Jabeen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 250
A Canadian citizen sponsored his wife and adult son, who were living abroad. The immigration officer refused the family sponsorship, partly on the basis that the family could reunite in their country of citizenship (India) or where the wife was residing (Saudi Arabia), and found insufficient H&C grounds.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision for the wife unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer improperly ignored a key objective of Canadian immigration law—to reunite families *in Canada*—by focusing on the possibility of reunification in other countries.
Rosalba Bouczan Lucena v. The Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, 2026 FC 244
The applicant, a citizen of Mexico and a failed refugee claimant, sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The immigration officer refused the application, finding her establishment and family ties in Canada were tenuous and did not warrant a special exemption.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court concluded that the officer improperly downplayed the applicant's establishment in Canada, and this flawed approach negatively affected the assessment of the potential hardship she would face if removed.
Zheng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 245
The Applicant sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on his Start-Up Visa (SUV) application, which had been processing for five years. Before the hearing, the Minister suspended the Designated Entity that supported the application, pausing all related files.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's legal authority to pause processing during a Designated Entity's suspension negates the public legal duty to act. This duty is a mandatory prerequisite for a mandamus order.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Pavic, 2026 FC 233
The Government of Canada initiated proceedings to revoke the citizenship of an individual, alleging it was obtained through false representation and complicity in war crimes. The individual sought to dismiss the case, arguing the government's action was barred by a six-year limitation period.
The Federal Court dismissed the individual's motion, confirming that no limitation period applies to actions to revoke citizenship under the Citizenship Act. The Court determined that the revocation process is a unique statutory procedure, not a traditional "cause of action" subject to time limits.
Zuniga Rojas v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 237
The Applicants were referred for an admissibility hearing on grounds of organized criminality. The Minister's Delegate made the referral without providing the Applicants any notice or opportunity to make submissions, which they argued was a breach of procedural fairness.
The Federal Court found a clear breach of procedural fairness but dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court concluded that the outcome would have been the same even if submissions were made, as the Delegate's role in this context is a screening function and not to assess complex humanitarian and compassionate factors.
Pham v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 225
A Vietnamese national and her three children applied for work permits, study permits, and a TRV to join her husband in Canada. The immigration officer refused their applications, unconvinced they had sufficient funds or that they would leave Canada at the end of their stay.
The Federal Court denied the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that officers can scrutinize the source and stability of an applicant's funds, even for spousal open work permits, as part of the overall assessment of temporary intent.
Bumanglag v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 232
The applicant, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for a work permit as a live-in housekeeper. The officer refused the application, believing the job was secretly for a childcare provider to circumvent immigration rules and that the offer was not genuine.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The officer failed to consider new evidence submitted by the applicant and relied on undisclosed concerns, breaching the duty of fairness.
Qaffari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 228
An Iranian national's study permit for a Master of Finance at McMaster University, supported by a conditional promotion offer from her employer, was refused. The officer claimed she failed to demonstrate the benefit of the program, leading to a judicial review at the Federal Court.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply ignore significant evidence, such as a detailed Statement of Purpose and a job promotion offer, that points to the clear benefits of the proposed study program.
Ahmad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 227
The applicant, a protected person from Pakistan, had his refugee status ceased by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) after he obtained Pakistani passports and travelled to Pakistan multiple times. The RPD concluded he had voluntarily re-availed himself of his home country's protection.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the RPD failed its heightened duty to provide a justified decision by ignoring critical evidence that could have rebutted the intent to reavail, such as the applicant's precautionary measures while in Pakistan.
Ju v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 236
An applicant for permanent residence and a work permit under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program was refused for misrepresentation. The officer's concerns about the genuineness of the job offer were based on financial documents received from the employer *after* the applicant's interview, which were never shared with the applicant.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding a clear breach of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that when new concerns arise after an interview based on evidence an applicant hasn't seen, IRCC must communicate those specific concerns and provide a meaningful opportunity to respond.
