Ramirez Tamayo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 761
A Colombian citizen sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision. The officer found he had not rebutted the presumption of state protection, despite his claim of fearing FARC dissidents and the alleged murder of his business partner.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision reasonable. It also ruled that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required to prove his previous lawyer was incompetent, which would have amounted to a breach of procedural fairness.
Guclu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 747
A Turkish citizen, sponsored by his Canadian spouse for permanent residence, was issued a removal order for misrepresentation after failing to disclose prior criminal charges. His appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds was dismissed.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the IAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the IAD was justified in giving significant negative weight to the applicant's lack of remorse and credibility, which ultimately outweighed the H&C factors he presented.
Xuehong Yan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 733
The applicant, a Start-Up Visa permanent residence applicant, applied for a work permit after her commitment certificate had already expired. The immigration officer refused the work permit application, noting the certificate was no longer valid at the time of submission.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that IRCC guidelines require a commitment certificate to be valid when a start-up business class work permit application is submitted, not just when the permanent residence application is filed.
Ashkir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 744
The applicant, a Somali citizen, was refused permanent residence as a Convention refugee. The IRCC officer based the refusal on a perceived contradiction in his testimony regarding why Al-Shabaab attempted to recruit him—for his access to a seaport versus being sent for spy training.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court concluded there was no actual contradiction in the applicant's testimony and that it is an error for an officer to base negative credibility findings on an applicant's inability to perfectly know the motivations of their persecutors.
Baltazar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 742
The applicant, a Filipino business owner with a bachelor's degree, applied for a work permit as a kitchen helper. The IRCC officer refused the application, finding the job was inconsistent with the applicant's qualifications and that he 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 simply assume a career change is a negative factor without explaining its relevance and must properly weigh all evidence of ties to the home country.
Kahih v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 745
The applicant, a victim of severe domestic abuse, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused her request, raising 'discrepancies' and failing to give proper weight to her experience of family violence as a key H&C factor.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to recognize that domestic abuse is, in and of itself, a significant compassionate factor that must be properly weighed in the H&C assessment.
Makhija v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 743
An applicant for a study permit was found inadmissible for misrepresentation after a fraudulent financial document (GIC) was submitted with his application. The applicant claimed he was a victim of fraud by an unlicensed immigration consultant but failed to respond to the officer's procedural fairness letter (PFL).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an applicant is ultimately responsible for their application, and the failure to respond to the PFL meant the officer had no evidence of the alleged fraud to consider.
Djatsa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 729
The applicant, a self-represented individual from Cameroon, sought judicial review of a study permit refusal. The visa officer was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada after his studies, citing limited employment prospects and insufficient financial resources.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, striking the applicant's record as an abuse of process. The Court found that the applicant's submissions relied entirely on non-existent, 'hallucinated' case law, likely generated by AI without disclosure or verification, which undermines the integrity of the justice system.
Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 738
The applicant, found inadmissible on security grounds, had his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) refused. The immigration officer found no risk of harm and completely ignored the applicant's request to hold the PRRA in abeyance pending a decision on his application for Ministerial relief.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the risk assessment was flawed and, crucially, that it was a reviewable error for the officer to ignore the applicant's request for an abeyance, ordering the matter be sent back for redetermination.
Harkat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 719
The applicant, a Convention refugee found inadmissible on security grounds, challenged a decision by the Minister's delegate. The delegate concluded that the applicant should be deported to Algeria, stripping him of protection against non-refoulement, based on the 'nature and severity' of his alleged complicity in terrorist acts.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, setting aside the delegate's decision as unreasonable. The Court found that the delegate improperly conflated the test for inadmissibility with the much stricter test required to prove culpable complicity in specific criminal acts.
