Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
The federal government introduced the Strong Borders Act (Bill C‑2) on June 3, proposing to deny full refugee hearings to individuals who have been in Canada over a year or delayed filing asylum claims after crossing from the U.S. Such cases would instead face PRRAs with an approval rate around 30%—half that of full hearings. The act also permits suspension or cancellation of immigration documents, mail searches, and enhanced intelligence-sharing. Advocates warn the bill risks due process and may deport highly vulnerable individuals. (Source)
On June 3, IRCC conducted its first Express Entry draw under the new Immigration Minister, issuing 277 Invitations to Apply (ITAs) through the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP). This draw reflects continued emphasis on balancing express and provincial streams under updated ministerial leadership. (Source)
The government introduced legislation to grant or restore citizenship to “Lost Canadians”—individuals historically excluded due to archaic citizenship laws deemed unconstitutional. The bill aims to close long-standing legal gaps, benefiting those of Indian origin and skilled workers, and aligning with broader efforts toward inclusivity. (Source)
In a significant development this week, Canada has intensified its scrutiny of skilled immigration applications involving married applicants who declare their spouses as “non-accompanying” to boost Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) scores. Immigration officials have sent out procedural fairness letters to applicants suspected of misrepresenting their family status—an increasingly common tactic used to outscore competitors in the Express Entry pool by excluding lower-scoring spouses.
While the practice itself isn’t explicitly illegal if genuine reasons exist (e.g., a spouse’s career or family obligations abroad), immigration lawyers warn that married applicants who misstate their spouse’s presence in Canada risk refusals and possible five-year bans. This crackdown aligns with the government’s broader efforts to uphold the integrity of the immigration system as permanent resident targets are reduced for the coming years. (Source)
Key Changes Impacting Immigration & Asylum
Implications for Immigration Practitioners & Clients
Strategic Considerations
Bottom Line
The Strong Borders Act (Bill C‑2), introduced June 3 2025, reinforces Canada’s border and immigration enforcement framework, granting broad new powers to CBSA and other agencies. While aimed at combating crime and irregular migration, it also increases legal complexity and risk for immigrants, requiring vigilance, document stewardship, and readiness to challenge potentially unjust outcomes. (Source) (Source 2)
Key Changes and Objectives
Why It Matters
Legislative Snapshot (First Reading: June 5, 2025)
As introduced by Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab, Bill C‑3 proposes to amend the Citizenship Act to:
What’s Next
Bottom Line
Bill C‑3 is a landmark legislative overhaul that addresses constitutional concerns, restores citizenship rights, and modernizes Canada’s Citizenship Act to reflect its global and multicultural reality—especially benefiting second-and subsequent-generation Canadians born abroad.
On June 5, 2025, the Government of Quebec formally launched an extensive public consultation process to guide the development of its immigration plan for the years 2026–2029. This process reflects Quebec’s intention to recalibrate both its temporary and permanent immigration levels, while prioritizing French-language integration and regional labour-market needs.
For the first time, Quebec proposes to impose a cap on temporary immigration, including temporary foreign workers and international students, aiming for a gradual reduction of approximately 13% by 2029 relative to 2024 levels. This new ceiling marks a significant policy shift, acknowledging concerns about housing pressures and ensuring the sustainable integration of newcomers in francophone communities.
On the permanent immigration front, the government has outlined three potential annual admission scenarios for 2026–2029:
These proposed scenarios aim to balance Quebec’s economic needs with its demographic goals and cultural identity, recognizing the province’s constitutional authority over immigration selection in collaboration with the federal government.
Accompanying these intake proposals are draft regulations that include new French-language requirements for temporary workers seeking to renew work permits after three years, as well as strengthened oversight of international students to ensure compliance with Quebec’s educational and economic priorities. The plan explicitly prioritizes individuals who are already residing in Quebec, particularly those who are French speakers and working in regions experiencing acute labour shortages.
Public consultations are open until July 19, 2025, with written briefs accepted through August 15, 2025. Hearings will gather feedback from stakeholders, including employers, community organizations, and affected individuals. Policy decisions are expected by late 2025, with implementation of the finalized plan beginning in 2026.
This ambitious and comprehensive approach signals Quebec’s evolving immigration priorities, combining economic imperatives with a firm commitment to preserving the province’s francophone character. It will be essential for immigration practitioners and stakeholders to stay attuned to these developments, as they will shape program design, application processes, and broader settlement patterns in Quebec for years to come. (Source)
Issue: Whether the refusal of a study permit was procedurally fair given concerns about the financial sponsorship evidence.
