Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Canada and India have agreed at the G20 to restart talks on a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, aiming to significantly increase bilateral trade and signaling a thaw in relations after tensions.
(CBC News)
Canada is successfully attracting newcomers but struggling to keep them: about one in five immigrants leave within 25 years, with the highest onward-migration rates among highly educated newcomers, including those with doctorates, senior managers, engineers, ICT professionals, scientists and health-care workers. The report finds departures peak around five years after landing and stresses that optimism about the future and feeling connected to Canada are key to retention, prompting calls for a national talent-retention strategy and stronger settlement supports.
A new ApplyBoard report says Canada and other major English-speaking destinations (Australia, U.K., U.S.) are cutting international student numbers, creating openings for emerging competitors like Germany, South Korea and the UAE that offer clearer study-to-work pathways and better retention policies. With Canada approving far fewer new study permits and sending mixed signals about welcoming students, the report warns that schools face deficits and program cuts while students increasingly choose countries that link education to strong career outcomes, affordability, and a safe, inclusive environment.
The federal Conservatives, led by MP Michelle Rempel Garner, plan to introduce amendments to Bill C-12 that would tighten asylum rules by cutting most federal social benefits for failed claimants, restricting eligibility for those coming via G7/EU countries, sharing costs with schools for “bogus” claims linked to international students, deeming claims abandoned if claimants return home, and making it easier to deport non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, changes refugee lawyers criticize as a major, punitive shift in Canada’s asylum system.
A Star piece reports that Bill C-3, which fixes Canada’s unconstitutional first-generation limit on citizenship by descent, has now cleared the Senate and received royal assent, restoring or granting citizenship to many “lost Canadians.” However, senators and lawyers warn a new battle is coming: intercountry adoptees who grew up in Canada would still have to meet a “substantial connection” residency test to pass citizenship to their own children, prompting calls for further reforms and possible constitutional litigation to treat them equivalently to domestically adopted children.
IRCC has issued a new temporary public policy under s. 25.2 IRPA exempting certain FIFA-invited foreign nationals from work authorization requirements for the 2026 FIFA Congress and World Cup activities in Toronto and Vancouver. To qualify, individuals must hold a FIFA invitation letter confirming they are FIFA staff, an affiliate, a contracted service provider, or a subcontractor, and that they will perform time-limited “work” in Canada directly related to and critical for official FIFA-organized events between December 1, 2025 and July 31, 2026. Eligible foreign nationals entering during this window may work without a work permit, subject to all other admissibility and eligibility requirements, via exemptions to IRPR s. 183(1)(b) and s. 196. The policy, signed November 14, 2025 by the Minister, replaces an earlier October 27, 2025 version and is in effect until July 31, 2026, unless revoked earlier.
(Source)
IRCC has extended the temporary pause on new applications under the Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) Program for the Groups of Five and Community Sponsor streams until December 31, 2026, citing high demand, large inventories and long wait times. The pause, first introduced on November 29, 2024, does not affect applications already submitted, which will continue to be processed, and Canada will keep admitting refugees under the PSR program in line with targets in the 2026–2028 Immigration Levels Plan. IRCC acknowledges the impact on sponsors and says it will continue working with refugee sponsorship stakeholders on program improvements.
(Source)
IRCC has extended special measures for Haitian nationals in Canada, and for foreign national family members of Canadian citizens and permanent residents, beyond November 20, 2025, due to the deteriorating security situation in Haiti. Eligible individuals already in Canada can continue to apply for study permits, open work permits, temporary resident permits, or extensions of their temporary resident status without paying application fees. First introduced in May 2024, these measures aim to let affected individuals remain safely in Canada while avoiding additional financial burden, and signal Canada’s ongoing commitment to compassionate responses for those displaced by conflict.
(Source)
Canada has reached a major milestone on citizenship by descent: Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), has received royal assent, paving the way to restore citizenship to people who would have been Canadians but for the first-generation limit and other outdated rules, and to modernize how citizenship is passed to children born or adopted abroad. Once in force on a date to be set by order in council, the new law will grant citizenship retroactively to affected individuals and, going forward, will allow Canadians born or adopted outside Canada to pass on citizenship to children born or adopted abroad if they can show a “substantial connection” to Canada, while the existing interim measures for those impacted by the first-generation limit remain in place until implementation.
(Source)
Canada Border Services Agency continues to expand its network of Customs Mutual Assistance Agreements (CMAAs), legally binding instruments that allow Canada and foreign partners to share customs information to prevent, detect, investigate and combat offences such as fraud and drug smuggling, while including confidentiality and privacy safeguards. Existing CMAAs cover key partners including the U.S., EU, Mexico, China, the U.K. and others, and Canada has now signed a new CMAA with Ukraine on August 24, 2025, which is currently undergoing ratification.
