Lee v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 32
The applicant, a South Korean citizen with a long history of compliance with Canadian immigration laws, was found inadmissible and issued an exclusion order. The border officer concluded he intended to stay permanently, despite evidence of a planned 4-month visit and his frank disclosure of considering a future permanent residence application.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court reinforced the principle of 'dual intent,' clarifying that an intention to apply for permanent residence in the future does not automatically mean a person will overstay their temporary status.
A journalist requested access to confidential court communications regarding the appointment of an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in a high-profile national security case. The core issue was whether the constitutional open court principle required the disclosure of these administrative emails to the public.
The Federal Court denied the journalist's request, ruling that the public interest in ensuring the court can make fully informed and confidential administrative decisions, like appointing an amicus, outweighs the public's right to access in this specific context.
Jimenez Danda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 26
The applicant, a Mexican citizen, sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). Her initial family refugee claim was refused on credibility grounds, and her PRRA, based on the same alleged cartel risks plus new personal circumstances, was also refused for failing to establish a personalized risk.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a PRRA is not an appeal of a prior refugee decision and that applicants must provide sufficient evidence to establish a personalized risk, as general country conditions are not enough.
Agyemang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 30
A Ghanaian citizen's study permit was refused for misrepresentation after an officer concluded she submitted two fraudulent financial documents. One of the allegedly fraudulent documents was provided in response to a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) from the immigration office.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was procedurally unfair. The Court ruled that a high standard of fairness applies to all misrepresentation findings, which requires full disclosure of an officer's concerns and any external evidence used against the applicant.
Magana Saucedo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 31
The applicant, a Mexican national, sought a last-minute judicial stay of his removal order after his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) was refused. The refusal was based on his vague and unsubstantiated allegations of facing threats from criminal organizations in Mexico.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for a stay of removal, finding that the applicant failed to meet the tripartite test. The Court affirmed that a lack of sufficient evidence provided by an applicant does not constitute a breach of procedural fairness by the decision-maker.
A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1973
Afghan citizens who received "Facilitation Letters" from third parties during the 2021 evacuation sought a court order to compel Canada to issue them Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs). They argued the letters were a legally binding promise made under the Crown's prerogative power.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the letters were not visas and were not issued by authorized officials. The Court ruled that Parliament's comprehensive immigration laws (the IRPA) have effectively extinguished any residual Crown prerogative to grant entry to Canada outside of the established legal process.
Adeko v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 14
A family from Nigeria sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds after their refugee claim was found to be fraudulent. Despite their establishment in Canada for over five years and the mother's work as a frontline healthcare worker, the immigration officer denied their application.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer is entitled to significantly reduce the positive weight of an applicant's establishment in Canada when that presence is based on a fraudulent claim.
Nezarmohammad Dorrazaei v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 3
The applicant, an Iranian national nominated under the BC Provincial Nominee Program for a healthcare role, was refused a work permit. The officer was not satisfied he would leave Canada due to a lack of significant family ties, insufficient financial establishment, and an inability to perform the job.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review. While the judge found the officer's conclusion on the applicant's ability to perform the work was unreasonable and an error, this was not enough to overturn the refusal because the other two reasons for denial were valid and supported by the record.
Tekulu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1
The applicants, dual citizens of Eritrea and Sweden, obtained refugee status and permanent residence in Canada by misrepresenting their history and failing to disclose their Swedish citizenship. After their H&C application was refused, they sought a stay of their scheduled removal to Sweden.
The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicants failed to prove they would suffer irreparable harm if returned to Sweden, a safe and democratic country. The Court affirmed the strong public interest in removing individuals who undermine the integrity of Canada's immigration system through misrepresentation.
El Hajj v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2031
The applicant, a citizen of Lebanon, sought a work permit as a cook under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. An immigration officer refused the application due to serious concerns about the applicant's language skills, his inability to describe his cooking knowledge during an interview, and evidence suggesting his previous employment references were not genuine.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and the process was fair. The Court affirmed that even with an approved LMIA, an officer is entitled to scrutinize an applicant's ability to perform the job and the authenticity of their supporting documents.
