It is worth highlighting that a declaration of ability and intent submitted without a supporting plan will not be sufficient for the authorities. This is because the absence of a supporting plan will make it hard for the officers to establish that an applicant or an applicant’s family member will not impose an excessive demand on Canadian health (i.e. outpatient medication) and social services.
This is why the authorities require that applicants submit a detailed, credible and viable plan to support their declarations of ability and intent. The quality of the mitigating plan is the most significant element for assessing ability and intent. Therefore, the plan would need to reflect the individual needs of the affected person.
As part of the medical opinion, the medical officer might have questioned the viability of the plan. This would certainly aid in assisting the immigration officer. But, it is the responsibility of the immigration officer to decide whether the questions are of concern. In order to assess the applicant’s ability and intent, the immigration officers might want to gather additional information from the applicant. For this, the officer might suggest that the applicant provide a letter with the relevant details. Alternatively, the officer might require that the applicant give an interview.
It is worth highlighting that the immigration officers could consider a variety of factors such as:
- If the incurring of expenses is unavoidable, is it likely that the applicant will have the financial ability for covering these expenses, bearing in mind the full period covered by the medical opinion
- Another aspect to consider would be whether people applying under the investor, entrepreneur or self-employed classes would still meet the definition of the class without this money
- Similarly, what is the applicant’s prospect of gaining employment?
- Will the proposed employment be able to cover the normal living expenses and the cost of the health (i.e. outpatient medication) and social services required?
- If the applicant intends to receive support from a family member, another individual or an organisation, what is the likelihood that this person or organisation would be able to provide free or cost reduced assistance for the period of time assessed
- How legitimate is this offer of resistance?
- Has the individual or organisation done this in the past?
- Can the qualifications and experience of the individual or organisation be confirmed?
- If the individual or organisation provides this service without accepting any remuneration, do they have the financial ability to do so?
- In case this information is not readily available in the file, the officer might need to request for additional information from the applicant
- At what point is the applicant in terms of planning
- If the applicant is outside Canada, has the applicant already made all the arrangements for the services to be delivered upon arrival?
- If the applicant is in Canada, has the applicant relied on publicly funded services in the past?
- How serious does the applicant appear to be with regard to this plan?
- Has the applicant relied on publicly funded services in the past in the country where the applicant resided
- Are publicly funded services available in the country where the applicant resides or resided?
- Are privately funded services available in the country where the applicant resides or resided?
In some situations, the immigration officer might not be satisfied. In this scenario, a consideration of all the circumstances of the case might indicate that a refusal is the best course of action. In this scenario, the officer might refuse the application for inadmissibility on health grounds. Thereafter, the officer would place detailed notes in the Global Case Management System (GCMS).
Similarly, situations could arise where the immigration officer is satisfied that the applicant or the applicant’s family will not cause an excessive demand on the health and social services in Canada. As such, the officer would need to enter a positive medical admissibility decision. Thereafter, the case would then proceed towards finalisation in accordance with the standard procedures. The declaration of ability and intent would continue to remain on file. Lastly, the officer would place detailed notes in the Global Case Management System (GCMS).
The Guidelines for Coding for Excessive Demand Cases Following a Favourable Procedural Fairness Outcome
In some cases, the applicant would be able to satisfy the visa or immigration officer that the applicant has the ability and intent to mitigate the cost of the required social services at the end of the process. In this scenario, the visa or immigration officer would need to change the excessive demand code (i.e. H9, T9 or E9) with a positive excessive demand code (i.e. H1, T1 or E1) in the Global Case Management System (GCMS). However, officers would need to ensure that the medical assessment code should remain unchanged i.e. M5.
In the Global Case Management System (GCMS), instead of placing a code ‘1’, the officers would need to select ‘Pass’ for the medical section on the visa or immigration officer side. This will not change any of the information on the medical evaluation.
It is worth highlighting that the diagnosis and required services remain valid – especially from a medical point of view. As a result, the inadmissibility on health grounds remains valid as well. Therefore, officers would need to ensure that they do not change the M5 assessment. Furthermore, it is worth highlighting that the admissibility of the applicant is based on the visa or immigration officer’s satisfactions levels about the fact that the applicant has provided sufficient information for overcoming the inadmissibility, but not for changing the initial medical opinion, which, under the circumstances, continues to remain valid.