KEY IMMIGRATION DECISIONS

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

AUGUST 28– Sep 4, 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

Mansoursharifloo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1111 — Federal Court Orders a Decision Within 60 Days

An Iranian citizen’s visitor visa application remained in security screening for approximately 911 days, despite reaching the stage of “approved pending info from partners” shortly after filing.

The Federal Court found that IRCC had provided no adequate, case-specific justification for the extraordinary delay. Security screening is important, but it does not permit an application to remain indefinitely unresolved without evidence explaining the delay.

A pending security assessment does not automatically justify an indefinite delay. In prolonged files, practitioners should examine the GCMS history and whether IRCC can identify any actual complexity or security concern explaining the delay.

Mandamus granted. IRCC was ordered to make a decision within 60 days.

The applicant relied on years of work, tax payments, friendships and establishment in Canada in support of his H&C application.

The Federal Court upheld the refusal. The officer was entitled to weigh the applicant’s failure to regularize his immigration status against his positive establishment in Canada.

Strong establishment is not automatically enough for H&C relief. Where a client has periods without status, practitioners should directly explain the circumstances, efforts to regularize status, and why the establishment should nevertheless receive significant humanitarian weight.

Judicial review dismissed. The H&C refusal remained in place.

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

Build the record before you need to defend it. Every important fact, explanation, inconsistency, delay, and piece of supporting evidence should be addressed while the file is still before the decision-maker—not for the first time on appeal or judicial review.

This week's decisions reveal an important distinction between legal arguments and evidentiary foundations.

In Montano Riascos, the applicants had significant evidence concerning discrimination against Afro-Colombians.

But the difficulty was connecting those conditions sufficiently to their personal circumstances.

In Agwata, the applicant attempted to rely on additional evidence at the RAD stage, but the statutory requirements governing new evidence limited what could be admitted.

In Forcades, substantial establishment existed, but the officer was still entitled to weigh the applicant's immigration non-compliance against it.

And in Mansoursharifloo, the administrative chronology itself became powerful evidence: an application that reached an advanced stage quickly and then remained effectively stalled without adequate explanation.

When reviewing a refusal for possible JR, ask one question before focusing on the legal arguments:

Does the decision-maker’s reasoning actually connect the evidence to the conclusion?

Look for the chain:

Evidence submitted → Finding made → Explanation given

If one of those links is missing, contradictory, or unsupported by the record, that may be where the strongest Vavilov reasonableness argument lies.

For RCICs referring a matter to Federal Court counsel, identifying that missing connection can be more valuable than simply identifying that the officer reached the wrong result.

Mansoursharifloo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1111

The applicant, an Iranian citizen, applied for a visitor visa in January 2024. Within approximately one month, GCMS showed the application as “approved pending info from partners.” Yet by the hearing, the application had remained in security screening for approximately 911 days.

IRCC argued that the outstanding security screening justified the delay.

The Court was not satisfied.

Justice Duchesne emphasized that although security screening is unquestionably important, invoking it does not give the Minister unlimited time. Where processing substantially exceeds what the process ordinarily requires, the government must provide an explanation connected to the particular applicant and particular delay.

This decision reinforces an increasingly important point in mandamus litigation:

Processing times themselves are not determinative. But once the evidence establishes that the delay exceeds what the nature of the process reasonably requires, the government must provide a satisfactory justification supported by evidence and specifically connected to the applicant's delay.

For practitioners handling Iranian files stalled for prolonged security screening, Mansoursharifloo should go into the mandamus toolbox.

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

“Security screening.”
“Systemic discrimination.”
“Trauma.”
“Long-term establishment.”

Each may be highly relevant—but none necessarily determines the result merely because the label applies.

This week's decisions repeatedly return to the same question:

IRCC could not rely on the label “security screening” without adequately explaining an extraordinary delay.

Refugee claimants could not rely on generalized discrimination without connecting it sufficiently to the viability of their particular IFA.

A psychological report addressing memory difficulties did not necessarily explain fabricated central events.

And years of Canadian establishment did not erase the consequences of an adverse immigration history.

For RCICs, the practical lesson is straightforward:

Build the evidentiary bridge between the legal principle and your client's individual facts. That bridge is often where a case is won—or lost.

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.