HIJM v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 303
An applicant from Bangladesh, a member of the opposition BNP party, had his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) refused. The immigration officer dismissed the significance of Bangladeshi media reports that named him as a BNP activist, arguing the reports contained factual errors and misspelled his name.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's assessment unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer improperly focused on minor inaccuracies instead of the crucial question: how would these reports, true or not, be perceived by potential persecutors in Bangladesh and increase the applicant's risk.
Freddy Antonio Abril Ramos, et al. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 297
A Colombian family's asylum claim was refused by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) due to significant credibility issues. The RPD found major contradictions between the family's testimony about being threatened by one armed group and witness letters they submitted, which named a different group.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that significant contradictions and omissions in an applicant's own evidence can be fatal to the credibility of their claim, justifying a negative inference.
Muhammad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 290
The applicant, found inadmissible for misrepresentation after losing his refugee status, applied for permanent residence via spousal sponsorship with a request for H&C relief. The officer refused the application, finding the positive H&C factors did not outweigh the inadmissibility, and completely ignored an alternative request for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP).
The Federal Court upheld the officer's H&C assessment as reasonable but granted the judicial review because the officer failed to address the TRP request. The Court affirmed a long-standing legal principle that even a single-line request for a TRP in submissions is sufficient to trigger an officer's duty to consider it.
Rosbihaydee Del Valle Perez Nunez v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2026 CF 294
A Venezuelan mother and her two adult daughters sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision. The RAD found the daughters were excluded from protection because they had secured permanent resident status in Chile, and the mother did not face a personalized risk in Venezuela.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that having protection or status in a safe third country (Chile) disqualifies individuals from refugee protection in Canada and that generalized economic hardship does not meet the threshold for a valid refugee claim.
Ndigui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 281
The applicant sought a study permit but was refused and found inadmissible for five years due to misrepresentation. The visa officer concluded that the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) submitted was fraudulent after verifying it with the Designated Learning Institution (DLI).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The applicant had been given a chance to respond to the fraud allegations via a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) but failed to submit his response, and the officer was entitled to make a decision based on the evidence on file.
Misaghi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 283
An entrepreneur from Iran applied for a C11 work permit to establish a machinery repair business. The visa officer refused the application, citing concerns about the applicant's limited business ownership experience, financial stability, and whether the proposed business would create a 'significant economic benefit' for Canada in the short term.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is on the applicant to provide convincing evidence and that an officer can reasonably focus on the benefits generated during the work permit's validity period, not distant future projections.
Islas Orrala v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2026 FC 280
A family from Mexico, repeatedly targeted by organized crime (CJNG) in various cities, sought judicial review of a refugee claim denial. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) had found they could safely relocate within Mexico to Merida, establishing a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that even with a history of persecution, an IFA can be viable if the specific motive for the targeting (in this case, the applicant's business ventures) would not exist in the new location.
Khani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 285
An Iranian applicant sought a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit his sister in Montreal. The visa officer refused the application, concluding the applicant would not leave Canada, primarily due to concerns about his financial situation, including unexplained lump-sum deposits just before applying.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that concerns about the sufficiency and availability of financial resources, particularly the unexplained accumulation of funds, were a sufficient basis on their own to justify the TRV refusal.
Ferreria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 267
The Applicant sponsored her parents under the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP). IRCC rejected the application, claiming the dependant father's resume was 'incomplete' but failed to provide any specific reasons for this finding.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the rejection unreasonable. The Court ruled that simply stating a document is 'incomplete' without explaining how or why is not transparent or intelligible, and therefore fails the reasonableness standard.
Li Rong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 266
An applicant for permanent residence under the Agri-Food Pilot Program had his application returned as incomplete because he failed to list his stepson on the main application form (IMM 0008). Despite including the child's details on a supplementary form, the officer deemed the application incomplete, and by the time the decision was made, the program had closed.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is entirely on the applicant to submit a fully completed application, and clear instructions on the forms must be followed precisely.
