Hassanein v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 720
The applicant, an Egyptian citizen of the Nubian minority, sought judicial review after an officer refused his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. The officer found that despite general evidence of discrimination against Nubians, the applicant failed to provide sufficient personalized evidence to demonstrate the specific hardship he would face if returned to Egypt.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that while general country conditions are relevant, an officer is entitled to assess where an applicant falls on the 'spectrum of hardship' and require personalized evidence to justify an exceptional H&C exemption.
Okogun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 722
The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds, partly based on the best interests of his then-unborn child. The immigration officer refused the application, incorrectly concluding that an unborn child has no legal interests to consider.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer must meaningfully consider a pregnancy and the future birth of a child as critical H&C factors, sending the application back for redetermination.
Okogun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 723
The applicant, a failed refugee claimant from Nigeria, sought a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), arguing risk from a gang and the government. A senior immigration officer refused the PRRA, finding he had only re-stated old risks and provided evidence irrelevant to a PRRA, such as his establishment in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed the clear legal distinction between a PRRA, which assesses forward-facing risk in one's home country, and an H&C application, which considers factors like establishment in Canada.
Adeniran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 725
A Nigerian business owner applied for a visitor visa to see his fiancée in Canada, providing significant evidence of his three businesses and family ties. An immigration officer refused the application, stating they were not satisfied he was financially established or would leave Canada, despite acknowledging these positive factors.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to provide a rational explanation for why unspecified 'concerns' outweighed the substantial evidence of the applicant's establishment in his home country.
Ekpe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 727
An applicant for a work permit was refused after an officer found a bank statement she submitted was fraudulent. In response to a procedural fairness letter, she provided a new statement and a convoluted explanation, but the officer maintained the misrepresentation finding, making her inadmissible.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that an applicant's response must prove the original document's authenticity, not simply substitute it with a new one.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 728
The applicant, whose permanent residence was revoked for misrepresentation, sought judicial review of a refused Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. The immigration officer found insufficient evidence of establishment and hardship, particularly concerning the best interests of her two Canadian-born children.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness. The Court affirmed that immigration officers have no duty to inform applicants that their evidence is insufficient and provide an opportunity to submit more.
Vasilev v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 716
Russian citizens applying for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) were refused after an immigration officer alleged they submitted a fraudulent bank statement. The officer concluded this amounted to misrepresentation, making them inadmissible to Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding a breach of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that the Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) sent to the applicants was too general, failing to specify the exact concern (an altered balance), thus denying them a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Beygmohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 712
The applicant, an Iranian citizen, applied for a spousal open work permit. She inadvertently failed to upload key documents proving her spouse's employment in Canada. The immigration officer refused the application, finding she had not satisfied the requirements.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It affirmed that immigration officers have no obligation to notify an applicant about missing documents or to request additional information, even if the application references those documents. The onus is entirely on the applicant to submit a complete file.
Khani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 703
An Iranian national's work permit application was refused because an officer found her financial situation, and that of her spouse in Canada, insufficient to support her family and ensure her departure. The officer specifically noted an unexplained large deposit and that the spouse's income fell below the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers can assess an applicant's entire financial picture, including the source of funds and using LICO as a benchmark, and are not required to give applicants an opportunity to address deficiencies in their evidence.
Thampirasa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 707
The applicant, a Tamil male from Sri Lanka, applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) based on his personal history of torture and detention. The PRRA Officer refused the application, disregarding the applicant's sworn affidavit and selectively using country condition reports to downplay the risks.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that an officer cannot simply ignore an applicant's sworn personal testimony or 'cherry-pick' documentary evidence to support a refusal.
