Akincik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 737
Turkish citizens claimed refugee status in Canada, fearing persecution for their political beliefs. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) refused their claim, determining they were excluded from protection under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention because they had access to permanent residency in South Africa.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the RPD correctly applied the legal test and reasonably concluded that the applicants failed to prove they could not reacquire their status in South Africa.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 732
The applicant, a construction helper from India with a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), was denied a work permit. The IRCC officer concluded the job offer was not genuine based solely on an open-source search showing the employer's address was a private residence.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that relying on a single finding—that the business operated from a home—while ignoring substantial evidence like a positive LMIA was an error.
Daramola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 739
The applicants challenged the refusal of a son's permanent residence application on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The refusal followed three unsuccessful family class sponsorship attempts, with the son eventually aging out of dependency, and was based on the officer ignoring key submissions.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the decision was unresponsive because it failed to engage with the applicant's central arguments and instead refused the case based on factors the officer independently introduced.
Farooqui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 724
A Pakistani citizen residing in Saudi Arabia was refused a Canadian work permit, and her daughter a visitor visa. The immigration officer was not convinced they would leave Canada, citing their temporary status in Saudi Arabia, the impact of "Saudization" on their employment security, and modest finances.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers can rely on their knowledge of local conditions like Saudization and that the decision was based on a rational analysis of multiple factors, not just one.
Hassanein v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 720
The applicant, an Egyptian citizen of the Nubian minority, sought judicial review after an officer refused his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. The officer found that despite general evidence of discrimination against Nubians, the applicant failed to provide sufficient personalized evidence to demonstrate the specific hardship he would face if returned to Egypt.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that while general country conditions are relevant, an officer is entitled to assess where an applicant falls on the 'spectrum of hardship' and require personalized evidence to justify an exceptional H&C exemption.
Okogun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 722
The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds, partly based on the best interests of his then-unborn child. The immigration officer refused the application, incorrectly concluding that an unborn child has no legal interests to consider.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer must meaningfully consider a pregnancy and the future birth of a child as critical H&C factors, sending the application back for redetermination.
Okogun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 723
The applicant, a failed refugee claimant from Nigeria, sought a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), arguing risk from a gang and the government. A senior immigration officer refused the PRRA, finding he had only re-stated old risks and provided evidence irrelevant to a PRRA, such as his establishment in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed the clear legal distinction between a PRRA, which assesses forward-facing risk in one's home country, and an H&C application, which considers factors like establishment in Canada.
Adeniran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 725
A Nigerian business owner applied for a visitor visa to see his fiancée in Canada, providing significant evidence of his three businesses and family ties. An immigration officer refused the application, stating they were not satisfied he was financially established or would leave Canada, despite acknowledging these positive factors.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to provide a rational explanation for why unspecified 'concerns' outweighed the substantial evidence of the applicant's establishment in his home country.
Ekpe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 727
An applicant for a work permit was refused after an officer found a bank statement she submitted was fraudulent. In response to a procedural fairness letter, she provided a new statement and a convoluted explanation, but the officer maintained the misrepresentation finding, making her inadmissible.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that an applicant's response must prove the original document's authenticity, not simply substitute it with a new one.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 728
The applicant, whose permanent residence was revoked for misrepresentation, sought judicial review of a refused Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. The immigration officer found insufficient evidence of establishment and hardship, particularly concerning the best interests of her two Canadian-born children.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness. The Court affirmed that immigration officers have no duty to inform applicants that their evidence is insufficient and provide an opportunity to submit more.
