Alnuaimi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 647
The Applicant, married to a Canadian citizen with two Canadian children, applied for permanent residence through overseas spousal sponsorship in April 2019. After waiting nearly seven years without a decision, he sought a writ of mandamus to compel IRCC to finalize his application.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, finding the seven-year delay unreasonable. The Court held that the Minister failed to provide a satisfactory justification, as relying on a vague "comprehensive security screening" without specific evidence is insufficient. IRCC was ordered to issue a decision within 90 days and pay the Applicant's costs.
Domingcil v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 648
The Applicant, a visitor in Canada, secured a job offer with a positive LMIA but failed to disclose this when applying to extend his visitor visa, stating his only purpose was to visit family. The Immigration Division issued an exclusion order for misrepresentation.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the decision to issue an exclusion order was reasonable. The Court affirmed that withholding material facts, like an intention to work, on a visitor status application constitutes misrepresentation.
Nanda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 649
The applicant's permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class was refused because her foreign work experience did not align with the duties of the NOC code she declared (NOC 13100). This caused her CRS score to drop below the invitation threshold.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that the immigration officer's decision was reasonable. The Court held that the burden is entirely on the applicant to select the correct NOC, and officers are not obligated to search for a more suitable one or to provide a procedural fairness letter for this type of error.
D. Garcha Trucking Ltd v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2026 FC 637
A trucking company applied for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) to hire eight foreign truck drivers. The officer refused the application, doubting the genuineness of the job offers based on the number of trucks the company directly owned and insurance discrepancies, despite evidence of access to more trucks through a related company.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to properly analyze the evidence provided by the applicant and ignored crucial documents that addressed the stated concerns.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 644
The applicant, after residing in Canada for 12 years and working as a healthcare aide, had her Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) application for permanent residence refused. The immigration officer discounted her establishment in Canada, reasoning that developing skills, working, and making friends were just common activities for anyone in Canada for a long time.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that dismissing genuine acts of establishment as 'commonplace' is irrational, and the officer failed to transparently weigh the various H&C factors, rendering the decision unintelligible.
Brar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 631
The applicant sought permanent residence under the Agri-Food Pilot Program. The officer refused the application, concluding the applicant's employer was not primarily engaged in an eligible business activity (NAICS 1114), based on an 'open web-based search' that showed limited greenhouse coverage on the property.
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 applicant's evidence and did not provide a transparent or justified reason for preferring the results of a web search over the submitted documents.
CHARANJIT KAUR v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 628
An applicant for permanent residence under the Home Child Care Provider Class had her application refused after an officer determined the offer of employment was not genuine. The officer was not convinced that a family genuinely required a full-time caregiver for their children, who were 16 and 18 years old by the time of the final decision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the burden was on the applicant to provide specific, convincing reasons why a 16.5-year-old youth would still require a full-time caregiver.
Military Police Complaints Commission v. Attorney General of Canada, 2026 FC 626
The Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) applied for judicial review, seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) to disclose materials related to conduct complaints. The central issue was whether the CFPM had a legal duty to disclose these documents to the MPCC.
The Federal Court dismissed the applications, finding no legal duty for the CFPM to disclose the materials. The Court ruled that internal investigations of conduct complaints by the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) are administrative in nature and do not constitute 'policing duties or functions' under the National Defence Act, thus falling outside the MPCC's jurisdiction.
Yilmaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 625
The applicants, who had been granted refugee protection from Türkiye, had their status ceased by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) after they returned to Türkiye on three separate occasions. They argued the trips were necessary and not truly voluntary.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the applicants had voluntarily reavailed themselves of their home country's protection, despite one of them being arrested upon return.
Sheikh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 618
The applicant's permanent residence application as a Convention Refugee Abroad was refused. The officer relied on uncited "open source" information to conclude that forcible recruitment by Al-Shabaab was not "common," and failed to address the applicant's personal experience of forcible recruitment.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision lacked justification and transparency. The Court ruled that relying on secret evidence, applying the wrong legal test for risk, and ignoring the applicant's key arguments were all fatal errors.
