Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Source: Financial Express
Public support for higher immigration has dropped sharply; most Canadians now want lower intake. Politicians are reacting, Carney says recent levels aren’t sustainable, Conservatives push hard caps, and provinces link pressures to housing and services. The shift follows a surge in non-permanent residents/students; Ottawa is tightening programs while labour advocates warn against scapegoating newcomers.
Source: CBC News
Source: Toronto Star
Experts urge streamlining (cut red tape/duplication), fewer ad-hoc ministerial directives, and clearer decision-making to rebuild public trust.
Source: Toronto Star
The Binder explains organizational structure, decision workflows, security protocols, and communications practices. The briefs review immigration outcomes, the annual Levels Plan, international partnerships, and all core program streams—economic immigration, temporary workers, international students, family reunification, refugees/asylum, citizenship, passports, and settlement services. It also flags risk management priorities, digital modernization efforts, and includes executive biographies.
Employer-driven MPNP pathway to keep eligible temporary residents already on staff; selections shift with provincial labour priorities. Core thresholds: 18+ months full-time with the same employer and a permanent offer; employer meets sector/revenue/retention/compliance rules; candidate in MB with valid WP, age 21–45, CLB 5 (TEER 0–3)/CLB 4 (TEER 4–5), and 60+ MPNP points. No advertising; if also hiring overseas, submit Employer Direct Initiative alongside the Pilot form.
The Guide includes updated information and features: pre- and post-arrival checklists, scannable QR codes, improved navigation with end-of-chapter resources, and a full A–Z resources directory.
IRCC updated its operational instructions on September 12, 2025 to (1) clarify Quebec Acceptance Certificate (CAQ) requirements, (2) add a new section on the provincial attestation letter (PAL), and (3) revise the CAQ exemptions and CAQ renewal sections.
Document Checklist: Application for Grant of Citizenship for Stateless Persons Born to a Canadian Parent (Subsection 5(5)) (CIT 0499)
Issue: Whether the Court should intervene (via judicial review/mandamus-type relief) to compel or prioritize IRCC’s processing given the Applicant’s circumstances in Gaza.
Facts: The Applicant is in Gaza and sought expedited action from IRCC. Counsel emphasized the dangerous conditions and urged urgent processing.
Court Findings: The judge held that general acknowledgements of the dire situation in Gaza do not, by themselves, establish the “exceptional circumstances” needed to warrant the Court’s intervention in IRCC’s processing priorities. The Applicant’s materials did not show a specific legal error or individualized exceptional factor distinguishing the case from many similar urgent requests.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that humanitarian crisis context, without individualized exceptional evidence or a specific legal error, is insufficient to obtain Court-ordered expedition of IRCC processing.
Issue: Whether IRCC’s refusal of a Home Child Care Provider PR application was unreasonable for failing to consider the Applicant’s response to a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL).
Facts: IRCC sent a PFL questioning the genuineness/ability-to-pay of the job offer. The Applicant’s representative uploaded a detailed response with supporting documents; IRCC issued an automated receipt. A later IRCC message ambiguously invited resubmission. The refusal reasons did not grapple with the PFL response.
Court Findings: On balance, the Applicant did file the PFL response. Any portal/processing glitch at IRCC is not the Applicant’s fault. Because the reasons did not reflect consideration of what she submitted, the decision failed the Vavilov standard of responsive justification and had to be set aside.
Outcome: Application granted; refusal set aside; remitted to a different officer. No certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms that IRCC must meaningfully consider PFL responses; technical issues or internal misrouting do not excuse a failure to engage with an applicant’s submissions.
Issue: Whether a misrepresentation-based refusal (s. 40) was reasonable where the officer inferred dishonesty about identity/nationality and prior claims, despite the Applicant’s explanations.
Facts: The refusal turned on allegations linked to identity/nationality and prior U.S. asylum matters. Applicant’s counsel provided submissions addressing the concerns, but the officer proceeded on assumptions about identity/document use.
Court Findings: The officer unreasonably adopted assumptions about the Applicant’s identity and travel/use of documents without grappling with counsel’s responses. The reasons did not meet the Vavilov standard; the misrepresentation finding could not stand.
Outcome: Application granted; decision set aside; matter remitted; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that misrepresentation findings require careful engagement with the applicant’s explanations; unsupported inferences about identity/documents will not suffice.
Issue: Whether a misrepresentation refusal was reasonable where the officer relied on withdrawn/earlier materials and failed to assess new evidence in the current file.
