By Navratan Fateh, Barrister & Solicitor.
On March 12, 2026, the Federal Court of Canada released its decision in Kumar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 333, a case that illustrates both the challenges and the importance of judicial oversight in Canada’s immigration system. The judgment granted judicial review and ordered that the applicants’ Visitor Visa application be reconsidered on an expedited basis, while also awarding $1000 costs against the Minister.
For me as counsel, this case was not simply another immigration dispute. It became a test of persistence, strategy, and the limits of administrative decision-making when applicants repeatedly face identical refusals despite strong evidence.
The Beginning: A Straightforward Visitor Visa Application
The applicants, Subash Kumar and Rashmi, are citizens of India whose two children are studying in Canada. Their goal was simple: to visit their children during their studies and share important milestones such as graduations and family events.
They applied for a Temporary Resident Visa on February 14, 2024. Within days, the application was refused with use of the IRCC’s artificial intelligence software “Chinook”. The officer concluded that the applicants had not sufficiently demonstrated that they would leave Canada at the end of their stay.
This reasoning was troubling because the applicants had strong ties to India. They were financially established, had employment and business interests, and had demonstrated a history of international travel with compliance to immigration rules. They had returned home after visiting several countries, including Thailand, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom.
However, the officer focused almost exclusively on one factor: their children were studying in Canada.
From a legal perspective, this raised a critical question: should parents be denied a visitor visa simply because they want to visit their children?
The First Federal Court Challenge
When the refusal arrived, I advised the clients that the decision could be challenged through judicial review at the Federal Court. With more than eleven years of litigation experience in immigration matters, I have seen many refusals overturned where officers fail to properly weigh evidence.
We filed the judicial review application and presented our arguments to the Court and the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice chose to settle the case. In Federal Court practice, settlement often means that the government agrees to send the application back for reconsideration by a different officer rather than defending the refusal in court.
In my experience, accepting such settlements is usually in the client’s best interest. It saves time and legal costs and often leads to a fair reassessment of the application.
So we accepted the settlement.
Unfortunately, the reconsideration resulted in another refusal.
A Second Trip to Court
When the second refusal arrived, my clients were understandably disappointed. They had already invested time and money in the process.
From a professional standpoint, this was also a difficult moment. The clients had already paid legal fees for the visa application and the first Federal Court challenge. Yet they were now facing another refusal based on essentially the same reasoning.
I sympathized deeply with their situation. To support them, I offered to take the case back to Federal Court again at half my usual legal fee.
We filed a second judicial review.
Once again, the Department of Justice offered a settlement.
Once again, we accepted it in good faith.
Delays and Mandamus
This time, however, something unusual happened.
After the settlement, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada delayed reopening the file for an extended period. Meanwhile, my clients were missing crucial moments in their children’s lives: convocations, family milestones, and even the emotional support that parents provide when children are studying abroad.
At that point we initiated a mandamus application, asking the Court to compel immigration authorities to process the file.
Shortly after the mandamus was filed, the file was finally reopened and a decision was issued.
But astonishingly, the application was refused again.
Returning to Court for the Fourth Time
At this stage, the situation had become deeply frustrating—not only for my clients but also from a legal perspective.
We had already gone to court twice for judicial review and once for mandamus. Despite settlements and court interventions, the same type of refusal continued to appear.
My clients had understandably lost faith in the process.
Nevertheless, I believed the case deserved one final challenge. I decided to take up this matter pro bono. This time, we refused to accept the settlement offers and asked the Court not only to overturn the refusal but also to issue a directed verdict and award $15,000 costs against the Minister.
Leave was granted, and the matter proceeded to a hearing.
The Federal Court’s Decision
In its decision, the Court found that the visa officer’s reasoning was unreasonable.
The officer focused heavily on the applicants’ family ties in Canada while failing to meaningfully consider the substantial evidence of ties to India, including employment, business interests, and family obligations.
The Court also emphasized that visa officers must evaluate both “push factors” (reasons someone might remain in Canada) and “pull factors” (reasons they would return home). In this case, the officer failed to engage with the strong pull factors presented by the applicants.
Justice Grant ultimately concluded that the decision lacked sufficient justification and ordered the matter returned for redetermination by a different officer on an expedited basis. He also cited CILA’s December 2025 letter to IRCC regarding solutions to address arbitrary TRV application refusals.
The Court also awarded $1000 costs to the applicants, recognizing the unusual circumstances of the case and the repeated litigation required to challenge similar refusals.