(Source)
Effective January 1, 2026, Alberta will tighten the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program’s Rural Renewal Stream (RRS) in response to reduced federal nomination allocations and endorsement volumes that exceed available spaces. Key changes include: capped endorsement allocations for each designated community, a new one-year validity period for Endorsement of Candidate Letters, adoption of a TEER-based endorsement model, and a requirement that foreign nationals already in Canada must hold a valid work permit at both application and assessment.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its program delivery instructions on temporary resident permits (TRPs) (Nov. 18, 2025), confirming that TRPs can be issued from 1 day up to 3 years, remain valid only until the printed expiry date or cancellation, and do not benefit from restoration or maintained status holders must either leave Canada or apply for a subsequent TRP before expiry. The guidance reiterates that TRPs are meant for the minimum period required (not long-term continuous status), that work/study authorizations should align in validity with the TRP, and that re-entry is normally not allowed unless explicitly authorized and annotated under R63(b). It also details when TRPs become invalid (e.g. departure without re-entry authorization), how officers should provide procedural fairness before cancellation, and when enforcement steps such as A44(1) reports and removal orders may be pursued for overstay or new inadmissibility.
(Source)
IRCC has overhauled and restructured its pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) program delivery instructions, aligning them with recent litigation trends and jurisprudence, and improving clarity and navigation through a new table of contents and reorganized content. At the same time, instructions for section A115 non-refoulement assessments have been separated out from the PRRA section, updated, and moved under the main Refugee protection, overview heading, so all non-refoulement guidance now sits within the core refugee protection instructions.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its program delivery instructions on the International Organization for Migration (IOM) (Nov. 19, 2025), clarifying IOM’s support roles under the Interim Federal Health Program, the Resettlement Assistance Program, and the Immigration Loans Program. The refreshed guidance consolidates how IOM assists with services like medical examinations, travel logistics and reception supports for protected persons and resettled refugees, and aligns references across these three program areas.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its SCLPC / inland spousal work permit guidance (R205(a) – A74) to add new sections on extensions and useful links, and to consolidate instructions under the existing temporary public policy that exempts certain SCLPC and family-class applicants from standard work-permit requirements when applying in Canada. The November 20, 2025 update doesn’t change the core public policy but clarifies how officers should process initial and extension applications under this A74 policy and points users to the relevant cross-references in the updated instructions.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its program delivery instructions to reflect the closure of the Agri-Food Pilot (AFP) on May 14, 2025 and the fact that a 2025 intake cap of 1,010 applications was set for the pilot; the AFP manuals, covering eligibility, intake at CIO, processing, economic establishment, admissibility, and final decision steps, have now been revised to align with the program’s end and capped intake.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its program delivery instructions to reflect the closure of the Agri-Food Pilot (AFP) on May 14, 2025 and the fact that a 2025 intake cap of 1,010 applications was set for the pilot; the AFP manuals, covering eligibility, intake at CIO, processing, economic establishment, admissibility, and final decision steps, have now been revised to align with the program’s end and capped intake.
(Source)
Issue: Whether a mandamus / delay judicial review challenging processing of a permanent residence application should proceed once IRCC has effectively completed processing, and whether costs were warranted.
Facts: The applicant, a Russian national, applied for permanent residence and experienced lengthy processing delays. He had also contributed to some delay by missing a deadline to upload language test results. By the time the judicial review was heard, IRCC had finalized or was in the process of finalizing the application, and the Minister argued the case was now moot.
Court Findings: The Court accepted that any live controversy about delay had effectively been overtaken by events and that the mandamus claim was moot. It noted that the applicant had contributed to part of the delay and that overall processing times had been affected by general system pressures.
Outcome: The judicial review was dismissed as moot and no order for costs was made.
Why This Case is Important: It illustrates that once IRCC has effectively done what mandamus would compel, the Federal Court is unlikely to continue with a delay application, and that applicant-caused delay and broader processing-time context will weigh heavily against extraordinary remedies like mandamus and costs.
Issue: Whether the IAD’s decision upholding a misrepresentation inadmissibility finding and dismissing the appeal was reasonable, particularly in its treatment of (a) alleged incompetent former counsel, and (b) humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors, especially the best interests of the child (BIOC).
Facts: Mr. Lee, a Hong Kong–born permanent resident, gained PR through a first marriage later admitted (through counsel) to be a paid marriage of convenience. After divorcing, he remarried, sponsored his current wife, and they had a Canadian child. An anonymous tip triggered an inadmissibility investigation; the ID and IAD both found him inadmissible for misrepresentation under s. 40(1)(a) IRPA, and the IAD refused relief on H&C grounds.
Court Findings: The Court held that:
Outcome: Judicial review was granted. The IAD decision was set aside and the matter was remitted to a different IAD member for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: It reinforces that BIOC analysis must be substantive and comparative, not perfunctory; clarifies that incompetence of former counsel is an allegation the applicant must prove; and shows the Court may entertain new H&C arguments where a child’s welfare is central and the evidentiary record is complete.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a spousal sponsorship / H&C application by relying heavily on past misrepresentation, questioning the marriage’s genuineness, and declining relief was reasonable and procedurally fair.
