simonosgoode/nomic_embed_fine_tune_law_v3

SentenceTransformer based on nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5

This is a sentence-transformers model finetuned from nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5. It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 768-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for semantic textual similarity, semantic search, paraphrase mining, text classification, clustering, and more.

Model Details

Model Description

• Model Type: Sentence Transformer
• Base model: nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5
• Maximum Sequence Length: 8192 tokens
• Output Dimensionality: 768 dimensions
• Similarity Function: Cosine Similarity

Model Sources

• Documentation: Sentence Transformers Documentation
• Repository: Sentence Transformers on GitHub
• Hugging Face: Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face

Full Model Architecture

SentenceTransformer(
  (0): Transformer({'max_seq_length': 8192, 'do_lower_case': False}) with Transformer model: NomicBertModel 
  (1): Pooling({'word_embedding_dimension': 768, 'pooling_mode_cls_token': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_tokens': True, 'pooling_mode_max_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_sqrt_len_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_weightedmean_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_lasttoken': False, 'include_prompt': True})
)

Usage

Direct Usage (Sentence Transformers)

First install the Sentence Transformers library:

pip install -U sentence-transformers

Then you can load this model and run inference.

from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer

# Download from the 🤗 Hub
model = SentenceTransformer("simonosgoode/nomic_embed_fine_tune_law_v3")
# Run inference
sentences = [
    'cluster: ISSUES:  Abdou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)\nCourt (s) Database\nFederal Court Decisions\nDate\n2014-05-26\nNeutral citation\n2014 FC 500\nFile numbers\nT-1638-13\nDecision Content\nDate: 20140526\nDocket:\nT-1638-13\nCitation: 2014 FC 500\nOttawa, Ontario, May 26, 2014\nPRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson\nBETWEEN:\nHATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU\nApplicant\nand\nTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION\nRespondent\nREASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT\n[1] This is an appeal of the decision of Wojciech Sniegowski, a Citizenship Judge with the Citizenship Commission, Immigration Canada [the Judge], pursuant to subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 [the Act]. The Judge denied the Applicant’s application for Canadian citizenship by deciding that he did not meet the residency requirement as defined in 5(1)(c) of the Act. .\nI. Issues [2] The issues are:\nA. Was the Judge’s decision reasonable in finding that the Applicant did not meet the residency requirement in 5(1)(c) of the Act?\nB. Did the Judge breach the duty of procedural fairness?\nII. Standard of Review [3] The issues involving the assessment of evidence and of mixed fact and law are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, at para 47-48 51, 53-54, 57, 62, 64; Singh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 408 at para 10).\n[4] The issue of procedural fairness is reviewable on the standard of correctness (Dunsmuir, at paras 57, 79; Navidi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 372, at para 13 [Navidi]).\nIII. Background [5] The Applicant is a stateless individual who was born in Kuwait. He arrived in Canada on June 7, 2003, and became a Permanent Resident of Canada on that date. He made an application for Canadian citizenship on August 8, 2008. For purposes of the residency requirement in 5(1)(c) of the Act, the Relevant Period at issue is August 8, 2004, to August 8, 2008 [the Relevant Period].\n[6] In his original application for citizenship, the Applicant listed three absences from Canada totalling 354 days. This includes a 320 day absence to Kuwait from 2004-2005. However, in his follow-up Residency Questionnaire, the Applicant listed only 34 days of absence, omitting the 320 day absence to Kuwait listed in his original application.\n[7] In support of his application, the Applicant submitted numerous documents, including:\n• Records with the Ontario Ministry of Health;\n• Notices of Assessment for 2003-2006, 2008;\n• Gas receipts;\n• Report cards for his children in Ontario schools;\n• Incorporation documents for 6612237 Canada Limited, a corporation for which the Applicant is an Officer and Director;\n• Banking records showing numerous wire transfers beginning in March, 2006;\n• Documentation pertaining to the removal of conditions that were imposed on him as a Permanent Resident;\n• Copies of two passports belonging to the Applicant. One is valid from September 15, 2002, to October 2, 2004, and contains a Kuwaiti residence permit valid from September 24, 2001, to September 9, 2004. The other is valid from May 5, 2009, to May 4, 2014, and contains a Kuwaiti residence permit valid from May 20, 2009, to July 3, 2010;\n• A Citizen’s Report from the Hamilton Police Service, which notes that his passport was not recovered after a stolen vehicle was returned to the Applicant, on or around October 3, 2007; and\n• Documents regarding financial and real estate dealings.