Kibiku v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 548
The applicant, a citizen of Kenya, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that confirmed the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of his refugee claim, which was based on fears related to a family land dispute and attacks by the Mungiki group.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's credibility determination was reasonable. The Court upheld the RAD's findings that inconsistencies in the applicant's narrative and documentary evidence undermined his claim.
Goel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 275
The Applicant sought judicial review of IRCC's decision to refuse to re-open her Express Entry permanent residency application, which was initially rejected as incomplete due to an allegedly missing marriage certificate, where she had submitted a marriage licence instead.
The Federal Court found IRCC's reconsideration decision unreasonable, setting it aside and remitting the matter for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that IRCC failed to engage with the Applicant's central argument that the document submitted was, in fact, a marriage certificate obtained on an emergency basis.
Teimoori v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 6
The applicant, co-owner of a medical device company, sought an Intra-Company Transferee work permit to manage post-sale equipment servicing in Canada. The Visa Officer refused, finding the Canadian subsidiary was not large enough to support his executive function.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the Visa Officer's decision as reasonable. The Court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate the Canadian company's capacity to support the proposed executive role.
Peng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2
The applicant, a citizen of China, sought an order of mandamus to compel Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to render a decision on her permanent residence application under the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) class, which had been pending for over three years.
The Federal Court granted the application for mandamus, ordering IRCC to make a decision on the applicant's PNP application within 90 days. The Court found that the nearly four-year delay was unreasonable and that IRCC failed to provide satisfactory justification for it, despite her 'lengthy immigration history'.
Malasi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 10
Mr. Malasi, an Albanian citizen, applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit his brother in Canada for one month. The visa officer refused the application, citing insufficient details about his assets/funds and weak emotional ties to Albania.
The Federal Court allowed Mr. Malasi's application for judicial review, setting aside the officer's decision. The Court found that the officer failed to adequately address or mention significant evidence of Mr. Malasi's establishment in Albania, which was crucial to the refusal reason.
Sadam Ahmed Khan v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 11
The applicant, a UN-recognized Convention refugee, had his permanent residence sponsorship application refused because the sponsoring Group of Five was deemed not to have sufficient financial resources, despite providing a bank statement showing the full required amount.
The Federal Court found the immigration officer's decision unreasonable and set it aside, remitting the matter for reconsideration by a different decision-maker. The Court ruled that the officer failed to explain why a crucial bank statement demonstrating sufficient funds was entirely disregarded.
Ghebremedhin Ytfessah Ytbarek v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 14
The applicant, an Eritrean refugee, sought permanent residence in Canada with his family. The application was refused after an immigration officer found that an Angolan refugee card presented for the applicant's spouse was fraudulent and that the applicant had not been truthful during the interview.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, upholding the immigration officer's decision. The Court found no procedural unfairness and deemed the refusal reasonable, primarily due to the applicant's reliance on fraudulent documents and lack of truthfulness.
MOHAMAD SHOAIE v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 12
The applicant, a citizen of Iran, applied for a work permit under the Start-Up Business Class, but it was refused by a visa officer due to concerns regarding financial requirements, language ability, and intent for temporary stay.
The Federal Court granted the application, setting aside the officer's decision. The Court found the officer's reasoning unreasonable, particularly concerning the language ability assessment and unintelligible treatment of the applicant's funds.
Nguyen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1852
The Applicant, a Vietnamese citizen, challenged a Visa Officer's decision refusing her temporary work permit application as a Greenhouse Worker/Cannabis Trimmer, primarily due to concerns about her English language proficiency.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court upheld the Officer's conclusion that the Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient English language skills to perform the proposed work, despite the LMIA stating no language requirement.
Rafatipour v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1642
The Principal Applicant, a self-employed graphic artist from Iran, applied for a permanent resident visa in the self-employed persons class. Her application was refused by an overseas migration officer who was not satisfied with her ability and intent to become self-employed and make a significant contribution in Canada.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, setting aside the officer's decision. The Court found a breach of procedural fairness, as the officer made a veiled credibility finding regarding the genuineness of the applicant's communications with potential Canadian clients without offering an opportunity to respond.
