Parikh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 837
The applicant, having received a support letter from the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP), applied for a work permit. The visa officer refused the application, finding the applicant failed to truthfully disclose previous visa refusals and was not satisfied she would leave Canada at the end of her stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court confirmed that failing to provide complete and truthful information is a serious issue and that the concept of dual intent does not remove the applicant's burden to prove they will depart Canada as required.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 835
The Applicant, who had remained in Canada without status for several years, applied for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) based on humanitarian grounds. The immigration officer refused the application, concluding the Applicant's history of non-compliance raised serious doubts about his willingness to respect immigration laws in the future.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an applicant's immigration history is a critical factor in a TRP assessment and that general, unsupported humanitarian claims do not automatically outweigh a prolonged period of non-compliance.
Okoroafor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 836
A Nigerian business owner applied for a temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit his brother in Canada. An IRCC officer refused the application, citing insufficient funds and weak economic ties due to a lack of detailed evidence about his business operations and income.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court emphasized the applicant's failure to provide mandatory documents for self-employed individuals as specified in the visa office instructions, which was fatal to his case.
Campos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 838
A mother and her two minor children from Mexico sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused their application, leading them to seek a judicial review at the Federal Court.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and allowed the application for judicial review. The Court ruled the officer failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the children's best interests and incorrectly required the applicants to demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances'.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 828
The Applicant lost his temporary status and applied for a work permit and restoration. After that application was refused, he submitted a third application, but this time it was outside the mandatory 90-day restoration window. The officer refused the third application for being out of time.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that the 90-day restoration period is a strict deadline with no discretion for officers to extend it. The Court held that each application is distinct, and a previous, timely (but refused) application does not make a subsequent, late application valid.
Nyarko v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 819
A refugee claimant from Ghana, fearing harm from illegal miners, had his claim refused. The Immigration and Refugee Board found he had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) within Ghana, as he failed to prove the miners posed a risk to him outside of his local area.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the Refugee Appeal Division's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a claimant must provide concrete evidence—not just speculation—to prove that agents of harm have the means and motivation to find them in a proposed IFA.
Bwire v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 834
The applicant, a citizen of Uganda, sought refugee protection based on his fear of persecution as a bisexual man. His claim was refused by the RPD and RAD due to significant inconsistencies between his initial Basis of Claim (BOC) and his later testimony, which included dramatic new details of a mob assault and police involvement.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) was reasonable. The Court affirmed that omitting fundamental facts from a BOC and introducing them later at a hearing can fatally undermine a claimant's credibility.
Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Rodas Tejeda, 2026 FCA 115
The applicant faced an admissibility hearing for organized criminality based on information he provided to immigration authorities over a decade earlier. He argued the extreme delay in acting on this information constituted an abuse of process, but the Immigration Division (ID) initially ruled it could only consider delays that occurred *after* the official inadmissibility report was prepared.
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled decisively that the Immigration Division has the jurisdiction to consider the *entire* period of delay, including investigative delays preceding an inadmissibility report, when assessing an abuse of process claim. The Court dismissed the Minister's appeal, affirming that the ID's powers to ensure a fair hearing are broad.
Righetti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 830
An Italian citizen applying for an electronic travel authorization (eTA) failed to disclose three prior work permit refusals from 2017. The IRCC officer found him inadmissible for misrepresentation, refusing the eTA and rejecting his request to withdraw the application.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that attempting to correct a misrepresentation after it has been detected by IRCC is not a cure, and an applicant's claim of ignorance about past refusals was not credible given the circumstances.
Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 827
An applicant for an LMIA-supported work permit was refused because an officer was not satisfied with his ability to perform the work, citing a lack of evidence for his 'current' English proficiency, despite the applicant providing a four-year engineering degree taught in English.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply dismiss significant evidence, such as a multi-year degree in English, without providing a clear and justified explanation for why it is considered insufficient.
