KEY IMMIGRATION DECISIONS

A curated review of recent Federal Court decisions with practical implications for Canadian immigration practitioners.

September 4–11, 2026

THIS WEEK AT A GLANCE

Choose What You Want to Explore

FEDERAL COURT CASE TO WATCH

TIPS TO CHANGE YOUR PRACTICE

THE IMMIGRATION JUDGES DESK

WON, LOST & WHY IT MATTERS

OUR KEY INSIGHT THIS WEEK

Kavarizadeh v Canada, 2026 FC 1133 — Security Screening Did Not Justify the Delay

An Iranian couple applied for permanent residence under the Provincial Nominee Class in June 2022. By the hearing, the principal applicant had remained in security screening for 952 days.

IRCC argued that processing remained ongoing. But the Court found no evidence showing that the application was actually non-routine or unusually complex. The delay was longer than the nature of the security process reasonably required.

Importantly, the applicant had omitted military-service information from the original application. The Court nevertheless did not treat that omission as explaining the years of delay; IRCC had only requested the missing information in June 2026.

Where IRCC says a file is non-routine or requires prolonged security review, there must be evidence capable of explaining why the particular application requires the additional time.

The decision also confirms an important point after Benison: once an applicant establishes the first four Apotex factors, the applicant is prima facie entitled to mandamus. If the Minister wants the Court to refuse the remedy on discretionary grounds, there must be evidence supporting that position.

Mandamus granted. IRCC must determine the PR application within 90 days, calculated either from the judgment or from receipt of the outstanding military information, depending on when that information is provided. The applicants' separate claim for $10,000 in damages was dismissed.

Yosief v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1130 — Refugee Resettlement Refusal Set Aside

An Eritrean refugee family living in South Africa was refused Canadian resettlement because the officer concluded that the family already had a durable solution in South Africa.

On paper, the family had refugee status and legal rights to employment, education, health care and mobility.

But the applicants had specifically told the officer that formal employment was, in practice, restricted to South African citizens and that they could effectively only work through self-employment.

The Federal Court found that the officer focused on the legal right to employment without meaningfully addressing the evidence about whether that right was actually accessible in practice.

The Court emphasized that determining whether a durable solution exists is a forward-looking assessment involving not merely legal status, but also the applicant's personal circumstances and actual conditions in the country of residence.

Do not stop at asking:

“What rights does the law give my client?”

Also ask:

“Can my client actually exercise those rights?”

Where an officer relies on formal legal rights, practitioners should submit evidence showing any practical, systemic or personal barriers preventing the client from meaningfully accessing those rights.

This distinction can be critical in durable-solution and local-integration cases.

Judicial review granted. The refusal was set aside and the application was returned to a different decision-maker for redetermination, with an opportunity for the applicant to provide further evidence and submissions

This week's decisions point to a few practical changes that can immediately strengthen files:

Build evidence around the legal test—not around the application form.

A CV, reference letter, country document or GCMS note is useful only if it proves something the decision-maker is legally required to determine.

One of this week's most useful lessons comes from Towsif v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1137.

The applicant applied for an LMIA-based work permit as an ethnic food cook. The officer stated that the applicant had “no work experience in the field.”

That statement was wrong.

The applicant's CV did contain cooking experience.

Yet the Federal Court still dismissed the judicial review.

Why?

Because judicial review does not involve searching the reasons for any error. The question is whether the decision, read as a whole and against the evidentiary record, contains a sufficiently serious defect to make it unreasonable.

Here, despite the incorrect statement, the officer had separately explained the real evidentiary problem: there was insufficient evidence showing experience with important NOC duties such as maintaining inventory, hiring and training staff, and managing kitchen operations. The Court therefore found that the officer's overall reasoning remained intelligible and reasonable.

When reviewing a refusal for possible JR, do not ask only:

“Did the officer make a mistake?”

Ask:

“Does that mistake undermine the reasoning or the outcome?”

Look at the chain:

Error identified → Evidence affected → Finding affected → Outcome affected

If the rest of the reasons independently supports the conclusion, the Court may treat the error as insufficient to justify intervention.

For RCICs referring a refusal to Federal Court counsel, identifying why the error matters can be considerably more useful than simply identifying that an error exists.

The Applicant Won.

This case involved an unusually complicated procedural history.

The RAD had previously concluded that although the applicant made significant and knowing contributions to crimes committed by the Salvadoran military and death squads, those contributions were not voluntary. The RAD therefore found that he was not complicit and granted his refugee claim.

The IAD subsequently reached a different conclusion in inadmissibility proceedings under paragraph 35(1)(a) IRPA and ultimately made a deportation order.

The applicant argued that the IAD had failed to properly deal with the effect of the earlier RAD findings, including section 15(b) IRPR, res judicata and issue estoppel.

The Federal Court agreed.

But one aspect of Justice Ngo's reasons is particularly important for judicial review practice.

At the Federal Court hearing, the Respondent advanced arguments explaining why issue estoppel should not apply.

The problem was that those explanations were not contained in the IAD's decision itself.

The Court was clear:

The IAD had not meaningfully analyzed the applicant's issue-estoppel argument, and the Court held that it was not the role of either the Court or the Respondent to buttress the reasons after the fact.

This is a very useful case when reviewing a refusal or tribunal decision for JR.

The question is not:

“Can DOJ now construct a reasonable explanation for the result?”

The question is:

“Did the decision-maker provide a reasonable explanation for the result?”

That distinction matters.

A sophisticated argument advanced by the Respondent during judicial review cannot necessarily repair a central analytical gap in the original reasons.

And where the consequences are severe—as they plainly were here, where the IAD had made a deportation order—the requirement for responsive justification becomes even more important.

Judicial review granted. The IAD decision was set aside and the matter returned to the IAD for reconsideration. Importantly, the Federal Court did not decide whether section 15 IRPR ultimately applied to positive and negative findings; it found that the IAD's own analysis was insufficient.

A brief reflection by Hooshang Lotfi, MBA, CPA, RCIC-IRB

This week's decisions have an interesting common thread.

A refugee may have a legal right to work on paper—but Yosief tells us to examine whether that right can actually be exercised.

IRCC may write “security screening” in GCMS—but Kavarizadeh tells us that the label does not, by itself, explain years of delay.

A reference letter may say that someone is an excellent and experienced chef—but Towsif tells us that this does not necessarily prove that the applicant can perform the specific duties required by the NOC.

And DOJ may present a persuasive legal explanation at the Federal Court hearing—but Guevara Robles reminds us that counsel's explanation is not a substitute for reasoning that should have appeared in the decision itself.

That is the question practitioners should keep asking.

Not:

What document do I have?

But:

What legal issue does this document prove—and is the connection obvious to the decision-maker?

For RCICs, that small shift in thinking can substantially change how a file is prepared.

Build the connection before the officer decides the application. Do not leave it for the Federal Court to reconstruct later.

If you are an RCIC dealing with a refusal, prolonged processing delay, complex admissibility issue, or a matter that may require judicial review, our team is available to discuss the file with you.