Chaudhray v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1278
The applicants sought judicial review of a refusal of their Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) permanent residence application, which largely stemmed from the immigration officer's unreasonable assessment of the best interests of their six Canadian-born children and a factual error regarding the children's familiarity with Pakistan.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision unreasonable due to insufficient consideration of the children's best interests, a factual error regarding their ties to Pakistan, and an unreasonable assessment of medical evidence.
Balaei Pakdehi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1269
The applicant, Mr. Balaei Pakdehi, sought a judicial review of a Visa Officer's refusal of his work permit application as an Intra-Company Transferee (ICT), along with the refusal of his family's accompanying visas, due to a failure to demonstrate a qualifying company relationship between his Iranian and Canadian entities.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Officer reasonably assessed Mr. Pakdehi's application and justifiably concluded that no qualifying company relationship existed under the ICT category, particularly regarding the 'affiliate' definition and the lack of proportional ownership.
Hoda Seighal Zanan Mashhadi v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1265
The Applicant, Hoda Seighal Zanan Mashhadi, applied for a temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit her family in Canada for twenty days, but her application was refused due to insufficient finances and significant family ties in Canada.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable because it failed to address relevant evidence, specifically the applicant's brother's affidavit promising full financial support, and granted the judicial review, sending the decision back for redetermination by a different officer.
Blugh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1270
The applicant, a citizen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, sought permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds, primarily due to severe trauma from childhood sexual assault. Her application was refused by an immigration officer who gave little weight to her traumatic experience and long period of non-compliance.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, setting aside the officer's decision. The Court found the decision unreasonable due to the officer's misapprehension of the evidence, failure to adopt a compassionate mindset, and inadequate justification for dismissing the H&C application based on a single negative factor.
Shreemattie Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1264
The applicant, Shreemattie Singh, a Guyanese citizen residing in Canada for almost two decades, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. Her application was refused by an IRCC officer.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, quashing the H&C refusal and remitting the application for redetermination by a different officer. The Court found the officer's evaluation of family separation hardship and factual error regarding the applicant's safety in Guyana to be unreasonable.
Muhammad Moeez v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1272
The Applicant, a citizen of Pakistan claiming protection based on his sexual orientation, had his claim dismissed by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) after a finding that he produced a fabricated Basis of Claim (BOC).
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, setting aside the RPD's decision. The Court found a breach of procedural fairness occurred when the RPD member questioned the Applicant about the impugned document without allowing him to review it during the virtual hearing.
Bahmani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1254
Ms. Sanam Bahmani, an Iranian citizen residing in the UAE, sought an open work permit to reunite with her spouse in Canada. Her application was refused by a visa officer who concluded she had not established intent to leave Canada at the end of her stay.
The Federal Court dismissed Ms. Bahmani's application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer's assessment of family ties in Canada, lack of ties abroad, and economic establishment in her country of residence were sufficiently justified.
Mehrnoosh Parham v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1240
The applicant, a 37-year-old Iranian citizen with a full-time job and a previous master's degree, applied for a study permit to pursue a second master's in Canada. Her application was refused based on insufficient funds, lack of family ties outside Canada, and inconsistency with a temporary stay.
The Federal Court found the immigration officer's decision unreasonable, particularly concerning the assessment of the applicant's financial resources, family ties, and the logic of her study plan. The application was granted, and the matter returned for redetermination by a different officer.
Wenhui Liu v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2025 FC 1253
The applicant, Mr. Wenhui Liu, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his permanent residence application and declaring him inadmissible due to a fraudulent marriage certificate and material misrepresentation.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the immigration officer's decision. The Court affirmed that providing a fraudulent document, regardless of intent or third-party involvement, constitutes a material misrepresentation leading to inadmissibility.
Adiele v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1256
The Principal Applicant sought judicial review of a refusal for an open work permit to accompany his wife, a student. The officer initially refused the application due to insufficient evidence of the wife's full-time student status, and later, despite confirming student status, maintained the refusal based on insufficient funds.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's initial decision unreasonable as it was made without regard to evidence. The Court declined to address mootness or procedural fairness, remitting the matter for redetermination by a different officer.
