BLAISE MASUDI LUNDA v. MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION, 2025 CF 1242
The applicant, a lawyer with 20 years of experience and substantial funds, applied for a visitor visa, but his application was refused by an immigration officer who was not satisfied he would depart Canada, citing insufficient assets and financial situation to support the stated purpose of travel.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding that the immigration officer's decision was unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain why the applicant's significant assets and financial situation were deemed insufficient for a temporary visit, thereby not meeting the standard of justification.
Olugbenga Solomon Fashina v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1237
The applicant sought judicial review after his permanent residence application under the Provincial Nominee Program was refused for being incomplete. The refusal was due to the omission of required documentary information for a dependent child born a month before the application was submitted.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, affirming that an incomplete application is not legally considered an 'application' within the meaning of the IRPA and its Regulations. The Court reiterated that there is no duty on the officer to advise of deficiencies.
Tekle v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1235
The applicant, a citizen of Eritrea, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for a permanent resident visa as a Convention Refugee Abroad Class member, with the officer citing credibility concerns based on similar narratives from other applicants.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision procedurally unfair due to reliance on undisclosed extrinsic evidence and unreasonable for lacking justification, intelligibility, and transparency in its credibility assessment.
PARWINDER SINGH v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 1236
The applicant, Mr. Parwinder Singh, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that set aside his protected person status, which was based on alleged striking similarities between his Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative and those of other claimants.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the RAD's decision was unreasonable because it put 'form over substance' by excessively relying on superficial similarities in narratives without considering the underlying distinct events of persecution.
Yamdjeu Epse Nguemaleu c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), 2025 CF 1219
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that upheld the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) refusal of her asylum claim, primarily based on the applicant's alleged lack of credibility and failure to establish a fear of persecution as a woman.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a breach of procedural fairness due to the alleged incompetence of her immigration consultant and did not demonstrate the RAD's reasoning on credibility was unreasonable.
Seray Bagdatli Parlakyigit v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1215
The Applicant, a citizen of Türkiye, sought judicial review of an IRCC officer's decision refusing her work permit application under the Temporary Public Policy (TPP) for Turkish and Syrian nationals affected by the 2023 earthquake, after she failed to provide requested proof of physical presence in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the Applicant's judicial review, finding the IRCC officer's decision reasonable. The Court emphasized that the Applicant failed to provide requested documentation for her re-opened application, thus not meeting her burden to prove eligibility or a breach of procedural fairness.
Roghayeh Rouhi Falakdehi v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1220
The Applicant, an Iranian citizen granted refugee protection and permanent residency in Canada, had her refugee status ceased by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) after she traveled to Iran using a newly issued Iranian passport to care for her sick father.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review application, setting aside the RPD's decision to cease the Applicant's refugee protection. The Court found the RPD's reasoning unreasonable, as it improperly considered what the Applicant 'should have known' about immigration consequences, rather than only what she 'actually knew'.
Shamloo Gorjaee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1224
Applicants, an Iranian family, were refused permanent residence under the Express Entry Program after an immigration officer deemed the wife inadmissible as a danger to Canada's security due to her work at a particle accelerator project in Iran, which the officer considered a 'dual use' technology.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's conclusion that the ILSF Project constituted 'dual use' technology was based on conjecture and speculation, lacking compelling and credible information. The case was remitted to a different IRCC officer for redetermination.
Eshun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1211
The Applicant, a 30-year-old Ghanaian citizen, sought judicial review of a study permit refusal. The immigration officer was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada, citing insufficient assets and financial situation, despite extensive evidence of financial support from his uncle.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision unreasonable. The Court determined that the officer failed to engage with the significant evidence provided regarding financial support and the applicant's intent to return to Ghana.
HARMANDEEP SINGH v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 1210
The applicant, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a Visa Officer's decision refusing his work permit application, which was supported by a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) under the permanent residence stream. The officer denied the permit based on a lack of satisfaction that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review application, quashing the decision and remitting it for reconsideration. The Court found the officer's decision unreasonable because it failed to address the dual intent nature of the LMIA, which expressly referenced the permanent residence stream.
