Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
In 2025, French-speaking candidates accounted for 42% of Express Entry invitations, totalling 48,000 applicants, as part of a federal effort to reverse the demographic decline of francophones outside Quebec. These targeted draws allow candidates with lower scores, ranging from 379 to 481, to be invited over non-French speakers who have significantly higher points in the general pool. While the government views this as essential for preserving Canada’s bilingual character, critics and economists argue that prioritizing language over human capital may overlook highly skilled professionals and negatively impact long-term economic productivity. Despite these concerns, Ottawa plans to increase the target for francophone newcomers outside Quebec to 12% by 2029.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has updated its operational instructions to reflect recent changes in fees for temporary residents. These updates specifically impact applications for extending authorization to remain in Canada, study permits, and general immigration procedures. The new guidance also includes a re-organized table of contents regarding functional guidance on fees and cost recovery to assist staff and stakeholders.
(Source)
IRCC has extended interim measures for citizenship and adoption applications that may be impacted by the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent. Originally implemented following a March 2025 ministerial statement, these instructions were initially intended to remain in effect until December 15, 2025. The updated guidance expands these measures to address proof of citizenship and adoption applications for those affected by the descent limits.
(Source)
The Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot (EMPP) officially concluded on December 31, 2025. While the pilot has ended, IRCC will continue to process complete applications that were accepted into the system on or before the closing date. Related instructions for permanent resident programs and economic classes have been updated to reflect the program’s conclusion.
(Source)
New IRCC guidelines have been introduced to facilitate the issuance of temporary resident documents for eligible Indigenous persons and their families crossing the Canada-U.S. border. These measures address long-standing stakeholder concerns regarding Indigenous mobility and the right to remain in Canada. The new instructions provide specific processing details for IRCC staff to support the mobility of these individuals across the international border.
(Source)
The main directory for the Temporary Resident section of the Program Delivery Instructions (PDIs) has been restructured for improved navigation. IRCC added two new headings, “General temporary resident processing” and “Extension of temporary resident status”, to capture multiple lines of business. Much of this content was transferred from the existing Temporary Resident Visa section to streamline the department’s guidance.
(Source)
Effective January 1, 2026, the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP) has expanded eligibility for self-employed physicians under the Employer Job Offer: Foreign Worker stream. Internationally educated physicians holding a provisional certificate of registration from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) and an OHIP billing number may now apply as self-employed. Additionally, postgraduate education license-holders are no longer eligible for the self-employed path but may still apply through the regular stream if they possess a valid job offer from an Ontario employer.
(Source)
The Manitoba government is raising concerns over a 40% reduction in federal international student allocations, which dropped from 18,591 in 2025 to 11,196 in 2026. Advanced Education and Training Minister Renée Cable stated that these cuts have led to a steep decline in enrolment and a significant revenue loss for public universities and colleges. The provincial government argues the decision was made without adequate consultation and creates long-term planning challenges for institutions that rely on stable student numbers for financial and cultural strength. Manitoba intends to continue engaging with federal officials to seek solutions that protect the integrity of its post-secondary system.