\n[8] The Applicant did not submit a passport which covered the period from September 10, 2004, to May 4, 2009.\n[9] The Applicant had an interview before the Judge on April 18, 2013.\n[10] The Judge evaluated whether the Applicant met the residency requirement in 5(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with the test from (Re) Pourghasemi, [1993] FCJ No 232 (TD) [Pourghasemi]. In so doing, the Judge was not satisfied that the Applicant had proven that he was physically present in Canada for 1,095 days during the relevant period.\n[11] The Judge noted credibility concerns regarding the discrepancy between the absences listed on his original application (354 days) and his residence questionnaire (34 days). Additionally, without a passport submitted that was valid for the bulk of the Relevant Period, his absences were not verifiable.\n[12] The Judge found that the banking records submitted to prove the sale of construction equipment were more consistent with money transfers aimed at supporting family in Canada. This is supported by the fact that on his Residence Questionnaire, the Applicant claimed he sold his construction company in 2004.\n[13] Further, the Judge found that the lack of any reported income in 2003 and 2004 does not support his contention that he lived in Canada during the Relevant Period.\n[14] Based on the information submitted, the Judge was not satisfied that he had met the test from Pourghasemi (Atwani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1354, at paras 12, 18).\nIV. Analysis A. Was the Judge’s decision reasonable? [15] The Applicant makes limited submissions on the reasonableness of the Judge’s decision. His arguments amount to a claim that the Judge failed to properly consider the evidence of the Applicant’s Ministry of Health records, gas receipts, and documentation pertaining to the removal of conditions imposed on him as a Permanent Resident.\n[16] While the Judge did not cite all the evidence mentioned by the Respondent, as a whole the Judge’s decision was reasonable. There was a significant discrepancy between the absences declared in the Applicant’s original application and his Residence Questionnaire. The lack of a passport to verify these absences leaves the Applicant without clear or convincing evidence of his physical presence in Canada during the Relevant Period. In addition, it was reasonable of the Judge to find that the money transfers were more consistent with supporting family in Canada than of the gradual selling of construction equipment, given that the Applicant claimed he sold his construction equipment in 2004.\n[17] The Applicant’s arguments amount to assertions that the Judge failed to appropriately consider the evidence. This is not sufficient to show that the Judge’s decision was unreasonable.\nB. Did the Judge breach the duty of procedural fairness? [18] The Applicant notes that section 1.10 of the Citizenship Policy Manual [the Manual] suggests that a high degree of procedural fairness may be required of a citizenship judge due to the nature of the rights at issue. At sections 1.12 and 1.19 of the Manual, the content of this duty is described as including the right to be heard and that it may be unfair for a citizenship judge to base a decision on information that the applicant has not had an opportunity to comment on.\n[19] The Applicant argues that he was never given an opportunity to address a number of the Judge’s concerns. First, the Judge did not question him about the discrepancy in the absences declared in his citizenship application and his Residence Questionnaire. Second, the Judge did not give the Applicant an opportunity to explain why he was unable to submit a passport to corroborate his stated absences. Third, the Judge drew a negative inference from the Applicant’s history of money transfers, without giving the Applicant an opportunity to explain how these transfers reflect Kuwaiti business practices.\n[20] As these findings were central to the Judge’s decision, the Applicant argues that he ought to have been given an opportunity to respond to them.\n[21] At paras 8 and 10-12 of his affidavit, the Applicant describes a number of issues that were not raised by the Judge in his interview:\n8. At the outset of the interview, the citizenship judge flatly told me he did not want to see any documents that I had in my possession. The citizenship judge was mainly focussed on questioning me about the money I brought to Canada by means of selling heavy construction equipment in Kuwait…\n10…I was never questioned by the citizenship judge at my interview concerning the discrepancy which I was in a position to explain and satisfy the citizenship judge as to why and how the discrepancy came about.\n11…the citizenship judge did not provide me with an opportunity to address his concerns concerning the missing passport and if he had allowed me the opportunity to address his concerns, I would have been able to provide evidence concerning my trips during the years 2004 and 2009 outside Canada.