Bar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 913
The Applicant, a citizen of South Sudan, claimed refugee protection based on intimate partner violence. Her claim was refused by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) due to significant credibility issues and a failure to establish her identity.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to uphold the refusal was reasonable. The Court affirmed that establishing identity is a fundamental, threshold issue, and the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.
Adeleke v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 905
A Nigerian citizen sought to be sponsored by her father under the family class. The application was refused because her father had failed to declare her as a dependent in his own permanent residence application years earlier, a decision upheld by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming the IAD's decision. The Court reinforced that the rule excluding undeclared family members from future sponsorship under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR is a strict, inflexible provision with almost no exceptions.
Dhir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 903
The applicants lost their status and applied for restoration. Their first restoration application was refused, but the refusal letter confusingly stated they were still 'eligible to restore'. Relying on this, they applied again but were refused because the second application was filed outside the original 90-day statutory deadline.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming that the 90-day deadline to apply for restoration of status is mandatory and cannot be extended. The Court found that an officer's potentially misleading statement does not create a 'legitimate expectation' that can override a strict regulatory time limit.
Zhang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 889
The Applicant, who was subject to a removal order, requested a deferral until March 2025 or until a decision on her spousal sponsorship application. An officer refused the deferral, and she sought judicial review.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the matter was moot. Because the requested deferral date of March 2025 had already passed, the Applicant had effectively received the relief she sought, rendering the legal dispute academic.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 892
The applicant, a truck driver under the Express Entry program, was refused permanent residency after an officer deducted 50 CRS points. The officer determined that the applicant's Class AZ driver's licence and MELT certificate did not constitute a 'Certificate of Qualification' as required by the regulations.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court clarified that for Ontario, a 'Certificate of Qualification' must be issued by Skilled Trades Ontario, which does not issue such certificates for the truck driver occupation.
Shivanshu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 879
The applicant, an Indian citizen, applied for a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP). The application, submitted by a consultant, included fraudulent documents from a college the applicant never attended, leading to a five-year ban for misrepresentation.
The Federal Court dismissed the applicant's judicial review. The Court affirmed that an applicant's failure to conduct due diligence, especially when hiring a representative, means the officer is not required to consider the 'innocent misrepresentation' exception.
Majid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 871
The applicant sought judicial review of a work permit refusal. His application, based on his wife's employment in Canada, was rejected because key supporting documents, such as pay stubs and employment letters, were submitted in an illegible, blurry format.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, affirming the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court held that applicants bear the sole responsibility for providing a complete and clear application, and officers are not obligated to request better-quality documents.
Ashoori v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 875
An Iranian mother and her adult daughter sought judicial review after their Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) applications were refused. The visa officer was not satisfied they would leave Canada, citing the mother's remote work, vague travel plans, and weak family ties in Iran.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the visa officer's decision was reasonable. The Court upheld the officer's concerns that remote employment does not necessarily strengthen ties to one's home country and that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome these concerns.
Seyed Mehdi Kamali Toveyn v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 873
An Iranian family applied for Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) for a tourist visit to Canada. The visa officer refused their applications, stating they were not satisfied the family would leave at the end of their stay, citing generic concerns about family ties, purpose of visit, and employment.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable because the reasons were conclusory and lacked transparency. The Court ruled that simply stating concerns without explaining how they were reached based on the evidence provided makes a decision unintelligible and set it aside for redetermination.
Zarai Gonzalez Coffigny v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 874
The applicant was sponsored for permanent residence by her husband. The application was refused because her husband had failed to declare her as his wife when he originally became a permanent resident, making her ineligible under the family class regulations. The officer also found insufficient Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds to overcome this ineligibility.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming that the officer’s decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that an officer can find a sponsor's past non-disclosure was not an innocent mistake, even if another tribunal (the IAD) had previously accepted the explanation in a different legal context.
