I.H. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1946
The applicant, a permanent resident, failed to meet his residency obligation after returning to Morocco in 2019. His application for a Permanent Resident Travel Document was refused, and the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissed his appeal, finding insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to excuse the breach, despite the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the IAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that while pandemic travel restrictions were a valid consideration, the applicant's failure to make reasonable efforts to return to Canada after restrictions were lifted undermined his case.
Uba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1959
The applicant, a parent sponsored for permanent residence, sought judicial review after an officer granted her status but removed her 40-year-old son and his family from the application. The officer determined the son did not meet the strict legal definition of a dependent child.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an adult child can only be a dependent if they have been continuously financially supported since before age 22 due to a physical or mental condition, which the applicant failed to prove.
Gunaseelan Savirimuthu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1957
The Applicant, a protected person, sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his permanent residence application, which had been pending for over six years due to security checks. Shortly before the hearing, the Respondent issued a procedural fairness letter raising serious security concerns, which were then resolved in less than two weeks.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus application, ordering a decision within 30 days. Significantly, the Court found "special reasons" to award substantial costs of $8,550 against the government, citing the questionable timing and motivation of the last-minute procedural fairness letter which caused undue cost and distress.
Salem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1952
The applicant was forced to seek judicial review three separate times after immigration officers repeatedly refused his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application. In all three decisions, the officers made the identical legal error of failing to assess the applicant's risk of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA.
The Federal Court found that the government's conduct—making the same error three times and forcing the applicant to incur significant legal fees—constituted 'special reasons' justifying an award of costs. The Court ordered the Minister to pay the applicant $3,000, setting a precedent that repeated, unreasonable errors can have financial consequences for the government.
Khangura v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1953
An applicant for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class was refused because an IRCC officer was not satisfied with the proof of his work experience. The applicant provided a promotion letter dated one day into his new role and subsequent payslips, but the officer found this insufficient to prove he performed the required duties.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a 'forward-looking' employment letter and payslips alone do not automatically prove that an applicant actually performed the specific duties required by the National Occupation Classification (NOC).
Mohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1956
A 70-year-old Pakistani widow in Canada with her two citizen children was refused permanent residence on H&C grounds. The officer minimized her deep establishment and severe mental health issues, suggesting she could use 'normal' immigration pathways instead.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer wrongly applied a higher 'exceptionality' test, misread the psychological evidence, and failed to justify the claim that other immigration routes were viable.
Armani Far v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1955
An established dermatologist and his wife from Iran applied for a 15-day visitor visa, providing proof of over $187,000 CAD in funds. The visa officer refused their application, claiming they had insufficient assets and that their visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to provide a rational explanation for why the substantial funds were insufficient and completely ignored compelling evidence of the applicants' strong ties to their home country.
Egwuatu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1950
The applicant, a minor, sought to restore her temporary resident status but filed her application after the 90-day deadline due to delays in receiving her renewed passport. IRCC refused the application as it was submitted outside the mandatory restoration period.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that the 90-day period for applying for restoration of status is a strict legislative requirement. The Court confirmed that IRCC officers have no discretion to waive this deadline or accept a late application.
Turgut v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1951
A refugee claimant from Türkiye, whose initial claim was denied, sought judicial review after the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) rejected his appeal. The applicant argued his first lawyer was incompetent and that the RAD wrongly refused to admit a new arrest warrant as evidence.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold to prove his former counsel was incompetent and that the RAD acted within its discretion by refusing to admit late evidence without a proper explanation.
Iskender Uc v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1945
The applicant, a protected person from Türkiye, had his refugee status revoked by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) after travelling back to Türkiye on two occasions. The applicant argued his visits were involuntary, driven by a family medical emergency and a personal health crisis.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the RPD failed to properly assess the voluntariness of the applicant's travel, his intent, and wrongly imposed a new, unsupported legal presumption that he had obtained state protection.
