Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
A Canadian judge has paused the deportation of Angel Jenkel, a 24-year-old non-binary U.S. citizen, due to concerns over the risks LGBTQ+ individuals face in the U.S. The judge ruled that immigration officials failed to consider credible evidence of persecution, especially amid recent anti-LGBTQ+ policy changes. The decision highlights the importance of factoring in gender identity and sexual orientation when assessing deportation risks in Canada. (Toronto Star)
African asylum seekers in Toronto face significant challenges, including homelessness, employment discrimination, and systemic anti-Black racism. Many are forced to sleep outdoors due to overwhelmed shelters and restrictive policies. Even with work permits, they struggle to find jobs because of credential issues and racial bias. Legal hurdles and long wait times for refugee claims further compound their difficulties, often affecting their mental health. Despite these barriers, community groups are stepping in to offer legal aid, peer support, and culturally sensitive services. The report calls for expanded shelter access, faster processing, and anti-racism training to better support this vulnerable group. (Toronto Star)
IRCC’s Forward Regulatory Plan outlines anticipated regulatory changes for 2024–2026. Key initiatives include modernizing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) to streamline processing, enhance client service, and improve program integrity. Planned changes focus on areas such as:
The plan helps stakeholders anticipate and prepare for changes, but is not binding and may evolve based on policy priorities or operational needs.
On July 16, 2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) announced that it will accept up to 10,000 complete sponsorship applications under the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP) in 2025. Beginning July 28, 2025, and continuing over approximately two weeks, IRCC will issue invitations to apply to individuals who submitted an interest to sponsor form in 2020 and have not yet been invited. No new interest to sponsor forms will be accepted, as the department continues to draw from the existing 2020 pool due to the high volume of remaining submissions. Potential sponsors are advised to monitor the email address they used in 2020, including checking spam and junk folders. Applicants who receive an invitation must submit their applications electronically through either the Permanent Residence Portal or the Representative Portal. Those not selected this year may explore the super visa option, which permits parents and grandparents to visit Canada for extended periods, up to five years at a time, with possible extensions of up to two years per visit. Further details on past intakes are available in IRCC’s Parents and Grandparents Program: Intake Report 2020 to 2022.
As of June 15, 2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has extended the temporary public policy that allows Ukrainians and their family members who arrived in Canada on or before March 31, 2024, under the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (CUAET), to continue accessing open work permits and study permits. Eligible individuals with valid temporary resident status may apply until March 31, 2026, for a new open work permit, renewal of an existing one, or a new study permit, subject to standard application fees. Meanwhile, the temporary public policy for individuals with pending CUAET applications as of February 4, 2024, officially expired on December 31, 2024. However, all CUAET applications submitted on or before July 15, 2023, will still be processed to completion. Approved visa holders abroad can continue to travel to Canada during their visa’s validity period, but will now be treated as regular temporary resident visa holders. Those who were provisionally approved for an open work permit with their CUAET visa may still obtain the permit upon entry to Canada, provided their Letter of Introduction remains valid.
On July 16, 2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) issued updated guidance to ensure consistency in processing work permit applications under the Recognized Employer Pilot (REP). This pilot aims to streamline the hiring process for repeat employers participating in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) who have demonstrated ongoing compliance with program requirements. By reducing administrative burdens for trusted employers, the REP facilitates more efficient processing and supports labour market needs while maintaining program integrity.
On July 18, 2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) released updated guidance for officers assessing work authorization for foreign nationals employed in transportation-related occupations, including marine workers, flight crews, train conductors, entertainers, and transport drivers. The updated instructions clarify when marine workers may perform duties in Canada without a work permit under paragraph 186(s) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), and when a permit may be required under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program or the International Mobility Program. The revisions include specific examples to help officers determine whether a foreign national qualifies as a crew member exempt from requiring a permit. Additionally, Operational Bulletin 649 has been incorporated into the instructions, addressing marine workers involved in Seaspan above-deck retrofit projects under R205(a) – C10, citing Canadian interests. Minor updates were also made to guidance related to air and land transportation workers, with more comprehensive revisions expected in the future.
On July 16, 2025, the B.C. Ministry of Health announced the strong initial results of its U.S. recruitment campaign, which has generated nearly 780 job applications from qualified health professionals in just two months. The initiative has attracted over 2,250 expressions of interest from physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, and allied health professionals, underscoring growing momentum in international health-care recruitment. In support of these efforts, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. (CPSBC) implemented significant bylaw changes on July 7, 2025, to streamline the licensing process for internationally trained doctors. U.S.-certified physicians can now obtain full licensure in B.C. without additional assessments or training, while non-U.S.-trained physicians are no longer required to complete the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part 1, reducing costs and wait times. CPSBC is also consulting on further changes to enable direct licensure pathways for doctors trained in select countries with recognized medical credentials. The campaign reflects B.C.’s values-driven approach to health care and is supported by moving testimonials from newly relocated health professionals who cite professional fulfillment, cost-of-living advantages, and lifestyle improvements. The effort is part of a coordinated “Team B.C.” strategy to address health-care staffing needs and build a more resilient system.
