A Plea for Certainty: Basic Steps IRCC Could Implement to Bring Humanity to Express Entry

In our view, some very simple changes could restore some humanity to Canada’s Express Entry system. And while Canada’s immigration system doesn’t currently recognize ‘user experience’ as a tenet, we’d suggest that late is better than never.  

Key Takeaways 

• Fear, stress, and uncertainty are a plague among those looking to become PRs in Canada – especially the temporary residents already living in Canada.  

• Canada accepted extremely high levels of international students for years. Those who have graduated and worked in Canada for years are now struggling to get permanent resident status due to very high levels of competition in the Express Entry pool.  

• Canada’s Express Entry draws are not running on a consistent schedule, like it has historically. This is increasing uncertainty for those hoping to stay, which can impact their mental health, increase the risk of Canada losing key talented workers who could contribute to the economy, and harm Canada’s international brand and reputation among prospective immigrants.  

Why Does This Matter?  

We don’t need to look any further than the economy or the job market right now to see staggering examples of how uncertainty can trigger massive impacts. The turbulence in the US and global markets following Trump’s (now largely deemed to be not allowed under US law, though likely pending appeal) tariffs highlights how uncertainty has very real impacts that ripple throughout the population.  

Immigrants are no different. Newcomers to Canada offer significant benefits to Canada’s economy, and are currently filling crucial positions in which Canada is experiencing shortages. And, at the end of the day, they’re humans too. Canada’s immigration system can’t welcome everyone who wants to stay here – but it does have a history of having a pathway for international students it welcomed (and a reputation for doing this, too). 

The high volumes of international students aren’t entitled to stay – but many want to and had hoped to. And I think it’s worth bearing in mind that, at the individual human level, it’s fair that these people – many of whom have been here for 5+ years – have built a life here and that they would prefer to keep living it. Not knowing whether that’s possible is stressful, and providing greater certainty (even if it’s certainty that you’re unlikely to be able to stay) would be a very human and humane act.  

Change 1: Show Candidate Pool Distribution for 501-600 Range 

We constantly see and hear from candidates in the pool asking if they have any chance of receiving an invitation with a CRS of X. The candidate pool data, coupled with trends in recent draws, provides that insight (at least, it can when draws are taking place). 

If IRCC changed the candidate pool data that it publishes alongside some Express Entry draw details to show the CRS distribution at 10 point intervals from the 501-600 range, it could help to resolve some uncertainty for candidates in the pool.  

In other words, we would love to see IRCC publish the information about the number of candidates in the following CRS distribution ranges:  

• 501-510 

• 511-520 

• 521-530 

• 531-540 

• 541-550 

• 551-560 

• 561-570 

• 571-580 

• 581-590 

• 591-600. 

This would be a minor change for IRCC (at least it appears to be from our end), given that it already publishes the distribution for candidates sitting in the 401-500 range. However, it would arm those temporary residents in the pool with significantly more information about their chances of receiving an invitation to apply through the Canadian Experience Class draws and what score they would need to be more competitive in the current pool.  

Change 2: Greater Transparency into Skipped Draws 

We would love to see IRCC publish some information about draws that it ‘skips’. We note that IRCC is not obliged to run Express Entry draws at any particular time or date, nor must it complete draws for certain programs. Based on the existing legal requirements that govern IRCC, it could (if it wanted to) complete one mega draw on the first of January each year (or any other date) and do no other draws for the rest of the year.  

However, we aren’t focusing on the legal requirements here. We’re focusing on the humans behind the Express Entry system who want to become PRs in Canada.  

Those humans are extremely stressed and feeling anguish about the inconsistency and lack of transparency from IRCC about draws this year. We also saw similar themes in 2020 when FSW draws stopped, and again in 2021 when IRCC ceased CEC draws to prioritize only PNP rounds.  

Small notifications (even standard-form texts like ‘technical issues’, ‘processing capacity’, or ‘internal discussions’) would help to ease the anguish candidates are feeling, without adding an undue burden on IRCC. It could also help improve trust in the system, and give those applying confidence in some level of transparency in IRCC’s operations.  

Note, that making these announcements would not be unprecedented for IRCC. It actually does this already for some programs – namely for International Experience Canada draws, which take place weekly during the IEC season.  

We’ve seen IEC publish a brief note whenever draw data isn’t going to be published ‘as scheduled’. Typically, IRCC updates the IEC draw data on Fridays each week during the IEC draw season. When it doesn’t it makes a note, in advance, offering information about what’s going on behind the scenes. We’ve seen notes about processing capacity, quotas being reallocated, and I believe technical issues before in this program. So it begs the question, why can’t IRCC offer the same courtesy to Express Entry candidates?  

We aren’t sure – but we would love to see it. 

Change 3: Reduce Reliance on Applications Being Returned Incomplete 

We read the Canadian Bar Association’s recent submission, ‘Law, Technology, and Accountability: Reimagining Canadian Immigration for the 21st Century’ before writing this piece. And while there are a host of changes (around 100) we’d love to see introduced to Canada’s immigration system, the one that really stood out to us for this piece is changing the practice of returning applications that fail the completeness check.  

Specifically, it suggests offering applicants a reasonable opportunity to add documentation or correct minor errors instead of having those applications fail a completeness check and returning them incomplete.  

The submission notes that the practice of returning applications incomplete (as if they never existed) without offering applicants a chance to amend minor errors “[undermines] access to justice, particularly for vulnerable applicants who may face language barriers, limited resources, or complex procedural requirements. Minor technical deficiencies should not operate as a disproportionate barrier to immigration outcomes, especially where the substantive merits of an application are strong and clearly established.” 

It goes onto note that a formal procedural fairness framework would not only increase fairness in the immigration system, but could also reduce the administrative burden that comes with handling these returned applications – as well as the litigation stemming from it.  

With processing times and the CRS pool ballooning, and litigation always being a costly exercise for the government and hopeful permanent residents of Canada, this does seem like it should be an attractive option for IRCC to consider.  

My Perspective on Returning Applications that Fail the Completeness Check 

Aside from the points the CBA makes, there are many valid human factors to consider too. Rejecting an application because of a minor error (instead of refusing it due to a lack of merit) can contribute to brain drain from Canada – ie. Qualified, talented candidates who fail to include a document or check a box, may look elsewhere if their application is returned and they have to re-enter the pool. This seems wasteful and harms Canada’s reputation.  

The practice also increases the need for immigration consultants and lawyers. While I do believe there’s a time and a place for those looking to become permanent residents in Canada to consult with qualified immigration professionals – there are issues with it.  

First of all, it’s unfairly burdensome to young workers who don’t always have the same access to financial resources. This could impact many international students in particular. Bearing in mind that these graduates have already spent a small fortune to study in Canada (at significant benefit to Canada and its education institutions).  

Secondly, this change could reduce reliance on immigration professionals, freeing them to focus on applications that need legal professional intervention. This could also help to reduce the risk of candidates using unlicensed professionals to assist with their applications. Why? Because the fear of submitting an incomplete application drives many applicants to use immigration professionals for their applications.  

Keen to stay updated on Express Entry news? Sign up for our dedicated newsletter.