Facts: Mr. Aina applied for a study permit, showing that his father would financially support him. The Officer was not satisfied that the father’s financial resources were available to support the studies, noting inconsistencies in the names on the birth certificate and other documents. Mr. Aina was not given an opportunity to clarify this discrepancy.
Court Findings: The Court found that the Officer breached procedural fairness by failing to give Mr. Aina an opportunity to address the discrepancy. Although the standard of procedural fairness in visa applications is minimal, applicants must be given notice and an opportunity to respond when there are concerns about credibility, accuracy, or authenticity of evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review was allowed, and the decision was set aside. The matter was remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: This case reinforces that even in routine visa matters, applicants must be given a chance to respond to credibility concerns, highlighting the limits of “minimal fairness” in study permit assessments.
Issue: Whether the refusal of permanent residence under the Quebec Investor Class was reasonable and procedurally fair.
Facts: Mr. Awal applied for permanent residence under the Quebec Investor Class. The Officer refused the application because Awal failed to establish an intention to reside in Quebec. The Officer had requested specific evidence of this intent (e.g., housing, schooling, French studies), but Awal’s submissions were found lacking.
Court Findings: The Officer’s decision was found to be reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court noted that officers can expect detailed, credible evidence of an applicant’s intent to reside in Quebec. There was no violation of fairness, as Awal had been given clear notice and a chance to provide additional evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It confirms that applicants under the Quebec Investor Class must actively demonstrate an intention to reside in Quebec, and procedural fairness is satisfied when explicit requests for evidence are made.
Issue: Whether IRCC’s decision not to issue an Invitation to Apply (ITA) under Express Entry was reviewable.
Facts: Mr. Braverman submitted an Express Entry profile, which was accepted into the pool but did not result in an ITA in a subsequent draw. He argued that his CRS score was high enough and he should have been invited.
Court Findings: The Court found there was no final decision to review: IRCC’s decision not to issue an ITA was an exercise of discretion under Ministerial Instructions, not a reviewable decision.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: This case clarifies that only final decisions (like refusals or approvals of applications) can be reviewed, not intermediary steps like Express Entry ranking or non-issuance of an ITA.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a study permit was reasonable.
Facts: Ms. Eisapour, a regulatory affairs professional, applied for a study permit to pursue a Master’s degree in Canada. The Officer refused, concluding she hadn’t shown she would leave Canada at the end of her studies, citing weak family ties and an inconsistent study plan.
Court Findings: The Court found the Officer’s decision was reasonable. The Officer’s concerns about family ties and career progression were legitimate and within the scope of discretion. No procedural fairness issues arose.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It underscores that visa officers have broad discretion to assess whether an applicant will leave Canada after studies, and courts give significant deference to these factual findings.
Issue: Whether a refusal based on missing documentation (wife’s CV) was reasonable in light of evidence submitted.
Facts: Hong’s permanent residence application was refused because IRCC said he hadn’t submitted his wife’s CV. Hong claimed he had submitted it three times, providing screenshots of webform submissions with “Success!” indicators.
Court Findings: The Officer unreasonably failed to consider screenshots showing the webform submission. This evidence was central to determining whether Hong had complied with document requests.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; matter remitted for reconsideration.
Why This Case is Important: This case reinforces that officers must assess key contradictory evidence that is directly relevant to the refusal.
Issue: Whether refusal of permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker program was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Merijohn, who had claimed 200 CRS points for arranged employment as a senior manager, was refused because the Officer found he had no staff to manage (a key element of NOC 00 group roles).
Court Findings: The decision was reasonable because Merijohn failed to show he had staff to supervise, a critical aspect of the claimed NOC category.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: It highlights that applicants must ensure their job duties align precisely with the NOC codes they rely on in Express Entry profiles.
Issue: Whether the finding of misrepresentation was reasonable and whether the “innocent mistake” exception applied.
Facts: Mr. Minhas was found inadmissible for misrepresentation: proof of residing near his workplace, salary documents were not credible (forgery), bank statements didn’t match, and he failed to disclose visa refusals. He argued his failure to disclose was an innocent mistake.
