Rafique v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 658
An applicant from Pakistan, whose third LMIA-supported work permit was refused, sought judicial review. The refusal was based on the officer's concern that the applicant would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.
The Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the refusal. However, it denied the applicant's request for a directed verdict (an order to issue the permit), reinforcing that remitting a case for redetermination by a new officer is the standard, except in the clearest of circumstances.
Zavala v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 660
A family from Mexico, who had been living without legal status in the United States since 2019, applied for a Canadian work permit. The immigration officer refused the application, concluding the family would not leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay due to their history of non-compliance with US immigration laws.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an applicant's intentional non-compliance with another country's immigration laws is a significant and justifiable indicator that they may not comply with Canada's laws.
Roushenas et al. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 664
An Iranian couple applied for a work permit under the International Mobility Program for an intra-company transfer to a newly incorporated Canadian start-up. The immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicants had not demonstrated that the Canadian company was a 'legitimate and continuing establishment' of a multinational enterprise.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that for a start-up subsidiary, applicants must provide sufficient evidence of meaningful steps taken to establish the business beyond simple incorporation.
Aghajari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 661
An Iranian citizen, employed at her father's company, applied for a study permit for an MBA. The officer refused the application, doubting the value of the study plan and the applicant's intent to leave Canada, and noted her university acceptance was conditional on completing pre-requisite courses.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers have a limited duty to provide reasons and that concerns about a vague study plan and a conditional acceptance letter were sufficient to justify the refusal.
Alnuaimi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 647
The Applicant, married to a Canadian citizen with two Canadian children, applied for permanent residence through overseas spousal sponsorship in April 2019. After waiting nearly seven years without a decision, he sought a writ of mandamus to compel IRCC to finalize his application.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, finding the seven-year delay unreasonable. The Court held that the Minister failed to provide a satisfactory justification, as relying on a vague "comprehensive security screening" without specific evidence is insufficient. IRCC was ordered to issue a decision within 90 days and pay the Applicant's costs.
Domingcil v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 648
The Applicant, a visitor in Canada, secured a job offer with a positive LMIA but failed to disclose this when applying to extend his visitor visa, stating his only purpose was to visit family. The Immigration Division issued an exclusion order for misrepresentation.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the decision to issue an exclusion order was reasonable. The Court affirmed that withholding material facts, like an intention to work, on a visitor status application constitutes misrepresentation.
Nanda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 649
The applicant's permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class was refused because her foreign work experience did not align with the duties of the NOC code she declared (NOC 13100). This caused her CRS score to drop below the invitation threshold.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that the immigration officer's decision was reasonable. The Court held that the burden is entirely on the applicant to select the correct NOC, and officers are not obligated to search for a more suitable one or to provide a procedural fairness letter for this type of error.
D. Garcha Trucking Ltd v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2026 FC 637
A trucking company applied for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) to hire eight foreign truck drivers. The officer refused the application, doubting the genuineness of the job offers based on the number of trucks the company directly owned and insurance discrepancies, despite evidence of access to more trucks through a related company.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly analyze the evidence provided by the applicant and ignored crucial documents that addressed the stated concerns.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 644
The applicant, after residing in Canada for 12 years and working as a healthcare aide, had her Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) application for permanent residence refused. The immigration officer discounted her establishment in Canada, reasoning that developing skills, working, and making friends were just common activities for anyone in Canada for a long time.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that dismissing genuine acts of establishment as 'commonplace' is irrational, and the officer failed to transparently weigh the various H&C factors, rendering the decision unintelligible.
Brar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 631
The applicant sought permanent residence under the Agri-Food Pilot Program. The officer refused the application, concluding the applicant's employer was not primarily engaged in an eligible business activity (NAICS 1114), based on an 'open web-based search' that showed limited greenhouse coverage on the property.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with the applicant's evidence and did not provide a transparent or justified reason for preferring the results of a web search over the submitted documents.
