Hovsepian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 781
The Applicant, a Syrian Convention Refugee, returned to Syria for four years to pursue a legal dispute. During this time, she lived, worked, and married in Syria, leading the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) to rule that she had voluntarily re-established herself and cease her refugee protection.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the evidence clearly showed the Applicant's actions were inconsistent with a person fearing persecution, thus justifying the cessation of her refugee status.
A self-represented public servant sought judicial review of a decision by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, who dismissed her reprisal complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant used artificial intelligence to prepare her legal arguments, which resulted in the submission of numerous non-existent or 'hallucinated' legal cases to the Court.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the Commissioner's decision reasonable. Crucially, the Court sanctioned the applicant $500 for the abusive use of AI, emphasizing that citing fabricated case law is a serious matter that misleads the Court and undermines the administration of justice.
Sabour v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 783
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his temporary resident visa application, filed over three years prior, to visit his two daughters in Canada. IRCC had failed to process the application, which far exceeded its own service standards.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, compelling IRCC to issue a decision within 30 days. The Court found the delay of 11-12 times the service standard was unreasonable and that IRCC's justification was neither transparent nor intelligible.
Hwangbo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 771
The applicant, Yun Hwangbo, was found inadmissible for misrepresentation after failing to disclose a criminal charge on her work permit application. The officer imposed a five-year ban. Ms. Hwangbo argued this was due to her former immigration consultant's incompetent advice.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding a breach of natural justice due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found the former counsel's failure to advise the applicant to update her file after learning of the charge fell below the standard of reasonable professional assistance, and this failure prejudiced the outcome of her application.
Sun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 767
The applicant, a citizen of China, was refused a temporary work permit for a position in Quebec. Despite the employer's LMIA indicating only English was required, the officer concluded that French was necessary based on an independent 'open data search' of the employer.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court determined the officer's conclusion was based on a fatal flaw: the officer researched the wrong company, rendering the entire basis for the language requirement assessment incorrect and unjustified.
Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 770
A highly educated and experienced manager from Pakistan was refused a temporary work permit for an Administrative Assistant position. The immigration officer concluded that taking a lower-level job was not a “logical career progression” and therefore the applicant would not leave Canada at the end of his stay.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot engage in “career counselling” and must provide a clear, logical link between an applicant being overqualified and the risk of them overstaying their permit.
Noori v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 773
An Iranian family applied for a Spousal Open Work Permit (SOWP) and Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) to join the husband/father in Canada. The immigration officer refused the applications, finding the husband’s income was below the Low-Income Cut-Off (LICO) for a family of five and concluding they would not leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, ruling that the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers can assess an entire family's financial sufficiency against objective benchmarks like LICO and can weigh family ties to determine if a stay is genuinely temporary.
Suleiman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 776
The applicant, a young woman from Somalia, sought refugee protection in Canada after fleeing threats of forced marriage to an Al-Shabaab militant. An immigration officer denied her application for permanent residence, stating she was not credible due to 'significant discrepancies' in her timeline without providing specific details.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the credibility assessment was not transparent, intelligible, or justified because it failed to specify the alleged discrepancies, and the officer also failed to conduct a full analysis of the refugee claim.
Azadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 760
An Iranian student, already attending a Canadian high school virtually, was refused a study permit to complete his final year in person. The visa officer questioned the reasonableness of his study plan and the legitimacy of his family's financial support.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision was reasonable. The Court agreed that the applicant failed to adequately justify the need for in-person studies and did not provide sufficient evidence to explain a sudden, large influx of funds.
Pakatchian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 759
An Iranian national seeking a study permit for a PhD in aerospace engineering applied for a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on his application, which had been processing since February 2022. The delay was attributed to extensive security screening due to the sensitive nature of his studies and previous employment.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the delay was not unreasonable. The Court ruled that the need for security screening and, most importantly, the applicant's failure to respond to a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) provided a satisfactory justification for the processing time.
