Janet Bih Fokwah v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1376
The Applicant, a citizen of Cameroon, sought refugee protection in Canada, fearing persecution from the Military and Anglophone separatist rebels. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found she had viable internal flight alternatives, dismissing her claim.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the RAD ignored critical evidence regarding the Applicant's risk upon return to Cameroon, rendering its decision unreasonable. The matter was remitted for redetermination.
Kiplimo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1372
The Applicant, Elsie Jelagat Kiplimo, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision refusing her refugee claim based on fear of persecution in Kenya as a lesbian woman, with the core issue being her credibility after inconsistencies and similarities with her cousin's claim emerged.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding no reviewable error in the RAD's decision. The Court upheld the RAD's credibility assessment, concluding that the Applicant's truthfulness was sufficiently rebutted and that there was no independent, credible evidence to support her claim.
Iloh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1374
The applicant, a Nigerian citizen, sought judicial review of a Visa Officer's refusal to grant her a student visa for a BioScience Technology program, despite her parents, who hold valid Canadian work permits, sponsoring her studies and demonstrating significant income.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the Officer's decision unreasonable for failing to properly consider the parents' financial evidence. The matter was remitted back for reconsideration by a different Officer.
HERMOGENES ROSAS CASTRO v. LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION, 2025 CF 1366
The applicant, a Peruvian citizen granted refugee status and permanent residence in Canada, frequently renewed his Peruvian passport and traveled back to Peru over 15 years, despite alleging persecution by the Peruvian National Intelligence Service (SIN). The Minister sought a cessation of his refugee status.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) decision to cease the applicant's refugee status. The Court found the RPD's conclusion, that Mr. Castro voluntarily reclaimed Peruvian protection by renewing his passport and repeatedly visiting Peru, was reasonable.
Andrei Kuznetcov v. Le Ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile, 2025 CF 1367
Mr. Andrei Kuznetcov, a Russian citizen, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Section (SI) which found him inadmissible to Canada and ordered his removal due to his past membership in the border forces, an entity under the direction of the KGB, which was deemed to have engaged in acts of espionage against Canada.
The Federal Court rejected Mr. Kuznetcov's application for judicial review, upholding the SI's conclusion that he was inadmissible. The Court found the SI's decision to be reasonable, clear, justified, and intelligible, reiterating that membership in an organization involved in espionage, even if indirect, is sufficient for inadmissibility under Canadian immigration law.
Johnson v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1364
The applicant, whose refugee status was revoked due to misrepresentation, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but her application was refused because she failed to establish her identity.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, affirming the immigration officer's reasonable finding that the applicant had not proven her identity, which was a determinative factor in the refusal.
DAWIT ANDEBRAHAN TAFERE v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 1358
The applicant, a citizen of Eritrea and UN-recognized Convention refugee, applied for resettlement in Canada. His application was refused by an immigration officer who found insufficient information regarding his administrative duties in national service and doubted his truthfulness.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the officer's decision. The Court found that the officer's disbelief was based solely on personal experience and implausibility findings, which was an unreasonable application of settled legal principles.
Sinem Cetin v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1359
Applicants, nationals of Türkiye and Syria, were refused work permits under a Temporary Public Policy (TPP) designed for earthquake victims, as immigration officers found they were not physically present in Canada when the decisions were rendered.
The Federal Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, upholding the immigration officers' interpretation that the TPP required physical presence in Canada at the time of decision. The Court found no unreasonable interpretation of the TPP, no breach of procedural fairness, and no question of general importance.
Mac’s Convenience Stores Inc. v. Basyal, 2025 BCCA 284 (CanLII)
A group of temporary foreign workers (TFWs) came to Canada for jobs at Mac’s Convenience Stores. They alleged that the recruitment firm hired by Mac's, Overseas Immigration Services, charged them illegal fees. A subgroup of these workers also arrived in Canada to find the promised jobs did not exist.
The B.C. Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision, finding that Mac's was not vicariously liable for the recruiter's alleged breach of fiduciary duty because the recruiter was not a true "agent" in the legal sense. The Court also ruled that the workers whose jobs disappeared did have a legal duty to mitigate their losses by trying to find alternative employment.
Omone Bridget Ekong v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1355
The applicant, a 41-year-old Nigerian single mother with extensive work experience, sought a study permit for a post-graduate certificate in Canada. The immigration officer refused her application, concluding that her purpose of visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay and negated the necessity for international education.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review application, finding the immigration officer's decision unreasonable. The Court highlighted the officer's failure to consider crucial evidence of the applicant's ties to Nigeria and her legitimate career advancement goals, which contradicted the refusal.