As of January 16, 2025, the Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration (MIFI) has stopped issuing letters of invitation to CSQ holders residing outside Quebec for the purpose of applying for a work permit under administrative code A76. Immigration officers will continue to process work permit applications under this stream only if the letter of invitation from MIFI is dated on or before January 15, 2025. Applicants have 90 days from the date of the letter to submit their work permit applications. IRCC has updated its program delivery instructions to reflect this change.
As of July 18, 2025, Quebec’s Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration (MIFI) has reached the maximum number of undertaking applications it can accept between June 26, 2024, and June 25, 2026, for sponsoring parents, grandparents, or other extended family members under its family reunification program. No new applications for these categories will be accepted until June 25, 2026. Any submissions received beyond the cap will be returned without processing, and associated fees will not be deposited. Applicants whose submissions are returned may reapply during a future intake period, which MIFI will announce by June 25, 2026. However, applications to sponsor certain other family members, including minor dependent children, children to be adopted, and adult children with disabilities, are still being accepted. Notably, the cap for sponsoring spouses, common-law or conjugal partners, and adult children was also reached earlier in July 2025.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a work permit under the Start-Up Business Class was unreasonable given the applicant’s supporting documents and the officer’s reasoning regarding dual intent and incomplete submissions.
Facts: Mr. Khan, a Qatari resident and co-founder of a veterinary telemedicine start-up, applied for a Canadian work permit supported by a designated organization’s letter of support. He submitted evidence of language ability, bank records, business activities, and intended compliance with visa conditions. The officer refused the application, citing insufficient evidence of ties to his home country, limited economic establishment, and questionable purpose of travel.
Court Findings: The Federal Court found the officer’s decision reasonable. The application lacked certified IELTS results and an official Commitment Certificate from the Designated Entity. The officer appropriately considered dual intent under IRPA section 22(2) but was not compelled to approve a permit based solely on business support. The reasoning was internally coherent and grounded in the record.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: This case underscores the necessity of submitting complete and compliant documentation under the Start-Up Visa Program and affirms that dual intent does not eliminate the requirement to prove temporary stay compliance.
Issue: Whether the officer erred in refusing an intra-company transferee (ICT) work permit under the C61 category by misapplying the “affiliate” test and breaching procedural fairness.
Facts: Mr. Pakdehi applied for an ICT work permit as CEO of a Canadian startup linked to his Iranian company. The officer found that the entities did not qualify as affiliates, as they were not owned/controlled by the same group of individuals in approximately equal proportions.
Court Findings: The decision was reasonable. The officer properly applied IRCC’s guidance on “affiliates,” and there was no procedural unfairness. The application did not demonstrate the required ownership/control pattern under the affiliate test.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It affirms the need for clear documentation and alignment with the ownership/control definitions in ICT applications, particularly under the “affiliate” relationship standard.
Issue: Whether a study permit refusal was reasonable in light of detailed financial, educational, and familial evidence.
Facts: Ms. Parham, a 37-year-old Iranian public servant, sought a study permit to attend Royal Roads University. Her employer promised a promotion upon graduation, and she submitted proof of funding, admission, and her mother’s medical needs (MS). The officer denied the application, citing insufficient financial ties, weak intent to leave Canada, and prior studies at a similar level.
Court Findings: The Court found the refusal unreasonable. The officer ignored crucial evidence, including support from her employer and her caregiving role. The rationale on financial means and educational purpose lacked a rational connection to the evidence provided.
Outcome: Application granted; remitted for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: It confirms that officers must engage substantively with all relevant documentary evidence and avoid superficial dismissals in study permit decisions.
Issue: Whether the TRV refusal was reasonable when the officer failed to consider third-party financial support.
Facts: Ms. Mashhadi, an Iranian national, applied for a 20-day visit to Canada. The officer refused the application based on financial concerns and significant Canadian family ties. Her application included bank records, employment letters, and an affidavit from her brother stating he would support her visit.
Court Findings: The Court concluded that the decision was unreasonable. The officer failed to mention the brother’s affidavit, which directly addressed the core reason for refusal. This omission invalidated the analysis under paragraph 179(b) of IRPR.
