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.
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.
