Deen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1059
An applicant with terminal cancer and her spouse applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. IRCC refused the application, callously minimizing the extensive medical evidence and the urgency of the situation, leading to a judicial review.
The Federal Court found IRCC's decision to be unreasonable and quashed it, ordering a new assessment by a different officer. However, the Court denied the extraordinary request to force IRCC to approve the application, confirming this remedy is only for cases where approval is the only possible outcome.
Hazea v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1058
The applicant, a protected person from Yemen, sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on his permanent residence application, which had been pending for over 44 months. The prolonged delay contributed to significant personal hardship, including the breakdown of his marriage.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus application, ordering IRCC to finalize the application within 60 days. The Court found the delay unreasonable and ruled that IRCC cannot use an applicant's life changes, caused by the initial delay, as a justification for further processing delays.
Shango v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 1061
The applicants sought asylum, initially claiming to be from the DRC with fraudulent documents. After admitting the deception and claiming Angolan citizenship, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found they failed to establish their true identity due to major credibility issues and document inconsistencies.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that establishing one's identity is a fundamental and fatal preliminary issue in any asylum claim.
Shojaei Mahallati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1062
An Iranian father and his minor daughter applied for Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) to visit family in Vancouver. An IRCC officer refused their applications, claiming their finances were insufficient and they lacked significant family ties outside Canada to ensure their departure.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that the decision was unjustified because it failed to provide any analysis or engage with the substantial evidence of financial stability and strong family ties in Iran that directly contradicted the officer's conclusions.
Joshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1049
The applicant sought permanent residency under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) based on his work as a technical sales specialist (NOC 62100) with Rogers. The IRCC officer refused the application, concluding the work was retail, not wholesale, based on the retail store location and hourly wage.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to provide a justified, intelligible, and transparent reason for dismissing the applicant's experience, ignoring evidence of his duties with commercial clients and his job title's similarity to the NOC description.
Nunes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1051
The applicant, a permanent resident since childhood, hastily renounced his status at a U.S. airport to return to Canada after forgetting his PR card. His subsequent application to IRCC, which explicitly requested a reconsideration of the renunciation on H&C grounds and a new PR card, was refused solely because he was no longer a permanent resident.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that IRCC cannot ignore a central component of an application—in this case, the request to reconsider the original renunciation—and must provide a responsive and intelligible justification for its entire decision.
Andrienko v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1054
The Applicant, nominated by Ontario's Provincial Nominee Program (OINP), applied for permanent residence in August 2020. His application was delayed for nearly six years, far beyond the 11-month service standard, due to a prolonged and unexplained security screening.
The Federal Court granted the application for a writ of mandamus, ordering IRCC to issue a final decision within 90 days. The Court found the delay unreasonable and ruled that IRCC's generic explanations, such as a 'pending' security check, were insufficient justification.
Sharif v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1039
Three co-founders of a tech start-up from Bangladesh were denied permanent residence under the Start-Up Business Class. The immigration officer was not satisfied there was sufficient evidence to show their business was, or intended to be, actively operating in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that applicants must provide tangible proof of ongoing business development and operations, not just preparatory steps or stated intentions.
Jahromi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1041
The applicant, a 71-year-old Iranian citizen with all her immediate family in Canada, sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused her application, finding the hardship she would face did not warrant an exemption.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer adequately considered the best interests of the child, the applicant's establishment, and country conditions, even if the outcome was disappointing for the family.
Malekiazar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1007
An experienced Iranian engineer with one Master's degree applied for a study permit to pursue a second Master's in a related field, supported by his current employer. The visa officer refused, questioning the necessity of the degree for his career advancement and concluding he would not leave Canada.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that it is not an officer's role to act as a 'career counsellor' and that the officer failed to properly consider the applicant's significant family, professional, and financial ties to his home country.
