Borderlines

Recorded June 24, 2026. IRCC has thrown Canadian citizenship by descent into chaos.After thousands of people received Canadian citizenship certificates under Bill C-3, some were suddenly told to surrender them, only for many to receive follow-up letters days later saying their certificates had been "revalidated." Meanwhile, Immigration Minister Lena Diab has confirmed that new Bill C-3 citizenship applications are not being finalized while IRCC reviews what went wrong.In this episode of Borderlines, we are joined by Amandeep Hayer and Lisa Middlemiss to unpack what happened, what Minister Diab's comments actually mean, and what this uncertainty means for Canadians by descent.We discuss:What prompted IRCC to issue citizenship certificate surrender letters.Why many certificates were later "unsurrendered."Whether affected individuals are still Canadian citizens.The difference between citizenship grants and proof of citizenship.Whether passports, SINs, work authorization, school enrollment, and sponsorships could be affected.Why IRCC's handling of the situation raises serious procedural fairness concerns.Whether these decisions are likely to face judicial review.What applicants should do if they are preparing to submit a Bill C-3 citizenship application.Theories about what may have caused IRCC's sudden reversal.How lawyers are advising clients while applications remain paused.We also answer dozens of live audience questions about urgent processing, historical records, documentary evidence, passports, study permits, pending applications, and what the future may hold for Canada's expanded citizenship by descent regime.If you have been affected by Bill C-3 or are considering applying for proof of Canadian citizenship by descent, this episode provides an in-depth look at one of the most significant developments in Canadian citizenship law this year.

We break down several IRCC e-mail responses to representatives that answer questions by immigration lawyers and consultants.Questions include:Can foreign remote work performed while living in Canada count toward Express Entry?Does someone who applies for a new work permit before their Post-Graduation Work Permit expires have maintained status?In Start-Up Visa applications, do all essential applicants have to pass the R10 completeness check?What happens if an applicant dies while their immigration application is still being processed?We also analyze one of the biggest immigration stories of the FIFA World Cup: Canada's refusal to admit a Ghana national team player. We discuss why the visa was refused, the role of alleged misrepresentation and criminal inadmissibility, Temporary Resident Permits, and why the Federal Court refused to grant an emergency injunction allowing the player to enter Canada.Finally, we answer questions from our live audience, including:Has Canada quietly delayed its target for reducing the temporary resident population?Are Iranian security screening delays likely to improve?What's happening with the Caregiver Program?Should applicants challenge Express Entry refusals involving concurrent foreign work experience?Why are so many immigration files experiencing lengthy processing delays?

In this episode of Borderlines, Steven Meurrens and Deanna Okun-Nachoff are joined by immigration lawyer, mediator, and former Canadian Bar Association Chair Kamaljit Lehal to discuss the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision recognizing a new tort of intimate partner violence.We discuss how the Court addressed coercive control, financial abuse, isolation, surveillance, intimidation, and psychological manipulation within intimate relationships, and why the majority concluded that existing legal remedies were insufficient to fully capture the realities of family violence.Topics discussed include the Supreme Court of Canada’s recognition of a new tort of intimate partner violence, coercion and control, the differing views between the majority and dissenting judges, how courts assess damages in family violence cases, trauma-informed approaches in legal proceedings.The decision is Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia.

We break down a major new Federal Court of Appeal decision on criminal inadmissibility, duress, and refugee protection in Canadian immigration law. The case is Rodriguez Anzola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration).The discussion explores whether individuals convicted abroad can still seek protection in Canada when the underlying criminal conduct occurred under coercion, threats, or fear for their lives. Topics discussed include:how criminal equivalency works in Canadian immigration law;the role of duress in inadmissibility proceedings;the Federal Court of Appeal’s comments on fairness, humanitarian principles, and public safety; growing judicial pushback against overly broad interpretations of inadmissibility law;organized crime, IRGC-related arguments, and security inadmissibility;unusual foreign convictions that have triggered inadmissibility findings in Canada; andbroader concerns about proportionality, plea bargains, and moral culpability in immigration law.The episode also includes audience questions on citizenship by descent, study permits, and the future direction of Canadian immigration policy.

Steven Meurrens and Deanna Okun-Nachoff review several responses from IRCC’s Immigration Representatives’ Mailbox, where immigration representatives ask questions about how Canadian immigration law and various immigration programs are interpreted and appliedTopics discussed include:(1) whether rental assistance counts as social assistance for sponsorships;(2) study permit requirements for children of protected persons;(3) maintained status and “rolling” extension applications;(4) whether marriages count for immigration purposes if the commissionaire is joining remotely;(5) criminal rehabilitation applications and concurrent filings;(6) adding newborn children after COPRs are issued;(7) travelling to Canada by land with an expired PR Card;(8) whether C11 entrepreneur work permits count toward Express Entry;(9) foreign work experience performed remotely from inside Canada;(10) Express Entry NOC code refusals and category-based selection issues;(11) non-accompanying spouses and CRS score maximization;(12) proof of settlement funds in foreign currencies; and(13) PR portal travel complications and eCOPRs. We also answer a live listener question about ATIPs and CBSA. Whether you are an immigration lawyer, consultant, student, or applicant trying to understand how IRCC actually applies the rules in practice, this episode provides a detailed look into the operational side of Canada’s immigration system.

We take a look at the newly released 2025 report from Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), and what it tells us about immigration security screening in Canada.CSIS reports that it received 438,600 immigration security referrals in 2025, a notable drop from prior years. Yet, at the same time, overall inventories remain at historic highs. Topics discussed include the CSIS report, including what CSIS says are the impact of mandamus and NSIRA complaints on security screening. The CSIS Report can be found here - https://www.canada.ca/en/security-intelligence-service/corporate/publications/csis-public-report-2025.html

Steven Meurrens and Deanna Okun-Nachoff break down the explosive findings from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada on Canada’s report on the international student program.Topics discussed include the unexplained drops in study permit approvals, IRCC's lack of funds to address fraud, risk profiling practices, the disconnect between government targets and real-world outcomes, and what stricter enforcement and new leadership at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada could mean going forward.

We explore one of the most complex and under-examined areas of Canadian immigration law: immigration detention—and the role that race and systemic bias may play within it.Topics discussed include the legal grounds for immigration detention, why race-based data is largely unavailable in Canada, evidence suggesting disproportionate detention of Black men, the interplay between immigration, policing, and the criminal justice system, how discretion and lack of oversight may allow systemic issues to persist, the reality that Canada has no time limits on immigration detention, and practical recommendations for reform, including independent oversight and better data collection.Efrat Arbel is an Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia Allard School of Law. Her work focuses on the law and policy of immigration detention, refugee protection, and border governance. Prasanna Balasundaram is the Director of Downtown Legal Services at the University of Toronto. Nana Yanful is a lawyer based in Tkaronto/Toronto who is deeply committed to advocating for racial justice, state accountability, and human rights in her legal and community work.We discuss their paper Race and Racism in Canada's Immigration Detention System.https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3835&context=fac_pubs