The Designated Assessment Organisations
Officers might come across applicants who list the following as the primary occupation in their applications:
- Specialist physician – NOC 3111 or,
- General practitioners and family physicians – NOC 3112 or,
- Pharmacist – NOC 3131
These individuals would need to submit an equivalency assessment (ECA report) issued by a designated professional body. At the time of publication, the authorities have specified the following designated professional bodies for equivalency assessments (ECA reports):
- Medical Council of Canada (MEC)
- Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada (PEBC)
Similarly, officers might come across applicants who list any other occupation as their primary occupation in their application. These individuals would need to submit an equivalency assessment (ECA report) as well. However, these individuals would need to obtain the equivalency assessment (ECA report) from any one of the following designated assessment organisations:
- Comparative Education Service (CES), University of Toronto
- International Credential Assessment Service of Canada (ICAS)
- World Education Services (WES)
The Process to Follow Regarding Concerns with Respect to the Authenticity of Foreign Educational Credentials
Situations could arise where officers have concerns about the authenticity of the applicant’s foreign educational credentials. In this scenario, they would need to:
- Communicate these concerns to the applicant and,
- Provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to those concerns and provide any additional information and / or documentation
This is in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.
In addition, the officers would need to contact the Centralised Intake Office (CIO) first. This would enable them to obtain access to the online verification system of the designated organisation or institution. Obtaining this access would further enable them to validate the source documents assessed for the purposes of issuing the equivalency assessment (ECA report).
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)
The Settlement Funds
It is worth noting that settlement funds do not form a part of the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) – refer to Appendix C. However, these funds do pertain to the program requirements specified for the following programs:
- The Federal Skilled Trades Program (FSTP) and,
- The Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP)
Therefore, the authorities would include them in the Minimum Eligibility Criteria (MEC) for Express Entry as well (refer to Appendix D).
A change in the applicant’s family circumstances might affect the applicant’s eligibility. However, this would typically depend on the settlement funds required by the program to which the applicant is applying.
For instance, consider that an applicant submits the electronic Application for Permanent Residence (e-APR) under the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP). Subsequently, the applicant informs Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) of the birth of a child in the family. In this scenario, the officer would need to re-assess the application for determining whether the applicant still meets the prescribed minimum settlement funds as specified by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).
Officers might come across situations where the applicant might not have the required settlement funds. In this scenario, they would have no other alternative but to refuse the application on program requirements.
Similarly, situations might arise where the applicant fails to declare a child in the electronic Application for Permanent Residence (e-APR). However, the applicant subsequently informs Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) of the existence of the child – in particular that the said child existed when the applicant submitted the electronic Application for Permanent Residence (e-APR). In this scenario, the officers would need to assess the application on A11.2.
Processing offices typically bear the responsibility of determining whether the applicants meet the program requirements for settlement funds. Therefore, they would need to apply the principles of procedural fairness in this regard.
Source: Citizenship and Immigration
The Exemption Given to A11.2 – Applicable for Candidates Who Have a Birthday After the Invitation to Apply (ITA)
Situations could arise where applicants have their birthdays after they receive the Invitations to Apply (ITAs), but before they submit their electronic Applications for Permanent Residence (e-APRs). This change in their ages could result in reducing their Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) scores.
Some individuals could find that their Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) scores have become the lowest scores in the draw. Another spin-off of this situation could be that it might result in the applicants no longer meeting the minimum requirements of the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP). As a result, these individuals might no longer meet the Minimum Eligibility Criteria (MEC) as well. Therefore, the officers would have no other alternative bit to refuse the applications based on A11.2.
In this scenario, the officers could consider applying the Public policy to exempt applicants for permanent residence from certain age-based requirements between invitation to apply and application (refer to Appendix F), based on A25.2. This policy is useful for granting exemptions in case of refusals based on A11.2. Officers would ideally use this when a change in age results in:
- The candidate no longer meeting the Minimum Eligibility Criteria (MEC) or,
- Reducing the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) points scores of the candidate below the lowest points score in the draw
This public policy also provides an exemption to applicants who receive refusals based on the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP) requirements for having birthdays after they receive the Invitations to Apply (ITAs), but before they submit their electronic Applications for Permanent Residence (e-APRs).
Source: Citizenship and Immigration