Joshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1049
The applicant sought permanent residency under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) based on his work as a technical sales specialist (NOC 62100) with Rogers. The IRCC officer refused the application, concluding the work was retail, not wholesale, based on the retail store location and hourly wage.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to provide a justified, intelligible, and transparent reason for dismissing the applicant's experience, ignoring evidence of his duties with commercial clients and his job title's similarity to the NOC description.
Nunes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1051
The applicant, a permanent resident since childhood, hastily renounced his status at a U.S. airport to return to Canada after forgetting his PR card. His subsequent application to IRCC, which explicitly requested a reconsideration of the renunciation on H&C grounds and a new PR card, was refused solely because he was no longer a permanent resident.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that IRCC cannot ignore a central component of an application—in this case, the request to reconsider the original renunciation—and must provide a responsive and intelligible justification for its entire decision.
Andrienko v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1054
The Applicant, nominated by Ontario's Provincial Nominee Program (OINP), applied for permanent residence in August 2020. His application was delayed for nearly six years, far beyond the 11-month service standard, due to a prolonged and unexplained security screening.
The Federal Court granted the application for a writ of mandamus, ordering IRCC to issue a final decision within 90 days. The Court found the delay unreasonable and ruled that IRCC's generic explanations, such as a 'pending' security check, were insufficient justification.
Sharif v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1039
Three co-founders of a tech start-up from Bangladesh were denied permanent residence under the Start-Up Business Class. The immigration officer was not satisfied there was sufficient evidence to show their business was, or intended to be, actively operating in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision reasonable. The Court affirmed that applicants must provide tangible proof of ongoing business development and operations, not just preparatory steps or stated intentions.
Jahromi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1041
The applicant, a 71-year-old Iranian citizen with all her immediate family in Canada, sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds. An immigration officer refused her application, finding the hardship she would face did not warrant an exemption.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that the officer adequately considered the best interests of the child, the applicant's establishment, and country conditions, even if the outcome was disappointing for the family.
Malekiazar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1007
An experienced Iranian engineer with one Master's degree applied for a study permit to pursue a second Master's in a related field, supported by his current employer. The visa officer refused, questioning the necessity of the degree for his career advancement and concluding he would not leave Canada.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that it is not an officer's role to act as a 'career counsellor' and that the officer failed to properly consider the applicant's significant family, professional, and financial ties to his home country.
Iman Yassin Hamed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1012
The applicant sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds as a de facto family member of her cousin, who had raised her like a daughter. A migration officer refused the application, finding the applicant was not a de facto family member.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to assess the relationship holistically, drew unsupported adverse inferences, and speculated about other support options without evidence.
Kandahari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1008
An Afghan national applying for permanent residence was refused after an officer found his interview answers contradictory and untruthful. The interview was conducted with a Dari-speaking interpreter, while the applicant's native language is Pashto, leading to significant communication issues.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding a clear breach of procedural fairness. The court held that the language mismatch resulted in consequential, mistranslated answers that unfairly impacted the officer's negative credibility finding, and ordered a new decision by a different officer.
Bamidele v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 999
The applicant, a bisexual woman from Nigeria, sought refugee protection based on persecution due to her sexuality. Her claim was refused by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) due to significant inconsistencies in her evidence regarding her family, relationships, and key events.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's negative credibility assessment was reasonable. The Court affirmed that inconsistencies, even about seemingly peripheral details like family composition, can justifiably undermine an applicant's entire claim.
Xianbao Ou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1002
A permanent resident, convicted for large-scale illegal cannabis cultivation with 10 co-accused, was found inadmissible for membership in a criminal organization. He challenged this finding, arguing the group lacked the formal structure of an 'organization'.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the Immigration Division's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a group can be a 'criminal organization' under immigration law even if it is 'loosely organized' without a clear hierarchy.
