Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre urged abolishing the TFW program, arguing it depresses wages and displaces youth, while proposing a separate stream for agricultural labour (Canada already has SAWP). He claimed the Liberals promised an 82,000 cap but issued 105,000 permits; the government replied that figure includes extensions, only 33,722 TFWs entered Jan–Jun 2025, and new arrivals are down 125,903 year-over-year. PM Mark Carney said the program “has a role” amid a broader immigration review and aims to reduce immigration’s share of the population to ~5% in a few years. Business and advocacy voices split: CFIB called scrapping the program “ridiculous,” while a migrant-rights advocate warned it could drive more people undocumented. (CBC News)
Two families who tried to seek asylum in Canada were refused at the border and ended up in U.S. immigration detention: a Haitian family of five was sent to the South Texas Family Residential Center after a paperwork irregularity, and a Pakistani family was split up after 11 days at Peace Bridge CBP with the father detained by ICE. Lawyers say this reflects a growing pattern of turnbacks that funnel people into an “opaque” U.S. detention system. CBSA says officers consider all relevant information and provide interpreters, noting there’s no formal appeal of eligibility decisions (judicial review is possible but doesn’t stop removal). After weeks in custody, the Pakistani father chose to self-deport amid reported health and care concerns. (CBC News)
IRCC has completely overhauled its DNA-testing program delivery instructions (Sept 5, 2025), now separating guidance for citizenship vs. immigration and standardizing how officers handle results and communications.
Key updates
(Source)
IRCC boosted the NWT’s 2025 NTNP allocation by 47 to a total of 197, following sustained GNWT advocacy; this still doesn’t restore 2024 levels. The territory met its full allocation in 2024, and the added 2025 spaces will go to eligible applicants from the second 2025 intake, prioritized by work-permit expiry. The NTNP won’t reopen for new 2025 applications; immigration remains central to NWT’s workforce, population, and resilience goals.
(Source)
The GNWT is seeking public input on the NTNP to help shape updates for 2026 and beyond; submissions are due by September 30, 2025 via the Have Your Say portal. An engagement guide outlines key topics for feedback. The NTNP, run by GNWT in cooperation with IRCC, allows the territory to nominate foreign nationals for permanent residence to meet NWT’s economic and labour needs.
(Source)
Manitoba has reopened applications as of Sept. 2, 2025 for the newly renamed Employer Direct Initiative, with updated eligibility and streamlined processes/forms. It also launched the Temporary Resident Retention Pilot to help Manitoba employers retain eligible temporary residents already on their payroll.
(Source)
Sponsorship Agreement Holder (SAH) Organizational Assessment (IMM 0167)
(Source)
Issue: Whether IRCC reasonably returned a 2023 PGP sponsorship as “incomplete,” and whether the officer’s reconsideration decision was procedurally fair and reasonable.
Facts: The sponsor applied under the 2023 PGP to sponsor his grandmother. IRCC later returned the file as incomplete and maintained that position on reconsideration, citing missing information/documents tied to the PGP package and family-size requirements.
Court Findings: On reasonableness review, the Court held the officer’s rationale addressed the governing PGP instructions/forms and explained why the application remained incomplete notwithstanding later assertions about evidence. No breach of fairness was shown.
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces that PGP packages are strictly form- and checklist-driven; if the record doesn’t meet completeness requirements when assessed, officers may return as incomplete and the Court will defer where reasons are coherent and tied to the PGP scheme.
Issue: Whether a TRV refusal (bookkeeper) was unreasonable where the officer doubted English ability for job performance and intent to leave.
Facts: Applicant sought a TRV to work as a bookkeeper. The officer questioned English proficiency needed for the job and, read cumulatively with other factors, refused. The applicant held a relevant degree and argued the officer fixated on experience/English without engaging the evidence.
Court Findings: Justice Sadrehashemi held the officer’s chain of reasoning was untenable: the analysis blended job-performance criteria with the s. 179(b) “will leave” inquiry, and failed to grapple with the degree credentials and the record as a whole. This fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes under Vavilov.
Outcome: JR granted; decision set aside and remitted.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that TRV assessments must keep job-performance concerns conceptually distinct from the statutory “leave Canada” analysis and must genuinely engage key education/skill evidence.
Issue: Whether an officer reasonably refused an H&C request (BIOC engaged) to overcome exclusion under IRPR 117(9)(d) for a minor not declared at the sponsor’s landing.
Facts: A Dominican minor, excluded under 117(9)(d), sought an H&C exemption emphasizing instability in caregiving and the siblings’ best interests. The officer refused, stating there were insufficient grounds.
Court Findings: The officer failed to meaningfully grapple with central BIOC evidence (caregivers, instability) and arguments, contrary to Vavilov/Kanthasamy. Post-hoc rationalizations could not rescue reasons that did not address those points.
Outcome: JR granted; refusal set aside and remitted to a different officer.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms a heightened responsibility to engage with BIOC where outcomes have lasting consequences (e.g., lifetime sponsorship bar under 117(9)(d)).
