Nagra v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1942
The applicant, a 71-year-old grandmother living with her Canadian family, was refused permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The immigration officer concluded that her removal would not significantly impact her grandchildren, as their parents could provide adequate care.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly assess the best interests of the children, incorrectly focusing on whether they would 'suffer' rather than on what was in their best interests.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1935
An international student from India was refused a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) after completing his program. The immigration officer denied the application because the student was enrolled part-time during his last two semesters, which made him ineligible under PGWP rules.
The Federal Court dismissed the student's application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that the exception for part-time studies applies only to the final semester and that having to retake a failed course is not an extenuating circumstance justifying a deviation from this rule.
Mohammed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1933
The applicants, a family from India, sought judicial review of a refusal of a work permit under the Start-up Business Class program. The officer was not satisfied that there were urgent business reasons for the applicant's presence in Canada or that the venture would provide a significant benefit, despite support from a designated incubator.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer is not bound by a designated entity's assessment and must be independently satisfied that the requirements for the exceptional work permit are met.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Mehdi Afshar, 2025 FC 1922
A former Iranian Air Force specialist sought refugee protection but was initially excluded for complicity in war crimes. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) overturned this, finding his service was involuntary. The Minister of Immigration sought judicial review of the RAD's decision.
The Federal Court granted the Minister's application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the RAD failed to properly analyze why the claimant's decades-long service, including 15 years after the war, was involuntary, especially when his primary reason for staying was to protect his pension.
Castillejo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1920
A mother and son, dual citizens of Pakistan and the Philippines, sought refugee protection. While the father's claim against Pakistan was accepted, their claim against the Philippines was rejected because they could not provide concrete evidence linking a murder there to their family's persecutors in Pakistan.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Refugee Appeal Division's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that while decision-makers must presume facts are true, they are not required to accept an applicant's speculative inferences without supporting evidence.
Abdelsalam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1918
The Applicants sought judicial review of a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) Officer's refusal to defer their removal. The Officer denied the deferral request, which was based on a pending H&C application, by stating that deferrals were only available in "extreme circumstances."
The Court dismissed the application as moot because the original grounds for the deferral request no longer existed. However, the judge exercised his discretion to confirm that the CBSA Officer committed a significant error of law by applying the wrong legal test; the correct test for a deferral is not the high threshold of "extreme circumstances."
Velasquez Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1917
The applicant, a citizen of Guatemala, sought a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) and submitted new photographic and video evidence of a death threat from the M-18 gang. A Senior Immigration Officer rejected the PRRA, giving the new evidence little weight and finding it insufficient to establish a specific risk.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to properly assess the new evidence of a new agent of persecution (M-18) and unreasonably dismissed its connection to the applicant, whose credibility was not in dispute.
Ehizogie Albert Alufa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1919
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his permanent residency application under the spousal sponsorship class. An immigration officer was not satisfied the marriage was genuine, citing numerous inconsistencies from interviews and a lack of evidence of cohabitation or financial interdependence.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that it will not reweigh evidence on judicial review, especially in areas like assessing the genuineness of a marriage where officers have specialized expertise.
Chahal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1910
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal for his Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP). The refusal was based on the fact that he failed to maintain full-time student status during each academic session, having withdrawn from a course during the Summer 2020 session.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision to refuse the PGWP was reasonable. The Court affirmed that even a minor, inconsequential error by the officer does not invalidate a decision when the underlying facts justifying refusal are undisputed.
Salomeh Amirsoleymani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1874
The applicant, an architect from Iran, applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit her twin sister in Canada. An immigration officer refused the application, concluding the applicant would not leave Canada due to insufficient family ties outside Canada and a purpose inconsistent with a temporary stay.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court ruled that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with or explain how they considered the significant professional, economic, and family evidence ('pull factors') that squarely contradicted the refusal.
