Hosne Ara Begum v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1035
A 75-year-old widow from Bangladesh, living in Canada on a super visa, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The immigration officer refused the application due to the minimal evidence provided to support her claims of establishment, family ties, and hardship.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's refusal was reasonable. The Court emphasized that the responsibility to provide sufficient, credible evidence rests entirely on the applicant, and a lack of evidence is fatal to an H&C case.
Sina Varasteh Nobari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1092
An Iranian national applied for a work permit as a construction labourer, supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The immigration officer refused the application, citing the applicant's failure to provide proof of English language proficiency, which was an express requirement of the LMIA.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that when an LMIA explicitly requires language proficiency, an applicant's failure to provide any evidence to that effect is a sufficient and standalone reason for refusal.
Jasmeet Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1095
The applicant, a former international student, became ineligible for a Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) after failing to maintain full-time student status. She applied for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to gain work experience, but an officer refused, finding she hadn't proven she would face hardship by returning to her home country to apply for a work permit.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a TRP requires demonstrating a 'compelling reason' to remain in Canada, which the applicant failed to do, especially since other options, like applying from abroad, were available.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1089
A 74-year-old widow from India applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds to remain with her son in Canada. The immigration officer refused her application, incorrectly finding she was self-sufficient and concluding she would have support in India based on undisclosed country condition reports.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review and sent the application back for redetermination. The Court found the officer committed multiple errors by mischaracterizing the legal purpose of H&C relief, making factual findings contrary to the evidence, and breaching the duty of fairness by relying on undisclosed evidence.
Seyyed Hossein Samiei v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1090
An Iranian citizen sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to finalize his study permit application after a 15-month delay, arguing the wait was unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. The Court found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the delay was unreasonable and ruled that IRCC's need to conduct security screening, evidenced by a request for military records, was a reasonable justification for the extended processing time.
Jin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1080
The Applicant, a Start-Up Visa (SUV) program applicant, sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his permanent residence application. The application was delayed due to new Ministerial Instructions that de-prioritized his file and the subsequent suspension of his designated entity.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for mandamus. The Court affirmed that Ministerial Instructions are a legitimate exercise of the Minister's authority under section 87.3 of the IRPA and, combined with the entity's suspension, provided a satisfactory justification for the processing delay.
Abdelrahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1076
The Applicants, a family of protected persons from Egypt, sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on their permanent residence application, which had been pending for four and a half years. The delay was attributed by IRCC to ongoing security screening related to the principal applicant's past political affiliations.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the delay unreasonable and lacking adequate justification. The Court ordered the Minister to render a final decision on the PR application within 120 days, reinforcing that vague references to security screening are not enough to justify prolonged delays.
Samadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1075
An Iranian entrepreneur applied for a work permit under the Start-Up Visa Program for her role in a Canadian-incorporated company. The immigration officer refused the application, concluding the job offer was not genuine and the business lacked significant ties and activities within Canada, despite being incorporated for two years.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a lack of tangible business activity in Canada, such as a Canadian bank account and meaningful local partnerships, was a rational basis for refusal.
Chhatrala v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1071
The applicant, a citizen of India, applied for a work permit under the Start-Up Visa Program to act as the CEO of a new wellness app company. An immigration officer refused the application, citing insufficient evidence to demonstrate the applicant had the ability to perform the work of a CEO.
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 sufficient evidence of their ability, and a Commitment Certificate from a designated organization does not override the officer's duty to assess the application.
Yao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1068
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on her permanent residence application under the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP), which had been processing for nearly five years—far exceeding the 11-month service standard. The Minister cited ongoing security screening and a provincial investigation as reasons for the delay.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the delay unreasonable. The Court ruled that the Minister's vague justifications were inadequate and ordered a final decision to be made within 90 days, reaffirming that the government cannot rely on blanket statements to defend prolonged inaction.
