Hardono v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1707
Two brothers from Indonesia, of Chinese ethnicity and Christian faith, sought refugee protection due to persecution. Their claims were denied by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on the basis that they had viable Internal Flight Alternatives (IFAs) in Christian-majority areas of Indonesia.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that the RAD properly weighed the evidence, considered the applicants' intersectional identities, and correctly determined they would not face a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFAs.
IMAX CORPORATION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, 2025 FC 1698
IMAX Corporation sought judicial review after the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) refused to extend deadlines for filing Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) claims. IMAX argued it missed the deadlines due to exceptional circumstances, including staff shortages and overwork during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the CRA Officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that while IMAX faced challenges, the circumstances were not proven to be beyond its control, especially since it met other compliance deadlines during the same period.
Ranjini Rajmanoharan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1694
The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, applied for permanent residence but was refused by a Visa Officer. The officer found her inadmissible on security grounds under s. 34 of the IRPA for her past membership and support for the Liberation Tigers Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a listed terrorist entity, despite her claim that her actions were under duress.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the defence of duress, as she could not demonstrate a lack of a safe avenue of escape.
Biron v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1690
The applicant, a permanent resident of Canada since 2016, was convicted of sexual assault against a minor and sentenced to 20 months in prison. He sought judicial review of a decision referring him to an inadmissibility hearing, arguing that his positive humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors should prevent his potential removal from Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's delegate acted reasonably. The Court affirmed that the delegate properly weighed the applicant's H&C submissions against the gravity of his offence and was justified in concluding that the seriousness of the crime was not counterbalanced by the positive factors.
Zuluaga Villegas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1692
A Colombian family's application for permanent residence on Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds was refused. The officer concluded they failed to provide sufficient evidence of hardship upon return to Colombia or their degree of establishment in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that applicants bear the onus of providing concrete evidence and that mere disagreement with an officer's weighing of factors is not a basis for judicial intervention.
Irvine v. Attorney General of Canada, 2025 FC 1673
The Applicant, an RCMP Corporal, sought judicial review of a Conduct Adjudicator's decision dismissing his appeal of a suspension order. The Adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding she had jurisdiction but that the matter was moot since the suspension had already been rescinded.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the Adjudicator’s reasoning on jurisdiction was unreasonable. The decision was based on an incorrect and inapplicable part of the governing regulations, rendering the entire chain of analysis flawed and justifying setting the decision aside.
Ali v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1682
The applicant, a former Sudanese politician, was found inadmissible to Canada on security grounds for being a member of a political party that engaged in acts of subversion. The Immigration Division (ID) made this finding without considering international law obligations.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the ID's decision unreasonable. The Court affirmed that following the Supreme Court's decision in Mason, decision-makers must consider whether a removal is consistent with the principle of non-refoulement before finding a person inadmissible on security grounds.
Rouamba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1680
The applicant, a citizen of Burkina Faso, applied for a Canadian study permit. While she correctly indicated she had previous visa refusals, she only detailed her Canadian refusals and failed to disclose two prior US visa refusals, leading to a finding of misrepresentation by the immigration officer.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that failing to disclose all prior refusals, regardless of the country, constitutes a material omission and that the 'innocent error' exception did not apply as the information was within the applicant's control.
Adeoye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1676
The applicant, an experienced therapist from Nigeria, sought a post-graduate certificate in Continuing Care Assistance. The immigration officer refused the study permit, finding that the applicant's study plan failed to outline a clear career path or explain how the program would benefit her, given her extensive professional background.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that an applicant must provide specific, convincing details on the benefits of their proposed study, especially when the program might seem redundant or not a logical career progression.
Benedicta Ikhuemose Oga-Palmer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1685
A young Nigerian applicant was refused a study permit for a second time, despite having financial support from her Canadian uncle. The officer was not satisfied she had sufficient funds or would leave Canada after her studies.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The judge concluded that the officer's unstated doubts about the applicant's relationship with her uncle amounted to a 'veiled credibility finding' that unfairly tainted the assessment of her financial support.
