Peligrino v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 341
The applicant, a caregiver whose work permit had expired, applied for a new LMIA-based work permit and simultaneously requested restoration of her status. An IRCC officer refused to process the application, citing Ministerial Instructions against processing new caregiver applications for those without a valid permit, but failed to address the restoration request.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that by failing to engage with or analyze how the applicant's request for restoration of status interacted with the Ministerial Instructions, the officer rendered a decision that was unintelligible.
Benison v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee, 2026 FCA 53
A group of RCMP members sought an order of mandamus to compel the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) to decide on their internal appeals, which had been delayed for several years. The Federal Court dismissed their application, but the members appealed that decision.
The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, ordering the ERC to issue its findings and recommendations within six months. The Court ruled that the delay was unreasonable and clarified that applicants do not need to prove 'significant prejudice' to obtain a mandamus order for delay.
Saffa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 343
An applicant sponsored her alleged son, but the application was refused due to doubts about their biological relationship. The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) upheld the refusal, disbelieving the applicant's evidence, including DNA results she provided and a birth certificate issued 18 years late.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding no breach of procedural fairness. The Court affirmed that a visa officer's internal note about potential DNA testing does not create a binding 'legitimate expectation' that a test will be ordered by the IAD.
Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 338
The applicant's permanent residency application was refused because her spouse, a high-ranking, 30-year veteran of China's Public Security Bureau (PSB), was found inadmissible. An immigration officer determined there were reasonable grounds to believe he was complicit in crimes against humanity due to the PSB's systematic use of torture during interrogations.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that complicity can be established based on a senior supervisory role and knowledge of widespread human rights abuses within an organization, even without proof of direct participation in specific acts.
Famugbode v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 348
The applicant sought judicial review of a refused LMIA-exempt work permit and restoration application. The immigration officer denied the application because the applicant reused an LMIA-exemption number and compliance fee from a previous, already-refused application, failing to submit a new, valid offer of employment.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that once an LMIA-exemption number is used for an application that receives a decision, it cannot be reused for a subsequent application; a new application requires a new offer of employment and a new fee.
Bréus v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 344
The applicant, a Haitian citizen, sought judicial review of a decision that found her asylum claim ineligible. However, her court application was prepared and signed by an individual, Murat Damas, who was illegally practicing as a lawyer.
The Federal Court struck the judicial review application due to the severe irregularity of it being filed by an unauthorized representative. Crucially, the Court protected the innocent applicant by granting her 30 days to amend and re-file the application properly, while ordering the unauthorized representative to personally pay $1,260 in costs.
Sun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 336
The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to process a 2021 citizenship application. He alternatively sought judicial review of a Citizenship Judge's decision to refuse his 2022 application, arguing the 2021 date should have been used for physical presence calculations.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove his 2021 application was ever complete. As IRCC had notified him of deficiencies to which he never responded, no legal duty to process the application ever arose, making a mandamus order impossible.
Thalisetti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 332
The applicant was sponsored for permanent residence by his wife. An immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicant was an undeclared common-law partner when his wife became a permanent resident, making him ineligible under the family class.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to provide a coherent rationale and ignored significant evidence that contradicted the finding of a pre-existing common-law relationship.
Havenga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 328
The applicant, a self-employed artist from Namibia, sought permanent residence. IRCC refused her application after a Procedural Fairness Letter, finding she lacked the financial capacity to establish herself in Canada, as the only evidence submitted by the deadline was a bank account with ~$646 CAD.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It found no procedural unfairness, concluding the applicant failed to prove she had submitted crucial financial documents before the deadline and the officer's decision.
Boit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 325
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of his spousal sponsorship permanent residence application. The application was denied because he was found inadmissible to Canada for five years due to a prior finding of misrepresentation on a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application, where he failed to disclose a paid representative.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the applicant could not use the current judicial review to indirectly challenge the previous, unappealed misrepresentation finding, deeming it an improper 'collateral attack'.
