Explore the latest ImmPulse Weekly for key Canadian immigration insights—or browse past editions to catch up.
CBC reports growing concerns among immigration lawyers and applicants that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) use of technology in visa processing may be causing unfair refusals. Lawyers point to cases where refusal reasons ignored documents that were in fact submitted, raising doubts about whether files are fully reviewed by officers. While IRCC maintains that human officers make final decisions and that tools like advanced data analytics and Chinook only speed up processing, professionals argue that pressure to meet quotas and reliance on bulk decision-making undermine procedural fairness. Former officers and legal experts caution that this approach risks decisions being made in minutes without adequate review. Critics also highlight personal stories where applicants received questionable refusals that were later overturned on reconsideration. IRCC continues to defend technology as essential for efficiency, despite calls from the legal community to ensure fairness and accountability in decision-making. CBC News
Dan Kelly, stresses that the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) remains essential for small businesses facing persistent labour shortages, especially in rural and remote areas. He notes that many Canadians are unwilling or unable to take on certain jobs, leaving employers dependent on TFWs. Hiring a foreign worker is not a cheaper option, costs can reach $10,000 per worker in fees, airfare, and housing support. While the program was temporarily made more flexible after the pandemic to address record vacancies, recent federal changes now restrict low-wage TFW use, particularly in urban areas with unemployment above 6%, and cap their share of an employer’s workforce at 10%. CFIB surveys consistently show most members support the program as a necessary, though limited, tool to address critical labour gaps. Kelly acknowledges differing views among CFIB’s 100,000 members but emphasizes continued advocacy to keep the program available to small businesses. CFIB
Applicants say they filed in January 2024 for Canada’s temporary visa program but never received the reference codes needed to complete applications, then were told in March 2025 the cap had been reached; a court filing seeks a ruling of unreasonable delay and an order for IRCC to reopen files, while IRCC says it is only required to process applications submitted before the cap; as of July 29, 2025, IRCC figures cite 880 arrivals under the program, 1,775 approved and out of Gaza but not yet arrived, and ~400 arrivals via other programs (published Sept. 17, 2025). CTV News
With all provincial agreements now ended (effective Sept. 15, 2025), immigration detention is fully a federal responsibility. High-risk detainees will be held at CSC’s Regional Reception Centre in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, while CBSA retrofits its Toronto and Laval holding centres to add higher-risk units (29 and 24 beds, respectively), with B.C. maintaining two rooms. As of Sept. 15, CBSA reports 13,503 people (98%) on alternatives to detention and 163 in custody (160 in CBSA centres, 2 at CSC, 1 elsewhere). The change follows an inquest into the death of Abdurahman Ibrahim Hassan and years of advocacy against jailing immigration detainees in provincial facilities. Toronto Star
The President of the United States of America issued a proclamation restricting entry of H-1B workers abroad unless the petitioning employer pays an additional US$100,000, citing widespread program abuse, wage suppression, layoffs of U.S. workers, and national-security concerns. The measure takes effect September 21, 2025, for 12 months, with limited national-interest exemptions and parallel directives to raise prevailing wages and prioritize higher-paid, higher-skilled candidates. The White House
Canada is inviting concise, evidence-based feedback to shape its stance for the first CUSMA joint review in 2026.
IRCC has approved 1,528 additional AAIP nominations, lifting Alberta’s 2025 cap to 6,403. Stream-level allocations to be announced. The boost targets regional labour gaps and advances provincial priorities.
Issue: Whether the H&C refusal failed to consider key hardship factors and was therefore unreasonable.
Facts: Iranian couple sought PR on H&C. They raised (i) risk to the wife as a woman in Iran, (ii) harassment by in-laws, and (iii) family separation from daughters in Canada. They also held valid multiple-entry visas (to 2027) and work permits (to Aug 2026); the husband had returned to Iran in 2023.
Court Findings: Officer acknowledged gender-based concerns but found the personal risk remote (one 2011 incident), found limited evidence and mitigation efforts re: in-law harassment, and pointed to existing temporary status/future programs for reunification. The applicants’ criticisms mischaracterized the reasons.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms deference where the officer addresses core H&C factors with individualized analysis, including availability of temporary status and alternative programs.
Issue: Reasonableness of TRV refusal under IRPR s.179(b) (will leave Canada).
Facts: Iranian physician applied to visit friend in Vancouver; provided host’s proof (PR card, property, $73,544 bank balance), own funds ($34,002), return tickets, insurance, employer leave, and affidavit of immediate family in Iran. Refusal cited vague purpose, insufficient host info, and lack of family ties outside Canada.
Court Findings: Reasons failed to grapple with robust documentary record; “vague purpose” and “insufficient host info” were inconsistent with evidence; reliance on lack of family ties outside Canada ignored sworn evidence. Applying Vavilov, the decision lacked justification/transparency.
Outcome: Judicial review allowed.
Why This Case is Important: Reiterates that TRV “purpose of visit” need not be compelling or itinerary-level detailed, and officers must engage with submitted evidence.
Issue: Reasonableness of refusing an ICT work permit (IRPR s.205(a), “significant benefit”) for a start-up branch (code C61).
Facts: Iranian majority shareholder/executive sought transfer to Ontario subsidiary offering interior design services. Officer questioned significant benefit and applicant’s interior design experience; a GCMS header mistakenly referenced s.205(c).