(Source)
Issue: Whether “Facilitation Letters” issued by third parties during the 2021 Afghanistan evacuation could ground a writ of mandamus compelling IRCC/Canada to issue temporary resident permits (TRPs), including whether the letters were a promise (or exercise) of Crown prerogative enforceable notwithstanding the IRPA. (paras. 1–3, 27–29)
Facts: A group of Afghan nationals sought mandamus to compel TRPs. Their claim was based on Facilitation Letters issued between August 29 and September 3, 2021, naming them and stating they had been granted a visa to enter Canada. The letters arose in the context of Canada’s evacuation efforts and were intended to assist individuals navigating Taliban checkpoints en route to Kabul airport. The applicants had not applied for visas under the IRPA and were not issued visas through IRPA processes; they argued the letters were a promise grounded in Crown prerogative that TRPs would be issued. (paras. 1–4)
Court Findings: The Court held that entry/status decisions must occur under the IRPA’s comprehensive statutory scheme and cannot be achieved through a non-statutory workaround that would override Parliament’s requirements (including the requirement to apply before entry). Even if a promise was made, it could not be enforced where it would override express IRPA provisions and the overall legislative scheme. The applicants’ Charter s. 7 argument failed because the hardship in Afghanistan lacked a causal link to identified Canadian state action; the risk was linked to third-party conduct and government inaction alone was insufficient on these facts. (paras. 27–29, 47–48, 56–57)
Outcome: Application dismissed; the Court certified multiple questions of general importance concerning Crown prerogative and non-official actors purporting to exercise it. (para. 59)
Why This Case is Important: It is a significant “rule-of-law/statutory scheme” case: it reinforces that visa/entry outcomes cannot be compelled through mandamus based on third-party documents where IRPA processes were not followed, and highlights limits on using public law promises / prerogative framing to bypass IRPA requirements—especially in crisis/evacuation contexts. (paras. 27–29, 47–48, 59)
Issue: Whether an officer reasonably refused a permanent residence application based on a claimed common-law partnership, given concerns about marital status/separation evidence and inconsistencies in the relationship evidence. (paras. 1–4, 18–24)
Facts: The applicant claimed to be the common-law partner of Ms. Hiba Ahmed (a protected person in Canada) and relied on a conjugal relationship beginning in 2021 and cohabitation in Jordan. The record showed the applicant married Ms. Wagdi in 2017 and later married a second spouse, Ms. Malih, in 2022. The PR application disclosed the marriages and included a notarized “separation agreement” with the first spouse; however, the officer found gaps and inconsistencies, including limited evidence of separation and concerns arising from the applicant’s continuing marital circumstances and the common-law claim. (paras. 7–13)
Court Findings: The Court found the officer’s concerns were grounded in the record and the applicant did not demonstrate the decision was unreasonable. The Court rejected the applicant’s attempt to reargue the merits, emphasizing that the officer reviewed the evidence and that the applicant had not displaced the reasonableness of the key findings (including the evidentiary weaknesses around separation/relationship proof). (paras. 18–24, 26)
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed. (para. 4)
Why This Case is Important: It underscores the evidentiary burden in common-law/family-based contexts: where marital history and separation evidence create uncertainty, applicants must provide clear, consistent, and corroborated documentation addressing status, separation, and the factual indicia of a common-law relationship. (paras. 9–13, 18–24)
Issue: Whether the refusal of a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application for PR was reasonable, including alleged errors in assessing establishment, hardship (including country conditions), and related discretionary factors. (paras. 1–3, 13–21)
Facts: The applicant, a Nigerian citizen, entered Canada irregularly in 2017 and made a refugee claim that was found to be manifestly unfounded. A prior H&C refusal and related JR had already occurred. In the H&C decision under review, the officer considered the applicant’s establishment and submissions about conditions in Nigeria and hardship on return. (paras. 4–7, 13–21)
Court Findings: The Court held the H&C assessment was reasonable. The Court rejected the argument that the officer applied an improper “exceptionality” threshold, finding the officer’s framing consistent with the discretionary H&C context. The Court also upheld the reasonableness of the officer’s treatment of establishment and hardship evidence (including the conclusion that the evidence did not justify relief in the circumstances). (paras. 45–46, 51–55)
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed. (paras. 3, 55)
Why This Case is Important: It is a useful H&C reasonableness decision on recurring arguments about “exceptional” language and weighing of establishment and hardship: it confirms that applicants must point to a material misapplication of the H&C framework or a demonstrable evidentiary/reasoning failure—mere disagreement with the weighing is unlikely to succeed. (paras. 45–46, 51–55)
Issue: What remedy/directions are appropriate where a study permit refusal is conceded to be unreasonable after a prior consent JR that already required redetermination—i.e., how to address repeated processing errors. (paras. 1–4)
