Weekly

Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.

ImmPulse Weekly Videos
Previous Editions

ImmPulse Weekly

Reporting Period | August 18-22, 2025

Click here to watch this week's edition of ImmPulse Weekly Video

Subscribe
  • Ottawa Thinks This Visa Program Can Boost Canada
  • Express Entry: Upfront Medicals Now Mandatory
  • Yukon Nominee Program Expands Pathways
  • Express Entry Draw: 2,500 Healthcare/Social Services Invitations
  • Ottawa’s Response To 500,000 Undocumented Residents
  • Declining Student and Worker Arrivals, Rise In Refugee Claims
  • U.S. Veteran Seeking Asylum In Canada

Media Commentary & Policy Reflections

Ottawa Thinks This Visa Program Can Boost Canada

Canada’s Start-Up Visa (SUV) program, launched in 2013 to attract innovative entrepreneurs, is facing mounting pressure as applications pile up and refusal rates climb. As of 2025, there are 17,919 SUV permanent residence applications in the system, with an average processing time of 52 months. The federal government has reduced annual business immigration spots from 5,000 in 2024 to 2,000 in 2025, and further down to 1,000 for 2026 and 2027.

 

Refusal rates have spiked: in the first quarter of 2025, 73% of incubator-based SUV PR applications were refused (up from 10% in 2023), while 85% of those through angel investor networks were refused (up from 18% in 2023). Work permit refusals for SUV applicants also rose to 77%, compared with 55% the year before, with only 3,345 approved work permits out of all pending PR cases.

 

Ottawa has capped each designated organization to 10 SUV PR applications per year and now prioritizes cases with venture capital or angel investor funding. While these measures are intended to address backlogs and improve integrity, critics argue they risk disadvantaging genuine innovators and favouring those who can afford higher costs. Proposals under review include replacing the current designated-organization model with a ranking system tied to investment, business track record, and alignment with priority sectors, as well as reintroducing investor programs tied to job creation and regional development. (Toronto Star)

Economists and migrant advocates are pressing the federal government to account for Canada’s estimated 500,000 undocumented residents as it consults on immigration levels for 2025–2027. Critics argue ignoring this population distorts housing, labour, and service planning. While Ottawa previously promised a regularization program, only a small construction-worker pathway has been floated so far. (The Globe And Mail)

Fresh IRCC statistics reveal a sharp drop in new temporary residents in early 2025: international students fell to 36,000 (from 125,000), new work permits to 119,000 (from 245,000), and asylum claims to 57,000 (from 91,000). The government says this proves its measures are slowing growth, though backlogs continue to rise with more than 2.2 million applications pending. (Toronto Star)

A 51-year-old U.S. Army veteran, Dan Livers, crossed the Detroit River by kayak and claimed asylum after landing in LaSalle, Ontario. He says he fears persecution in Michigan and hopes to find peace in Canada. While he has temporary status, experts note U.S. citizens face very slim chances of being recognized as refugees under Canadian law. (CBC News)

Immigration Highlights

  • New Requirement: All Express Entry PR applicants must now submit an upfront medical examination at the time of filing.
  • Updates Made: Completeness check instructions and medical exam issuance instructions have been revised.
  • Transition Period: Applications submitted without medicals during the transition should not be rejected as incomplete.

(Source)

  • Increase: Yukon received 67 more allocations from IRCC, raising its 2025 total to 282 (up from 215 after January’s 50% cut).
  • Purpose: Result of Yukon’s advocacy on behalf of employers; enables more invitations from the Expression of Interest (EOI) pool.
  • Invitations: 13 withdrawn invitations from the first round can be reissued; ~80 new invitations to apply are being sent out in August.
  • Priority groups (as of April 22, 2025):
    • Foreign nationals with ≥1 year work in Yukon
    • Yukon University graduates
    • Francophone/French-speaking candidates
    • Recipients of a Temporary Measure Letter of Support
  • Healthcare allocations: 10 spots reserved for regulated health care until Sept. 30, 2025, after which they return to the general pool.
  • Context: EOI intake (Mar–Apr 2025) received 500+ submissions, nearly 400 aligned with priorities. Yukon has shifted from a first-come-first-served model to an EOI approach like other provinces.

(Source)

Recent Case Law

Issue: Whether refusal of a Quebec Investor Class PR application for lack of intent to reside was unreasonable or procedurally unfair.

Facts:

  • Chinese applicant, long-term Singapore resident, applied under the Quebec Investor Program (QIIP). Obtained CSQ in 2021.
  • Officer requested evidence (housing, schooling, French, business, relocation steps). Applicant submitted settlement/business plan and explained delays (COVID-19, injury).
  • At July 2024 interview, officer found her responses vague: one short trip to Montreal, no housing/neighbourhood research, uncertain business plans, minimal French study.
  • Application refused for failing IRPR s.90(2): lacking intent to reside in Quebec.
  • Applicant argued:
    • No interpreter notice;
    • No advance notice of intent-to-reside concerns;
    • Officer ignored contextual evidence (COVID, property ban on foreigners).

