Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 437
The applicant, a former international student, sought judicial review of a refusal of his Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP). An IRCC officer denied the application because the student failed to maintain full-time status during several academic semesters, despite the student providing medical evidence of mental health challenges.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed the long-standing legal principle that the requirement to maintain full-time status for PGWP eligibility is mandatory and that immigration officers have no discretion to waive this rule, even for compelling compassionate reasons.
Odor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 431
A Nigerian refugee claimant challenged the Refugee Appeal Division's (RAD) finding that he could safely relocate within Nigeria (an Internal Flight Alternative - IFA). The applicant claimed a group called the 'Unknown Gunmen' killed his father and sister and would find him anywhere, but the RAD was not convinced the sister's death was linked to his persecutors.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that while the applicant's testimony about events was credible, the RAD was not required to accept his speculative conclusions about who was responsible for his sister's death.
Golmohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 428
An Iranian mother and her two minor children applied for study permits and a temporary resident visa. An immigration officer refused the applications, claiming their study plans were too generic and their family ties to Iran were insufficient to ensure their departure from Canada.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with the detailed evidence the applicants provided regarding both their study plans and their significant family ties remaining in Iran, rendering the refusal unjustified.
Sangarappillai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 426
The applicant, a grandmother from Sri Lanka, sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds, citing her essential role in caring for her Canadian grandchildren and the hardship she would face upon returning home. Her application was refused due to insufficient supporting evidence.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the immigration officer's decision. The Court found that the officer's refusal was reasonable given that the applicant had provided only thin, generalized evidence for both hardship and the best interests of the children.
Biogénie Canada inc. v. Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments, 2026 CF 413
The applicant, Biogénie, filed for judicial review after the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) extended the deadline to respond to an Access to Information request by over eight years. This request was crucial for Biogénie's ongoing litigation against the CFIA, which had seized some of its products.
The Federal Court granted the application in part, finding the CFIA's and the Information Commissioner's proposed multi-year extensions unreasonable. The Court ordered the CFIA to provide a full response within six months, emphasizing that government bodies must provide rigorous, logical, and sustainable justifications for any significant delays.
Logan Somers-Edgar, et al. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 417
The Applicants sought judicial review after their permanent residence application under the Parents and Grandparents Program was refused for being incomplete. The refusal stemmed from their misunderstanding of a vague IRCC letter requesting proof of relationship between the 'Dependant' and 'Principal Applicant,' which they interpreted as a request for the son's birth certificate, not the parents' marriage certificate.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the process was tainted by procedural unfairness. The Court ruled that IRCC's correspondence was actively misleading to a lay person and that it is IRCC's responsibility to provide clear instructions that do not require legal expertise to understand.
Shergill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 419
An Indian mother and daughter were refused a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit family in Canada. The visa officer concluded their finances were insufficient and they lacked significant family ties outside Canada, making their visit inconsistent with a temporary stay.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to transparently engage with and justify ignoring contrary evidence on the record, such as the applicants' tax returns, business interests, and close family ties in India.
Ruchika v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 414
The applicant's permanent residence application under the Federal Skilled Trades Class was refused. The officer concluded she lacked the required two years of work experience, citing an inconsistency where she declared herself a 'housewife' on a prior TRV application.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with or provide reasons for rejecting crucial evidence—a detailed affidavit from the applicant explaining her work duties—that contradicted the officer's conclusion.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 422
The applicant, an international student, sought judicial review after an IRCC officer refused his Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) and restoration of status applications. The refusal was based on the fact that he had not maintained full-time student status for every academic session, specifically being part-time during the Winter 2019 and Fall 2023 terms.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that the requirement to maintain full-time status for PGWP eligibility is strict, and studying on a part-time basis is not equivalent to an 'authorized leave from studies,' which is a specific exception.
Ahmadzai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 412
The applicant and his mother were refused permanent residence under a public policy for Afghan nationals because they did not meet its conditions. Their request for an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds was also denied by the immigration officer.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, upholding the officer's decision based on the legal principle of judicial comity. The Court noted that an identical application from the applicant's mother, raising the same arguments, had already been dismissed in a prior Federal Court decision.
