McKenzie v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1627
The applicant, a permanent resident with a serious criminal conviction, was ordered deported. After numerous unsuccessful applications to remain in Canada, he requested a deferral of his removal pending a last-minute Temporary Residence Permit (TRP) application, which a CBSA officer refused.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the CBSA officer's decision to refuse the deferral was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer's discretion is limited and that last-minute, repetitive applications do not automatically warrant a stay of removal.
Mazloumiaboukheili v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1629
The applicant, a former Chief Operations Officer of an Iranian state-owned oil company, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his temporary resident visa. An officer found him inadmissible to Canada under s. 35(1)(b) of the IRPA for being a senior official in the Iranian regime, which is designated as a government that has engaged in terrorism and gross human rights violations.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that an officer can determine seniority based on reporting structures and job responsibilities, even if the applicant describes their role as 'middle management'.
Onay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1596
The Applicant, a Convention refugee from Türkiye, had his refugee status ceased after he obtained a Turkish passport in Canada and used it to travel back to Türkiye on multiple occasions. He sought judicial review, arguing the trips were for compelling family reasons and he did not intend to reavail himself of Turkish protection.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) decision to cease refugee status was reasonable. The Court affirmed that travelling to one's country of persecution on that country's passport, especially after being warned by Canadian officials, creates strong presumptions of reavailment that the Applicant failed to rebut.
Gholami v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1619
An Iranian mother applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to accompany her Canadian citizen daughter to school in Toronto. An immigration officer refused the application, stating she lacked significant family ties outside Canada, despite evidence to the contrary.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer completely ignored clear evidence on the application form showing the applicant's entire immediate family resided in Iran, making the refusal's justification unintelligible.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1617
A married couple from India applied for visitor visas to see family in Canada, providing evidence of substantial assets. An immigration officer refused their applications, questioning the source of funds in their bank accounts which seemed inconsistent with their modest declared income.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer is justified in refusing an application if large sums of money in a bank account are not explained by the applicant's income or other evidence.
Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1613
The applicant sought permanent residence through spousal sponsorship. The immigration officer refused the application, concluding the marriage was not genuine and finding misrepresentation due to fraudulent, backdated lease agreements submitted as proof of cohabitation.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that while the finding on the fraudulent documents was reasonable, the officer failed to provide a rational bridge between that finding and the conclusion that the entire marriage was not genuine.
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.
