Torres Ponce v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 406
A refugee claimant from Mexico alleged a fear of persecution from the Los Zetas cartel and his father-in-law. His claim was refused by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) due to significant omissions and inconsistencies, particularly new core allegations introduced very late in the process.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's negative credibility assessment was reasonable. The Court affirmed that making significant, late-stage amendments to central aspects of a claim can justify a decision-maker drawing a negative inference about the claimant's truthfulness.
Batchato v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 398
An applicant from Cameroon sought permanent residence as a Federal Skilled Worker. His application was refused because the immigration officer was not satisfied that his claimed work experience was genuine, primarily due to his failure to provide requested proof of registration with Cameroon's national social security fund (CNPS).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is on the applicant to provide all requested evidence to prove their eligibility, and the officer was justified in refusing the application due to insufficient proof of authentic employment.
Shaterhosseini v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 391
The applicant, a citizen of Iran, was denied a temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit his common-law spouse and children in Vancouver. The immigration officer determined that the applicant's significant family ties in Canada created a strong 'pull' factor, raising doubts that he would leave at the end of his stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that even if an applicant has family ties in their home country, the presence of immediate family in Canada can be a rational basis for a visa refusal.
Farajollahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 390
An accomplished plastic surgeon from Iran and his minor daughter were refused Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) to visit family in Canada. The officer concluded they would not leave, citing family ties in Canada and dismissing their significant ties to Iran.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable and unintelligible. The Court ruled the officer completely failed to justify their conclusions or engage with critical evidence, such as the applicants' strong professional lives, family, and past travel compliance.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 389
A 73-year-old widowed applicant from India sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds, based on her ties to her son in Canada. The immigration officer refused the application, finding her establishment and potential hardship were insufficient to grant an exception.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court confirmed that while the applicant's circumstances were sympathetic, they represented the 'inevitable consequences of immigration' and did not rise to the level of hardship required for H&C relief.
Paez Munoz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 373
A family from Colombia sought refugee protection, claiming fear of a paramilitary group over an unpaid loan. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected their claims, citing major inconsistencies and a lack of credibility in their evolving story.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the RPD's negative credibility findings were reasonable. The Court upheld the principle that significant, late-disclosed information and inconsistencies between interviews and formal submissions can fatally undermine a claim.
Alademomi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 380
A Nigerian applicant for a Canadian study permit was refused on the basis of insufficient funds. The visa officer failed to properly account for the applicant's Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC), overlooking the portion of funds that would be immediately available upon arrival in Canada.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and allowed the judicial review. The Court ruled that by misapprehending the structure of the GIC and failing to consider all available funds, the officer's reasoning was flawed and lacked justification.
Casa Manila Inc. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada, 2026 FC 377
A restaurant, Casa Manila Inc., challenged a decision that found it non-compliant with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) for failing to pay proper wages, overtime, and quarantine pay. The employer was fined $71,000 and banned from using the program for one year.
The Federal Court dismissed the employer's application for judicial review, finding the government's decision was reasonable and the process was procedurally fair. The court affirmed that employers cannot unilaterally change wage structures or substitute benefits like housing for wages without approval.
Rezaie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 369
Four applicants from Iran sought judicial review of a refusal of their permanent residence application under the Start-Up Business Class (SUBC). The officer was not satisfied that an essential part of the business operations would be conducted in Canada or that the applicants intended to actively manage it from within Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that while the law allows for an 'intention' to establish a business, applicants must provide credible evidence of concrete steps taken, which was lacking in this case.
Verma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 371
The applicant, a student from India, had her study permit extension refused after being found non-compliant with study conditions for three years. The officer was not satisfied she was a genuine temporary resident who was actively pursuing her studies.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that an immigration officer is not required to consider every possible legal argument if the applicant fails to raise it. The Court found the decision reasonable because the applicant never asked the officer to consider a specific regulation (s. 221 of IRPR) that could have potentially helped her case.
