Bee The VA June 7th Weekly Newsletter

Essential Insights:

• Bee the VA Highlights

• IRCC Updates

• New Caselaws

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

IRCC Updates:

IRCC Program Delivery Update – Atlantic Immigration Program (AIP) (June 4, 2026)

IRCC has updated its operational guidance for the Atlantic Immigration Program (AIP) to improve clarity and ensure consistent application of program requirements. The revised instructions provide additional guidance on situations involving changes in employment, including modifications to an employee’s job duties, position, or TEER category while remaining with the same employer. IRCC has also introduced new instructions addressing changes in employer ownership, outlining the documentation required when a designated employer undergoes a business ownership change. These updates are intended to support more consistent assessments by officers and provide clearer direction for employers and applicants navigating changes during the immigration process. Read here.

IRCC Program Delivery Update – Temporary Public Policy for Unaccompanied Minors (June 4, 2026)

IRCC has updated its program delivery instructions following the introduction of a new Temporary Public Policy (TPP) signed on May 19, 2026, which exempts certain unaccompanied minors from specific grounds of refugee claim ineligibility. The policy aims to ensure that vulnerable children who arrive in Canada without a parent or legal guardian are not automatically prevented from having their refugee claims referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) due to eligibility restrictions that would otherwise apply. The updated guidance provides officers with instructions on assessing eligibility under this new public policy and reinforces Canada's commitment to protecting vulnerable refugee claimants. Read here.

IRCC Program Delivery Update – New eTA Requirement for Marine Travel from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon (June 5, 2026)

Canada has introduced a new electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) requirement for visa-exempt foreign nationals arriving by vessel directly from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, marking the first time the eTA program has been expanded beyond air travel. Eligible travellers must obtain an approved eTA before arriving in Canada by sea, although those who already hold a valid eTA do not need to apply again. New exemptions apply to passengers on large cruise ships with accommodations for at least 100 people and to vessel crew members entering Canada as part of their maritime duties. Existing eTA exemptions remain in place, including for U.S. citizens and permanent residents, French citizens residing in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, and certain foreign nationals re-entering Canada after visiting only Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. IRCC also clarified that travellers from select visa-required countries who qualify for an eTA when flying to Canada must still obtain a visa if arriving by vessel. Read here.

New Caselaws:

PRRA-In Thampirasa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 707, the Federal Court granted judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision involving a Tamil man from Sri Lanka who feared persecution due to his forced association with the LTTE. The Court found that the PRRA officer unreasonably ignored and misapprehended key evidence. The applicant had submitted a detailed affidavit describing multiple incidents of arbitrary detention, torture, beatings, and surveillance by Sri Lankan authorities between 2009 and 2023, but the officer largely dismissed these claims for lack of corroborating evidence despite sworn testimony generally being presumed truthful absent credibility concerns. The Court also found that the officer failed to engage with the applicant’s central argument that his past persecution established an ongoing risk if returned to Sri Lanka. Additionally, the officer selectively relied on country-condition reports while overlooking evidence documenting ongoing torture, arbitrary detention, and serious human rights abuses against Tamils and suspected LTTE associates. Because the decision failed to meaningfully address critical evidence and submissions, it lacked the transparency, intelligibility, and justification required under Vavilov. The Court therefore set aside the PRRA refusal and ordered the matter to be reconsidered by a different officer. Read here.

RAD-In Irhivboje v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 708, the Federal Court granted judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that had upheld the rejection of a Nigerian claimant’s refugee application based on credibility concerns relating to his bisexuality and fear of persecution by Nigerian police and the Axe Cult. The Court found that the RAD unreasonably refused to admit key new evidence submitted on appeal, including a video allegedly showing the claimant’s wife being arrested, a bail application document related to that arrest, and the claimant’s sworn affidavit explaining these events. While the RAD assessed each piece of evidence separately and questioned its reliability, the Court held that the evidence should have been considered together, as it was capable of corroborating the claimant’s allegations and was relevant to central issues in the refugee claim. The Court also found that the RAD improperly conflated questions of relevance with credibility and failed to adequately consider the claimant’s sworn explanations. Because the new evidence raised important credibility issues that could have affected the outcome of the claim, the RAD should have admitted the evidence and held an oral hearing to assess it. The Court further noted concerns with the RAD’s treatment of supporting letters from the claimant’s wife and brother, which directly addressed his sexual orientation and related persecution but were given limited weight. As a result, the Court set aside the RAD decision and returned the matter to a differently constituted panel for reconsideration. Read here.

