Isik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1607
Two Turkish citizens, a Kurdish Alevi man and a Turkish Sunni Muslim woman, sought refugee status in Canada, fearing harm from authorities and family due to their mixed-identity marriage. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied their claim, finding they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) and the discrimination they faced did not amount to persecution.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the RAD correctly assessed the available IFA and properly concluded that the cumulative impact of the discrimination and harassment did not meet the legal threshold for persecution.
Haghighikafash v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1601
An Iranian lawyer sought a C11 work permit to establish a legal services business in Canada. The immigration officer refused the application, claiming the applicant failed to provide a Canadian bank statement and that the business would not create a 'significant benefit' to Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court noted the officer made a clear error of fact by overlooking the provided Canadian bank statement and failed to provide any logical reasoning to justify why the proposed business lacked significant benefit.
Lawal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1609
A Nigerian citizen sought refugee protection in Canada, claiming he was cyberbullied and harassed for his online political support of an opposition party. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed his appeal, finding he failed to establish a forward-looking risk of harm if returned to Nigeria.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that even if the applicant's past experiences were accepted, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a serious possibility of future persecution.
H.K. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1606
A family applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds, emphasizing the best interests of their two children. The immigration officer refused the application, finding insufficient evidence that the children's interests would be compromised if they returned to South Korea.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly analyze the children's best interests by minimizing and discounting clear evidence of hardship, such as learning challenges and the severe bullying faced by children of North Korean defectors.
Gonzalez Montiel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1600
A Mexican family sought refugee protection after being extorted at their small business. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied their claim, finding they had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Merida, Mexico, as their persecutors were not motivated to find them.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, upholding the RAD's decision as reasonable. The Court found that the RAD correctly concluded the family failed to provide sufficient evidence—beyond their own belief—that the extortionists were part of a major cartel with the motivation to pursue them across the country.
Wen Yin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1610
The applicant sought permanent residence under the Atlantic Immigration Class. Her application was refused because the duties described in her work experience verification letter belonged to a managerial TEER level, which was higher than the TEER level of her endorsed job offer.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not its role to re-weigh the evidence, but to determine if the officer's interpretation of the applicant's duties was a reasonable one.
Peyvastegan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1599
The applicant, an entrepreneur from Iran, applied for permanent residence under the Start-up Business Class (SUBC). The immigration officer refused the application, concluding that the applicant's primary purpose was to acquire status in Canada rather than to engage in genuine business activity, deeming it an 'artificial transaction'.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that the applicant was given multiple opportunities to provide evidence of business progress but failed to alleviate the officer's concerns about the genuineness of his business intent.
Ghajarzadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1598
An experienced 38-year-old Iranian professional was refused a study permit for a Project Management certificate. The visa officer found the study plan unreasonable, despite clear evidence from the applicant's employer of a guaranteed promotion and a significant salary increase upon completion of the program.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply ignore clear, logical evidence—like a major promotion and salary increase—that demonstrates the benefit of the proposed studies, as doing so makes the decision arbitrary.
Onuchukwu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1604
The applicant, a minor child of a study permit holder in Canada, applied for an open study permit. The immigration officer refused the application, finding the financial documentation—a single-page bank summary from the mother—insufficient to prove the applicant would leave Canada at the end of their stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court affirmed that regardless of the specific study permit type, an officer is entitled to require robust financial documentation and that a single bank account summary, without transaction history or other supporting evidence, is insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements.
Sony v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1603
The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for permanent residence under the Quebec Investor Program. An officer refused her application, finding she did not genuinely intend to reside in Quebec, citing weak settlement plans and stronger family ties to Toronto.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application. The Court found the officer's decision was reasonable and that there was no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant had been clearly informed of the concerns regarding her intent to settle in Quebec.
