Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Times of India reports a sharp spike in Canadian visa/permit refusals across TRVs, work permits, study permits and SUV work permits, which experts link to automation (e.g., Chinook) and Ottawa’s push to shrink temporary resident numbers; arrivals fell by about 278,900 Jan–Aug 2025, including 132,505 fewer new study permits (60% drop) and 146,395 fewer new work permits, while Federal Court immigration filings are on pace for 36,400 in 2025. Canadian immigration lawyer Pushkar Prehar says there is a “growing need for judicial oversight in the face of erroneous decisions” and templated reasons are driving many errors, prompting more judicial reviews; he outlines JR basics (leave, then hearing; unreasonable decisions set aside and remitted). (Times of India)
IRCC’s own data now shows unprecedented waits, up to 50 years for some PR streams (H&C 12–600 months; caregivers 9 years; agri-food 19 years; Start-Up Visa 35 years), with the online tool indicating that June 2025 H&C filers face “more than 10 years” and roughly 38,100 people ahead in the queue. IRCC says these figures are “not a mistake” and reflect intake versus reduced admissions targets, framing them as transparent forecasts. Meanwhile, lawyers warn that the numbers could foreshadow backlog cancellations under Bill C-12, echoing past cancellations. (CBC News)
Saskatchewan laid its first-ever charges under the former Foreign Worker Recruitment and Immigration Services Act against three Moose Jaw employers tied to Guac Mexi Grill; alleging retaliation for contacting authorities, exploiting workers’ trust/fear, and charging illegal employment fees for conduct in Aug 2023–Feb 2024; the accused are due in Moose Jaw Provincial Court on Nov 25, 2025, with the province noting FWRISA applies because the alleged offences pre-date the new Immigration Services Act (in force July 1, 2024). (Canadian Lawyer Magazine)
Calgary event centre ID checks (Oct. 15): CBSA, supported by Calgary Police for site safety, ran a planned regulatory-compliance operation at the new event centre site (12 Ave SE & Stampede Trail), conducting IRPA status checks; workers were briefly evacuated to present ID, and immigration counsel noted these inspections are typically intelligence-driven and appear to be increasing with greater CBSA inland-enforcement resources.
CBSA says four workers without status were identified at the same site after a tip and were instructed to report to the CBSA office; officials emphasized the checks were for IRPA administration/enforcement and that ensuring inadmissible persons leave Canada is key to system integrity; the probe continues. (CTV News LINK 1 & LINK 2)
IRCC’s latest statistics show 2,199,400 files in inventory, with 1,240,550 within service standards and 958,850 in backlog; by stream, temporary residence has 1,038,100 total with 437,350 (42%) in backlog, while permanent residence has 901,800 total with 470,300 (52%) in backlog; citizenship grant backlog is 51,200. From Jan 1–Aug 31, 2025, IRCC made 298,500 PR decisions, landed 276,900 PRs, and finalized 594,300 study-permit and 931,300 work-permit applications. IRCC reiterates the 80% service-standard target and cautions projections may shift with intake, priorities, or operational shocks. (Source)
Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP) has updated the names of individuals, employers and representatives who have had an administrative monetary penalty or banning order imposed against them for contravening the Ontario Immigration Act, 2015. (Source)
As of August 21, 2025, Express Entry applicants are required to provide an upfront medical examination at the time of their application for permanent residence. The Express Entry completeness check instructions have been updated accordingly to include facilitation period timelines. Applications received on or after October 21, 2025, without an immigration medical examination (IME) may be rejected as required. (Source)
The instructions have been updated to correct the date of issue of a Quebec Acceptance Certificate (Certificat d’acceptation du Québec [CAQ]) that can be reused if the applicant is changing their educational institution. The instructions previously indicated CAQs issued before December 6, 2025, could be used when changing institutions at the same level of study; they have been corrected to indicate this only applies to CAQs issued before December 6, 2024. (Source)
The instructions have been updated to clarify that an applicant can use the same labour market impact assessment (LMIA) for multiple work permit applications under the recognized employer pilot (REP), provided positions on the LMIA remain. Additionally, a procedure has been established for determining if there is a position remaining on the REP LMIA. (Source)
Issue: Did IRCC unreasonably refuse a study-permit application for misrepresentation (IELTS score), and can the Court lift the five-year bar absent a reviewable error?
Facts: The officer could not verify the IELTS TRF number submitted; after a PFL, the applicant filed a different IELTS report without explanation. On JR she alleged the officer used the wrong number; the CTR showed the officer used the number on the report actually filed to IRCC, while the applicant’s Application Record contained a different version. Counsel conceded the discrepancy at the hearing.
Court Findings: No reviewable error: the officer verified the number on the report actually submitted. The Court cannot grant equitable relief (lifting the bar) in the absence of an error. The Court cautioned counsel to diligently review CTRs and ensure accurate materials are filed.
Outcome: Application dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: A sharp cautionary tale on misrepresentation and litigation: what’s in the CTR governs, and filing a different document in the Application Record can be fatal. It also confirms the Court’s limited remedial jurisdiction without a reviewable error.
Issue: Was it unreasonable to refuse a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) where the application was framed as bridging time until a pending H&C, which was later refused, without updating submissions?
