Mohamed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 90
The Applicant, a Somalian national, sought permanent residence as a refugee, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution from the militant group Al Shabaab. An immigration officer refused the application, finding the Applicant's claim that the group was still pursuing him five years after an extortion attempt was not credible.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that without credible evidence of a continuing threat, the Applicant failed to meet his onus to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
Noori v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 95
A family sought a two-week Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit their daughter in Canada. An IRCC officer refused their applications, citing concerns over their finances, family ties, and temporary status in their country of residence.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and set it aside. The Court ruled that the officer failed to provide a justified, intelligible, or transparent explanation for the refusal on all key points.
Iqbal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 88
A Pakistani citizen's study permit application was refused for a third time because the visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada after his studies. The refusal was based on an assessment of the applicant's employment, financial, and family ties to Pakistan.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof is squarely on the applicant to provide clear and credible evidence demonstrating their intention to depart Canada at the end of their authorized stay.
Jamehbozorg v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 92
The applicant, an Iranian citizen, was refused a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to visit her sister in Canada. The visa officer was not satisfied with the source and stability of her funds, noting a lack of transparency between her bank statements and declared income.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is entirely on the applicant to provide clear, well-explained financial documents and not on the officer to connect the dots between disparate financial records.
Sowane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 89
The applicants, a father and son, sought judicial review of a permanent residence refusal. The principal applicant, a used car dealer, was found inadmissible for being a danger to the security of Canada under IRPA s. 34(1)(d), based on reasonable grounds to believe his business activities were a conduit for money laundering in support of Hezbollah.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the immigration officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that IRCC fulfilled its duty by providing the applicants with the 'gist of its concerns' through procedural fairness letters, and was not required to provide full disclosure of every specific transaction or piece of evidence.
Mohammadalizadehsamani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 84
An Iranian businessman applied for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) for a touristic and business exploratory trip to Canada. The visa officer refused the application, unconvinced that he would leave Canada at the end of his stay, citing insufficient proof of funds and a purpose inconsistent with a temporary visit.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer is justified in refusing an application when an applicant fails to provide a detailed transaction history and evidence of the source of their funds, even if they show a large closing balance.
Tsige Hanes Tsegay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 81
An Eritrean national and her children, who had fled to Sudan and then Uganda, applied for permanent residence as sponsored refugees. A Canadian immigration officer refused their application, citing credibility concerns about the applicant's Pentecostal faith.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Court ruled the officer failed to transparently explain why the credibility finding on the religious aspect negated the entire claim, and unfairly relied on secret evidence without giving the applicant a chance to respond.
Bdaiwi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 76
A group of entrepreneurs had their Start-Up Visa (SUV) applications refused after an IRCC officer concluded their business venture's primary purpose was to obtain permanent residence, not to engage in legitimate business activity. The officer cited a lack of financial statements, failure to seek a work permit, and insufficient evidence of the business's viability.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer had provided procedural fairness and a rational, justified basis for their conclusion that the applicants' venture was an 'artificial transaction' under the regulations.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 79
The applicant, Gurjeet Kaur, applied for permanent residency under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) based on her work as a Transport Supervisor. Her application was refused due to an officer's credibility concerns regarding her work experience, specifically her lack of prior experience in the industry and a wage of $15/hour, well below the median of $32/hour.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the immigration officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer can weigh multiple factors—including low wages, lack of relevant experience, and education—to determine if an applicant genuinely performed the duties of their claimed occupation.
Jasmeen Kaur Manes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 80
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to decide her citizenship application, filed in April 2018. She argued the delay of nearly eight years was unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the delay was caused by the Applicant herself. The Court noted she failed to provide documents requested by IRCC for several years, thereby failing to meet the legal test for a mandamus order.
