Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
A Burundian human rights activist, Thomas Ndayiragije, and two of his children are leading a proposed class-action lawsuit claiming Canada’s long delays in reuniting protected persons with their overseas families are discriminatory and violate Charter rights to security and equality. The suit says dependants of protected persons now wait an average of 50 months for permanent residence processing abroad, on top of roughly 37 months for the parents’ own refugee process, leaving families separated for more than seven years. It seeks damages and a court order compelling Ottawa to address systemic delays, arguing that the current system undermines Canada’s own legal commitment to prompt family reunification for refugees.
Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab says she has no knowledge of a reported U.S. diplomatic cable that allegedly tells American ambassadors in Canada and other allies to push for lower immigration levels and flag governments seen as “overly supportive” of immigrants. She told reporters that Canada does not take direction from the U.S. on its immigration targets, stressing that her decisions are based on consultations with provinces, territories, economists and stakeholders, and spoke while announcing $3.6 million in new funding to support Francophone immigration outside Quebec.
(CBC News)
New figures show Ontario colleges and universities have already lost more than $4.6 billion in revenue from international student cuts since 2023, about $2.1 billion for universities over 2024–27 and $2.5 billion for colleges, with colleges reporting a 73% drop in international enrolment, thousands of job cuts, 600 cancelled programs and some campus closures. With Ottawa lowering international student caps again for 2026 (Ontario’s target drops from about 149,000 study permits in 2025 to roughly 70,000 in 2026, plus a separate pool for grad students), schools warn they “can’t cut their way out” of mounting deficits, even as domestic demand grows and provincial per-student funding remains among the lowest in Canada.
Starting in 2026, Canada is tightening its international student cap again, aiming to issue up to 408,000 study permits in total – 155,000 for new students coming to Canada and 253,000 for people already here who need extensions, which is lower than the targets for 2024 and 2025. Master’s and PhD students at public schools, kids in K–12, some federal priority/vulnerable groups, and students extending their permits at the same school and level will **not** need a provincial/territorial attestation letter (PAL/TAL). Everyone else in PAL/TAL-required programs is covered by a separate 180,000-permit target, which Ottawa has divided among provinces and territories based on population and past approval rates (for example, about 70,000 permits for Ontario, 24,000+ for BC, 39,000+ for Quebec). Provinces get a larger pool of “application spaces” (about 309,670 in total) and must decide how to split those between their colleges and universities, as Canada tries to bring the overall temporary resident population below 5% by the end of 2027.
(Source)
IRCC has updated how much money international students must show to qualify for a study permit, raising the “cost-of-living” amounts for applications received on or after September 1, 2025. These minimum funds will now be adjusted every year in line with Statistics Canada’s low-income cut-off, similar to other immigration programs, but officers still have discretion to decide if someone has enough accessible money to meet the financial requirements in the rules for study permits.
(Source)
IRCC has tweaked its rules for international students tied to designated learning institutions (DLIs). Now, students who move from high school to college/university can start their post-secondary program as long as they applied to extend their study permit before the old one expired, even if the new permit isn’t approved yet. For joint programs that lead to a single credential (for example, a shared program between two schools), the student only needs one attestation letter and onestudy permit, both tied to the DLI that actually grants the final credential; that DLI must also handle the offer letter, verification, and compliance reporting for the whole program. IRCC also cleaned up some outdated internal wording about how officers enter school names in their system.
(Source)
Canada has lifted the visa requirement for Qatar, making Qatari nationals visa-exempt and eligible to apply for an eTA (Electronic Travel Authorization) when flying to Canada. In short: most Qatar passport holders coming by air will now just need an eTA instead of a temporary resident visa, and IRCC has updated its internal manuals and public lists of visa-required countries to reflect this change as of November 25, 2025.
