Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
The PIE News reports that Canada is considering adjustments to its international student study permit cap, introduced in January 2024, as the policy has led to over 8,200 job losses and a $2.7 billion revenue shortfall across postsecondary institutions. (The Pie News)
Oleksandr Zahrebelnyn, a Ukrainian businessman who moved to North Bay, Ontario, in 2019, is facing deportation after being deemed inadmissible to Canada due to his prior employment with Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU). (Toronto Star)
Dozens of Palestinian students, primarily from Gaza and Egypt, have been unable to begin their studies in Canada due to prolonged visa delays, with some waiting up to 18 months. (CTV News)
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted Dorinela Pepa, an Albanian national, the opportunity to appeal an immigration decision that previously resulted in a removal order. The Court emphasized that procedural issues, such as visa expiry, should not obstruct a person’s right to have their case heard on its merits. (CTV News)
In response to potential visa restrictions under the Trump administration, the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy has partnered with Harvard Kennedy School to offer a contingency option for international students who may be unable to study in the U.S. The arrangement would allow affected students to take Harvard courses, delivered online and in person, while based in Toronto, with instruction provided by both Harvard and Munk faculty. Students would be registered at U of T as non-degree special students but would remain enrolled at Harvard and continue paying tuition there. This move comes amid a legal battle between Harvard and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which sought to revoke the university’s ability to enroll international students.
The plan still requires regulatory approval and depends on sufficient student demand, with interested students asked to confirm by July 1. Although aimed at mitigating uncertainty, the timeline is tight, as Canadian study permits can take up to eight weeks to process. The initiative will not reduce space or resources for U of T students and reflects growing collaboration between Canadian and U.S. institutions amid rising political instability in American higher education. (Toronto Star)
In response to potential visa restrictions under the Trump administration, the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy has partnered with Harvard Kennedy School to offer a contingency option for international students who may be unable to study in the U.S. (Toronto Star)
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has outlined its 2025–26 Departmental Plan with a focus on improving immigration services, managing temporary resident volumes, and supporting Canada’s economic and humanitarian goals. With a planned budget of $5.17 billion and a workforce of 12,689 full-time equivalents, the department aims to deliver more efficient, responsive, and modernized immigration programs.
Key Priorities and Initiatives
This plan reflects IRCC’s commitment to strengthening system integrity, improving client experiences, and ensuring immigration continues to contribute meaningfully to Canada’s social and economic development. For full details, visit the official publication.
IRCC has updated PGWP eligibility for non-degree programs (certificates and diplomas). Starting November 1, 2024, new international students must be enrolled in a program from a revised list of 920 eligible fields of study aligned with Canada’s labour market needs. This update affects only those whose study permits are issued on or after that date. Students with permits issued before June 25, 2025, are protected under previous rules—even if their field is later removed. Key points:
IRCC has launched a new selection process to recruit qualified individuals to serve on the board of directors for the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, the regulatory body overseeing immigration and citizenship consultants in Canada.
The board has nine directors—five appointed by the Minister and four elected by consultants. The new process aims to build a diverse, merit-based pool of future candidates with strong governance, legal, and policy experience. Key Points:
Commitment to diversity and transparency
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) continues the Francophone Minority Communities Student Pilot (FMCSP), which encourages French-speaking international students to study in Francophone-minority regions outside Quebec. The pilot streamlines study permit applications, offers settlement supports during studies, and provides a faster route to permanent residence after graduating.
Eligibility criteria include:
Participating DLIs include universities and colleges across Canada (e.g., Université de Moncton, University of Ottawa, Collège La Cité), each classified into funding groups (A–E) based on community population.
ESDC maintains provincial/territorial wage thresholds to distinguish between high‑wage and low‑wage positions when applying for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). As of June 27, 2025, employers must classify their job offer accordingly:
2025 Wage Thresholds by Province/Territory (Hourly Rates)
Prevailing Wage Rules
Wages must be reviewed annually and adjusted to reflect updated median wage figures; they cannot decrease from what was in the original LMIA.
