Darvish v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 982
Four co-founders of a start-up applied for permanent residence under the Start-up Business Class (SUBC). One essential member's application was submitted after the initial commitment certificate expired. The officer refused the application, finding no evidence that a renewed, valid certificate had been sent directly from the designated entity to IRCC as required.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the officer's decision. The Court held that SUBC regulations are time-sensitive and the burden of proof is squarely on the applicant to demonstrate that a valid commitment certificate was sent by the designated entity to IRCC at the time of application.
Camayo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 975
The applicant, who was granted refugee protection from Colombia as a minor, had her status ceased after she returned to Colombia five times (four as an adult) using a Colombian passport. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found she had voluntarily re-availed herself of Colombia's protection.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that repeated, voluntary travel to one's country of nationality on that country's passport creates a strong presumption of reavailment, which the applicant failed to rebut.
Ahmad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 976
The Applicant's citizenship was revoked for misrepresenting his identity. He did not contest the misrepresentation but argued for special relief, claiming the decision-maker failed to consider the future hardship his 'foreseeable' removal would cause his family.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming that citizenship revocation and removal proceedings are distinct legal processes. The Minister's Delegate was not required to consider speculative, future consequences, such as removal, when deciding on the revocation itself.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 969
The applicant's permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class was refused. The officer found her inadmissible because her non-accompanying husband had failed to comply with a removal order, making him inadmissible, which automatically rendered the applicant inadmissible as well.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application. The Court affirmed that an immigration officer has no duty to issue a procedural fairness letter when an applicant's inadmissibility arises directly from the clear requirements of the law (the IRPA and its Regulations), rather than from external evidence or credibility issues.
Thandyi Dolma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 965
The applicant, a Tibetan Buddhist with Chinese citizenship by descent but born and raised in India, filed a refugee claim against China. Her claim was refused because she had a legal right to Indian citizenship but had not taken steps to exercise it, as she would lose benefits from the Central Tibetan Authority (CTA).
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Refugee Appeal Division's (RAD) decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a claimant must take reasonable steps to seek protection in a country where they have a right to citizenship before they can be granted refugee protection in Canada.
Deng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 964
The applicant, a citizen of China, was sponsored for permanent residence by his spouse. An immigration officer refused the application, concluding the marriage was not genuine based on a perceived contradiction in family information and a narrow assessment of the couple's finances.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer made a critical factual error and failed to meaningfully consider the totality of the positive evidence submitted in support of the relationship.
Jing Lu and Yuchun Sun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 974
The applicants' permanent residency application under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program was refused for misrepresentation after they failed to disclose a previous visitor visa refusal for the dependent son. They sought judicial review, arguing their former immigration representative was incompetent for not properly advising them.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming the officer's decision. The Court ruled that the applicants failed to meet the high legal standard required to prove their representative was incompetent and emphasized that applicants always retain the ultimate responsibility to ensure their submitted forms are truthful and accurate.
Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 956
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his long-pending work permit application. Before the court hearing, his application was refused for non-compliance, prompting the government to argue the judicial review was now moot.
The Federal Court dismissed the application but only after a full analysis. The Court ruled that the issuance of a decision does not automatically make the case moot, as the core dispute over unreasonable delay still exists. However, mandamus was denied because a decision had been made, meaning there was no 'refusal to act' by the Minister.
Shahpouri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 957
The Applicant sought judicial review of a refused intra-company transfer work permit. An IRCC officer denied the application based on two grounds: a lack of significant family ties outside Canada and insufficient evidence that the proposed business would provide a significant benefit to Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. Although the Court agreed the officer's finding on family ties was unreasonable, it found this error was not determinative. The refusal was ultimately upheld because the officer's primary concerns about the business's viability and its potential benefit to Canada were reasonable and justified.
Abis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 950
The applicant, a Kurdish citizen of Turkey, sought refugee protection based on his political activities. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed his claim, finding him not credible due to alleged inconsistencies, omissions, and a failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court ruled that the RAD improperly relied on evidence it had deemed inadmissible and focused on peripheral inconsistencies while ignoring the holistic context of the applicant's claim.