Facts: The Applicant had submitted new documentation and withdrew earlier problematic materials. The officer proceeded by verifying the withdrawn evidence while not substantively engaging with the new submissions.
Court Findings: If the officer chose to verify documents, that discretion had to be exercised reasonably. It was unreasonable to verify only withdrawn evidence and effectively disregard the new record. The Court cited Lamsen emphasizing vigilance in misrepresentation findings given their serious, lasting consequences.
Outcome: Application granted; refusal set aside; remitted to a different officer; Applicant may update the application before redetermination; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that misrepresentation analyses must consider the live record; officers cannot anchor findings on superseded or withdrawn materials while ignoring new evidence.
Issue: Whether refusal of an employer-specific work permit for insufficient language ability (IRPR s. 200(3)(a)) was reasonable.
Facts: The applicant sought a job-specific work permit; the officer concluded required language skills were not sufficiently demonstrated for the offered position.
Court Findings: The reasons adequately linked the evidence to the conclusion that the applicant did not demonstrate the language ability needed to perform the job. The decision met Vavilov’s reasonableness standard.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms that officers may refuse employer-specific work permits where the record does not establish the applicant’s ability (e.g., language) to perform essential job duties, provided reasons show a rational chain.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) was unreasonable.
Facts: The applicant applied for a PGWP; IRCC refused. She sought judicial review of that refusal.
Court Findings: The officer’s reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible on the record. No reviewable error was shown.
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Shows the Court’s deference to PGWP refusals where officers articulate a coherent path from evidence to conclusion.
Issue: Whether refusals based on adverse credibility findings about travel history/identity were reasonable.
Facts: Two applicants faced refusals hinging on inferences about their travel documents and movements (including an alleged impossibility of entering Australia with a particular passport and CBSA exit data suggesting a departure from Canada). They offered detailed explanations.
Court Findings: The officer’s inference that the Applicant entered the U.S. using a passport that could not have been used to enter Australia was not grounded in the record, especially given counsel’s explanations. The reasons also did not reasonably engage with explanations about the “08/31/2022” CBSA exit record. Overall, the decisions lacked justification and intelligibility.
Outcome: Applications granted for both applicants. (Decisions set aside and remitted.)
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces that credibility/adverse inferences about travel history must be evidence-based and must grapple with the applicant’s specific explanations; reliance on raw exit records without reasoned engagement is insufficient.
Issue: Whether a PRRA refusal was reasonable where the officer did not address a key, contradictory CBSA dossier and misapprehended the applicable legislative framework.
Facts: Mr. Dhaliwal, a long-time resident with a complex history including s. 34(1)(f) security inadmissibility (AISSF involvement), received an exclusion order in December 2023 and applied for PRRA, alleging risk in India as a perceived Khalistani separatist. The PRRA officer rejected the claim as speculative and unsupported.
Court Findings: The officer’s reasons failed to mention or reconcile the CBSA 2023 Dossier, a key piece of evidence that contradicted the officer’s findings. Under Cepeda, omission of highly probative evidence can rebut the presumption the decision-maker considered the record and renders the decision unreasonable. The officer also incorrectly engaged s. 96 analysis in a limited PRRA context that permitted only s. 97 risk assessment. Together, these defects undermined justification, transparency, and intelligibility.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; matter remitted to a different decision-maker; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Strong application of Cepeda to PRRA decisions: where a critical, contradictory CBSA report is ignored, reasonableness fails. Also clarifies the proper scope of limited PRRA (s. 97) analysis.
Issue: Was the officer’s refusal of a study-permit application (insufficient funds, weak home ties) unreasonable, particularly given later evidence that the applicant’s husband could cover expenses?
Facts: Kaur applied for a study permit. The officer refused for lack of funds and ties. On JR she argued the officer should have considered a jointly-filed spouse application showing the husband would fund her studies. The record also showed limited savings and a modest parental contribution.
Court Findings: The husband-funding argument had no traction because those materials were not in the Certified Tribunal Record (CTR) before the officer; the officer wasn’t obliged to go beyond what was filed in the application. Given the applicant’s own budget and evidence filed, the financial-insufficiency finding was open to the officer.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms that reasonableness is assessed on the CTR; post-hoc or parallel-file materials (e.g., spouse’s funding) won’t rescue a refusal unless they were before the decision-maker.
Issue: TRV refusal—were the officer’s reasons (using IRCC checklist/notes) and procedural fairness adequate?
Facts: Applicant’s TRV was refused. Case notes referenced doubts about her account and missing corroboration (marriage certificate). She argued the reasons were boilerplate and fairness breached.
