Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20251008

Docket: IMM-16701-24

Citation: 2025 FC 1660

St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, October 8, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

[1] Mr. Roumany Mehany Abdalla Abdou (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an immigration officer (the “Officer”) refusing his application for permanent residence in Canada as a member of the Start-Up Business Class (the “SUBC”). His proposed business is a mobile application that connects physiotherapists with their clients
(the “Business”).

[2] The Applicant is described as the founder, owner and CEO of the Business. He submitted his application with the assistance of the Manitoba Technology Accelerator (the “MTA”) which is an entity that offers resources to start-up businesses and is authorized by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) for the SUBC.

[3] The Applicant submitted his application on July 8, 2021. He received two procedural fairness letters, the first dated January 2, 2024, and the second dated April 18, 2024.

[4] The Applicant responded to both procedural fairness letters.

[5] The Applicant argues that the decision is unreasonable, on various grounds, including negative inferences drawn by the Officer relating to a website or information about CABusinessplan.

[6] The Respondent, for her part, submits that the decision does meet the standards of reasonableness.

[7] Following the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.

[8] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.

[9] The Officer apparently concentrated on the Applicant’s lack of personal involvement in the business in Canada and the similarities between his business plan with that of another entity.

[10] In my opinion, the Officer’s focus on that element coloured the assessment of the “business” evidence submitted in support of the application, leading to a conclusion that the Applicant was mostly interested in obtaining status in Canada. That conclusion is not transparent or justifiable.

[11] In the result, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision will be set aside and the matter remitted to another officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-16701-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to another officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification.

“E. Heneghan”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: