Dikshit Soni, RCIC

@KennethCole24 @CitImmCanada

@dikshitsoni @CitImmCanada I'd this guys name really DICK shit. Yiu gotta be kidding me. The fucking jokes right themselves. Dick Shit the Indian. My God... Lol 😂

⚠️ PR applicants: If you think what you filed your earlier applications won’t matter now, pay attention. @CitImmCanada IRCC hasn’t suddenly become strict. It always has been. What has changed is that more cases are coming to the surface, and the tolerance for gaps and inconsistencies is lower than ever. Your immigration history is not viewed in parts. It is assessed as one continuous record tied to your UCI in GCMS. What you declared (or didn’t) in earlier applications including study permits, work permits, TRVs, gets compared against your PR file. Temporary applications capture limited information but PR applications (Express Entry, PNP, spousal, all streams) capture everything — education, work history, refusals, and a full 10-year personal timeline, including gaps. We see it often, qualifications not disclosed earlier because an “agent” advised against it when applying for a Study Permit, refusals missed, work history "simplified". These may have passed earlier due to lower scrutiny, but they don’t disappear. Approval in the past is NOT a clean chit. Now, legally speaking, not every inconsistency leads to the same outcome. Courts have recognized nuance. For Example, in Koo v Canada (2008), the Federal Court acknowledged that context matters, including the role of representatives and circumstances beyond an applicant’s control. But that is not something to rely on after the fact. The principle remains simple, either your history is consistent, or it needs to be explained properly before you apply. We are seeing too many people are falling into this without even realizing it, hence the string of PFLs we are seeing now. - Audit your entire history. Keep copies of all previous applications. - If you don’t have them, or if something doesn’t line up, address it now. Because once IRCC issues a PFL on the issue, you’re no longer pre-emptively explaining — you’re responding to an adversarial finding. And at that stage, there is little wiggle room. Better to deal with it on your terms than theirs.

Full disclosure is obviously recommended. But how you prepare and present it is what really matters. These situations, unfortunately, are not black and white; they depend on timelines, what was declared earlier, and how everything ties together. Quite honestly, giving a generic answer here can do more harm than good. Better to have your full history reviewed. Feel free to reach out to the office for a consultation.

@dikshitsoni @CitImmCanada Hi Dikshit, recently we saw a post on reddit were an applicant received PFL due to not disclosing his uber doordash side gig in PR applications personal history. Can you tell if someone did not disclose this in previous application like trv or pgwp should they declare it in PR?

On yesterday’s prediction about today's draw — partially right. Not exactly the 1,400-1,500 range I mentioned — but today’s draw (CRS 509, 2,250 ITAs) proves a few things. I mentioned earlier that the scores would come down. They did. But look at the trend; draw sizes for CEC catgegory have been compressing: 8,000 → 6,000 → 4,000 → now 2,250 (lowest in 2026 so far). Total ITAs in 2026 (Q1) now sit at 55,830 — almost 49% of all ITAs issued in 2025 (113,998). That volume is not sustainable throughout the year. More importantly, in-Canada focused draws for 2026 (CEC, PNP, category-based) now total ~33,800 — very close to the ~33,000 figure the Minister @LenaMetlegeDiab hinted at. Which likely means: The "TR to PR" pathway, in its current form, is largely done. Expect the rest of 2026 to lean more towards generally compressed and targeted and category-based draws, not volume as the law of averages catches up. Congrats to those who received ITAs. For those below 509 — you’re not out, but you’re not safe either. If you can improve (foreign experience, language), do it now.

@shilpajn @CitImmCanada You can call at +1 (877) 683-7222 or email at dikshit@saabimmigration.ca

@dikshitsoni @CitImmCanada How do I reach you?

