On April 2, 2026, Ravi Jain, Founder of Jain Immigration Law, was invited to participate in a stakeholder roundtable hosted by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to discuss proposed changes to Express Entry and the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS).
IRCC invited select participants to a virtual session to provide an overview of potential changes and to seek stakeholder input. The session included a small group of mostly immigration lawyers.
The Role of Legal Professionals
In follow up submissions, Mr. Jain emphasized the long-standing role that lawyers have played in providing feedback to IRCC in the public interest. He noted that lawyers are highly regulated professionals who practice ethically, discourage unmeritorious applications, and provide clear legal submissions to immigration officers.
He raised concern about IRCC communications that caution against hiring representatives, stating that such messaging should distinguish between lawyers and non-lawyers.
Fraud as a Central Issue
A key concern raised during the roundtable was the prevalence of fraud in the immigration system. Mr. Jain pointed to several program changes that have been implemented in response to misuse, including the removal of Arranged Employment points.
He stated that these changes have negatively affected legitimate, high-skilled applicants while failing to address the root cause of the problem. He noted that widespread reports attribute fraud to the actions of immigration consultants, including the facilitation of fraudulent Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs) and improper refugee claims.
Jain argued that IRCC cannot effectively prevent fraud as long as non-lawyers continue practicing law in this space. He recommended that consultants be required to work with lawyers, ensuring that a licensed lawyer is accountable for each application.
Concerns with Category-Based Selection
Mr. Jain expressed strong concerns regarding category-based selection in Express Entry. He noted that certain category draws, including those targeting French-speaking candidates, have resulted in the selection of applicants with lower scores, rather than those most likely to achieve economic success.
He stated that such measures are driven by broader political objectives and suggested that these initiatives should be managed outside of Express Entry or implemented as limited pilot programs for French-speakers.
Mr. Jain also cautioned that narrowing Express Entry draws to specific occupations reduces opportunities for many qualified candidates. He noted that this approach has broader implications, as provincial and regional programs often follow federal selection trends, further limiting pathways to permanent residence.
CRS Changes and Unintended Consequences
The discussion also addressed proposed changes to the Comprehensive Ranking System in Express Entry. Mr. Jain raised concerns about removing points for community college-level education, noting that such a change could reduce Canada’s ability to attract international students.
He also addressed the issue of awarding additional points when a spouse or partner is listed as non-accompanying, stating that this has created opportunities for misuse.
At the same time, he supported removing points for foreign work experience claimed while residing in Canada, noting that such provisions are vulnerable to exploitation.
Conclusion
The April 2 roundtable provided an opportunity for stakeholders to share direct feedback on proposed changes to Express Entry and the CRS. Ravi Jain emphasized that efforts to reform the system must address fraud at its source, rather than introducing measures that disadvantage legitimate applicants.
He further highlighted the importance of maintaining fair and accessible pathways to permanent residence while ensuring program integrity.
Contact Us
For more information, please contact:
Jain Immigration Law
Phone: +1 (416) 548-5533 Email: [email protected]
Website: www.jainimmigrationlaw.com
Disclaimer: This blog reflects feedback provided during a stakeholder consultation with IRCC and is based solely on the information shared in that context. It does not constitute legal advice.