Tsige Hanes Tsegay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 81
An Eritrean national and her children, who had fled to Sudan and then Uganda, applied for permanent residence as sponsored refugees. A Canadian immigration officer refused their application, citing credibility concerns about the applicant's Pentecostal faith.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Court ruled the officer failed to transparently explain why the credibility finding on the religious aspect negated the entire claim, and unfairly relied on secret evidence without giving the applicant a chance to respond.
Bdaiwi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 76
A group of entrepreneurs had their Start-Up Visa (SUV) applications refused after an IRCC officer concluded their business venture's primary purpose was to obtain permanent residence, not to engage in legitimate business activity. The officer cited a lack of financial statements, failure to seek a work permit, and insufficient evidence of the business's viability.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer had provided procedural fairness and a rational, justified basis for their conclusion that the applicants' venture was an 'artificial transaction' under the regulations.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 79
The applicant, Gurjeet Kaur, applied for permanent residency under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) based on her work as a Transport Supervisor. Her application was refused due to an officer's credibility concerns regarding her work experience, specifically her lack of prior experience in the industry and a wage of $15/hour, well below the median of $32/hour.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer can weigh multiple factors—including low wages, lack of relevant experience, and education—to determine if an applicant genuinely performed the duties of their claimed occupation.
Jasmeen Kaur Manes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 80
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to decide her citizenship application, filed in April 2018. She argued the delay of nearly eight years was unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the delay was caused by the Applicant herself. The Court noted she failed to provide documents requested by IRCC for several years, thereby failing to meet the legal test for a mandamus order.
Ataollahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 69
A 35-year-old single man from Iran applied for a visitor visa to accompany his father on a visit to his sister in Canada. The application was refused because the immigration officer was not satisfied he had significant family ties to his home country, despite his mother remaining in Iran.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that applicants bear the burden of proof and that merely stating a family member remains in the home country is insufficient without concrete evidence about the nature and strength of that relationship.
Ullah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 70
The applicant, a Pakistani citizen with a job offer as a Rug Sewer supported by a positive LMIA, was refused an employer-specific work permit. The IRCC officer was not satisfied the applicant could perform the work or that he would leave Canada after his stay.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to meaningfully assess the applicant's work experience, incorrectly dismissed evidence of cash-based employment, and made factual errors regarding his family ties to Pakistan.
Ubaid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 71
The Applicants sought judicial review of an officer's decision to refuse a Temporary Visitor's Visa. The refusal was challenged at the Federal Court.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review after the government's lawyer conceded that the officer's decision failed to meet the required standard of procedural fairness. The Court set aside the refusal and ordered the application to be redetermined by a different visa officer.
Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 64
The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, was refused a Parent and Grandparent Super Visa intended to support his son in Canada after a serious medical incident. The visa officer denied the application based on concerns that the applicant would not leave Canada, citing a previous 5-year unauthorized overstay in the U.S. and a related misrepresentation finding.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that a visa officer is entitled to weigh an applicant's entire immigration history, including expired periods of inadmissibility, when assessing their intent for a temporary stay.
Supanich Mangmeesri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 68
The applicant, a single mother from Thailand with a Canadian-born child, was refused permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The officer found her establishment in Canada was minimal and the potential hardship of returning to Thailand was not exceptional.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to properly assess the Best Interests of the Child (BIOC) by not considering the applicant's submission that her daughter would remain in Canada with friends if she were forced to leave.
Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 67
The applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, applied for permanent residence as a member of the Quebec Investor Class. The immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicant failed to credibly demonstrate a genuine intention to reside in Quebec due to vague business plans and his failure to ever visit the province.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court held that an officer's assessment of an applicant's intent is entitled to a high degree of deference and that it is not the Court's role to reweigh the evidence.
