Shahzada Safdar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1727
A 75-year-old Pakistani widow, living in Canada for six years with her children and grandchildren, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused her application, finding her grandchildren's best interests would not be negatively affected by her removal and that she did not face unusual hardship in returning to Pakistan.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, deeming the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to give the required 'singularly significant focus' to the best interests of the children and improperly assessed the applicant's personal hardship upon return.
Nouralizadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1711
An Iranian citizen sought judicial review after the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found he was not a refugee. His claim, based on participation in protests and a subsequent 'sur place' claim, was rejected due to significant credibility issues and implausibilities in his testimony.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming the RAD's decision as reasonable. The Court highlighted the high deference owed to the RAD's credibility findings and agreed that the new evidence for the 'sur place' claim was self-serving and inadmissible.
Mbubi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1712
The applicant sought asylum from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) but entered Canada using an Angolan passport. Both the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division rejected his claim, finding he failed to establish his identity due to numerous contradictory and deficient documents.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that the refugee tribunals' decision was reasonable. The Court held that the applicant failed to overcome the significant credibility issues arising from the inconsistent evidence and did not discharge his burden of proving his claimed identity.
Lasisi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1709
The applicant, who was inadmissible, applied for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to bridge the processing time of his Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. An officer refused the TRP after the underlying H&C application had already been refused.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court emphasized that the responsibility was on the applicant to update their TRP application after the material circumstances changed (i.e., the H&C refusal).
Hardono v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1707
Two brothers from Indonesia, of Chinese ethnicity and Christian faith, sought refugee protection due to persecution. Their claims were denied by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on the basis that they had viable Internal Flight Alternatives (IFAs) in Christian-majority areas of Indonesia.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that the RAD properly weighed the evidence, considered the applicants' intersectional identities, and correctly determined they would not face a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFAs.
IMAX CORPORATION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, 2025 FC 1698
IMAX Corporation sought judicial review after the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) refused to extend deadlines for filing Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) claims. IMAX argued it missed the deadlines due to exceptional circumstances, including staff shortages and overwork during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the CRA Officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that while IMAX faced challenges, the circumstances were not proven to be beyond its control, especially since it met other compliance deadlines during the same period.
Ranjini Rajmanoharan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1694
The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, applied for permanent residence but was refused by a Visa Officer. The officer found her inadmissible on security grounds under s. 34 of the IRPA for her past membership and support for the Liberation Tigers Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a listed terrorist entity, despite her claim that her actions were under duress.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the defence of duress, as she could not demonstrate a lack of a safe avenue of escape.
Biron v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1690
The applicant, a permanent resident of Canada since 2016, was convicted of sexual assault against a minor and sentenced to 20 months in prison. He sought judicial review of a decision referring him to an inadmissibility hearing, arguing that his positive humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors should prevent his potential removal from Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's delegate acted reasonably. The Court affirmed that the delegate properly weighed the applicant's H&C submissions against the gravity of his offence and was justified in concluding that the seriousness of the crime was not counterbalanced by the positive factors.
Zuluaga Villegas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1692
A Colombian family's application for permanent residence on Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds was refused. The officer concluded they failed to provide sufficient evidence of hardship upon return to Colombia or their degree of establishment in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that applicants bear the onus of providing concrete evidence and that mere disagreement with an officer's weighing of factors is not a basis for judicial intervention.
Irvine v. Attorney General of Canada, 2025 FC 1673
The Applicant, an RCMP Corporal, sought judicial review of a Conduct Adjudicator's decision dismissing his appeal of a suspension order. The Adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding she had jurisdiction but that the matter was moot since the suspension had already been rescinded.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the Adjudicator’s reasoning on jurisdiction was unreasonable. The decision was based on an incorrect and inapplicable part of the governing regulations, rendering the entire chain of analysis flawed and justifying setting the decision aside.