Court Findings: Reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible; the officer applied the relevant criteria. The applicant failed to provide the key document that could have resolved uncertainty (marriage certificate). No procedural fairness breach.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms officers may rely on program checklists/GCMS notes if the reasoning addresses the central concerns; applicants must “put their best case forward” with decisive documents.
Issue: Work-permit refusal—was it reasonable to conclude the applicant couldn’t perform the job due to language/ability under IRPR s. 200(3)(a)?
Facts: Applicant sought a Canadian work permit as a cook. The officer doubted his ability to perform duties (English language, operational skills). He argued the officer demanded formal language testing and wrongly fixated on English.
Court Findings: The officer’s focus on job-performance ability, including language necessary to do the job, fell squarely within s. 200(3)(a). The officer did not require formal testing per se, but reasonably weighed evidence of ability.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that for employer-specific permits, officers may assess practical ability (including language) to perform the offered job as part of s. 200(3)(a) reasonableness.
Issue: Was the refusal to reconsider a PR refusal (wrong WES uploaded) unreasonable when the officer said they conducted a “thorough re-examination” but ignored the explanation?
Facts: Two files: (1) original refusal, counsel conceded no error; (2) refusal of reconsideration, officer stated they re-examined but did not engage the applicant’s explanation or the fact he produced the correct WES the same day.
Court Findings: Having undertaken a “re-examination,” the officer could not ignore the explanation; the reasons were circular and failed to grapple with the reconsideration basis. Unreasonable.
Outcome: JR on the original refusal dismissed; JR on the reconsideration allowed; reconsideration set aside and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Sets a clear bar for reconsideration decisions; once an officer “re-opens/re-examines,” they must engage with the explanation rather than recite the original error.
Issue: Home Childcare Provider Pilot refusal; was it unreasonable or procedurally unfair to rely on a WES ECA stating the credential was “not comparable to a completed Canadian education credential”?
Facts: Indian nurse applied under the Pilot. WES report: “three and one-half years of hospital study and training,” but with a “not comparable” remark. She argued lack of notice, over-reliance on guidelines, and fettering.
Court Findings: No fairness breach; the Instructions clearly state a credential must equal a completed Canadian post-secondary credential; applicant knew the case to meet. Officers can rely on the WES ECA (IRPR s.75(8) makes equivalency assessments conclusive evidence). No fettering shown; absent a request to depart from the criteria, deeper probing wasn’t required.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms binding effect of ECAs under s.75(8) IRPR in the caregiver pilots and limits on officers’ duty to go beyond clear program criteria absent an express request.
Issue: Overage-dependent refusal, did the IAD unreasonably find the son wasn’t a “student” and was procedural fairness breached?
Facts: Sponsor appealed a family-class refusal; son over 22 claimed continuous full-time studies. Record showed admitted registration irregularities, supply-chain excuse for non-compliance, and gaps.
Court Findings: The IAD reasonably found the son didn’t meet “student” requirements; no duty to telephone the son or chase additional confirmations; fairness obligations were low and met.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces low fairness content in family-class eligibility appeals and deference to the IAD’s fact-finding about continuous full-time study.
Issue: Was the IAD’s dismissal of a sponsorship appeal (child not a “student” and thus overage) unreasonable or procedurally unfair?
Facts: Sponsor’s child turned 19 in 2017 and sought student-based “overage” coverage but produced inconsistent proof of continuous full-time study. The IAD discounted evolving explanations and documentary gaps; hardship and H&C were raised but could not cure ineligibility.
Court Findings: Applying Vavilov reasonableness, the IAD’s analysis was intelligible and justified; no reviewable fairness breach.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: A companion to Sidhu—confirms the IAD’s rigorous approach to “continuous full-time study” and limited scope for H&C to overcome categorical ineligibility.
Issue: Was a work-permit refusal (graphic designer, LMIA-backed) unreasonable where the officer relied on NOC 52120 education requirements and found the portfolio unclear?
Facts: Applicant had an LMIA for a graphic designer role but held a Master’s in urban planning. The officer found her education lacked the required specialization and her portfolio didn’t show her specific role in the designs.
Court Findings: NOC and LMIA are non-binding but reasonable guidance; reliance on them was permissible. The onus was on the applicant to put forward clear, credible proof of meeting job requirements; she didn’t. Refusal reasonable.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms officers may lean on NOC/LMIA guidance and expect detailed, role-specific proof; portfolios must make the applicant’s individual contributions explicit.
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.