Outcome: Application granted; remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces the principle that ignoring direct and material evidence, especially financial support affidavits, renders TRV refusals unreasonable.
Issue: Whether the TRP refusal unreasonably penalized the Applicant for consultant misconduct and failed to weigh her establishment in Canada.
Facts: Ms. Yarimdag, a Turkish national, lost status due to a negligent consultant who falsely told her an application was filed. She stayed in Canada and later applied for a TRP. The officer refused, stating she should have been more diligent, and discounted her establishment in Canada.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision unreasonable. It ignored documentary proof of diligence, misunderstood her integration in Canada, and failed to consider the consultant’s misconduct fairly.
Outcome: Application granted; matter remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that immigration decisions must account for representative misconduct and not unfairly punish applicants for factors beyond their control.
Issue: Whether the officer reasonably found the applicant inadmissible under section 40(1)(a) of IRPA due to a misrepresentation involving a fraudulent marriage certificate.
Facts: Mr. Liu applied for permanent residence under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program. He included a Chinese marriage certificate later revealed to be fraudulent. The applicant claimed he was unaware and blamed an unlicensed consultant. The officer issued a Procedural Fairness Letter and ultimately refused the application based on misrepresentation.
Court Findings: The Court held that the officer’s decision was reasonable. Misrepresentation under section 40 does not require intent or knowledge by the applicant, and individuals are responsible for the contents of their applications. The applicant failed to adequately rebut the officer’s concerns.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It reiterates that applicants are accountable for all materials submitted on their behalf, and misrepresentations, even if unintentional, can result in serious immigration consequences.
Issue: Whether the continued suspension of the Applicants’ citizenship applications under section 13.1 of the Citizenship Act was reasonable and whether mandamus should be issued to compel IRCC to make decisions.
Facts: Mr. Maher Alasmar and his three children applied for citizenship in 2019. Their applications were suspended due to a CBSA inadmissibility investigation, primarily based on national security concerns relating to the Principal Applicant’s brother. Despite the CBSA closing its investigation in 2022 with no findings of inadmissibility, the suspension remained. The Applicants sought judicial review and a writ of mandamus.
Court Findings: The Court found that the suspension under section 13.1 had lasted longer than necessary and was thus unreasonable. The CBSA’s investigation lacked sufficient evidentiary activity post-2022, and IRCC’s continued reliance on CBSA updates without independent evaluation was unjustified. The Applicants met all criteria for mandamus.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Suspension of citizenship applications set aside. Mandamus issued requiring IRCC to render decisions within 90 days. Costs of $2,000 awarded to the Applicants.
Why This Case is Important: This is only the second case after Sharafaldin to set aside a section 13.1 suspension. It reaffirms that indefinite delays, even for national security investigations, require active justification and oversight by IRCC, and demonstrates the Federal Court’s willingness to issue mandamus for excessive citizenship delays.
Issue: Whether the officer’s assessment of the Applicants’ humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application was reasonable, particularly in regard to religious conversion and hardship on return to Iran.
Facts: The Applicants, elderly parents of Canadian residents, sought PR under H&C grounds. The female Applicant had converted to Christianity. The application highlighted risk and hardship due to strained family ties and religious conversion. The Officer gave little weight to the religious factor, citing lack of evidence beyond persecution.
Court Findings: The Officer misunderstood the scope of subsection 25(1.3) of IRPA, improperly excluding potential hardships simply because they could also be relevant to a refugee claim. The Officer failed to analyze the conversion through the lens of hardship, as required by Kanthasamy.
Outcome: Judicial review allowed. Decision quashed and remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It clarifies the interpretation of IRPA s. 25(1.3), reaffirming that facts relating to risk may still be relevant under the H&C hardship framework. It reinforces the need for officers to meaningfully engage with religious conversion evidence.
Issue: Whether the visa officer’s refusal of an open work permit was reasonable in light of evidence regarding family ties, economic establishment, and intent to leave Canada.
Facts: Ms. Bahmani, an Iranian citizen residing in the UAE, applied to reunite with her husband in Canada. The application was refused due to insufficient ties to her home country, weak financial establishment, and perceived “push factors” from Iran.
Court Findings: The Court found the officer’s decision to be reasonable. The analysis of ties and economic circumstances fell within the discretion of the visa officer, and the decision was consistent with IRPR s. 200(1)(b).
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces the high threshold for overturning discretionary visa refusals and supports the use of socioeconomic “push” factors as legitimate considerations in TRV assessments.
Issue: Whether the H&C decision failed to reasonably assess trauma from childhood sexual abuse and the related establishment and hardship considerations.
