Sebastian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1468
An Indian citizen working in Saudi Arabia was refused a closed work permit. The immigration officer doubted his ability to afford the initial costs of moving to Canada due to limited liquid funds, and also found he had weak ties to compel his departure after his stay.
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 significant deference in their assessment of an applicant's financial ability to establish themselves in Canada.
Khandaker Rohan Karim v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1467
An international student on a study permit was forced to withdraw from university for over 150 days. CBSA issued an exclusion order for non-compliance, which the student challenged by claiming he was exempt from the study requirement due to being in a common-law relationship with another student.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the exclusion order reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus was entirely on the applicant to raise and provide evidence of any potential exemption, such as a common-law relationship, during the admissibility process.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1463
The applicant, a former student who became inadmissible to Canada, applied for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to remain and work. The immigration officer refused the TRP, finding it was not justified in the circumstances.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that to justify a TRP, an applicant must do more than explain their past non-compliance; they must provide evidence of the difficulty or hardship they would face if required to leave Canada.
Adnan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1462
The applicant sought to sponsor his grandmother under the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP). IRCC returned his application as incomplete for failing to provide a fully completed family form and a required death certificate, even after being given 30 days to submit the documents.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court ruled that returning an application for non-compliance with Ministerial Instructions is not a refusal or a decision subject to judicial review, but rather a return of the application without processing.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1451
The applicant sought to sponsor her parents under the Parent and Grandparent Program (PGP). The visa officer refused her application for failing to meet the Minimum Necessary Income (MNI) requirement, as her separated—but not yet legally divorced—husband was included in her family size calculation for the relevant years.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), a separated spouse correctly counts as a family member for income calculation purposes until the marriage is legally dissolved.
Zhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1454
An applicant, found inadmissible by the Immigration Division for organized criminality under IRPA s. 37(1)(a), had her initial judicial review application dismissed. She then filed a motion under Rule 397 asking the Court to reconsider its dismissal, arguing the judge misunderstood her legal arguments.
The Federal Court firmly dismissed the motion for reconsideration. The judge ruled that Rule 397 is for correcting accidental slips or omissions, not for re-arguing a case that has already been lost, confirming the principle of functus officio.
Fernandez Porragas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1452
Mexican citizens sought refugee protection based on a series of criminal incidents over several years, which they later speculated were orchestrated by the La Familia Michoacana cartel. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied their claim, finding they had a safe Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) because there was no evidence linking the events or showing a motivated persecutor would pursue them.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that refugee claimants bear the onus of providing evidence, not just speculation, to prove that various criminal acts are linked and that a specific persecutor is motivated to find them in another part of the country.
Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1449
An applicant with a university degree in accounting was refused a work permit as a bookkeeper. The officer claimed he lacked sufficient work experience and would not leave Canada, despite his education meeting the job's requirements.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer improperly focused on work experience when the applicant's university degree already exceeded the National Occupational Classification (NOC) requirements.
Zhu v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2025 FC 1450
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on a permanent residence application delayed for over six years. After IRCC issued a refusal for misrepresentation, the Applicant tried to use the existing mandamus proceeding to judicially review the refusal, while simultaneously filing a separate judicial review application.
The Federal Court dismissed the application as both moot and an abuse of process. The Court held that a mandamus application cannot be repurposed into a judicial review of the eventual decision, and attempting to challenge the same decision in two separate proceedings is improper.
Lai Man Lam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1447
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her open work permit and issuing a five-year ban for misrepresentation. The immigration officer concluded her MBA degree was not legitimately earned after she failed to answer basic questions about her own research during an interview.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that when an applicant cannot demonstrate basic knowledge of their claimed credentials, an officer is entitled to conclude they were obtained illegitimately.
