Federal Court of Canada Decisions
This section presents a selection of decisions issued by the Federal Court of Canada in which our clients have pursued federal litigation, including applications for judicial review, to challenge administrative decisions such as immigration refusals.
These cases reflect our legal team’s experience in analyzing administrative decisions, identifying legal deficiencies, and advancing matters before the Federal Court of Canada. In each case, a legal approach tailored to the specific facts and circumstances was applied, and the final outcome was determined by
the Court.
For each decision, a summary of the subject matter, key legal issues, and the Court’s outcome is provided. Where available, direct links to the full reasons for judgment published on CanLII are included, allowing readers to access the official court records.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is assessed on its own facts and merits. If you wish to obtain legal advice regarding your own matter, please contact our office to discuss your situation. 833 877 97 97
Nourani v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - ( Judicial Review Granted )
Nourani v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Seyedehsepideh Nourani & Alireza Karbasi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2023 FC 732
- Docket: IMM-6478-22
- Decision Date: May 24, 2023 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
- Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gascon
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal set aside; redetermination ordered
Case Summary
The Federal Court allowed a judicial review of a study permit refusal after finding the visa officer’s decision was unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with the applicant’s central submissions and evidence regarding her study plan, particularly her stated objective to develop entrepreneurship skills and return to Iran to start a business. The matter was sent back to IRCC for reconsideration by a different officer.
Background Facts
- The principal applicant, Ms. Seyedehsepideh Nourani, is a citizen of Iran with a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Management (2014) and managerial work experience, including employment as a Store and Sales Manager since 2020.
- She received acceptance to Thompson Rivers University for a Post-Baccalaureate Diploma in Entrepreneurship in Kamloops, British Columbia.
- She applied for a study permit on May 11, 2022 and indicated her spouse, Mr. Alireza Karbasi, would accompany her (and he applied for an open work permit).
- On June 23, 2022, a visa officer refused the applications under IRPR s. 216(1)(b), stating they were not satisfied she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Was the officer’s refusal decision reasonable, particularly in its assessment of the applicant’s study plan and purpose of visit?
- Procedural Fairness: Did the officer breach procedural fairness by not giving the applicant an opportunity to respond to the officer’s concerns?
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and held the refusal decision was unreasonable because it failed to grapple with key submissions and evidence about the applicant’s study plan.
The Court rejected the procedural fairness argument, finding the refusal rested on insufficiency of evidence rather than credibility concerns that would trigger a duty to provide an interview or further opportunity to respond.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Reasonableness (Vavilov): Reasons must be transparent and intelligible and must meaningfully address central issues and submissions.
- Core defect: The officer focused narrowly on whether a promotion was guaranteed and failed to engage with the applicant’s main goal—entrepreneurship training to return to Iran and start a business.
- Direct program connection: The Court found it unreasonable that the decision did not address the central purpose of an “Entrepreneurship” program where the applicant’s study plan repeatedly identified entrepreneurship as the “biggest goal.”
- Procedural fairness: Fairness obligations are generally low in study permit decisions; absent credibility concerns, no duty arose to invite further response.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted (no costs).
- The June 23, 2022 refusal was set aside.
- The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination on the merits by a different visa officer.
- No certified question of general importance.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicants: Ramanjit Sohi, Raman Sohi Law Corporation (Surrey, BC)
- For the Respondent: Brett J. Nash, Attorney General of Canada (Vancouver, BC)
- Hearing: May 18, 2023 (by videoconference)
Why This Decision Matters
This decision is a strong example of the Federal Court intervening where a visa refusal fails to engage with the applicant’s central study plan. It reinforces that officers must assess applications in a way that is responsive to the applicant’s stated purpose and supporting evidence—particularly where the program of study directly aligns with the applicant’s long-term goals.
Read the Full Decision
Farhadi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Farhadi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mahboubeh Farhadi, Saeid Dolat Abadi, Selin Dolat Abadi v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2025 FC 917
- Docket: IMM-16321-23
- Decision Date: May 20, 2025 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
- Judge: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a study permit refusal. The Court found the officer’s reasoning unreasonable, including an unsupported conclusion that the proposed program was “redundant” given the applicant’s prior work experience. The Court held the officer failed to meaningfully engage with key evidence and explanations about how the program would benefit the applicant, including in relation to her entrepreneurial plans. The matter was returned to IRCC for reconsideration by a different officer.
