Famugbode v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 348
The applicant sought judicial review of a refused LMIA-exempt work permit and restoration application. The immigration officer denied the application because the applicant reused an LMIA-exemption number and compliance fee from a previous, already-refused application, failing to submit a new, valid offer of employment.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that once an LMIA-exemption number is used for an application that receives a decision, it cannot be reused for a subsequent application; a new application requires a new offer of employment and a new fee.
Bréus v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 344
The applicant, a Haitian citizen, sought judicial review of a decision that found her asylum claim ineligible. However, her court application was prepared and signed by an individual, Murat Damas, who was illegally practicing as a lawyer.
The Federal Court struck the judicial review application due to the severe irregularity of it being filed by an unauthorized representative. Crucially, the Court protected the innocent applicant by granting her 30 days to amend and re-file the application properly, while ordering the unauthorized representative to personally pay $1,260 in costs.
Sun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 336
The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to process a 2021 citizenship application. He alternatively sought judicial review of a Citizenship Judge's decision to refuse his 2022 application, arguing the 2021 date should have been used for physical presence calculations.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove his 2021 application was ever complete. As IRCC had notified him of deficiencies to which he never responded, no legal duty to process the application ever arose, making a mandamus order impossible.
Thalisetti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 332
The applicant was sponsored for permanent residence by his wife. An immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicant was an undeclared common-law partner when his wife became a permanent resident, making him ineligible under the family class.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to provide a coherent rationale and ignored significant evidence that contradicted the finding of a pre-existing common-law relationship.
Havenga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 328
The applicant, a self-employed artist from Namibia, sought permanent residence. IRCC refused her application after a Procedural Fairness Letter, finding she lacked the financial capacity to establish herself in Canada, as the only evidence submitted by the deadline was a bank account with ~$646 CAD.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It found no procedural unfairness, concluding the applicant failed to prove she had submitted crucial financial documents before the deadline and the officer's decision.
Boit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 325
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of his spousal sponsorship permanent residence application. The application was denied because he was found inadmissible to Canada for five years due to a prior finding of misrepresentation on a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application, where he failed to disclose a paid representative.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the applicant could not use the current judicial review to indirectly challenge the previous, unappealed misrepresentation finding, deeming it an improper 'collateral attack'.
Juan Luis Paiz Picado v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 321
An applicant from Nicaragua sought refugee protection, claiming a fear of persecution due to a perceived anti-government political opinion. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the claim, unconvinced that he was actually perceived as a dissident or targeted for that reason.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application. It ruled there was no procedural unfairness, as the RPD Member had clearly identified 'subjective fear' as an issue, which encompasses the overall risk assessment. The Court also found the RPD's decision on the merits was reasonable.
Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 320
An Indian citizen studying in the United Kingdom was refused a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit family in Canada. The immigration officer was not satisfied he would leave at the end of his stay, citing a lack of ties to the UK and ignoring significant evidence of family and financial ties to his home country, India.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable, ruling that it lacked a rational chain of analysis. The Court held that the officer failed to engage with or even acknowledge the substantial evidence of the applicant's ties to India, rendering the decision unjustified and unintelligible.
Wasal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 322
An IT professional from India was refused a work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The officer claimed she lacked significant family ties and could not perform the proposed work, despite evidence that she lived with her parents and had extensive qualifications.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to justify their conclusions and did not rationally analyze the complete evidentiary record provided by the applicant.
Ndikumana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 316
The applicants, four adopted children of a protected person in Canada, applied for permanent residence. Their application was refused because the immigration officer was not satisfied that a genuine parent-child relationship existed with their adoptive mother, as required by the regulations.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court affirmed that under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, a legal adoption is not sufficient on its own; applicants must also prove that the adoption created a genuine parent-child relationship.
