Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Federal data show that refusal rates for immigration applications across both permanent and temporary categories have risen sharply since 2023. Temporary resident categories have seen the steepest jumps: study permit refusals climbed to 65% (from 40% in 2023), visitor visas to 50% (from 39%), and spousal open work permits to 52% (from 25%). Permanent resident categories also rose, including family class (12.6% from 7.2%) and humanitarian applications (40% from 29%).
Critics argue the surge in refusals is linked to Ottawa’s aggressive backlog-reduction targets, staff cuts of 3,300 positions, and reliance on analytics that may prompt rushed or superficial assessments. Applicants report refusals with boilerplate reasoning, leading to repeated reapplications and litigation, which undermines confidence in the system. Lawyers warn that reduced processing capacity, automation, and stricter eligibility rules are contributing to errors, unfair outcomes, and emotional tolls on families.
The Immigration Department denies refusing applications to meet quotas, stating each case is considered individually, and recently began including officer notes in refusal letters for greater transparency. (Toronto Star)
Brian Lilley criticizes the Carney Liberal government for withholding immigration data that was traditionally released through Canada’s open data portal. Since May 2025, no new figures on immigration arrivals, asylum claims, or permits have been published, despite growing public concern over housing, healthcare, and labour market pressures. Conservative critic Michelle Rempel-Garner accused the government of hiding key numbers, stressing Canadians’ right to know how many asylum claims and illegal border crossings are occurring.
Lilley notes that past Liberal changes—including raising permanent resident targets, loosening Temporary Foreign Worker Program caps, and expanding work rights for international students—have driven record immigration numbers. He argues that the lack of raw, timely data prevents independent researchers, businesses, and journalists from assessing the system’s impact. Instead, the government now says it will release “packaged” information with added context, which critics fear will be politicized.
The column concludes that, given the Liberals’ track record of mismanaging immigration, Canadians have legitimate reasons to distrust this new approach to data transparency. (Toronto Sun)
The Alberta government argues that the federal government has lost control of immigration, with Canada projected to receive over one million new immigrants in 2025, not including nearly three million temporary residents already in the country. Alberta says Ottawa sets immigration targets without considering the strain on provinces, which must provide housing, health care, and education.
The province also raised concerns about an estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants nationwide who are not included in federal immigration counts but still access taxpayer-funded services. Alberta demands that these figures be recognized when immigration levels are set.
Alberta continues to lead the country in population growth, with a 4.36% increase in 2023–24, driven mostly by international migration (71.2% of growth) and the highest interprovincial migration gains in Canada. Between July 2023 and June 2024, Alberta added 145,395 people through international migration, up from 119,699 the year before.
The province warns that employment, housing, and public services are under severe strain and urges Prime Minister Mark Carney to follow through on promises to cap immigration and “fix the system.”
Quick Stats:
Issue: Whether prolonged delay (over four years) in processing a citizenship application justified mandamus.
Facts: Mr. Almasi, a permanent resident, applied for citizenship in May 2021. IRCC repeatedly delayed processing citing ongoing security screening. Despite regular inquiries, including through his MP, the file remained stagnant. In 2025, after an integrity interview confirmed his eligibility and no adverse findings, the application was still pending due to “security under review.”
Court Findings: Applying Vaziri and Conille, the Court found the delay unreasonable: it exceeded normal processing times (10 months vs. 50 months), was not attributable to the applicant, and lacked justification beyond blanket “security pending” statements. As in Jebelli (2025 FC 500), such generic references are insufficient; meaningful evidence is required to justify prolonged screening.
Outcome: Mandamus granted. IRCC ordered to render a decision within 90 days.
Why This Case is Important: It underscores that indefinite security screening cannot justify years-long delays. Courts will order mandamus where IRCC provides no concrete justification beyond generic references.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a Nigerian student’s study permit for lack of sufficient and stable financial resources was reasonable.
Facts: The applicant, a 25-year-old Nigerian, applied to study Business Insights and Analytics at Humber College. He provided proof of $70,680 CAD in combined funds from himself and his mother, including bank statements, property valuation, tuition receipts, and a letter of financial support. The officer refused the application, finding the financial evidence inconsistent, with lump-sum deposits and low balances, and not credible enough to show stable support for tuition and living costs.