\n12…I was not questioned by the citizenship judge concerning any medical problems that my family members had during the time I was in Canada and if he had done so, I would have been in a position to show the citizenship judge that I had to be in Canada for approximately one year when my daughter, Tala lost an eye due to an accident which occurred in or about October 2006.\n[22] This summary is supported by the notes of the interview provided by the Judge at pages 30-32 of the Certified Tribunal Record. These notes primarily relate to the money the Applicant brought into Canada, the alleged sale of heavy construction equipment by the Applicant, and some background information.\n[23] A fair reading of the Applicant’s affidavit and the Judge’s notes shows that the Judge did not focus his questioning on the discrepancy in the absences declared, the lost passport, or the other documentary evidence submitted.\n[24] The content of the procedural fairness required of a Judge in the context of a citizenship interview was described in Johar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1015, at para 41 [Johar]:\nThe Citizenship Judge is not obligated to provide an appellant with an opportunity to file additional material. The process cannot become a running commentary on the adequacy of the appellant\'s evidence (Zheng v. Canada (MCI), 2007 FC 1311, 163 A.C.W.S. (3d) 120, per Justice Simpson at para. 14). However, it is well established that an interview with the Citizenship Judge is "clearly intended to provide the candidate the opportunity to answer or, at the very least, address the concerns which gave rise to the request for an interview in the first place", and when an appellant is deprived of the opportunity to address those concerns, a denial of natural justice occurs (Stine v. Canada (MCI), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1264 (QL), 173 F.T.R. 298, per Justice Pelletier at para. 8; Tshimanga v. Canada (MCI), 2005 FC 1579, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 18, per Deputy Justice Rouleau at para. 17-19).\nAt issue in Johar was a lost passport and credibility concerns relating to that loss, similar to this case.\n[25] The Respondent cites Navidi in support of its position. In Navidi, the applicant’s travel history included a number of undeclared absences. The judge held that this undermined the applicant’s credibility and none of the other evidence submitted by the applicant was sufficient to show that 5(1)(c) of the Act was satisfied. The applicant claimed that he had not been afforded due procedural fairness as he was not given an opportunity to respond to the negative credibility finding in his interview. However, in Navidi, the judge did request additional submissions of the applicant (Navidi, at para 31).\n[26] The Judge’s decision in this appeal hinged on a negative credibility finding, based on the discrepancy in the absences declared by the Applicant. As in Johar, the Judge did not raise this discrepancy with the Applicant. Given the necessary procedural fairness afforded to applicants in citizenship applications and the centrality of this issue to the Applicant’s claim, I find that there was a breach of procedural fairness.\nJUDGMENT\nTHIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:\n1. The Applicant’s appeal is allowed and his application is referred back to another Citizenship Judge for re-determination.\n"Michael D. Manson"\nJudge\nFEDERAL COURT\nSOLICITORS OF RECORD\nDOCKET:\nT-1638-13\nSTYLE OF CAUSE:\nHATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION\nPLACE OF HEARING:\nToronto, ontario\nDATE OF HEARING:\nMay 21, 2014\nREASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT:\nMANSON J.\nDATED:\nMay 26, 2014\nAPPEARANCES:\nDonald Greenbaum\nFor The Applicant,\nHATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU\nSuzanne M. Bruce\nFor The Respondent,\nTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION\nSOLICITORS OF RECORD:\nDonald M. Greenbaum, QC\nBarrister, Solicitor & Notary Public\nToronto, Ontario\nFor The Applicant,\nHATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU\nWilliam F. Pentney\nDeputy Attorney General of Canada\nToronto, Ontario\nFor The Respondent,\nTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION\n',
    "cluster: ISSUES:  The issues before the court were whether the Judge's decision to deny the person concerned's application for Canadian citizenship was reasonable and whether the Judge breached the duty of procedural fairness. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Judge's decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence and whether the person concerned was given a fair opportunity to address the concerns raised by the Judge during the interview.",
    "cluster: CONCLUSION:  The court allowed the person concerned's appeal and referred his application back to another Citizenship Judge for re-determination. The court's decision was based on the finding that the Judge's decision was not reasonable and that the Judge breached the duty of procedural fairness. The court's decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness in citizenship applications and the need for Citizenship Judges to provide applicants with a fair opportunity to address concerns raised during the interview.",
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
print(embeddings.shape)
# [3, 768]

