Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 828
The Applicant lost his temporary status and applied for a work permit and restoration. After that application was refused, he submitted a third application, but this time it was outside the mandatory 90-day restoration window. The officer refused the third application for being out of time.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that the 90-day restoration period is a strict deadline with no discretion for officers to extend it. The Court held that each application is distinct, and a previous, timely (but refused) application does not make a subsequent, late application valid.
Nyarko v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 819
A refugee claimant from Ghana, fearing harm from illegal miners, had his claim refused. The Immigration and Refugee Board found he had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) within Ghana, as he failed to prove the miners posed a risk to him outside of his local area.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the Refugee Appeal Division's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a claimant must provide concrete evidence—not just speculation—to prove that agents of harm have the means and motivation to find them in a proposed IFA.
Bwire v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 834
The applicant, a citizen of Uganda, sought refugee protection based on his fear of persecution as a bisexual man. His claim was refused by the RPD and RAD due to significant inconsistencies between his initial Basis of Claim (BOC) and his later testimony, which included dramatic new details of a mob assault and police involvement.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) was reasonable. The Court affirmed that omitting fundamental facts from a BOC and introducing them later at a hearing can fatally undermine a claimant's credibility.
Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Rodas Tejeda, 2026 FCA 115
The applicant faced an admissibility hearing for organized criminality based on information he provided to immigration authorities over a decade earlier. He argued the extreme delay in acting on this information constituted an abuse of process, but the Immigration Division (ID) initially ruled it could only consider delays that occurred *after* the official inadmissibility report was prepared.
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled decisively that the Immigration Division has the jurisdiction to consider the *entire* period of delay, including investigative delays preceding an inadmissibility report, when assessing an abuse of process claim. The Court dismissed the Minister's appeal, affirming that the ID's powers to ensure a fair hearing are broad.
Righetti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 830
An Italian citizen applying for an electronic travel authorization (eTA) failed to disclose three prior work permit refusals from 2017. The IRCC officer found him inadmissible for misrepresentation, refusing the eTA and rejecting his request to withdraw the application.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that attempting to correct a misrepresentation after it has been detected by IRCC is not a cure, and an applicant's claim of ignorance about past refusals was not credible given the circumstances.
Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 827
An applicant for an LMIA-supported work permit was refused because an officer was not satisfied with his ability to perform the work, citing a lack of evidence for his 'current' English proficiency, despite the applicant providing a four-year engineering degree taught in English.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply dismiss significant evidence, such as a multi-year degree in English, without providing a clear and justified explanation for why it is considered insufficient.
Otugo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 826
The applicant sought an open work permit based on her husband's study permit. Her application was refused because she only provided a single bank document showing a recent 20,000,000 Nigerian Naira lump-sum deposit into an account with a previous balance of zero, which the officer found insufficient to demonstrate stable funds.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it could not consider new financial evidence submitted after the refusal and that the limited evidence originally provided justified the officer's concerns.
Asongwed Forche Haggai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 829
The applicant, a citizen of Cameroon, sought refugee protection, claiming persecution for his perceived support of a separatist movement. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied his claim, finding him not credible due to significant inconsistencies in his story.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, upholding the RPD's decision. The Court found it was reasonable for the RPD to conclude the applicant was not credible based on major contradictions, such as claiming to be detained at the same time he was providing biometrics for a visa application.
Ajaib Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 815
The applicant, with a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) for a drywall installer position, was refused a work permit. The immigration officer was not satisfied he would leave Canada due to a perceived lack of family ties and questioned his ability to perform the work.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to transparently explain why the significant evidence of work experience provided by the applicant was deemed insufficient.
Muhumed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 818
A Somali national, recognized as a refugee in Uganda, applied for permanent residence in Canada. A visa officer refused his application, finding his story not credible because his siblings in Somalia had not been targeted by the militant group Al-Shabaab, while he claimed he was.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, quashing the refusal. The Court found the applicant was denied procedural fairness because the officer relied on their own knowledge of Al-Shabaab's operations without giving the applicant an opportunity to respond.
