ONWUBIKO v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1314
The Applicants, Nigerian citizens who obtained Mexican citizenship, fled Mexico due to cartel fears and claimed refugee status in Canada based on the Principal Applicant's bisexual orientation. Their former counsel allegedly interfered with testimony and failed to raise key evidence regarding their Mexican citizenship.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, quashing the Refugee Appeal Division's (RAD) decision. The Court found the former counsel incompetent for failing to submit crucial evidence, resulting in procedural unfairness and an unreasonable RAD decision that overlooked vital evidence and failed to assess risks in Nigeria.
Camero v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1310
Lily Camero, a live-in caregiver in Canada for 16 years, had her permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds refused. The officer's decision failed to adequately consider her establishment in Canada, medical conditions, and the hardship she would face if removed.
The Federal Court found the immigration officer's decision to be unreasonable, particularly regarding the evaluation of Ms. Camero's establishment in Canada and the hardship she would face in the Philippines. The application for judicial review was granted, and the matter was sent back for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
Zaeem Salman Khan v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1282
The Applicant, a self-represented litigant from Qatar, sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision to reject his work permit application under the International Mobility Program, A77 Startup Business Class, for failing to demonstrate eligibility and intent to depart Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Officer's decision reasonable, intelligible, transparent, and justified. The Court emphasized that the Applicant failed to provide a complete application, specifically lacking official language test results and the required Commitment Certificate.
MANMOHAN SINGH DHALIWAL v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 1286
The applicant, whose wife and daughter were already in Canada on permits, applied for a work permit but was refused by an immigration officer due to perceived insufficient ties outside Canada and lack of financial establishment, leading to a judicial review application.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming that the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of ties to his home country, which was the basis for the officer's concern about his intent to depart Canada.
Sharanjit Singh Dahela v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1277
The applicant, an Indian citizen and welding business owner, was refused a visitor's visa to Canada to visit his sister, with the officer citing insufficient funds and an inconsistent purpose of stay, despite significant supporting documentation.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review application, finding the immigration officer's decision unreasonable. The Court determined that the officer failed to engage with the entirety of the applicant's evidence, specifically regarding financial circumstances and ties to his home country.
Carlos Mario Izquierdo Santos v. Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration, 2025 CF 1276
The applicant, a citizen of Mexico, sought refugee status in Canada, alleging fear of persecution from members of a cartel due to confidential information he possessed. The Refugee Protection Division (SPR) and Refugee Appeal Division (SAR) found he had an internal flight alternative (IFA) and was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
The Federal Court rejected the application for judicial review, affirming the SAR's decision. The Court found it was reasonable for the SAR to conclude that the applicant had not demonstrated the persecuting agents had the motivation to pursue him within Mexico's internal flight alternative area.
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.