Issue: Reasonableness and fairness of (1) a s.44(1) IRPA report for study-permit non-compliance (>150 days not enrolled) and (2) the Minister’s Delegate’s exclusion order under IRPR s.228(1)(c)(v).
Facts: Student withdrew for two semesters, later re-enrolled. CBSA prepared a s.44(1) report; MD issued an exclusion order. Applicant said he was enrolled by the time of decision and that decision-makers failed to consider an exception in IRPR 220.1.
Court Findings: The record supported non-compliance; the report and exclusion order were reasonable on their face. Procedural fairness in this context affords limited participatory rights, which were met. Decision-makers were not obliged to canvass unraised exceptions.
Outcome: JR dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms robust deference for s.44/MD decisions where study-permit conditions under IRPR 220.1 are not met, and clarifies the modest duty of fairness in this enforcement context.
Issue: Whether a reconsideration refusal in a PGP case was reasonable where the sponsor disputed counting a separated spouse in family size and invoked H&C.
Facts: Sponsor had indicated withdrawal if found ineligible. On reconsideration, the officer maintained MNI was not met because a separated spouse counts toward family size, and H&C relief was not within the officer’s jurisdiction.
Court Findings: The decision was reasonable: IRPR and IRCC guidance require including a separated spouse for PGP family-size unless narrow exceptions apply; H&C under IRPA s.25 is not within a PGP eligibility officer’s remit. The officer had no duty to warn about the appeal implications of electing “withdraw if ineligible.”
Outcome: JR dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reinforces strict PGP family-size/MNI rules (separated spouses generally included) and that H&C relief lies outside a PGP eligibility determination.
Issue: Whether a misrepresentation finding (IRPA s.40(1)(a)) and five-year bar tied to an MBA credential were procedurally fair and reasonable.
Facts: Applicant claimed an MBA. After interview and requests for corroboration, the officer found she lacked basic knowledge of her research/coursework and concluded the credential was not legitimately earned (concerns about ghostwriting), refused OWP, and issued a five-year ban.
Court Findings: No breach of fairness—the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full chance to respond. On reasonableness, the officer’s credibility assessment and reliance on interview answers supported misrepresentation on a balance of probabilities; the Court would not re-weigh.
Outcome: JR dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that interview-based credibility findings can reasonably ground s.40 misrepresentation where an applicant cannot substantiate claimed academic credentials.
Issue: Whether refusal to reconsider a refused closed work-permit was reasonable where the officer focused on liquid funds/establishment and, secondarily, on ties.
Facts: Applicant (in KSA) sought a WP for a job in Ontario. On reconsideration, the officer cited very limited liquid funds to establish in Canada, noting that while assets often aren’t central to WP assessments, low savings/income could signal weak ties.
Court Findings: The officer’s reasons were internally coherent and focused on establishment means; no obligation to reweigh salary projections or treat assets as decisive. Family-ties discussion was not determinative given the central, reasonable concern about limited liquid funds.
Outcome: JR dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Endorses officers’ latitude to consider realistic establishment funds in WP decisions and to treat low liquid funds as relevant to ties/returnability.
Issue: Whether refusing a TRP (and consequent OWP) to an inadmissible former student was reasonable.
Facts: Applicant had >150-day study gap and status lapse; sought a TRP to remain and work. Officer held a TRP wasn’t justified because he could regularize from India and gave no evidence of hardship doing so.
Court Findings: Reasons showed the officer understood the history and central submissions; the determinative “can regularize from abroad; no hardship shown” finding was reasonable and dispositive.
Outcome: JR dismissed; no certified question.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms that the ability to regularize status from outside Canada, without evidence of difficulty or undue hardship, is a compelling basis to refuse a TRP.
Issue: Costs and mootness after a mandamus became untenable once the application had been decided and a separate JR was filed.
Facts: Applicant pursued mandamus but IRCC issued a refusal and the applicant then filed a JR of that refusal. He did not promptly advise the Court in the mandamus.
Court Findings: Proceeding with mandamus after a refusal and parallel JR was an abuse of process; the matter was moot. While DOJ sought $1,250, the Court fixed costs at $500 (noting DOJ hadn’t moved to discontinue earlier).
Outcome: Mandamus dismissed; $500 costs payable in 30 days.
Why This Case is Important: Clear warning against running mandamus in parallel with a JR on the refusal and failing to update the Court, expect adverse cost consequences.
Issue: Motion to reconsider under Rule 397 (alleged slip/omission) after the costs order in the mandamus matter.
Facts: Applicant sought reconsideration of the earlier decision/costs, arguing errors fit Rule 397.
Court Findings: No clerical slip or accidental omission; the motion tried to relitigate merits and costs, which is outside Rule 397’s narrow scope.
Outcome: Reconsideration motion dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Reaffirms the tight confines of Rule 397, reconsideration is not an appeal on the merits or costs.
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.