Court Findings: The stray reference to s.205(c) was a typographical error; overall reasons clearly applied s.205(a) and C61 criteria. The assessment that the record did not show interior design experience supporting the plan was open to the officer on this record.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Clarifies that minor clerical errors won’t vitiate a decision read “as an organic whole,” and underscores evidentiary demands for C61 “significant benefit” ICTs.
Issue: Reasonableness of LMIA-based work-permit refusal for “ability to perform” and related s.179(b) concerns.
Facts: Indian citizen with 8 years’ flooring experience; positive LMIA; refusal letter said officer not convinced he could perform the work; GCMS noted “limited supporting documents” for experience and also flagged s.179(b).
Court Findings: The officer’s conclusion conflicted with the record (resume showing long experience and an employer letter); on reasonableness review, those materials had to be addressed coherently. Having found unreasonableness, the court did not reach PF.
Outcome: Judicial review granted.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that “ability to perform” refusals must square with objective experience evidence, especially where an LMIA supports role suitability.
Issue: Whether the IAD reasonably upheld refusal because the sponsored daughter was not a “dependent child” under the IRPR definition in force at filing.
Facts: 2018 and 2022 sponsorship histories; by July 19, 2022 filing, daughter was 22 years 10 months. Applicant argued the pre-2014 “student” dependency definition applied; IAD applied post-2014 definition (under-22 or unable to be self-supporting due to a condition).
Court Findings: The IAD correctly applied the law in force; the Applicant’s reliance on a revoked definition was misplaced. Record shows PFLs and responses; determinative point was the correct, current dependency test.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Affirms lock-in to the operative post-2014 “dependent child” definition; being a full-time student alone no longer qualifies.
Issue: Whether the H&C refusal was unreasonable and/or procedurally unfair for ignoring an alternative TRP request, mishandling medical inadmissibility, and failing to engage with family-separation/health-care hardship evidence.
Facts: Elderly Vietnamese couple with two Canadian children; mother has cancer; sponsorship stream unavailable; detailed evidence on Vietnam medical conditions and separation impacts; officer focused on “establishment” and commented on medical inadmissibility.
Court Findings: (1) Failure to consider express alternative TRP request breached fairness; (2) approach to medical inadmissibility was procedurally unfair/unreasonable; (3) reasons were non-responsive to central submissions on separation and access to cancer care.
Outcome: Judicial review granted; full H&C redetermination required (not just TRP).
Why This Case is Important: Strong reminder that H&C decision-makers must address alternative relief (TRP), handle medical issues fairly, and respond meaningfully to hardship evidence.
Issue: Reasonableness and procedural fairness of refusing a study-permit extension after an explicit request for “official” transcripts was answered with an unofficial transcript.
Facts: Indian student switched schools; IRCC’s Nov 1, 2023 letter demanded official transcripts for all Canadian studies and warned unofficial would not be accepted; applicant submitted an official transcript for one school and an unofficial transcript for the other.
Court Findings: The request was clear; the response didn’t satisfy it. Given IRPA s.16(1) and the explicit wording, the refusal fell within the range of reasonable outcomes; reconsideration materials not before the officer were disregarded.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Highlights strict compliance with document requests (especially “official” vs “unofficial”) in study-permit maintenance.
Issue: Whether the IAD’s finding that a marriage was not genuine and/or primarily for immigration purposes (IRPR s.4(1)) was unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
Facts: Canadian sponsor married Egyptian spouse shortly after first in-person meeting; language barrier; minimal in-person time post-marriage; IAD noted vague account of deciding to marry, absent key relatives at wedding, and “pull factors” (two siblings in Canada).
Court Findings: No reviewable unfairness; de novo IAD hearing mitigated interview concerns. On reasonableness, the IAD’s credibility and primary-purpose analysis was justified and within Vavilov bounds.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms deference to IAD’s genuineness/primary-purpose assessments where reasons cohere and procedural safeguards exist.
Issue: Reasonableness of PRRA refusal (restricted s.112(3)(a) assessment) for a Bangladeshi BNP member claiming s.97 risks.
Facts: Prior security inadmissibility (IRPA s.34(1)(c),(f)); PRRA assessed only under s.97 (no s.96). Officer found insufficient evidence of a present, personalized risk after 8 years away and limited proof agents of harm still sought him.
Court Findings: Application allowed (reasons indicate shortcomings against Vavilov’s coherence/justification), in light of the record and legal constraints on restricted PRRA.
Outcome: Judicial review allowed.
Why This Case is Important: Signals careful scrutiny of PRRA risk analyses even within restricted assessments where individualized risk and country conditions must be reasonably connected.
Issue: Reasonableness and fairness of refusing a provincial-nominee supported work permit for inadequate proof of ability to perform (IRPR s.200(3)(a)).
Facts: Indian applicant nominated by BC PNP for VP Technical Solutions; officer noted missing corroboration (no pay stubs/bank credits, limited employment proof) despite nomination/support letter; refusal issued.
Court Findings: Applying Vavilov, the Court would not reweigh evidence; the officer’s chain of analysis about insufficient proof of experience was within the defensible range; no PF breach established.
Outcome: Judicial review dismissed.
Why This Case is Important: Confirms that a PNP nomination doesn’t displace IRCC’s independent eligibility assessment, especially on “ability to perform” evidentiary sufficiency.
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.