Vigo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 129985 (CA IRB (IAD))

is a case that was heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s
Immigration Appeal Division. The case involved Katherina Ysabel Layza Vigo (the
appellant) appealing the refusal of her husband Mauro Cesar Aldea Cruzado’s spousal
permanent resident (PR) application, which included their shared daughter as an
accompanying dependent of the applicant. The controversy in the case was whether
the applicant belonged to the family class. In this case, the appellant raised a
constitutional issue, challenging the validity and applicability of section 117 (9) (d) of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, arguing that these provisions
collectively violated her rights under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The decision in this case was that the appellant’s appeal was dismissed because the
applicant did not belong to the family class. The ruling in this case has significant
implications for the interpretation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act. The case underscores the importance of credibility, state protection, and the
availability of an internal flight alternative in determining refugee status 1.
In summary, Vigo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 129985 (CA
IRB (IAD)) is a case that was heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada’s Immigration Appeal Division. The case involved Katherina Ysabel Layza
Vigo (the appellant) appealing the refusal of her husband Mauro Cesar Aldea
Cruzado’s spousal permanent resident (PR) application, which included their shared
daughter as an accompanying dependent of the applicant. The controversy in the case
was whether the applicant belonged to the family class. The appellant raised a
constitutional issue, challenging the validity and applicability of section 117 (9) (d) of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, arguing that these provisions
collectively violated her rights under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The decision in this case was that the appellant’s appeal was dismissed because the
applicant did not belong to the family class. The ruling in this case has significant
implications for the interpretation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act. The case underscores the importance of credibility, state protection, and the
availability of an internal flight alternative in determining refugee status 1.