February
GLORILENN FERRERIA // IMM-21800-24 // 2026 FC 267 // FEBRUARY 26, 2026
Glorilenn Ferreria applied for a Parents and Grandparents sponsorship, but the application was returned as incomplete, as the resume of one of the sponsored parties was purportedly unfinished. Prior to the Ferreria’s hearing, the Court held that decisions rejecting applications for incompleteness are justiciable in Devgon 2025 FC 2005, which was regarding a very similar matter. Given that the Parents and Grandparents sponsorship program was closed at the time of the return of the application, Ferreria lost the immediate opportunity to reapply. There is also no right of appeal under the Immigration Appeal Division because the application was rejected under section 12 of the Regulations, and in that sense is not considered a decision which can be reviewed by the Immigration Appeal Division on its merits. These harsh consequences due to incompleteness demonstrate significant prejudice, supporting the Court’s jurisdiction to review the decision. The Court found that the Officer’s decision lacked intelligibility and transparency, as no explanation was provided as to how or why the resume was found to be incomplete. Therefore, the application was allowed.
March
STEPHANIE DWOMO OCRAN // IMM-7827-24 // 2025 FC 517 // March 20, 2025
Stephanie Dwomo Ocran, a Ghanaian citizen, applied for a Temporary Resident Permit to remain in Canada. Despite presenting substantial evidence such as deep community ties, a clean record, and her employer’s continued support, the Officer neglected to reference this compelling evidence, compounded by silence on whether the Applicant’s evidence presented “compelling reasons” as weighed against the risk posed by allowing the Applicant to remain in Canada. This decision also fails to address the Applicant’s central submission that a finding that she worked without status bars her from applying for a PGWP for 6 months, yet she is still required to apply for a PGWP within 6 months of finishing her studies. The Officer ignored or misunderstood the Applicant’s conundrum and simply noted that the Applicant could regularize her status from outside the country. The Court found the decision substantively unreasonable, as the Officer failed to engage with relevant evidence meaningfully and misapplied the assessment standard. Consequently, the application was allowed.
NADIA ZUHAIR SHIHAB // IMM-1074-24 // 2025 FC 482 // March 14, 2025
In 2023, Nadia Zuhair Shihab applied for permanent residence under Express Entry. When the application was rendered incomplete for being non-compliant with sections 10 and 12.01 of the IRPR, the Officer advised that the application “was not put into processing”. Although Shihab’s intentions and qualifications were not in doubt, the Court concluded that the Officer was working under transparent reasons and showed sufficient justification, as the Applicant’s Express Entry Profile was no longer in existence after the application was rendered incomplete and there was no active application to which a further document submitted afterwards could be applied. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
RODOLFO IDELFONSO // IMM-6937-24 // 2025 FC 392 // March 5, 2025
Rodolfo Idelfonso was found inadmissible to Canada because he didn’t mention a past criminal charge when asked. He had received a conditional discharge for the incident and believed he didn’t need to disclose it. However, the immigration officer decided that by not mentioning it, he had misled the government and closed off a line of investigation, even though the charge itself might not have made him inadmissible. The court disagreed with how the officer applied the rules. The law says that for missing information to matter, it has to be important enough to actually affect the decision. But the officer didn’t consider whether Idelfonso’s omission would have changed the outcome or whether his mistake was understandable. The court decided the officer’s decision was unfair and unreasonable. The application was approved.