Facts: Ms. Blugh, a survivor of incest, sought H&C relief after living in Canada for 15 years. Her application highlighted the trauma’s ongoing effects and lack of support in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The officer acknowledged the abuse but gave it little weight, focusing instead on her immigration history.
Court Findings: The officer misapprehended the central hardship and failed to apply the Kanthasamy framework. The reasoning lacked compassion, misunderstood the Applicant’s situation, and did not meaningfully grapple with key evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Decision set aside and remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: It illustrates the importance of a trauma-informed and compassionate approach to H&C assessments and sets standards for analyzing complex psychological impacts.
Issue: Whether the officer unreasonably rejected a TRV application without considering the full evidentiary record on financial capacity and intent to return.
Facts: Mr. Dahela, a business owner in India, applied for a TRV to visit his sister in Canada. The officer found insufficient financial evidence and lack of credible ties, relying mainly on a bank statement while disregarding business records, tax returns, affidavits, and family support.
Court Findings: The Court held that the officer failed to engage with the full record, rendering the decision unreasonable. The decision lacked justification and transparency and ignored key financial and familial support documents.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Matter remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It underscores that visa officers must meaningfully address the totality of submitted evidence, particularly in TRV refusals.
Issue: Whether the officer reasonably assessed an H&C application based on intergenerational caregiving responsibilities and family hardship.
Facts: Mr. Dhaliwal, in Canada since 2019, supported his elderly parents after his brother’s suicide. His wife cared for them daily. Despite substantial evidence, including letters from siblings and parents, the officer concluded that alternative care was available via siblings or government support.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision unreasonable. The officer failed to grapple with the intensity of interdependency and financial limitations. Reliance on government services was speculative and contradicted by record evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Decision set aside and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It highlights the need for careful consideration of caregiving roles and familial interdependence in H&C assessments, especially where there is credible evidence of hardship.
Issue: Whether the officer applied an incorrect legal threshold and failed to reasonably assess hardship and establishment in refusing an H&C application.
Facts: Ms. Olanipekun, a Nigerian national, lived in Canada for over 9 years, working in healthcare and undergoing fertility treatment. Her H&C application emphasized medical hardship, societal stigma toward childlessness in Nigeria, and long-standing community ties. The officer rejected the application, noting that her establishment was not “uncommon” and that alternative treatment options were available in Nigeria.
Court Findings: The Court found that the officer improperly applied a higher threshold than required under section 25(1), demanding “uncommon” or “exceptional” establishment. The officer also minimized the stigma evidence and failed to grapple with the broader socio-cultural hardships facing childless women in Nigeria.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision set aside and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: The case affirms that H&C assessments must avoid requiring “exceptionality” and should fully consider medical and cultural hardship in the country of origin.
Issue: Whether the officer reasonably assessed the Applicant’s family ties and risk of harm in Guyana in her H&C refusal.
Facts: Ms. Singh, a Guyanese national living in Canada for nearly two decades, applied for PR under H&C grounds. She cited strong ties to her adult children, elderly mother, and siblings in Canada, and fears of violence if returned to Guyana due to attacks on her husband’s family business. The officer acknowledged her children but ignored her broader family ties and misstated the ongoing safety concerns in Guyana.
Court Findings: The Court found the officer’s decision unreasonable. Key factual errors and omissions undermined the hardship analysis, particularly regarding criminal threats and familial support.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; decision remitted.
Why This Case is Important: It affirms that family separation and safety risks must be substantively and accurately evaluated in H&C decisions.
Issue: Whether the officer’s refusal of an H&C application failed to demonstrate the compassion and empathy required under law.
Facts: Mr. Svanidze, a Georgian national who had not returned to his home country in over 30 years, applied for PR under H&C grounds. He cited religious discrimination, poor healthcare, lack of ties in Georgia, and his father’s deteriorating health (who later died in Canada). The officer denied the application, finding limited establishment and downplaying hardship risks.
Court Findings: The Court held the decision lacked empathy and coherence. The officer contradicted themselves on employment prospects and failed to consider the reality of uprooting someone after decades of absence from their homeland.
Outcome: Application granted; remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: It affirms that H&C decisions must not be robotic or rote, but rather grounded in a compassionate and holistic understanding of the applicant’s circumstances.
For comprehensive legal analysis or strategic case support, contact Greenberg Hameed PC.
The content of this bulletin is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide or be relied on as legal advice.
in**@*************ed.com
Click on the blurred section to reveal the full email address.
Suite 2079 – 325 Front Street West, Toronto, ON, M5V 2Y1
Business hours
Monday to Friday: 9 a.m to 5 p.m
Saturdays:
Sundays: Closed
View our full Privacy Policy.