Canada Moves to Cancel Visas for Indians and Bangladeshis

(CANADA) Canada is preparing to give immigration officials sweeping powers to cancel groups of temporary visas, with internal documents pointing to a focus on applicants from India and Bangladesh, as the government works with U.S. partners to combat visa fraud and misuse. The proposed authority, embedded in Bill C-12 and still before Parliament, would let Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) refuse or revoke visas en masse rather than strictly case by case, according to internal presentations provided to Immigration Minister Lena Diab’s office and obtained by Canadian media.

The internal materials describe India and Bangladesh as “country-specific challenges” and set out a plan to identify and cancel visitor visas flagged as fraudulent, while coordinating with unnamed U.S. agencies to spot abuse across borders. Though public messaging has emphasized the need for emergency tools during pandemics or war, the internal goal goes further, aiming to limit fraud and misuse of Canada’s temporary visa system in regions flagged as higher risk. The move signals a sharp shift in how Canada could handle visa integrity problems, with the potential for Canada visa cancellation on a scale not seen before.

The working plan would empower IRCC and CBSA to suspend or cancel entire classes of Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) based on risk signals, and to do so quickly if clusters of bogus applications are detected. Internal briefings say the powers would apply not only in emergencies, but also where concentrated patterns of visa fraud are identified. Officials have cited rising asylum claims from Indian nationals—fewer than 500 per month in May 2023, rising to about 2,000 by July 2024—slower processing times for Indian applicants—roughly 30 days in July 2023 stretching to about 54 days a year later—and an increase in “no-board” cases, where passengers from India were denied boarding over document concerns.

Advocates and lawyers say the plans amount to a country-specific response in everything but name, and warn that mass cancellation powers could undermine fairness safeguards built around individual assessments. Over 300 civil society groups have criticized the proposals, warning they could create a “mass-deportation machine” rather than a purely fraud-prevention tool. Immigration lawyers say internal references to India and Bangladesh as higher risk contradict the government’s public reassurance that no nationality will be singled out.

Ravi Jain, a Canada-based immigration lawyer, said the proposed authority would mark a notable break from current practice.

“Instead of one-off refusals, entire groups or cohorts might be subject to cancellation rules.”
He added,
“While the government insists the powers are not targeting specific nationalities, the documents suggest otherwise.”
Those warnings echo concerns from advocacy organizations that fear a blunt tool could invalidate legitimate travel plans, including for families, students and business visitors who have complied with every rule.

IRCC, in a statement cited by Canadian media, rejected claims that it is targeting particular countries.

“The new authority is not intended to target any specific nationality and all decisions would be made in line with Canadian law.”
The department also said it has taken “concrete steps” to reduce fraudulent visa activity and illegal border crossings, including stricter screening of applications from countries with high abuse rates. The department has not publicly named the U.S. agencies involved, but officials say cross-border data and document checks are central to spotting fraud at source.

The plan arrives amid shifting numbers that have strained parts of the system. Officials report that visa approvals for Indian applicants fell from over 63,000 in January 2024 to about 48,000 by June 2024. In August 2024, Canada rejected about 74% of Indian study permit applications, nearly three out of four. Processors describe increasing difficulty verifying documents quickly, contributing to longer waits and more referrals for secondary review. While those figures do not prove fraud on their own, they underpin internal arguments that targeted tools are needed to deal with what officials call concentrated patterns of misuse.

Bill C-12, introduced on October 7, 2025, would add new powers to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), including authority for the minister to suspend, refuse, or cancel groups of applications where program integrity is at risk due to fraud, backlogs, or security concerns. The legislation, which evolved from an earlier draft labeled Bill C-2, is designed to let the government act quickly when a particular stream or cohort is seen as vulnerable to exploitation, rather than relying only on individual file reviews that can take months. Internal discussions say those powers could apply across temporary programs, including TRVs, and potentially reach into other streams if widespread misuse is demonstrated.

One of the most contentious features is that already issued visas might be revoked if a class-wide cancellation is ordered, a step that would be more sweeping than past program suspensions that typically affected future applications. The bill allows for fee refunds in some cases, but offers no guarantees of compensation for downstream costs such as flights or tuition deposits. Nor does it set out detailed transition measures for travelers caught mid-journey by a sudden class cancellation, leaving lawyers worried about stranded visitors and students with no clear recourse.

The Canada visa cancellation push is closely linked to attempts to tackle visa fraud in high-volume corridors, which officials say can overwhelm caseworkers and erode public trust. For years, Canada has struggled with document mills and ghost consultants in parts of South Asia, according to lawyers and community groups, with schemes ranging from fabricated work histories to sham letters of acceptance for colleges. In the Indian and Bangladeshi contexts, even a small percentage of fraudulent files can add up to thousands of cases each year due to the sheer volume of applications. Internal materials highlight the India–Canada corridor as a particular pressure point given the surge in applications since 2022.

Those dynamics intersect with asylum trends. The spike in refugee claims from Indian nationals—from fewer than 500 a month in May 2023 to around 2,000 by July 2024—has raised flags inside government. Officials argue that rising claims, while not evidence of abuse on their own, can signal gaps exploited by smuggling networks or unscrupulous agents steering people into visitor streams with hidden intentions. Critics respond that many claimants are fleeing real risks and that blanket measures risk punishing those with legitimate protection needs. That debate now sits at the center of Bill C-12’s path through Parliament.

