Gonzalez Montiel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1600
A Mexican family sought refugee protection after being extorted at their small business. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied their claim, finding they had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Merida, Mexico, as their persecutors were not motivated to find them.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, upholding the RAD's decision as reasonable. The Court found that the RAD correctly concluded the family failed to provide sufficient evidence—beyond their own belief—that the extortionists were part of a major cartel with the motivation to pursue them across the country.
Wen Yin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1610
The applicant sought permanent residence under the Atlantic Immigration Class. Her application was refused because the duties described in her work experience verification letter belonged to a managerial TEER level, which was higher than the TEER level of her endorsed job offer.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not its role to re-weigh the evidence, but to determine if the officer's interpretation of the applicant's duties was a reasonable one.
Peyvastegan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1599
The applicant, an entrepreneur from Iran, applied for permanent residence under the Start-up Business Class (SUBC). The immigration officer refused the application, concluding that the applicant's primary purpose was to acquire status in Canada rather than to engage in genuine business activity, deeming it an 'artificial transaction'.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that the applicant was given multiple opportunities to provide evidence of business progress but failed to alleviate the officer's concerns about the genuineness of his business intent.
Ghajarzadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1598
An experienced 38-year-old Iranian professional was refused a study permit for a Project Management certificate. The visa officer found the study plan unreasonable, despite clear evidence from the applicant's employer of a guaranteed promotion and a significant salary increase upon completion of the program.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply ignore clear, logical evidence—like a major promotion and salary increase—that demonstrates the benefit of the proposed studies, as doing so makes the decision arbitrary.
Onuchukwu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1604
The applicant, a minor child of a study permit holder in Canada, applied for an open study permit. The immigration officer refused the application, finding the financial documentation—a single-page bank summary from the mother—insufficient to prove the applicant would leave Canada at the end of their stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court affirmed that regardless of the specific study permit type, an officer is entitled to require robust financial documentation and that a single bank account summary, without transaction history or other supporting evidence, is insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements.
Sony v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1603
The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for permanent residence under the Quebec Investor Program. An officer refused her application, finding she did not genuinely intend to reside in Quebec, citing weak settlement plans and stronger family ties to Toronto.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application. The Court found the officer's decision was reasonable and that there was no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant had been clearly informed of the concerns regarding her intent to settle in Quebec.
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.
