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.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1852
The Applicant, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a work permit refusal for a berry picker position. The visa officer denied the application based on 5-month-old financial statements, unclear source of funds, and unconvincing evidence of the applicant's claimed farming experience.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that each immigration application is a new proceeding, and relying on old documents from a previously successful application is not permissible.
Iqwinder Singh Chahal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1851
An Indian citizen applied for a closed work permit as a harvesting labourer but was refused. The immigration officer concluded he had significant family ties in Canada and would not leave after his authorized stay, despite the applicant's strong ties to the family farm in India.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the conclusion about 'significant family ties' in Canada was based on speculation and lacked a proper evidentiary basis, rendering the decision illogical and not transparent.
Xun Yuehong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1837
The Applicant, a dependent spouse in a Federal Self-Employed permanent residence application, sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on her file, which had been in process since September 2020. The case was complicated by procedural issues, including an improperly translated affidavit using AI tools.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It ruled that the request for mandamus was premature because a statutory condition precedent—the approval of the principal applicant's visa—had not been met, meaning the duty to finalize the dependent spouse's application had not yet arisen.
Abdille v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1841
The applicant, whose refugee status was vacated for misrepresentation, applied for permanent residence through spousal sponsorship. The immigration officer refused the application, doubting the genuineness of her marriage and denying humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) relief due to the past misrepresentation.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly weigh crucial evidence, like a DNA test proving parentage of three children, and breached procedural fairness by not conducting an interview despite having clear credibility concerns.
