Towards the end of 2016 the Canadian government made many changes to Canada’s immigration programs. The parents and grandparents sponsorship program went from being first-come, first-serve to a lottery system, arranged employment through a Labour Market Impact Assessment went from guaranteeing someone an invitation to apply for Canadian permanent residency to only being a factor slightly more significant than the newly introduced factor of Canadian post-secondary education, and Canada lifted the visa requirement against Mexican nationals. The rate of change will continue to be fast in 2017. Already, the government has announced that it will lift the visa requirement against Brazil, Bulgaria, and Romania, that it would introduce a work permit program for highly skilled foreign workers, that having relatives in Canada will increase one’s chances of being issued an invitation to apply for permanent residency, and that Canada will ratify the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, which will make it easier for Europeans to work in Canada. At the same time that the rate of the pace of changes is increasing, the Canadian government has also expanded the number of ways in which it publicizes these announcements. Many have been introduced through legislative amendments. … Read More
Fettering Discretion
In Gabriel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the officer stated: Unfortunately, the regulations are silent regarding medical conditions of dependent children and determining their eligibility as dependents. Since there is no mention of [ ] medical condition exceptions Michael is not considered a dependent. While I empathize with Michael and his mother I am not satisfied that an exception should be made in this case. The decision to remove Michael from the application stands. The Federal Court noted that this amounted to fettering discretion, stating that: In my view the Decision shows that the Officer believed that, because the Regulations did not mention the possibility of an exception from the requirement for continuous study for students who became ill, she could not give Michael the benefit of such an exception and include him in Rose’s application for permanent residence as a dependent child notwithstanding the Absence.
Parent & Grandparent Sponsorship Program to be a Lottery in 2017
On December 14, 2016 the Government of Canada announced that it would be changing the application process in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC“) Parent & Grandparent Sponsorship Program (the “PGP“). For the past several years IRCC’s PGP has been capped at between 5,000 and 10,000 applicants. Applications were treated on a first-come, first-served basis. The PGP would typically open in early January, and the cap would be reached in under 48 hours. This caused most applicants to scramble to submit applications early in the new year. The process in 2017 will more resemble a lottery system. Between January 3 and February 2, 2017, Canadian citizens and permanent residents who want to apply as sponsors must first complete an online form on the IRCC website indicating their intention to IRCC that they wish to sponsor their parents and/or grandparents for immigration. The online form will be available for 30 days, from noon Eastern Standard Time (EST) on January 3, 2017, to noon EST on February 2, 2017. The form will ask basic questions about the sponsor, including biographical and contact information. Once the information is successfully submitted through IRCC’s online form, the individual will get a confirmation number. At the end … Read More
IRCC Clarifies Non-Compliance in the International Mobility Program
It is imperative that employers hiring foreign workers in the International Mobility Program (“IMP“) understand the consequences of non-compliance. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) has finally published information on its website which summarizes how it will determine when non-compliance has occurred and what the consequences will be. Since December 1, 2015, IRCC has had the legislative authority to apply administrative tools, including warning letters, administrative monetary penalties (“AMPs“) and bans on employers accessing the IMP to certain employers where an IRCC officer has determined that an employer has breached the terms and conditions of participating in the IMP. Breaches that Occurred Before December 1, 2015 It is important to note that the AMP and the bans described below only apply to employer breaches that occurred after December 1, 2015. The penalty to an employer for unjustified breaches that occurred prior to December 1, 2015 is a two-year ban on that employer from being able to hire foreign workers under the IMP. However, while the consequences to an employer for being found non-compliant changed on December 1, 2015, the way in which IRCC assesses whether non-compliance has occurred remains substantially the same. The Administrative Monetary Penalty Regime Under IRCC’s AMP regime, employer non-compliance is divided … Read More
Express Entry’s Comprehensive Ranking System to Change on November 19, 2016
On November 10, 2016, the Government of Canada announced that it would be changing how points are calculated in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC“) Express Entry program. The most significant change is that having a qualifying offer of arranged employment that is supported by a Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA“) will no longer guarantee an Invitation to Apply (an “ITA“) for permanent residency. However, foreign nationals who completed post-secondary education in Canada, as well as certain closed work permit holders in the International Mobility Program, will benefit. The changes will take effect on effect on November 19, 2016. Overview of the Current Comprehensive Ranking system Under Express Entry, a potential applicant to one of Canada’s three main economic immigration programs must complete an online Express Entry profile where they provide information about their skills, work experience, language ability, education, and other details. That individual is then entered into a pool of Express Entry candidates where they are given a score out of 1200 using a Comprehensive Ranking System (“CRS“) based on the information that they provided when creating their Express Entry profile. Under IRCC’s current CRS, an individual gets 600 points if they have an offer of full-time employment that … Read More
