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.
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.