(Source)
Canada has brought in a 5-year special policy (effective March 31, 2025) to help out-of-status or unauthorized home care workers who have already applied for permanent residence under Stream A of the new home care PR programs. These workers can now restore or extend their status and get a work permit in Canada while their PR is being processed, instead of falling out of status and being forced to stop working; eligible family members in Canada listed on the PR application can also restore/extend their status and get work or study permits under the same policy.
(Source)
IRCC has launched a limited digital visa pilot for a small group of Moroccan citizens approved for visitor visas, offering them a digital visa alongside the traditional counterfoil as part of broader efforts to modernize immigration services. The pilot is meant to test security, usability and third-party compatibility (e.g. airlines), while reducing the need to mail passports, improving verification, and lowering printing/mailing costs. IRCC is coordinating with other federal departments to ensure any future digital travel documents meet Canadian and international privacy and security standards, with lessons from this pilot expected to shape how digital immigration documents are delivered going forward.
(Source)
IRCC has quietly updated its guidance for seasonal farm workers and seafood/fish plant workers on where they can apply for their work permits. Because some people in Canada on temporary resident status are no longer allowed to apply at the border, the new instructions spell out exactly which Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) and low-wage-cap-exempt seafood/fish plant workers can still get a work permit issued at a port of entry, and who instead has to apply online from inside Canada.
(Source)
IRCC is putting about $3.6 million into four new projects to help French-speaking communities outside Quebec grow by attracting more Francophone and bilingual newcomers. The funding, through the Francophone Immigration Support Program, will support overseas promotion and recruitment (especially in health care, education and early childhood), help international students integrate into French-speaking minority communities, and strengthen coordination between Francophone colleges/universities, community groups and IRCC. This ties into Ottawa’s broader plan to steadily increase the share of French-speaking permanent residents outside Quebec to 10.5% by 2028 and to make Francophone communities more vibrant and sustainable over the long term.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its International Experience Canada (IEC) instructions to remove AIESEC Canada from the list of “recognized organizations” that can support foreign youth coming to Canada under the reciprocity-based IEC work permit streams. This means new IEC applicants can no longer use AIESEC as an intermediary organization for IEC work permits, and will instead need to apply either directly through their country’s bilateral IEC quota (if available) or via another recognized organization listed in IRCC’s guidance.
(Source)
IRCC has issued new guidance for what happens after a family sponsorship appeal is allowed at the Immigration Appeal Division. The update tells IRCC and CBSA officers exactly how to send those “appeal-allowed” family class files back to IRCC so they can be re-opened and re-decided in line with the IAD’s decision. In simple terms: when a sponsor wins their appeal, these rules are meant to make sure the case is promptly returned to IRCC for a fresh decision instead of getting stuck between CBSA, the IAD and IRCC.
(Source)
IRCC has updated its internal instructions for how it handles the 2025 Parents and Grandparents (PGP) sponsorship intake, including how applications are received and how sponsors are assessed. In practice, this means there is now refreshed guidance for officers on the intake process for PGP family class files and on reviewing sponsor eligibility, which should help make processing more consistent and predictable for families inviting parents and grandparents to immigrate to Canada.
(Source)
IRCC has scrapped its separate “wage review” instructions for the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, and now tells officers to just use the wage listed in the approved LMIA when assessing TFWP work permit applications. In other words, there is no extra IRCC wage-top-up check anymore on the immigration side – the ESDC-approved LMIA wage is the reference point officers must follow.
(Source)
Nova Scotia is moving to an Expression of Interest (EOI) model for all Nova Scotia Nominee Program streams and for AIP designations and endorsements, meaning every candidate or employer submission now goes into an EOI pool instead of being automatically processed in order. The province will run periodic “draws” from that pool based on labour market needs (for example health care, construction, trades, STEM, natural resources and manufacturing), available federal spaces, and program integrity, being selected only means your file will be processed, not that it will be approved. All existing files are now treated as EOIs, they stay in the pool until drawn or further notice, and applicants/employers will only hear from the province if their submission is picked for processing.
