Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 591
The Applicant sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on his study permit application, which was delayed for nearly three years. After IRCC refused the permit just before the hearing, the Applicant pursued legal costs, arguing the delay constituted bad faith.
The Federal Court dismissed the application and refused to award costs. The Court held that while the delay was long, it was justified by ongoing security screenings with partner agencies and did not meet the high threshold of 'special reasons' required for a costs award.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 585
An applicant for refugee protection from India had his claim refused by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), which found he had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA). The RAD refused to admit new evidence from the applicant's sister, deeming her affidavit not credible.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's credibility assessment of the new evidence was unreasonable. The Court determined this flawed assessment may have impacted the final decision on the IFA and sent the case back for redetermination.
Aljecera v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 583
The applicant, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for a temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit her mother whom she had not seen in decades. An IRCC officer refused the application, concluding she would not leave Canada, partly based on the erroneous finding that her only son lived in Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the visa refusal. The Court agreed with the government's concession that the officer's decision was unreasonable because it was based on a key factual error made without regard for the evidence, which clearly showed the applicant's son resided in the Philippines.
Gede v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 576
The applicant, an Ethiopian citizen with refugee status in South Africa, was refused permanent residence in Canada. The immigration officer concluded he had a 'durable solution' in South Africa, solely based on his formal refugee status, and denied his application.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer used generic, 'boilerplate' language and failed to meaningfully engage with the applicant's specific evidence of violence and hardship in South Africa.
Rithy Sim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 580
The applicant, a Cambodian entrepreneur, sought a work permit under the Start-Up Visa stream for his online resort-booking business. An immigration officer refused the application, finding the business plan was not viable due to its reliance on cryptocurrency, a lack of a clear staffing plan, and failure to prove that preliminary development steps had been completed.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not unreasonable for an officer to question a business plan's viability when it fails to address practical issues like paying Canadian taxes or provide concrete evidence of progress and staffing.
Prabha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 579
A 55-year-old widow from India applied for a Super Visa to visit her son in Canada. The immigration officer refused the application because her personal assets were deemed insufficient to prove she would leave Canada, without considering the financial strength of her son (the host).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that a Super Visa is a two-stage assessment. An applicant must first satisfy all standard requirements for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV), including their own financial sufficiency, before an officer will proceed to assess the Super Visa-specific criteria like the host's income.
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.
