Mashhadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1326
The applicant, a Syrian refugee residing in Kuwait, sought a writ of mandamus to compel IRCC to finalize his sponsored refugee application, which had been pending for over seven years. Despite the application being 'in process,' IRCC failed to provide a timeline for completion or a satisfactory explanation for the extensive delays.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, compelling IRCC to complete processing within 30 days. The Court found the delay was unreasonable and rejected the Minister's generic justification of 'security screening' as insufficient without specific evidence.
Baneh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1314
An applicant for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class was refused for failing to provide a detailed employment letter to prove his foreign work experience. He argued the officer should have understood his experience from other documents provided.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, confirming the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is entirely on the applicant to provide complete and clear evidence, and officers have no duty to request missing critical information.
Daneshmand v. Canada (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship), 2026 FC 1311
The applicant, an established Iranian businessman, was refused a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit his brother in Vancouver. The officer questioned his finances due to unexplained lump-sum deposits and concluded that his incentives to remain in Canada outweighed his significant ties to Iran.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the conclusion regarding the applicant's incentives to remain in Canada was illogical and unjustified, given the strong evidence of his business, property, and family ties to his home country.
Elvia Raquel Parra v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1300
An applicant's Parent and Grandparent Program (PGP) application was refused as incomplete after her representative sent required documents to incorrect IRCC email addresses. IRCC then refused to reconsider the decision, arguing the applicant was responsible for the error.
The Federal Court found IRCC's refusal to reconsider was unreasonable. The Court affirmed that fairness and common sense require an officer to reconsider a decision when new evidence, confirming a material fact like a good-faith attempt to comply, is presented immediately after a refusal.
Nijjar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1299
An elderly, widowed applicant from India sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds, based on her deep establishment with her daughter's family in Canada and lack of support in India. An IRCC officer refused her application, finding her family-centered establishment, potential hardship, and ties to her grandchildren were given only 'modest weight'.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to meaningfully assess the evidence, unreasonably discounted the applicant's family-based establishment, made unsupported inferences about hardship, and used boilerplate language when considering the best interests of the children.
Amritpal Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1291
The Applicant sought judicial review of a refused open work permit application intended to join his wife in Canada. The immigration officer was not satisfied with the couple's financial stability, and the Applicant also challenged the officer's use of the Chinook tool.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision on financial grounds to be reasonable. The Court also firmly rejected the argument regarding the Chinook tool, as the evidence showed the tool was used *after* the officer had already made the decision.
Samira Rafiee v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2026 FC 1287
The applicant, applying for a visitor visa to join her husband in Canada, was found inadmissible for misrepresentation. An IRCC officer determined that a bank statement submitted with her application was fraudulent after verifying it directly with the bank.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found no breach of procedural fairness, ruling that the applicant failed to demonstrate how receiving more detailed evidence from the officer would have changed her response, particularly since her primary defence was that her immigration consultant had submitted the fraudulent document without her knowledge.
Shirouzhan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1280
An experienced Iranian entrepreneur applied for a C11 LMIA-exempt work permit to establish a coffee roasting business in Vancouver. The visa officer refused the application, unconvinced that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay, primarily because the business was permanent in nature and the application lacked a clear management transition plan.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that for a permanent business under a temporary permit like the C11, the onus is on the applicant to provide clear evidence of how they will transition out of the business to satisfy the temporary stay requirement.
Asghar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1260
The applicant, a protected person from Pakistan, sought judicial review of a decision that ceased her refugee status. The decision was made after it was discovered she had obtained a new Pakistani passport and travelled back to Pakistan on three separate occasions.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that travelling on a passport from one's country of nationality creates a strong presumption of re-availment of that country's protection, which the applicant failed to rebut.
Lali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1245
An Afghan national sponsored under the Group of Five (G5) program was refused permanent residence for lacking a formal Refugee Status Determination (RSD) document. After successfully challenging the initial refusal, the second decision issued by IRCC was nearly a verbatim copy of the first, leading to another judicial review.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the second refusal was procedurally unfair. The judge ruled that the officer's extensive copying of the previous decision showed a failure to conduct a fresh, independent assessment of the case, especially in light of new evidence submitted by the applicants.
