Jackson v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 144
A permanent resident with a criminal conviction for forgery was found inadmissible for serious criminality by the Immigration Division (ID). He argued the resulting mandatory deportation order violated his Charter rights, but the ID issued the order.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that the applicant's Charter challenge was improperly directed. Because the ID had no legislative discretion to refrain from issuing a deportation order once inadmissibility was established, the proper target for the challenge was the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) itself, not the ID's administrative decision.
Fazlalizadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 142
The Applicant, an Iranian national, sought judicial review after his visitor visa was refused for a third time. Just before the hearing, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration conceded that the refusal decision was unreasonable and should be set aside.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, ordering the visa to be redetermined by a new officer on an expedited basis. However, the Court refused to award costs to the Applicant, finding no 'special reasons' to do so despite the repeated refusals.
Jaya Bista v. Canada (Minister of Immigration and Citizenship), 2026 FC 128
A 46-year-old professional from Nepal with an MBA was refused a study permit for a Digital Marketing program. The visa officer provided only boilerplate reasons, stating they were not satisfied she would leave Canada, without a clear justification in the GCMS notes.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the reasons provided were devoid of any real analysis, failed to be intelligible, and did not meet the minimum standard required for a justified decision.
Entezamfar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 141
The applicant sought permanent residence under the Start-up Business Class. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) refused the application, claiming the applicant failed to respond to a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) requesting additional documents.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the refusal was a breach of procedural fairness and unreasonable. The Court concluded that IRCC failed to provide any evidence that it had actually sent the PFL to the applicant's representative.
Alipourmonazah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 146
An Iranian national's work permit application under the Start-up Business Class Program was refused. The officer claimed the business plan was insufficient and that because the applicant's wife and son were accompanying him, his ties to his home country were weakened, making him unlikely to leave Canada.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer must provide a clear justification for why a business plan is deficient and cannot treat the presence of immediate family as a determinative negative factor without a balanced assessment of all ties.
Pitimbaye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 137
The applicant, a citizen of Chad, sought judicial review of a decision from the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) which found she was not a person in need of protection. The refusal was based on a severe credibility deficit after she submitted an amended Basis of Claim form just 13 days before her hearing, adding entirely new and central allegations of persecution that were absent from her initial submission.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that late, substantive additions to the core narrative of an asylum claim, as opposed to minor clarifications, can fatally undermine a claimant's credibility, especially when coupled with behaviour inconsistent with a subjective fear of persecution.
K.M.M. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 138
The applicant, a citizen of Mexico, sought judicial review of an officer's refusal to reconsider a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). He attempted to introduce new evidence related to mental health trauma, arguing he was unable to disclose it earlier due to shame and stigma.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that new evidence for a PRRA must be submitted while the decision is still pending, noting the applicant had nearly two years and legal representation to update his file before the decision was communicated.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 123
Elderly parents from India applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds while in Canada helping care for their grandchild. An immigration officer refused their application, finding they had insufficient establishment, strong ties to India, and would not face undue hardship.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court identified multiple, significant errors, including miscalculating the applicants' time in Canada, ignoring decades of their life in Greece, and applying incorrect legal tests for hardship.
Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 124
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of her Temporary Resident Visa (TRV). A Visa Officer concluded she lacked sufficient assets and that her visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay, even though this was a redetermination of a previously refused application.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the visa refusal. The Court accepted the government's concession that the officer's decision was unreasonable because it failed to engage with the evidence provided by the applicant and lacked sufficient detail to support its negative findings.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Yaghi, 2026 FC 112
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sought judicial review of a Citizenship Judge's decision granting Canadian citizenship. The Minister argued the judge failed to reasonably assess inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding the physical presence requirement, which the judge found was met by a narrow margin of 15 days.
The Federal Court dismissed the Minister's application, finding the Citizenship Judge's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the judge properly analyzed the evidence, questioned the applicant on key concerns, and was entitled to make a credibility finding, even in the face of some evidentiary shortcomings.
