Determining Whether the Authorities Have Described the Applicant in the MIs

/ / Published in 2015

The Process for Determining Whether the Authorities Have Described the Applicant in the Ministerial Instructions (MIs)

Situations could arise where the officers come across applications where the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) apply to the type of application submitted by the applicant. In this scenario, the officers would need to assess whether the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) also describe the applicants or not.

Officers would need to note that the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) will typically describe applicants, and in the case of applications for permanent residence, any accompanying family members from a visa required country, if they meet any of the following criteria. As such, the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) would describe applicants and any accompanying family members:

  • If they have resided in, travelled to or transited through an Ebola Affected Country (EAC) within the three months prior to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) receiving the application, as:
    • Permanent resident visa applicants outside Canada or,
    • Temporary resident visa applicants
  • If they intend to travel to or transit through an Ebola Affected Country (EAC) in the future as a temporary resident visa applicant or,
  • If they have resided in, travelled to or transited through an Ebola Affected Country (EAC) within the three months prior to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) making a final decision, as permanent resident visa applicants outside Canada

Therefore, the officers would need to assess whether the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) describe the applicants. For this, they would need to examine:

  • The applicant’s address history
  • The applicant’s work history
  • The applicant’s passport and,
  • Any other information provided on the application

In addition, the officers would also need to conduct a check of electronic immigration systems. This would include systems like the Global Case Management System (GCMS) etc.

Note:

  • The World Health Organization (WHO) has deemed that Guinea is a country that has a widespread and persistent (or intense) transmission of the Ebola virus disease
  • Based on this fact, the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) considers Guinea to be an Ebola Affected Country (EAC)
  • This information is accurate at the time of publication of this OB

The Process by which Officers Would Need to Calculate the Three-Month Period

As mentioned before, the officers would need to assess whether the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) describe the applicant or not. For this, they would need to calculate the three-month period for each applicant. To do this, they would need to count three months back from the last day in the three-month period.

For example:

  • If the officers receive an application on October 30, 2014, then the three-month period commences on July 30, 3014
  • If the officer is making a decision on January 10, 2015, then the three-month period commences on October 10, 2014

The Standard of Proof in Assessing Travel History

Officers would typically require evidence that satisfies them that on the balance of probabilities, the relevant criteria apply to the applicant, thereby confirming that the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) accurately describe the applicant. Such direct evidence of the relevant facts that officers could use includes (but is not limited to):

  • Passport stamps from an Ebola Affected Country (EAC)
  • Plane tickets or travel itineraries to or from an Ebola Affected Country (EAC) or,
  • Client statements of actual travel (or of the intent to travel) to an Ebola Affected Country (EAC)

In most cases, the officers would need to make their decisions based on the information provided by the applicant. As such, in most cases, the officers would not need to:

  • Seek additional information from the applicant or,
  • Contact the applicant for confirming that the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) describe the applicant

Officers would need to continue processing the application according to the usual procedures if they find that the application does not indicate that the applicant meets the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) criteria listed above.

Situations could arise where officers come across evidence that gives them reasonable grounds for believing that the Ministerial Instructions (MIs) describe the applicant perfectly. In this scenario, the officers would need to follow up with the client by sending them letter C.

Moreover, the officers would need to consider the prospects of seeking additional information in certain situations. To understand the situations when the authorities recommend a follow-up, officers would need to read the relevant section on TRV applicants.

Related links:

Source: Citizenship and Immigration


Tagged under: ,