Ibrahimi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 265
The applicant, an Afghan citizen, applied for permanent residence under the One Year Window of Opportunity (OYW) program to join his wife, a resettled Afghan refugee. The officer refused the application, finding insufficient Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds to overcome the rule that he was not declared on his wife's application before she landed in Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to properly consider the severe impact of permanent family separation and wrongly engaged in a comparative hardship analysis, which is an incorrect legal standard.
Next Alutech Ltd. v. The Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada, 2026 FC 262
An employer, Next Alutech Ltd., had its Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) applications refused. The ESDC officer denied the applications solely because the company could not provide a specific attestation letter from its bank, despite submitting other financial evidence like bank statements and client invoices.
The Federal Court granted the company's application for judicial review. The Court found the officer fettered her discretion by rigidly demanding a single type of document and failing to consider the alternative financial proof submitted by the applicant, which constitutes a reviewable error.
Sepulveda v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 263
The Applicant, in a long-term common-law relationship with a Canadian citizen, faced removal to Chile. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) refused to defer her removal, dismissing her long history of attempting to regularize her status and the severe hardship she and her partner would face, focusing only on the newness of her most recent sponsorship application.
The Federal Court granted the Applicant's motion for a stay of removal. The judge found the CBSA officer's decision was unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the full context of the Applicant's multiple sponsorship applications and the specific, detailed evidence of hardship.
Begum v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 261
An elderly applicant from Fiji, in Canada for post-kidney transplant care, applied for permanent residence on H&C grounds. The immigration officer refused the application, claiming there was insufficient evidence that the required medical care was unavailable in Fiji, despite a doctor's letter stating so.
The Federal Court quashed the refusal, finding a breach of procedural fairness. The decision was based on the fact that key documents, including a second doctor's letter supporting the applicant's claim, were submitted by the applicant but were missing from the Certified Tribunal Record (CTR) before the court.
Khajir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 258
An Iranian family applied for permanent residence under the Québec Investor Program in 2018 and faced an unreasonable delay of over 72 months. They sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision, which was complicated by new security concerns arising from Canada's 2024 designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, related to the applicant's past compulsory military service.
The Federal Court allowed the application in part. It ordered the Minister to decide the applicant's admissibility within 90 days due to unexplained delays but stopped short of ordering a final decision on the entire application, citing a lack of evidence regarding the applicant's place in the quota-based processing queue. The Court ordered the government to inform the family of their queue position and will remain seized of the matter.
Chambers v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 257
The Applicant, facing removal to Jamaica, sought an emergency stay from the Federal Court. His spousal sponsorship application was refused due to inadmissibility, with the officer finding insufficient evidence of rehabilitation after a criminal conviction in the United States.
The Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the Applicant failed all three parts of the legal test. The judge ruled that the arguments for judicial review merely asked the Court to reweigh evidence, and the harms alleged—such as family separation and loss of in-land processing—were ordinary consequences of removal, not irreparable harm.
Farukh Amin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 252
The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan living in Canada since 2016, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused his application, finding insufficient evidence of his establishment in Canada and the best interests of his children in Pakistan.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that the officer erred by focusing on missing tax documents instead of weighing the strong employer evidence provided, and by failing to engage with the applicant's specific evidence on educational barriers for his children.
Walker v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 256
Prospective adoptive parents, a same-sex couple unable to adopt a child in Indonesia due to local laws, sought a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to bring the child to Canada. The immigration officer refused the TRP, determining that the child's best interests required assessment through a proper permanent immigration process to safeguard against risks like child trafficking.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that it is not an error for an officer to prefer a more robust immigration pathway with built-in safeguards, such as the sponsorship/H&C process, over a TRP in complex intercountry adoption cases.
Yim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 254
The applicant, a Start-Up Visa (SUV) program candidate, sought a mandamus order to compel a decision on his permanent residence application, which had been pending for over 46 months. Despite passing all assessments, his file was delayed due to new processing priorities set by the Minister.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the significant delay was justified. The Court affirmed that Ministerial Instructions, which prioritize certain applications to manage backlogs and meet immigration goals, provide a satisfactory reason for the delay, even for applications filed years earlier.
Zahra Akbar Pour Shandiz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 255
The applicant, with a law degree and management experience in her family's business, was refused a study permit for an MBA program. The officer found her motivation unreasonable and the employer's letter supporting a promotion lacked detail, concluding she might not leave Canada.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. Justice Thorne ruled that there was a clear lack of logic in questioning the applicant's motivation and the officer failed to consider crucial evidence, such as the applicant's detailed study plan, which addressed the very concerns raised.