 

Court Findings:

  • Procedural fairness:
    • No interpreter breach: record showed strong English proficiency; issue not raised at interview.
    • Notice: residency intent is central to QIIP; request letter + interview sufficed. No duty to spell out every concern.
  • Reasonableness:
    • Officer reasonably found “thin” evidence of intent to reside: one-day visit, no concrete plans, vague answers, no French studies.
    • COVID/property ban did not excuse lack of serious preparation.
  • New affidavit evidence about other refusals at Singapore office inadmissible (not background but merits evidence).

 

Outcome: Application dismissed.

Why This Case is Important:

  • Confirms high deference to visa officers in assessing intention to reside under provincial programs.
  • Clarifies procedural fairness scope: officers need not give advance notice of concerns arising directly from statutory criteria.

Signals that vague or last-minute relocation evidence will not meet the high standard for investor program residency intent.

Issue: Whether refusal of TRVs based on boilerplate reasoning was reasonable.

Facts:

  • Iranian mother and son applied for TRVs to visit husband/father in Canada (on open work permit). Planned 2-week visit.
  • Officer refused, citing standard template: insufficient funds, weak travel purpose, doubt about departure, and host not sufficiently established.
  • GCMS notes repeated boilerplate language with no engagement with applicants’ detailed financial and family evidence.

 

Court Findings:

  • Decisions were unreasonable:
    • Central finding of insufficient funds unexplained, despite financial documents provided.
    • Boilerplate reasons are acceptable only if contextualized; here, they were unresponsive and unintelligible (Vavilov).
  • Procedural fairness issue unnecessary to decide since reasons already inadequate.

 

Outcome: Application granted; refusals set aside. No remittal ordered since trip date passed; applicants free to reapply, to be assessed by different officer.

Why This Case is Important:

  • Confirms TRV decisions must engage with individual evidence (financials, family ties).
  • The Court established that even if the decision is unreasonable, it is for the Applicants to argue why the matter should be sent back for redetermination.

Issue: Whether refusal of a work permit with inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation (fraudulent bank statement) was unreasonable or unfair.

Facts:

  • Applicant applied for LMIA-based work permit in Singapore office. Submitted bank documents from two banks.
  • Bank Asia documents contained contradictory balances (48,000 TK vs. 2.5 million TK) with altered font.
  • Officer investigated and confirmed fraud. Issued PFL, applicant’s consultant responded only with documents from other bank (FSIB), ignoring the discrepancy.
  • Officer refused, finding misrepresentation under IRPA s.40(1)(a); second officer confirmed.

 

Court Findings:

  • Court upheld the refusal:
    • Documents clearly fraudulent; altered font visible.
    • PFL process was fair; applicant had opportunity to respond.
    • Officer’s decision was responsive, transparent, and justified (Vavilov).

 

Outcome: Application dismissed.

Why This Case is Important:

  • Emphasizes zero tolerance for fraudulent documents; obvious fabrication will support s.40 inadmissibility.
  • Applicants are bound by actions of their representatives/consultants.

 

Reinforces importance of providing a full and relevant PFL response.

Issue: Whether the refusal of a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) exemption from IRPR s. 117(9)(d) (undeclared spouse rule) was unreasonable or procedurally unfair.

Facts:

  • The applicant, married before her sponsor immigrated, was excluded under IRPR s.117(9)(d) because the sponsor failed to declare her at landing.
  • She applied for permanent residence with an H&C request, citing:
    • family opposition at the time of marriage;
    • long separation from her spouse;
    • hardships she faced in Sri Lanka; and
    • best interests of her family circumstances.
  • The officer refused, stating the evidence of hardship and reasons for non-declaration were insufficient to warrant relief.

 

Court Findings:

  • The Court reviewed under the reasonableness standard (Vavilov).
  • The officer had considered the relevant factors: family opposition, long separation, social hardship in Sri Lanka.
  • The officer concluded hardships were general or speculative, and did not amount to compelling reasons to overcome s.117(9)(d).
  • The Court emphasized that while H&C relief is discretionary, it must be justified and transparent; here, the officer’s decision was sufficiently reasoned.

 

Outcome:
Application dismissed.

Why This Case is Important:

  • Confirms the strict application of the undeclared family member rule under IRPR 117(9)(d).
  • Demonstrates that H&C relief is exceptional and requires strong, individualized, and well-substantiated hardship evidence.
  • Long separation alone is not determinative; applicants must show compelling, child-focused or hardship-specific grounds.

Issue: Whether an officer’s refusal of a principal applicant’s refugee permanent residence application for misrepresentation (failure to disclose past visas and passport) was unreasonable due to silence on the dependants’ applications.

Facts:

  • Eritrean family (parents + 3 children) fled Eritrea in 2012, lived in Sudan and Ethiopia, obtained UNHCR refugee status, and applied for PR under the Convention Refugees Abroad class in 2020.
  • Interviewing officer found the principal applicant (PA) credible, meeting the refugee definition under IRPA s.96.
  • However, the PA failed to disclose:
    • Eritrean passport and exit visa (2012–2017);
    • US non-immigrant visa and a Canadian study permit application.
  • A procedural fairness letter was issued; PA explained misunderstanding due to application assistant’s advice.
  • A new PR officer refused in Nov 2023, citing lack of truthfulness under IRPA s.16 (duty of candour).
  • The refusal letter did not mention the spouse or children’s applications.

