Islas Orrala v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2026 FC 280
A family from Mexico, repeatedly targeted by organized crime (CJNG) in various cities, sought judicial review of a refugee claim denial. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) had found they could safely relocate within Mexico to Merida, establishing a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that even with a history of persecution, an IFA can be viable if the specific motive for the targeting (in this case, the applicant's business ventures) would not exist in the new location.
Khani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 285
An Iranian applicant sought a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit his sister in Montreal. The visa officer refused the application, concluding the applicant would not leave Canada, primarily due to concerns about his financial situation, including unexplained lump-sum deposits just before applying.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that concerns about the sufficiency and availability of financial resources, particularly the unexplained accumulation of funds, were a sufficient basis on their own to justify the TRV refusal.
Ferreria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 267
The Applicant sponsored her parents under the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP). IRCC rejected the application, claiming the dependant father's resume was 'incomplete' but failed to provide any specific reasons for this finding.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the rejection unreasonable. The Court ruled that simply stating a document is 'incomplete' without explaining how or why is not transparent or intelligible, and therefore fails the reasonableness standard.
Li Rong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 266
An applicant for permanent residence under the Agri-Food Pilot Program had his application returned as incomplete because he failed to list his stepson on the main application form (IMM 0008). Despite including the child's details on a supplementary form, the officer deemed the application incomplete, and by the time the decision was made, the program had closed.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is entirely on the applicant to submit a fully completed application, and clear instructions on the forms must be followed precisely.
Ibrahimi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 265
The applicant, an Afghan citizen, applied for permanent residence under the One Year Window of Opportunity (OYW) program to join his wife, a resettled Afghan refugee. The officer refused the application, finding insufficient Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds to overcome the rule that he was not declared on his wife's application before she landed in Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to properly consider the severe impact of permanent family separation and wrongly engaged in a comparative hardship analysis, which is an incorrect legal standard.
Next Alutech Ltd. v. The Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada, 2026 FC 262
An employer, Next Alutech Ltd., had its Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) applications refused. The ESDC officer denied the applications solely because the company could not provide a specific attestation letter from its bank, despite submitting other financial evidence like bank statements and client invoices.
The Federal Court granted the company's application for judicial review. The Court found the officer fettered her discretion by rigidly demanding a single type of document and failing to consider the alternative financial proof submitted by the applicant, which constitutes a reviewable error.
Sepulveda v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 263
The Applicant, in a long-term common-law relationship with a Canadian citizen, faced removal to Chile. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) refused to defer her removal, dismissing her long history of attempting to regularize her status and the severe hardship she and her partner would face, focusing only on the newness of her most recent sponsorship application.
The Federal Court granted the Applicant's motion for a stay of removal. The judge found the CBSA officer's decision was unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the full context of the Applicant's multiple sponsorship applications and the specific, detailed evidence of hardship.
Begum v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 261
An elderly applicant from Fiji, in Canada for post-kidney transplant care, applied for permanent residence on H&C grounds. The immigration officer refused the application, claiming there was insufficient evidence that the required medical care was unavailable in Fiji, despite a doctor's letter stating so.
The Federal Court quashed the refusal, finding a breach of procedural fairness. The decision was based on the fact that key documents, including a second doctor's letter supporting the applicant's claim, were submitted by the applicant but were missing from the Certified Tribunal Record (CTR) before the court.
Khajir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 258
An Iranian family applied for permanent residence under the Québec Investor Program in 2018 and faced an unreasonable delay of over 72 months. They sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision, which was complicated by new security concerns arising from Canada's 2024 designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, related to the applicant's past compulsory military service.
The Federal Court allowed the application in part. It ordered the Minister to decide the applicant's admissibility within 90 days due to unexplained delays but stopped short of ordering a final decision on the entire application, citing a lack of evidence regarding the applicant's place in the quota-based processing queue. The Court ordered the government to inform the family of their queue position and will remain seized of the matter.
Chambers v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 257
The Applicant, facing removal to Jamaica, sought an emergency stay from the Federal Court. His spousal sponsorship application was refused due to inadmissibility, with the officer finding insufficient evidence of rehabilitation after a criminal conviction in the United States.
The Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the Applicant failed all three parts of the legal test. The judge ruled that the arguments for judicial review merely asked the Court to reweigh evidence, and the harms alleged—such as family separation and loss of in-land processing—were ordinary consequences of removal, not irreparable harm.
