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.
Shang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 633
The applicant, Luxi Shang, sought judicial review of a Visa Officer's decision to refuse her work permit application under the Prince Edward Island Provincial Nomination Program, based on the Officer's finding that her proposed home décor business would not generate significant economic benefits for Canada.
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the Officer's decision unreasonable because it failed to acknowledge and explain why less or no weight was given to the PEI support letter, which was a crucial piece of evidence.
Kokou Mawlolo Kokou Mawulolo Ezou v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2021 FC 251
The applicant, a recognized Convention refugee, sought to overturn an immigration officer's decision to refuse his permanent residence application under the Convention refugee abroad class, arguing the decision was unreasonable.
The Federal Court found the immigration officer's decision unreasonable due to a fundamental gap in the decision letter, which omitted the rationale for the refusal, thereby lacking transparency and intelligibility. The matter was remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
Demyati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 701
The applicant, a 19-year-old Syrian national residing in the United Arab Emirates, challenged the refusal of his study permit application for Carleton University. The immigration officer doubted his intent to leave Canada and the provenance of his funds, among other reasons.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, remitting the matter to a different visa officer for a new determination. The Court found the decision lacked the necessary justification, transparency, and intelligibility required for reasonableness, particularly concerning the officer's assumptions about the applicant's intent to immigrate and his financial situation.
Jalota v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1176
The applicant, Manav Jalota, sought judicial review of a decision refusing to restore his temporary resident status as a student, with the officer citing concerns about him being a genuine student, having sufficient funds, and intentions to leave Canada.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, quashing the refusal decision and referring the matter back for redetermination by a different officer. The Court found multiple breaches of procedural fairness, including relying on grounds not previously cited and failing to request missing documents.
