May Campos v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

2026 FC 838 · IMM-13867-25 · Ahmed J. · June 19, 2026

Decided on: Legal/reasoning error (elevated H&C threshold, BIOC not separately assessed) — not a documentary-evidence win.

[38] In my view, the Officer did not simply view relief based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations as an exception to Canada's immigration laws, but they also improperly required the Applicants to show exceptional circumstances…

Certified question: None

Dhir v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

2026 FC 903 · IMM-156-25 · Gleeson J. · July 3, 2026

Decided on: Strict statutory deadline — no discretion available regardless of the record.

[18] …if the application for restoration is brought outside of the 90-day period imposed by law, the officer must refuse the application…

Certified question: None

Padilla Munoz v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

2026 FC 910 · IMM-1801-25 · Blackhawk J. · July 6, 2026

Decided on: Procedural fairness (undisclosed IFA finding) — the substantive risk analysis itself was actually upheld as reasonable.

[57] …the Officer did not provide notice that he was considering an IFA, nor was the Applicant provided an opportunity to respond to this. Accordingly, the Officer breached…

Certified question: None

Lu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

2026 FC 974 · IMM-18971-24 · Ahmed J. · July 17, 2026

Decided on: Applicant's own non-delegable duty to verify their application — no evidentiary basis for the incompetence claim.

[24] The Applicants signed the Background Declaration form—three times—declaring that the information in the form was “truthful, complete and correct.”…

Certified question: None

Parikh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

2026 FC 837 · IMM-22197-24 · Thorne J. · June 19, 2026

Decided on: Substantive reasonableness on purpose-of-visit/dual-intent grounds — the closest fit in this batch to a classic discretionary refusal upheld.

[36] …Concerns with the sufficiency, adequacy or completeness of an application do not give rise to a duty to alert together with the opportunity to respond…

Certified question: None

Zhou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

2026 FC 927 · IMM-3720-25 · Sadrehashemi J. · July 9, 2026

Decided on: Specific, evidenced policy justification for the delay — contrast with Almasi below.

[34] …I am, however, satisfied that in this case, the significant reduction in the admission range explains the increase in processing delays…

Certified question: None

Cadogan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

2025 FC 1125 · IMM-5837-24 · Southcott J. · June 23, 2025

Decided on: Reasonableness of the misrepresentation finding — process (short PFL window) was also upheld as fair.

[15] …the fact that the Applicant ultimately disclosed the previous refusals in response to the PFL does not detract from the materiality of the original failure to disclose them…

Certified question: None

John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, and John Doe v Canada (Attorney General)

2025 FC 1083 · IMM-6940-23 · Brown J. · June 16, 2025

Decided on: Threshold mootness doctrine — not decided on the merits at all. Outside the normal schema; flagged separately.

[67] …I find this challenge to the CUAET policy is moot. The Policy came into existence in 2022 and expired in 2023…

Certified question: None

Almasi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

2025 FC 1377 · T-439-24 · Diner J. · August 14, 2025

Decided on: No specific evidence justifying the delay — contrast with Zhou above.

[19] …the Global Case Management System notes for Mr. Almasi state that “security remains under review” without any other information to provide any basis or explanation…

Certified question: None