 

Court Findings:

  • The decision was unreasonable because it was silent on the dependants. Transparency and responsiveness (Vavilov) require officers to address dependants, especially when refusal was based on credibility of the PA rather than inadmissibility.
  • The Court distinguished cases where refusal of PA automatically bars dependants (inadmissibility or failure to qualify as a refugee). Here, the PA was found to be a refugee, but was refused for credibility (s.16).
  • The officer’s rejection of PA’s explanation was reasonable (clear questions asked, misleading answers given).
  • Certification request (whether dependants must always be separately assessed) was denied as premature.

 

Outcome: Application granted; matter remitted to a new officer; dependants added to style of cause; no certified question.

Why This Case is Important:

  • Establishes that dependants’ PR eligibility must be addressed expressly; silence is unreasonable.
  • Clarifies distinction between inadmissibility cases (where dependants fall automatically) and credibility-based refusals (where dependants may still be eligible).
  • Strengthens procedural fairness and reasonableness standards in family-linked refugee PR cases.

Issue: Whether an officer unreasonably refused an H&C PR application based on establishment and best interests of Canadian children.

Facts:

  • Russian applicant sought H&C relief under IRPA s.25, citing strong establishment in Canada and two Canadian-born children (ages 2 and 3 months).
  • Officer refused, acknowledging establishment and children’s situation but noting:
    • limited hardship evidence about return to Russia;
    • minimal submissions on country conditions;
    • children’s best interests considered but not determinative.

 

Court Findings:

  • Officer conducted a global assessment, not siloed.
  • Establishment and best interests were weighed; officer not required to give them dispositive weight.
  • Limited submissions on Russia justified limited analysis.
  • Comment that Canadian experience would mitigate hardship was contextual, not impermissible “turning positives into negatives.”

 

Outcome: Application dismissed.

Why This Case is Important:

  • Confirms wide discretion in H&C; establishment and children’s interests alone may not warrant relief.
  • Shows courts defer where officers acknowledge but reasonably discount evidence.

 

Highlights applicant’s responsibility to provide robust country condition and hardship evidence.

Issue: Whether the IAD acted unreasonably in refusing to convert a failed spousal sponsorship appeal to a conjugal partner application (“Tabesh conversion”).

Facts:

  • Applicant, Canadian citizen, married in Germany in a church ceremony (not valid under German law, which requires civil marriage).
  • Sponsorship refused; IAD appeal filed. Applicant sought “Tabesh conversion” to conjugal partner.
  • IAD granted extensions but applicant filed no evidence of a one-year conjugal relationship.
  • IAD refused to convert, dismissed appeal, suggested new application might be better.

 

Court Findings:

  • Decision reviewed for reasonableness.
  • IAD reasonably concluded no evidence of one-year conjugal relationship before sponsorship application.
  • Procedural fairness not breached; multiple chances to submit evidence were ignored.
  • Court endorsed doubts from earlier cases (Tang, Nanji) about Tabesh conversion’s precedential force.

 

Outcome: Application dismissed.

Why This Case is Important:

  • Reinforces that spousal sponsorship requires legally valid marriage under both foreign and Canadian law.
  • “Tabesh conversion” remains discretionary, rarely applied, and demands clear evidence.

 

Affirms IAD can refuse conversion where record is bare, and new sponsorship application is often preferable.

Issue: Whether the IAD unreasonably found that a spousal sponsorship marriage was entered primarily for immigration purposes under IRPR s.4(1).

Facts:

  • Applicant sponsored foreign spouse; IAD dismissed appeal, finding relationship weakly evidenced at outset, with contradictory testimony about engagement/wedding.
  • IAD concluded marriage’s primary purpose was immigration status, though it may have become genuine later.
  • Applicant argued IAD ignored genuineness evidence and erred by not applying Gill (2014 FC 902), which links genuineness with purpose.

 

Court Findings:

  • Court held IAD did a structured analysis, weighing positive/negative factors, and explained its findings.
  • No finding that marriage was genuine; IAD said it “may” have become genuine later, but that did not negate initial purpose.
  • Under IRPR s.4(1), both prongs must be satisfied: genuineness and not primarily for immigration.
  • Applicant’s arguments sought reweighing, not a reviewable error.

 

Outcome: Application dismissed.

Why This Case is Important:

  • Reaffirms the dual test under IRPR s.4(1): a marriage must be both genuine and not primarily for immigration.
  • Even if genuine later, if initial purpose was immigration, sponsorship fails.

 

Shows deference to IAD fact-finding where reasoning is transparent and evidence is weighed.

Latest Draws

recent draws

Sources

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.

Contact Us

Get in touch

+1 905 464-1658

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

Find us on social media:

Linkedin Facebook Instagram Youtube

View our full Privacy Policy.

Subscribe to

ImmPulse Weekly