Canada Visitor Visa: the “40+ criteria” myth
— and what actually decides your case

Reports are circulating that Canadian visitor visas (TRVs) are assessed against more than 40 criteria. Checking IRCC's own source tells a different story. These are not new rules, and those 40-odd criteria are not a checklist applied to your application. Here is what is actually true, and what really decides a visitor visa — drawn only from the legislation and IRCC's official material.

What was actually published

The source is IRCC's 2026 Deputy Minister Transition Binder. The binder is dated July 27, 2026; its visitors section was last modified September 1, 2026.

A transition binder is prepared to brief an incoming deputy minister on the department. The Government of Canada publishes these under its transparency policy. The fact that it was published does not itself mean any law changed or any new measure came into force.

What the "over 40 criteria" actually are

The binder states:

"For over 20 years, Canada's Visa Policy Framework has guided decisions regarding which foreign nationals may travel to Canada without a visa."

"Over 40 criteria are used to assess risks (such as threats to public safety) and benefits (such as tourism) of lifting or imposing a visa requirement."

Two things follow.

First, these criteria are not new — the binder says the framework has guided decisions for over twenty years.

Second, and more importantly, they are used to decide whether to lift or impose a visa requirement — a country-level decision. They are not a scoring sheet applied to your application. The categories are:

These are the factors Canada weighs when deciding whether a country's nationals need a visa at all. Reading them as "40 boxes my application is scored against" does not match the source.

So what actually decides your application?

Individual visitor visa issuance is governed by IRPR s.179. The structure of the provision matters:

"An officer shall issue a temporary resident visa to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that the foreign national…"

Note that the provision says "shall issue." Once all seven are established, the officer has no discretion to refuse. The officer's judgement operates not on whether to refuse, but on whether each requirement has been established.

The onus sits with the applicant. IRPA s.20(1)(b) requires a foreign national to "establish … that they … will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay."

The most common refusal ground — on the record

IRCC's report to Parliament states:

"The most common reason for refusal is a negative assessment that a foreign national will indeed leave at the end of their authorized period of stay."

So the claim that s.179(b) is the decisive provision is not a practitioner's guess — it is IRCC's own published position.

That does not make the other requirements formalities. The same report also cites insufficient funds, failure to provide biometrics, and prior criminality as refusal grounds, and these too involve officer judgement. IRCC also notes that multiple refusal grounds are often recorded for a single application, so precise per-ground statistics are difficult to obtain. No official percentage breakdown of refusal reasons exists.

Intending to apply for permanent residence is not a refusal ground

This is widely misunderstood, so it gets its own section. IRPA s.22(2) provides:

"An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay."

This is known as dual intent. IRCC's guidance is more explicit still:

"The existence of two different intents is legitimate according to A22(2) and not, in itself, reason to refuse a temporary residence application."

What officers actually look at

The binder says:

"For many cases, a visitor's intention to travel to Canada is assessed by an officer through the evaluation of key indicators, such as travel history, family ties to their home country, and employment."

We reproduce the qualifier — "for many cases" — as written. This is not a mechanical formula applied to every file.

IRCC's dual intent guidance lists the factors an officer may weigh more fully:

• The length of time the applicant will spend in Canada
• Means of support during the stay
• Obligations and ties to the home country
• The purpose and context of the stay
• The credibility of documents and information submitted
• Past compliance with immigration requirements

All of them converge on a single question: will this person leave when the authorized period ends?

An eTA and a visitor visa are not the same thing

A visa does not guarantee entry

This is frequently overlooked. A visa or eTA authorises you to travel to Canada — it does not guarantee admission. The final decision on admissibility, and on how long you may stay, is made by the border services officer at the port of entry.

The same applies to length of stay. The authorized period is six months or another period fixed by an officer, and IRCC states: "At the port of entry, the border services officer may allow you to stay for less or more than 6 months." Six months is a default, not an entitlement.

Reducing the risk of refusal — principles

The decisive question is whether you satisfy an officer, on a balance of probabilities, that you will leave at the end of the authorized period. Three principles:

1. Show verifiable reasons to return. Employment, a business, studies, dependants, property at home — facts showing that returning is the rational course. Verifiable material, not assurances.

2. Keep the purpose and everything else consistent. Length of stay, funds, accommodation and travel companions should fit the stated purpose. Individually clean documents that do not add up as a whole cost you on credibility — and IRCC's guidance names "the credibility of documents and information submitted" as an express factor.

3. Eliminate contradictions between documents. Discrepancies between your form, your supporting documents and your application history count against you, including innocent ones.

Where there is a weakness, explaining it is safer than concealing it. What counts as a weakness and what can offset it varies case by case — and if you have been refused before, establishing the precise ground of that refusal is the starting point for any new application.

The numbers

Two caveats. These are applications received, not approvals. And the 2027 decline is a volume projection, not an approval-rate projection — nothing in the document supports reading fewer applications as easier assessment.

In summary

• What was published is an IRCC transition binder, not a new regulation — though it does describe measures already in force.
• The "over 40 criteria" govern whether to impose or lift a visa requirement on a country, and have done so for over twenty years. They are not an application checklist.
• Individual visitor visas are decided under IRPR s.179, and IRCC states on the record that the most common refusal ground is a negative assessment of whether the applicant will leave.
• The standard is balance of probabilities, not certainty.
• Intending to apply for permanent residence is not, by itself, a reason to refuse. Explain it; do not conceal it.
• A visa does not guarantee entry, and six months of stay is a default rather than a right.

For visit and family sponsorship services, see our family & visit page.

This article is general information based on legislation and IRCC official material published as of September 22, 2026. It is not legal advice for any specific case. Visa assessment turns on individual circumstances and no preparation guarantees issuance. Fees and requirements change — confirm current IRCC information before applying.