Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 808
The applicant sought permanent residence under the spousal sponsorship class. Her application was refused because she failed to disclose and correct fraudulent information submitted in a previous Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application, even after becoming aware of the inaccuracies.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that an applicant's duty of candour is an ongoing and overriding principle, requiring proactive disclosure of all material facts, including past misrepresentations, in any new application.
Verma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 798
The applicant, Mr. Navdeep Verma, sought judicial review after his LMIA-exempt work permit for a Food Service Supervisor (NOC 62020) was refused. The immigration officer found he failed to provide sufficient evidence that he met the mandatory NOC requirements of either a relevant college program or 'several years of experience'.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the NOC requirement for 'several years' of experience is a mandatory condition, and the applicant's evidence of only one year of experience was insufficient to meet this threshold.
Ntirenganya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 797
A Rwandan family sought refugee protection based on alleged political persecution. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found their claims lacked credibility due to significant inconsistencies in their testimonies and a history of non-compliance with Canadian immigration laws.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that inconsistencies pertaining to core allegations, combined with a questionable immigration history, were sufficient to undermine the applicants' credibility.
Williams v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 803
The applicant, an Indigenous woman from the United States, sought permanent residence through spousal sponsorship but was refused due to past criminal inadmissibility. The immigration officer determined her convictions outweighed the humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors, including her family in Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to meaningfully assess the best interests of the applicant's children and improperly used her resilience against her when considering her Indigenous background and past trauma.
Adeniji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 799
The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, applied for permanent residence as the spouse of a Protected Person in Canada. An immigration officer refused the application, doubting the genuineness of the relationship based on information that the sponsor had other relationships in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court held that the applicant's failure to directly address the specific concerns about her spouse's other relationships, despite being given clear opportunities to do so, was a sufficient basis for refusal.
Ashrafi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 800
An Iranian couple sought judicial review after their C11 entrepreneur work permit application to open a hair salon in Alberta was refused. The immigration officer concluded they would not leave Canada and that their business plan failed to show a significant benefit to Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court held that the officer's conclusions about the business plan and the applicants' family ties were unsupported by the evidence and lacked a rational chain of analysis.
Nader v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 788
A refugee applicant, after multiple appeals and judicial reviews, challenged a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that sent his case back to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) for a full redetermination. The applicant argued the RPD should only consider his credibility, as a previous decision had already found him not to be excluded from protection on one ground (Article 1F(b)).
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the RAD to order a broad redetermination. The Court clarified that a previous court order dealing with specific issues does not prevent a tribunal from later considering other relevant, but previously unaddressed, issues like different grounds for exclusion (Article 1E).
Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 790
The applicant, a Vietnamese citizen, was refused permanent residence under the spousal sponsorship class. The IRCC officer concluded his marriage was not genuine, dismissing letters of support from family as 'biased' and making several unreasonable findings about the couple's photographic and financial evidence.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that dismissing evidence, such as letters from family and friends, solely because of its source is a legal error and that the officer's analysis was unintelligible and disconnected from the evidence.
Seyedmahmood Kia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 780
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his study permit application for a PhD program, which had been processing for over two and a half years. The excessive delay jeopardized his admission, as he had already deferred his program three times.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, finding the delay unreasonable and unjustified. The Court ordered the Minister to render a decision on the application within 30 days and awarded costs to the Applicant due to the Respondent's conduct.
Fahs v. Canada (Immigration and Citizenship), 2026 FC 782
The applicant, a protected person from Lebanon, had his refugee status revoked after visiting his home country five times. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concluded he had reavailed himself of Lebanon's protection, dismissing his safety precautions because they did not amount to him being 'in hiding'.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the RPD applied the wrong legal test. The Court clarified that the correct analysis is not a simple 'was he in hiding?' question, but a comprehensive assessment of all precautionary measures taken by the refugee.