# Get the similarity scores for the embeddings
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities.shape)
# [3, 3]

Training Details

Training Dataset

Unnamed Dataset

• Size: 12,750 training samples
• Columns: anchor, positive, and negative
• Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

  	anchor	positive	negative
  type	string	string	string
  details	min: 370 tokens mean: 3019.34 tokens max: 6550 tokens	min: 27 tokens mean: 211.22 tokens max: 1042 tokens	min: 32 tokens mean: 223.91 tokens max: 1261 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive	negative
  cluster: ISSUES: Woodbine Entertainment Group v. Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-11-04 Neutral citation 2004 FC 1554 File numbers T-466-03 Decision Content Date: 20041104 Docket: T-466-03 Citation: 2004 FC 1554 BETWEEN: WOODBINE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP Applicant and HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO, ONTARIO HARNESS HORSE ASSOCIATION and CANADIAN PARI-MUTUEL AGENCY Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER SIMPSON, J. The Applications [1] In the first application, the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of Ontario ("HBPA") and the Ontario Harness Horse Association ("OHHA") (together the "Associations") seek judicial review of a decision dated December 18, 2002 (the "Decision") made by the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency ("CPMA") in which it issued a license to Woodbine Entertainment Group ("WEG") to conduct wagering on simulcast horse racing in calendar year 2003 (the "Merits Application"). [2] Th...	cluster: ISSUES: The issue before the court is whether the CPMA's decision to issue a license to WEG in the absence of a Pre-License Agreement with the HBPA and OHHA is valid, and whether the Betting Regulations require such an agreement to be in place before a license can be issued. The HBPA and OHHA seek a writ of prohibition, certiorari, and a declaration that the issuance of licenses by the CPMA in the absence of a Pre-License Agreement is a nullity. WEG, on the other hand, seeks a declaration that certain sections of the Betting Regulations are ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada.	cluster: FACTS: This case revolves around a dispute between Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) and the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of Ontario (HBPA) and the Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) regarding the issuance of a license to WEG to conduct wagering on simulcast horse racing in Ontario. The HBPA and OHHA are associations representing horsemen who are members of the thoroughbred and standardbred racing industries, respectively. WEG operates horse racing tracks and wagering facilities in Ontario. The Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency (CPMA) is a national regulatory unit that enforces the Pari-Mutuel Betting Supervision Regulations (Betting Regulations).In 2002, the CPMA issued a license to WEG to conduct wagering on simulcast horse racing in 2003, despite the fact that WEG had not entered into a Pre-License Agreement with the HBPA and OHHA, which are typically required by the Betting Regulations. The CPMA accepted 150 Access Agreements signed by individual hors...
  cluster: ANALYSIS: D Souza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2021-12-16 Neutral citation 2021 FC 1430 File numbers IMM-6744-19 Decision Content Date: 20211216 Docket: IMM-6744-19 Citation: 2021 FC 1430 Ottawa, Ontario, December 16, 2021 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Favel BETWEEN: RESHMA ANITHA D SOUZA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Nature of the Matter [1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a November 5, 2019 re-determination decision [Decision] of a visa officer [Officer] pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The Officer refused the Applicant’s application for a temporary resident visa and work permit [the Application] because the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant’s offer of employment [Employment Offer] was genuine. [2] The application for judicial review is allowed. II. Background [3] The Appl...	cluster: ANALYSIS: The court finds that the decision of the visa officer was not reasonable. The officer overlooked or misapprehended material evidence, including the couple's explanation for the reduction in work hours and the female employer's prospects of future employment. The officer also made several errors regarding the couple's ability to fulfill the terms of the employment offer, including their financial situation and the number of hours they would need to hire a caregiver. The court finds that the officer's findings were speculative and not based on the evidence.The court also finds that the decision is not justified, transparent, and intelligible. The officer's conclusion that the employment offer was not genuine is not supported by the evidence, and the officer failed to consider the couple's explanations and submissions.	cluster: ISSUES: The main issue before the court is whether the decision of the visa officer to refuse the person concerned's application for a temporary resident visa and work permit was reasonable. The court also considers whether it should enter an indirect substitution or make a cost order in favour of the person concerned.
  cluster: FACTS: Bellosillo v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-03-28 Neutral citation 2006 FC 396 File numbers T-501-06 Decision Content Date: 20060328 Docket: T-501-06 Citation: 2006 FC 396 Ottawa, Ontario, March 28, 2006 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau BETWEEN: ARIEL JOHN BELLOSILLO Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA INSTITUTIONAL HEAD OF WARKWORTH INSTITUTION Defendants REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] The Plaintiff is an inmate in Warkworth Institution, a penitentiary under the management and control of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). He is currently incarcerated for an indeterminate period as a dangerous offender, having been convicted of two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm and two counts of overcoming resistance to commit an offence by administering a drug. [2] The Plaintiff is required under a Warrant Remanding a Prisoner issued by a Justice of the Peace for Ontario to attend in Provinci...	cluster: FACTS: The person concerned is an inmate in Warkworth Institution, a penitentiary managed by Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). He is serving an indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender for various sexual assault charges. The person concerned has been ordered to attend Provincial Court in Ottawa on March 30, 2006, to answer to new charges. As a result, he is required to be transferred from Warkworth Institution to the Assessment Unit of Millhaven Institution, and then to the Ottawa Detention Centre. The person concerned has filed a motion for an interim injunction to prevent his transfer to the provincial facilities, citing concerns about his health and potential breaches of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.The CSC has established a community standard for healthcare for inmates, which includes preparing a Health Status Summary for each inmate being transferred between federal and provincial facilities. In this case, the person concerned's ...	cluster: RULES: The court rules that the person concerned's motion for an interim injunction must fail, as the conditions for granting an interlocutory injunction have not been met. Specifically, the court finds that there is no serious issue to be tried, as the person concerned's health condition is currently under control, and he is considered fit to travel to the provincial detention facility. Additionally, the court finds that the person concerned has not established that he will suffer irreparable harm if his transfer takes place as scheduled.

