Samira Ashrafi Amlashi, Poolad Mahmoodi Noori, Radin Mahmoodi Noori, and Nila Mahmoodi Noori v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2024 FC 1363
An Iranian family of four sought to come to Canada for the principal applicant to pursue an MBA. Their applications for study, work, and visitor permits were refused by an immigration officer, who determined they would not leave Canada and had insufficient funds and family ties.
The Federal Court found the immigration officer's decision unreasonable, particularly regarding the assessment of financial resources and family ties. The decision was set aside and remitted to a different immigration officer for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for justified and intelligible reasoning.
Talebli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 867
The Applicant, an experienced Iranian poultry production professional, sought a work permit as an entrepreneur/self-employed individual under the International Mobility Program to establish a poultry business in Ontario, but his application was refused by an immigration officer for lacking sufficient documentary evidence of significant benefit.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the Officer's decision unreasonable because it lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility. The Court determined that the Officer failed to address contradictory probative evidence submitted in the business plan.
Kanwarpal Singh Gill v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2024 FC 807
The applicant, a 28-year-old Indian citizen, applied for a temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit siblings in Canada. The immigration officer refused the application, citing insufficient finances, significant family ties in Canada, and a purpose of visit inconsistent with a temporary stay.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court determined that the officer failed to address contradictory financial and family tie evidence, leading to a lack of transparency, intelligibility, and justification in the decision.
Maghami v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 542
Iranian citizens Ali Maghami and Monire Baghi sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision to refuse their work permit applications under the International Mobility Start-Up Visa (SUV) Program, based on the officer's dissatisfaction with the business plan and the applicants' intent to leave Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the officer's decision to refuse the work permits was reasonable. The Court affirmed that visa officers are not bound by the Designated Entity's assessment and can require additional information to ensure the applicant meets all program criteria.
Karimi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 411
Three primary applicants and their families sought temporary work permits under the Start-Up Business Class while their permanent residence applications as entrepreneurs were pending. The immigration officer denied their work permits, citing concerns that they would not leave Canada, based on their personal assets, financial status, and the purpose of their visits.
The Federal Court granted the applications for judicial review, finding the officer's decisions unreasonable. The Court highlighted that the officer failed to properly consider the purpose of the Start-Up Business Class Program, which is designed as a pathway to permanent residence, and unreasonably dismissed evidence of the applicants' financial establishment.
Vahdati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1083
An Iranian applicant was refused a study permit for a Master's program and her spouse a visitor visa, primarily because the visa officer was not satisfied they would leave Canada due to weak family ties and an unreasonable study plan.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable due to contradictions regarding the study plan and an unsubstantiated finding of insufficient family ties in Iran. The matter was remitted to a different visa officer for redetermination.
Phan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 916
Two applicants sought judicial review of decisions refusing their permanent resident visas under the Start-up Business Class. Officers found their primary purpose for engaging with a business incubator was to acquire status under the IRPA, not to engage in business activity.
The Federal Court dismissed both applications, finding that the officers' decisions were reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officers did not err in applying the 'primary purpose' test under IRPR paragraph 89(b) without first assessing an 'intention to meet requirements' test under subsection 98.06(2).
Barril v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 400
The applicant, a 28-year-old citizen of the Philippines, applied for a study permit for a two-year diploma program at Seneca College, which was refused by an immigration officer based on perceived insufficient funds, weak family ties in her home country, and an unreasonable purpose of visit.
The Federal Court found the immigration officer's decision unreasonable, lacking transparency, intelligibility, and justification. The application for judicial review was granted, and the study permit application was remitted to a different decision-maker for redetermination.
Salaberry Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 84
Applicants, a father and son from Uruguay, applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The immigration officer refused their request, citing insufficient establishment in Canada, inadequate family ties, and issues with their Canadian business investment.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, setting aside the officer's decision. The Court found the officer erred by mischaracterizing evidence, using positive factors to deny the application, and unreasonably assessing alternative immigration pathways, ordering a reconsideration by a different officer.
Zabeulla Azizulla v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2021 FC 1226
The applicant, suffering from retinitis pigmentosa, sought a multi-entry Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to Canada for medical treatment. The visa officer refused the application, citing concerns that the applicant would not leave Canada at the end of his stay, based on his purpose of visit, limited employment prospects, and financial status.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding that the visa officer's decision was unreasonable due to serious shortcomings in justification, intelligibility, and transparency. The Court set aside the refusal and remitted the application for re-determination by a different officer.