Background Facts
- The principal applicant (Iran) applied for an ESL course followed by a Dual Post-Graduate Certificate in Human Resources, Marketing and Entrepreneurship at Trent University (Ontario).
- Her spouse applied for an open work permit and their minor child applied for a visitor visa (dependent applications).
- The visa officer refused the applications under IRPR s. 216(1)(b) (not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada), citing family ties and purpose of visit/study plan concerns.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Was the officer’s refusal decision reasonable, including the analysis of family ties and the study plan?
- Procedural Fairness: Was fairness breached by not providing an interview or procedural fairness letter?
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and held the refusal decision was unreasonable.
The Court found no procedural fairness breach, because the concerns were about the sufficiency of the application materials rather than credibility or document authenticity.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Family ties analysis: While it was open to consider immediate family traveling together, the officer failed to weigh remaining establishment/ties in Iran in a “push/pull” analysis, rendering the finding unreasonable.
- Study plan / redundancy finding: The officer concluded the applicant had already achieved the program’s benefits based on past work, but did not explain that conclusion and did not engage with evidence showing the program was not redundant.
- Failure to engage with key evidence: The Court noted the applicant connected the program to entrepreneurial goals (including a sewing workshop), and the officer did not meaningfully address that explanation.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted (no costs).
- The refusal decision was set aside.
- The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
- No certified question of general importance.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicants: Ramanjit Sohi (Raman Sohi Law Corporation)
- For the Respondent: Lisa K. Chaudhry and Robert Gibson
- Hearing: May 14, 2025
Read the Full Decision
Mohammadaghaei v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Mohammadaghaei v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Tabasom Mohammadaghaei v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2023 FC 294
- Docket: IMM-3437-22
- Decision Date: March 3, 2023 (Ottawa, Ontario)
- Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a study permit refusal for an Iranian applicant seeking to pursue Grade 12 studies in Canada. The Court found the officer’s reasons unintelligible and unjustified, noting that the decision relied on irrelevant considerations and contained a serious factual error (including an assertion of “family ties in Canada” where the record did not support that). The matter was returned to IRCC for reconsideration by a different officer.
Background Facts
- The applicant (Iran) sought a study permit to pursue Grade 12 at William Academy, a private school in Cobourg, Ontario.
- This was a second application; after a first refusal, the applicant enrolled and began studying online from abroad, with a requirement to be physically present to complete the program.
- Parents sponsored the studies; the applicant received an entrance scholarship and had paid fees toward tuition.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Was the officer’s refusal decision intelligible, transparent, and justified?
- Procedural Fairness: Was there a breach of procedural fairness?
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and found the refusal decision unreasonable.
The decision was set aside and the matter was sent back to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Irrelevant considerations: The Court criticized reliance on generalized factors (e.g., “single, mobile, no dependants”) without explaining why they made this applicant more likely to violate immigration law.
- Online study point: The Court noted there is no Canadian legal requirement to obtain a visa/study permit before studying online from outside Canada, making that consideration irrelevant.
- ESL testing point: The Court found the officer’s criticism about IELTS/ESL proof was misplaced where the school would test upon arrival and ESL was being taken online.
- Serious factual error: The refusal letter referenced “family ties in Canada” despite no supporting evidence, undermining intelligibility and justification.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted (no costs).
- The refusal decision was set aside.
- The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
- No certified question for appeal.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicant: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Samson Rapley
- Hearing: November 24, 2022 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
Read the Full Decision
Hasti Tabrizi Nouri v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Tabrizi Nouri v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Hasti Tabrizi Nouri v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2023 FC 1240
- Docket: IMM-12276-22
- Decision Date: September 14, 2023 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
- Judge: Mr. Justice McHaffie
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit (High School) — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a study permit refusal for a young Iranian applicant seeking to attend Grade 11 at a Vancouver high school. The refusal was based primarily on generalized statements that similar, less expensive programs were available in Iran, without meaningful engagement with the applicant’s stated reasons for studying in Canada. The Court found the decision lacked the required justification, intelligibility, and transparency, and returned the matter to IRCC for reconsideration by a different officer.
Background Facts
- The applicant (Iran) applied for a study permit to pursue Grade 11 at Bodwell High School in Vancouver.
- The officer acknowledged tuition had been paid, but refused the application on the basis that the purpose of study was not “reasonable”.
- The refusal relied on the asserted availability of comparable programs in Iran at a lower cost.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Did the officer’s reasons adequately explain and justify the refusal, when read in light of the record?
