Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) maintains field offices in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal, and Ottawa, though experts and Global Affairs Canada clarify these outposts are not authorized to conduct independent investigations or immigration enforcement on Canadian soil. Instead, these offices exist to assist in transnational Homeland Security investigations, a presence rooted in post-9/11 efforts to monitor global terror networks. Despite this limited legal mandate, the agency’s presence has sparked significant concern among advocacy groups like the Canadian Council for Refugees, particularly regarding the sharing of information between Canadian and U.S. authorities.
Public scrutiny has also intensified following a Star analysis revealing that more than a dozen Canadian companies have held contracts with ICE, including a $22 million (U.S.) deal with a Thomson Reuters subsidiary for database access and license plate reader data. Additionally, Ontario-based Roshel secured a $10 million (CAD) contract for 20 tactical armored vehicles, a deal that drew sharp criticism from NDP leader Marit Stiles. While Premier Doug Ford initially described the contract as “fantastic,” he later denied involvement or knowledge of the vehicle transaction.
This update clarifies the 2026 requirements for provincial or territorial attestation letters (PAL/TAL), which include a new exception for Master’s and doctoral degree students enrolled at public designated learning institutions (DLIs). The instructions consolidate Quebec-specific considerations and provide updated 2026 ministerial instructions, validity periods, and sample PAL/TAL forms. Additionally, certain organization IDs related to Francophone Minority Communities and specific study level extensions no longer need to be added for tracking. IRCC staff have also been provided with more details on verifying the authenticity of these letters using reports from provinces and territories.
(Source)
Effective February 6, 2026, IRCC updated the instructions for Open Work Permits for vulnerable workers (OWP-V) to provide clearer guidance for officers, specifically removing the requirement to contact applicants within five business days of receipt. New sections have been added regarding procedural fairness, immigration medical exams, and handling missing documentation. The update clarifies that these applications cannot be made at a port of entry or outside of Canada, and it provides expanded criteria for when officers should conduct interviews or issue refusals.
(Source)
The Nova Scotia Nominee Program (NSNP) is modernizing its application process by consolidating 10 streams into 4, a change set to be fully detailed on February 18, 2026. To facilitate this transition, the application portal will be temporarily closed from February 13 to February 18, 2026, during which time no new documents can be uploaded. Applicants with in-progress Expressions of Interest (EOI) must submit them before 4:00 PM on February 13, or they will be automatically cancelled. This modernization does not affect the eligibility criteria for priority areas like healthcare and construction, nor does it impact the Atlantic Immigration Program.
(Source)
Effective February 3, 2026, New Brunswick has implemented significant changes to its immigration streams, including a pause on new employer designation applications and the introduction of a monthly selection candidate pool for the Atlantic Immigration Program (AIP). The province is currently not considering endorsement applications or Expressions of Interest (EOI) for the accommodation and food services sector (NAICS 72) across various streams, unless the employer is outside that specific sector. Furthermore, foreign recruitment for candidates residing outside Canada is strictly limited to health care, education, and construction trades. The Private Career College Graduate Pilot has also been extended in a limited capacity through the end of 2026.
(Source)
Manitoba has updated the sector eligibility for its Temporary Resident Retention Pilot (TRRP) effective February 4, 2026. Under these new changes, the Hospitality and Food Services sector is no longer eligible, while several skilled trades have been added to the eligibility list to better align with current provincial labour market needs. The update serves as a primary notice for February 2026, with the province maintaining an extensive archive of previous monthly program changes dating back several years.
(Source)
Issue: Whether the Officer’s decision to refuse a work permit under the International Mobility Start-up Business Class Program was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Alipourmonazah, a citizen of Iran, applied for a work permit to launch a blockchain investment platform in Canada. The Officer refused the application, stating the business plan did not sufficiently demonstrate significant social or economic benefits for Canada (per s. 205(a) IRPR) and that the applicant’s motivation to return to Iran was diminished because he was traveling with his spouse and child.
Court Findings: Lack of Justification: The Officer failed to engage with the 70-page business plan, providing only a “cut and paste” of legal requirements without explaining why the evidence was insufficient.
Outcome: Application for judicial review allowed; matter remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that visa officers cannot simply use boilerplate language to dismiss complex business plans and must conduct a balanced weighing of family ties rather than using the presence of a spouse and child as an automatic reason for refusal.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a Labor Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) exempt work permit under the C11 category was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Azad, a Pakistani national living in the UAE, sought to establish a healthcare IT consulting company in Mississauga. The Officer refused the application, noting that the business plan was silent on the specific software being marketed and that the applicant’s UAE visa would expire while he was in Canada, weakening his incentive to leave.
Court Findings: High Deference: The Court found the Officer’s assessment of the business plan’s sufficiency was entitled to high deference.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It highlights that the burden is on the applicant to provide “clear and compelling” evidence for LMIA exemptions and that temporary status in a third country (like the UAE) can be a valid negative factor in assessing the intent to depart Canada.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a Start-Up Visa Work Permit was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Bhargava, an Indian citizen working in Qatar, co-founded “Builtdata,” a data storage platform. He had a Letter of Support from a designated business incubator. The Officer refused the permit, claiming the applicant did not provide an adequate business plan and that his ties to Qatar would be severed if he moved to Canada.
