February 2026

Having an application refused by IRCC is disappointing or even heartbreaking. The disappointment is often accompanied by confusion over the boilerplate language in refusal letters. This language provides the applicant with no information about why their application was refused, beyond very general terms.

 

 

On July 29, 2025, IRCC started to provide ‘officer decision notes’ attached to the refusal letters for some applications. IRCC stated that this change was intended to make it easier for applicants to access their personal information in their applications and to improve IRCC’s commitment to greater transparency.

 

 

The ‘officer decision notes’ are notes recorded by the immigration officers as they process an application. These notes should, in theory, include the officer’s reasoning for their decision, the officer’s consideration of the supporting evidence, or the lack thereof, and other concerns raised against the positive determination of the application.

 

 

Prior to this policy change, refused applicants would need to file an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request to obtain the notes or apply for judicial review with the Federal Court, after which the notes would have been provided as part of the litigation process. The inclusion of the ‘officer decision notes’ should alleviate the applicants' burden of extra steps and additional costs of accessing these notes.

 

 

The reality, however, is that the notes are not all that helpful. We recently received a refusal letter for a visitor visa application. The decision letter states:

 

Thank you for your interest in coming to Canada. I have reviewed your temporary resident visa (visitor visa) application and supporting documentation to assess whether you meet the requirements for a visitor visa (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/ services/visit-canada/eligibility.html). This includes assessing whether you are coming to Canada temporarily for the reason(s) you describe in your application. I have determined that your application does not meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/index.html) and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/ index.html). I am refusing your application.

• I am not satisfied that you will leave Canada at the end of your stay as required by paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/ section-179.html). I am refusing your application because you have not established that you will leave Canada, based on the following factors:
• The purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application.
• Your immigration status outside your country of nationality or habitual residence.

 

The ‘reasons’ given for the denial of the application, provided in a separate document, were as follows:

Reasons for the refusal of your application: To help you understand why your application was refused, below are the Officer Decision Notes (ODN) specific to your application as they are displayed in IRCC’s system. These notes were entered by the officer who assessed and made the final decision on your application.

I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. Based on the applicant's immigration status outside their country of nationality or habitual residence, I am not satisfied that they will leave Canada at the end of their stay as a temporary resident. Weighing the factors in this application, I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.

 

 

The ‘reasons’ still do not explain how the officer’s decision was made with consideration of the supporting evidence. There is no connection between the evidence we supplied and the officer’s reasoning. We can not even be sure that the officer reviewed what was provided.

 

As stated in the policy announcement, it is one of IRCC’s commitments to deliver its services with greater transparency. However, it is unclear how much the disclosure of these ‘officer decision notes’, as they are now, improves the transparency of IRCC decisions.