Adekunle v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 72
A Nigerian national sought refugee protection in Canada, claiming persecution based on his sexual orientation. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his claim and found it had no credible basis, citing numerous inconsistencies in his testimony and the submission of a fraudulent affidavit.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the RPD's decision as reasonable. The Court agreed that the credibility issues were central to the claim and found that submitting a fraudulent document severely undermines an applicant's entire case.
Bolaji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 59
The applicant sought to extend his work permit as a Direct Support Professional. The officer refused the application, finding the applicant's law degree did not meet the educational requirements and that his past Canadian work experience could not be considered because it was performed under a work permit coded for a different occupation.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is on the applicant to submit a complete application, prove their qualifications, and proactively correct any errors on their immigration documents.
Geremeskel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 60
The applicant, a dual citizen of Eritrea and the Netherlands, sought refugee protection in Canada with her children, fleeing domestic abuse and discrimination in the Netherlands. Her claim was refused by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), which found that adequate state protection was available to her in the Netherlands.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the Netherlands was unwilling or unable to provide them with adequate state protection, a key requirement for a successful refugee claim.
Richard Ricardo Williams v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2026 FC 62
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of his spousal sponsorship permanent residence application. The immigration officer denied the application, citing concerns about the genuineness of the relationship based on a 17-year age gap, a rapid relationship timeline, and a perceived contradiction regarding when the sponsor's mother learned of the relationship.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the decision was tainted by reliance on unfounded assumptions, stereotypes, and untested credibility findings, creating fatal gaps in the chain of reasoning.
Star Blanket First Nation v. Kawacatoose First Nation, 2026 FCA 8
This case involves the assessment of legal costs following two related judicial review applications that were heard together. The applicant, who lost the judicial reviews, challenged the amount of costs being claimed by the successful respondent, arguing that costs should be reduced because the work was duplicated across two files.
The Federal Court of Appeal's Assessment Officer largely sided with the successful respondent, confirming that when the Court issues separate cost awards for related files, the winning party is entitled to recover costs for each file, even if the hearings were held jointly. However, the Officer adjusted specific claims, such as reducing printing fees and disallowing costs for a third counsel.
Kuznetsov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 57
The applicant sponsored her mother under the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP) but failed to include all required family information. After IRCC issued a detailed request for the missing information, the applicant resubmitted forms that were still incomplete, leading IRCC to return the entire application as unprocessed.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding IRCC's decision was both reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that IRCC is not obligated to issue multiple warnings; one clear opportunity to correct deficiencies is sufficient.
Guilavogui v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 CF 47
A Guinean citizen, whose refugee claim was refused based on credibility, sought an administrative stay of her removal from a CBSA officer. For the first time, she raised a fear of female genital mutilation (FGM), which was not part of her original asylum claim.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the CBSA officer's decision to refuse the stay was reasonable. The Court affirmed that while officers must consider new risks, they can weigh the timing and context, especially when linked to previous negative credibility findings.
11043277 CANADA INC. v The Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada, 2026 FC 54
A trucking company's application for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) was refused by an ESDC officer. The refusal was based on the officer's findings that the job offer was not genuine due to inconsistencies in the company's fleet size and that the requirement for 13+ years of experience was excessive and deterred Canadian applicants.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that employers cannot use the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to set job requirements that exceed industry standards without strong justification, and that providing inconsistent evidence undermines an application's credibility.
Odobo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 49
The applicant sought a work permit based on a valid Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). A visa officer refused the application, finding the applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation based on the officer's own online investigation into the employer's genuineness, despite the positive LMIA.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose the specific details of their concerns to the applicant. The Court also found the decision unreasonable for failing to acknowledge and grapple with the contradictory evidence of the valid LMIA issued by ESDC.
Armstrong Elorh Mbi Atem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 53
The applicant, a Cameroonian national and Anglophone separatist activist, sought refugee protection. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upheld the refusal of his claim, finding his allegations of past persecution not credible and concluding he was not at risk based on his political activities in Canada (a 'sur place' claim).
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the RAD failed to properly assess the applicant's 'sur place' risk by ignoring contradictory country condition evidence and by making incoherent findings about his activist profile.