- Procedural Fairness: Raised, but not necessary to decide given the reasonableness finding.
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and found the refusal decision unreasonable.
The refusal was set aside and the matter was sent back to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Failure to engage with the stated purpose: The officer relied on “similar programs exist in Iran for a fraction of the cost” without addressing the applicant’s stated reasons for choosing Canada.
- No rewriting of reasons: The Court rejected attempts to justify the refusal based on “details” not relied upon in the officer’s reasons, consistent with Vavilov principles.
- Temporary stay analysis: The relevant question is whether the applicant would leave Canada when no longer authorized, not whether future studies might be pursued under renewed authorization.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted.
- The refusal decision was set aside.
- The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
- No certified question for appeal.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicant: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Edward Burnet
- Hearing: September 11, 2023 (videoconference)
Read the Full Decision
Ali Mehdikhani v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Mehdikhani v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Ali Mehdikhani v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2023 FC 1473
- Docket: IMM-6322-22
- Decision Date: November 6, 2023 (Ottawa, Ontario)
- Judge: Mr. Justice Norris
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a study permit refusal for an Iranian applicant accepted into a two-year post-baccalaureate diploma program at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. The Court found the refusal unreasonable due to inadequate reasoning regarding financial capacity and a failure to meaningfully engage with the applicant’s evidence demonstrating strong ties to Iran and an intention to return after studies. The matter was returned to IRCC for reconsideration by a different decision maker.
Background Facts
- The applicant is a 32-year-old citizen of Iran.
- He was admitted to a two-year post-baccalaureate diploma program in Technical Management and Services at KPU.
- His study permit application was refused by IRCC on concerns about finances, study purpose, and intent to return.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Did the officer’s decision meet the standard of justification, intelligibility, and transparency?
- Procedural Fairness: Raised but not addressed due to the unreasonable nature of the decision.
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review.
The refusal was set aside and the application was remitted to IRCC for
Sara Momeni and Hamed Abbasian v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Momeni v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Sara Momeni and Hamed Abbasian v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2023 FC 1436
- Docket: IMM-8089-22
- Decision Date: October 30, 2023 (Ottawa, Ontario)
- Judge: Mr. Justice McHaffie
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit & Accompanying Work Permit — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusals set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of IRCC refusals of a study permit application and a related spousal work permit. The officer refused the study permit primarily on the basis that the proposed Canadian diploma program was not a reasonable progression given the applicant’s prior bachelor’s degree and work experience, concluding she had likely already achieved the benefits of the program. The Court found the reasons brief and conclusory, failing to engage with central evidence in the record (including the applicant’s stated rationale, skill objectives, and claimed employment-related commitments), and failing to address other relevant “push/pull” factors. The decisions were set aside and returned for redetermination by a different officer.
Background Facts
- Sara Momeni applied for a study permit for a two-year co-op program in Interactive Media Design at Algonquin College.
- Her husband, Hamed Abbasian, applied for a work permit to accompany her during her studies.
- Both applications were refused on June 11, 2022, based on the officer’s lack of satisfaction that they would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Were the officer’s reasons justified, intelligible, and transparent in light of the record?
- Procedural Fairness: Raised, but not determined because the decision was set aside for unreasonableness.
Decision
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review and found the refusals unreasonable.
The study permit refusal and the related spousal work permit refusal were set aside and remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Conclusive study-plan analysis: The officer relied almost entirely on a brief, conclusory assessment that the program was not a reasonable progression and was redundant given prior education and work.
- Failure to engage with core submissions: The officer did not respond to the applicant’s explanation of how the program aligned with her career path and the specific skills she sought to gain.
- Employment evidence not addressed: The officer did not meaningfully address evidence about the applicant’s claimed employment-related commitments upon return.
- Other return factors ignored: The reasons did not refer to other asserted “pull” factors (e.g., assets and family circumstances) supporting return to Iran.
- No “new reasons” on JR: The Minister’s attempt to justify refusal based on alleged weaknesses not relied on by the officer amounted to impermissible post-hoc reasoning.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted.
- Both refusals (study permit and related work permit) were set aside.
- Applications were returned for redetermination by a different officer.
