Seyyed Hossein Samiei v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1090
An Iranian citizen sought an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to finalize his study permit application after a 15-month delay, arguing the wait was unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. The Court found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the delay was unreasonable and ruled that IRCC's need to conduct security screening, evidenced by a request for military records, was a reasonable justification for the extended processing time.
Jin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1080
The Applicant, a Start-Up Visa (SUV) program applicant, sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on his permanent residence application. The application was delayed due to new Ministerial Instructions that de-prioritized his file and the subsequent suspension of his designated entity.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for mandamus. The Court affirmed that Ministerial Instructions are a legitimate exercise of the Minister's authority under section 87.3 of the IRPA and, combined with the entity's suspension, provided a satisfactory justification for the processing delay.
Abdelrahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1076
The Applicants, a family of protected persons from Egypt, sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on their permanent residence application, which had been pending for four and a half years. The delay was attributed by IRCC to ongoing security screening related to the principal applicant's past political affiliations.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the delay unreasonable and lacking adequate justification. The Court ordered the Minister to render a final decision on the PR application within 120 days, reinforcing that vague references to security screening are not enough to justify prolonged delays.
Samadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1075
An Iranian entrepreneur applied for a work permit under the Start-Up Visa Program for her role in a Canadian-incorporated company. The immigration officer refused the application, concluding the job offer was not genuine and the business lacked significant ties and activities within Canada, despite being incorporated for two years.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a lack of tangible business activity in Canada, such as a Canadian bank account and meaningful local partnerships, was a rational basis for refusal.
Chhatrala v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1071
The applicant, a citizen of India, applied for a work permit under the Start-Up Visa Program to act as the CEO of a new wellness app company. An immigration officer refused the application, citing insufficient evidence to demonstrate the applicant had the ability to perform the work of a CEO.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence of their ability, and a Commitment Certificate from a designated organization does not override the officer's duty to assess the application.
Yao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1068
The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel a decision on her permanent residence application under the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP), which had been processing for nearly five years—far exceeding the 11-month service standard. The Minister cited ongoing security screening and a provincial investigation as reasons for the delay.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the delay unreasonable. The Court ruled that the Minister's vague justifications were inadequate and ordered a final decision to be made within 90 days, reaffirming that the government cannot rely on blanket statements to defend prolonged inaction.
Deen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1059
An applicant with terminal cancer and her spouse applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. IRCC refused the application, callously minimizing the extensive medical evidence and the urgency of the situation, leading to a judicial review.
The Federal Court found IRCC's decision to be unreasonable and quashed it, ordering a new assessment by a different officer. However, the Court denied the extraordinary request to force IRCC to approve the application, confirming this remedy is only for cases where approval is the only possible outcome.
Hazea v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1058
The applicant, a protected person from Yemen, sought a writ of mandamus to compel a decision on his permanent residence application, which had been pending for over 44 months. The prolonged delay contributed to significant personal hardship, including the breakdown of his marriage.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus application, ordering IRCC to finalize the application within 60 days. The Court found the delay unreasonable and ruled that IRCC cannot use an applicant's life changes, caused by the initial delay, as a justification for further processing delays.
Shango v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 1061
The applicants sought asylum, initially claiming to be from the DRC with fraudulent documents. After admitting the deception and claiming Angolan citizenship, the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) found they failed to establish their true identity due to major credibility issues and document inconsistencies.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that establishing one's identity is a fundamental and fatal preliminary issue in any asylum claim.
Shojaei Mahallati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1062
An Iranian father and his minor daughter applied for Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) to visit family in Vancouver. An IRCC officer refused their applications, claiming their finances were insufficient and they lacked significant family ties outside Canada to ensure their departure.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that the decision was unjustified because it failed to provide any analysis or engage with the substantial evidence of financial stability and strong family ties in Iran that directly contradicted the officer's conclusions.
