Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1880
The applicant sought permanent residence through an in-Canada spousal sponsorship. An IRCC officer refused the application after a lengthy interview revealed significant discrepancies and conflicting answers between the applicant and her sponsor, concluding the marriage was not genuine.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and justified. The Court affirmed that an officer can find a marriage not genuine based on credibility issues and testimonial inconsistencies, even when some documentary evidence exists.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1865
An applicant for the Home Childcare Provider Pilot Program was refused for failing to meet the educational requirements based on a WES report. The applicant argued a more favourable assessment (an IQAS report) was submitted via an IRCC webform but was not considered by the officer, rendering the decision unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court affirmed that it can only review a decision based on the evidence that was before the officer; new evidence allegedly submitted but not confirmed as received is inadmissible and cannot make a decision unreasonable.
M.D. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 CF 1881
The applicant, an Algerian national, was found inadmissible to Canada by the Immigration Division. The decision was based on his complicity in crimes against humanity committed by the Algerian army during his military service in the 1990s.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Immigration Division's decision was reasonable, well-supported by evidence, and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that complicity in such crimes does not require direct perpetration but a significant and knowing contribution.
Bigirimana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1866
The applicant, a citizen of Burundi with refugee status in Uganda, sought permanent residence in Canada as a Convention refugee. An immigration officer refused the application after finding the applicant was not credible, as he had lied about the date and circumstances of his flight from Burundi.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that when an applicant lies about central elements of their narrative—such as how and when they fled—it is reasonable for an officer to conclude that the entire persecution claim is not credible.
Selvanayagam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1862
The applicant, a Tamil from Sri Lanka, sought judicial review of a refused Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The immigration officer concluded he was not at risk because he did not fit the specific profile of a high-risk individual, despite accepting the applicant's credible history of detention, family loss during the civil war, and participation in memorial events.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly grapple with evidence showing that even individuals outside high-risk profiles could still face risk upon return to Sri Lanka.
Hariendran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1858
The applicant, sponsored for permanent residence by his Canadian wife, was refused after an officer found him inadmissible on security grounds. The officer concluded that the applicant's membership in the Tamil Youth Organization (TYO-UK) made him a member of the proscribed terrorist entity, the Liberation of Tamil Tigers Elam (LTTE).
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court agreed with both parties that the evidence on file did not reasonably support the conclusion that the TYO-UK was an affiliate of the LTTE, and therefore the inadmissibility finding was flawed.
Vadiati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1859
The Applicant, a protected person, applied for permanent residence, which was denied. The immigration officer found him inadmissible under s. 34(1)(f) of the IRPA for being a member of a terrorist organization, due to his past mandatory conscript service in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was both procedurally fair and reasonable. The Court affirmed that even involuntary conscription constitutes 'membership' and that the high legal threshold for the defence of duress was not met.
Khamdamov v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2025 FC 1855
The applicant sought a court order (mandamus) to compel a decision on his permanent residence application due to processing delays. Before the case could be fully heard, IRCC approved his application, leading the government to file a motion to dismiss the court case as moot.
The Federal Court granted the government's motion and dismissed the applicant's case. The Court affirmed that once a decision is rendered, the original purpose of the mandamus application is gone, making the matter moot and a waste of judicial resources to continue.
Parmar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1847
An elderly widowed applicant from Kenya, living in Canada with her children, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The immigration officer refused the application, finding insufficient evidence to demonstrate significant establishment in Canada or the hardship she would face if returned to Kenya.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court ruled it could not consider new evidence of hardship and vulnerability that the applicant failed to submit with her original H&C application.
Kaplan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1845
The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish ethnicity and a member of the HDP political party, sought asylum based on past discrimination and a single threat. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found that his experiences did not meet the legal threshold for persecution and that he did not face a serious risk of future harm.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that while the RAD acknowledged the applicant's experiences, it was entitled to conclude they were not severe or systematic enough to constitute persecution under Canadian law.
