Sathusthika Amalraj v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1398
The applicant was refused a permanent resident visa under the family class because her spouse had failed to declare their marriage when he became a permanent resident. An immigration officer then refused her subsequent request for an exemption based on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision to refuse the H&C exemption was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer properly considered the reasons for the non-disclosure and the alleged hardships but was justified in concluding they were insufficient to warrant relief.
Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1392
The applicant, a citizen of China applying for permanent residence under the Quebec Investor Class, was refused by an officer in Singapore. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to reside in Quebec, citing a lack of preparation, vague settlement plans, and limited ties to the province.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer’s decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that assessing an applicant's intent is a highly discretionary process requiring concrete evidence, not just statements of intent.
Stifanos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1391
A Canadian citizen sponsored his spouse after a religious marriage ceremony in Germany. The application was refused because German law requires a civil ceremony for a marriage to be legally valid, and thus the marriage was invalid for Canadian immigration purposes.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the Immigration Appeal Division's (IAD) decision. The Court found it was reasonable for the IAD to refuse to convert the failed spousal appeal into a conjugal partner appeal because the applicant provided no evidence to support the existence of a conjugal relationship.
Sawadogo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1390
A citizen of Burkina Faso applied for a study permit for a culinary arts program in New Brunswick, with her father as the financial sponsor. The immigration officer refused the application, citing insufficient finances and doubts that the applicant would leave Canada after her studies.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the financial evidence, which showed a low confirmed annual income and unexplained large cash deposits, failed to demonstrate the sponsor's ability to cover the significant costs of study.
Valerio v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1368
A family from Mexico sought refugee protection, claiming danger from the CJNG cartel after a failed extortion attempt. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found they had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Mexico, as the cartel's interest was localized and they were not motivated to track the family nationwide.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof is on the applicant to show a serious possibility of persecution throughout the entire country, not just in their home region.
Misra v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1385
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his LMIA-based work permit. The refusal was based on a finding of misrepresentation under s. 40(1)(a) of IRPA, after the applicant submitted contradictory and seemingly altered bank documents from Bank Asia.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the visa officer's decision to be reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court noted the applicant failed to adequately respond to a procedural fairness letter concerning the fraudulent documents, thereby justifying the refusal and inadmissibility finding.
Mann v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1386
The applicant, a Sikh supporter of the SADA party from Punjab, sought refugee protection from alleged threats by Congress Party members. His claim was refused by the RPD and RAD due to credibility issues and the finding of a safe Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Delhi.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the Refugee Appeal Division's negative credibility assessment was reasonable. The Court affirmed that this finding, combined with a lack of corroborating evidence, defeated the claim and supported the conclusion that an IFA was viable.
Akindumila v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1382
A 25-year-old Nigerian applicant was refused a study permit for Humber College. The immigration officer was not satisfied with the applicant's financial support, citing concerns about lump-sum deposits and volatile balances in his mother's bank account, which lacked clear documentation on the source of funds.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers are required to look beyond the balance on a bank statement and must be satisfied as to the 'source, nature, and stability' of the funds available for a student's studies in Canada.
Faizun Nesa Wadud v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1383
The Applicant and her husband applied for permanent residence under the Parents and Grandparents Sponsorship Program. An immigration officer refused their application, finding the husband inadmissible for complicity in crimes against humanity during his service with the Bangladesh Police.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and allowed the judicial review. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly consider and address crucial parts of the husband's testimony regarding actions he took against subordinates, making the inadmissibility finding unjustified.
Gavrilovic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1380
The applicant, in a long-term common-law relationship with a Canadian, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. She could not be sponsored because her partner was still legally married for complex family reasons. An immigration officer refused her application, downplaying the significance of her relationship and the barrier to sponsorship.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to meaningfully and compassionately engage with the very reason H&C relief was sought—the inability to use the standard spousal sponsorship route—and failed to properly assess the couple's interdependence.
