Category: Uncategorized

According to its website, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) screens all visitors, immigrants and refugee claimants to keep Canada safe and secure. Inadmissible persons such as criminals or persons considered security risks are not allowed to enter or remain in Canada.

The following PDF contains a detailed breakdown of how this works and efforts to reduce backlogs.

 » Read more about: CBSA National Security Screening  »

Garcia Balarezo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) is an interesting case which stands for the principle that it is unreasonable for IRCC to expect applicants to submit ATIP requests to learn the internal status of their file and what submissions they might need to make. The Court noted:

The officer recognized that both the May 2012 and June 2015 work permits were issued by IRCC in error. However, the officer asserted that Ms. Garcia’s May 2012 and October 2012 work permits “had clear notes on them that PA [principal applicant] was not part of the LC program.” This appears to have been very important in the officer’s thinking, as they repeated the point both in responding to one of Ms. Garcia’s submissions, and again in their conclusion, stating:

The errors made on CIC’s part (including issuing first work permit with med instructions to work in childcare field and adding the incorrect remarks to clients third work permit in 2015) have been taken into consideration and there is still insufficient evidence of H&C grounds to warrant exemptions. PA’s rep stated that PA and her employers were aware of Section 112 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and were aware that the initial work permit had to be assessed and issued from outside of Canada and that an immigration medical needed to be completed in order to be eligible to apply for permanent residence. PA could have inquired through the Call Centre as PA’s first 2 work permits had very clear notes on them that PA was not part of the LC program.

[Emphasis added.]

The “very clear notes” in question were not, however, notes visible on the face of the work permits issued to Ms. Garcia or in any other document sent to Ms.

 » Read more about: No Expectation on Applicants to ATIP  »

Regulation 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that an officer shall not issue a work permit to a foreign national if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national is unable to perform the work sought.

An issue that is becomming increasingly common is whether someone has sufficient language ability to perform the work sought.

In Singh v. CAnada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 638 Justice Bell set aside the refusal of a work permit application for a truck driver.  There, an officer wrote “I have concerns regarding the applicant’s English language skills which are also listed as a requirement for the position on the LMO. While the applicant has an overall band score of 5.5. on the IELTS, I note that he only received a score of 4.5 in reading and a 5 in speaking. Although the LMIA does not explicitly state a minimum required IELTS score for this position, I note that the British Council classifies students at this band level as being a “Limited user [whose] basic competence is limited to familiar situations. [They] frequently show problems in understanding and expression. [They] are not able to use complex language.”

Justice Bell determined that relying solely on the IELTS description was improper. He wrote:

The visa officer does not mention the Canadian Language Benchmark, the prospective employer’s declared language requirement (level 4 of the Canadian Language Benchmark), nor does he or she mention the fact that the prospective employer qualified Mr. Singh’s language skills as excellent. Finally, I note that the British Council referred to students’ abilities. It clearly did not refer to an adult’s language abilities in his or her own trade or calling.

…

 » Read more about: Language Requirements and Work Permits  »

On June 25, 2021 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) updated its C-10 Significant Benefit work permit program. The previous information can be found here on my blog.  The new material on the IRCC website can be found here.

 » Read more about: Significant Benefit Work Permits (After June 25, 2021 Update)  »

In 2019 the approval rates for permanent residence applications processed overseas was as follows.

 » Read more about: Permanent Residence Approvals by Visa Office  »

Last updated on July 25th, 2021

Section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding a material fact relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of Canada’s immigration laws.

The general consequence of misrepresenting is a five-year ban from entering Canada. An issue that often arises is where an applicant mistates or omits information in their visa application, but the information is readily available to a visa officer. Koo v. Canada  Koo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 931 is the most frequently cited case on this issue.  There, an applicant failed to disclose that he had previously applied for permanent residence, and that the application had been refused.  Justice Montigny stated that:

I shall now turn to the alleged misrepresentation with respect to the applicant’s previous application for permanent residence. The error occurred when the applicant checked off the “yes” box to the question whether he had “previously sought refugee status in Canada or applied for a Canadian immigrant or permanent resident visa or visitor or temporary resident visa”, but checked off the “no” box to the following question as to whether he had been refused such a status. The applicant has stated that this was an oversight on both the part of himself and his former representative and was in no way intentional. Further, when the applicant was asked at interview about whether he had previously submitted any immigration applications, the CAIPS notes reflect that he advised the officer that he had previously submitted an application for permanent residence in Canada,

 » Read more about: Misrepresentation When the Information Is Readily Available to a Visa Officer  »

Section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states:

Residency obligation

(28)(1) A permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to every five-year period.

Application

(2) The following provisions govern the residency obligation under subsection (1):

• • (a) a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are

    • (i) physically present in Canada,

    • (ii) outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent,

    • (iii) outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province,

    • (iv) outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province, or

    • (v) referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance;

  • (b) it is sufficient for a permanent resident to demonstrate at examination

    • (i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately after they became a permanent resident;

    • (ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately before the examination;

 » Read more about: Residency Obligation Appeals  »

The following are charts from Statistics Canada related to various immigration topics.

1) Likelihood to Have Received CERB

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2021001/article/00021-eng.pdf

 » Read more about: Statistics Canada – Immigration  »

Regulation 76(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that:

For the purpose of determining whether a skilled worker, as a member of the federal skilled worker class, will be able to become economically established in Canada, they must be assessed on the basis of the following criteria:

(b) the skilled worker must

(i) have in the form of transferable and available funds, unencumbered by debts or other obligations, an amount equal to one half of the minimum necessary income applicable in respect of the group of persons consisting of the skilled worker and their family members.

Applicants are not required to have settlement funds if the applicant is authorized to work in Canada and has been awarded points for a qualifying offer of arranged employment under Express Entry or for arranged employment in Canada.

The funds must be

• available and transferable;
• unencumbered by debts or other obligations; and
• sufficient to support initial establishment in Canada.

IRCC Questions and Answers

The following are two questions that lawyers asked IRCC’s IMMrep department, and the response.

Question – To what extent are people able to use funds within “investment accounts” to satisfy the proof of funds requirement?

Question – To what extent are outstanding debts such as credit card debt, loans, mortgages, etc. assessed against the positive balance in bank and investment accounts for those required to provide Proof of Funds?

 » Read more about: Settlement Funds  »