Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “IRPR“) states that a work permit application must be refused if an officer determines that the offer of employment is not genuine.
Section 200(5) of the IRPR states that in order to determine whether an offer of employment is genuine an officer should consider (a) whether the offer is made by an employer that is actively engaged in the business in respect of which the offer is made, (b) whether the offer is consistent with the reasonable needs of the employer, (c) whether the terms of the offer are terms that the employer is reasonably able to fulfill, and (d) the past compliance of the employer with federal or provincial laws that regulate employment.
Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC“) guidelines contain extensive instructions to officers on assessing the genuineness of the offer of employment on a work permit application.
In order to demonstrate that an employer is actively engaged in the business an employer must do all of the following:
- have an operating business;
- provide either a good or a service; and
- have a physical work location in Canada where the temporary worker will work.
The following are some red flags that can trigger an in-depth assessment of whether a company is actively engaged in the business.
- the business information in the offer of employment raises concerns with respect to the organization’s active engagement in a business (such as being less than 1 year old);
- there is negative publicly available information regarding the organization; and
- previous work permit applications were refused because officers had concerns about whether an employer was actively engaged in the business.
Regulation 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPR“) state that:
4. (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership
(a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; or
(b) is not genuine.
There has been developing jurisprudence on the disjunctive nature of IRPR r. 4(1), including a recent Federal Court certified question on whether IRPR 4(1)(a) is ultra vires the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA“), which provides that:
The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are to see that families are reunited in Canada.Read more ›
The Federal Court has released a decision which seems to suggest that immigration officers can analyse whether a marriage is “one-sided” for the purpose of determining whether a marriage is not genuine or whether it was entered into for immigration purposes. Although Dalumay v. Canada, 2012 FC 1179 is not particularly ground-breaking, it contains some useful paragraphs reminding individuals what immigration officers are analysing when they process sponsorship applications.
Regulation 4 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that a relationship will be considered bad faith (and a sponsorship application will be rejected) if the relationship was entered into primarily for the purposes of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act or is not genuine. As previously noted on this blog, Regulation 4 was amended in 2010, with the word “or” replacing “and” before the phrase “is not genuine.”
In Keo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), 2011 FC 1456, the Federal Court described the implication of the 2010 change as being that:
The amendment made to section 4 of the Regulations is not cosmetic in nature; the use of the word “or” in the English version and of the words “selon le cas” in the French version are very clear: if either of the two elements (genuineness of marriage and intention of the parties) is not met, the exclusion set out in the new subsection 4(1) of the Regulations applies.
A marriage might have been entered into in accordance with all of the statutory formalities, but, nonetheless, the visa officer or the panel may refuse to recognize [it] if they find that the marriage did not occur in “good faith”,Read more ›
Fresh off his efforts to crack down on crooked consultants, and having just introduced legislation to deter “bogus refugees,” Jason Kenney, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, is now focusing his scopes on deterring sham marriages. He has made (or is in the process of making) two significant changes to Canada’s spousal-sponsorship program. While both of his reforms will have its critics, the changes are likely to have the overwhelming support of the Canadian public, and continue the Conservative government’s trend of harmonizingCanada’s immigration system with other Western democracies.
The first change is a five-year sponsorship bar for recently sponsored spouses. A previously-sponsored spouse will now be barred from sponsoring a new spouse or partner for the first five years that the previously sponsored spouse is a permanent resident. The government’s objective is to prevent an individual who has been sponsored from divorcing the sponsor and shortly thereafter getting married and sponsoring someone else.
This change took affect on March 2, 2012. If you were in the process of preparing a spousal-sponsorship application, and this change applies to you, then I’m sorry toinform you that there was no grace period. You will (likely) have to wait until you have been in Canadafor five-years before you can sponsor your spouse.
The second change is the introduction of conditional residency for certain spouses. Spouses or common-law or conjugal partners who are in a relationship of two years or less with their sponsor will soon be subject to a period of conditional permanent residence. The condition would require the sponsored spouse or partner to cohabit in a conjugal relationship with their sponsor for a period of two years following the acquisition of permanent residence status. If this condition is not met, then the permanent resident and his/her dependents will lose their status inCanada,Read more ›