Facts: The applicant’s refugee status had previously been vacated for misrepresentation. She later applied for PR through spousal sponsorship and H&C relief, relying on a long-term relationship and children with her sponsor, supported by DNA evidence. The officer doubted the genuineness of the relationship, relied on perceived inconsistencies (e.g., mailing address issues), and denied both genuineness and H&C relief.
Court Findings: The Court found the decision unreasonable and procedurally unfair:
Outcome: Judicial review was granted; the refusal was set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important: It underscores that where credibility is central and significant positive evidence exists (like DNA), an interview or equivalent opportunity to respond may be required; officers must genuinely weigh all key evidence and cannot deny H&C relief solely by pointing to past misrepresentation without a balanced assessment.
Issue: Whether the refusal of an in-Canada H&C application by an elderly, widowed parent, based on limited establishment and hardship, was unreasonable.
Facts: The 78-year-old applicant, a widowed Kenyan citizen, entered Canada as a visitor in 2022 and lived with her adult daughter and son-in-law, who financially supported her. She sought PR on H&C grounds, citing age, dependence on family in Canada, and hardship if returned to Kenya. On JR she also relied on additional evidence (health, lack of assets, limited social support in Kenya) that had not been in the original application record.
Court Findings: The Court held:
Outcome: Judicial review was dismissed; the H&C refusal stood.
Why This Case is Important: It highlights that H&C applicants must put their best, well-documented case before the officer; general assertions of hardship and family dependence, unsupported by concrete evidence or country documentation, will often attract limited weight and are unlikely to be enough on judicial review.
Issue: Whether a work-permit refusal premised on “significant family ties in Canada” and risk of non-return was reasonable in light of the evidentiary record showing strong ties in the home country.
Facts: The applicant, an Indian national, applied for a closed LMIA-based work permit as a harvesting labourer on a Canadian farm with a positive LMIA. The officer refused, citing (among other things) alleged significant family ties in Canada and concerns he would not leave at the end of his stay, despite evidence of substantial family and economic ties in India.
Court Findings: The Court found the refusal unreasonable: the officer’s conclusion about significant Canadian family ties lacked support in the record and failed to explain why unproven Canadian ties outweighed the clear family and economic ties in India. The reasoning was speculative and did not show a rational chain of analysis under Vavilov.
Outcome: Judicial review was granted; the refusal was set aside and the application sent back for redetermination by a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: It is a work-permit case you can cite where the Court rejects boilerplate or speculative 179(b) reasoning: officers must ground “ties” assessments in evidence and must explain why risk-of-non-return findings follow logically from the actual record.
Issue: Whether the refusal of a truck-driver work-permit application based on safety concerns arising from a vague foreign police certificate and weak home-country ties was reasonable.
Facts: An Indian citizen with truck-driving experience in the UAE applied for a Canadian work permit. His Dubai police certificate listed three traffic-related entries with no detail. The officer raised safety concerns about his suitability to operate commercial vehicles in Canada and also questioned his ties to India, noting a lengthy residence abroad.
Court Findings: The Court dismissed the JR:
Outcome: Judicial review was dismissed; the work-permit refusal was upheld.
Why This Case is Important: It is a strong authority on applicant onus and safety-sensitive occupations: applicants must proactively address any red flags (like police or driving records), and officers are not required to invite clarification where the application, as filed, is insufficient.
Issue: Whether the refusal of an in-Canada H&C application, where the applicant mainly advanced general hardship and establishment arguments without robust evidence, was unreasonable.
Facts: The applicant sought permanent residence from within Canada on H&C grounds. He pointed to difficulties if returned to his country of origin and some degree of establishment in Canada, but the documentary record of specific hardship, country conditions, and integration was thin. The officer refused the application, concluding that the evidence did not reach the threshold for H&C relief.
Court Findings: The Court held that the officer’s decision was reasonable:
Outcome: Judicial review was dismissed; the H&C refusal was upheld.
Why This Case is Important: It is a recent reminder that general claims of hardship are not enough: H&C applicants must substantiate alleged vulnerabilities and hardships with specific, corroborated evidence, or the Court is unlikely to interfere with an officer’s negative assessment.
Issue: Whether a dependent spouse in a long-delayed Federal Self-Employed PR application could obtain mandamus compelling a decision on her own file, and whether AI-translated affidavit material complied with Federal Court Rules.
Facts: The applicant, a dependent spouse in a Federal Self-Employed class application first filed in 2020, sought mandamus after more than five years of processing delay. Her principal applicant spouse’s file had not yet been approved. She filed an affidavit originally in Chinese that had been translated using AI tools (including ChatGPT), rather than through a certified interpreter.
Court Findings: The Court dismissed the mandamus application:
Outcome: Judicial review / mandamus was dismissed; costs were awarded personally against the applicant’s counsel.
Why This Case is Important: It clarifies that dependants cannot use mandamus to jump ahead of an unapproved principal applicant; confirms that AI-generated translations do not satisfy affidavit translation requirements; and shows the Court is prepared to award personal costs where counsel files non-compliant materials and makes baseless professional-conduct allegations.
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.