Cardenas v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1614
Colombian nationals facing removal sought a deferral to allow for a new risk assessment, as their last one was conducted 7.5 years prior. An Inland Enforcement Officer refused the deferral, arguing the issues were not new and there was no statutory stay.
The Federal Court found the officer's refusal unreasonable, ruling that the significant passage of time alone constituted a very strong basis for deferring removal. The Court affirmed the Charter imperative for a timely risk assessment before a person is removed from Canada.
Namavari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1628
The applicant sought judicial review after his temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit family in Canada was refused. The immigration officer concluded there were insufficient “pull” factors for him to return to Iran and found the purpose of his visit unreasonable.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court held that the officer completely ignored substantial evidence of the applicant's strong ties to his home country and made a contradictory and incoherent finding regarding the purpose of his visit.
Gomez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1615
The applicant sought judicial review after the Minister refused to redetermine her Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. This refusal was a direct violation of a settlement agreement reached years earlier, where the government claimed the applicant failed to file a formal Notice of Discontinuance, despite her counsel orally discontinuing the matter in court.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the Minister's refusal to honor the settlement was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and constituted 'egregious conduct'. The Court ordered the H&C application to be redetermined and awarded a rare lump-sum cost of $10,000 against the Minister.
Aguirre Manjarrez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1624
A family from Mexico applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds, detailing a history of extortion and violence from an organized crime cartel. The immigration officer refused their application, finding they had not demonstrated a personalized risk beyond general country conditions.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and allowed the judicial review. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly engage with the specific evidence of personalized risk and conducted a flawed analysis of the best interests of the child, ignoring the younger child's very young age when she left Mexico.
McKenzie v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1627
The applicant, a permanent resident with a serious criminal conviction, was ordered deported. After numerous unsuccessful applications to remain in Canada, he requested a deferral of his removal pending a last-minute Temporary Residence Permit (TRP) application, which a CBSA officer refused.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the CBSA officer's decision to refuse the deferral was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer's discretion is limited and that last-minute, repetitive applications do not automatically warrant a stay of removal.
Mazloumiaboukheili v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1629
The applicant, a former Chief Operations Officer of an Iranian state-owned oil company, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his temporary resident visa. An officer found him inadmissible to Canada under s. 35(1)(b) of the IRPA for being a senior official in the Iranian regime, which is designated as a government that has engaged in terrorism and gross human rights violations.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that an officer can determine seniority based on reporting structures and job responsibilities, even if the applicant describes their role as 'middle management'.
Onay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1596
The Applicant, a Convention refugee from Türkiye, had his refugee status ceased after he obtained a Turkish passport in Canada and used it to travel back to Türkiye on multiple occasions. He sought judicial review, arguing the trips were for compelling family reasons and he did not intend to reavail himself of Turkish protection.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) decision to cease refugee status was reasonable. The Court affirmed that travelling to one's country of persecution on that country's passport, especially after being warned by Canadian officials, creates strong presumptions of reavailment that the Applicant failed to rebut.
Gholami v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1619
An Iranian mother applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to accompany her Canadian citizen daughter to school in Toronto. An immigration officer refused the application, stating she lacked significant family ties outside Canada, despite evidence to the contrary.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer completely ignored clear evidence on the application form showing the applicant's entire immediate family resided in Iran, making the refusal's justification unintelligible.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1617
A married couple from India applied for visitor visas to see family in Canada, providing evidence of substantial assets. An immigration officer refused their applications, questioning the source of funds in their bank accounts which seemed inconsistent with their modest declared income.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer is justified in refusing an application if large sums of money in a bank account are not explained by the applicant's income or other evidence.
Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1613
The applicant sought permanent residence through spousal sponsorship. The immigration officer refused the application, concluding the marriage was not genuine and finding misrepresentation due to fraudulent, backdated lease agreements submitted as proof of cohabitation.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that while the finding on the fraudulent documents was reasonable, the officer failed to provide a rational bridge between that finding and the conclusion that the entire marriage was not genuine.
