Mina v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1909
A Colombian family seeking refugee protection from an armed militia was denied by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The RAD found they could safely relocate within Colombia under the Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) test, arguing the applicants failed to prove the move would put their 'lives and safety in jeopardy.'
The Federal Court granted the family's application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the RAD applied an improperly restrictive standard for the IFA test and failed to address the applicants' arguments regarding racial discrimination and police violence in the proposed relocation city.
Ogbemudia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1915
Nigerian refugee claimants, who held permanent resident status in Italy, had their claim in Canada denied. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found they were excluded under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention because they had rights similar to citizens in Italy and failed to prove this status had been revoked.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, upholding the RAD's decision. The Court affirmed that once the government provides evidence of a claimant's status in a third country, a 'tactical onus' shifts to the claimant to provide concrete evidence that this status has actually been lost, not just speculate that it might have been.
Garway v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1912
The applicant, a Liberian refugee claimant, had his claim denied based on a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA). His appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) was dismissed because the new evidence he submitted to challenge the IFA finding did not meet the strict statutory requirements for admissibility.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, affirming that the RAD is strictly bound by the rules in subsection 110(4) of the IRPA for admitting new evidence. The Court confirmed the RAD has no independent obligation to consider publicly available country information that is not properly submitted and deemed admissible under the law.
Abukar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1905
Two related Somali refugees, an uncle and nephew, applied for permanent residence in Canada. A migration officer refused both applications, finding their stories about persecution by Al-Shabaab were too similar, which undermined their credibility.
The Federal Court quashed the refusal decisions, finding them unreasonable. The Court held that an officer cannot simply dismiss an applicant's plausible explanation for similarities between their stories without proper analysis and justification.
Rodriguez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1896
A Colombian family sought refugee protection from a criminal organization. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) rejected their claim, finding it not credible due to major omissions in their Basis of Claim (BOC) form, such as failing to name the persecuting group.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that failing to include material facts in the BOC that go to the core of a claim can severely damage a claimant's credibility.
Pak v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1898
The Applicant, with a lengthy and complex immigration history including multiple failed risk assessments, was scheduled for removal to South Korea. He sought a stay of removal, arguing that a CBSA officer unreasonably refused to defer his removal based on his deteriorating mental health and a pending H&C application.
The Federal Court granted a temporary stay of removal. The Court found that while the legal challenge to the officer's decision was weak, the clear and convincing evidence of a high risk of suicide constituted irreparable harm, which outweighed the public interest in enforcing the removal order.
Karumendu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1890
Applicants from Namibia, whose refugee claim based on a family inheritance dispute was denied, sought judicial review. They argued the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) failed to identify a persecution ground related to their son's sexuality, an issue only briefly mentioned in their initial documents.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming that a decision-maker cannot be faulted for not considering an issue that was not argued and did not perceptibly emerge from the evidence as a whole. The Court strongly criticized the attempt to relitigate the claim on entirely new grounds.
Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1894
The applicant's work permit was refused based on misrepresentation after an officer concluded an employment letter was fraudulent. The officer's procedural fairness letter (PFL) stated this concern without providing any specific details, such as the suspicion that the document was photoshopped.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer breached the duty of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that for a serious allegation like misrepresentation, an officer must disclose the specific facts underlying their concerns, not just a vague conclusion.
Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1879
The applicant sought permanent residence as a refugee, but his application was refused due to significant credibility issues. These issues arose because his representative, a Non-Governmental Organization, mistakenly submitted the case narrative of a different applicant.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding a clear breach of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that the representative's mistake constituted incompetent representation, which directly led to the officer's adverse credibility finding and was a miscarriage of justice.
Mawassi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1885
A Lebanese family applied for visitor visas, citing a dual purpose: to enroll their Canadian-citizen daughter in school and to temporarily escape conflict in Lebanon. The visa officer refused the application, not being satisfied that the family would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence or sympathize with the applicants, but only to assess the reasonableness of the officer's conclusion based on the information provided.
