Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 181
The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his Ontario Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) permanent residence application. The application had been pending for approximately 45 months, far exceeding the 21-month average, due to a prolonged and unexplained security screening.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the delay unreasonable and IRCC's justification insufficient. The Court ordered IRCC to process and determine the applicant's permanent residency application within 90 days, reinforcing that vague assertions of ongoing security checks do not excuse excessive delays.
Taryan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 169
An Iranian citizen with significant IT experience was refused a study permit for a computing science degree. The IRCC officer concluded his motivation was not temporary, ignoring evidence of a conditional job promotion and a detailed study plan.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply ignore an applicant's detailed evidence and substitute their own assumptions about educational necessity to justify a refusal.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 173
The applicant, on maintained status from a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP), applied for a study permit and to restore her status as a student. The immigration officer refused, stating that regulations do not permit restoring one type of temporary residence status (worker) to another (student).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed the legal principle that an individual can only apply to restore the specific temporary resident status they held immediately before losing it.
Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 174
A Bangladeshi citizen claimed refugee protection from an extremist group but had lived without status in the United States for over 13 years before coming to Canada. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied his claim, finding he had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Bangladesh and his failure to claim asylum in the US negatively impacted his credibility.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that a prolonged failure to seek asylum in a safe country can reasonably demonstrate an absence of fear, and upheld the RAD's assessment that the persecutors lacked the motivation to find the applicant in an IFA.
Bhargava v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 165
An entrepreneur applied for a Start-Up Visa work permit. An officer refused the application, finding the applicant's temporary residence in Qatar and limited ties to his country of citizenship meant he would not leave Canada, and that he failed to demonstrate 'significant benefit'.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to consider the applicant's 20-year history of immigration compliance in multiple countries and did not properly analyze the evidence of the business's significant benefit to Canada.
Ileen Sarai Aviles Cerda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 161
A mother and her 12-year-old son with special needs were refused permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The applicants challenged the decision, arguing the immigration officer's assessment of the son's best interests was legally flawed.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court ruled that a proper 'Best Interests of the Child' (BIOC) analysis requires a clear weighing of factors and a meaningful comparison of outcomes, both of which were absent.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Sosa Orantes, 2026 FC 159
The Government of Canada sought to revoke the citizenship of Jorge Vinicio Sosa Orantes, a former Guatemalan special forces officer. The government alleged he obtained permanent residence and citizenship by fraud, concealing his military past and his involvement in the 1982 Las Dos Erres massacre.
The Federal Court granted the government's request, revoking Mr. Sosa's citizenship and declaring him inadmissible to Canada. The Court found overwhelming evidence that he committed fraud by creating a false identity as a factory worker to hide his military service and that there were reasonable grounds to believe he committed crimes against humanity.
Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 155
An applicant for a work permit under the Start-Up Visa program was found inadmissible for misrepresentation due to an inaccurate statement about his university degree in a venture report. This finding was made despite other documents in the same application, including his CV and application forms, correctly stating his educational history.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to consider the entire application package and improperly focused on a single piece of incorrect information while ignoring contradictory evidence that supported the applicant's true qualifications.
Azad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 158
The applicant sought a C11 entrepreneur work permit to launch a healthcare IT company in Canada. An immigration officer refused the application, finding the business plan lacked substance and doubting the applicant would leave Canada, as his UAE residency would expire during his stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court reinforced that applicants bear a heavy burden to prove their business will create a 'significant benefit' to Canada and that officers are owed a high degree of deference in assessing business plans.
Hassan Tayarah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 148
The applicant sought to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Shortly after, the Minister initiated revocation proceedings for misrepresentation in his original citizenship application, which automatically suspended the renunciation process. The applicant sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Minister to finalize his renunciation.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. The Court affirmed that under the Citizenship Act, issuing a notice of revocation lawfully suspends any pending renunciation application. As the suspension was valid, the Minister had no legal duty to process the renunciation, and the conditions for mandamus were not met.
