Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
A new ApplyBoard analysis highlights why Canada refused nearly 290,000 study permit applications in 2024, pushing the refusal rate up to 52% from 40% the year before. The top refusal reason, cited in 76% of cases, was officers’ doubts that applicants would leave Canada, often based on weak or absent travel history. Financial concerns were the second-biggest factor (53%), followed by doubts over the purpose of the visit (47%), lack of funds for tuition (19%), and insufficient living-expense resources (18%). Notably, about 13,000 applicants (4.6%) were refused for misrepresentation or withholding facts, a marked rise from prior years. Missing documents were also common grounds, including proof of financial assets, biometrics, acceptance letters, CAQ, and medicals. The study underscores that many refusals are preventable with complete and accurate applications and external review before submission. (The Toronto Star)
CBC reports on the case of Yixuan “Peter” Peng, a Chinese student accepted into Western University’s master’s program, who remains in limbo after applying for a new study permit in May. Under federal rules introduced in November 2024, international students who switch institutions or move from undergraduate to graduate programs must obtain a new permit before starting classes. Processing times can now reach up to 173 days, leaving many students unable to begin studies, pay rent, or make future plans. While IRCC says demand is high but processing is within service standards, consultants warn genuine students are bearing the brunt, often forced to defer to later semesters. The government defends the policy as a way to crack down on fraud and ensure students attend approved schools, but for individuals like Peng—who faces the possibility of returning to China if his permit does not arrive by mid-September—the new rules have created serious disruption and financial strain. (CBC News)
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) plans to introduce an AI-assisted traveler compliance indicator (TCI) by 2027 to screen everyone entering the country and flag individuals deemed “higher risk” for secondary inspection. The tool, trained on five years of traveler data, will assign compliance scores to support officers in enforcing the Customs Act. Officials say it will reduce processing times and unnecessary referrals, as CBSA handles more than 96 million travelers annually. Critics, however, warn the system could reinforce biases against immigrants and certain nationalities, heavily influence officers’ judgment, and complicate court challenges by obscuring how decisions are made. While CBSA stresses that no outcomes will be automated and officer discretion remains final, concerns remain over fairness, transparency, and safeguards for non-citizens who could face inadmissibility findings based on AI-driven flags.
IRCC says Canada is moving to “sustainable” temporary resident levels, targeting a temporary population under 5%. Data (as of June 30, 2025) show a clear decline in new arrivals of students and workers following measures like the international student cap (with an extra 10% reduction in 2025), TFWP limits/refusal-to-process rules, and tighter PGWP/spousal work-permit eligibility; further decreases are expected. Over Jan–Jun 2025, more than 100,000 former temporary residents became PRs, about half of all new PRs, while total stocks remain high and will take time to adjust.
Key numbers (Jan–Jun 2025 unless noted)
Note: IRCC expects work-permit issuances/extensions to keep trending down as measures take full effect; page last updated Aug 25, 2025.
(Source)
IRCC has introduced a temporary public policy under IRPA s.25.2 to support foreign nationals from the Palestinian Territories currently in Canada as temporary residents. The policy provides fee-exempt, in-Canada applications for extensions, study permits, and open work permits, recognizing the risks of return due to ongoing conflict since October 7, 2023.
Who is Eligible
What is Covered
Exemptions from IRPR
Key Dates
(Source)
Prince Edward Island has strengthened its health workforce by securing 20 accepted offers from U.S. healthcare professionals in 2025, including physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and lab technologists.
Between January 1 and July 22, 2025, PEI signed agreements with 26 physicians (5 relocating from the U.S.): 13 are already in practice, 7 will begin later this year, and six will be in 2026. This follows 41 physicians recruited in 2024 and over 400 full-time positions filled across Health PEI.
The province attributes this progress to streamlined licensing measures introduced in 2023 and bridging programs for internationally educated nurses. Health Minister Mark McLane emphasized that recruitment incentives and the Physician Services Agreement are helping to sustain workforce growth.
Takeaway: PEI is pairing international recruitment with domestic licensing reforms to expand its health-care capacity.
(Source)
Issue: Whether the Officer’s refusal of an inland spousal/common-law sponsorship (SCLPC) application, finding the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes and that SCLPC criteria weren’t met, was reasonable.
Facts: Jamaican applicant entered Canada in 2019 on a farm-worker permit; later remained without status. She married a former partner in January 2022 (he died in August 2022), met her current sponsor in October 2022, cohabited in January 2023, and married on March 26, 2023. At a May 22, 2024, interview, the Officer noted: evasiveness about prior marital status, a short courtship, limited mutual knowledge, inconsistent answers, and prior immigration non-compliance. Application refused May 23, 2023, under IRPR s. 4(1)(a) and s. 124.
Court Findings: Reasonableness review applies. The Officer need not cite every document and is presumed to consider the record. The genuineness/primary-purpose test under IRPR s. 4(1) is disjunctive; the Officer’s analysis, credibility concerns, brief courtship, discrepancies, and non-compliance formed an intelligible, coherent chain. The Court will not reweigh evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed; no costs; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms deference on spousal genuineness findings under s. 4(1) and the presumption that officers consider all evidence; emphasizes the Court’s reluctance to reweigh relationship evidence on JR.
Issue: Whether an H&C refusal unreasonably required “extraordinary establishment” and inadequately justified discounting the child’s best interests.
Facts: Panamanian applicant in Canada since 2014; common-law spouse is a protected person; they have a Canadian citizen child (age 3). He operates a renovation business and is active in religious/community life. His 2024 H&C application (establishment, BIOC, hardship in Panama) was refused: establishment given “little positive weight” for not being “extraordinary,” hardship given “some” weight, best interests given “substantial weight” but still “insufficient.”
