Lee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1839
The applicant, a permanent resident, was found inadmissible for misrepresentation related to a past marriage of convenience. The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) upheld the deportation order, which the applicant challenged at the Federal Court, arguing the IAD failed to properly consider the hardship to his Canadian child.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the IAD's decision. The Court found the IAD's analysis of the Best Interests of the Child (BIOC) was unreasonable, superficial, and failed to conduct the required deep, comparative assessment of the consequences of the applicant's removal.
Nwosu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1835
The applicant, whose refugee claim was initially tied to her mother's, was denied protection by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) after her case was suddenly separated upon turning 18. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found this lack of notice was a procedural fairness breach but refused a new hearing, deeming the negative outcome inevitable.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD erred by not remitting the case for a new hearing. The Court held that a significant procedural fairness breach cannot be overlooked based on speculation about what the outcome might have been with a proper process.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1834
An Indian citizen with truck driving experience in the UAE applied for a Canadian work permit. His application was refused because his Dubai police certificate listed three traffic infractions without providing any details, raising safety concerns for the immigration officer.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the applicant bears the full responsibility for providing sufficient evidence, and the officer had no obligation to request further details about the driving infractions.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1836
The Applicants, a family from India, sought judicial review of a refused Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. Their application was based on their establishment in Canada, the best interests of their child, and hardships they would face in India as part of the Sikh minority and as a woman.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the immigration officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not its role to reweigh evidence and that significant deference is owed to an officer’s assessment of H&C factors, especially when claims are not supported by personalized evidence.
Dogan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1829
The Applicant, a Kurdish citizen of Türkiye, sought refugee protection based on alleged persecution due to his ethnicity and political activities. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found multiple inconsistencies in his testimony and documentary evidence, ultimately finding him not credible and refusing his claim.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that credibility assessments are at the heart of the RPD's role and will not be reweighed by the Court absent exceptional circumstances.
Jassa Singh Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1831
The applicant sought criminal rehabilitation after a conviction in Thailand for using a forged visa. An immigration officer denied his application, finding the applicant downplayed his responsibility and had not been rehabilitated.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply state they have reviewed all evidence; they must meaningfully engage with and explain why positive evidence submitted by the applicant was insufficient to prove rehabilitation.
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.
