Seyed Mostafa Salehi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1590
The Applicant, a member of a Start-Up Visa business group, sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on his permanent residence application, which had been delayed for 51 months. The delay was caused by ongoing security screening for another essential member of the same business venture.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the delay was justified. The Court affirmed that under the Start-Up Visa Program, all essential members' applications are processed together, and a final decision cannot be rendered on one applicant until the admissibility of all co-applicants is resolved.
Maliyekkal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1592
An Express Entry applicant for permanent residence had his application rejected as incomplete because he did not provide a birth certificate for a non-accompanying dependent. The applicant argued he had supplied all required information and had asked IRCC to contact him if further documents were needed.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding IRCC's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the regulations distinguish between 'information' and 'documents,' and the applicant had fulfilled the requirement to provide all necessary information, even without submitting that specific document upfront.
Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1589
The applicants sought permanent residence under the Home Support Worker (HSW) Class. The application was refused because the officer was not satisfied the principal applicant could perform the work, and the employer failed to provide financial documents, raising doubts about the job offer's genuineness.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that the burden is on the applicant to provide all required evidence, including from their employer, and that an officer is entitled to assess an applicant's ability to perform the job duties.
Hu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1591
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, failed to land in Canada before his permanent residence visa expired. His initial request for an extension was denied, and over a year later, his subsequent request to 'reactivate' his visa was also refused.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's refusal to reconsider the case was reasonable. The Court determined the applicant was improperly trying to challenge the original extension denial, which he had failed to appeal in a timely manner.
Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1588
The applicants sought permanent residence under the Home Child Care Provider Class (HCCPC). Their application was refused after their employer failed to address an immigration officer's concerns about multiple job offers linked to their profile and their financial ability to hire more than one caregiver.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was both reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that the officer had a valid basis for their concerns and had provided the applicants with a sufficient opportunity to respond.
Islam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1585
The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, sought judicial review of a refused spousal sponsorship application. The immigration officer was not satisfied the marriage was genuine, citing insufficient evidence of cohabitation and financial interdependence.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and that there was no breach of procedural fairness. The Court affirmed that a request for more documents fulfilled the duty of fairness, and an interview was not required.
Arsam Sharifi Kalangestani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1584
A 17-year-old Iranian citizen applied for a visitor visa to see his family in Canada, including his medically-distressed brother. IRCC refused the application, stating they were not satisfied he would leave Canada due to a lack of family ties outside the country.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to provide a transparent or logical chain of reasoning and did not properly engage with the evidence submitted by the applicant.
Hussain v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1581
The Applicant, a Pakistani citizen inadmissible for serious criminality, sought a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) due to fears of honour crimes. The officer refused the application, finding he had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he could receive protection from the state in Pakistan.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court clarified that an applicant's self-represented status does not impose a higher standard of review or an elevated evidentiary duty on the decision-maker.
Kaji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1576
A student from the Democratic Republic of Congo applied for a study permit to pursue an engineering degree. The visa officer refused the application due to insufficient financial resources, specifically citing limited evidence of sustained income and an unclear source of funds in her mother's bank account.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is entirely on the applicant to provide clear, comprehensive proof of funds, and officers are not required to request more information if the evidence is lacking.
Said v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1574
The Applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision that vacated her Convention refugee status. The RPD found she misrepresented her identity, claiming to be a Somali national named Umi Athman Said, when she was in fact a Kenyan national named Umukulthum Jaffar Mbarak who had previously entered Canada on a study permit.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated the Applicant had misrepresented material facts about her identity and nationality to obtain refugee status in Canada.