Court Findings: The Court held that although the Officer failed to engage the innocent error submissions, remitting the matter for redetermination would not serve a useful purpose, considering other assessments of the officer were reasonable.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Emphasizes the importance of providing honest and truthful information and evidence in visa applications.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a work permit for a food service supervisor position was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Pal, a citizen of India, applied for a work permit to work as a Food Service Supervisor at Panago Pizza in Alberta. Although he had no formal education in hospitality, he submitted letters from his Indian employer confirming his years of experience and monthly paystubs. The Officer refused the work permit application, citing that Mr. Pal had a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science, lacked proof of salary deposits, and provided only limited information to support his claimed work experience. The Officer concluded that Mr. Pal had not demonstrated he met the job requirements.
Court Findings: The Court found that the Officer’s decision lacked transparency and justification. The Officer failed to explain why the submitted employment letters and paystubs were insufficient or why salary deposits were necessary. Importantly, the Officer did not engage with the evidence provided in any meaningful way, failing to show how it was weighed against the requirements of the job offer.
Outcome: Judicial review was allowed. The refusal decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for redetermination by a different immigration officer.
Why This Case is Important: This case highlights that visa officers must provide a rational and coherent explanation when refusing work permit applications, especially when dismissing evidence submitted by applicants.
Issue: Whether delay in processing a refugee sponsorship application justified a writ of mandamus.
Facts: Ms. Sara Siah Pour and her spouse, Iranian nationals and human rights defenders, fled to Turkey after persecution in Iran. They filed a private refugee sponsorship application in July 2023 and requested expedited processing due to the risk of refoulement from Turkey, where they currently reside. Despite efforts by Canadian sponsors and community support, their application had not been decided as of May 2025. They sought a writ of mandamus compelling IRCC to finalize the application, arguing the delay was unreasonable and exposed them to harm.
Court Findings: The Court found that the applicants had not met the legal threshold for mandamus because the processing time had not yet exceeded standard timelines posted by IRCC. Although the application was flagged for expedited processing as of May 2025, the Court held this created a legitimate expectation of priority treatment going forward. However, this expectation did not justify immediate mandamus relief.
Outcome: Judicial review was dismissed, and the writ of mandamus was not issued. However, the Court indicated that IRCC must now honour the expedited status of the application.
Why This Case is Important: It clarifies that while delays within standard processing times generally do not meet the threshold for mandamus, when IRCC flags a file for expedited treatment, it creates a legitimate expectation of prompt action moving forward.
Issue: Whether refusal of an open work permit for a spouse was reasonable, considering financial evidence.
Facts: Mr. Singh, husband of an international student in Canada, applied for an open work permit under section 205(c)(ii) of the IRPR. The Officer refused, citing a lack of proof that Singh had sufficient funds to support himself and his spouse during their stay in Canada. Singh argued that he had provided evidence of ~$20,000 in fixed deposits in India, which the Officer had completely ignored.
Court Findings: The Court found that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable. The Officer’s central concern was Singh’s financial capacity, yet the decision did not even acknowledge the existence of the fixed deposit letters, which directly addressed that concern. The Court emphasized that while officers are presumed to have considered all evidence, that presumption is rebutted when key evidence is clearly ignored.
Outcome: Judicial review was allowed. The refusal was set aside, and the matter remitted to a new officer for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: It underscores that officers must engage with key evidence that contradicts the basis of their refusal, particularly in financial assessments under temporary resident visa provisions.
Issue: Whether refusal to extend a work permit under the entrepreneur/self-employed category [C11 of the International Mobility Program -R205(a)]was reasonable.
Facts: Mr. Zare, an Iranian entrepreneur in Canada, applied to extend his work permit under the International Mobility Program (exemption code C11). He submitted documents showing his company’s incorporation, rental agreement, and banking information, but did not show evidence of hiring Canadian employees. The Officer refused, finding that Zare’s business did not create significant benefits to Canadians as required under R205(a), and also questioned whether he intended to stay temporarily in Canada.
Court Findings: The Court found that the Officer’s decision was reasonable. While Zare’s evidence showed he had a viable business, it did not demonstrate that his work created or would create significant benefits for Canadians. Operating a viable business alone does not meet the “significant benefit” threshold. The Officer’s focus on the lack of employees and permanent intent was legitimate.
Outcome: Judicial review was dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: This case clarifies that under R205(a), simply showing a viable business is not enough; applicants must also show how the business creates tangible benefits for Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
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.