A.A., B.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 366
A Palestinian couple in Gaza applied for Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) under the special public policy. After experiencing significant processing delays and living in dire conditions, they sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision from IRCC.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the prerequisites for a writ of mandamus were not met. The Court ruled that because one applicant's biometrics were outstanding and the applicants had caused a significant portion of the delay, it could not compel a final decision.
A.A. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 365
The Applicants, a Palestinian family of seven in Gaza, applied for temporary resident visas (TRVs) under a special public policy. Facing significant delays with their applications still pending, they sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Minister to finalize processing.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for a writ of mandamus. The Court found the Applicants failed to meet the necessary legal prerequisites, as five family members had not provided mandatory biometrics and one member's preliminary security screening was incomplete.
Mai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 363
The Applicant, who had lived in Canada without status for nearly 16 years, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The immigration officer refused the application, finding that her establishment in Canada and the best interests of her Canadian child did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required to overcome her lengthy illegal stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court upheld that a long period of illegal residence, even with a Canadian child, does not automatically create grounds for H&C relief and that the Court will not reweigh the factors considered by the officer.
Mana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 358
An Eritrean refugee applicant was refused permanent residence because an officer found it implausible she could obtain a passport. The officer, relying on personal 'experience' and 'logic,' speculated she had ties to the government and was not credible.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable, ruling that credibility findings cannot be based on pure conjecture or an officer's subjective memory of past interviews. The Court emphasized that decisions must be based on evidence in the record, not on unfounded speculation.
A.F.M.B. et al. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 357
The Applicants, 76 Palestinian nationals from Gaza, sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to process their web form submissions for a special Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) policy. IRCC failed to issue them the required unique reference codes before the policy's application cap was met and the program closed.
The Federal Court granted the application, ordering IRCC to assess the web forms despite the policy's expiry. The Court found the delay in processing was unreasonable and that IRCC could not rely on the program's closure—a situation it contributed to—to argue that a remedy would be futile.
Nabo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 356
A 45-year-old citizen of Ghana sought refugee protection based on persecution as a bisexual man. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied his claim, finding he failed to establish his identity due to fraudulent documents and inconsistent testimony.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that inconsistencies regarding the applicant's birth certificate and passport were central to the case, not peripheral, and justified the finding that he failed to prove his identity.
Gabayan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 355
An applicant sought judicial review after her visitor visa was refused due to misrepresentation, based on a boilerplate travel letter. The government conceded the refusal was unreasonable, but the case proceeded to a hearing over unresolved issues and a separate dispute over costs.
The Federal Court set aside the visa refusal and the five-year misrepresentation ban. In a rare move, despite granting the government's motion, the Court awarded costs against the government to sanction its lawyers for making serious, unfounded allegations of unethical conduct against the applicant's counsel.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 352
The Applicant's work permit restoration application was denied after his representative failed to pay a fee on a previous application. He argued the denial was a direct result of his representative's incompetence.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the Applicant failed to meet the high bar of proving a miscarriage of justice. The Court ruled he did not demonstrate the outcome would have been different or that having to reapply from abroad constituted substantial prejudice.
The appellant's initial motion in a judicial review was dismissed. She subsequently missed the 10-day deadline to file a motion for reconsideration and sought an extension of time from the Federal Court, which was denied.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower court's decision. The Court affirmed that granting an extension of time is a discretionary decision entitled to significant deference and that the appellant failed to meet the necessary legal test.
Betru v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 339
The applicant, an Italian citizen originally from Ethiopia, sought refugee protection in Canada, claiming she could not obtain protection in Italy from an abusive ex-partner with alleged mafia connections. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied her claim, finding that adequate state protection was available in Italy.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, upholding the RAD's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that the strong presumption of state protection in a democratic country like Italy cannot be rebutted by an applicant's subjective fear or belief that seeking help would be futile.