(Source)
Issue:
Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness due to incompetent representation when his private sponsorship NGO uploaded the wrong Schedule 2 narrative, leading to an adverse credibility finding and refusal of his refugee-abroad PR application.
Facts:
Mr. Ali, a Somali refugee recognized in Uganda, applied for PR under the refugee abroad stream through a private sponsor (Horn of Africa Educational and Economic Development Society). Only the sponsor could submit documents via the IRCC portal. The Schedule 2 narrative in the CTR showed him leaving and later returning to Somalia and working at a clinic; at interview, he consistently said he never returned to Somalia after fleeing, going instead through Malaysia and China to East Africa. The officer refused the application solely on the basis of inconsistencies between the written narrative and his interview evidence. On JR, the sponsor filed an affidavit admitting staff had mistakenly filed another person’s narrative and produced the correct narrative matching Mr. Ali’s oral account.
Court Findings:
The Court applied the usual tripartite test for incompetent representation (incompetent act, miscarriage of justice, notice to representative). Submitting a different person’s narrative in a refugee case was well below the standard of competent representation, especially where the error directly drove an adverse credibility finding. The only real basis for refusal was the mismatch between the (wrong) narrative and Mr. Ali’s oral evidence—without the NGO’s error, those inconsistencies would not have existed. The NGO was put on notice and responded by sworn affidavit, fully acknowledging the mistake.
Outcome:
Judicial review allowed; the refusal was set aside and the application remitted to a different officer for redetermination.
Why This Case is Important:
This is a strong precedent on incompetent representation in refugee/PSR files where portals restrict filing to sponsors and a representative’s document mix-up directly taints credibility. It’s a useful authority to rebut misrepresentation findings and seek remittal where IRCC’s concerns flow from representative error rather than the client’s own conduct.
Issue:
Whether it was reasonable to find the applicant inadmissible under s. 34(1)(f) IRPA for membership in a terrorist organization based on his involvement with Tamil Youth Organization (TYO-UK), given the open-source evidence relied on by the officer.
Facts:
Mr. Hariendran, originally from Sri Lanka and now a UK citizen, was sponsored by his Canadian spouse. He disclosed long-standing membership and activity in TYO-UK. The officer issued several PFLs and ultimately refused PR, concluding that TYO-UK was affiliated with the LTTE and that membership made him inadmissible under s. 34(1)(f). The link to the LTTE came primarily from foreign and Canadian media/articles that spoke in general terms about ties between various national TYO branches and the LTTE.
Court Findings:
Before the hearing, the Minister conceded reviewable error and agreed the decision should be set aside and remitted. The Court accepted that the cited open-source material did not reasonably establish that TYO-UK itself was an LTTE affiliate or that membership in TYO-UK met the “reasonable grounds to believe” threshold for terrorist-organization membership. The Court declined to issue a directed positive outcome but endorsed directions for a structured, prompt redetermination.
Outcome:
Judicial review granted by consent; the refusal was quashed and remitted to a different officer with directions for updated submissions and priority processing; no costs.
Why This Case is Important:
The decision reinforces that s. 34(1)(f) membership findings must be grounded in concrete, organization-specific evidence, not loose media references or guilt-by-association across related groups. It is particularly helpful in TYO/LTTE spousal cases where IRCC leans heavily on generic open-source material to infer terrorist-organization membership.
Issue:
Whether the officer reasonably refused a Home Child Care Provider Pilot (HCCPP) application on the basis that the applicant did not meet the education requirement, and whether new ECA evidence (IQAS) not before the officer could be admitted on judicial review.
Facts:
Ms. Kaur, an Indian nurse with a diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery and relevant work experience, applied for PR under the HCCPP based on a Canadian job offer. Her representative submitted only a WES ECA which expressly stated that her studies were “not equivalent to a completed Canadian education credential.” Under the HCCPP Ministerial Instructions, foreign-educated applicants must submit an ECA confirming equivalence to at least a one-year completed Canadian post-secondary credential. After refusal, she obtained an IQAS report more favourable to her education and claimed it had been sent by webform, though there was no record of it in IRCC’s file.