TRV-In Attal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 711, the Federal Court granted judicial review of a temporary resident visa refusal after the Minister acknowledged that the visa officer had failed to consider updated documents submitted by the applicant during a prior redetermination process. The applicant, who wished to visit Canada for a friend’s family celebration and to see his uncle, opposed the Minister’s settlement offer because it did not include costs or a finding that the decision was unreasonable. The Court held that no special reasons justified an award of costs, finding that the officer’s oversight was an error rather than evidence of bad faith, unfairness, or oppressive conduct. While the Court agreed that the refusal decision must be set aside and reconsidered by a different officer, it rejected the applicant’s request that the new officer be required to identify specific deficiencies in the application before making a decision. Reaffirming established law, the Court emphasized that visa applicants bear the responsibility of providing complete evidence and that visa officers are not obliged to notify applicants of concerns or provide opportunities to remedy perceived deficiencies. The Court therefore ordered a new determination by a different officer, allowed the applicant to submit further updated documentation within 15 days, required the redetermination to occur within 60 days, and awarded no costs. Read here.

Misrep-In Vasilev v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 716, the Federal Court granted judicial review of a temporary resident visa refusal based on a finding of misrepresentation. The applicants, Russian citizens, had submitted bank statements to demonstrate sufficient funds for a visit to Canada, but IRCC concluded that the principal applicant had altered a Sberbank statement to inflate his account balance. Although the applicant responded to a procedural fairness letter (PFL) by asserting that the document was genuine and providing additional bank records, the visa officer maintained that digital verification showed the balance had been altered and found him inadmissible for misrepresentation, leading to the refusal of both applicants’ visas. The Court held that the decision was procedurally unfair because the PFL only stated the general concern that the bank statement was fraudulent without disclosing the specific issue—that the account balance shown on the statement allegedly differed from the balance revealed through verification. Given the serious consequences of a misrepresentation finding, including a five-year inadmissibility ban, the Court found that fairness required the officer to clearly identify the specific concern so the applicants could meaningfully respond. Because the applicants were not adequately informed of the case they had to meet, the Court concluded that procedural fairness was breached, set aside the decision, and ordered that the matter be reconsidered by a different decision-maker. Read here.

H&C- In Okogun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 722, the Federal Court granted judicial review of the refusal of Abraham Okogun’s humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application, finding the decision unreasonable because the immigration officer failed to properly consider his spouse’s pregnancy and the expected birth of their child as relevant H&C factors. The Minister conceded that the officer had erred by giving no weight to the pregnancy and unborn child when assessing the application. Although Mr. Okogun attempted to link the H&C proceeding with a separate judicial review of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment decision and sought expedited redetermination within 15–19 days, the Court rejected those requests, emphasizing that H&C and PRRA applications are distinct processes governed by different legal considerations. The Court also dismissed several procedural motions brought by the self-represented applicant, including a motion to strike an affidavit filed by IRCC and a motion seeking relief from Canada Border Services Agency reporting obligations, finding both lacked legal merit and evidentiary support. In addition, the Court criticized the applicant for relying on irrelevant or non-existent case law and for failing to disclose his use of artificial intelligence in preparing court materials, contrary to the Federal Court’s AI disclosure requirements. The H&C refusal was set aside and returned to a different officer for redetermination, and the Court ordered that the applicant not be rescheduled for removal until the new H&C decision is made. Despite granting judicial review, the Court awarded $200 in costs against the applicant because of his unfounded allegations that government counsel had attempted to mislead the Court and his improper litigation conduct. Read here.