I have not seen a PFL like this one before. This is the level at which @CitImmCanada is scrutinizing PR applications now — and frankly, how it should have always been. Case highlights: CEC applicant | Inland | 2 Canadian-born children | Non-accompanying spouse Issues raised in just ONE file: 1. Status expired, overstayed in Canada → Non-compliance (IRPA s.29(2), s.41) = inadmissibility concerns 2. Spouse marked non-accompanying → Officer suspects CRS manipulation to secure ITA 3. Canadian work experience letter → Duties copied from NOC signals tailoring, not genuine experience 4. Foreign work experience (India) → GST number not even registered during claimed period → Direct hit on authenticity and credibility 5. Core concern → Whether applicant even met eligibility at ITA stage (IRPA s.11.2) 6. Final layer → Misrepresentation (IRPA s.40) → potential and most-likely 5-year ban If you think gaps in your file went unnoticed during study/work permit stages and will pass again — think again. Loose ends are being picked up. Be proactive. This stage is serious. No BIOC, no H&C, no asylum — NOTHING saves you once it reaches here. Book your consultation to have your case assessed before you potentially end up here: tinyurl.com/bpvyxu82 This is serious. And yes, DO NOT MISREPRESENT

@vavonshasha @CitImmCanada 100 pc agreed 👍

@dikshitsoni @CitImmCanada I get the dual intent point. Declaring a spouse as non-accompanying while they are actively trying to enter Canada after being refused, especially if it boosted points, will be scrutinized without clear explanation.

When I said @CitImmCanada is holding no prisoners right now, and not in the mood to play or let things go, this is exactly what I meant. Another PFL that came in this week at our office and this one’s a bit of a doozy. At the time of the EE application, the spouse is overseas and marked as non-accompanying, while the applicant is inland. IRCC is now relying on the spouse’s earlier SOWP and TRV refusals to question intent, suggesting the non-accompanying declaration was used to gain points. Applicant given 7 days to respond to these concerns. Personally, this feels like a stretch. Dual intent exists under IRPA — someone can try to enter temporarily while also having longer-term plans, which doesn’t necessarily mean an intent to remain permanently. That, in itself, shouldn’t be held against them. But this is how discretion is being used now, more scrutiny, less benefit of doubt. Have your application properly assessed. If you thought you didn’t need representation, think again. PFLs have been coming in consistently, will keep sharing the less obvious ones.

I wouldn’t reduce it to that. Intent isn’t always black and white. Applying for temporary entry doesn’t automatically mean an intention to stay permanently, especially when the spouse is currently outside Canada. But if things like this go unaddressed, this is exactly how IRCC assesses them.

@dikshitsoni @CitImmCanada But the applicant and spouse are stupid. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. They are contradicting themselves.

⚠️ CEC candidates: if your work permit has expired or is nearing expiry, pay attention. Your Canadian experience continues to give CRS points for up to 10 years. But CEC eligibility is different — it requires 1 year of skilled work experience in the last 3 years (IRPR 87.1). Example: if your work permit ended in March 2026, your CEC eligibility effectively ends by March 2028. After that, your 1 year of Canadian experience falls outside the 3-year window; and you are no longer eligible under CEC. Now, if the current trend of Express Entry's CEC-specific draws (outside category-based draws) continues, this becomes critical. We are already seeing this play out — people whose work authorization ended more than 2 years ago, still waiting on visitor records in Canada, but no longer CEC eligible. Implication: if you’re on a visitor record just waiting for CRS to drop, you’re effectively burning through your eligibility window. Most profiles stuck in the 490s are there for a reason; no foreign work experience. Don’t just wait it out. Yes, some may try doing a “remote job” while staying in Canada, but don’t take the easy way out by faking experience. That’s a risk you don’t want to take. Go back, complete 1 year of genuine foreign work experience, and gain the points. If that’s not an option, focus on improving your English and/or French. Strong language scores (CLB 9+) can significantly move your CRS (~50 additional points). This window closes faster than you think.

@TheophanesRex Responsibility goes both ways. Many are told the risks clearly, and still go with those selling these “services.” Mentioned the exact thing in the past too. x.com/dikshitsoni/st…

So apparently, some immigration consultants gave false advice to their clients that if their asylum claim went to the IRB before Bill C-12 became law, they would not be affected by the retroactive provision that would automatically deny their claim. Highly unethical behaviour.