Court Findings:
The Court held the IQAS report and related materials were inadmissible on JR because they were new evidence on the merits and did not fall within the narrow Access Copyright exceptions. The record showed only the WES ECA, which clearly failed to establish the required equivalency. In that context, the officer’s conclusion that Ms. Kaur did not meet the HCCPP education requirement was intelligible and reasonable; the officer was not obliged to infer equivalency contrary to the ECA’s plain wording.
Outcome:
Judicial review dismissed; the refusal stood.
Why This Case is Important:
This case underscores that for pilot programs with firm ECA requirements, officers can rely on the explicit equivalency statement in the ECA and are not required to “look past” a negative opinion. It also reaffirms the strict limits on introducing new merits evidence on JR to repair defects in what was filed with IRCC.
Issue:
Whether the refusal of a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application was unreasonable, particularly in the assessment of best interests of the children, the applicant’s establishment in Canada, his support for another vulnerable family in Kenya, and country conditions.
Facts:
Mr. Ndungu, a Kenyan citizen, came to Canada in 2018 and was refused refugee protection (internal flight alternative). His subsequent H&C application relied on his establishment in Canada, the best interests of his two children (living and studying in Kenya), his financial support for a non-related Kenyan family, and difficult economic and security conditions in Kenya. The officer gave moderate weight to his establishment, considered the best interests of the children, gave little weight to his support for the other family, and found that country conditions did not justify an exemption.
Court Findings:
The Court reiterated that an H&C decision is highly discretionary and not an invitation to reweigh factors. The reasons showed the officer understood the claim, summarized the evidence, and addressed each main argument. On best interests, the officer reasonably focused on the son (a minor) and explained why the evidence did not show hardship beyond that generally faced by children in Kenya. Support for another family was properly given limited weight because H&C is centred on the applicant and their own family. Country-conditions analysis was not required to go beyond the materials submitted and was reasonably linked to the applicant’s circumstances.
Outcome:
Judicial review dismissed; the H&C refusal was upheld.
Why This Case is Important:
The decision is a useful illustration of how deferential courts are to H&C weighing where the officer has engaged with each factor and provided coherent reasons. It also clarifies that best-interests analysis is primarily for minor children and that generalized hardship or support for unrelated families will seldom carry decisive weight.
Issue:
Whether a work permit refusal with a five-year misrepresentation inadmissibility finding was procedurally unfair because the officer’s procedural fairness letter failed to disclose enough factual detail about the suspected fraud in the employment letter.
Facts:
Ms. Nguyen applied for an employer-specific work permit supported by a positive LMIA. She submitted an employment letter from a Quebec restaurant; an internal IRCC unit later concluded the letter showed “obvious signs of photoshop” and did not match contact details on file. The officer sent a PFL raising concerns that her documents were not genuine and could induce an error but did not spell out precisely what was allegedly altered on the letter. She replied maintaining the authenticity of her documents. The officer then refused the work permit and found her inadmissible for misrepresentation.
Court Findings:
The Court emphasized that in misrepresentation cases, procedural fairness requires disclosure of the key facts underpinning the concern so the applicant can meaningfully respond, especially given the serious five-year bar. Here, the officer ultimately relied on specific findings about alterations to the employment letter that had not been adequately described in the PFL. The applicant knew the general topic (authenticity of the letter) but not the specific forensic concerns, so she lacked a fair chance to address them. The Court distinguished cases where the concern is obvious from the face of the document from situations like this where the concern arises from background investigation and technical review.
Outcome:
Judicial review allowed; the misrepresentation refusal was set aside and remitted to a different decision-maker for redetermination; no costs.
