Bee The VA May 31st Weekly Newsletter
Essential Insights:
Bee the VA Highlights
CBSA Update
IRCC Updates
Express Entry Draws
PNP Draws
New Caselaws
Job Opportunities
Bee the VA Highlights
At Bee the VA, we help immigration lawyers, consultants, and legal professionals reclaim valuable time by handling the administrative tasks that often pull them away from client work and business growth.
As immigration processes continue to evolve and caseloads become increasingly complex, firms need efficient systems behind the scenes. Our team provides dedicated support with client intake management, file organization, deadline tracking, document preparation, CRM maintenance, calendar management, and workflow optimization.
This week, we're highlighting our Client Intake & Case Management Support Services. A well-organized intake process sets the foundation for every successful file. We help firms streamline onboarding, collect and organize client documents, manage follow-ups, and maintain accurate records—creating a smoother experience for both practitioners and clients.
Whether you're an established practice looking to improve efficiency or a growing firm preparing to scale, Bee the VA provides flexible support that grows with your business.
🔗 Learn more:https://www.beetheva.com/
📧 Email us: info@beetheva.com
CBSA Update:
The Government of Canada has announced temporary border measures in response to the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and heightened risks in Uganda and South Sudan. Effective May 27, 2026, Canada will suspend immigration documents, including temporary resident visas, eTAs, and permanent resident visas, for residents of these countries for 90 days and pause processing new applications from affected residents. Beginning May 30, 2026, Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and other travellers who have been in these countries within the previous 21 days will be required to quarantine for 21 days upon arrival in Canada if they are asymptomatic, while symptomatic travellers will be isolated and assessed in hospital. The measures, implemented under the Quarantine Act, are intended to reduce the risk of Ebola entering Canada, particularly amid increased international travel related to the FIFA World Cup 2026. The government emphasized that the risk to Canadians remains low, there are currently no Ebola cases in North America, and the measures will be reviewed as the situation evolves. Read here.
IRCC Updates:
Program delivery update: Rural Community Immigration Pilot (RCIP) and Francophone Community Immigration Pilot (FCIP) [R205(a) – C15] – Public policies, special initiatives and pilot projects – International Mobility Program
IRCC has updated its guidance on temporary residence options for applicants on the pathway to permanent residence by clarifying the documentation requirements. The update explains when an Acknowledgement of Receipt (AOR) is required as proof of a permanent residence application for applicants applying from outside Canada, and when other forms of proof of a PR application may be accepted for those applying from within Canada. IRCC also revised the work permit renewal instructions to improve clarity and provide more consistent guidance for applicants and officers processing these requests. Read here.
Program delivery update: Spouses or common-law partners of foreign nationals authorized to work in high-skilled occupations TEER 0 or 1, or select occupations TEER 2 or 3 – [R205(c)(ii) – C41] – Canadian interests – International Mobility Program (IMP)
IRCC has updated the International Mobility Program (IMP) work permit instructions under administrative code C41, which supports spouses of certain foreign workers. Effective May 28, 2026, the update introduces an exemption to the 16-month open work permit restriction for spouses of foreign-trained health care professionals in Quebec. This change allows eligible spouses to continue accessing open work permits despite the general limitation, helping support the recruitment and retention of internationally trained health care workers in Quebec's health care sector. Read here.
Temporary residents: Digital nomads
IRCC has updated its guidance for digital nomads to provide greater clarity on the requirements for foreign nationals who wish to live in Canada temporarily while working remotely for employers or clients outside the country. The updated instructions clarify eligibility criteria, visitor status requirements, and how officers should assess applications from digital nomads seeking entry to Canada. The changes aim to ensure more consistent processing and a clearer understanding of the rules governing remote work activities conducted while visiting Canada. Read here.
Program delivery update: Addition of countries to Electronic Travel Authorization Expansion (eTA-X) program
Effective May 26, 2026, Canada has partially lifted visa requirements for eligible travellers from Indonesia and Malaysia by adding both countries to the Electronic Travel Authorization Expansion (eTA-X) Program. While citizens of these countries generally remain visa-required, certain travellers can now apply for an eTA instead of a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) when travelling to Canada by air.
To qualify, applicants must either have held a Canadian TRV within the past 10 years or currently hold a valid U.S. nonimmigrant visa (NIV). This expansion is intended to simplify travel to Canada for low-risk, previously screened travellers while maintaining existing visa requirements for those who do not meet the eligibility criteria. The change is expected to streamline travel processing and strengthen Canada’s ties with key Southeast Asian partners. Read here.
Express Entry Draws:
May 28, 2026: French-Language Proficiency (Version 2): 4,500- 409
May 27, 2026: Canadian Experience Class (CEC): 3,000- 518
May 25, 2026: Provincial Nominee Program (PNP): 334- 805
New Caselaws:
Application to Reopen-In Huque v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 671, the Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s motion to “reopen” a pending application for leave and judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision. The applicant had filed his judicial review application late and sought an extension of time, but after failing to obtain a stay of removal and subsequently failing to report for his scheduled removal to Bangladesh, he attempted to reopen the still-pending proceeding. Justice Azmudeh found that there was nothing to reopen because the underlying application had not yet been decided, and that the motion was essentially an improper attempt to reargue a previously dismissed stay motion, appeal an interlocutory decision for which no appeal right existed, and submit additional evidence after procedural deadlines had passed. The Court also noted the applicant’s failure to disclose that he had evaded removal. Concluding that the motion was improper, unnecessary, and an abuse of process, the Court dismissed it and ordered the applicant to pay $100 in costs, finding “special reasons” justified a costs award despite the usual rule against costs in immigration judicial review proceedings. Read here.
