Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
U.S. president Donald Trump has signalled he is open to letting CUSMA (USMCA) expire or renegotiating it as the first six-year review approaches, with his trade team also floating the idea of splitting the pact into separate Canada- and Mexico-only deals. Canada and the U.S. Trade Representative are both running formal CUSMA reviews, and Canadian ministers are stressing the need to protect access to U.S. and Mexican markets as well as jobs in sectors already hit by tariffs, setting up a potentially high-stakes 2026 reset of North American trade rules.
A new report highlights how President Trump’s decision to pause and review the entire U.S. asylum system for certain nationalities, triggered by the November 26 National Guard shooting, has left many Afghans in the U.S. fearing deportation and looking to Canada, even as Ottawa has simultaneously toughened its own border regime by expanding the Safe Third Country Agreement, cutting refugee numbers, and tabling legislation to restrict asylum and halt processing, raising questions about whether Canada is either willing or structurally prepared to absorb any new U.S.-driven refugee surge.
Ontario’s abrupt suspension of the OINP Express Entry Skilled Trades stream over alleged widespread document fraud has left more than 2,600 applicants in limbo, many facing loss of status, jobs and ability to stay in Canada after years of living, studying and working here. Protesters have been camped outside Queen’s Park for two weeks demanding the Ford government reinstate the stream or at least review applications individually, while the province says all files are being returned with refunds and encourages applicants to try other OINP streams, options many say they no longer qualify for by the time decisions are made.
IRCC has announced new targeted immigration measures for doctors: a dedicated Express Entry category will open in early 2026 for international physicians already in Canada with at least one year of recent Canadian work experience in eligible medical occupations, and Ottawa will reserve 5,000 additional federal admission spaces for provinces/territories to nominate licensed doctors with job offers, who will also benefit from expedited 14-day work permit processing, all positioned as part of an International Talent Attraction Strategy to tackle healthcare labour shortages and stabilize Canada’s health-care system.
(Source)
The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal have announced that amendments to the Federal Courts Rules and the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules were registered on November 21, 2025, published in the Canada Gazette, Part II on December 3, 2025, and will come into force on December 21, 2025; the changes amend Tariff B (costs) and update terminology by replacing “prothonotary” with “associate judge” throughout, with further information available from the Secretary of the Federal Courts Rules Committee.
(Source)
Ontario has posted proposed regulatory amendments to redesign the OINP, consolidating the current eight economic streams into four new streams in two phases: first, a single Employer Job Offer Stream with separate TEER 0–3 and TEER 4–5 tracks (median-wage job offers, flexible experience pathways, lower wage options for recent Ontario grads, language and 9-month experience requirement for TEER 4–5, and potential union-supported pathways for construction) with targeted draws by region/occupation; and second, three new streams—a priority healthcare stream (for registered health professionals, potentially without a job offer), an entrepreneur stream (for those who have established or purchased and operate a business in Ontario), and an exceptional talent stream (for candidates with recognized, high-impact achievements in academia, innovation, science, tech, or the creative sectors), alongside continued use of the employer-led OINP Employer Portal and an invitation for public comment until January 1, 2026.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its guidance on the temporary public policy exempting certain work-permit conditions when temporary workers change employers: the policy, in force since May 27, 2025, remains valid until formally revoked by the Minister, and the program delivery instructions have now been cleaned up to remove all COVID-19, specific language, so practitioners should treat this as a standing, non-COVID public policy tool for facilitating employer changes.
(Source)
IRCC has released new citizenship accommodations instructions (December 2, 2025), consolidating guidance on accessibility for applicants, covering modified citizenship tests, accommodations for knowledge and language hearings, accessibility at ceremonies, rules on accompanying persons and interpreters, and how to deal with applicants unable to act on their own behalf (including guardianship and taking affidavits/declarations); these are set out in a new “Citizenship: Accommodations” chapter and tied into updated Granting citizenship instructions, so practitioners should now treat this as the central reference point for all citizenship accessibility issues.