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:

  {
      "scale": 20.0,
      "similarity_fct": "cos_sim"
  }
  

Evaluation Dataset

Unnamed Dataset

• Size: 2,250 evaluation samples
• Columns: anchor, positive, and negative
• Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:

  	anchor	positive	negative
  type	string	string	string
  details	min: 370 tokens mean: 2955.16 tokens max: 6550 tokens	min: 32 tokens mean: 213.29 tokens max: 1042 tokens	min: 27 tokens mean: 206.64 tokens max: 973 tokens

• Samples:

  anchor	positive	negative
  cluster: FACTS: Murphy v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2016-11-02 Neutral citation 2016 FC 1208 File numbers T-192-16 Decision Content Date: 20161102 Docket: T-192-16 Citation: 2016 FC 1208 Ottawa, Ontario, November 2, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown BETWEEN: DAPHNE MURPHY Applicant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Nature of the Matter [1] This is an application for judicial review brought by Daphne Murphy [the Applicant] under s. 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7 of a decision made on October 8, 2015, by a member of the Social Security Tribunal – Appeal Division (SST-AD) [SST-AD Decision] denying the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal. The Applicant sought leave in order to appeal a decision of the Social Security Tribunal – General Division (SST-GD) made on August 28, 2015 [SST-GD Decision], which had dismissed the Applicant’s appeal from a decision denying her app...	cluster: FACTS: The person concerned, a 58-year-old woman from Gander, Newfoundland, applied for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits. She had a significant speech impairment and was unable to work due to a stroke she suffered in 2011 and a knee injury she sustained in 2009. She had a limited education and work experience, with only a few short-term jobs between 1979 and 2011. Her application was initially denied in 2011 and again in 2012 after reconsideration. She appealed the decision to the Social Security Tribunal – General Division (SST-GD), which conducted a paper appeal and denied her application in 2015. The SST-GD found that she failed to prove that she had a severe and prolonged disability on or before December 31, 1997, the minimum qualifying period (MQP) for CPP disability benefits. The person concerned then sought leave to appeal to the Social Security Tribunal – Appeal Division (SST-AD), which denied her application in 2015. She subsequently applied for judicial...	cluster: CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the court's decision in this case was based on the principle that the SST must interpret and apply the CPP Act in a liberal and generous manner. The court found that the SST-GD and SST-AD had failed to apply this principle in the person concerned's case, and that their decisions were therefore unreasonable. The court's decision was also based on the principle that the person concerned had a right to a more comprehensive disability review that considers her employability in the real world. The court's conclusion was that the SST-AD's decision was not reasonable and that the matter should be remitted to a differently constituted SST-AD for redetermination.
  cluster: CONCLUSION: Altamirano v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2023-07-19 Neutral citation 2023 FC 989 File numbers IMM-4441-22 Decision Content Date: 20230719 Docket: IMM-4441-22 Citation: 2023 FC 989 Ottawa, Ontario, July 19, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed BETWEEN: JOEL MARTINEZ ALTAMIRANO EUSEBIA ROSALIA REYES LUNA ABAD GILBERTO MORA REYES AZUCENA MORA REYES GAEL MARTINEZ MORA Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Overview [1] The Applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (“RAD”) dated April 26, 2022, confirming the determination of the Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) that the Applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”). [2] The RAD upheld the RPD’s refusal of the refugee claim on the bas...	cluster: CONCLUSION: The court concluded that the RAD's decision is reasonable in light of the Applicants' circumstances and evidence. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.	cluster: SUMMARY: (1) Facts The Applicants, Joel Martinez Altamirano, his wife Azucena Mora Reyes, and their child Gael Martinez Mora, along with Azucena's mother Eusebia Rosalia Reyes Luna and brother Abad Gilberto Mora Reyes, are Mexican citizens who made claims for refugee protection in Canada. The Applicants claimed to be victims of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) in Mexico, alleging that they were extorted and threatened after failing to pay a ransom for the release of Eusebia's son Ulises, who was kidnapped by the cartel in 2019. The Applicants claimed that they feared persecution or harm in Mexico at the hands of the CJNG cartel if they returned. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the Applicants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The RPD determined that the Applicants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Merida, Mexico, and that rel...
  cluster: CONCLUSION: Osipova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2024-07-05 Neutral citation 2024 FC 1055 File numbers IMM-9267-23 Decision Content Date: 20240705 Docket: IMM-9267-23 Citation: 2024 FC 1055 Ottawa, Ontario, July 5, 2024 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen BETWEEN: LIUDMILA OSIPOVA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The Applicant, a 73-year old mother and grandmother of Russian citizenship, seeks judicial review of a reconsideration decision dated May 26, 2023, made by a Senior Immigration Officer [Officer] at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, refusing the Applicant’s application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [2] The Applicant asserts that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable on the basis...	cluster: CONCLUSION: The court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the decision, and remitted the matter back to a different officer for redetermination. Prior to the redetermination, the person concerned would be given an opportunity to provide updated submissions and documentation in support of her application. The court found that the Officer's BIOC analysis was unreasonable, which rendered the decision as a whole unreasonable, and that the person concerned had raised sufficient grounds for judicial review.	cluster: ISSUES: The sole issue before the court was whether the Officer's decision was reasonable. The person concerned argued that the Officer's decision was unreasonable due to several factors, including a failure to conduct a proper assessment of hardship, an error in assessing the best interests of the child, and a failure to give proper consideration to adverse country conditions in Russia.