Facts: The applicant’s study permit was refused, then (after a consent in a prior JR) returned for redetermination, and refused again. Canada conceded the second refusal was unreasonable. The applicant sought not only setting aside, but directions to ensure a proper redetermination. (paras. 1–4)
Court Findings: Given the procedural history (including the prior consent remittal and the conceded unreasonableness), the Court found it appropriate to set aside the decision and provide directions, including assigning a different officer and imposing a timeline. The Court also directed that redetermination proceed using the regulatory/policy framework applicable at the time of the original application (as set out in the Judgment). (para. 4)
Outcome: Decision set aside; redetermination by a different officer within 45 days; additional directions given in the Judgment (including which policy/regulatory framework to apply). (para. 4)
Why This Case is Important: It demonstrates the Court’s willingness to give robust remedial directions—including a different officer and timelines—when the record shows repeated decision-making defects even after a consent remittal. (para. 4)
Issue: Whether refusal of a work permit application was reasonable, including assessment of purpose of travel and the applicant’s intention/ability to leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay. (paras. 1–3)
Facts: The applicant applied for a work permit with a job offer connected to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and a pathway through a health authority stream (context described in the reasons). The officer refused, relying on concerns about family ties, financial situation/establishment, and ability to leave Canada at the end of the authorized period, among other factors. (paras. 1–7)
Court Findings: The Court identified an error regarding one aspect of the officer’s assessment (the reasons describe an error about qualifications), but held it was not determinative because the refusal was independently supported by other reasonable findings—particularly those tied to the end-of-stay/temporary intent analysis. (paras. 8–9, 12–17)
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed. (para. 50)
Why This Case is Important: It illustrates the “not determinative error” principle in JR: even where one part of the officer’s reasoning is flawed, the decision may survive if other grounds reasonably support the outcome—especially on the “temporary intent / ties / finances” cluster typical in work permit refusals. (paras. 8–9, 12–17, 50)
Issue: Whether a cessation decision (based on alleged reavailment of home-country protection) was reasonable, including whether the decision-maker properly analyzed evidence relating to the applicant’s identity/name change and its implications for the reavailment assessment. (paras. 1–3, 16–29)
Facts: The applicant, a Turkish citizen, had been found to be a Convention refugee. The Minister sought cessation based on the applicant’s conduct after status was granted, including prolonged return to Turkey and steps taken there. The decision-maker concluded the applicant had voluntarily reavailed themself of Turkey’s protection. The applicant argued the decision-maker failed to grapple with key evidence, including the significance of the applicant’s name change and what that meant for the reavailment analysis. (paras. 1–3, 16–29)
Court Findings: The Court found the decision-maker’s treatment of key evidence was inadequate and the reasoning did not sufficiently explain the conclusion on reavailment in light of the evidentiary record (including the name-change evidence and its relevance). This rendered the decision unreasonable. (paras. 21–29)
Outcome: Judicial review granted; the cessation decision was set aside and remitted for redetermination (per the Judgment). (Judgment section following reasons)
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that cessation/reavailment findings require clear, evidence-responsive reasons, particularly where the record contains evidence that could materially affect core inferences about voluntariness/knowledge and reavailment. (paras. 21–29)
Issue: Whether the Immigration Division reasonably found the applicant inadmissible under IRPA s. 35(1)(a) on the basis that, while in the Punjab Police Service (Pakistan), he made a voluntary, significant, and knowing contribution to crimes against humanity committed by that organization. (paras. 1–2, 30–33)
Facts: The Immigration Division concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant contributed to crimes against humanity committed by the Punjab Police Service (Pakistan). The applicant challenged the “significant and knowing contribution” analysis and the way the ID connected his role/membership to the organization’s criminal acts. (paras. 1–2, 10–12)
Court Findings: The Court held the ID’s assessment of the applicant’s alleged contribution was unreasonable. In particular, the Court found the reasoning did not adequately support the conclusion that the applicant’s conduct met the required standard of significant and knowing contribution (as analyzed through the governing complicity framework). (paras. 2, 41–43)
Outcome: Judicial review granted; the inadmissibility decision was set aside and remitted for redetermination (per the Judgment). (paras. 2, 51)
Why This Case is Important: It is a key reminder in s. 35(1)(a) complicity cases that decision-makers must do a disciplined, evidence-based analysis of individual contribution and knowledge—not merely infer complicity from association or employment where the record does not reasonably support the required nexus to crimes against humanity. (paras. 30–33, 41–43)
(Source)
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.