Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Canadian officials are flagging refugee claims with near-identical narratives as possible fraud. While the IRB denies using AI, immigration and border agencies are less clear about their tools, which may include pattern recognition and referrals from decision-makers. Claimants must explain similarities, and proven misrepresentation can lead to rejection or regulatory action. A Federal Court ruling cautions that shared language alone does not prove dishonesty, as similar experiences can produce similar stories. (Toronto Star)
Several premiers are pushing for more control over immigration, citing labour shortages and the need to tailor economic immigration to provincial needs. While Quebec already operates under its own agreement, other provinces want similar authority and more federal funding for strained services. Experts warn current policies are often reactive and lack evaluation, urging a national, evidence-based review to maintain public support. Saskatchewan and others also call for restoring higher Provincial Nominee Program quotas, arguing that cuts hinder economic growth in key sectors like health care and skilled trades. Effective reform, experts say, requires close federal-provincial-municipal collaboration. (Toronto Star)
CSIS reports a sharp increase in immigration security screening requests—over 538,000 in 2024, up from about 300,000 annually in previous years—driven partly by higher asylum seeker volumes and geopolitical concerns. Immigration lawyers say the backlog is causing significant delays for clients, with little transparency on processing actions. Applicants from certain regions, including the Middle East, Ukraine, Russia, China, Iran, and parts of India, are reportedly facing closer scrutiny. CSIS cites national security priorities, including enhanced screening for applicants from Gaza and Lebanon, but critics warn the delays may be discouraging legitimate applicants. A review of the process is underway following cases where individuals passed security checks before later being charged with terrorism offences. (Toronto Star)
Government proposals to reform the Temporary Foreign Worker Program include allowing higher housing deductions (5%–30% of gross income), requiring payment of median regional wages, introducing stream-specific work permits for sectoral mobility, and adding new housing, health, and cost-recovery rules. While officials say the changes aim to increase labour flexibility and reduce administrative burdens, migrant advocacy groups argue they will worsen exploitation, fail to address employer power imbalances, and increase workers’ financial strain. A UN report earlier this year labeled the program a “breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery,” urging permanent resident status as the solution. Surveys show most migrant workers oppose the proposals, citing concerns over rights enforcement, affordability, and health care access. (Toronto Star)
IRCC is seeking feedback on economic priorities for 2026 category-based Express Entry selection, which targets candidates with specific skills, work experience, or French-language proficiency to address long-term labour shortages and support economic growth. Category-based selection, introduced in 2023, supplements general and program-specific draws and influences Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) eligibility for many non-degree programs.
In 2025, focus is on candidates with Canadian work experience (Canadian Experience Class) and those in categories such as healthcare & social services, trades, education, agriculture & agri-food, STEM, and French-language proficiency. Eligibility generally requires at least six months’ relevant work experience in the past three years or meeting minimum French language benchmarks.
For 2026, proposed priorities include:
The consultation invites input from provinces, territories, industry, employers, unions, settlement agencies, and the public via an online survey by September 3, 2025. Feedback will inform future categories, which are annually reported to Parliament with rationale and outcome data. (Canada.ca)
Issue: Whether the judicial review of the February 2, 2024 refusal of an open work permit was moot in light of a later “reconsideration” refusal, and whether the February decision was unreasonable.
Facts: Mr. Adiele applied for an open work permit to accompany his wife, a full-time student at the University of Saskatchewan. The refusal was based on insufficient proof of her full-time student status. He sought reconsideration, but IRCC advised that no change would occur if not contacted within 10 days. In October 2024, IRCC acknowledged proof of student status but refused again for insufficient funds. The Minister argued the case was moot because the reconsideration replaced the original decision.
Court Findings: The Court declined to dismiss on mootness, finding a “live controversy” remained. The February decision was made without regard to the evidence and failed to meet the reasonableness standard under Vavilov. The procedural fairness claim was not addressed as it was outside the scope of the review.
Outcome: Application allowed; February 2, 2024 decision set aside; matter remitted to a different officer for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that reconsideration refusals, which do not replace or quash the original decision, do not render a judicial review moot, and reinforces that decisions must reflect the evidence before the officer.
