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.
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.
