KEY IMMIGRATION DECISIONS

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

October 09–16, 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

Badana v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1252

A CEC applicant claimed qualifying work experience as a gas station supervisor.

IRCC issued a PFL questioning the employer's legitimacy and the applicant's employment. The applicant responded with business records, tax documents and employment evidence.

The officer ultimately accepted that the business was legitimate and that the applicant had worked there full-time. However, the application was refused because the officer doubted whether he actually performed the supervisory duties required under NOC 62010.

The Federal Court found that this new credibility concern had not been properly disclosed, depriving the applicant of an opportunity to respond.

A PFL addressing the existence of an employer does not necessarily provide adequate notice of a separate concern about the employee's actual duties.

In CEC applications, distinguish between genuine employment, qualifying duration, and qualifying NOC duties. They are related, but separate, evidentiary issues.

Judicial Review Granted. The refusal was set aside and returned to a different officer for redetermination.

A Ugandan applicant's refugee claim and earlier PRRA had been refused following adverse credibility findings.

In a subsequent PRRA application, she submitted new evidence of her same-sex marriage in Canada, together with information about Uganda's 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act and the alleged disclosure of her marriage to people in Uganda.

The PRRA officer did not expressly reject the new evidence as false but concluded that it did not overcome the earlier credibility concerns.

The Federal Court found this reasoning incoherent. If the marriage evidence was accepted as genuine, its implications had to be assessed against the current conditions in Uganda. If the officer doubted its authenticity, that credibility concern needed to be clearly articulated.

An earlier negative credibility finding does not eliminate the obligation to assess material new evidence.

For subsequent PRRA applications, clearly distinguish new developments, updated risk evidence and previously rejected allegations. Explain how the new facts affect the applicant's current risk upon return.

Judicial Review Granted. The matter was returned to a new decision-maker for redetermination. The Court also indicated that an oral hearing should be considered if the new officer doubts the truthfulness of the evidence.

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

- For CEC and Express Entry applications: verify that employment evidence establishes not only the existence of employment but also the specific duties required by the claimed NOC. If a refusal introduces a credibility concern not disclosed in the PFL, assess whether procedural fairness was breached. (Badana)

- For PRRA applications: distinguish new developments from previously rejected allegations. Where an applicant presents new evidence of a relationship, marriage, political activity or changed country conditions, explain how those developments affect the current risk. (Kayaga)

- For RAD appeals: identify specific errors in the RPD's findings and connect each error to the hearing record. Generic statements of law, without reference to the evidence and findings under appeal, are unlikely to provide an effective challenge. (Harb)

- For refugee cessation matters: warn protected persons about the risks of obtaining or renewing a national passport and returning to the country of alleged persecution. Document the reasons for travel and any genuinely exceptional circumstances. (Asghar)

- For mandamus applications: manage expectations about legal costs. Even where a delayed application is eventually decided, costs are not automatic, and properly documented security screening may justify a lengthy processing period. (Hyder)

Build the evidentiary record before the decision, and preserve the procedural record after it.

The strongest case is not necessarily the one containing the most documents. It is the one in which the evidence, the legal requirements and the decision-maker's concerns can be clearly connected.

An Afghan refugee applicant sought an H&C exemption from the Refugee Status Determination document requirement under the Group of Five sponsorship program.

After an initial refusal was successfully challenged, IRCC reconsidered the application but issued another refusal.

The problem was that the second decision reproduced almost all of the reasoning from the first, without meaningfully addressing the subsequent submissions and arguments.

The Federal Court found that the extensive copying, combined with the failure to engage with the updated record, undermined confidence that an impartial and independent redetermination had occurred.

The Court granted judicial review again. Importantly, it imposed a structured timeline: the applicants were permitted 15 days to provide a final updated package, and IRCC was required to issue its new decision within 30 days after receiving that package or confirmation that none would be provided.

When a client receives a second refusal following a successful JR, compare:

1. The original refusal: What findings and reasoning supported it?

2. The updated submissions: What new evidence or arguments were provided?

3. The redetermination: Did the new officer independently engage with the material issues?

A repeated outcome is not necessarily unlawful. Nor does copied language automatically establish bias.

The critical question is whether the new decision demonstrates genuine, independent consideration of the case.

For RCICs referring a second refusal to Federal Court counsel, one particularly useful document is a side-by-side comparison:

Original reasons → New evidence and submissions → New reasons → Unanswered material issues

That comparison may reveal whether the redetermination was meaningful or merely repetitive.

LOST — APPLICANT

An Incompetent Immigration Consultant Does Not Automatically Mean a Successful Judicial Review

Harb v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1257

A Jordanian refugee claimant lost his case after the RPD found a viable internal flight alternative in Aqaba. The RAD upheld the finding.

The applicant subsequently alleged that his former immigration consultant had provided incompetent representation.

The consultant's RAD submissions consisted largely of generic legal statements without identifying specific errors in the RPD's decision or referring to the supporting evidence.

However, the Federal Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable probability that the RAD would have reached a different result had the proposed arguments been advanced.

This decision carries two lessons for RCICs.

First, a RAD appeal should be a targeted challenge to the RPD's reasoning, not a general summary of refugee law.

Second, an allegation of ineffective representation must satisfy the applicable legal test. Poor submissions alone do not necessarily establish the prejudice required for a successful judicial review.

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

This week's decisions reveal an important distinction between the responsibilities of decision-makers and those of immigration representatives.

In Badana, IRCC failed to give the applicant a meaningful opportunity to address the actual concern that ultimately led to refusal.

In Kayaga, the decision-maker failed to properly evaluate material new evidence.

In Lali, the Court found that a second refusal did not demonstrate genuine, independent reconsideration.

But Harb reminds us that representatives also carry a substantial responsibility: to identify the real legal issues, connect them to the evidence and explain why they matter to the outcome.

A client's right to procedural fairness does not replace the representative's obligation to prepare a competent, evidence-based case.

Nor does an allegation of incompetence automatically establish that the underlying decision must be overturned.

The strongest immigration advocacy combines a complete evidentiary record, precise legal arguments and careful attention to procedural fairness.

When those elements are present, representatives are better positioned both to prevent avoidable refusals and to identify genuine grounds for judicial review when errors occur.

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.