Criminal Rehabilitation- In Pjetrushi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 673, the Federal Court allowed an application for judicial review of a decision refusing criminal rehabilitation to an Albanian citizen who had been found inadmissible to Canada because of serious criminal convictions in Italy, including robbery, kidnapping, threats, weapons offences, and later offences involving false identification documents. The Court held that the Minister’s delegate unreasonably focused on the applicant’s use of fraudulent travel documents and characterized this conduct as evidence of a continuing pattern of criminality without properly considering his explanation that the documents were used to flee a blood feud and seek safety. The delegate also unreasonably questioned the genuineness of those safety concerns based solely on a two-month delay in making a refugee claim after arriving in Canada, while failing to meaningfully address the evidence supporting his fears. In addition, the Court found that the delegate improperly dismissed numerous letters from family, friends, and colleagues as “self-serving,” ignoring their relevance to the key rehabilitation inquiry—whether the applicant was likely to reoffend. Because these errors went to the heart of the rehabilitation assessment and undermined the reasonableness of the decision, Justice McHaffie set aside the refusal and ordered that the criminal rehabilitation application be reconsidered by a different officer and delegate. Read here.
RAD- In Sidhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 680, the Federal Court dismissed a judicial review application challenging the Refugee Appeal Division’s (RAD) rejection of a refugee claim by an Indian mother and her two adult children who feared persecution from the husband and father, Mr. Sidhu, due to his history of domestic abuse and threats. The Court found that the RAD reasonably concluded there was no forward-looking risk of persecution because, despite past abuse and threats, Mr. Sidhu had made no meaningful attempts to contact or harm the applicants after their separation, even though he knew their whereabouts in Canada. The Court also upheld the RAD’s finding that there was insufficient evidence that he would pursue or persecute them in India. Regarding the principal applicant’s claim that she would face persecution as a separated or effectively single woman in India, the Court agreed with the RAD that the evidence demonstrated potential discrimination, social stigma, and hardship rather than persecution. The RAD reasonably considered her actual circumstances, including the support available from her two adult children and other family members, and concluded that she was not similarly situated to vulnerable single mothers without family support. Justice Lafrenière held that the RAD properly distinguished discrimination and societal challenges from the higher legal threshold of persecution and reasonably determined that the applicants had not established a serious possibility of persecution if returned to India. Accordingly, the application for judicial review was dismissed. Read here.
Stay of removal & PRRA- In Caicedo Castro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 49728 (FC), the Federal Court granted a stay of removal to a Colombian national pending judicial review of the refusal of her Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The applicant alleged that she faced threats from a criminal organization responsible for the murders of two family members. Justice Grammond found that the applicant had established a serious issue to be tried because it was reasonably arguable that the PRRA officer had relied on a veiled credibility finding and had improperly discounted evidence for lacking irrelevant details. The Court also concluded that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if removed, noting that although direct proof linking the murders to the criminal organization was unavailable, the timing of the killings closely following threats and encounters with the group provided a reasonable basis to connect them. On the balance of convenience, the Court found no significant factors favouring immediate removal and emphasized that the PRRA process had been the applicant’s only opportunity for a risk assessment. Accordingly, the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo, and the Court ordered that the applicant’s removal from Canada be stayed until the final determination of her judicial review application. Read here.
VV- In Siddiqui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 683, the Federal Court granted Mr. Siddiqui’s application for judicial review of a refusal of his Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application. Mr. Siddiqui, a 66-year-old retired Pakistani citizen, sought to visit his son, daughter-in-law, and grandchildren in Canada, but an IRCC officer concluded that he was not a genuine temporary visitor and might not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. Justice Whyte Nowak found the decision unreasonable because the officer made significant errors when assessing the applicant’s ties to Pakistan. The officer improperly speculated that Mr. Siddiqui and his wife had filed separate visa applications to artificially strengthen their family ties to Pakistan, despite evidence that his wife held a super visa that reasonably explained the separate applications. The officer also overlooked evidence identifying the applicant’s sister as a family member residing in Pakistan and failed to meaningfully consider the applicant’s ownership of a residential property in Pakistan when assessing his economic ties. These omissions and speculative findings undermined confidence that the officer had properly considered the full body of evidence relating to the applicant’s incentives to return home. As a result, the Court set aside the refusal and ordered that the TRV application be reconsidered by a different officer. Read here.
Indmissibility- In Wang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 CanLII 50927 (FC), the Federal Court granted the respondent’s motion for judgment and set aside a Minister’s delegate’s decision to refer Mr. Wang’s matter to the Immigration Division, finding that the decision was affected by a breach of procedural fairness. The Court also granted Mr. Wang leave to amend his notice of application, concluding that doing so was in the interests of justice and would not prejudice the respondent. Although Mr. Wang sought additional remedies, including declarations of Charter breaches, exclusion of evidence, and a stay of proceedings, Justice Grammond held that these requests effectively sought advance rulings on issues that might arise in future proceedings and were not necessary to resolve the current judicial review. The Court emphasized that the appropriate remedy for the procedural fairness breach was to quash the referral decision and remit the matter to a different Minister’s delegate for reconsideration. Mr. Wang was permitted to supplement the original record with new evidence on redetermination, and no costs were awarded. Read here.
Job Opportunities:
Matthews, Dinsdale & Clark LLP- Immigration Lawyer- Starting at $142,500
Bellissimo Law Firm- Immigration Lawyer- Compensation not stated
RBC- Senior Immigration Advisor-Contract
