Morgan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1422
An 85-year-old applicant, who has lived in Canada since 1991, sought permanent residence on Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds due to her advanced age, significant health issues, and lack of family in her home country. An IRCC officer refused her application, finding she would not face undue hardship.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the decision was both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The core issue was that IRCC had inexplicably sent the applicant two separate and slightly different refusal letters for the same application, making the true reasoning for the denial impossible to discern.
Kayanza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1414
An applicant from Tanzania sought refugee protection based on his fear of persecution as a gay man. His claim was refused by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upheld the refusal based on negative credibility findings.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the RAD failed to properly assess corroborating letters and provided no actual analysis for its negative finding on the applicant's delay in claiming protection.
Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1404
A citizen of Bangladesh sought refugee protection due to threats from an extremist group. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied his claim, finding he had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) within Bangladesh and it was not unreasonable for him to relocate.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the RAD's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed the critical legal principle that an applicant cannot introduce new arguments during a judicial review that were not first raised before the administrative tribunal.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1415
The applicant sought judicial review of a study permit refusal. The immigration officer was not satisfied with the applicant's financial standing, specifically the unproven source of funds, and had concerns about her academic record and ability to complete the proposed program in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. The judge ruled that the officer's concerns about the lack of evidence for the source of funds and the applicant's academic history were reasonable grounds for refusal, and there was no breach of procedural fairness.
Ogungbemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1418
A Nigerian refugee claimant appealed her negative decision to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), seeking to introduce new evidence, including death certificates and news articles about her parents' deaths. The RAD found this new evidence lacked credibility, noting signs of 'brown envelope journalism,' and refused to admit it.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming that the RAD acted reasonably in assessing the credibility of new evidence before deciding on its admissibility. The Court found the RAD had a logical basis for questioning the authenticity of the documents.
Duran Bantan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1416
The applicant, a well-established man from Panama with a protected person spouse and a Canadian citizen child, applied for permanent residence on H&C grounds. An immigration officer refused the application, finding his establishment in Canada was not 'extraordinary' and concluding the child's best interests were insufficient to warrant approval.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court held that requiring an applicant's establishment to be 'extraordinary' imposes an incorrect and unlawfully high legal standard. It also found the officer failed to rationally explain why the child's best interests, despite being given 'substantial weight', were not enough to approve the application.
Eduardo Alexis Duran Bantan v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1417
The applicant sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. After an initial refusal, he requested reconsideration with significant new evidence and legal arguments. The Immigration Officer reconsidered the case but confirmed the refusal without properly engaging with the new submissions.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the officer's reconsideration decision. The Court found the decision was unreasonable because the officer failed to correct previous errors and did not provide a responsive justification for rejecting the applicant's new arguments.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1412
The applicants, a couple from India, sought refugee protection based on alleged persecution. Their claim was dismissed by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) due to significant credibility issues, primarily the submission of fraudulent hospital records.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that submitting fraudulent documents fatally undermines an applicant's credibility and rebuts the presumption that their testimony is true.
Saleh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1402
The Applicant, a Nigerian citizen born in Saudi Arabia, sought judicial review of a rejected Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). He argued that removal to Nigeria, a country he has never visited, would cause his diagnosed psychotic disorder to recur, leading to a risk of persecution and cruel and unusual treatment.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Senior Immigration Officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer properly assessed the evidence, including the Applicant's remission status and the availability of outpatient mental healthcare in Nigeria, and concluded the risk of harm was not personalized or sufficiently likely.
Hakizimana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1405
A Burundian family's application for permanent residence as Convention refugees was refused after an officer discovered the applicant's wife held Rwandan citizenship. The officer concluded this provided a 'durable solution' in Rwanda, making them ineligible for refugee protection in Canada.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable because it failed to assess the applicant's specific claims of persecution risk in Rwanda, which stemmed from his mixed Hutu-Tutsi marriage. The Court granted the judicial review and remitted the matter for redetermination by a different officer.
