Bumanglag v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 232
The applicant, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for a work permit as a live-in housekeeper. The officer refused the application, believing the job was secretly for a childcare provider to circumvent immigration rules and that the offer was not genuine.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The officer failed to consider new evidence submitted by the applicant and relied on undisclosed concerns, breaching the duty of fairness.
Qaffari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 228
An Iranian national's study permit for a Master of Finance at McMaster University, supported by a conditional promotion offer from her employer, was refused. The officer claimed she failed to demonstrate the benefit of the program, leading to a judicial review at the Federal Court.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply ignore significant evidence, such as a detailed Statement of Purpose and a job promotion offer, that points to the clear benefits of the proposed study program.
Ahmad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 227
The applicant, a protected person from Pakistan, had his refugee status ceased by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) after he obtained Pakistani passports and travelled to Pakistan multiple times. The RPD concluded he had voluntarily re-availed himself of his home country's protection.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the RPD failed its heightened duty to provide a justified decision by ignoring critical evidence that could have rebutted the intent to reavail, such as the applicant's precautionary measures while in Pakistan.
Ju v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 236
An applicant for permanent residence and a work permit under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program was refused for misrepresentation. The officer's concerns about the genuineness of the job offer were based on financial documents received from the employer *after* the applicant's interview, which were never shared with the applicant.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding a clear breach of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that when new concerns arise after an interview based on evidence an applicant hasn't seen, IRCC must communicate those specific concerns and provide a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Shiri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 224
An Iranian professional soccer coach applied for permanent residence under the self-employed persons class to establish a soccer academy in Toronto. A visa officer refused the application, citing a lack of detail in the business plan, insufficient English skills, and a poorly defined contribution to Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the reasons provided lacked a rational chain of analysis, justification, and intelligibility, failing to explain why the applicant's evidence was insufficient.
Baryar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 222
A family from India sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds after a failed refugee claim. Their H&C application was refused based on errors, including the officer improperly using extrinsic evidence and conducting their own research, leading the family to face removal from Canada while seeking judicial review.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, as the government conceded the decision was unreasonable. Crucially, the Court ordered the H&C application to be expedited and remitted to a different officer for redetermination, mandating that the new decision must be completed *before* the Applicants can be removed from Canada.
Shahriari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 213
An Iranian citizen applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit a friend in Canada. The application was refused by a visa officer who was not satisfied the applicant would leave at the end of her stay, despite her providing significant evidence of her deep-rooted ties to Iran.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with or even acknowledge the material evidence of the applicant's strong economic and family ties to her home country.
Cheshmeahmadrezaee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 205
The applicant, an Iranian national, sought judicial review of a refused Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). He claimed he would face persecution in Iran as an atheist convert, but the immigration officer found his claim lacked credibility, citing multiple voluntary return trips to Iran.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court agreed that the applicant's repeated trips to Iran were inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution and undermined the credibility of his risk claim.
Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 212
The Applicant was refused a permanent resident visa under the spousal sponsorship class because her sponsor, who had recently become a permanent resident, failed to declare her in his own application. The officer issued a procedural fairness letter (PFL) but then refused the application before the 30-day response period had expired.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding a clear breach of the duty of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that issuing a decision before the applicant's time to respond had expired denied her a full and fair opportunity to be heard.
Zarate v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 133
The Applicant applied for an open work permit as the spouse of an international student. The visa officer refused the application because the Applicant's spouse had a letter of acceptance but was not yet enrolled or 'actively engaged in full-time studies' at the time of the decision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court clarified that a letter of acceptance is insufficient evidence; the spouse must be actively studying or at least enrolled to meet the eligibility requirements for a spousal open work permit.