• Loss: MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with these parameters:

  {
      "scale": 20.0,
      "similarity_fct": "cos_sim"
  }
  

Training Hyperparameters

Non-Default Hyperparameters

• eval_strategy: steps
• per_device_train_batch_size: 4
• per_device_eval_batch_size: 4
• learning_rate: 2e-05
• num_train_epochs: 1
• warmup_ratio: 0.1
• fp16: True
• batch_sampler: no_duplicates

All Hyperparameters

Click to expand

• overwrite_output_dir: False
• do_predict: False
• eval_strategy: steps
• prediction_loss_only: True
• per_device_train_batch_size: 4
• per_device_eval_batch_size: 4
• per_gpu_train_batch_size: None
• per_gpu_eval_batch_size: None
• gradient_accumulation_steps: 1
• eval_accumulation_steps: None
• torch_empty_cache_steps: None
• learning_rate: 2e-05
• weight_decay: 0.0
• adam_beta1: 0.9
• adam_beta2: 0.999
• adam_epsilon: 1e-08
• max_grad_norm: 1.0
• num_train_epochs: 1
• max_steps: -1
• lr_scheduler_type: linear
• lr_scheduler_kwargs: {}
• warmup_ratio: 0.1
• warmup_steps: 0
• log_level: passive
• log_level_replica: warning
• log_on_each_node: True
• logging_nan_inf_filter: True
• save_safetensors: True
• save_on_each_node: False
• save_only_model: False
• restore_callback_states_from_checkpoint: False
• no_cuda: False
• use_cpu: False
• use_mps_device: False
• seed: 42
• data_seed: None
• jit_mode_eval: False
• use_ipex: False
• bf16: False
• fp16: True
• fp16_opt_level: O1
• half_precision_backend: auto
• bf16_full_eval: False
• fp16_full_eval: False
• tf32: None
• local_rank: 0
• ddp_backend: None
• tpu_num_cores: None
• tpu_metrics_debug: False
• debug: []
• dataloader_drop_last: False
• dataloader_num_workers: 0
• dataloader_prefetch_factor: None
• past_index: -1
• disable_tqdm: False
• remove_unused_columns: True
• label_names: None
• load_best_model_at_end: False
• ignore_data_skip: False
• fsdp: []
• fsdp_min_num_params: 0
• fsdp_config: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False}
• fsdp_transformer_layer_cls_to_wrap: None
• accelerator_config: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None}
• deepspeed: None
• label_smoothing_factor: 0.0
• optim: adamw_torch
• optim_args: None
• adafactor: False
• group_by_length: False
• length_column_name: length
• ddp_find_unused_parameters: None
• ddp_bucket_cap_mb: None
• ddp_broadcast_buffers: False
• dataloader_pin_memory: True
• dataloader_persistent_workers: False
• skip_memory_metrics: True
• use_legacy_prediction_loop: False
• push_to_hub: False
• resume_from_checkpoint: None
• hub_model_id: None
• hub_strategy: every_save
• hub_private_repo: False
• hub_always_push: False