(Source)
IRCC has issued new program-delivery instructions dated December 4, 2025 on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) considerations for assessing guardianship and Kafala arrangements, creating a dedicated guidance chapter (“Humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) considerations – Assessment of guardianship and Kafala arrangements”) to steer officers’ analysis in these cases, so practitioners handling H&C applications involving non-parental guardianship or Kafala should now treat this as the primary reference point when framing best interests of the child and family-unity arguments.
(Source)
IRCC has refreshed its Permanent Resident Program instructions, updating the central program-delivery page so that guidance on permanent resident status and all associated lines of business is now consolidated and aligned. Practitioners should treat the revised PR program PDI page as the primary reference point for status-related issues across streams.
(Source)
Manitoba has announced the end of its Temporary Public Policy to facilitate work permits for prospective PNP candidates: the province will accept applications for a Support Letter via its online form only until December 15, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. CST (form closes December 16), and IRCC will continue accepting work permit applications under this policy until December 31, 2025, so eligible clients must secure their Manitoba Support Letter before December 16 to benefit from the federal deadline.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its Canada–International Non-Trade Agreements [R204(a) – T11] program-delivery instructions (December 4, 2025), mainly to align the page with the International Mobility Program’s preferred format and refresh language and links, so practitioners should note this as a structural/clarity update rather than a substantive change to the underlying T11 exemption framework.
(Source)
IRCC has issued a narrow technical update to the Hong Kong PR pathway optional open work permit, confirming that the ORG ID for the Hong Kong Public Policy, Open Work Permit for APR applicants has been updated in the program-delivery system, so practitioners should be aware this is a back-end identifier change, not a modification of eligibility or substantive criteria for Hong Kong OWP applicants.
(Source)
IRCC has confirmed that its special processing measures for people directly affected by the 2025 wildfires expired on November 30, 2025; applications received after that date are not eligible, and the guidance now exists only to help officers finalize cases that were submitted on or before November 30, 2025, while the separate instructions for the 2024 wildfire measures have been removed entirely from the manuals, signalling a clean sunset of both sets of temporary policies.
(Source)
Issue:
Whether the refusal of a spousal sponsorship PR application, based on marriage genuineness concerns and alleged procedural unfairness, was reasonable.
Facts:
Canadian spouse sponsored the applicant for PR. The officer found very limited proof of cohabitation and financial interdependence and noted multiple inconsistencies between the couple’s interview answers, plus a stepson’s prior statement that the applicant did not live at the claimed address. Concerns were put in PFLs; the couple’s written explanations did not change the officer’s view.
Court Findings:
The Court held the officer’s genuineness assessment was reasonable: the reasons engaged with the key evidence, explained why the documents were weak, and identified concrete inconsistencies. Procedural fairness was respected because concerns were clearly put by PFL and no reliable evidence supported the allegation that CBSA misled the stepson.
Outcome:
Judicial review dismissed; refusal upheld.
Why This Case is Important:
Shows strong deference to spousal genuineness findings where the officer has specific interview-based reasons and has used a PFL. Emphasises the need for robust proof of cohabitation and financial interdependence and consistent testimony in spousal files.
Issue:
Whether a TRV refusal under IRPR 179(b) was reasonable where the officer downplayed strong “pull” factors and relied on thin, boilerplate reasoning.
Facts:
The applicant sought a TRV to visit her twin sister and brother-in-law in Canada for one month. She provided evidence of professional, financial and family ties in her home country, and that she would travel alone. The officer refused under 179(b), citing weak family ties outside Canada and concerns about her true purpose of visit.
Court Findings:
The Court found the officer’s reasons did not adequately grapple with key evidence of ties abroad and contained factual misstatements about the travel plans. Boilerplate language, read with the record, did not reveal a coherent path from the evidence to the 179(b) conclusion.
Outcome:
Judicial review granted; refusal quashed and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important:
Useful TRV precedent on the need to actually engage with “pull” factors and avoid speculative or boilerplate reasons under 179(b). Also a good illustration that even in high-volume TRV work, reasons must show why the adverse conclusion follows from the record.
Issue:
Whether it was reasonable to refuse a post-graduation work permit because the applicant did not maintain full-time student status in every academic session of the program.
