Min Thant v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1163
The applicant sought judicial review of a refused early work permit under the Start-Up Visa (SUV) Program. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant, whose proposed business was a digital travel website, had a genuine need for an immediate physical presence in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that for digital-based businesses, generalized reasons like market research or incubation program attendance may not be enough to justify the urgency of an early work permit.
Mohammad Umair Nazia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1157
An entrepreneur from Pakistan applied for a work permit under the International Mobility Program to establish a business in Ontario. The immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence for his work experience, financial capacity, and ability to perform the proposed work.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed the principle that immigration officers are not obligated to warn applicants about the insufficiency of their evidence or request additional documents.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1147
An Indian citizen applied for a work permit and was refused on two grounds: that he could not perform the proposed work and that he had insufficient ties to India to ensure he would leave Canada after his stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. Although the Court found the officer's first reason for refusal (inability to perform the work) was unreasonable, it held that the second reason (insufficient ties to India) was reasonable and sufficient on its own to justify the refusal.
Towsif v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1137
The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for a work permit as a Cook (NOC 63200). The immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that he could perform all the required job duties, particularly managerial tasks like inventory control and staff supervision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court found that the applicant's evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate experience in all aspects of the NOC description, placing the burden of proof squarely on the applicant.
Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1138
The applicant, an Indian citizen, was refused a visitor visa to see her sister in Canada. The immigration officer was not satisfied with her financial situation or her ties to her home country, concluding she might not leave Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with or analyze the significant evidence provided by the applicant, which directly contradicted the reasons for refusal.
Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers v. Canada (Treasury Board), 2026 FC 1136
The Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers (PAFSO) sought an order of mandamus to compel the Treasury Board to fix systemic and prolonged failures in the administration of the public service health care plan for members working abroad, which left many facing significant medical debt.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. Although the Court found the government breached its public duty and caused an unreasonable delay, it concluded that because the systemic issues had been largely resolved by the time of the hearing, a mandamus order would serve no practical purpose.
Oseikhuemen Ihenyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1143
The applicant applied for permanent residence under the TR to PR Pathway while holding a valid work permit. However, his work permit expired before a decision was rendered, and the officer refused the application for failing to maintain valid temporary resident status at the time of decision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the officer's decision. The Court held that the policy's requirement to have valid temporary status both when applying and when the decision is made is clear, mandatory, and unambiguous.
Yilbas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1139
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an immigration officer to destroy his new Permanent Resident (PR) card. The card was destroyed after it was mailed to the applicant's address on file and returned to IRCC as 'undeliverable'.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision to be unreasonable and set it aside. The Court ruled that the officer failed to provide an intelligible analysis explaining how the legal requirement for 'notice' was met when IRCC was fully aware the applicant never received the mail.
Kavarizadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1133
The applicants, Iranian citizens, applied for permanent residence under the Provincial Nominee Program in June 2022. Facing a delay of over four years, they sought a mandamus order to compel a decision from IRCC, which cited ongoing security screening as the reason for the hold-up.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, compelling IRCC to issue a final decision within 90 days. The Court found the delay was unreasonable and that simply stating 'security screening continues' without further detail was an insufficient justification for the prolonged processing time.
Foukeng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 1131
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision that refused her temporary work permit as an agricultural worker and imposed a five-year ban for misrepresentation regarding her employment history in Cameroon.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that because the Minister failed to provide a complete certified record—missing the application itself and other key documents—it was impossible to assess the rationality of the decision.
