Our Recent Immigration Success Stories

At Bellissimo Immigration Law Group PC, we are privileged to work on behalf of many wonderful people, companies and associations. We represent immigration applicants from far outside Canada, from the time they step foot into the country’s airport waiting rooms all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Our immigration clients often tell us after their case is concluded that it would have helped to know of similar stories that are real and not just what you hear on the street. So every month, we post a few stories to celebrate our immigration success stories and offer some comfort to those who will soon embark on a similar journey…

Contact Us

11 Jun 2024

Settlement Received at the Federal Court

Our client came to us wanting to know their options for a refusal of their Temporary Resident Visa (TRV). We were then retained to challenge a refusal at the Federal Court. We filed an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review and, upon receiving the reasons behind the Officer’s decision, it was confirmed that the decision was both unfair and unreasonable. We carefully crafted our legal arguments and filed all materials with the Court and, shortly thereafter, we received a Settlement Offer from the Department of Justice! Once we communicated the details of the offer to our client, they were delighted to accept. The refusal of our client’s TRV application was set aside and the application will be re-determined by a different officer. We are thrilled to have been able to assist our client in achieving this amazing result!

17 May 2024

Redetermination of Visitor visa (TRV) approved in one week

Our client’s visitor visa was refused, but he successfully challenged the decision at the Federal Court with the assistance of our litigation team. Upon receipt and acceptance of the settlement offer, his application was sent back for redetermination by a different visa officer. In preparation for the redetermination, our processing team meticulously compiled extensive documentation. This included updated forms, supplementary materials, and thorough arguments addressing all the concerns raised by the officer. His application was approved in one week, granting him the long-awaited opportunity to reunite with his family in Canada after several years of separation. We are very delighted to have facilitated such a positive outcome and wish him all the best.

14 May 2024

A Successful Medical Inadmissibility Case for Permanent Residence: Hemophilia

We had been representing a family on a permanent residence application, based on a provincial nomination. The application was stalled and in jeopardy of being refused because one of the dependent applicants had a medical condition, hemophilia.

Working with the family and medical professionals for a number of months, we were able to advocate on the family’s behalf and classify the individual’s personal circumstances of hemophilia, bringing the costs of the individual’s care in Canada well under the threshold, considering ongoing treatment as well as the risk for creating any excessive demand in the period under consideration for the coming 5 years.

We are very pleased that it was successful, and the family recently received their confirmation of permanent residence.

10 May 2024

Successful RAD appeal

We recently represented a client whose refugee claim was refused and the client retained our office to appeal the negative decision to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). Further to our thorough and extensive review of the appellant’s documents presented in support of their refugee claim and transcript of the hearing, we were able to show that the Member of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) made a number of errors in their assessment of evidence, misconstrued the Appellant’s testimony and failed to properly apply Chairperson Guidelines. We argued that the Appellant does in fact fall under the definition of Convention Refugee or a Person in Need of Protection based on their personal profile. We were very happy to learn that the RAD Member agreed with our arguments, found the Appellant to be a person in need of protection, and overturned the decision of the RPD Member.