Tufail v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 914
An elderly Pakistani woman in her 70s, in Canada on a Super Visa, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. She argued hardship due to her medical condition (osteoarthritis) and the negative impact her departure would have on her Canadian daughter and grandchildren.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the immigration officer's refusal was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the applicant failed to provide sufficient, detailed evidence to support her claims of hardship, establishment, and the best interests of her grandchildren.
Sankoh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 915
The applicant, a refugee claimant from Sierra Leone, had his claim refused by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). He filed for judicial review 22 days after the decision was electronically sent to his lawyer, arguing the 15-day deadline only started when his lawyer personally informed him of the result.
The Federal Court dismissed the application as untimely. The Court confirmed the long-standing legal principle that notice to a lawyer is notice to their client, and the statutory deadline to file for judicial review begins the moment counsel of record receives the decision.
Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 917
The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, applied for permanent residence under the self-employed class to open a karate studio. After his PR application was refused, his subsequent request for reconsideration was also denied. He then sought judicial review of the reconsideration decision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It ruled that the applicant's arguments improperly targeted the original PR refusal, not the reconsideration decision, and he could not use this review to resurrect his previous, unperfected judicial review of the initial refusal.
Omowaye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 916
A family from Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds, citing their business establishment, the best interests of their children, and potential hardship upon return. An immigration officer refused their application, finding the evidence of their establishment, the specific hardship they would face, and the impact on their children was insufficient to warrant special relief.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that its role is not to reweigh the evidence and that the applicants failed to demonstrate any significant error in the officer's analysis that would render the decision unreasonable.
Derdak v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 919
The applicant, a Moroccan man, sought a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) based on his bisexuality. An immigration officer refused the application, stating that the applicant's personal declaration and his wife's supporting letter were 'insufficient' to prove his sexual orientation without more documentary evidence.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision procedurally unfair. The Court ruled that dismissing the applicant's core testimony as 'insufficient' was effectively a negative credibility finding, which requires an oral hearing to give the applicant a chance to respond.
Kararha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 911
The Applicant, a refugee claimant from India, had his claim denied by the RPD due to credibility issues. He appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), arguing his previous lawyer provided incompetent counsel and presented a new basis of risk, requesting an oral hearing to address the new credibility concerns.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to deny an oral hearing was unreasonable. The Court held that since the RAD made credibility the central issue and used new evidence to make adverse findings, it was a breach of procedural fairness not to allow the Applicant to respond in an oral hearing.
Bar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 913
The Applicant, a citizen of South Sudan, claimed refugee protection based on intimate partner violence. Her claim was refused by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) due to significant credibility issues and a failure to establish her identity.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to uphold the refusal was reasonable. The Court affirmed that establishing identity is a fundamental, threshold issue, and the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.
Adeleke v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 905
A Nigerian citizen sought to be sponsored by her father under the family class. The application was refused because her father had failed to declare her as a dependent in his own permanent residence application years earlier, a decision upheld by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the IAD's decision. The Court reinforced that the rule excluding undeclared family members from future sponsorship under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR is a strict, inflexible provision with almost no exceptions.
Dhir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 903
The applicants lost their status and applied for restoration. Their first restoration application was refused, but the refusal letter confusingly stated they were still 'eligible to restore'. Relying on this, they applied again but were refused because the second application was filed outside the original 90-day statutory deadline.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming that the 90-day deadline to apply for restoration of status is mandatory and cannot be extended. The Court found that an officer's potentially misleading statement does not create a 'legitimate expectation' that can override a strict regulatory time limit.
Zhang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 889
The Applicant, who was subject to a removal order, requested a deferral until March 2025 or until a decision on her spousal sponsorship application. An officer refused the deferral, and she sought judicial review.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the matter was moot. Because the requested deferral date of March 2025 had already passed, the Applicant had effectively received the relief she sought, rendering the legal dispute academic.
