Thandyi Dolma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 965
The applicant, a Tibetan Buddhist with Chinese citizenship by descent but born and raised in India, filed a refugee claim against China. Her claim was refused because she had a legal right to Indian citizenship but had not taken steps to exercise it, as she would lose benefits from the Central Tibetan Authority (CTA).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Refugee Appeal Division's (RAD) decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a claimant must take reasonable steps to seek protection in a country where they have a right to citizenship before they can be granted refugee protection in Canada.
Deng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 964
The applicant, a citizen of China, was sponsored for permanent residence by his spouse. An immigration officer refused the application, concluding the marriage was not genuine based on a perceived contradiction in family information and a narrow assessment of the couple's finances.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer made a critical factual error and failed to meaningfully consider the totality of the positive evidence submitted in support of the relationship.
Jing Lu and Yuchun Sun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 974
The applicants' permanent residency application under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program was refused for misrepresentation after they failed to disclose a previous visitor visa refusal for the dependent son. They sought judicial review, arguing their former immigration representative was incompetent for not properly advising them.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming the officer's decision. The Court ruled that the applicants failed to meet the high legal standard required to prove their representative was incompetent and emphasized that applicants always retain the ultimate responsibility to ensure their submitted forms are truthful and accurate.
Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 956
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his long-pending work permit application. Before the court hearing, his application was refused for non-compliance, prompting the government to argue the judicial review was now moot.
The Federal Court dismissed the application but only after a full analysis. The Court ruled that the issuance of a decision does not automatically make the case moot, as the core dispute over unreasonable delay still exists. However, mandamus was denied because a decision had been made, meaning there was no 'refusal to act' by the Minister.
Shahpouri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 957
The Applicant sought judicial review of a refused intra-company transfer work permit. An IRCC officer denied the application based on two grounds: a lack of significant family ties outside Canada and insufficient evidence that the proposed business would provide a significant benefit to Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. Although the Court agreed the officer's finding on family ties was unreasonable, it found this error was not determinative. The refusal was ultimately upheld because the officer's primary concerns about the business's viability and its potential benefit to Canada were reasonable and justified.
Abis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 950
The applicant, a Kurdish citizen of Turkey, sought refugee protection based on his political activities. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed his claim, finding him not credible due to alleged inconsistencies, omissions, and a failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court ruled that the RAD improperly relied on evidence it had deemed inadmissible and focused on peripheral inconsistencies while ignoring the holistic context of the applicant's claim.
Dai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 931
The Applicant challenged the extreme delay in processing her permanent residence application under the Home Child Care Provider pilot program. IRCC defended the delay by pointing to new Ministerial Instructions (MI-2), which repealed prior processing rules but failed to introduce any new ones.
The Federal Court found the delay unreasonable and granted an order of mandamus, compelling a decision within 60 days. The Court ruled that Ministerial Instructions which create a 'processing policy vacuum' by removing old rules without replacement cannot serve as a reasonable justification for open-ended delays.
Chukwudi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 930
A Nigerian student applying for a study permit for an aviation program was refused because the visa officer was not satisfied with the source of his funds. The applicant's bank statements showed significant lump-sum deposits that were not adequately explained.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court reinforced that officers have a duty to scrutinize the 'source, nature, and stability' of an applicant's funds and are not obligated to accept vague claims of 'family support' without corroborating evidence.
Zhou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 927
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his Québec Investor Class permanent residence application, filed over seven years prior. The delay significantly exceeded the initial average processing time, and the Applicant argued it was unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister provided a satisfactory justification for the delay. The Court accepted that a significant reduction in the admission targets for the Québec Business Class program directly caused a backlog and longer processing times, making the delay reasonable in the circumstances.
Sahloul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 921
A Syrian family, granted refugee status, applied for Permanent Residence (PR) in Quebec. Facing a significant delay, they sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to finalize their application.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the delay was not unreasonable. The Court accepted that the unique nature of the Quebec immigration program, including annual admission caps under the Canada-Québec Accord, justifies longer processing times.
