Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 811
An Indian national and her two minor daughters were refused Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) to visit family in Canada. The officer concluded they would not leave at the end of their stay due to strong family ties in Canada and a proposed 6-month visit.
The Federal Court found the refusal unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that the officer failed to properly assess crucial 'pull factors' tying the applicants to their home country, such as the husband remaining in India and the mother's stable employment.
Onoja v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 816
A family of six applied for a study permit for the principal applicant and accompanying permits for her spouse and four children. The immigration officer refused the applications, citing insufficient funds without adequately explaining how this conclusion was reached.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision on the sufficiency of funds was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the decision lacked the necessary transparency and justification, as it failed to explain why the applicants' financial calculations were rejected.
Souri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 807
An Iranian academic, Dr. Souri, was refused a work permit for a post-doctoral fellowship at a Canadian university. The IRCC officer was not satisfied he would leave Canada, questioning the benefit of the fellowship and citing a previous withdrawn refugee claim as evidence of non-compliance.
The Federal Court found the refusal unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that the officer failed to genuinely engage with the applicant's evidence, ignoring the clear career benefits of the fellowship, strong family ties, and failing to explain how the applicant had previously breached immigration rules.
Jasvir Singh Sekhon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 806
An Indian farmer applied for an LMIA-based work permit but was refused. The visa officer was not satisfied he would leave Canada, citing an unexplained large bank deposit, a modest income in India, and significant family ties (two siblings) in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed its role is not to reweigh evidence and that the officer's concerns about the applicant's financial establishment and family ties were legitimate factors in the assessment.
Topbas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 810
The applicant, a protected person from Türkiye, had his refugee status ceased after a 20-day trip to visit his dying mother. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concluded this constituted a re-availment of his home country's protection because the trip was not 'absolutely necessary.'
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the RPD applied the wrong legal test by focusing on the 'necessity' of the travel, failed to properly consider key factors like the short duration of the trip, and did not engage with the original basis for the refugee claim.
Rehman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 805
The applicant, a skilled tradesperson, was refused a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) needed to write a mandatory certification exam in Canada. The officer refused the TRV on the basis that the applicant's purpose was inconsistent with a temporary stay and that he had weak family ties.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to properly consider the applicant's 'dual intent'—the legitimate intention to visit temporarily for a specific purpose that supports a long-term goal of permanent immigration.
Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 808
The applicant sought permanent residence under the spousal sponsorship class. Her application was refused because she failed to disclose and correct fraudulent information submitted in a previous Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application, even after becoming aware of the inaccuracies.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that an applicant's duty of candour is an ongoing and overriding principle, requiring proactive disclosure of all material facts, including past misrepresentations, in any new application.
Verma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 798
The applicant, Mr. Navdeep Verma, sought judicial review after his LMIA-exempt work permit for a Food Service Supervisor (NOC 62020) was refused. The immigration officer found he failed to provide sufficient evidence that he met the mandatory NOC requirements of either a relevant college program or 'several years of experience'.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the NOC requirement for 'several years' of experience is a mandatory condition, and the applicant's evidence of only one year of experience was insufficient to meet this threshold.
Ntirenganya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 797
A Rwandan family sought refugee protection based on alleged political persecution. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found their claims lacked credibility due to significant inconsistencies in their testimonies and a history of non-compliance with Canadian immigration laws.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that inconsistencies pertaining to core allegations, combined with a questionable immigration history, were sufficient to undermine the applicants' credibility.
Williams v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 803
The applicant, an Indigenous woman from the United States, sought permanent residence through spousal sponsorship but was refused due to past criminal inadmissibility. The immigration officer determined her convictions outweighed the humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors, including her family in Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to meaningfully assess the best interests of the applicant's children and improperly used her resilience against her when considering her Indigenous background and past trauma.
