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.
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.