On June 25, 2025, Nova Scotia’s government announced a five‑year pilot partnership with Lebanese American University (LAU) and the American University of Beirut (AUB) to recruit 10 family physicians (2 per year) to practise in Nova Scotia. This initiative is part of the provincial Action for Health strategy to enhance healthcare access.
The province has already welcomed two physicians trained at AUB, with two more expected soon. To support this program, Nova Scotia will invest $5 million over the agreement’s duration, covering costs such as residency positions, licensing exams, immigration, and relocation. Recruited doctors must commit to a three‑year service in the province.
Key Highlights
The Government of the Northwest Territories has announced the second intake of the Northwest Territories Nominee Program (NTNP) for 2025, which will be open from 9:00 a.m. MST on July 2 to 5:00 p.m. MST on July 9, 2025. During this limited window, the territory will accept applications for 21 remaining nomination spots under its federal allocation of 150 nominations for the year. These spots are distributed across several immigration streams, including 10 for the Express Entry and Skilled Worker streams, 10 for the Entry-Level and Semi-Skilled stream, and 1 for the Francophone stream.
To be eligible, applicants must meet the specific criteria of their chosen stream. Express Entry applicants require a valid federal profile and a job offer from a Northwest Territories employer. Skilled Worker and Entry-Level/Semi-Skilled applicants must have employer-supported positions within NOC TEER levels 0 to 3. The Francophone stream is reserved for French-speaking candidates with qualifying job offers. Additionally, all applicants must hold a valid work permit that does not expire before March 31, 2026. Applications will be prioritized based on the earliest work permit expiry dates.
Prospective applicants are encouraged to review updated program guidelines and prepare all required documents in advance. Given the limited number of spots and competitive nature of the intake, early submission and complete documentation are essential. This intake represents a valuable opportunity for foreign workers and employers in the Northwest Territories to pursue permanent residence through a streamlined and employer-driven process.
Date: June 26, 2025
Total of 492 Letters of Advice to Apply (LAAs) issued across two sub-streams:
Issue: Whether the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) acted reasonably in denying jurisdiction to hear an appeal under section 63(2) of the IRPA on the basis that the appellant’s permanent resident visa had expired at the time the removal order was issued.
Facts: Dorinela Pepa, a 20-year-old Albanian national, arrived in Canada with an unexpired permanent resident visa as a dependent of her father. Upon arrival, she disclosed that she had secretly married a few weeks prior, making her ineligible as a dependent. She was allowed to enter Canada for further examination. Her visa expired before her admissibility hearing commenced. Following the hearing, the Immigration Division issued a removal order. Ms. Pepa sought to appeal to the IAD under s. 63(2) IRPA, which provides appeal rights to “a foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa.” The IAD declined jurisdiction, holding her visa had expired by the time of the removal order.
Court Findings: The Supreme Court (majority per Martin J.) held the IAD’s interpretation of s. 63(2) was unreasonable for three key reasons:
The majority concluded that the only reasonable interpretation of s. 63(2) is that a foreign national must hold a valid visa on arrival in Canada to retain appeal rights.
Outcome: Appeal allowed. The decisions of the IAD, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeal were set aside. The matter was remitted to the IAD for determination of Ms. Pepa’s appeal, recognizing her appeal right.
Why This Case is Important: This is a leading post-Vavilov Supreme Court decision that reinforces the standard of reasonableness review in administrative law while clarifying how statutory appeal rights under IRPA s. 63(2) should be interpreted. It confirms that:
This decision narrows administrative discretion in immigration removal appeals and fortifies procedural fairness protections for visa holders.
Issue: Whether the refusals of an H&C application and PRRA were unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
Facts: A Nigerian family was denied protection in Canada. Their H&C application was refused for insufficient establishment; their PRRA was denied due to perceived lack of risk in Nigeria, despite work as essential home-care providers during COVID.
Court Findings: No breach of procedural fairness. The officer reasonably weighed the evidence and found no compelling factors to grant relief. The decisions met the standard of justification and transparency.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms limited scope of review for H&C and PRRA decisions and emphasizes the need for clear, persuasive evidence to challenge negative findings.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a grandmother’s H&C application failed to adequately consider the best interests of her grandchildren.