- No certified question for appeal.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicants: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Richard Li
- Hearing: May 9, 2023 (Videoconference)
Read the Full Decision
Ehsan Goshtasbi v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Goshtasbi v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Ehsan Goshtasbi v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2024 FC 1110
- Docket: IMM-9741-23
- Decision Date: July 16, 2024 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
- Judge: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer); no costs
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a study permit refusal for an Iranian applicant accepted to a Master of Arts in Leadership – Business program at Trinity Western University. The Court found the officer’s decision unreasonable because the reasons failed to meaningfully engage with key evidence in the record—particularly the applicant’s detailed study plan, the officer’s unclear assumptions about a “promotion” letter, and the mischaracterization of the applicant’s family ties outside Canada. The matter was returned to IRCC for reconsideration by a different officer.
Background Facts
- The applicant is a citizen of Iran with a bachelor’s and master’s degree in accounting obtained in Iran.
- He worked as a Treasury and Fund Manager at Sepah Bank in Iran.
- He was accepted into the Master of Arts in Leadership – Business program at Trinity Western University (Langley, BC).
- The study permit was refused on concerns about temporary intent, family ties outside Canada, and the reasonableness of the proposed studies given his background.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Were the officer’s reasons justified, transparent, and intelligible in light of the record?
- Procedural Fairness: Was the applicant entitled to a fairness letter or interview before refusal?
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and found the refusal decision unreasonable.
The decision was set aside and the matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer. There were no costs.
Key Legal Reasoning
- No procedural fairness breach: The Court held this was a “sufficiency of evidence” case, not credibility or authenticity, so no fairness letter/interview was required.
- Failure to engage with the study plan: The applicant provided a detailed rationale explaining a leadership skills gap and why the program’s specific courses aligned with his career goals; the officer did not address this evidence.
- Unclear / unsupported “promotion” finding: The reasons referred to a promotion letter and assumed the applicant already had the required skill set; the Court could not locate a promotion letter in the record and could not discern how the officer reached that conclusion.
- Family ties mischaracterized: The refusal letter stated the applicant had no significant family ties outside Canada, yet the record showed his parents and two brothers resided in Iran and he described family and economic “pull” factors; the officer did not explain why these ties were insufficient.
- Overall result: Because the decision failed to grapple with key evidence that appeared to contradict the officer’s findings, it lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted (no costs).
- The refusal decision was set aside.
- The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
- No certified question.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicant: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Trevor Siemens
- Hearing: July 9, 2024 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
Read the Full Decision
Seyed Amir Ali Seif et al v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Seif v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Seyed Amir Ali Seif et al v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2023 FC 1661
- Docket: IMM-1022-23
- Decision Date: December 8, 2023 (Ottawa, Ontario)
- Judge: Madam Justice McDonald
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit (Minor) + TRV (Parent) — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer); no certified question
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a refusal of a study permit for a 12-year-old Iranian student to attend Grade 7 in Canada, along with a related refusal of a temporary resident visa for his father. The Court found the officer’s reasons unreasonable because they relied on unsupported conclusory statements (e.g., that comparable programs exist in Iran “for a fraction of the cost”), did not meaningfully engage with the minor’s stated educational objectives in the study plan, and included a vague, unexplained reference to the applicants’ “socio-economic situation.” The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
Background Facts
- The principal applicant is a 12-year-old citizen of Iran accepted to enroll in Grade 7 at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.
- The parents were sponsoring the child’s education and provided financial details regarding savings and investments.
- IRCC refused the study permit (and the father’s TRV) on the basis the purpose of the visit was not reasonable and the applicants had not satisfied the officer they would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Did the officer provide an internally coherent, rational, and justified explanation for refusal?
- Procedural Fairness: Was there a fairness breach? (Not decided because unreasonableness was determinative.)
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and found the refusal decision unreasonable.
The decision was set aside and the applications were returned to IRCC for redetermination by another officer. No question was certified.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Unsupported “comparative program” conclusion: The officer asserted similar programs were available in Iran for a fraction of the cost, but provided no context or support for that conclusion, undermining reasonableness.
- Failure to engage with the study plan: The study plan set out concrete educational objectives (e.g., improving English, studying science, returning to Iran to complete high school, future plans to study medicine in an Anglophone country). The officer did not meaningfully address these objectives.
- Vague socio-economic finding: The officer stated the purpose of the visit was unreasonable given the applicants’ “socio-economic situation” without explaining what facts supported that conclusion, despite evidence of assets and available funds.
- Vavilov focus on reasons: The Court emphasized that reasonableness review assesses the justification provided by the decision-maker, and post-hoc explanations cannot repair inadequate reasons.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted.
- The refusal decision dated December 10, 2022 was set aside.
