Hajatmand v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 572
The applicant, an Iranian citizen residing in the UAE, was refused a temporary resident visa (TRV). A key reason for the refusal was the officer's erroneous conclusion that she lacked significant family ties outside Canada because her husband and son would accompany her, ignoring clear evidence submitted by the applicant that her travel plans had changed.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court agreed with the government's own lawyers, who conceded that the officer's conclusion regarding the applicant's family ties could not be reconciled with the evidence on record. The application for judicial review was granted.
Marquiller v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 575
The applicant, a caregiver from the Philippines with 16 years of establishment in Canada, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused her application, finding that her positive establishment was 'offset' by her period of unauthorized work and speculating she could easily re-establish in the Philippines despite evidence to the contrary.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the decision lacked a coherent chain of reasoning, was unresponsive to key evidence (such as the scarcity of caregivers in Canada), and relied on unfounded assumptions about the applicant's ability to re-establish and the risk from her ex-husband.
Dhamu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 562
The applicant, a graduate from a Canadian college, applied for a Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP). An officer refused the application after she failed to provide a requested credential assessment for her previous foreign studies, citing a breach of her duty of candour under s. 16(1) of the IRPA.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court emphasized that an applicant must respond fully to an officer's concerns, including explaining why a requested document cannot be provided.
Monga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 564
A family of four from India had their permanent residence application on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds refused. The officer dismissed their claims of hardship, speculating they could afford private English schools in their proposed internal flight alternative (Kolkata) despite evidence of their inability to pay.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that an officer cannot ignore contrary evidence and base a decision on speculation and unfounded assumptions, especially when it concerns the best interests of a child.
Thon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 558
Two applicants for Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) were found inadmissible for five years due to misrepresentation. The officer determined they used an undisclosed, compensated representative because they paid the application fees using the credit card of a travel agency, which also provided scanning services.
The Court dismissed the Applicants' motion to force the government to add documents to the court record regarding alleged secret investigative tools. The Court found the Applicants were on a 'fishing expedition' and had provided no evidence these tools were used, affirming that a judicial review must focus on the actual evidence before the decision-maker.
Arti Kataria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 553
An applicant for a work permit as a beautician, supported by a positive LMIA, was refused because the visa officer was not satisfied with the evidence of her work experience, which consisted primarily of a self-declared letter and an older certificate of experience.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that visa officers are entitled to require objective evidence, such as pay stubs or bank statements, to substantiate an applicant's claimed work experience and ability to perform the job.
Oyeyiola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 556
The applicant, a Nigerian citizen, sought judicial review of a refused Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. The refusal was based on an officer's determination that his claimed hardship as a bisexual man was not credible (relying on a prior refugee decision) and that his establishment in Canada did not rise to the level of disproportionate hardship needed for an H&C exemption.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the immigration officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not the Court's role to reweigh evidence and that an officer can reasonably conclude that the challenges of returning to one's home country, while difficult, may not constitute the 'undue' or 'disproportionate' hardship required for H&C relief.
Naeemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 550
The applicant, a former Afghan diplomat and governor, sought a mandamus order to compel a decision on his spousal sponsorship PR application, filed in 2020. He argued the five-year delay was unreasonable, while IRCC cited a complex and necessary security screening.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. It ruled that while the delay was lengthy, it was not unreasonable because the government provided a satisfactory justification: serious and specific security concerns related to the applicant's background, evidenced by ongoing investigations and assessments.
Akaya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 546
A Nigerian applicant's study permit was refused because an officer was not satisfied with her financial support and doubted the authenticity of her relationship with her sponsoring brother without giving her a chance to respond.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer breached procedural fairness. The Court ruled that questioning a core fact, like a familial relationship central to the application, amounts to a credibility finding that must be put to the applicant for a response.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 539
An Indian citizen applied for an LMIA-based work permit as a long-haul truck driver. The visa officer refused the application, finding the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of English language proficiency as required by the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court held that the driver's training documents submitted by the applicant, which only showed raw test scores, were not objective evidence of his English language ability.
