Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Immigration Minister Lena Diab is defending Bill C-12, a border and immigration bill that proposes barring individuals who have been in Canada for more than a year from filing refugee claims with the Immigrant and Refugee Board (IRB). Under this legislation, which would be retroactive to June 24, 2020, such applicants would instead be required to use the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) process. While Diab argues the PRRA can offer “yes” decisions “right away” for clear cases and help manage a backlog of 300,000 applications, critics from the Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International warn the plan creates a “two-tier” system. These organizations contend that the PRRA relies on written applications rather than guaranteed oral hearings, potentially endangering vulnerable groups like LGBTQ+ individuals whose risk of persecution may change after a year in the country. Furthermore, advocates highlight that unlike the IRB process, a PRRA appeal does not provide an automatic stay of removal, meaning claimants could be deported while their cases are still being reviewed by the Federal Court. The bill also faces scrutiny over proposed powers to cancel permanent resident cards, a move Senator Yuen Pau Woo labeled “misleading” regarding its impact on a person’s actual status.
On February 11, 2026, the Canadian government published technical amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) to resolve issues identified by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. These updates, which took effect on January 30, 2026, corrected typographical errors and aligned the English and French versions regarding electronic communications. The regulations now explicitly require all supporting documents and payments for electronic applications to be submitted through the same electronic means. Furthermore, the amendments clarified fee cap provisions, ensuring that maximum combined fees remain at $500 for families and $465 for groups of performing artists when applying at the same time.
(Source)
According to an operational update released on February 10, 2026, the Government of Canada has extended a specific process for International Experience Canada (IEC) participants. This process allows participants who are already in Canada and holding a valid IEC work permit to submit a subsequent IEC application and request examination and document issuance from within the country. This measure, which facilitates in-Canada work permit printing for these individuals, is set to remain in place until further notice.
(Source)
The Government of Canada issued an operational update on February 13, 2026, regarding the open work permit instructions for the temporary resident to permanent resident (TR to PR) pathway. This update provides refined guidance to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) staff and relevant stakeholders. The revisions specifically include adding a new “Refusals” section to the manual and correcting the requirements for family members. Notably, the instructions now clarify that family members applying from outside Canada do not need to hold temporary resident status at the time of their application.
(Source)
Issue: Whether the Minister’s decision to revoke the Applicant’s citizenship for misrepresentation was reasonable, and whether a 10-year delay in proceedings constituted an abuse of process.
Facts: The Applicant entered Canada in 1999 under a false name and date of birth to claim refugee status. After being deported in 2005, he returned in 2007 as a permanent resident sponsored by his wife, again failing to disclose his previous identity and deportation. He obtained citizenship in 2012. Discovery of the fraud occurred via facial recognition software in 2013, but revocation proceedings only formally began in 2023.
Court Findings: The Court declined to consider the “abuse of process” (delay) argument because it was not raised before the Ministerial Delegate. However, the Court found the final decision unreasonable because the decision-maker used a higher legal test than the Citizenship Act requires—demanding “extenuating circumstances” that necessitated fraud rather than simply considering “personal circumstances” as a basis for relief.
Outcome: Judicial review granted in part. The matter was sent back for redetermination by a different decision-maker.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that administrative decision-makers cannot “set the bar higher” than the law intends by turning discretionary relief into a near-impossible requirement for “necessity” or “duress”.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a permanent residence application on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds for an 85-year-old applicant was reasonable.
Facts: The Applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, resided in Canada since 2020 with her daughter’s family. Her H&C application focused on her establishment in Canada and the best interests of her four Canadian grandchildren.
Court Findings: The Court found the Officer’s treatment of hardship evidence lacked transparency and failed to adequately account for the Applicant’s specific personal circumstances.
Outcome: Judicial review allowed. The decision was set aside and remitted for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: It highlights the Court’s intolerance for “boilerplate” or cursory refusals in H&C cases, especially involving elderly applicants and the best interests of children.
Issue: Whether an order of mandamus should be issued to compel IRCC to decide on a permanent residence application that had been delayed for nearly four years.
Facts: The Applicant, a Chinese national, applied for permanent residence in April 2022. As of the judgment, the application had been pending for 45 months, which was 24 months beyond the average processing time. IRCC cited ongoing security screening as the only reason for the delay.
Court Findings: The Court ruled the delay was unreasonable. A “bald assertion” of security screening is insufficient justification for a prolonged delay without specific information as to why a case is complex.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. A writ of mandamus was issued compelling IRCC to determine the application within 90 days.
Why This Case is Important: It establishes that “security screening” is not a “blank check” for IRCC to delay applications indefinitely; they must provide a satisfactory explanation for the length of the review.
Issue: Whether an H&C refusal was reasonable for an applicant who lived and worked unlawfully in Canada for 12 years.
Facts: The Applicant (from the Philippines) arrived as a tourist in 2013 and remained illegally to support his family, remitting significant funds back home. He argued establishment and the best interests of his 15-year-old son.
Court Findings: The Court held that “decent, fair-minded Canadians” would not find it unacceptable to deny relief to someone who spent a decade “underground”. The Officer was found to have appropriately weighed the factors, including the fact that the Applicant’s son could be sponsored later or be reunited with his father in the Philippines.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It underscores that illegal stay and work in Canada do not entitle an applicant to “greater success” on an H&C application, as this would encourage others to disrespect immigration laws.
Issue: Whether a breach of procedural fairness occurred when an officer refused a family class visa before the response period for a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) had expired.
Facts: The Applicant’s sponsor (her husband) failed to declare their marriage when he became a permanent resident. IRCC sent a PFL on November 25, 2024, giving the Applicant 30 days to respond. However, the Officer issued the refusal on December 10, 2024—only 15 days later.
Court Findings: The Respondent conceded the breach. The Court rejected the argument that the outcome was “inevitable,” stating that the Applicant was denied a full and fair opportunity to participate in the process.
Outcome: Judicial review granted.
Why This Case is Important: It confirms that IRCC must strictly adhere to the timelines they provide in fairness letters; shortcutting the process is a fatal procedural error.
Issue: Whether a visa officer’s refusal of a visitor visa was unreasonable for failing to engage with evidence of the Applicant’s ties to her home country.
Facts: A citizen of Iran applied for a one-month stay to visit a friend. Despite 21 years of stable employment, $18,000 in funds, and property ownership in Iran, the officer claimed her “economic motives” to stay in Canada outweighed her ties to Iran.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision lacked intelligibility because the officer ignored significant evidence that directly contradicted their conclusion.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. The decision was set aside.
Why This Case is Important: It emphasizes that even in high-volume “routine” visa cases, officers must actually engage with the specific evidence submitted rather than relying on generic, boilerplate conclusions.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable to refuse an open work permit to the spouse of a student because the student had not yet started their program.
Facts: The Applicant applied for an open work permit in January 2024. His spouse had an unconditional letter of acceptance for a program starting in September 2024. The Officer refused the permit, stating the spouse was “not yet actively engaged” in studies.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision reasonable. Under the relevant guidelines, an applicant must be a spouse of someone “enrolled in or attending” a program. A letter of acceptance is not proof of actual enrollment.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It clarifies that “proactive” applications can be refused as “too early” if the underlying eligibility requirement (e.g., the spouse being a current student) has not yet been met at the time of the decision.
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.