Facts: Ms. Asantewaa, 67, cared for her Canadian grandchildren while her single daughter worked. Her visa expired and she applied for PR under H&C. The officer gave little weight to her caregiving role and focused on alternative immigration pathways.
Court Findings: The Officer’s BIOC analysis was inadequate. It failed to grapple with the central caregiving role she played or assess the children’s real-world circumstances.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Matter remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Strengthens the requirement for a substantive, BIOC analysis in H&C decisions involving caregiving grandparents.
Issue: Whether a misrepresentation finding for nondisclosure of prior visa refusals was procedurally fair and reasonable.
Facts: The applicant failed to disclose prior U.S. visa refusals in her TRV application. After a procedural fairness letter, she explained it was an oversight due to misunderstanding the form.
Court Findings: The officer reasonably found the explanation not credible. The duty of candour required full disclosure, and her misrepresentation was material.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms zero tolerance for nondisclosure of immigration history (prior visa refusals) and that “inadvertent” omissions may still constitute misrepresentation.
Issue: Whether the referral for an admissibility hearing based on serious criminality was procedurally unfair due to nondisclosure of Correctional Services Canada (CSC) reports.
Facts: A permanent resident with sexual assault convictions challenged the referral to the ID. He argued procedural unfairness due to lack of disclosure of correctional reports and inadequate consideration of rehabilitation.
Court Findings: The Minister’s delegate acted fairly. Disclosure obligations were met, and the reports were available to the applicant. The referral process is a fact-finding exercise and does not require full quasi-judicial procedures.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies procedural fairness thresholds in section 44 IRPA referrals and upholds that the Immigration Division has no discretion to consider H&C factors.
Issue: Whether refusal of an inland spousal sponsorship PR application was procedurally unfair due to missing record evidence.
Facts: Ms. Kaur submitted numerous documents responding to a procedural fairness letter, but several attachments were missing from the officer’s record. IRCC claimed the evidence was not submitted properly.
Court Findings: The record was incomplete through no fault of the applicant. The officer did not consider all material submitted, which breached procedural fairness.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Matter remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: Highlights the need for IRCC to ensure complete file review and sets precedent for overturning decisions made on an incomplete record.
Issue: Whether the IAD erred in finding equivalency between Indian convictions and Canadian criminal offences for the purposes of serious criminality.
Facts: The applicant had Indian convictions for “wrongful restraint” and “voluntarily causing hurt.” The IAD found these equivalent to “forcible confinement” and “assault with weapon” under Canadian law.
Court Findings: The IAD conducted a reasonable equivalency analysis using (Hill v Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration), 1987 CanLII 9881) Hill methods. The evidence supported equivalency, particularly given the injury caused with a weapon.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies application of equivalency analysis under s. 36(1)(b) IRPA for foreign convictions.
Issue: Whether the refusal of an H&C application was unreasonable for requiring “exceptional circumstances.”
Facts: The applicant, a Vietnamese citizen, applied for PR based on establishment, religion, political beliefs, and caregiving relationships in Canada. The officer acknowledged several positive factors but concluded H&C relief required “exceptional” circumstances.
Court Findings: Use of an “exceptionality” threshold was legally incorrect and rendered the decision unreasonable under the jurisprudence laid down in Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61. [Kanthasamy].
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms that the “exceptional circumstances” standard must not be applied to H&C assessments and clarifies the proper legal framework under s. 25(1) IRPA.
Issue: Whether the officer unreasonably rejected the Applicant’s application for Permanent Residency under the Federal Skilled Trades (FST) application by relying on discrepancies from a verification call without addressing supportive documentary evidence.
Facts: Ms. Nandha’s PR visa application under the FST program was refused after an IRCC officer found her interview responses conflicted with information obtained during a verification call to her employer. The officer found discrepancies in restaurant operations and staff numbers, leading to a finding that she lacked the required work experience.
