Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1832
A family applied for permanent residence under the Québec Business Category in 2018. After a seven-year delay, they sought a court order (mandamus) to compel IRCC to finalize their application, arguing the wait was unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. It ruled that the delay, while significant, was justified by the high volume of applications, government-set quotas for the program, and an orderly 'first-in, first-out' processing system. The Court refused to let the applicants jump the queue.
Issa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1821
The Applicant sought a temporary resident visa but was refused and found inadmissible for five years for misrepresentation. The officer claimed he failed to disclose a previous US visa refusal, conflating a visa revocation and an administratively closed application with an actual refusal.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer made critical errors of fact, and emphasized that an applicant cannot be penalized for failing to disclose information (a visa revocation) that the application form did not explicitly ask for.
Tanisha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1828
The applicant sought to restore her temporary status in Canada but her application was refused because it was filed outside the 90-day deadline. The delay was caused by her former lawyer, who failed to submit her application on time and falsely claimed he had done so.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the refusal decision. The Court found that the former counsel's incompetence constituted a breach of procedural fairness and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, preventing the applicant from restoring her status.
Nzegwu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1825
The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought refugee protection based on his bisexuality. His claim was refused by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) due to significant adverse credibility findings regarding the facts of his claim.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the RAD's decision. The Court found the credibility findings were reasonable and that the decision-maker is owed a high level of deference on such matters.
A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1813
The applicant, a Palestinian man in Gaza, sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to process his Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) under a special public policy. His application was stalled because he could not provide mandatory biometrics due to the closure of the Rafah border crossing.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming that a court cannot compel a decision (issue a mandamus order) until the applicant has met all precedent conditions of the policy. Since providing biometrics was a mandatory step that the applicant could not complete, he did not have a clear right to a final decision.
Popov v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1815
The applicant, a former KGB member, was found inadmissible to Canada on security grounds. The Minister denied his application for Ministerial Relief, focusing on his past activities despite over 30 years of positive establishment in Canada, including public condemnation of the KGB.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the Minister's decision unreasonable. The Court held that simply listing an applicant's positive evidence and then issuing a conclusory statement is not a substitute for meaningful analysis and justification, especially when significant time has passed.
Juarez Lopez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1803
The applicant, a 30-year-old from Mexico with two university degrees and logistics experience, was refused a study permit for a college diploma in personal fitness training. The visa officer found the study plan was an unreasonable progression and inconsistent with her academic and work history.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer can deny a permit when an applicant provides vague explanations for a significant career change that lacks a clear, logical progression.
Maan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1805
The Applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of his permanent residence application under the spousal sponsorship class. An IRCC officer refused the application on the grounds that the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes, based on conflicting evidence and inconsistencies found during an interview.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not its role to reweigh evidence; even if the evidence is mixed, a decision can still fall within the range of reasonable outcomes.
Qasim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1796
A family from Jordan and Romania sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that denied their refugee claim. The applicants argued their previous consultant was incompetent, which prevented them from submitting crucial evidence of the forward-facing risk they faced from family in Romania.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, upholding the RAD's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that the RAD was entitled to weigh the conflicting evidence about the consultant's conduct and was justified in refusing to admit new evidence it found to be not credible and of low probative value.
Hemmati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1786
Four co-founders of a tech start-up applied for permanent residence under the Start-up Business Class (SUBC). The visa officer refused their applications, concluding their primary purpose was to acquire immigration status rather than to build a genuine business, citing concerns with their website, lack of progress, and inconsistent documentation.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer provided clear, justifiable reasons for doubting the seriousness of the business venture, and the applicants failed to alleviate those specific concerns.
