Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1123
The principal applicant's spousal work permit and her children's study permits were refused. An immigration officer concluded there was insufficient evidence of her spouse's qualifying employment in Canada.
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 substantial volume of evidence provided, which directly contradicted the finding of 'insufficiency'.
Hussini v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1122
The Applicant, a Syrian refugee who applied for citizenship as a child in 2019, faced an unexplained delay of over seven years. After he filed a mandamus application to compel a decision, IRCC granted his citizenship, rendering the application moot. The government then moved to dismiss the case entirely.
While the mandamus application was dismissed as moot, the Federal Court ordered the government to pay the Applicant $2,000 in costs. The Court found that the extensive and unjustified delay constituted 'special reasons' to award costs, even though the primary legal issue was resolved.
Harjot Singh Gill v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2026 FC 1121
The applicant, Mr. Gill, sought judicial review of a refused Temporary Resident Visa (TRV). While the judicial review was ongoing, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) mistakenly reopened and issued a new decision on his application.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review as moot. The Court found that by reopening the file and issuing a new decision, IRCC had already provided the remedy sought—a reconsideration—thus eliminating the live controversy before the Court.
Mansoursharifloo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1111
The Applicant, an Iranian citizen with a background in mechanical engineering and work at a nuclear power plant, sought a mandamus order to compel a decision on his visitor visa application. The application had been pending for over 900 days, far exceeding the posted processing times, with no meaningful updates from IRCC.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the delay unreasonable and unjustified. The Court ordered the Minister to render a final decision on the visitor visa application within 60 days, reinforcing that even complex security screenings do not give IRCC 'carte blanche' for indefinite delays.
Khurana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1120
A family applied for temporary resident visas to visit Canada. Their applications were refused by an immigration officer who found their financial situation insufficient and their family ties outside of Canada to be insignificant.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to properly assess the detailed financial documents and ignored key arguments about the applicants' family ties in their home country.
Shoaie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1114
The applicant sought judicial review of a refused work permit under the Start-Up Visa Class. An officer denied the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate urgent business reasons requiring his presence in Canada before his permanent residence application was finalized.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a start-up business plan, while necessary, is not in itself sufficient proof of an urgent business need for the applicant's immediate presence in Canada.
Mahziar Raeisi Ardali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1109
An Iranian citizen's visitor visa application to visit his sister was refused. The officer claimed an inability to confirm the 'provenance of the funds' because transaction summaries were not provided, despite the sister submitting income statements from her optometry practice.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to engage with key evidence—the sister's income statements—which demonstrated the source of her funds, and could not simply dismiss her financial support for lack of a transaction summary.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1107
The applicant sought judicial review after his Start-Up Business Class work permit was refused. An officer denied the application primarily because the applicant's mandatory Letter of Support from a designated organization had expired before his new application was received by IRCC.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision entirely reasonable. The Court confirmed that the requirement to submit a valid, unexpired Letter of Support at the time of application is a strict, mandatory eligibility criterion that cannot be waived or substituted.
MD Masudur Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1106
The applicant, a Quebec Investor Class candidate, had his permanent residence application refused. The immigration officer was not satisfied that he genuinely intended to reside in Quebec, citing a lack of detailed settlement plans, minimal research, and last-minute efforts made only after being prompted.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court found the applicant failed to provide sufficient, credible evidence to demonstrate a genuine intention to relocate to and establish a life in Quebec.
Gurinderpal Singh Sidhu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 1101
The applicant, a closed work permit holder authorized to work at a specific convenience store, started a janitorial services business with his cousin. The Immigration Division (ID) found him inadmissible to Canada for performing unauthorized work that competed in the Canadian labour market.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the ID's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that unpaid activities for a business, such as being the primary contact and advertising services, can constitute 'work' if they compete with Canadian workers, even if the business is not yet profitable.
