Alipourmonazah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 146
An Iranian national's work permit application under the Start-up Business Class Program was refused. The officer claimed the business plan was insufficient and that because the applicant's wife and son were accompanying him, his ties to his home country were weakened, making him unlikely to leave Canada.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that an officer must provide a clear justification for why a business plan is deficient and cannot treat the presence of immediate family as a determinative negative factor without a balanced assessment of all ties.
Pitimbaye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 137
The applicant, a citizen of Chad, sought judicial review of a decision from the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) which found she was not a person in need of protection. The refusal was based on a severe credibility deficit after she submitted an amended Basis of Claim form just 13 days before her hearing, adding entirely new and central allegations of persecution that were absent from her initial submission.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that late, substantive additions to the core narrative of an asylum claim, as opposed to minor clarifications, can fatally undermine a claimant's credibility, especially when coupled with behaviour inconsistent with a subjective fear of persecution.
K.M.M. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 138
The applicant, a citizen of Mexico, sought judicial review of an officer's refusal to reconsider a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). He attempted to introduce new evidence related to mental health trauma, arguing he was unable to disclose it earlier due to shame and stigma.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that new evidence for a PRRA must be submitted while the decision is still pending, noting the applicant had nearly two years and legal representation to update his file before the decision was communicated.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 123
Elderly parents from India applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds while in Canada helping care for their grandchild. An immigration officer refused their application, finding they had insufficient establishment, strong ties to India, and would not face undue hardship.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court identified multiple, significant errors, including miscalculating the applicants' time in Canada, ignoring decades of their life in Greece, and applying incorrect legal tests for hardship.
Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 124
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of her Temporary Resident Visa (TRV). A Visa Officer concluded she lacked sufficient assets and that her visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay, even though this was a redetermination of a previously refused application.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the visa refusal. The Court accepted the government's concession that the officer's decision was unreasonable because it failed to engage with the evidence provided by the applicant and lacked sufficient detail to support its negative findings.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Yaghi, 2026 FC 112
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sought judicial review of a Citizenship Judge's decision granting Canadian citizenship. The Minister argued the judge failed to reasonably assess inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding the physical presence requirement, which the judge found was met by a narrow margin of 15 days.
The Federal Court dismissed the Minister's application, finding the Citizenship Judge's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the judge properly analyzed the evidence, questioned the applicant on key concerns, and was entitled to make a credibility finding, even in the face of some evidentiary shortcomings.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 105
The applicant, an Indian national with two years of experience as an electrical helper, was refused a work permit for a similar role in Canada. The visa officer concluded his experience was too "limited" and was not satisfied he would depart Canada after his stay.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and set it aside. The Court ruled that simply stating experience is insufficient, without explaining why, does not create a rational chain of analysis for the Court to review, especially when the relevant job classification (NOC) has no minimum quantified requirement.
Kamyab v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 97
The applicant, an Iranian citizen, sought judicial review of a refusal for a C-11 entrepreneur work permit. The officer was not satisfied that his proposed consulting business would provide a significant benefit to Canada or that he would leave at the end of his stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision reasonable and free of procedural error. The Court strongly affirmed that it will not accept recycled legal arguments that have been consistently rejected in previous similar cases.
Sharifi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 99
The Applicants, parents and grandparents, applied for a Super Visa to visit their family in Canada. An immigration officer refused their application, citing their significant family ties in Canada as a reason they might not leave at the end of their stay.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable, ruling it is illogical to use the presence of family in Canada—the very reason for the Super Visa program's existence—as a negative factor. The case was sent back for redetermination by a different officer.
Mehrabadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 100
An Iranian national applying for a study permit was refused and found inadmissible for misrepresentation. The refusal was based on a bank statement submitted in support of her application which the bank itself confirmed was 'not genuine'.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable and the process fair. The Court affirmed that even if the applicant had sufficient funds, submitting a non-genuine document constituted a material misrepresentation warranting a 5-year ban.
