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.
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'.
