Gharibdoust v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1540
An Iranian business owner sought an Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) work permit to establish a Canadian subsidiary. The officer refused the application, citing a lack of evidence for the parent company's financial ability to support the expansion, an unproven employer-employee relationship, and insufficient proof of the applicant's relevant experience.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that personal bank statements are not a substitute for corporate financial documents and that the burden is on the applicant to clearly prove all eligibility requirements, including specific experience.
Kasule v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1539
The applicant, a citizen of Uganda, claimed refugee protection as a bisexual woman fearing persecution. Her claim was refused by the Immigration and Refugee Board's Appeal Division (RAD) due to severe credibility issues, finding her testimony contained "baldly outlandish" fabrications regarding her relationships and alleged detention.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the RAD's decision. The Court found it was reasonable for the RAD to conclude that the applicant's lack of credibility on the core allegations of her claim outweighed the limited corroborative value of the government-issued documents she provided.
Balduk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1541
The applicants, the wife and children of an accepted Convention refugee, sought protection from Türkiye. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) refused their claims, finding the principal applicant's testimony about her personal political activities and risks was not credible.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it will not reweigh inconsistencies or interfere with a tribunal's factual findings on credibility absent exceptional circumstances.
Fyfield v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2025 FC 1547
The applicant, a permanent resident facing removal, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division (ID) to continue his detention. The review was requested after he was severely assaulted in custody, resulting in a broken leg, which he argued was a material change in his circumstances.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the ID's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the ID failed to properly consider the applicant's new injuries as a material change affecting his flight risk and danger to the public, mischaracterized the proposed release plan, and failed to adequately assess the proportionality of his continued detention.
Doust v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1546
An Iranian couple applied for a mandamus order to compel a decision on their study and work permit applications, which had been pending for nearly two years. The delay was primarily due to security screening for the husband's mandatory military service with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The Federal Court dismissed the application. It ruled that while the 103-week delay was exceptionally long, the issuance of a Procedural Fairness Letter regarding potential inadmissibility due to the IRGC's recent designation as a terrorist entity provided a satisfactory justification for the delay.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1534
An Iranian citizen applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit a friend in Canada, providing extensive documentation. A visa officer refused the application, claiming the purpose of the visit was vague, information on the host was insufficient, and the applicant lacked family ties, concluding he would not leave Canada.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer's conclusions were mere 'bald statements' inconsistent with the evidence and failed to provide the necessary justification, intelligibility, and transparency required by law.
Shahidullah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1536
The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, had his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) rejected. The immigration officer concluded there was insufficient evidence of risk, repeatedly faulting the applicant for not providing photographs, news reports, or police complaints to support his claims of persecution.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and allowed the judicial review. The Court affirmed the principle that an officer cannot demand corroborative evidence without first providing a valid reason to question the applicant's credibility or explaining why their testimony alone is insufficient.
Abdollahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1530
The Applicants sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds, citing the hardship the female Applicant would face in Iran due to women's rights issues and harassment. The immigration officer refused the application, finding the personal risk to be remote and the harassment claims unsubstantiated.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court found that the officer had properly considered the Applicants' concerns but was justified in concluding the evidence did not establish sufficient hardship.
Haiying Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1533
The applicant, a citizen of China whose refugee status was ceased, sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). She argued that new evidence of increased surveillance and China's social credit system created a new risk, but the officer found this evidence was too general and did not overcome previous adverse credibility findings.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that new evidence in a PRRA must be substantial and specific to the applicant's profile, not just general reports on country conditions, to overcome prior negative findings on credibility.
Hayer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1526
The applicant, a floor covering installer from India with eight years of documented experience, was refused a work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker program. An immigration officer was not satisfied that he could adequately perform the proposed work, despite a positive LMIA and a detailed letter of experience.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled there was no rational connection between the extensive evidence of the applicant's experience and the officer's conclusion that he was unable to perform the job.
