Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1451
The applicant sought to sponsor her parents under the Parent and Grandparent Program (PGP). The visa officer refused her application for failing to meet the Minimum Necessary Income (MNI) requirement, as her separated—but not yet legally divorced—husband was included in her family size calculation for the relevant years.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), a separated spouse correctly counts as a family member for income calculation purposes until the marriage is legally dissolved.
Zhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1454
An applicant, found inadmissible by the Immigration Division for organized criminality under IRPA s. 37(1)(a), had her initial judicial review application dismissed. She then filed a motion under Rule 397 asking the Court to reconsider its dismissal, arguing the judge misunderstood her legal arguments.
The Federal Court firmly dismissed the motion for reconsideration. The judge ruled that Rule 397 is for correcting accidental slips or omissions, not for re-arguing a case that has already been lost, confirming the principle of functus officio.
Fernandez Porragas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1452
Mexican citizens sought refugee protection based on a series of criminal incidents over several years, which they later speculated were orchestrated by the La Familia Michoacana cartel. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied their claim, finding they had a safe Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) because there was no evidence linking the events or showing a motivated persecutor would pursue them.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that refugee claimants bear the onus of providing evidence, not just speculation, to prove that various criminal acts are linked and that a specific persecutor is motivated to find them in another part of the country.
Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1449
An applicant with a university degree in accounting was refused a work permit as a bookkeeper. The officer claimed he lacked sufficient work experience and would not leave Canada, despite his education meeting the job's requirements.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer improperly focused on work experience when the applicant's university degree already exceeded the National Occupational Classification (NOC) requirements.
Zhu v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2025 FC 1450
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on a permanent residence application delayed for over six years. After IRCC issued a refusal for misrepresentation, the Applicant tried to use the existing mandamus proceeding to judicially review the refusal, while simultaneously filing a separate judicial review application.
The Federal Court dismissed the application as both moot and an abuse of process. The Court held that a mandamus application cannot be repurposed into a judicial review of the eventual decision, and attempting to challenge the same decision in two separate proceedings is improper.
Lai Man Lam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1447
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her open work permit and issuing a five-year ban for misrepresentation. The immigration officer concluded her MBA degree was not legitimately earned after she failed to answer basic questions about her own research during an interview.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that when an applicant cannot demonstrate basic knowledge of their claimed credentials, an officer is entitled to conclude they were obtained illegitimately.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1442
An Indian citizen's work permit application as a long-haul truck driver was refused. The immigration officer claimed the applicant lacked significant family ties outside Canada and was not financially established, despite evidence of close family in India and a stable work history in Kuwait.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that an officer cannot simply contradict or ignore key evidence without providing a transparent and intelligible justification for their conclusions.
Simarouk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1444
An Iranian citizen's application for a study permit to pursue a Bachelor's degree in British Columbia was refused. The visa officer was not satisfied with the applicant's financial capacity, ties to their home country, or that their stay would be temporary.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court emphasized that the applicant failed to provide sufficient and clear evidence of financial capacity to cover the costs of her studies in Canada.
OMOMIA v CANADA (CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION), 2025 FC 1441
The applicants, survivors of horrific domestic violence in Ireland, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision. The RAD had rejected their appeal, finding they had not rebutted the presumption of state protection in Ireland, based on recent legislative changes.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the RAD relied on speculation, unsourced statistics, and failed to address contradictory evidence that demonstrated ongoing failures in state protection, rendering its analysis flawed and unjustified.
Salim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1434
A refugee claimant from Chad, who held permanent residence in Equatorial Guinea, was denied protection. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found him excluded because he had status in a safe third country and deemed his fear of being extradited from there to Chad not credible due to a lack of documentary evidence.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision on the risk of harm unreasonable. The Court ruled that the RPD failed to properly consider the applicant's explanation for the absence of public evidence and failed in its duty to weigh the corroborating evidence that was provided.
