what are the implications of that? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
