Baltazar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 742
The applicant, a Filipino business owner with a bachelor's degree, applied for a work permit as a kitchen helper. The IRCC officer refused the application, finding the job was inconsistent with the applicant's qualifications and that he 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 simply assume a career change is a negative factor without explaining its relevance and must properly weigh all evidence of ties to the home country.
Kahih v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 745
The applicant, a victim of severe domestic abuse, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused her request, raising 'discrepancies' and failing to give proper weight to her experience of family violence as a key H&C factor.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to recognize that domestic abuse is, in and of itself, a significant compassionate factor that must be properly weighed in the H&C assessment.
Makhija v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 743
An applicant for a study permit was found inadmissible for misrepresentation after a fraudulent financial document (GIC) was submitted with his application. The applicant claimed he was a victim of fraud by an unlicensed immigration consultant but failed to respond to the officer's procedural fairness letter (PFL).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an applicant is ultimately responsible for their application, and the failure to respond to the PFL meant the officer had no evidence of the alleged fraud to consider.
Djatsa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 729
The applicant, a self-represented individual from Cameroon, sought judicial review of a study permit refusal. The visa officer was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada after his studies, citing limited employment prospects and insufficient financial resources.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, striking the applicant's record as an abuse of process. The Court found that the applicant's submissions relied entirely on non-existent, 'hallucinated' case law, likely generated by AI without disclosure or verification, which undermines the integrity of the justice system.
Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 738
The applicant, found inadmissible on security grounds, had his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) refused. The immigration officer found no risk of harm and completely ignored the applicant's request to hold the PRRA in abeyance pending a decision on his application for Ministerial relief.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the risk assessment was flawed and, crucially, that it was a reviewable error for the officer to ignore the applicant's request for an abeyance, ordering the matter be sent back for redetermination.
Harkat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 719
The applicant, a Convention refugee found inadmissible on security grounds, challenged a decision by the Minister's delegate. The delegate concluded that the applicant should be deported to Algeria, stripping him of protection against non-refoulement, based on the 'nature and severity' of his alleged complicity in terrorist acts.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, setting aside the delegate's decision as unreasonable. The Court found that the delegate improperly conflated the test for inadmissibility with the much stricter test required to prove culpable complicity in specific criminal acts.
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.
