Selcuk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1000
The applicant, a Kurdish national from Türkiye, had his asylum claim refused via a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The IRCC officer denied the claim, stating there was insufficient evidence and criticizing the lack of 'exact' dates, details, and corroborating documents for his political activities.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that an officer cannot hyper-focus on perceived weaknesses and a lack of minor details while failing to meaningfully analyze the central issue: the applicant's forward-looking risk of persecution.
Mwangi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1003
The applicant, a self-represented woman from Kenya, sought refugee protection based on her sexual orientation. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected her claim, deeming it “manifestly unfounded” due to adverse credibility findings and declaring her police reports fraudulent, which resulted in her removal from Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Court held that the RPD misapplied the SOGIE Guidelines, unreasonably dismissed key evidence, and breached its duty of fairness by not giving the applicant a chance to address its credibility concerns before making a severe finding.
Ocampo Alarcon v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 996
An asylum seeker's refugee claim was deemed ineligible under the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). A CBSA officer disbelieved her claim to have a common-law partner in Canada, which would exempt her, and refused to reconsider new evidence supporting the relationship.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the CBSA officer's decision unreasonable. The Court condemned the officer for selectively reconsidering only the part of the decision that was unfavorable to the applicant while refusing to review new evidence that could have helped her.
Roghangar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 987
An Iranian national applied for a writ of mandamus to compel IRCC to decide his study permit application, which had been pending for over three and a half years due to a security assessment triggered by his mandatory military service.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, compelling IRCC to issue a decision within 45 days. The Court found the delay was prima facie unreasonable and IRCC failed to provide any specific evidence to justify it, relying instead on insufficient 'blanket statements' about security screenings.
Zewide v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 986
The applicant, a protected person found inadmissible for past actions in Ethiopia as a youth, sought an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. The officer refused, concluding the positive H&C factors did not outweigh the inadmissibility, mischaracterizing the applicant's arguments about his past.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer made critical errors by engaging in speculation about future citizenship and by seriously mischaracterizing the applicant's submissions regarding his past involvement with a repressive regime.
Zanivan v. Attorney General of Canada, 2026 FC 989
An applicant sought judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) decision that found her ineligible for CRB Act benefits. The officer denied the benefits based on adverse inferences drawn from an income adjustment and her employment history, without ever raising these specific concerns with her.
The Federal Court allowed the application, finding a clear breach of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that by not raising the specific concerns that led to the refusal, the officer denied the applicant the opportunity to understand and respond to the case against her.
Darvish v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 982
Four co-founders of a start-up applied for permanent residence under the Start-up Business Class (SUBC). One essential member's application was submitted after the initial commitment certificate expired. The officer refused the application, finding no evidence that a renewed, valid certificate had been sent directly from the designated entity to IRCC as required.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the officer's decision. The Court held that SUBC regulations are time-sensitive and the burden of proof is squarely on the applicant to demonstrate that a valid commitment certificate was sent by the designated entity to IRCC at the time of application.
Camayo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 975
The applicant, who was granted refugee protection from Colombia as a minor, had her status ceased after she returned to Colombia five times (four as an adult) using a Colombian passport. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found she had voluntarily re-availed herself of Colombia's protection.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that repeated, voluntary travel to one's country of nationality on that country's passport creates a strong presumption of reavailment, which the applicant failed to rebut.
Ahmad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 976
The Applicant's citizenship was revoked for misrepresenting his identity. He did not contest the misrepresentation but argued for special relief, claiming the decision-maker failed to consider the future hardship his 'foreseeable' removal would cause his family.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming that citizenship revocation and removal proceedings are distinct legal processes. The Minister's Delegate was not required to consider speculative, future consequences, such as removal, when deciding on the revocation itself.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 969
The applicant's permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class was refused. The officer found her inadmissible because her non-accompanying husband had failed to comply with a removal order, making him inadmissible, which automatically rendered the applicant inadmissible as well.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application. The Court affirmed that an immigration officer has no duty to issue a procedural fairness letter when an applicant's inadmissibility arises directly from the clear requirements of the law (the IRPA and its Regulations), rather than from external evidence or credibility issues.
