Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1344
The Applicants sought judicial review of a refusal of their permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, alleging their former immigration consultant provided ineffective assistance by failing to file evidence addressing hardship.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the former counsel's conduct fell below the standard of reasonable professional judgment and compromised the fairness of the adjudicative process, remitting the matter for redetermination.
Iftikhar Ahmed Rubina Iftikhar v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1342
The Applicants, a married couple from Pakistan, had their refugee protection claims excluded by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in France, based on a finding that they held substantially similar rights to French nationals. The RPD determined they had Permanent Resident status in France which they voluntarily lost.
The Federal Court granted the Application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision unreasonable. The RPD failed to adequately engage with the Applicants' arguments and evidence that they never held Permanent Resident status in France, but rather a limited resident card holder status.
SHAKEEL KHAN MOHAMMAD v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 1343
The Applicant, an Indian citizen with an employer-specific work permit offer and positive LMIA, was refused his work permit because the officer was not satisfied he could adequately perform the work, citing insufficient evidence of work experience.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable due to a lack of transparency and justification, as the officer failed to consider submitted evidence and adequately explain why specific financial documents were required. Federal Court rules that in a work permit application if an applicant includes reference letters as proof of work experience then the officer must assess the reference letters, and cannot simply refuse the application because bank statements showing deposits or tax information was not provided.
Oleksandr Zahrebelnyi and others v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1338
The Applicants, led by a Principal Applicant who previously served with Ukraine's Secret Service (SBU), faced inadmissibility to Canada under security grounds due to the SBU's alleged engagement in subversion against democratic processes. The Officer determined the SBU engaged in political repression and election fraud, leading to the refusal of the Applicants' humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Officer's interpretation of 'subversion' to include resisting change and maintaining the status quo was reasonable. The Court also affirmed the Officer's assessment of the SBU's actions against democratic entities and the lack of a 'mens rea' requirement for the organization's intent.
Moghadam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1339
The Applicants, a principal applicant and her dependents, sought a writ of mandamus to compel Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to render a decision on their Permanent Residence application, which had been delayed for over 52 months.
The Federal Court granted the application for mandamus, ordering IRCC to process the Applicants' permanent residence application within 90 days. The Court found that the 52-month delay was unreasonable and not satisfactorily justified by the Respondent.
Tanveer Singh v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1335
The Applicant, a Sikh preacher-activist from Punjab, India, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upholding the refusal of his refugee claim, which was based on an alleged fear of persecution by Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) followers and Indian authorities.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's assessment of the Applicant's credibility concerns and its determination that he failed to establish the unavailability of an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Jaipur, India, were reasonable.
Muhammad Naeem Asif v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1326
The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision rejecting his permanent residency application under the Provincial Nominee Program and finding him inadmissible for misrepresentation due to concerns about his employment history and alleged falsified payroll records.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, setting aside the decision and remitting the matter for redetermination. The Court found a breach of procedural fairness because the Applicant was not given an opportunity to address credibility concerns about the payroll records he submitted.
Terefe Mekonnen Aboye v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1330
A family of four, citizens of Ethiopia and Italy, sought judicial review of a refusal of their Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) application for permanent residence in Canada, primarily citing racial discrimination experienced in Italy and its psychological impact.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the Officer's assessment of hardship and the best interests of the children (BIOC) to be unreasonable. The decision highlighted the Officer's failure to empathetically consider the psychological impact of forced return and the effectiveness of available state protections in Italy.
Sahloul v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1331
The applicant, a Syrian airline pilot living in the UAE, was refused permanent residency as a Convention refugee abroad and a member of the humanitarian-protected persons abroad class, due to concerns he did not seek protection at the 'first opportunity' and engaged in 'asylum shopping'.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the Officer's decision unreasonable. The Court clarified that seeking the 'first opportunity' for protection is not a precondition for refugee status and that 'asylum shopping' is not a legally relevant concept in this context, unless Article 1E of the Convention applies.
Khan v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1324
The Applicant sought a mandamus order to compel a decision on his spousal sponsorship permanent residence application due to unreasonable delay. However, a decision was rendered just days before the Federal Court hearing, finding him inadmissible.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding it moot because a decision had been rendered on the permanent residence application. The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case.
