Dai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 931
The Applicant challenged the extreme delay in processing her permanent residence application under the Home Child Care Provider pilot program. IRCC defended the delay by pointing to new Ministerial Instructions (MI-2), which repealed prior processing rules but failed to introduce any new ones.
The Federal Court found the delay unreasonable and granted an order of mandamus, compelling a decision within 60 days. The Court ruled that Ministerial Instructions which create a 'processing policy vacuum' by removing old rules without replacement cannot serve as a reasonable justification for open-ended delays.
Chukwudi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 930
A Nigerian student applying for a study permit for an aviation program was refused because the visa officer was not satisfied with the source of his funds. The applicant's bank statements showed significant lump-sum deposits that were not adequately explained.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court reinforced that officers have a duty to scrutinize the 'source, nature, and stability' of an applicant's funds and are not obligated to accept vague claims of 'family support' without corroborating evidence.
Zhou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 927
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his Québec Investor Class permanent residence application, filed over seven years prior. The delay significantly exceeded the initial average processing time, and the Applicant argued it was unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister provided a satisfactory justification for the delay. The Court accepted that a significant reduction in the admission targets for the Québec Business Class program directly caused a backlog and longer processing times, making the delay reasonable in the circumstances.
Sahloul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 921
A Syrian family, granted refugee status, applied for Permanent Residence (PR) in Quebec. Facing a significant delay, they sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to finalize their application.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the delay was not unreasonable. The Court accepted that the unique nature of the Quebec immigration program, including annual admission caps under the Canada-Québec Accord, justifies longer processing times.
Tufail v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 914
An elderly Pakistani woman in her 70s, in Canada on a Super Visa, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. She argued hardship due to her medical condition (osteoarthritis) and the negative impact her departure would have on her Canadian daughter and grandchildren.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the immigration officer's refusal was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the applicant failed to provide sufficient, detailed evidence to support her claims of hardship, establishment, and the best interests of her grandchildren.
Sankoh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 915
The applicant, a refugee claimant from Sierra Leone, had his claim refused by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). He filed for judicial review 22 days after the decision was electronically sent to his lawyer, arguing the 15-day deadline only started when his lawyer personally informed him of the result.
The Federal Court dismissed the application as untimely. The Court confirmed the long-standing legal principle that notice to a lawyer is notice to their client, and the statutory deadline to file for judicial review begins the moment counsel of record receives the decision.
Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 917
The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, applied for permanent residence under the self-employed class to open a karate studio. After his PR application was refused, his subsequent request for reconsideration was also denied. He then sought judicial review of the reconsideration decision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It ruled that the applicant's arguments improperly targeted the original PR refusal, not the reconsideration decision, and he could not use this review to resurrect his previous, unperfected judicial review of the initial refusal.
Omowaye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 916
A family from Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds, citing their business establishment, the best interests of their children, and potential hardship upon return. An immigration officer refused their application, finding the evidence of their establishment, the specific hardship they would face, and the impact on their children was insufficient to warrant special relief.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court affirmed that its role is not to reweigh the evidence and that the applicants failed to demonstrate any significant error in the officer's analysis that would render the decision unreasonable.
Derdak v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 919
The applicant, a Moroccan man, sought a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) based on his bisexuality. An immigration officer refused the application, stating that the applicant's personal declaration and his wife's supporting letter were 'insufficient' to prove his sexual orientation without more documentary evidence.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision procedurally unfair. The Court ruled that dismissing the applicant's core testimony as 'insufficient' was effectively a negative credibility finding, which requires an oral hearing to give the applicant a chance to respond.
Kararha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 911
The Applicant, a refugee claimant from India, had his claim denied by the RPD due to credibility issues. He appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), arguing his previous lawyer provided incompetent counsel and presented a new basis of risk, requesting an oral hearing to address the new credibility concerns.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to deny an oral hearing was unreasonable. The Court held that since the RAD made credibility the central issue and used new evidence to make adverse findings, it was a breach of procedural fairness not to allow the Applicant to respond in an oral hearing.
