Emrani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 705
An Afghan woman, a former politician and women's rights activist, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. An IRCC officer refused her application, finding insufficient hardship to warrant an in-Canada exemption.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to properly analyze the severe, personalized risks the applicant would face if forced to return to Afghanistan, and incorrectly used the Temporary Suspension of Removals (TSR) to minimize this hardship.
Siddiqui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 683
A 66-year-old retired citizen of Pakistan was refused a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit his family in Canada. An IRCC officer was not satisfied he would leave at the end of his stay, citing weak ties to his home country.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer made significant errors by improperly speculating about the applicant's wife, overlooking evidence of his sister, and ignoring his property ownership in Pakistan.
Pjetrushi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 673
The applicant was found inadmissible for serious criminality committed outside Canada. His application for criminal rehabilitation was refused by a Minister's delegate, who concluded he showed a 'pattern of disregarding the law' based on his past crimes and his use of fraudulent documents to flee Albania and enter Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the delegate's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly consider the applicant's explanation for using false documents—to escape a blood feud—and wrongly dismissed all supporting character evidence as merely 'self-serving'.
Mohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 682
An Iranian citizen, whose parents reside in Canada on work permits, applied for an open work permit to join them. The officer refused the application, finding she had not demonstrated she would leave Canada, citing a lack of family ties outside Canada and insufficient financial establishment in Iran.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the reasons provided were not intelligible or transparent, as they failed to engage with the applicant's evidence of financial and family ties to Iran and did not properly consider the purpose of the application—family reunification.
Kinfack v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 668
A mother and her adult son, who was receiving life-saving cancer treatment in Canada, applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused their application, concluding that adequate medical care was available in their home country of Cameroon, despite clear medical evidence to the contrary.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer made a critical error by selectively interpreting a doctor's letter, ignoring its substantive content and focusing on a standard closing phrase to justify the refusal.
Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 659
The applicant, a taxi driver from India with no agricultural experience, applied for a work permit as a general farm worker in Canada. The immigration officer refused the application, doubting his ability to perform the work.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It confirmed that visa officers have the discretion to independently assess an applicant's ability to do the job, even if the position's official requirements (NOC/LMIA) do not specify any prior experience.
Rafique v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 658
An applicant from Pakistan, whose third LMIA-supported work permit was refused, sought judicial review. The refusal was based on the officer's concern that the applicant would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.
The Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the refusal. However, it denied the applicant's request for a directed verdict (an order to issue the permit), reinforcing that remitting a case for redetermination by a new officer is the standard, except in the clearest of circumstances.
Zavala v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 660
A family from Mexico, who had been living without legal status in the United States since 2019, applied for a Canadian work permit. The immigration officer refused the application, concluding the family would not leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay due to their history of non-compliance with US immigration laws.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an applicant's intentional non-compliance with another country's immigration laws is a significant and justifiable indicator that they may not comply with Canada's laws.
Roushenas et al. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 664
An Iranian couple applied for a work permit under the International Mobility Program for an intra-company transfer to a newly incorporated Canadian start-up. The immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicants had not demonstrated that the Canadian company was a 'legitimate and continuing establishment' of a multinational enterprise.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that for a start-up subsidiary, applicants must provide sufficient evidence of meaningful steps taken to establish the business beyond simple incorporation.
Aghajari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 661
An Iranian citizen, employed at her father's company, applied for a study permit for an MBA. The officer refused the application, doubting the value of the study plan and the applicant's intent to leave Canada, and noted her university acceptance was conditional on completing pre-requisite courses.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers have a limited duty to provide reasons and that concerns about a vague study plan and a conditional acceptance letter were sufficient to justify the refusal.