• gradient_checkpointing: False
• gradient_checkpointing_kwargs: None
• include_inputs_for_metrics: False
• include_for_metrics: []
• eval_do_concat_batches: True
• fp16_backend: auto
• push_to_hub_model_id: None
• push_to_hub_organization: None
• mp_parameters:
• auto_find_batch_size: False
• full_determinism: False
• torchdynamo: None
• ray_scope: last
• ddp_timeout: 1800
• torch_compile: False
• torch_compile_backend: None
• torch_compile_mode: None
• dispatch_batches: None
• split_batches: None
• include_tokens_per_second: False
• include_num_input_tokens_seen: False
• neftune_noise_alpha: None
• optim_target_modules: None
• batch_eval_metrics: False
• eval_on_start: False
• use_liger_kernel: False
• eval_use_gather_object: False
• average_tokens_across_devices: False
• prompts: None
• batch_sampler: no_duplicates
• multi_dataset_batch_sampler: proportional

Training Logs

Epoch	Step	Training Loss	Validation Loss
0.0314	100	0.7181	0.0840
0.0627	200	0.0542	0.0354
0.0941	300	0.0323	0.0264
0.1255	400	0.0238	0.0305
0.1568	500	0.0307	0.0166
0.1882	600	0.0266	0.0173
0.2196	700	0.0101	0.0130
0.2509	800	0.0159	0.0111
0.2823	900	0.0134	0.0113
0.3137	1000	0.0125	0.0133
0.3450	1100	0.0204	0.0111
0.3764	1200	0.017	0.0083
0.4078	1300	0.0172	0.0066
0.4391	1400	0.0133	0.0047
0.4705	1500	0.0141	0.0047
0.5019	1600	0.0089	0.0053
0.5332	1700	0.0068	0.0067
0.5646	1800	0.0145	0.0053
0.5960	1900	0.0096	0.0058
0.6274	2000	0.0024	0.0056
0.6587	2100	0.0084	0.0044
0.6901	2200	0.0028	0.0035
0.7215	2300	0.002	0.0034
0.7528	2400	0.0045	0.0040
0.7842	2500	0.0033	0.0044
0.8156	2600	0.0013	0.0037
0.8469	2700	0.0047	0.0034
0.8783	2800	0.0018	0.0030
0.9097	2900	0.0021	0.0030
0.9410	3000	0.0041	0.0028
0.9724	3100	0.0063	0.0026

Framework Versions

• Python: 3.11.9
• Sentence Transformers: 3.3.0
• Transformers: 4.46.2
• PyTorch: 2.4.1+cu121
• Accelerate: 1.1.1
• Datasets: 3.1.0
• Tokenizers: 0.20.3

Citation

BibTeX

Sentence Transformers

@inproceedings{reimers-2019-sentence-bert,
    title = "Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks",
    author = "Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
    month = "11",
    year = "2019",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084",
}

MultipleNegativesRankingLoss

@misc{henderson2017efficient,
    title={Efficient Natural Language Response Suggestion for Smart Reply},
    author={Matthew Henderson and Rami Al-Rfou and Brian Strope and Yun-hsuan Sung and Laszlo Lukacs and Ruiqi Guo and Sanjiv Kumar and Balint Miklos and Ray Kurzweil},
    year={2017},
    eprint={1705.00652},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    primaryClass={cs.CL}
}