Government of Canada To Abolish Conditional Permanent Residency in 2017
On October 29, 2016, the Government of Canada announced that it would be abolishing the conditional permanent residency regime currently in place in the Family Class and the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class. Since October, 2012, conditional permanent residency has applied to individuals who are the spouse, common-law, or conjugal partner of their sponsor for two years or less when they submit their sponsorship applications and who do not have children in common with their sponsor when they submit the sponsorship applications. Conditional permanent residents are required to cohabit in a conjugal relationship with their sponsors for a continuous period of two years after the day on which they become permanent residents. If Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) determines that conditional permanent residents have breached the condition, then IRCC will declare them inadmissible to Canada, and removal proceedings will be initiated. An exception to this is where there is abuse. Conditional permanent residents are able to appeal such decisions to the Immigration Appeal Division, which can consider humanitarian & compassionate considerations. From 2013-2015, 58 218 spouses and partners along with their children were admitted to Canada as conditional permanent residents. This represented approximately 42% of admissions of spouses, partners, and their children within Canada’s family reunification programs. During … Read More
Who Do You Report To – Misrepresentation
I’m writing this post quickly after reading the Federal Court’s decision in Hehar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1054. In the decision, Justice Brown writes: Naveen Kumar Verma gave radically different answers from those given by the Applicant during the verification process in response to the same two simple questions. First, in response to the question, “Who does she report to/Who do you report to,” two different individuals, with different job titles were named. I have never liked the “who do you report to” question. Prior to becoming a Partner at Larlee Rosenberg I theoretically could have given the name of either Peter Larlee or Ryan Rosenberg. If my Legal Assistant were to be asked “who does she report to” I could see her answering that it was either me or Ryan Rosenberg, the Managing Partner. Both answers would be correct. Contradictory answers to this question often result in great suspicion by visa officers that is difficult to overcome. And it really shouldn’t.
BC PNP September 1 Changes
On September 1, 2016, the British Columbia Provincial Nomination Program (“BC PNP“) published changes to its program guide. Here is a summary of the changes. Topic Original Change Representatives If you are invited to apply and your employer is using a representative, your employer must also complete their own use of representative form, even if your employer is appointing the same representative. If you are invited to apply and you are using a representative, your employer must also complete their own use of representative form, even if your employer is appointing the same representative. Refunds If invited to apply, you must submit the $550 application fee with your online application before your application will be processed. Incomplete applications will not be processed and fees may not be refunded. If invited to apply, you must submit the $550 application fee with your online application before your application will be processed. Incomplete applications will not be approved, and application fees will only be refunded if you withdraw your application before the BC PNP begins to assess it. You may contact the BC PNP at PNPinfo@gov.bc.ca to withdraw your application and find out if you are eligible for a refund. Please provide your … Read More
Corroborating Affidavits
It is not uncommon for refusal letters to contain some variation of the following statement: I find that letters or affidavits made by the applicant, who has a personal interest in this matter, require a degree of corroboration in order to contain much weight. As the Federal Court of Appeal held in Maldonado v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 FC 302 at para 5 (FCA), this is inappropriate. There, the Court noted that: When an applicant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there be reason to doubt their truthfulness. On this record, I am unable to discover valid reasons for the Board doubting the truth of the applicant’s allegations above referred to. In Hilo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1991] FCJ No 228 (FCA), the Court further noted that: The appellant was the only witness who gave oral testimony before the Board. His evidence was uncontradicted. The only comments as to his credibility are contained in the short passage quoted supra. That passage is troublesome because of its ambiguity. It does not amount to an outright rejection of the appellant’s evidence but it appears to cast … Read More
Stateless People in Canada
Justice Diner in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Rooney discussed the issue of the lack of legislation dealing with stateless people in Canada. The relevant portions of his decision provide interesting commentary, and reads (citations removed for ease of reading): Imposing an obligation to prove a negative in these circumstances may give rise to a Catch-22 situation for the stateless, nameless, mentally ill, and other vulnerable individuals who may not be able to establish identity. While I do not contest the Member’s finding that the Respondent may not be de jure stateless as understood by international instruments, the issue of statelessness and persons unable to establish nationality merits comment. In a 2010 paper on de facto statelessness, Senior Legal Adviser to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Hugh Massey explains that the inability to prove nationality may be linked to a number of causes, including the fact that “[s]ome people may have never been registered in the civil registration system of the country of their nationality.” Mr. Massey further notes the difficulty to establish nationality in the case of unaccompanied children, especially if the “child is so young as to be unable to provide any information at all about … Read More