Tamayo Abondano v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1116
Applicants, Colombian citizens, sought refugee protection based on targeting by a criminal organization, the Carreteros, and alleged affiliation with a larger group, Los Maracuchos. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied their claim, finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Cali, Colombia.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming that the RPD's finding regarding the lack of a credible link between the Carreteros and Los Maracuchos, and thus the agents of harm's means to pursue them to the IFA, was reasonable and procedurally fair.
Mohammad Shamim Khan v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 640
The Applicants, citizens of India, sought judicial review of an immigration officer's decision to reject the Principal Applicant's work permit renewal application because the officer was not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the end of his stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus was on the applicants to demonstrate their intent to leave Canada and that the officer was not required to consider factors not presented by the applicant.
Andre Alejandro Alvarez Gonzalez v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 628
The applicant, an Ecuadorian citizen, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his work permit and finding him inadmissible to Canada for five years due to alleged misrepresentation of material facts in his application.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the Officer's decision unreasonable for failing to consider the 'innocent mistake exception' despite the applicant's representative taking responsibility for errors and providing correct information elsewhere in the application.
Kermanizadeh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 625
The Applicant, a citizen of Iran, sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing a temporary study visa, which was denied due to the officer's belief that he had no significant ties outside of Canada and that his visit's purpose was inconsistent with a temporary stay.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable. The Court highlighted the officer's failure to engage with the applicant's substantial evidence of ties to Iran and the relevance of his study plan.
Alibakhshi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 629
The applicant, Parham Alibakhshi, applied to study in Canada, but his application was refused by an immigration officer on two grounds: insufficient proof of funds and an unreasonable study plan.
The Federal Court found the officer's evaluation of the availability of funds to be unreasonable and quashed the decision, sending the application back for redetermination by a different officer.
Derrick Ampofo Ofori v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 630
The applicant, Derrick Ampofo Ofori, applied for a study permit to Canada, explaining his aunt and uncle would provide financial support. The immigration officer refused the application, stating “no government documents have been provided to explain or substantiate the relationship.”
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable because they failed to consider relevant evidence, specifically the applicant's aunt's letter and uncle's sworn statement, which explained the relationship. The Court quashed the decision and sent it back for redetermination by a different officer.
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.