Why This Case is Important:
Nguyen is a strong authority on PFL content in misrepresentation cases: officers must disclose the factual basis of alleged document fraud, not just a generic “credibility concern.” It’s particularly helpful where IRCC relies on internal verification or forensic review but has not told the applicant what those checks actually showed.
Issue:
Whether it was procedurally fair and substantively reasonable to refuse a permanent residence application on the basis of inadmissibility under s. 34(1)(f) IRPA for membership in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and whether the officer needed to consider H&C-type factors such as family reunification and duress.
Facts:
Mr. Vadiati’s PR application was refused because an IRCC officer found reasonable grounds to believe he was a member of the IRGC through his mandatory military service, engaging s. 34(1)(f). He argued that he was a conscript with limited duties, was unaware of the IRGC’s broader activities, and had since built a life in Canada with family ties. On JR he filed additional affidavits, including expert evidence and materials about coercion/duress and the harsh consequences of exclusion. He also suggested the officer should have considered H&C factors and family reunification in applying s. 34.
Court Findings:
The Court held that the officer gave detailed reasons and fairly particularized concerns in a PFL; the applicant had a full opportunity to respond, so there was no procedural unfairness. On the merits, the officer reasonably assessed the nature, context and duration of his IRGC service and concluded that membership in an organization caught by s. 34(1)(f) was established, consistent with FCA jurisprudence on broad “membership.” The Court found that duress was not engaged because the applicant had never framed his case that way during processing, and in any event, the record did not meet the high threshold for a duress defence. H&C factors and family reunification did not need to be weighed within the s. 34 analysis where the applicant had not actually requested relief under s. 25 IRPA.
Outcome:
Judicial review dismissed; the s. 34(1)(f) inadmissibility finding and PR refusal were upheld.
Why This Case is Important:
Vadiati confirms a strict approach to IRGC-based inadmissibility: conscript status and post-service equities will not, on their own, undo a properly reasoned s. 34(1)(f) membership finding. It also clarifies that H&C considerations and duress must be clearly raised and framed within the statutory scheme; they will not be read in by the Court after the fact.
Issue:
Whether the refusal of an in-Canada spousal sponsorship PR application for a finding that the marriage was not genuine or was entered into primarily for immigration purposes was unreasonable or procedurally unfair, particularly in light of the conduct of the in-person interview.
Facts:
Ms. Wu, a citizen of China, married her Canadian spouse and the couple filed an inland spousal sponsorship. IRCC conducted a joint interview and subsequently issued a PFL outlining concerns about discrepancies in their answers on key aspects of their relationship (courtship history, finances, daily life, etc.). Ms. Wu responded with explanations and additional materials. The officer nevertheless refused the application, finding the relationship not genuine and/or primarily immigration-motivated, citing persistent inconsistencies and vague or conflicting evidence. She argued on JR that the interview was unfairly conducted, that the officer ignored positive evidence, and that the reasons were inadequate.
Court Findings:
The Court held that procedural fairness was satisfied: the couple knew the purpose of the interview, were given a PFL with detailed concerns, and had a chance to respond. On reasonableness, the officer’s decision was transparent and grounded in specific discrepancies between the spouses’ answers and the documentary record. The Court emphasized that its role is not to re-try the genuineness of the marriage or reweigh evidence, and that credibility-based refusals in spousal cases attract a low intervention threshold where the officer engages with the file and explains why concerns remain. Ms. Wu’s complaints were characterized as disagreement with the officer’s weighing of the evidence rather than true reviewable error.
Outcome:
Judicial review dismissed; the spousal sponsorship refusal was upheld.
Why This Case is Important:
Wu shows how hard it is to overturn a spousal genuineness refusal where IRCC has done an interview, sent a PFL, and issued detailed reasons tying specific inconsistencies to the conclusion. It is a reminder to build robust, internally consistent relationship evidence up front and to use PFL responses to directly confront and reconcile every identified discrepancy.
(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.