MONIKA STOJKOVA // IMM-15832-23 // 2025 FC 511 // March 19, 2025
Monika Stojkova applied to enter Canada but was deemed inadmissible due to a prior foreign conviction for drug possession. The Officer cited that her conviction would be considered an indictable offense in Canada and thus met the threshold for serious criminality under section 36(1)(b) of the IRPA. Stojkova’s arguments sought to reargue the matter considered by the ID, rather than to focus on the ID’s reasons themselves, thus not meeting her onus of showing how those reasons lack intelligibility, transparency, and justification. The Officer’s decision was grounded in legal equivalency, without consideration of mitigating factors. The Court found the Officer’s decision to be legally correct and reasonably justified within the confines of the statute. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
SUBASH KUMAR ET. AL. // IMM-22654-24 // 2026 FC 333 // MARCH 12, 2026
Subash Kumar and his partner applied for Temporary Resident Visas in order to visit Canada, where their two children are studying. Their applications were rejected, thus prompting a request for judicial review of IRCC decisions. This matter marks the third time that the Applicants have sought review. Based on minimally detailed GCMS notes and a generic rejection letter from the IRCC, their applications were refused on the basis that their incentives to remain in Canada may have outweighed their ties to their home country. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the Officer failed to meaningfully consider the Applicants’ significant ties to India and previous international travel experience. Although the Applicants’ children do live in Canada, this sole factor is insufficient to outweigh the substantial evidence of their intention to return to India. This reasoning effectively treats family reunification as a reason to deny applications, which is one of the objectives of the IRPA. As such, the application was allowed.
SEYED HOSSEIN HOSSEINI // IMM-23492-24 // 2026 FC 298 // MARCH 4, 2026
Seyed Hossein Hosseini applied for a work permit under the International Mobility Program code C11 for business owners seeking temporary residence. Hosseini came with the intention of selling medical equipment in Canada, but his application was refused. The primary reason for this refusal was Hosseini’s failure to demonstrate that his stay would be temporary. Additionally, a C11 permit requires evidence that the work sought would create significant economic benefits in Canada, which was not proven. The Applicant’s English language ability was also inadequate for the position sought, which alone would have been sufficient reason for the Officer to reject Hosseini’s application. Taking all these factors into consideration, the application was dismissed.
GHAZANFAR MUHAMMAD // IMM-19900-24 // 2026 FC 290 // MARCH 3, 2026
Ghazanfar Muhammad applied for Permanent Residence and a Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) exemption but was found inadmissible. At the end of his counsel’s 13-page letter, there was a one-line alternative request for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP). The Officer failed to consider this request, arguing that the Applicant had not submitted a formal TRP application with the required forms and fees. The Court rejected this argument, holding that longstanding Federal Court jurisprudence establishes that there are no particular requirements governing the form of TRP applications such that even a single line submission is sufficient to trigger the duty on the part of an IRCC Officer to consider a TRP request. Since it was determined that the Officer erred in failing to address the Applicant’s request for a TRP, the application was allowed.
April
GLORY BARIKDER // IMM-21551-24 // 2026 FC 475 // APRIL 10, 2026
Glory Barikder applied for a Temporary Resident Visa to visit her father in Canada, but was deemed to have insufficient finances to support the stated purpose of travel. This reasoning does not consider the evidence regarding Barikder’s father’s financial situation, who agreed to cover her costs during her visit. Neither the Minister nor the Court can supplement an Officer’s reasoning where the decision itself does not demonstrate a proper assessment of the evidence; as such, the application was allowed.
May
TITO ROMAN REYES GARCIA // IMM-1834-25 // 2026 FC 642 // MAY 20, 2026
Tito Roman Reyes Garcia applied for both a Temporary Resident Permit and Work Permit, but both applications were refused on the basis of a failure to provide required biometric information. Garcia argued that he never received the Biometric Instruction Letter from IRCC and therefore the refusal ought to be set aside. While the Biometric Instruction Letter was in fact emailed to Garcia’s legal counsel on November 5, 2025, there exists no evidence that the email was actually received. As such, the application was allowed.
ABADA CHATER // IMM-1753-25 // 2026 FC 588 // MAY 4, 2026
Abada Chater applied for a Canadian visa but was found inadmissible for not disclosing his previous three visa refusals to the United States. Chater said this failure to disclose was an unintentional error, not a calculated effort to conceal information. Chater also did not believe the refused visas from several years earlier would bear negatively on his Canadian visa application due to the passage of time. The Court held that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to explain how the omission was material or could have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA. Materiality cannot be presumed, and the Officer’s bare assertion was insufficient to justify a finding of misrepresentation. Accordingly, the application was allowed.