@FuckAFO @CitImmCanada Not going to happen in this case

@dikshitsoni @CitImmCanada A judge will grant them PR on humanitarian grounds anyway Why such a waste of time and resources Canada should just give PR to anyone who asks for it.

Nope. Not getting out of this one. This is clear misrepresentation, and in situations like this, it means checkmate, not even a judicial review is going to do much here. I think you are undermining how diligent and detail oriented this officer has been. That itself should be an indication of what direction IRCC is moving into.

@dikshitsoni @CitImmCanada So what— they’ll go to court, and as usual, a Trudeau-appointed judge will let them off and grant PR right away.

Data Snapshot: Draws Requiring In-Canada Experience (as of March 17, 2026) (TR to PR pathway 2026)

Draw Prediction for Mar 31, 2026: Today’s (March 30, 2026) PNP draw (356 ITAs, CRS 802) brings total 2026 invitations to 53,580. From this, draws favouring candidates with Canadian temporary residence are isolated: CEC + PNP + select category-based draws where Canadian experience is a key factor. This brings the TR-linked total to 31,580 (31,224 as of March 17, 2026 + 356). With ~33,000 spots announced, remaining ≈ 1,400–1,500. Possible draw: - CEC or - Category-based draw Detailed breakdown on the blog dated March 17, 2026: 🔗 saabimmigration.ca/2026/03/17/can… Let me know your thoughts..:

More advanced Express Entry Trends and Analysis beyond the obvious: 🔗 saabimmigration.ca/visa/express-e…

@SadhitRumman What matters is the date the claim is made (submitted), not when AOC is issued. If the claim was properly submitted in the portal before June 3, 2025, it should fall outside the new rule.

@dikshitsoni If an application was submitted in the portal before June 3rd and AOC issued after June 3rd then will that be affected?

Take a look at a Procedural Fairness Letter now being issued by IRCC under Bill C12; enforcement has started. If you entered after June 2020 and filed asylum 1+ year later (on/after June 3, 2025), your claim may not even be referred to IRB. Removal becomes real. That “apply for asylum after your SP/WP expires” fallback is effectively gone, given how this is shaping up. Expect stricter implementation and closer enforcement from here on... Play fair.

@sunvidhi234 Not sure of the exact number

@dikshitsoni Any data on how many claims might be affected ?

@WiretapMediaCa It appears to be from a YouTube channel impersonating him. I know him and his business professionally, and the content on that channel appears to be AI-generated, using his headshot to create videos that resemble him @jagmohannanda

@WiretapMediaCa This is AI crap, using his face and should be reported. His official YouTube channel does under the name of Nanda and Associate Lawyers.

💥 REPORT: While Canadians grapple with employment shortages, Sardar Jagmohan Singh is exploiting Canada’s immigration system through a WhatsApp campaign — promising free travel, food, accommodations, and visas. He’s recruiting truckers, security guards, and plant workers.

The policy is around non-referral to IRB, and likely reason for the June 3, 2025 cutoff is that many older cases may have already been referred or are in process and you can’t retroactively unwind that easily. So the date isn’t entirely arbitrary from an administrative standpoint. Also, the broader intent is clear: to deter misuse where asylum was being used as a fallback after long stays. The only real grey area, in my view, is that the policy assumes anyone applying after 1 year is acting in bad faith. It doesn’t fully account for genuine changes in circumstances (war, unrest, etc.) after arrival. That’s something that could be argued. But overall, I don’t see this being struck down. The framework is largely in the right place.

@dikshitsoni @Sammy_canada2 It makes sense. They'll say the 1 year mark is arbitrary. The government will have to argue and explain what the 1 year mark is and why they chose that.

This is good news! Thanks to Bill C-12, many fake refugee claims will be rejected. The key is that they enforce the deportations, though…