- The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
- No certified question.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicants: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Sydney Ramsay
- Hearing: November 7, 2023 (Vancouver, BC)
Read the Full Decision
Amin Shohratifar v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Shohratifar v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Amin Shohratifar v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2023 FC 218
- Docket: IMM-4050-22
- Decision Date: February 15, 2023 (Ottawa, Ontario)
- Judge: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a study permit refusal for an Iranian applicant seeking to pursue a Business Administration diploma in Canada. The Court found the refusal decision unreasonable because the officer failed to meaningfully address key evidence and did not provide a coherent, transparent explanation on the applicant’s study plan, financial capacity, and ties to Iran. The matter was returned to IRCC for reconsideration by a different officer.
Background Facts
- The applicant is a 23-year-old citizen of Iran.
- He applied for a study permit to pursue a diploma in Business Administration at Humber College (Toronto, Ontario).
- The officer refused the application, citing concerns about the study plan, finances, and ties to Iran.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Were the officer’s reasons justified, intelligible, and transparent in light of the record?
- Procedural Fairness: Was the process unfair? (The Court did not need to decide this because the decision was unreasonable.)
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and held that the refusal decision was unreasonable.
The refusal was set aside and the matter was sent back to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Study plan: The officer concluded the study plan was not reasonable but did not explain how the applicant’s education/employment history undermined the plan.
- Finances: The officer found insufficient funds and that the program was not a reasonable expense, but failed to explain why, given the evidence provided (tuition payment, employer letter, property deeds, and bank records).
- Ties to Iran: The officer relied on the applicant being “single, mobile, and having no dependents” without addressing other evidence of strong ties to Iran, which the Court found problematic.
- Culture of justification: Even in high-volume visa decision-making, reasons must show a rational chain of analysis and address key evidence.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted.
- The refusal decision was set aside.
- The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
- No certified question for appeal.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicant: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Jocelyne Mui
- Hearing: February 8, 2023 (Videoconference)
Read the Full Decision
Iqwinder Singh Chahal v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Chahal v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Iqwinder Singh Chahal v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2025 FC 1851
- Docket: IMM-9617-24
- Decision Date: November 20, 2025 (Ottawa, Ontario)
- Judge: The Honourable Justice Fuhrer
- Area: Immigration — Work Permit (TFWP) — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusal set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a refused closed work permit application under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The Court held that the officer’s conclusion that the applicant had “significant family ties in Canada” was speculative and not supported by the record, undermining the decision’s justification, transparency, and intelligibility. The refusal was set aside and returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
Background Facts
- The applicant (India) applied for a closed work permit to work as a harvesting labourer on a Canadian farm under a positive LMIA.
- He stated he intended to learn modern agricultural practices in Canada and return to apply them on the family farm in India.
- The officer refused the application, citing (among other factors) insufficient funds and “significant family ties in Canada,” concluding the purpose was not consistent with a temporary stay.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Was the refusal decision justified, transparent, and intelligible on the record?
- Procedural Fairness: Was the process fair? (Not determinative given the Court’s findings.)
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and found the refusal decision unreasonable.
The decision was set aside and the matter was sent back to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Speculation about “family ties in Canada”: The Court found no evidentiary basis for the officer’s conclusion that the applicant had significant family ties in Canada.
- Unexplained leap from prior TRV refusals: The GCMS notes referenced prior refused TRV applications to visit “grandparents/relatives,” but did not explain whether any such relatives presently reside in Canada or why they were “significant.”
- Failure of transparency and logic: Because the reasoning on Canadian family ties was speculative and unexplained, the decision could not survive reasonableness review.
- Determinative error: The Court treated this flaw as determinative and therefore declined to address other issues.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted.
- The refusal decision was set aside.
- The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
- No certified question for appeal.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicant: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Josef Beug
- Hearing: October 30, 2025 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
Read the Full Decision
Kimia Khosravi and Babak Ghaderi Yazdi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Khosravi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Kimia Khosravi and Babak Ghaderi Yazdi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2023 FC 805
- Docket: IMM-8498-22
- Decision Date: June 7, 2023 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
- Judge: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit / Spousal Work Permit — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; decisions quashed; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a study permit refusal (and a related spousal work permit refusal). The Court found the officer’s reasons relied on boilerplate language and did not meaningfully engage with the applicant’s study plan and core submission—namely, a credible career change into tourism and the stated goal of building and operating a resort hotel on family property in Iran. The matter was returned to IRCC for reconsideration by a different officer.
Background Facts
- The principal applicant (Iran) sought a study permit for a one-year graduate diploma in Hotel and Tourism Management at Niagara College (Toronto).
- Her spouse applied for a work permit; both applications were refused.
- The officer concluded the program was redundant and unreasonable given her prior education (including an MBA) and employment history, and cited the program’s cost.
- The applicant’s study plan explained a career shift from engineering/oil & gas to tourism, and a plan to build and operate a resort hotel in northern Iran.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Did the officer provide intelligible, transparent, and justified reasons, particularly on the study plan?
Decision
The Federal Court granted judicial review and found the refusal decision unreasonable.
The decisions were quashed and the matter was returned for reconsideration by a different officer.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Boilerplate reasons without case-specific engagement: The officer relied on recurring boilerplate sentences and did not show they turned their mind to the applicant’s specific facts and study plan.
- Career change not grappled with: A “lower academic level than prior studies” can be a concern, but it can also be explained by a career change; the decision did not demonstrate this was understood or assessed.
- “Redundancy” finding not compatible with the record: The applicant’s prior studies were in an unrelated field and her stated objective was hotel/resort operation; the officer needed to explain why hotel management studies were “redundant” on these facts.
- Cost analysis tied to flawed premise: The Court noted the “high cost” point added little if the officer had not properly assessed the asserted benefits of the program.
- Chinook reference: The record noted processing “with the assistance of Chinook 3+”; the Court emphasized that assisted tools do not relieve officers of the duty to fully consider the study plan.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted.
- The refusal decisions were quashed.
- The matter was returned for reconsideration by a different visa officer.
- No certified question.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicants: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Ezra Park
- Hearing: June 6, 2023 (held by videoconference)
Read the Full Decision
Seyedmohammad Jafari & Leila Rezaei v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Jafari v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Seyedmohammad Jafari & Leila Rezaei v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2023 FC 183
- Docket: IMM-5018-22
- Decision Date: February 8, 2023 (Ottawa, Ontario)
- Judge: Madam Justice McDonald
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a study permit refusal for an Iranian applicant accepted into a master’s program at Fairleigh Dickinson University (Vancouver campus). The Court found the refusal decision unreasonable because the officer’s reasons did not meaningfully engage with the applicant’s detailed study plan and evidence of ties to Iran, and relied on flawed logic regarding family ties and establishment. The matter was returned to IRCC for reconsideration by a different decision-maker.
Background Facts
- Applicant: 41-year-old citizen of Iran; spouse intended to accompany him to Canada.
- Accepted to: Master of Administrative Science (Global Leadership and Administration), Fairleigh Dickinson University (Vancouver).
- Education/Work: Business Administration degree; employed as a sales & marketing manager; evidence of career progression and promotion upon return was provided.
- Refusal basis (as recorded): purpose of visit and family ties/establishment.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Were the officer’s reasons justified, transparent, and intelligible in light of the record?
- Procedural Fairness: (Raised, but not addressed because the reasonableness issue was dispositive.)
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and found the refusal decision unreasonable.
The decision was set aside and the matter was sent back to IRCC for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Failure to engage with the study plan: The officer acknowledged a study plan was submitted, but the reasons were not responsive to its content and rationale (including why Canadian studies were chosen and how the program fit the applicant’s career path).
- Improper “career opinion” reasoning: The Court found the officer effectively inserted their own views on the applicant’s career choices rather than assessing the evidence provided.
- Weak ties logic taken too far: The officer’s reasoning treated travel with a spouse as inherently weakening ties to Iran, without grappling with key evidence (family in Iran, property, employment prospects/promotion, financial establishment).
- Reasons must be coherent and anchored in the record: The decision lacked the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility required under reasonableness review.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted.
- The refusal decision was set aside.
- The matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
- No certified question for appeal.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicants: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Albulena Qorrolli
- Hearing: January 30, 2023 (Videoconference)
Read the Full Decision
Search on CanLII (2023 FC 183)
Seyed Ryan Jafari v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Jafari v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Seyed Ryan Jafari v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2025 FC 296
- Docket: IMM-3117-24
- Decision Date: February 14, 2025 (Ottawa, Ontario)
- Judge: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
- Area: Immigration — TRV (Visitor Visa) — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision set aside; redetermination ordered (different decision-maker)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a temporary resident visa (TRV) refusal for an applicant seeking to visit his sister in Canada. The Court found the refusal unreasonable because the officer failed to address key evidence that directly contradicted the stated refusal grounds—most notably, evidence that the applicant’s sister (and her spouse) would fully fund the trip, and evidence of the applicant’s long-term, stable employment and approved leave. The matter was returned to IRCC for reconsideration by a different decision-maker.
