Thon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 558
Two applicants for Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) were found inadmissible for five years due to misrepresentation. The officer determined they used an undisclosed, compensated representative because they paid the application fees using the credit card of a travel agency, which also provided scanning services.
The Court dismissed the Applicants' motion to force the government to add documents to the court record regarding alleged secret investigative tools. The Court found the Applicants were on a 'fishing expedition' and had provided no evidence these tools were used, affirming that a judicial review must focus on the actual evidence before the decision-maker.
Arti Kataria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 553
An applicant for a work permit as a beautician, supported by a positive LMIA, was refused because the visa officer was not satisfied with the evidence of her work experience, which consisted primarily of a self-declared letter and an older certificate of experience.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that visa officers are entitled to require objective evidence, such as pay stubs or bank statements, to substantiate an applicant's claimed work experience and ability to perform the job.
Oyeyiola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 556
The applicant, a Nigerian citizen, sought judicial review of a refused Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application. The refusal was based on an officer's determination that his claimed hardship as a bisexual man was not credible (relying on a prior refugee decision) and that his establishment in Canada did not rise to the level of disproportionate hardship needed for an H&C exemption.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the immigration officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not the Court's role to reweigh evidence and that an officer can reasonably conclude that the challenges of returning to one's home country, while difficult, may not constitute the 'undue' or 'disproportionate' hardship required for H&C relief.
Naeemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 550
The applicant, a former Afghan diplomat and governor, sought a mandamus order to compel a decision on his spousal sponsorship PR application, filed in 2020. He argued the five-year delay was unreasonable, while IRCC cited a complex and necessary security screening.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. It ruled that while the delay was lengthy, it was not unreasonable because the government provided a satisfactory justification: serious and specific security concerns related to the applicant's background, evidenced by ongoing investigations and assessments.
Akaya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 546
A Nigerian applicant's study permit was refused because an officer was not satisfied with her financial support and doubted the authenticity of her relationship with her sponsoring brother without giving her a chance to respond.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer breached procedural fairness. The Court ruled that questioning a core fact, like a familial relationship central to the application, amounts to a credibility finding that must be put to the applicant for a response.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 539
An Indian citizen applied for an LMIA-based work permit as a long-haul truck driver. The visa officer refused the application, finding the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of English language proficiency as required by the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court held that the driver's training documents submitted by the applicant, which only showed raw test scores, were not objective evidence of his English language ability.
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.
