Five Reasons IRCC Rejects Express Entry Applications

22nd Apr 2016 Comments Off on Five Reasons IRCC Rejects Express Entry Applications

Last Updated on April 22, 2016 by Steven Meurrens

Since January 1, 2015, almost all prospective economic immigrants to Canada must apply through Express Entry.  Express Entry is an application intake management system in which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) controls immigration application intake by requiring applicants be issued an invitations to apply for permanent residency (“ITAs” before they can actually submit their applications.  The purpose of Express Entry is to minimize processing times. Indeed, when Express Entry was launched IRCC guaranteed that it would be able to process permanent residence applications within six months.

On March 31, 2016, IRCC released its Express Entry Year-End Report 2015 (the “Express Entry Report”).  The Express Entry Report shows that IRCC in 2015 met its six-month processing goal.  However, the Express Entry Report also revealed that IRCC has been bouncing (or rejecting, as IRCC likes to describe it) many Express Entry applications due to incompleteness.

Prior to the introduction of Express Entry, while a bounced permanent residence application was frustrating for applicants, they could for the most part easily simply re-submit their applications.  However, with Express Entry there is no guarantee that an individual whose permanent residence application is rejected for incompleteness will be issued another Invitation to Apply. As such, until IRCC adopts a more flexible approach to handling technical deficiencies in applications, it is imperative that applicants check and double-check that their permanent residence applications meet all IRCC requirements.

The Express Entry Report and Application Bouncing

The Express Entry Report shows that IRCC was able to process most Express Entry applications in under six months. Specifically, for Federal Skilled Worker Program applicants the processing standard was 4.7 months, for Canadian Experience Class applicants it was 3.5 months, for Federal Skilled Trades Class applicants it was 4.9 months,

 » Read more about: Five Reasons IRCC Rejects Express Entry Applications  »

Read more ›

Bulk Refusing Applications

12th Apr 2016 Comments Off on Bulk Refusing Applications

Last Updated on April 12, 2016 by Steven Meurrens

I’m glad the answer to this question was no.

Capture

 » Read more about: Bulk Refusing Applications  »

Read more ›

Express Entry Imm Rep Q&A

11th Apr 2016 Comments Off on Express Entry Imm Rep Q&A

Last Updated on April 11, 2016 by Steven Meurrens

The following PDFs contain several Express Entry Q&As that were obtained through an Access to Information Act request.

The topics include what documentation is required in an Express Entry application, enclosing rehabilitation applications with Express Entry, what counts as a ‘certificate of qualification’, points for skills transferability, and qualifying arranged employment.

 » Read more about: Express Entry Imm Rep Q&A  »

Read more ›

Providing a Right of Appeal to Medically Inadmissible Immigrants

7th Apr 2016 Comments Off on Providing a Right of Appeal to Medically Inadmissible Immigrants

Last updated on September 13th, 2018

Last Updated on September 13, 2018 by Steven Meurrens

On December 3, 2015, Don Davies, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, introduced Bill C-214, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Appeals) (Bill C-214).  If passed, Bill C-214 would provide a right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) for prospective immigrants whose applications for permanent residency are refused because Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) determines that they will likely represent an excessive demand on Canada’s health and social services systems.

Because Bill C-214 is a private member’s bill, it is unlikely to become law.  Indeed, Davies has introduced similar bills in previous Parliamentary sessions, to no effect.  However, what he is proposing is certainly worthy of discussion and debate.  I hope that if he reads this post that he will consider my comments, if he ever reintroduces or amends his proposed legislation.  As well, at the end of this article I will discuss another immigration issue that Davies has proposed that I hope he reintroduces soon.

Inadmissibility for Excessive Demand

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that foreign nationals are inadmissible to Canada on health grounds if their health conditions might reasonably be expected to cause an excessive demand on Canada’s health or social services.

Health services are any medical services for which the majority of funds are contributed by governments, including the services of family physicians, medical specialists, chiropractors and hospital care.

Social services include home care, residential services, social and vocational rehabilitation services that are intended to assist a person function physically, emotionally, socially, psychologically, or vocationally, and for which the majority of funding is contributed by governments. 

 » Read more about: Providing a Right of Appeal to Medically Inadmissible Immigrants  »

Read more ›

2015 Express Entry Report

1st Apr 2016 Comments Off on 2015 Express Entry Report

Last Updated on April 1, 2016 by Steven Meurrens

IRCC has released it’s 2015 Express Entry report, which is here.

 » Read more about: 2015 Express Entry Report  »

Read more ›

Certified Questions After Kanthasamy

1st Apr 2016 Comments Off on Certified Questions After Kanthasamy

Last Updated on April 1, 2016 by Steven Meurrens

Section 74(d) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if, in rendering judgment, the Federal Court certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question.  Certified questions have traditionally resolved divergent jurisprudence at the Federal Court, and have typically provided certainty on how immigration law is to be interpreted.  However, as a result of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions, this is changing.

In Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)the Supreme Court of Canada applied the reasonableness standard to answer the following certified question:

When determining a ss. 34(2) application, must the Minister of Public Safety consider any specific factors in assessing whether a foreign national’s presence in Canada would be contrary to the national interest?

The decision to not provide a definite answer caused some confusion at the Federal Court of Appeal, which declared in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 113, that:

 A decision made under the Act is subject to judicial review only if leave is granted by the Federal Court (subsection 72(1) of the Act). The Federal Court’s decision on the judicial review cannot be appealed unless the Federal Court certifies a serious question of general importance (paragraph 74(d) of the Act). This case, like Agraira has proceeded to this Court on the basis of a certified question from the Federal Court. In this case, as in Agraira, the certified question asks a question that requires an interpretation of a provision of the Act.

 » Read more about: Certified Questions After Kanthasamy  »

Read more ›