Category Archive

The following is an IRCC manual on assessing Provincial Nominee Class applications submitted through Express Entry.

Steven and Deanna dig into two new Government of Canada consultations on immigration policy. The first is on immigration levels planning for 2027 and beyond. The second is on new Express Entry categories. Topics include the survey questions, the results of last year’s consultations, caps on workers, and the proposed new categories of senior managers, scientists & researchers and allied soldiers.

In Sahloul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1331, Justice Régimbald provided the following powerful statements about how Canadian refugee does not prohibit asylum shopping: According to some, a legitimate refugee is compelled to leave their national state out of fear of persecution at the first opportunity, and seek the first state possible that will provide safe haven. No other choice is permissible, including the choice to seek asylum in one state over another. To behave otherwise would be incommensurate with the actions of the legitimate refugee and as such, these individuals lack subjective fear. This contention has not been formed in accordance with the law. The Court should not behold refugee claimants to a mirage that robs them of their agency and imputes dishonesty where there is none. Availing oneself of the first, or closest, opportunity for international protection is not a precondition to finding refuge in Canada.  

We cover recent developments at the intersection of criminal and immigration law. We review significant Supreme Court of Canada decisions, highlight problematic CBSA investigations, discuss judicial errors during sentencing, and explore current trends in immigration policy and processing. We also answer live audience questions about express entry scores, humanitarian and compassionate applications, parent and grandparent sponsorship backlogs, and more. Timestamps: 0:17 – Introduction and overview of crim-immigration updates 1:36 – Supreme Court decision on Canada’s sex work laws (R. v. Kloubakov, 2025 SCC 25) 13:02 – U.S. convictions and IRPA section 36(2) “committing an offence” provisions 16:03 – California automatic relief and foreign spent convictions 19:08 – Supreme Court decision on youth sentencing (R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23) and inadmissibility 20:56 – Why youth convictions abroad still trigger inadmissibility: Flores Giron v. Canada 21:15 – CBSA officer self-investigation leads to stayed charges 23:33 – Judicial misconduct: judge misreads sentence and conceals error 33:38 – IRCC now providing refusal notes with TR applications: impact on litigation 38:05 – Political narratives around “letting criminals into Canada” 48:08 – Live Q&A

  We conduct a comprehensive analysis of the immigration implications of Bill C-2, an omnibus bill tabled by the federal government that significantly expands government authority and introduces sweeping changes across multiple areas of Canadian law. Bill C-2’s immigration provisions would: Grant the federal government broad powers to suspend, cancel, or vary immigration documents, including permanent resident visas, permanent resident cards, temporary resident visas, work permits, study permits, and electronic travel authorizations, based on vague “public interest” criteria. Permit the bulk suspension or cancellation of immigration and refugee applications without individual case review, raising serious concerns regarding Charter rights and judicial oversight. Introduce major restrictions on refugee protection claims, including a one-year filing bar for those who do not make a claim within 12 months of arrival and expanded ineligibility for individuals who cross the Canada–U.S. border irregularly. Timestamps: 0:00 – Introduction & overview of Bill C-2 6:39 – The democratic and constitutional concerns with omnibus legislation 10:28 – Government powers to cancel immigration documents and applications 27:04 – Refugee claim restrictions: one-year filing bar and ineligibility rules 33:05 – Transitional provisions and measures already in effect 40:09 – Designated representatives and capacity considerations 46:16 – Admissibility hearings, PR status … Read More

<iframe src=”https://embed.acast.com/659f464c3f69070017409684/687fd1abf6d4262b0784f7b6?theme=light” frameBorder=”0″ width=”100%” height=”80px”></iframe> The complexities of Canadian citizenship by descent with immigration lawyers Amandeep Hayer and Lisa Middlemiss. [1:35] What citizenship by descent means. [3:17] Historical and current limitations, including the first-generation rule and exceptions. [5:55] The 2023 Bjorkquist decision. [9:49] Bill C-3. [13:57] Interim measures. [20:26] Debates over residency rules and comparisons to U.S. laws. [31:00] Voting rights for citizens abroad and potential fraud risks. [44:02] How to prove citizenship without birth certificates. [45:43] Citizenship for displaced Native Americans, and

Section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states:  34 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for (a) engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests; (b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government; (b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada; (c) engaging in terrorism; (d) being a danger to the security of Canada; (e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or (f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c). The Test for Subversion Canadian immigration legislation does not define subversion. Several Federal Court of Canada decisions have found that it does not require violence, including Oremade v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1077, where Justice Phelan stated: I agree with the IAD’s conclusion that the term “by force” is not simply the equivalent of “by violence”. “By force” includes coercion or compulsion by violent means, coercion or compulsion … Read More

One of the most common questions that immigration lawyers and consultants get asked is whether someone can visit, work or study in Canada if they either have a permanent residence application in process or plan to submit one.  The issue is often especially pronounced in Canada’s family reunification programs, as families do not want to wait the years that it can take Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC” ) to reunite, at least temporarily.  It can also, however, arise in economic immigration programs, as foreign workers who arrive in Canada may ultimately want to immigrate. The same is true with students. Section 22(2) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA“) states that: An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. This is commonly referred to as the dual intent provision. Because of this, IRCC’s program manuals specifically state that “having 2 intents (one for temporary residence and 1 for permanent residence) is legitimate.” However, “the possibility that an applicant for temporary residence may, at some point in … Read More

  In this episode, we dive into Dan Hiebert’s latest C.D. Howe Institute report on how different immigration rates shape Canada’s economic challenges and regional disparities. Key topics include: Aging Population and Immigration: Why Canada’s current immigration levels are insufficient to offset an aging population, and the implications of a simultaneously older and larger population. Regional Disparities: How immigration disproportionately fuels growth in major cities like Toronto and Vancouver, exacerbating regional population and economic gaps. Ethical and Practical Questions: Is it ethical to direct immigrants to settle in rural areas with limited services and opportunities? Should newcomers be expected to revitalize communities that Canadians are leaving? Policy Trade-offs: The tension between regionalization efforts, productivity goals, and francophone immigration targets. Dr. Hiebert also touches on innovative approaches, such as Sweden’s model of using social housing to encourage regional settlement, and previews his upcoming research on the role of ethnic enclaves in Canada. 🔗 Link to Paper: https://cdhowe.org/publication/fast-vs-slow-how-different-immigration-rates-can-impact-canadas-economic-challenges-and-regional-disparities/

  Our panel dive into several questions about Express Entry in this Ask Me Anything session. Featuring Kubir Kamal and Tamara Mosher-Kutzer as our guests. 0:20: Introduction to the panel and the state of Canadian immigration in 2025. 2:20: What does the recent Supreme Court decision on Pepa mean for visa holders’ appeal rights? 7:40: Will Express Entry scores drop to 505 this year? 14:50: Why are healthcare and STEM categories not seeing lower scores despite shortages? 22:41: How does declaring a spouse as non-accompanying affect Express Entry applications? 36:25: Can you claim points for both Canadian and foreign work experience concurrently? 39:56: Will there be a cap on immigration from specific countries like India? 42:39: Should certain over-represented occupations be limited in Express Entry? 46:06: Does trade experience in Express Entry need to be continuous? 50:48: What are your thoughts on Immigration Minister Lena Diab’s “best and brightest” strategy and the Strong Borders Act? 54:19: Will Express Entry scores drop in the next two years, and what’s the outlook for 2027? 57:38: Could the government cancel work or study permits to meet the 5% temporary resident target by 2027?