Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 105
The applicant, an Indian national with two years of experience as an electrical helper, was refused a work permit for a similar role in Canada. The visa officer concluded his experience was too "limited" and was not satisfied he would depart Canada after his stay.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and set it aside. The Court ruled that simply stating experience is insufficient, without explaining why, does not create a rational chain of analysis for the Court to review, especially when the relevant job classification (NOC) has no minimum quantified requirement.
Kamyab v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 97
The applicant, an Iranian citizen, sought judicial review of a refusal for a C-11 entrepreneur work permit. The officer was not satisfied that his proposed consulting business would provide a significant benefit to Canada or that he would leave at the end of his stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision reasonable and free of procedural error. The Court strongly affirmed that it will not accept recycled legal arguments that have been consistently rejected in previous similar cases.
Sharifi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 99
The Applicants, parents and grandparents, applied for a Super Visa to visit their family in Canada. An immigration officer refused their application, citing their significant family ties in Canada as a reason they might not leave at the end of their stay.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable, ruling it is illogical to use the presence of family in Canada—the very reason for the Super Visa program's existence—as a negative factor. The case was sent back for redetermination by a different officer.
Mehrabadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 100
An Iranian national applying for a study permit was refused and found inadmissible for misrepresentation. The refusal was based on a bank statement submitted in support of her application which the bank itself confirmed was 'not genuine'.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable and the process fair. The Court affirmed that even if the applicant had sufficient funds, submitting a non-genuine document constituted a material misrepresentation warranting a 5-year ban.
Mohamed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 90
The Applicant, a Somalian national, sought permanent residence as a refugee, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution from the militant group Al Shabaab. An immigration officer refused the application, finding the Applicant's claim that the group was still pursuing him five years after an extortion attempt was not credible.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that without credible evidence of a continuing threat, the Applicant failed to meet his onus to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
Noori v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 95
A family sought a two-week Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit their daughter in Canada. An IRCC officer refused their applications, citing concerns over their finances, family ties, and temporary status in their country of residence.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and set it aside. The Court ruled that the officer failed to provide a justified, intelligible, or transparent explanation for the refusal on all key points.
Iqbal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 88
A Pakistani citizen's study permit application was refused for a third time because the visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada after his studies. The refusal was based on an assessment of the applicant's employment, financial, and family ties to Pakistan.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof is squarely on the applicant to provide clear and credible evidence demonstrating their intention to depart Canada at the end of their authorized stay.
Jamehbozorg v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 92
The applicant, an Iranian citizen, was refused a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit her sister in Canada. The visa officer was not satisfied with the source and stability of her funds, noting a lack of transparency between her bank statements and declared income.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is entirely on the applicant to provide clear, well-explained financial documents and not on the officer to connect the dots between disparate financial records.
Sowane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 89
The applicants, a father and son, sought judicial review of a permanent residence refusal. The principal applicant, a used car dealer, was found inadmissible for being a danger to the security of Canada under IRPA s. 34(1)(d), based on reasonable grounds to believe his business activities were a conduit for money laundering in support of Hezbollah.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the immigration officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that IRCC fulfilled its duty by providing the applicants with the 'gist of its concerns' through procedural fairness letters, and was not required to provide full disclosure of every specific transaction or piece of evidence.
Mohammadalizadehsamani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 84
An Iranian businessman applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) for a touristic and business exploratory trip to Canada. The visa officer refused the application, unconvinced that he would leave Canada at the end of his stay, citing insufficient proof of funds and a purpose inconsistent with a temporary visit.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer is justified in refusing an application when an applicant fails to provide a detailed transaction history and evidence of the source of their funds, even if they show a large closing balance.