Facts:
The applicant completed a program but had withdrawn from one of two courses in a Summer 2020 session, leaving him part-time for that term. The officer refused the PGWP on the basis that he had not been full-time throughout. The officer mis-labelled the term in the notes but accepted he had withdrawn from a course.
Court Findings:
The Court held the legal test was correctly applied: the program required continuous full-time status, and the applicant objectively did not meet it after the withdrawal. The mis-labelling of the term was a harmless error and did not affect the core reasoning.
Outcome:
Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important:
Reinforces that PGWP eligibility is strictly tied to continuous full-time study, and that minor clerical errors in reasons will not overturn an otherwise sound decision. Helpful when advising students about course withdrawals and reduced-course loads.
Issue:
Whether mandamus lies to compel Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and IRCC to process an Afghan family’s expression of interest under the August 9, 2021 Afghan resettlement public policy, in light of the prior decision in A.B.C.D.
Facts:
The principal applicant, an Afghan national who operated a shop on the NATO/Canadian base in Kandahar, and his family sent multiple emails and webforms to the designated GAC/IRCC channels after the policy was announced. They received automatic acknowledgements but no substantive processing. The Minister argued there was no duty to process once caps were reached and that A.B.C.D. was distinguishable.
Court Findings:
Following A.B.C.D., the Court held there is a public duty to assess timely expressions of interest submitted to the designated inbox and decide whether to refer them to IRCC. The Minister had not provided concrete evidence that the cap had already been reached when this family’s expression was received. The factors for mandamus were met, including a clear right to have the expression of interest assessed and meaningful practical effect to an order.
Outcome:
Judicial review granted in part; GAC ordered to assess the expression of interest and decide on referral, and IRCC ordered to process any resulting referral and application within set timelines.
Why This Case is Important:
Confirms and extends A.B.C.D. on Afghan resettlement mandamus, emphasizing that government must follow its own publicly represented process and cannot rely on unsupported assertions about caps. Key for other Afghan public-policy mandamus files.
Issue:
Whether it was unreasonable for an officer to refuse to reconsider a misrepresentation finding in a Quebec investor PR case, where the applicant invoked translator error and humanitarian considerations.
Facts:
A Chinese investor applicant was found inadmissible for misrepresentation after failing to disclose memberships in two organizations on her original PR forms; open-source checks revealed them, and she later admitted the memberships. She did not judicially review the misrepresentation decision but instead sought reconsideration, arguing an innocent mistake by a translator and raising H&C hardship given her son in Canada and the five-year bar.
Court Findings:
The Court held that reconsideration is exceptional and largely discretionary; the officer’s brief GCMS note was adequate in context. The applicant’s own concession that the original decision was “valid in law” weighed against reopening. New evidence and H&C factors did not oblige the officer to revisit the misrepresentation finding through reconsideration.
Outcome:
Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important:
Clarifies that reconsideration is not a substitute for timely judicial review and will generally require something more than regret plus new H&C evidence. Also shows the limits of the “innocent mistake” argument once misrepresentation has been formally found and not challenged.
Issue:
Whether the Immigration Division reasonably found an Egyptian National Police officer inadmissible under IRPA s. 35(1)(a) for complicity in crimes against humanity.
Facts:
The applicant served about 11 years in the Egyptian National Police. Extensive country-conditions evidence showed longstanding, widespread torture and abuses by that police force. He acknowledged that such abuses occurred but maintained that he personally opposed and refused to participate and was punished and threatened for doing so.
Court Findings:
Applying Mugesera and Ezokola, the Court held it was reasonable to conclude the ENP committed crimes against humanity and that the applicant was complicit. The ID’s findings that he knew about systemic abuses and nonetheless remained in the organization in a role that contributed to its operations were open on the evidence. Arguments that the ID misapplied the complicity test or required too low a mens rea threshold were rejected.
Outcome:
Judicial review dismissed; inadmissibility finding upheld; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important:
Significant s. 35(1)(a) precedent on complicity of rank-and-file or mid-level officials in abusive state security forces. Clarifies how Ezokola’s “knowing and significant contribution” test is applied to long-term service in an organization with well-documented, systemic human-rights abuses.
(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.