Shiri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 224
An Iranian professional soccer coach applied for permanent residence under the self-employed persons class to establish a soccer academy in Toronto. A visa officer refused the application, citing a lack of detail in the business plan, insufficient English skills, and a poorly defined contribution to Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the reasons provided lacked a rational chain of analysis, justification, and intelligibility, failing to explain why the applicant's evidence was insufficient.
Baryar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 222
A family from India sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds after a failed refugee claim. Their H&C application was refused based on errors, including the officer improperly using extrinsic evidence and conducting their own research, leading the family to face removal from Canada while seeking judicial review.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, as the government conceded the decision was unreasonable. Crucially, the Court ordered the H&C application to be expedited and remitted to a different officer for redetermination, mandating that the new decision must be completed *before* the Applicants can be removed from Canada.
Shahriari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 213
An Iranian citizen applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit a friend in Canada. The application was refused by a visa officer who was not satisfied the applicant would leave at the end of her stay, despite her providing significant evidence of her deep-rooted ties to Iran.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with or even acknowledge the material evidence of the applicant's strong economic and family ties to her home country.
Cheshmeahmadrezaee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 205
The applicant, an Iranian national, sought judicial review of a refused Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). He claimed he would face persecution in Iran as an atheist convert, but the immigration officer found his claim lacked credibility, citing multiple voluntary return trips to Iran.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court agreed that the applicant's repeated trips to Iran were inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution and undermined the credibility of his risk claim.
Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 212
The Applicant was refused a permanent resident visa under the spousal sponsorship class because her sponsor, who had recently become a permanent resident, failed to declare her in his own application. The officer issued a procedural fairness letter (PFL) but then refused the application before the 30-day response period had expired.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding a clear breach of the duty of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that issuing a decision before the applicant's time to respond had expired denied her a full and fair opportunity to be heard.
Zarate v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 133
The Applicant applied for an open work permit as the spouse of an international student. The visa officer refused the application because the Applicant's spouse had a letter of acceptance but was not yet enrolled or 'actively engaged in full-time studies' at the time of the decision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court clarified that a letter of acceptance is insufficient evidence; the spouse must be actively studying or at least enrolled to meet the eligibility requirements for a spousal open work permit.
Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 181
The applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his Ontario Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) permanent residence application. The application had been pending for approximately 45 months, far exceeding the 21-month average, due to a prolonged and unexplained security screening.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the delay unreasonable and IRCC's justification insufficient. The Court ordered IRCC to process and determine the applicant's permanent residency application within 90 days, reinforcing that vague assertions of ongoing security checks do not excuse excessive delays.
Taryan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 169
An Iranian citizen with significant IT experience was refused a study permit for a computing science degree. The IRCC officer concluded his motivation was not temporary, ignoring evidence of a conditional job promotion and a detailed study plan.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer cannot simply ignore an applicant's detailed evidence and substitute their own assumptions about educational necessity to justify a refusal.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 173
The applicant, on maintained status from a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP), applied for a study permit and to restore her status as a student. The immigration officer refused, stating that regulations do not permit restoring one type of temporary residence status (worker) to another (student).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed the legal principle that an individual can only apply to restore the specific temporary resident status they held immediately before losing it.
Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 174
A Bangladeshi citizen claimed refugee protection from an extremist group but had lived without status in the United States for over 13 years before coming to Canada. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denied his claim, finding he had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Bangladesh and his failure to claim asylum in the US negatively impacted his credibility.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that a prolonged failure to seek asylum in a safe country can reasonably demonstrate an absence of fear, and upheld the RAD's assessment that the persecutors lacked the motivation to find the applicant in an IFA.
