Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1654
The Applicant sought a mandamus order to compel IRCC to finalize a Parent and Grandparent Sponsorship application filed in 2021. After an initial refusal was overturned by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), the Applicant argued the total processing time of 47 months was unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, siding with IRCC. The Court ruled that the IAD's decision to reopen the case effectively reset the clock for calculating processing delay, and the time elapsed since that decision was not unreasonable.
Shafiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1643
The applicant, a Pakistani citizen, sought judicial review of a refused Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. The officer denied the application, finding his establishment in Canada was not sufficient to warrant relief, and gave minimal weight to the period he was out of status.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. While acknowledging several of the officer’s statements were 'troubling' and lacked transparency, the Court found that when read holistically, the flaws were not central to the outcome and the decision remained reasonable.
Fathia Abdi Guled v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1646
The applicant, a citizen of Somalia, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The immigration officer refused the application, finding that conditions in Somalia had improved based on new research and reports that were published after the applicant had submitted her case.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding that the officer breached the requirements of procedural fairness. The Court held that the officer could not rely on significant new information—especially evidence of events that occurred after the application was filed—without giving the applicant an opportunity to address it.
Dagarguliia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1638
The Applicant, a Russian university student, applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) along with his parents to visit his sister in Canada. The visa officer refused the application, finding that because the entire immediate family was applying to travel, the Applicant would have no significant family ties left in Russia.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that when an applicant's entire immediate family also seeks to come to Canada, it is logical for an officer to conclude that family ties to the home country are severed, strengthening the presumption that the applicant may not leave Canada.
Omokpia Orobosa Edugie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1634
The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision from the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) that dismissed his third spousal sponsorship appeal. The IAD refused to hear the appeal on its merits, finding it was barred by the legal doctrine of *res judicata*, as the genuineness of the marriage had already been negatively decided in a previous final ruling.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the IAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that new evidence, including a pregnancy, did not automatically overcome *res judicata* because it failed to address the core credibility concerns identified in the prior decision.
Abadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1637
An Iranian applicant was refused a study permit for a marketing program at Langara College. The visa officer claimed similar, cheaper programs were available locally and that the applicant failed to justify the benefit of studying in Canada or demonstrate sufficient academic proficiency.
The Federal Court found the refusal unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court ruled the officer failed to engage with crucial evidence submitted by the applicant, namely a letter from her employer promising a promotion, doubled salary, and management position upon completion of the specific Canadian program.
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.
