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.
Jinaidov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1509
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that dismissed his refugee claim. His claim was based on a fear of persecution in Kazakhstan, stemming from extortion attempts by police who perceived him as wealthy and a member of the Tajik minority.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a decision-maker cannot be faulted for failing to consider an argument—in this case, intersectionality—that was not raised by the applicant's counsel during the appeal.
Rasheed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1503
An applicant's Express Entry (PNP Class) application for permanent residence was refused for submitting the wrong World Education Services (WES) document. His subsequent request for reconsideration, which included the correct document and an explanation, was summarily refused.
The Federal Court found the officer's refusal of the reconsideration request was unreasonable. Once an officer agrees to re-examine a file, they must genuinely engage with the applicant's new evidence and explanations, not simply reiterate the original refusal reasons.
Anchykova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1508
The applicant, a dual citizen of Ukraine and Argentina, fled the war in Ukraine and sought refugee protection in Canada. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied her claim, finding she had a safe country of return in Argentina, as her fears about returning there were not objectively founded.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court agreed that the applicant's subjective fears about returning to Argentina did not meet the legal threshold for persecution and were not supported by objective evidence.
Kasimova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1500
The applicant applied for a temporary resident visa, withdrew it to correct errors, and then reapplied with updated documents. An IRCC officer investigated a document from the *withdrawn* application, found it fraudulent, and used this to refuse the *new* application for misrepresentation, imposing a five-year ban.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and set it aside. The Court ruled that an officer cannot conduct a 'fishing expedition' into a withdrawn application and must assess a new application based solely on the evidence submitted with it.
