Regulation 82 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 states: 82 (1) In this section, arranged employment means an offer of employment that is made by a single employer other than an embassy, high commission or consulate in Canada or an employer who is referred to in any of subparagraphs 200(3)(h)(i) to (iii), that is for continuous full-time work in Canada having a duration of at least one year after the date on which a permanent resident visa is issued, and that is in an occupation that is listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Level A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix. Arranged employment (10 points) (2) Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment if they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out the employment and (a) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit that is valid on the date on which their application for a permanent resident visa is made and, on the date on which the visa is issued, holds a valid work permit or is authorized to work in Canada under section 186 and (i) the work permit … Read More
Arguing Incompetence of Counsel in an Appeal
Many lawyers when they meet with clients often review rejected applications and/or appeals where it is obvious that the individual’s previous representative was incompetent. The examples of incompetence range from missed deadlines to ignorance of the law. Some specific examples include: former counsel being told by an Immigration Appeal Division member to “sit down” because they were incompetent; an immigration consultant not knowing the difference between a “conviction” and a “dismissal”; an immigration consultant stating that the “prevailing wage = the wage paid to Canadians at the employer’s company”; and a lawyer filing late because “deadlines are policy, not statute.” While the previous representative’s incompetence may serve as a ground for relief in a judicial review, cases based on incompetence and/or negligence of previous counsel are exceptionally difficult. The Federal Court’s March 7, 2014, Procedural Protocol on arguing incompetence of counsel only make these cases more challenging. The Law on Incompetence of Counsel As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in R v. GDB for incompetence/negligence of previous counsel/representative to count as a ground for judicial review, it must be established that (1) previous counsel’s acts or omissions constituted incompetence and (2) that a miscarriage of justice resulted from the incompetence. The Federal … Read More
The Permit Holders Class
The Permit Holder Class provides a permanent residence pathway for individuals who hold a valid temporary resident permit (“TRP”) and who remain inadmissible to Canada on the same grounds that originally led to the permit’s issuance. This class is designed for people who have demonstrated long-term compliance and establishment in Canada despite previous inadmissibility. Eligibility Based on Health Inadmissibility An applicant may qualify for permanent residence under this class if: The initial inadmissibility was due to health reasons; The individual currently holds a valid temporary resident permit; The individual has resided continuously in Canada as a permit holder for at least three years; The same health-related inadmissibility persists at the time of application; and There are no additional grounds of inadmissibility, such as criminality or security concerns. Eligibility Based on Other Grounds of Inadmissibility An applicant may also qualify if the inadmissibility was for reasons other than health, provided that those reasons do not include security risks, human-rights violations, organized crime, or serious criminality. In such cases, eligibility requires that: A valid temporary resident permit remains in effect; The individual has resided continuously in Canada as a permit holder for at least five years; The same grounds of inadmissibility that … Read More
Employers of Record
The following is an IMMRep response on the issue of employers of record.
Work Permits and Disability
Question 2
Misrepresentation
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. Canada is very strict on misrepresentation. In Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147, for example, Mr. Bundhel had been charged and convicted with an offence, which had been overturned on appeal. Mr. Bundhel would accordingly not have been criminally inadmissible to Canada. Because of this, he put on his immigration forms that he had never been charged or arrested. When it discovered thathehad been previously charged, what is now Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada wrote to him and provided him with an opportunity to explain why he misrepresented. After the immigration officer reviewed Mr. Bundhel’s explanation that it was an innocent mistake, the officer refused the application, and declared the person inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation. The Court wrote (citations removed): Mr. Bundhel’s complaint that the Officer should have considered the fact that he owned-up to the … Read More
Mandamus Orders
A mandamus order is a judicial command to a government body to do, or forbear from, doing a specific act which it is obligated in law to do. The Federal Court’s decision in Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159, is one of the most cited case in the immigration context for setting forth the test for when a mandamus order will be given. There, Justice Snider stated: The equitable remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a public legal duty that a public authority refuses or neglects to carry out when called upon to do so. Mandamus can be used to control procedural delays (Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 at para. 149). The test for mandamus is set out in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 F.C. 742 (C.A.), aff’d [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100 (and, more recently, discussed in the immigration context in Dragan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 4 F.C. 189 (T.D.), aff’d [2003] F.C.J. No. 813, 2003 FCA 233,). The eight factors are: (i) There must be a public legal duty to act; (ii) The duty must be owed to the Applicants; (iii) … Read More
Asking the Embassy to Re-Consider an Application
Once a decision has been rendered in relation to an application for a humanitarian and compassionate exemption, is the ability of the decision-maker to reopen or reconsider the application on the basis of further evidence provided by an applicant limited by the doctrine of functus officio?