Court Findings: The Court held that under IRPR s.220, officers must assess not just availability of funds but also their source, nature, and stability. The officer’s analysis of the mother’s limited personal bank statements, volatile balances, and unexplained deposits was sufficient. The applicant’s arguments about ignored evidence (real estate sales, support history, employment income) were rejected, as either unsupported or misconstrued. The officer was not obliged to accept conclusory letters of support without corroborating evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed. The refusal was reasonable.
Why This Case is Important: It confirms that study permit applicants must demonstrate not just possession of funds but also stable, traceable, and credible sources. Letters of support alone carry little weight, and courts will defer to officers’ assessments absent clear missteps.
Issue: Whether refusal of a Nigerian student’s study permit, despite proof of parental sponsorship, was reasonable.
Facts: Ms. Iloh intended to study BioScience Technology in Saskatchewan. Her parents, both working in Canada on valid work permits until 2027, pledged full sponsorship and earned $139,000 annually. She also paid a tuition deposit. The officer refused, citing insufficient reliable funds, parental temporary status, and limited ties outside Canada.
Court Findings: The Court found the refusal unreasonable. The officer failed to address compelling contradictory evidence: parents’ substantial income, CRA tax returns, and tuition already paid. Simply citing their temporary status without analyzing whether their income sufficed to support her studies was inadequate.
Outcome: Application granted. Decision quashed and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It demonstrates that officers must address financial evidence directly, especially when parents with legal status in Canada clearly demonstrate the ability to support studies. Ignoring such evidence renders a refusal unreasonable.
Issue: Whether refusal of a Parents and Grandparents Sponsorship application based on the husband’s alleged complicity in crimes against humanity was reasonable.
Facts: Ms. Wadud and her husband were sponsored by their son. The officer found the husband inadmissible under IRPA s.35(1)(a) for complicity in crimes against humanity during his 32-year service in the Bangladesh Police, and consequently found Ms. Wadud inadmissible under s.42(1)(a). The finding was based on his supervisory role (over 200 officers) and failure to discipline subordinates, despite his claim that he reported misconduct to supervisors.
Court Findings: The Court found the officer misconstrued and ignored part of the husband’s evidence, his testimony that he reported abuses leading to transfers/punishments. Dismissing this without clear reasoning was inadequate. Precision in terms (“mistreatment” vs. “crimes against humanity”) and time periods was lacking. Given the consequences, officers must provide coherent, responsive reasons.
Outcome: Application granted. Decision quashed and remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: It clarifies that complicity findings under s.35 IRPA must carefully assess an individual’s actual, significant, and contribution, not rely on imprecise reasoning or omission of exculpatory evidence. Courts will intervene where credibility findings are vague in such cases.
Issue: Whether refusal of a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application for failure to prove identity was reasonable.
Facts: Ms. Isaac Johnson, in Canada since 2009, previously obtained refugee protection (later revoked for misrepresentation). She reapplied for PR under H&C citing establishment, family ties, and best interests of children. The officer refused, citing identity concerns: she used different names and documents across jurisdictions, and evidence like DNA tests and a brother’s letter did not rehabilitate credibility.
Court Findings: The Court upheld the refusal. Establishing identity is fundamental; H&C relief cannot bypass this unless exemption is specifically requested. The officer reasonably found serious inconsistencies and fraudulent documents. DNA and sibling letters lacked independent probative value to confirm nationality or identity.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It underscores that proving identity is a non-negotiable requirement in immigration applications. H&C factors cannot override the need for credible identity evidence.
Issue: Whether refusal of an H&C application failed to meaningfully engage with evidence of a long-term common-law relationship with a Canadian.
Facts: The Serbian applicant, in Canada since 2018, lived with her Canadian common-law partner since 2011. Her partner remained legally married for traditional reasons and could not sponsor her. She sought H&C relief citing their interdependence, his past illness, and adverse conditions in Serbia. The officer acknowledged her establishment but dismissed it as not uncommon, downplayed the relationship, and suggested she could maintain it through visits or online.
Court Findings: The Court found the officer failed to meaningfully engage with:
Outcome: Application granted. Refusal quashed and remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that H&C decisions must be compassionate and context-sensitive, especially when applicants cannot access spousal sponsorship. Officers cannot reduce long-term relationships to mere formalities or suggest online substitutes. (Source)
Source: Alberta
Source: Newfoundland & Labrador
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.