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.
Nsau v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 2028
The applicant, a citizen of the DRC, had a refugee claim refused in the United States in 2004. He later entered Canada and made a new claim based on a fear of persecution for his sexual orientation, a ground not previously raised. The Minister's Delegate found his claim inadmissible under s. 101(1)(c.1) of the IRPA due to the prior US claim.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court affirmed that section 101(1)(c.1) of the IRPA is a mandatory provision that bars a new claim if one was previously made in a designated country, leaving no discretion for the officer, even if the new claim is based on different grounds.
Gbodou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 2022
The applicant, a citizen of Côte d'Ivoire, sought refugee protection based on a well-founded fear of persecution due to his sexuality. Both the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) rejected his claim, finding his testimony to be riddled with significant inconsistencies and contradictions, which ultimately destroyed his credibility.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that credibility was the central issue, and the applicant's attempt to introduce new, inadmissible evidence on appeal could not cure the fundamental flaws in his original testimony.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2019
The applicant, a former student in Canada, was refused a work permit. The officer concluded he was not a genuine worker, based on a mistaken timeline that linked his employer's LMIA submission to his medical leave from studies.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable, quashed the refusal, and sent it for redetermination. The Court held that the officer made a central and significant error by misapprehending key dates and failing to engage with the applicant's medical evidence.
Donouvossi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 2008
The applicant, a citizen of Benin, sought judicial review of a refusal of his spousal sponsorship application. An immigration officer found the relationship with his Canadian sponsor was not genuine, highlighting a nine-year period without physical contact, during which the applicant had children with multiple other women.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed that the officer was justified in concluding the relationship was not genuine or exclusive, given the substantial evidence of other concurrent relationships.
