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.
ALHILAL v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 2025 FC 1201
The Applicant, a Convention Refugee, sought judicial review to challenge the constitutionality of an inadmissibility provision (IRPA, s. 34(1)(f)) that flagged her permanent residence application due to concerns about her past organizational affiliations, leading to significant processing delays and family separation.
The Federal Court allowed the Applicant's appeal, quashing an Associate Judge's order that removed her application from the file. The Court clarified that constitutional challenges linked to federal administrative action can be brought via judicial review, even without a final decision, and that only a judge can dispose of leave applications under IRPA.
Sandra Milena Espinel Romero v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration, 2025 CF 1199
The applicant, a Colombian citizen, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) that rejected her asylum claim. Her claim was based on alleged persecution by a family of drug traffickers, but the RAD found her testimony lacked credibility.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding that the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the RAD correctly applied the standard of reasonableness and properly concluded that the applicant had not credibly established the essential elements of her asylum claim.
Teklay v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1200
The applicant, a 39-year-old Eritrean refugee, sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision to refuse his resettlement application under the Convention Refugee Abroad Class, citing inconsistencies and untruthful information provided by his spouse regarding her immigration history.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that failure to provide truthful information by an accompanying family member affects the entire application's eligibility and admissibility under IRPA.
Arevalo Pelaez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1191
The applicants, a father and minor son, sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision to refuse their permanent residence application, citing the primary applicant's inadmissibility due to serious criminality and misrepresentation regarding an assault in Oman.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the visa officer's findings of inadmissibility. The Court found the officer's decision to be reasonable and procedurally fair, upholding the refusal for serious criminality and misrepresentation.
