Hadjali v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), 2025 CF 610
Mr. Hadjali, a permanent resident of Canada who had been absent for 11 years, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) that rejected his appeal against a removal order for failing to meet his residency obligation.
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Hadjali's application for judicial review, finding that the IAD's decision was reasonable. The Court concluded that the IAD had properly assessed the humanitarian and compassionate considerations and that no procedural unfairness occurred.
Farrin Farzadniya et al. v. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, 2025 FC 615
The applicants, a principal applicant, her husband, and their minor child, sought judicial review of an immigration officer's August 9, 2023 decision refusing the principal applicant's study permit, her husband's work permit, and their child's study permit, primarily due to concerns about their intent to leave Canada and the study plan's vagueness.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court determined that the officer failed to properly engage with the submitted evidence regarding the study plan, work plan, and family ties to Iran, and made findings based on superficial and inaccurately reviewed documents.
Sharifigoofli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 608
The applicant, a civil engineer and senior executive from Iran, sought judicial review of the refusal of his work permit application under the Global Skills Strategy. The refusal stemmed from the immigration officer's assessment that his proposed Canadian startup business plan was not realistic and would not provide significant benefit to Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the immigration officer's decision to refuse the work permit was reasonable. The Court upheld the officer's assessment of the business plan's shortcomings regarding market uniqueness, staffing, financial viability, and proof of premises.
Babetian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 612
The Principal Applicant was found inadmissible for misrepresentation due to false information provided in his work permit application. This information stemmed from negligent advice given by his former immigration consultants, who advised him to apply under an owner/operator category that had been eliminated years prior.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, quashing the misrepresentation finding and remitting the applications for reconsideration. The Court found that the negligent conduct of the immigration consultants constituted a miscarriage of justice, leading to a different result had proper advice been given.
Jatin Mahendrakumar Trivedi and Nikita Jatin Trivedi v. The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, 2025 FC 617
The applicants sought judicial review of the refusal of their work permit applications. The principal applicant's application was refused due to misrepresentation regarding work experience, and the associate applicant's application was refused as the principal applicant's accompanying spouse.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision to refuse the work permits due to misrepresentation was reasonable and procedurally fair, upholding the weight given to initial verification call evidence.
Parisha Mehra v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 592
The Applicant, an Indian citizen, was refused a study permit on grounds of misrepresentation, specifically that her bank account, used to show proof of funds, was deemed non-existent after a phone call by an immigration officer.
The Federal Court granted the Applicant's judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable due to a lack of engagement with the Applicant's detailed response to the procedural fairness letter and insufficient transparency in assessing the evidence.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 596
Mr. Jyotjeet Singh, an applicant for permanent residency under the Canadian Experience Class as an administrative assistant (NOC 13110), had his application refused by an immigration officer who found he did not perform the required duties.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review application, setting aside the officer's decision. The Court found the officer's reasons for refusal to be unreasonable, lacking justification, transparency, and intelligibility as required by the Supreme Court's Vavilov framework.
Mohammed Ali Mohamed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 604
The applicant sought a judicial review of a visa refusal and requested a complete set of written reasons, including the visa officer's interview notes, arguing that the provided documents were incomplete under Rule 9 of the Federal Courts Rules.
The Federal Court dismissed the applicant's motion regarding Rule 9, affirming that Rule 9 only requires the decision and written reasons, not interview notes. However, the Court granted an extension for the applicant to file their Application Record.
SAIRA YOUSUF v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 588
The Applicant, a Start-Up Visa candidate, sought a work permit while her permanent residence application was in process. Her application was refused due to insufficient proof of work experience, specifically a lack of financial or verifiable documents.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the immigration officer's decision. The Court found the officer's determination that there was insufficient evidence of the Applicant's work experience to be reasonable, particularly regarding freelance work and a conceded error in the resume.
Ekechukwu Odinachi Ugorji v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 571
The Applicant, a Nigerian citizen, applied for an open work permit to join his spouse in Canada, who held a study permit. The immigration officer refused the application due to insufficient proof of funds to support his stay in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer was justified in having concerns about the provenance of the Applicant's funds.
