Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1528
An elderly Vietnamese couple, parents of two adult Canadian children, applied for permanent residence on H&C grounds due to one applicant's cancer diagnosis and the need for family support. The officer refused their application, focusing on their lack of establishment in Canada and dismissing their core arguments.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, quashing the refusal and sending it for redetermination. The Court found the officer's decision was procedurally unfair for ignoring an alternative request and was unreasonable for failing to meaningfully engage with the applicants' central arguments about family separation and hardship.
Pathak v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1521
The applicant, a student from India, sought to extend his study permit after switching colleges. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) refused his application for failing to provide an official transcript from his new college, as explicitly requested by the officer.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is entirely reasonable for an officer to request official documents and to refuse an application when the applicant fails to comply with that request.
A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1514
A Palestinian woman in Gaza applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) under a special policy. Her application was not processed because she was unable to provide the required biometrics, as leaving Gaza to do so became impossible after the Rafah crossing closed.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding it could not compel a decision (mandamus) because the applicant had not met a key legal requirement of the policy—providing biometrics. The Court affirmed it cannot rewrite government policy, even in dire humanitarian situations.
Mohammod v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1512
A citizen of Bangladesh was refused a study permit for a 3-month English language program in Canada, which was a prerequisite for a college program. The officer found the purpose of travel unreasonable due to the high cost and the availability of similar English courses in the applicant's home country.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer is entitled to consider the cost and availability of similar programs locally as part of a holistic assessment of a study permit application.
Sidhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1510
The Applicant, a 32-year-old woman, was included as a dependent child in her mother's Parents and Grandparents Program application. An immigration officer removed her from the application, finding she failed to prove she met the criteria for an overage dependent—specifically, that she was financially dependent on her parents since before age 22 due to a mental or physical condition.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court clarified that even though the officer used the term 'credibility,' the core issue was the insufficiency of the evidence provided, which did not trigger a duty of procedural fairness to allow the applicant to respond.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1520
The applicant, who lost his status after stopping his studies and working without authorization, sought a work permit and a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP). The officer refused, finding the applicant inadmissible and that a TRP was not justified as he could return to India to apply.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that a TRP is a highly discretionary remedy and an officer can refuse it if the applicant has another viable option, such as applying through regular channels from their home country.
Komalben Lavkumar Ravat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1518
The applicant, a nurse from India, applied for permanent residence under the Home Childcare Provider Pilot Program. Her application was refused because her Educational Credential Assessment (ECA) report stated her foreign diploma was 'not comparable to a completed Canadian education credential.'
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers are entitled to rely on the clear language of the ECA and the specific Program Instructions, which require a foreign credential to be equivalent to a completed Canadian post-secondary credential.
Ahmad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1516
The applicant, a privately sponsored refugee, had his permanent residence application refused. He sought reconsideration, arguing his sponsor misguided him on the application's requirements, but the officer refused to reopen the file, stating there was no error in the original decision.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer’s refusal to reconsider was unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to engage with the applicant's key argument that a breach of procedural fairness occurred due to the sponsor's bad advice.
Ziaee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1507
An Iranian national with a job offer as a graphic designer and a positive LMIA was refused a work permit. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant's education and experience were sufficient for the job or that she would leave Canada after her stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the burden is entirely on the applicant to submit a clear, complete, and persuasive application that leaves no room for doubt.
Ahmad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1511
A Pakistani refugee claimant's application was refused based on a viable internal flight alternative (IFA). His appeal was denied after the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) refused to admit new evidence of an attack on his family, deeming its timing—just 10 days after the initial refusal—to be suspicious and not credible.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RAD’s decision to reject the new evidence was reasonable. The Court affirmed that decision-makers can view evidence as dubious when its timing appears 'suspiciously fortuitous' and is submitted to rebut a key finding in a negative decision.
