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.
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.
