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.
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.