Court Findings: The Officer unreasonably imposed an elevated “extraordinary establishment” threshold and failed to provide a responsive justification for concluding that a child’s best interests, explicitly given substantial weight, were still insufficient, contrary to Vavilov/Mason’s requirement for a coherent chain of analysis and Baker/Kanthasamy’s treatment of BIOC.
Outcome: JR granted; decision set aside; remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms it’s unreasonable to require “extraordinary” establishment in H&C; when BIOC is recognized as substantial, officers must transparently explain why other factors outweigh it.
Issue: Whether the refusal to reconsider (after agreeing to reopen) was reasonable where the applicant presented new evidence and jurisprudence.
Facts: After the initial refusal, the applicant sought reconsideration with new evidence (murders of half-brother and sister-in-law; inclusion in spouse’s PR application implying multi-year separation if removed) and case law showing the “extraordinary establishment” error. The Officer issued a brief addendum confirming refusal, calling approval of the spouse’s PR “speculative,” leaving weights unchanged.
Court Findings: Unreasonable for repeating the “extraordinary establishment” error and failing to engage with the new submissions/jurisprudence, contrary to the duty of responsive justification. The BIOC analysis again lacked a rational bridge from findings (substantial weight) to outcome.
Outcome: JR granted; reconsideration decision set aside.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces that on reconsideration, officers must grapple with new evidence and arguments; repeating earlier errors without engagement is unreasonable.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a minor’s study permit for failing to show a logical educational/career pathway (and thus not meeting 216(1)(b)) was reasonable.
Facts: Self-represented 18-year-old from Pakistan sought a study permit (Grade 11 at a private Ontario academy). The Officer found the study plan generalized benefits of Canada/OSSD without linking to a coherent career path; concluded purpose was inconsistent with a temporary stay.
Court Findings: Applying Vavilov and study-permit jurisprudence (including Nesarzadeh), reasons need not be lengthy but must be responsive. Given the limited specifics, it was reasonable to conclude the plan didn’t establish a logical progression or compliance with 216(1)(b). New details offered on JR couldn’t be considered.
Outcome: JR dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Illustrates what suffices as reasonable in succinct study-permit reasons and that generalized aspirations without a concrete plan can fail 216(1)(b).
Issue: Whether a TRV refusal for a proposed business-exploration visit was reasonable where GCMS reasons were conclusory.
Facts: Pakistani entrepreneur/educator sought a TRV to explore establishing an education-services business. Refused: “business purpose insufficiently substantiated” and not satisfied he’d depart. GCMS reasons consisted of one paragraph of boilerplate; applicant argued the decision failed to engage with his evidence (experience, assets) and speculated it was made by Chinook.
Court Findings: Decision unreasonable: the GCMS note provided no intelligible path from evidence to conclusion; the Court cannot speculate or allow the Minister to supplement reasons post hoc. While minimal reasons can suffice, some explanation tied to the record is required.
Outcome: JR granted; remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that even brief TRV reasons must reveal a rational chain of analysis; bare boilerplate is inadequate.
Issue: Whether the Officer’s refusal was unreasonable (motivation/benefit of Canadian study, finances, academics) or procedurally unfair.
Facts: Applicant argued the Officer improperly acted as “career counsellor,” undervalued finances (tuition paid, GIC, balance certificate), and misread academics; also claimed fairness breach for not being allowed to address financial sufficiency concerns.
Court Findings: Even if the Officer strayed into career-counselling, that was not determinative. It was reasonable to question finances where provenance of funds wasn’t shown despite first-year tuition/GIC. Academic concerns were reasonably grounded in the record. No duty to invite cures to application deficiencies.
Outcome: Leave granted; JR dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that (1) a career-counsellor misstep alone won’t vitiate a refusal if other grounds are reasonable; (2) provenance of funds matters; (3) no fairness duty to offer a chance to fix an incomplete record in this context.
Issue: Procedural fairness and reasonableness of an H&C refusal where two different versions of the decision existed.
Facts: Jamaican applicant, in Canada since 1991 and now 85, with multiple comorbidities and no support in Jamaica, filed a second H&C in 2022; refused Sept. 11, 2024. The Applicant’s Record contained two distinct versions of the refusal decision (same date/UCI/officer ID) with differing reasoning; only one appeared in the CTR. DOJ counsel conceded the record was deficient and fairness was engaged.
Court Findings: Existence of two different decisions and a deficient CTR breached procedural fairness and rendered the decision unreasonable (no coherent, knowable reasoning path).
Outcome: JR granted; set aside; remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Stresses the integrity of the administrative record; multiple conflicting “final” reasons undermine fairness and reasonableness.
Issue: Whether a work-permit refusal (LMIA-backed truck driver) was reasonable where the Officer said the applicant lacked significant ties outside Canada and was not financially established.
Facts: Indian applicant hired under LMIA; refusal noted significant ties in Canada and “no significant” ties outside; also questioned establishment given temporary status in Kuwait. The record showed father, brother, and grandfather in India and evidence of lawful work/finances in Kuwait (2019–2023).
Court Findings: Unreasonable: Officer’s reasons ignored contradictory, probative evidence on family ties and establishment abroad. Decision-makers may weigh evidence, but cannot act “without regard to the evidence.” The finding that ties abroad were not “significant” lacked intelligible justification, and establishment analysis failed to engage the Kuwait evidence.
Outcome: JR granted; remitted to a different officer; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces that key, contradictory evidence must be confronted in temporary-resident decisions; conclusory “more ties to Canada than home” findings won’t stand without reasoned engagement.
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.