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.
Chang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1799
An 82-year-old grandmother from Hong Kong, acting as an essential caregiver for her two grandchildren in Canada, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. An IRCC officer refused her application, concluding there were insufficient grounds to grant an exemption.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly assess the Best Interests of the Child (BIOC) by dismissing the mother's serious health issues, applying a simplistic hardship analysis, and completely disregarding the detailed, heartfelt statements from the children themselves.
International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2025 FC 1771
A longshore workers' union sought judicial review of a CBSA decision granting work permit exemptions to a foreign crew unloading specialized equipment. The union argued the decision was unreasonable, deprived its members of work, and created an unsafe environment.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the union lacked the direct legal standing required to challenge the decision. The Court determined the core of the dispute was a labour issue related to a collective agreement, which falls outside the Federal Court's jurisdiction, and that the matter was moot.
Shiraz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1775
The applicant, a Pakistani national, sought refugee protection in Canada. The Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] excluded him from protection under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention, finding serious reasons to believe he had committed a major financial crime (misappropriation of ~$2.9 million CAD) in the UAE before coming to Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the RAD's decision. The Court affirmed that serious non-political crimes, including large-scale financial fraud, warrant exclusion and that this assessment does not involve balancing the seriousness of the crime against the potential risk of persecution the claimant might face if returned.
Erler v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1779
The applicant, a Kurdish citizen of Turkey, sought refugee protection based on persecution due to his ethnicity and political opinions. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his claim, finding him not credible because he could not recall the exact dates of two key incidents and because his family's support letters did not mention them.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the RPD's negative decision. The Court ruled that the RPD's credibility finding was unreasonable because it was an error to expect corroborating evidence from family members who had not witnessed the events in question.