Issue: Whether the Temporary Public Policy (TPP) for Turkish and Syrian nationals required physical presence in Canada at the time of decision, and whether refusals based on absence breached fairness or created legitimate expectations.
Facts: Following the February 2023 earthquakes, a TPP allowed certain nationals to extend their stay and obtain permits. IRCC initially suggested leaving Canada while awaiting a decision was possible. Applicants left Canada but were refused for not being in Canada at decision time. Prior class proceedings settled with reassessment opportunities to prove presence. All current applicants confirmed they were outside Canada and were refused again.
Court Findings: Officers reasonably interpreted the TPP as requiring physical presence in Canada at decision time, consistent with its purpose and IRPR s.183(4)(a). Guide 5553 did not override TPP conditions. No breach of fairness occurred; any earlier confusion was remedied by the settlement’s reassessment process. Evidence of “uneven practice” was anecdotal and insufficient to establish systemic inconsistency. Legitimate expectations could not override statutory conditions.
Outcome: Applications dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms that public policy conditions are binding and must be satisfied at the time of the decision. That procedural fairness concerns can be cured through agreed reassessment processes.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a study permit for failure to satisfy R216(1)(b) IRPR was reasonable where evidence indicated strong ties to the home country.
Facts: Nigerian applicant, a senior accountant and business owner, sought to study Applied Business Management in Canada to advance her career with her current employer. She planned to return to Nigeria to head a new expansion unit. She had teenage children, left in family care during her studies. The officer concluded her education and experience negated the necessity for the program and suggested her motivation was non-temporary.
Court Findings: The decision ignored key “pull factors” to return to Nigeria (family, business, employer’s role offer) and failed to consider the applicant’s stated reasons for further education. The reasoning assumed the program must be strictly necessary for a promotion, contrary to jurisprudence (Monteza). Lack of engagement with contradictory evidence rendered the decision unreasonable under Vavilov.
Outcome: Application allowed; matter remitted to a different officer; applicant may submit updated documents.
Why This Case is Important: This case reinforces that officers must address key evidence contradicting refusal grounds and that educational necessity is not the sole measure of bona fides for study permit purposes.
Issue: Whether ineffective assistance of counsel in a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application warranted setting aside the refusal.
Facts: Chinese nationals with Argentinian status applied for H&C relief, citing establishment in Canada and the best interests of children. Former counsel, a registered consultant, filed no evidence or submissions on hardship in China or Argentina. The officer repeatedly noted the lack of hardship evidence in refusing the application. Former counsel twice conceded incompetence.
Court Findings: Although current counsel failed to strictly follow the Federal Court’s protocol for ineffective assistance allegations, former counsel had notice and responded. His failure to present hardship evidence—a core H&C factor—fell below professional standards and compromised the fairness of the process, even if outcome change probability was unproven. Applicants provided evidence on judicial review they would have submitted if properly advised.
Outcome: Application allowed; refusal set aside; matter remitted for redetermination with opportunity to file new evidence.
Why This Case is Important: Demonstrates that omission of central evidence due to counsel incompetence can warrant redetermination, even absent proof of a different outcome, where fairness is compromised.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a work permit for insufficient proof of work experience was reasonable when other corroborating evidence was on file.
Facts: An Indian citizen with LMIA approval applied for a work permit in the restaurant industry. The officer doubted work experience due to missing bank statements and tax documents, despite receiving employer letters, pay slips, and training certificates. No explanation was given for rejecting this evidence.
Court Findings: The decision failed to consider and address the evidence provided. While officers may require certain documents, they must justify why available evidence is inadequate (Ahmadalinezhad). Reliance on absent documents without analysis of existing proof lacked transparency and justification under Vavilov. Inconsistencies between GCMS notes and refusal letter further undermined reasonableness.
Outcome: Application allowed; matter remitted to a different officer for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that officers must meaningfully assess evidence submitted and explain why it is insufficient, rather than relying solely on missing documentation.
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.