Court Findings: Unnecessary Requirements: There is no formal requirement for a “business plan/deck” for this specific work permit; the Letter of Support and counsel’s submissions should have been addressed.
Outcome: Application for judicial review allowed.
Why This Case is Important: It clarifies that officers cannot demand documents not required by law and must view a “severance of ties” with a current country of residence through the lens of the applicant’s overall compliance history.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a study permit for a Digital Marketing program was reasonable.
Facts: Ms. Bista, a 46-year-old from Nepal with an MBA, applied to study Digital Marketing in Montreal. The Officer refused the permit, stating she failed to show how the program would build on her 20 years of experience and that her purpose of travel was inconsistent with a temporary stay.
Court Findings: Factual Errors: The Officer incorrectly stated she had worked for 20 years (it was 10) and missed her 2010 hairdressing certificate.
Outcome: Application for judicial review allowed.
Why This Case is Important: It emphasizes that “reasons matter” even in high-volume visa processing; a boilerplate refusal that misstates facts is unreasonable and cannot be buttressed by counsel after the fact.
Issue: Whether Mr. Sosa obtained citizenship via fraud and if he is inadmissible for crimes against humanity.
Facts: Mr. Sosa, a former Guatemalan Kaibiles officer, obtained Canadian citizenship in 1992. He was accused of participating in the 1982 Las Dos Erres massacre, where hundreds of villagers were murdered. He allegedly hid his military past by claiming to be a factory worker when applying to Canada.
Court Findings: Fraud Found: Evidence showed Sosa concocted a “sham” refugee claim to hide his role as a military instructor.
Outcome: Declarations of fraud and inadmissibility granted; Canadian citizenship revoked.
Why This Case is Important: This massive 109-page judgment serves as a significant application of the “Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act,” demonstrating Canada’s commitment to ensuring it does not remain a “safe haven” for war criminals.
Issue: Whether the refusal of an H&C application was reasonable regarding the Best Interests of the Child (BIOC).
Facts: A mother and her 12-year-old son (diagnosed with autism and sensory disorders) applied for PR on Humanitarian & Compassionate grounds. The Officer refused, claiming there was “little evidence” of the father’s involvement, despite a court order for supervised visits due to the father’s past abuse.
Court Findings: Unintelligible Weight: The Officer gave “adequate” weight to the son’s friendships but never specified what weight was given to the overall BIOC.
Outcome: Application for judicial review allowed.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that in H&C cases, the BIOC must be examined with “a great deal of attention” and not dismissed with vague terms like “adequate weight”.
Issue: Whether the refusal to restore student status for a PGWP holder was reasonable.
Facts: Ms. Kaur, a citizen of India, held a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) until March 2024. She applied for a study permit and status restoration in June 2024. The Officer refused, stating she could not restore from one type of temporary residence (work) to another (study).
Court Findings: Restoration Rules: Under s. 182 IRPR, a foreign national can only restore to the status held immediatelyprior to the loss. Since she held a work permit, she could not restore as a student.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It clarifies the strict limits of status restoration: you cannot use the 90-day restoration window to switch from a work permit to a study permit; you must restore the status you just lost.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Mensah, a citizen of Ghana, claimed risk due to a land dispute with his kinsmen. His refugee claim was rejected for lack of credibility. For his PRRA, he submitted new affidavits from his wife and brother-in-law reiterating the same land dispute.
Court Findings: Evidence Threshold: Under s. 113(a) IRPA, PRRA evidence must be “new” and not just a reiteration of facts already considered.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It affirms that a PRRA is not an appeal of a refugee decision; submitting family affidavits that repeat old stories will not overcome a prior finding of lack of credibility.
Issue: Whether a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation regarding educational credentials was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Nguyen, a Vietnamese co-founder of a modular home startup, applied for a work permit. A “venture report” accidentally stated he had a Computer Science degree, which he did not. However, his actual application form, CV, and cover letter all correctly stated he only had an automotive engineering certificate.
Court Findings: Singular Focus: The Officer ignored all the correct documents and focused only on the single “typo” in the venture report.
Outcome: Application for judicial review allowed; inadmissibility finding quashed.
Why This Case is Important: It establishes that officers cannot “cherry-pick” one error in an application to find fraud while ignoring multiple other documents in the same package that provide the correct information.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) for a dentist and her son was reasonable.
Facts: Ms. Tajik, an Iranian dentist, wanted to attend a 2024 conference in Vancouver. The Officer refused her, noting that by the time of the decision, the 2024 conference date had passed, her bank records showed large deposits without explanation, and her travel history was limited.
Court Findings: Onus on Applicant: The applicant failed to explain why she wanted to attend a North American dental conference when she practiced in Iran.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It highlights that for a TRV to be approved, the purpose of travel must remain current (not a past event) and financial documentation must be transparent regarding the source of large deposits.
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.