Majidifard v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 538
Four co-founders of a start-up business were refused permanent residence under the Start-up Business Class. The immigration officer determined their Commitment Certificate was deficient for not detailing the business's ownership structure and then unreasonably refused to consider clarifying evidence submitted in response to a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL).
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable, quashed the refusals, and remitted the applications for redetermination. The Court held that it was illogical and unfair for an officer to request information via a PFL and then ignore the response by citing a strict timeline that was not applicable to clarifying details.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 544
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal for his spousal open work permit. The visa officer denied the application, claiming there was insufficient evidence of his spouse's employment, solely because bank statements showing salary deposits were not provided, despite a wealth of other official employment documents.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was manifestly unreasonable, unintelligible, and defied common sense. The Court set aside the refusal and ordered IRCC to redetermine the application within 30 days, finding the officer had ignored compelling evidence without justification.
Boothe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 530
A Canadian citizen sponsored her Nigerian husband, whom she met online. The sponsorship was refused, and the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) upheld the refusal, finding the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for immigration purposes, despite the couple having a child.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the IAD's decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that while the birth of a child is a positive factor, it does not outweigh significant evidence suggesting the marriage was for immigration benefits, such as the sponsored person's precarious immigration status and inconsistencies in the couple's testimony.
Mendoza Lescano v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 526
A Spanish/Ecuadorian family, well-established in Canada with two children (one Canadian-born), applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The immigration officer refused their application, taking issue with their level of establishment and unauthorized work history.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to apply an empathetic and compassionate lens, improperly discounted the family's significant establishment, and wrongly turned their self-sufficiency into a negative factor.
Yabiteigha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 525
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of her permanent residence application under the Home Support Worker Class. The officer refused the application because key documents were missing, despite the applicant's insistence that she had uploaded them and received an automated confirmation from IRCC.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming that the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court held that the burden of proof rests entirely on the applicant to ensure IRCC has successfully received all required documents, especially when the confirmation receipt is generic and does not list the specific files.
Njeru v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 524
The applicant, a citizen of Kenya, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused the application, finding insufficient establishment, hardship, and consideration for the best interests of her minor child remaining in Kenya.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer committed a reviewable error by completely failing to address clear evidence of the minor child's financial dependence on the applicant in Canada.
Durojaye v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 513
The applicant challenged a CBSA decision refusing to defer his removal to Nigeria. He had requested the deferral based on unassessed risks related to his sexuality, pending a Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the CBSA's refusal. However, it agreed with the government not to send the matter back for redetermination, as the applicant's subsequent H&C application on the same risks had already been decided.
Kaba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 518
The applicant, sponsored by his wife for permanent residence, had his application refused due to misrepresentation. An immigration officer found the applicant used conflicting identities—claiming to be from Côte d'Ivoire in a past refugee claim and from Mali in his current application—and could not establish his true nationality.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that providing conflicting identity documents and explanations constitutes a material misrepresentation, as identity is fundamental to the integrity of the immigration process.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 520
The applicant, a citizen of India, sought refugee protection based on threats from political rivals. After the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found he could safely relocate within India (an Internal Flight Alternative), he appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) with new evidence of recent threats to his family.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, upholding the RAD's decision. The Court affirmed that the RAD acted reasonably in rejecting the new evidence as not credible due to its 'extraordinary coincidence' in timing and other internal inconsistencies.
Dharamvir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 505
An Indian national sought judicial review after the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) rejected his asylum claim. The refusal was based on significant credibility issues, including questionable bank statements, crucial omissions in his application, and a lack of corroborating evidence for his story of police persecution.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an accumulation of inconsistencies and omissions regarding central elements of a claim is sufficient to undermine a claimant's credibility and justify a refusal.
