The first Borderlines episode of 2026 is our annual recap + predictions roundtable with Ottawa immigration lawyer Tamara Mosher-Kuczer. We look back at what actually happened in 2025, what surprised us most, and what 2026 might bring. Timestamps / Chapters 0:52 Looking back: how many predictions were right last year? 14:40 2026 predictions 39:46 Listener question: What will happen with caregivers? 42:28 Listener prediction: Turning asylum into a temporary pathway 46:11 Listener question: Trades vs. Francophones 52:12 Listner question: LMIA exemptions / significant benefit work permits—any expansion? 57:56 Will Canada’s population increase or decrease in 2026? Subscribe for weekly immigration law breakdowns and policy updates, and tell us: What’s your boldest 2026 immigration prediction?
H&C Applications
The following is the IRCC Manual on H&C applications.
Study Permit Compliance
In 2020, over 400,000 international students at the post-secondary level in Canada will return to school. Many will want to stay and work in Canada after graduating. All will be subject to mandatory conditions of their stay as a student in Canada. It is important for all international students, and especially those who wish to one day work in or immigrate to Canada, to understand these conditions, as the consequence of failing to comply with one of the them is removal from Canada and a one year bar from returning. The Law on Study Permit Compliance Regulation 220.1(1) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that the holder of a study permit in Canada must enroll at a post-secondary institution that accepts international students, also known as a designated learning institution, and remain enrolled at the designated learning institution until they complete their studies. As well, students must actively pursue their course or program of study. Canadian immigration authorities typically interpret this legislative requirement as being that students must be enrolled full-time or part-time during each academic semester (excluding regularly scheduled breaks), that they must make progress towards completing their program’s courses and that they cannot take authorized leaves … Read More
Assessing the Genuineness and Primary Purpose of a Marriage
Regulation 4 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-207 state that a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership (a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act or (b) is not genuine. Statistics From 2012-2017 around 4% of spousal sponsorship applications were refused because an officer determined that an applicant’s marriage was either not genuine or that it was primarily motivated by an immigration benefit. A Hasty Marriage In Nadasapillai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 72, Justice Diner held that the fact that a marriage was entered into after a short courtship is not determinative of a mala fide marriage. He stated: The Panel criticized the haste based on Ms. Raman’s troubled past relationship and marriage, and the fact that Ms. Raman was 38 years of age at the time, i.e., getting on in age for a single mother. There are two reasons that this is a weak conclusion. First, one can easily understand why Ms. Raman was ready for the companionship that she clearly explained she had longed for: older couples can be quick in deciding … Read More
Responding to Procedural Fairness Letters
Where an applicant submits a complete application, but an immigration officer nonetheless has concerns regarding the merits of it, the immigration officer will often provide a fairness letter to the applicant. This requirement has arisen from Federal Court of Canada jurisprudence which provides that the duty of procedural fairness can require that an applicant be given an opportunity to respond to a decision maker’s concerns when those concerns go beyond simply whether the legislation or related requirements are met on the face of the application. When, for example, the applicant may be unaware of the existence or the basis of the concern, procedural fairness may require prior notice of the concern before a decision is made so that the applicant has an opportunity to try to disabuse the officer of the concern. As the Court noted in Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 809, this is the case for both temporary and permanent residency applications. In Asanova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1173, the Court stated: Even so, at a minimum procedural fairness requires that an applicant for a visa have an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the application process. Consequently, the duty of procedural fairness can require … Read More
The Best Interests of a Child
Yesterday, an individual called wanting to know if the fact that she was pregnant would guarantee a successful H&C application because of the duty to consider the “best interests of the child.” The father is Canadian.
The National Occupational Classification System
Canada’s immigration system heavily relies on the National Occupational Classification (“NOC”) system, managed by Service Canada. For applicants in the economic class, a deep understanding of the NOC system is crucial. The success of their immigration applications often hinges on proving they have qualifying experience or pre-arranged employment in specific NOC categories. Employers submitting Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIAs”) applications to the Ministry of Economic and Social Development Canada (“ESDC“) need to know which NOCs their positions fall under because this will determine the respective prevailing wage and recruitment requirements. Moreover, international graduates should be mindful of the NOC classification of their first job after completing post-secondary education. Experience in certain NOCs is essential for it to count towards immigration eligibility.
Understanding Judicial Review
When a visa application has been refused and an applicant is convinced that the decision is unreasonable then it may be advisable to file an Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review with the Federal Court of Canada (the “Federal Court” or the “Court”). The Federal Court has the jurisdiction to review the decisions of visa officers. The Court will determine whether an immigration officer committed any reviewable errors that should result in the decision being set aside. Reviewable errors include errors of fact, law, or breaches of procedural fairness. If an applicant succeeds in Federal Court, then the Court will order that the immigration officer’s decision be set aside, and typically that the application be reconsidered by a different officer. Usually, a successful judicial review will ultimately result in a positive decision from the second visa officer. However, this is not always the case. Furthermore, as the Federal Court of Appeal determined in Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FCA 143, there is no obligation on the second immigration officer to specifically refer to the order of the Court in the judicial review and provide reasons as to how and why the second decision differs from the … Read More