Facts: Nigerian national with long immigration history, Canadian-citizen spouse and children. He applied in Jan 2023 for a TRP “until” decision on his Nov 2022 H&C; that H&C was refused in July 2023. No further TRP submissions followed; the TRP was refused May 30, 2024.
Court Findings: TRPs are discretionary (IRPA s.24). The officer considered family circumstances but reasonably focused on the undisputed fact that the predicate H&C had been refused and no updated rationale was offered for a TRP. No duty to issue a PFL where the only “new fact” relied on was the H&C refusal itself; the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full opportunity to respond by updating his TRP submissions.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies TRP framing: if a TRP is premised on pending H&C, the record must be updated if H&C is refused. Also affirms no automatic PFL is required where the decision turns on known, undisputed file status.
Issue: Whether a 27-month delay in deciding a TRV for a PhD student on a valid study permit is unreasonable and justifies mandamus.
Facts: Chinese citizen pursuing a PhD at York University on a study permit (to Jan 31, 2026) sought a TRV to allow re-entry for travel (family and academic conference). Only generic “security screening in progress” responses; no direct evidence of referrals or screening steps.
Court Findings: Under the Apotex/Conille test, the delay far exceeds what the process prima facie requires (service times ≈27 days as of Aug 2025). The Minister provided only blanket, hearsay-style assertions via DOJ paralegals; no direct, file-specific evidence of security screening steps, partners, or complexity. Such boilerplate is insufficient. Prejudice is not required for mandamus, though some prejudice was shown (family and academic impacts). Balance of convenience favoured relief.
Outcome: JR allowed; mandamus issued requiring a decision within 60 days; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Adds to the growing line (Yang, Majidi, Tousi, Javed) that generic “security screening” statements don’t justify prolonged delay; mandates concrete, file-specific evidence. Helpful precedent for students and workers stuck in re-entry TRV limbo.
Issue: Was IRCC’s refusal to reconsider an “incomplete” Parent/Grandparent Sponsorship (PGP) application reasonable where the applicant swore the request-letter email was never received?
Facts: Invitation to Sponsor Oct 17, 2023; application filed Nov 2023. IRCC emailed a June 10, 2024 request; no response; application rejected July 18, 2024. Applicant immediately sought reconsideration with corrected forms, explaining non-receipt. IRCC refused reconsideration on Sept 11, 2024 with boilerplate.
Court Findings: Officers have jurisdiction to reconsider (Kurukkal; Hussein) in a two-step process. Here the officer’s “after careful review” language suggested the door was opened, yet the decision merely repeated the original facts and failed to engage the explanation. The presumption of proper delivery can be rebutted; the record lacked an affidavit of the officer who sent the letter and there was sworn evidence of non-receipt by the Applicant. The refusal to reconsider was unjustified.
Outcome: JR allowed; refusal to reconsider set aside; matter remitted to a different officer; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: The jurisprudence of “proof of non delivery” was rebutted by the affidavit of the Applicant in light of a hearsay affidavit by a paralegal.
Issue: Did the officer unreasonably minimize (i) the best interests of eight grandchildren and (ii) hardship on return in refusing H&C to a 75-year-old grandmother?
Facts: Elderly Shia widow living with/assisting adult children and eight grandchildren in Canada since 2018. H&C (and a PRRA) filed; H&C refused in Feb 2024 with findings of no negative impact on children, no unusual hardship, limited establishment.
Court Findings: H&C discretion aims to relieve hardship (Kanthasamy; Baker). The officer’s analysis of the children’s interests was perfunctory and framed as whether they would be “negatively affected” or “unable to adjust,” rather than identifying and weighing their best interests with “serious weight.” Comparisons to “other Canadian families” were irrelevant. On hardship, the officer improperly required her hardship to exceed that of others in Pakistan; also misstated/overlooked evidence linking country reports to her personal circumstances and the impediments to returning to prior housing.
Outcome: JR allowed; set aside; redetermination by a different decision-maker; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Strong reaffirmation of best-interests analysis rigor and individualized hardship assessment in H&C, rejecting “greater-than-others” thresholds and generic comparisons.
Issue: Was it unreasonable to refuse Quebec Investor PR for lack of intent to reside, and was there a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Singapore visa post/officer?
Facts: Bangladeshi investor with CSQs for family (Nov 2020) applied Mar 2021. In 2023 IRCC requested detailed settlement plans; interview held June 11, 2024; refusal June 13, 2024 for lack of intent to reside. Officer cited lack of French/English, vague/late settlement and business plans, minimal concrete steps. Applicant argued prior notes effectively accepted intent and alleged a pattern of refusals/bias.
Court Findings: Reasonableness applies. Possession of a CSQ does not bind the federal intent-to-reside assessment; the brief decision plus GCMS notes provided an intelligible basis. It was open to the officer to find plans vague and linguistic capacity lacking for intended business. Delay does not excuse lack of concrete, ongoing planning. On bias, the threshold is high; generalized allegations/patterns and excerpts from other files are inadequate; no evidence of prejudgment or unfair conduct.
Outcome: JR dismissed; no costs; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms broad officer discretion, and deference, on “intent to reside” under IRPR 90(2) even with a CSQ. Also clarifies evidentiary rigor for bias claims against a visa post: patterns alone, without full records, won’t meet the test.
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.