Khurana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1120
A family applied for temporary resident visas to visit Canada. Their applications were refused by an immigration officer who found their financial situation insufficient and their family ties outside of Canada to be insignificant.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to properly assess the detailed financial documents and ignored key arguments about the applicants' family ties in their home country.
Shoaie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1114
The applicant sought judicial review of a refused work permit under the Start-Up Visa Class. An officer denied the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate urgent business reasons requiring his presence in Canada before his permanent residence application was finalized.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a start-up business plan, while necessary, is not in itself sufficient proof of an urgent business need for the applicant's immediate presence in Canada.
Mahziar Raeisi Ardali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1109
An Iranian citizen's visitor visa application to visit his sister was refused. The officer claimed an inability to confirm the 'provenance of the funds' because transaction summaries were not provided, despite the sister submitting income statements from her optometry practice.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to engage with key evidence—the sister's income statements—which demonstrated the source of her funds, and could not simply dismiss her financial support for lack of a transaction summary.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1107
The applicant sought judicial review after his Start-Up Business Class work permit was refused. An officer denied the application primarily because the applicant's mandatory Letter of Support from a designated organization had expired before his new application was received by IRCC.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision entirely reasonable. The Court confirmed that the requirement to submit a valid, unexpired Letter of Support at the time of application is a strict, mandatory eligibility criterion that cannot be waived or substituted.
MD Masudur Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1106
The applicant, a Quebec Investor Class candidate, had his permanent residence application refused. The immigration officer was not satisfied that he genuinely intended to reside in Quebec, citing a lack of detailed settlement plans, minimal research, and last-minute efforts made only after being prompted.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court found the applicant failed to provide sufficient, credible evidence to demonstrate a genuine intention to relocate to and establish a life in Quebec.
Gurinderpal Singh Sidhu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 1101
The applicant, a closed work permit holder authorized to work at a specific convenience store, started a janitorial services business with his cousin. The Immigration Division (ID) found him inadmissible to Canada for performing unauthorized work that competed in the Canadian labour market.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the ID's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that unpaid activities for a business, such as being the primary contact and advertising services, can constitute 'work' if they compete with Canadian workers, even if the business is not yet profitable.
Hosne Ara Begum v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1035
A 75-year-old widow from Bangladesh, living in Canada on a super visa, applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds. The immigration officer refused the application due to the minimal evidence provided to support her claims of establishment, family ties, and hardship.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's refusal was reasonable. The Court emphasized that the responsibility to provide sufficient, credible evidence rests entirely on the applicant, and a lack of evidence is fatal to an H&C case.
Sina Varasteh Nobari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1092
An Iranian national applied for a work permit as a construction labourer, supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The immigration officer refused the application, citing the applicant's failure to provide proof of English language proficiency, which was an express requirement of the LMIA.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that when an LMIA explicitly requires language proficiency, an applicant's failure to provide any evidence to that effect is a sufficient and standalone reason for refusal.
Jasmeet Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1095
The applicant, a former international student, became ineligible for a Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) after failing to maintain full-time student status. She applied for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to gain work experience, but an officer refused, finding she hadn't proven she would face hardship by returning to her home country to apply for a work permit.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a TRP requires demonstrating a 'compelling reason' to remain in Canada, which the applicant failed to do, especially since other options, like applying from abroad, were available.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1089
A 74-year-old widow from India applied for permanent residence on Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds to remain with her son in Canada. The immigration officer refused her application, incorrectly finding she was self-sufficient and concluding she would have support in India based on undisclosed country condition reports.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review and sent the application back for redetermination. The Court found the officer committed multiple errors by mischaracterizing the legal purpose of H&C relief, making factual findings contrary to the evidence, and breaching the duty of fairness by relying on undisclosed evidence.
