Farukh Amin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 252
The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan living in Canada since 2016, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused his application, finding insufficient evidence of his establishment in Canada and the best interests of his children in Pakistan.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that the officer erred by focusing on missing tax documents instead of weighing the strong employer evidence provided, and by failing to engage with the applicant's specific evidence on educational barriers for his children.
Walker v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 256
Prospective adoptive parents, a same-sex couple unable to adopt a child in Indonesia due to local laws, sought a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to bring the child to Canada. The immigration officer refused the TRP, determining that the child's best interests required assessment through a proper permanent immigration process to safeguard against risks like child trafficking.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not an error for an officer to prefer a more robust immigration pathway with built-in safeguards, such as the sponsorship/H&C process, over a TRP in complex intercountry adoption cases.
Yim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 254
The applicant, a Start-Up Visa (SUV) program candidate, sought a mandamus order to compel a decision on his permanent residence application, which had been pending for over 46 months. Despite passing all assessments, his file was delayed due to new processing priorities set by the Minister.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the significant delay was justified. The Court affirmed that Ministerial Instructions, which prioritize certain applications to manage backlogs and meet immigration goals, provide a satisfactory reason for the delay, even for applications filed years earlier.
Zahra Akbar Pour Shandiz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 255
The applicant, with a law degree and management experience in her family's business, was refused a study permit for an MBA program. The officer found her motivation unreasonable and the employer's letter supporting a promotion lacked detail, concluding she might not leave Canada.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. Justice Thorne ruled that there was a clear lack of logic in questioning the applicant's motivation and the officer failed to consider crucial evidence, such as the applicant's detailed study plan, which addressed the very concerns raised.
Jabeen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 250
A Canadian citizen sponsored his wife and adult son, who were living abroad. The immigration officer refused the family sponsorship, partly on the basis that the family could reunite in their country of citizenship (India) or where the wife was residing (Saudi Arabia), and found insufficient H&C grounds.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision for the wife unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer improperly ignored a key objective of Canadian immigration law—to reunite families *in Canada*—by focusing on the possibility of reunification in other countries.
Rosalba Bouczan Lucena v. The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, 2026 FC 244
The applicant, a citizen of Mexico and a failed refugee claimant, sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The immigration officer refused the application, finding her establishment and family ties in Canada were tenuous and did not warrant a special exemption.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court concluded that the officer improperly downplayed the applicant's establishment in Canada, and this flawed approach negatively affected the assessment of the potential hardship she would face if removed.
Zheng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 245
The Applicant sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on his Start-Up Visa (SUV) application, which had been processing for five years. Before the hearing, the Minister suspended the Designated Entity that supported the application, pausing all related files.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's legal authority to pause processing during a Designated Entity's suspension negates the public legal duty to act. This duty is a mandatory prerequisite for a mandamus order.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Pavic, 2026 FC 233
The Government of Canada initiated proceedings to revoke the citizenship of an individual, alleging it was obtained through false representation and complicity in war crimes. The individual sought to dismiss the case, arguing the government's action was barred by a six-year limitation period.
The Federal Court dismissed the individual's motion, confirming that no limitation period applies to actions to revoke citizenship under the Citizenship Act. The Court determined that the revocation process is a unique statutory procedure, not a traditional "cause of action" subject to time limits.
Zuniga Rojas v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 237
The Applicants were referred for an admissibility hearing on grounds of organized criminality. The Minister's Delegate made the referral without providing the Applicants any notice or opportunity to make submissions, which they argued was a breach of procedural fairness.
The Federal Court found a clear breach of procedural fairness but dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court concluded that the outcome would have been the same even if submissions were made, as the Delegate's role in this context is a screening function and not to assess complex humanitarian and compassionate factors.
Pham v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 225
A Vietnamese national and her three children applied for work permits, study permits, and a TRV to join her husband in Canada. The immigration officer refused their applications, unconvinced they had sufficient funds or that they would leave Canada at the end of their stay.
The Federal Court denied the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers can scrutinize the source and stability of an applicant's funds, even for spousal open work permits, as part of the overall assessment of temporary intent.