Beyond the numbers, the policy signals uncertainty for families and students planning travel in the months ahead. TRV applicants from India and Bangladesh are likely to face tighter scrutiny and longer delays, and those who already hold visas could be at higher risk of cancellation if class-wide measures are invoked. Lawyers say applicants should expect more document verification requests and, in some cases, last-minute airline “no-board” decisions if anomalies appear in database checks. While IRCC insists decisions will comply with Canadian law, the breadth of the proposed powers has unsettled even seasoned practitioners who warn of sudden, far-reaching impacts.

The changes could reverberate far beyond tourism. Canada remains a top destination for Indian students and professionals, and any broad action on TRVs would ripple into study, work, and family reunion plans. In August 2024, nearly three-quarters of Indian study permit applications were refused, a figure that colleges and students are still grappling with as they plan intakes. Community organizations say they are bracing for higher volumes of distressed calls if Bill C-12 becomes law, especially if travelers fear mid-course cancellations after paying fees, booking travel, or quitting jobs at home.

In India and Bangladesh, the policy shift is prompting consulates, education agents, and diaspora groups to rethink how they advise would-be travelers. Community advocates say proactive outreach will be needed to reduce exposure to visa fraud, including vetting agents, verifying college acceptances directly, and keeping back-up plans if flights or visas are pulled late. For families weighing trips for weddings or religious festivals, the risk calculus is changing as well, with many expected to wait for clarity on how Bill C-12 will be applied before finalizing plans.

Diplomatically, the timing is delicate. Ottawa and New Delhi have taken steps to repair strained ties, appointing new high commissioners and holding high-level meetings in 2024. Yet the internal designation of India and Bangladesh as “country-specific challenges” is likely to draw questions from both governments if the bill passes and mass cancellations occur. Canadian officials argue the authority is neutral on its face and applies globally based on risk, but the documents have already seeded doubts among lawyers and policy analysts who see a de facto emphasis on South Asia.

For travelers and students, the immediate reality is limbo. The bill is still under parliamentary consideration, and no mass cancellations have been ordered under its authority. Even so, IRCC and CBSA have begun working with U.S. partners to flag suspect patterns, and the agencies are said to be readying operational playbooks to execute class-wide refusals or revocations if Bill C-12 is adopted. The government has urged quick passage to ensure it can move decisively if new fraud clusters emerge, while opponents are pressing legislators to build in clearer safeguards, notice requirements, and appeal rights before any en masse cancellations proceed.

The legal mechanics matter. If enacted, Bill C-12 would let the minister temporarily suspend processing for specified cohorts, refuse entire categories of applications, or cancel previously issued visas tied to a defined class, citing program integrity or emergency grounds. The law would not create automatic compensation for canceled visas beyond possible fee refunds, and it sets no firm timelines for reinstating suspended classes. Immigration attorneys warn that, without explicit due process guarantees, travelers could be left with few remedies beyond judicial review—an option that is time-consuming and costly, and ill-suited to someone with a flight in two weeks.

Officials counter that decisive tools are needed to protect the system and honest applicants from bad actors who clog the pipeline. They point to stepped-up document verification, deeper database checks, and cooperation with U.S. border agencies as part of a broader strategy to deter visa fraud. The government has framed Bill C-12 as a way to act fast when harm is concentrated, insisting it will use objective indicators, not nationality labels, to define affected cohorts. IRCC’s public position remains that nationality is not a target variable and that decisions will comply with Canadian law.

Still, the internal framing around India and Bangladesh—alongside the stark numbers on claims, refusals, and processing time—suggests the first tests of the new powers, if adopted, may land in South Asia. For travelers there, the message is to assume tougher checks and the possibility of sudden changes. For colleges and employers in Canada relying on Indian and Bangladeshi arrivals, contingency plans may be needed if cohorts are delayed or visas are revoked en masse. The full impact will depend on how narrowly Ottawa draws its classes, how long any suspension lasts, and how quickly legitimate travelers can clear enhanced screening.

Canadians watching the bill’s progress can expect a vigorous debate in the weeks ahead over civil liberties, economic needs, and the bounds of ministerial discretion. Proponents see a necessary instrument to protect borders and restore confidence in visa programs. Critics see a tool that could sweep away individual rights in the name of efficiency. What is not in dispute is the scale of the change: mass Canada visa cancellation authority, anchored in Bill C-12, would give Ottawa the ability to pull entire cohorts off the board when visa fraud signals flash red.

Government updates on immigration policy, processing, and compliance are posted on the official IRCC website; applicants and sponsors can monitor changes via the IRCC’s news and program updates page on Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. As Parliament weighs the bill, and as IRCC and CBSA deepen their coordination with U.S. counterparts, applicants from India and Bangladesh face an uncertain window in which the rules could tighten suddenly. Whether lawmakers add safeguards or not, the direction is clear: Ottawa wants faster, broader tools to shut down abuse—and it is willing to cancel visas by the hundreds or thousands to do it.