Vokshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1346
The applicant, a citizen of Albania, sought judicial review of a Super Visa refusal. An immigration officer dismissed her application because she failed to demonstrate that her Canadian hosts met the minimum necessary income, citing insufficient documentation.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court heavily criticized the applicant for numerous procedural failures, including submitting a legal memorandum with fabricated, AI-generated case law and failing to prove that key financial documents were ever submitted to the officer.
Baghdadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1338
An Iranian citizen's Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application to visit his brother-in-law was refused. The officer claimed the purpose was inconsistent with a temporary stay and that the applicant lacked significant family ties outside Canada, despite evidence of his role as a caregiver for his elderly parents in Iran.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the decision lacked a clear chain of logic and failed to demonstrate any engagement with the crucial evidence the applicant had provided about his strong ties to his home country.
Javadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1342
The applicant, an Iranian citizen, applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class. After waiting over 1020 days—far exceeding the 180-day service standard—with no decision, she sought a court order (mandamus) to compel Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to process her file.
The Federal Court found the delay unreasonable and unjustified, granting the mandamus order. The Court compelled IRCC to finalize the applicant's permanent residence application within 30 days, reaffirming that blanket statements about 'security screening' do not excuse excessive processing delays.
Dasse v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 1331
The principal applicant, his spouse, and their four children applied for work and study permits. The immigration officer refused the applications, concluding that the principal applicant's $60,000 salary and the family's low bank balance were insufficient to support a family of six in Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The officer inexplicably ignored a second job offer for the spouse, also for $60,000, which was a critical piece of evidence that doubled the family's potential income to $120,000.
Bal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1341
The applicant, a citizen of India, sought a work permit as a Truck and Transport Mechanic with an approved LMIA. The immigration officer refused the application, finding that the applicant's low English scores in reading and writing (IELTS 4.5 and 4.0) were insufficient to safely perform the job, which involves reading technical and safety manuals.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not its role to reweigh evidence like language test scores and that the officer was justified in concluding that limited English proficiency posed a safety risk for the specific job duties.
Kirac v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 1327
The Applicant, a protected person, sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to finalize his permanent residence application, filed in January 2010. After 16 years of delay, which IRCC vaguely attributed to security concerns, the Applicant asked the Court to intervene.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, compelling IRCC to issue a decision within 60 days. The Court found the 16-year delay was unreasonable and that IRCC's generic justification about security checks was insufficient to excuse its prolonged inaction.
Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1323
The applicant's work permit was refused after her counsel missed a portal notification to submit her passport. IRCC then refused to reconsider the decision, stating no error had occurred on its part.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's refusal to reconsider was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to engage with the applicant's actual submission—counsel's error—and instead focused incorrectly on whether IRCC had made an error.
Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1324
A family of six from Pakistan sought judicial review of the refusal of their Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. The officer found their establishment in Canada and the evidence regarding their children's best interests, including one child's medical needs, were insufficient to warrant an exemption.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that applicants bear the onus of providing specific and detailed evidence, particularly for medical conditions, to justify H&C relief.
Guihini Mahamat Moussa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1325
The applicant, a citizen of Chad and member of an opposition party, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that upheld the denial of his refugee claim. The applicant had submitted new evidence of escalating violence against his party while the RAD decision was pending, but the RAD failed to consider it.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reached in a procedurally unfair manner. The Court ruled that by failing to consider the new, material evidence submitted by the applicant, the RAD had deprived him of his right to be heard, and sent the case back for redetermination.
Guarin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1321
An applicant for permanent residence under the Child Care Provider class had her application refused for failing to provide additional documents. She sought reconsideration, claiming neither she nor her representative ever received the email request, but the officer declined to reopen the file.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding that the officer's decision not to reconsider the refusal was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a judicial review of a reconsideration decision cannot be used to challenge the merits of the original refusal.
