Andra Dumitrescu

Canadian Immigration Law

Weekly Digest | June 15, 2025

Key Highlights:

1. Recent Judicial Reviews
2. EMPP Extension – Skilled Refugees & Labour Market Needs
3. Gaza Special Measures – TRV Facilitation Policy Extended
4. TRP Fee Clarification
5. IEC – In-Canada Work Permit Printing Process
6. New Brunswick – Increased PNP Allocation & Asylum Relocation Agreement
7. Ontario – New Employer Portal
8. Greater Sudbury – RCIP and FCIP Immigration Pilots Launch
9. Latest Express Entry & PNP Draw
10. Important Upcoming Dates

Recent Case Law

• Study Permit – Anokwah v. Canada, 2025 FC 1057: Ghanaian applicant applied to study Software Development at SAIT. Submitted proof of $102K in combined funds, including partial tuition, cousin’s Statutory Declaration, bank statements, and explanatory letter. Officer refused due to doubts about study motivation and insufficient proof of relationship and financial capacity. Court found officer failed to assess key documents and provided no responsive justification. Judicial review granted. Read more

• Start-up Visa – Helmzadeh v. Canada, 2025 FC 1023: Iranian applicant applied for PR under Start-up Business Class for a healthcare data tech venture in B.C. Failed CLB 5 in Listening (scored 4.5). Application refused. Officer then denied substituted evaluation (R98.10), citing weak English skills. Applicant held a Canadian work permit, had a medical background, and cited COVID-related test delays. Officer focused only on test scores, ignored broader economic establishment evidence, and discounted a support letter due to conflict (author was a shareholder in the designated entity). Court found Officer misapplied R98.10 and failed to justify decision. Judicial review granted. Read more

• Parent Sponsorship – Maredia v. Canada, 2025 FC 1053: Canadian son sponsored parents from India. Officer returned the PGP application for incompleteness, citing missing documents and claiming a March 26, 2024, request was ignored. Applicants asserted they never received the request. Court found no evidence email was delivered or read. Officer failed to confirm delivery or allow resubmission, breaching procedural fairness. Return was treated as a reviewable decision. Judicial review granted. Read more

• Humanitarian & Compassionate – Rocha Pereira v. Canada, 2025 FC 1044: Brazilian couple with two Canadian-born children applied for PR on H&C grounds. Officer found BIOC insufficient to justify relief, discounted establishment due to inadmissibility, and deemed hardship in Brazil manageable. Court upheld decision, finding Officer reasonably acknowledged children’s best interests, assessed establishment holistically, and found insufficient corroborating evidence of hardship or family support. Judicial review dismissed. Read more

• Parent Sponsorship – Sepasi-Ashtiani v. Canada, 2025 FC 1031: Canadian daughter sponsored mother from Iran. Officer assessed wrong tax years (2018–2020 instead of 2019–2021) and found sponsor ineligible due to insufficient income. Applicant had authorized CRA access and had met MNI in correct years. Court held decision unreasonable due to assessment error, especially since officer could have requested 2021 data. Judicial review granted. Read more

• Study Permit – Tariq v. Canada, 2025 FC 1058: Pakistani applicant applied to study Business Administration at SAIT. Submitted $20,635 GIC, $15,350 in savings, and $79,800 support from his brother, supported by affidavit, T4s, bank statements, and a letter from a chartered accountant. Officer refused, citing inadequate funds and unproven relationship, but failed to address key evidence. Court found the reasoning unjustified and the financial evidence ignored. Judicial review granted. Read more

• Humanitarian & Compassionate – Trinidade de Jesus v. Canada, 2025 FC 1022: Brazilian family applied for PR under H&C grounds. Officer held their establishment was not “out of the ordinary,” BIOC concerns were minimal, and Brazil’s conditions not severe. Officer also weighed past use of false document against them. Court found legal error in applying an “exceptional” threshold, failure to assess best interests of the child, lack of compassionate lens, and disregard of risk and country conditions. Decision unreasonable. Judicial review granted. Read more

• Super Visa – Yu v. Canada, 2025 FC 1030: Chinese parents applied for Super Visa to visit son in Brossard, Québec. Officer applied national LICO for cities 500K+ ($46K); hosts earned $43K. Applicants argued lower threshold for Brossard (<100K) should apply. Court held officer was bound by the regulations and Ministerial Instructions mandating national LICO. Hosts also failed to submit 2023 income proof or adequate bank records. Decision reasonable. Judicial review dismissed. Read more

IRCC News Updates