Background Facts
- The applicant applied for a TRV to visit his sister in Canada for approximately one month.
- The officer refused the TRV based on: (i) insufficient family ties; (ii) insufficient employment ties in Iran; and (iii) the visit not being a reasonable expense given the bank account fund history.
- The record included an affidavit from the sister confirming she would fully financially support the visit, and employment verification letters confirming the sister’s and her spouse’s salaries.
- The record also included evidence of the applicant’s long-standing employment (since 2009), salary confirmation, continued employment through 2029, and a letter authorizing a 30-day leave.
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Did the officer provide a transparent, intelligible, and justified rationale for refusing the TRV under IRPR s. 179(b)?
Decision
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and found the TRV refusal decision unreasonable.
The refusal was set aside and the matter was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Failure to address critical financial-support evidence: The officer assessed the trip as an unreasonable expense based on the applicant’s bank account history, but did not mention the sister’s affidavit confirming full financial support or the sister/spouse income letters—evidence central to whether the trip was a reasonable expense.
- Unexplained conclusion on employment ties: The officer concluded the applicant was not sufficiently established through employment, yet did not explain how that conclusion was reached in light of evidence showing long-term employment, salary confirmation, continued employment through 2029, and approved leave for the visit.
- Lack of “rational chain of analysis”: Because contradictory evidence was not engaged, the reasons lacked transparency, intelligibility, and justification required on reasonableness review.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted.
- The TRV refusal decision dated January 31, 2024 was set aside.
- The application was returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
- No certified question for appeal.
Counsel / Representation
- For the Applicant: Ramanjit Sohi
- For the Respondent: Charles Barnes
- Hearing: February 13, 2025 (Vancouver, British Columbia)
Read the Full Decision
Search on CanLII (2025 FC 296)
Arkan Hashemi and Ashkan Hashemi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — (Judicial Review Granted)
Hashemi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Arkan Hashemi (IMM-1427-22) and Ashkan Hashemi (IMM-1428-22) v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Quick Citation
- Court: Federal Court of Canada
- Citation: 2022 FC 1562
- Dockets: IMM-1427-22; IMM-1428-22
- Decision Date: November 16, 2022 (Ottawa, Ontario)
- Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pentney
- Area: Immigration — Study Permit (High School) — Judicial Review
- Outcome: Judicial review granted; refusals set aside; redetermination ordered (different officer)
Case Summary
The Federal Court granted judicial review of two study permit refusals involving twin Iranian applicants seeking to complete Grade 12 in Canada. The Court found the refusal decision unreasonable because it was not responsive to the applicants’ central explanation for why they wanted to finish high school in Canada (as part of their pathway toward Canadian university studies). The refusals were set aside and the matters were returned to IRCC for reconsideration by a different officer.
Background Facts
- Twin applicants from Iran completed Grade 11 and applied to study Grade 12 in Canada.
- They were accepted to a Grade 12 “science stream” program at North Star Academy (Laval, Quebec) and paid a portion of tuition.
- The officer refused, citing concerns about leaving Canada at the end of stay (ties/purpose), and included boilerplate findings (including local options and financial means).
Issues Before the Court
- Reasonableness: Was the refusal decision justified, transparent, and intelligible under the Vavilov framework?
Decision
The Federal Court granted the applications for judicial review and found the refusals unreasonable.
The refusals were set aside and the matters were returned to IRCC for redetermination by a different officer.
Key Legal Reasoning
- Core submissions not meaningfully addressed: The officer did not grapple with the applicants’ main explanation for choosing Canada for Grade 12 and how it connected to future university studies.
- Too many “blanks” in the reasons: On reasonableness review, the Court cannot supply missing reasoning; the decision-maker must show a coherent chain of analysis responsive to central points.
- Reasons must reflect the key line of analysis: Even in high-volume visa decision-making, reasons must be responsive to the most relevant aspects of the application.
Remedy / Result
- Judicial review granted.
- Refusal decisions were set aside.
- Matters remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
- No certified question for appeal.
Read the Full Decision
Search on CanLII (2022 FC 1562)