Odusanya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1486
The applicant applied for a study permit, providing evidence of significant funds from her own employment and her husband, a FIFA football agent. The immigration officer acknowledged there appeared to be sufficient funds but refused the application, finding the source of the funds was poorly documented.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, affirming that it is the applicant's responsibility to present clear, well-documented evidence. The Court ruled it was reasonable for the officer to refuse the application when faced with a large volume of unannotated financial records, as it is not the officer's job to sift through raw data to build the applicant's case.
Afroze v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1484
The applicant, a Quebec Investor Class candidate, was refused permanent residence because an IRCC officer was not satisfied with her intention to reside in Quebec. The refusal was largely based on her failure to visit the province and the officer's belief that her settlement plans were made too recently.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer imposed a non-existent legal requirement to visit Quebec and failed to properly consider the substantial evidence of intent the applicant had provided.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1485
The applicant, Kulvir Kaur, applied for a study permit and was refused on the grounds of insufficient funds. She had filed a joint application with her husband, providing substantial evidence of his financial capacity to support her studies, which the visa officer failed to consider.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that it was an error to ignore the husband's financial contribution when it was clearly submitted as part of a joint application and intended to be considered.
Izekor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1488
The applicant, a refugee claimant from Nigeria, was denied protection because both the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found he had not established his identity. The RAD dismissed his appeal despite him providing an authentic Nigerian passport issued by the High Commission in Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to disregard the genuine passport was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the RAD's reasoning, based on speculation about how the passport was obtained and a refusal to consider other identity documents, was flawed and set the decision aside for redetermination.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1478
The applicant, a graduate of two one-year certificate programs, was refused a Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP). The refusal was based on her being a part-time student in the semester immediately preceding her final, mandatory work placement.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the 'final semester' is the very last session required for graduation, which, in this case, was the work placement, not the preceding academic term.
Tesfaldet Kindikulom Eyasu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1481
The Applicant sought judicial review after an immigration officer refused his application for overseas protection. The officer found the applicant's story of escaping from prison and fleeing to safety to be implausible and not credible.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to apply the correct high legal threshold for making a negative credibility finding based solely on implausibility.
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.