Court Findings: The officer’s reasoning, though brief, was sufficient in context. The Court distinguished the case from Rong, noting the verification call was with her purported supervisor, not a receptionist, and yielded substantive contradictions. The officer did not ignore the documents but reasonably found them outweighed by the contradictory statements.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that officers may rely on credibility issues revealed in employer verification calls to assess work experience, even where documentary support exists.
Issue: Whether refusal of a Start-Up Business Class (SUBC) permanent residence application on the basis of IRPR 89(b), that the business venture was an “artificial transaction” undertaken primarily for immigration purposes, was unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
Facts: Mr. Neri, a Philippine citizen, applied for permanent residence through the SUBC Program with support from Empowered Startups Ltd., a designated business incubator. His proposal involved a “jockey cam” for horse racing. IRCC rejected the application, citing concerns about his lack of technical background, questionable business viability, inability to demonstrate control or ownership of intellectual property, and absence of credible commercialization plans. The officer concluded that the venture was initiated primarily to obtain status in Canada, not to pursue a bona fide business.
Court Findings: The Court found that the officer reasonably assessed the overall legitimacy of the venture, using a holistic lens as required under IRPR 89(b). No impermissible new requirements were imposed. The procedural fairness letter clearly outlined the concerns, and the applicant was given a meaningful opportunity to respond. The officer’s conclusion that the venture lacked genuine commercial intent was justified, intelligible, and grounded in the evidence.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important:T his decision is a leading interpretation of IRPR 89(b) in the context of the Start-Up Visa program. It affirms that officers are entitled to look beyond formal compliance with program criteria (like designated support or incorporation) and assess whether the venture is substantively genuine. The case confirms that business legitimacy under the Start-Up class must be evaluated contextually, including founder credibility, technical capacity, commercialization potential, and actual business activity. It also clarifies that officers may find a transaction “artificial” even where an incubator has endorsed the proposal, underscoring the independent gatekeeping role of immigration officers.
Issue: Whether the officer’s refusal of a study permit for lack of academic ability and immigration intent was unreasonable or ultra vires.
Facts: Mr. Paudel applied to study business in Canada. The officer found his academic record weak (GPA 2.4–2.5) and questioned his ability to succeed, and doubted he would leave Canada after studies due to inconsistencies in his education timeline (the gap of 4 years between grades 10 -12 from 2018–2022).
Court Findings: The officer reasonably relied on academic performance and unexplained educational delays. Consideration of program suitability and immigration intent was within the officer’s mandate and supported by the record.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms that officers can assess both academic preparedness and immigration intent under IRPR 216(1)(b), even in study permit contexts.
Issue:
Whether a second judicial review application regarding a previously dismissed visitor visa case constituted abuse of process.
Facts:
Mr. Singh initially filed for judicial review of a visa refusal but failed to perfect the application. Instead of seeking reinstatement, he filed a new application a year later without disclosing the prior dismissal.
Court Findings:
The Court struck the second application as an abuse of process. The applicant misled the Court by omitting material facts and attempted to bypass procedural consequences of his earlier inaction.
Outcome:
Judicial review struck.
Why This Case is Important:
Affirms the Court’s power to strike proceedings that circumvent prior dismissals and violate the integrity of judicial procedures.
Issue: Whether a PRRA decision was procedurally unfair for failing to consider additional submissions requested by IRCC and timely submitted.
Facts: Ms. Wigebral and her children, found inadmissible due to misrepresentation of Eritrean identity, applied for PRRA. IRCC requested a separate PRRA for her son Nobel. Despite submitting it with detailed new evidence, the officer decided the case stating no further submissions were received.
Court Findings: The officer’s failure to consider the second PRRA application breached procedural fairness. The submission was relevant, timely, and prompted by IRCC. The presumption that all evidence was reviewed was rebutted.
Outcome: Judicial review granted. Remitted to a new officer.
Why This Case is Important: Highlights that failure to consider responsive, timely evidence, especially when requested, violates basic fairness in PRRA decisions.
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.