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.
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.
