Bulletins
|
|
|
Operational Bulletin 231 - September 1, 2010 - Update to the Designated Country/Territory List
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Bulletin 230 - September 1, 2010 - New LMO Exemption - Medical Residents and Medical Research Fellows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Bulletin 228 - August 17 - Visa Office Referred (VOR) and Joint Assistance Sponsorships (JAS) for Refugees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Bulletin 222 - Bill C-11 - Balanced Refugee Reform Act
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Bulletin 232 - August 10, 2010 - LCP - Revised In-Canada Medical Examination Procedures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPIC to Lead Consortium to Make a Bid
|
CAPIC to Lead Consortium to Make a Bid CAPIC is pleased to announce that our organization will lead a consortium of interested parties to make a formal bid to establish a new regulatory body for immigration consultants. The bid process is underway to replace the current regulatory body. The Government’s intention, as per the recent Gazette notice, is to appoint an organization that …has or will have the capacity to effectively regulate immigration consulting activities in the public interest, thereby enhancing public confidence in the immigration process and preserving the integrity of the immigration system. CAPIC will work with interested parties who support our vision for the profession to submit a viable, credible bid to establish the new regulator. Our vision, which we know most consultants share, is one of responsible and accountable self-regulation – it must be immigration consultants themselves who take the responsibility for ensuring the government’s objectives are met. To be clear, CAPIC is not interested in itself being the regulator. We are an education, lobbying and advocacy association for immigration consultants, and wish to remain so. Indeed, CAPIC does not believe that our profession is well-served by combining functions which are fundamentally different under the same roof. We are concerned about the conflicts of interest this can create. Rather, we believe that our profession is better served when the regulator works at arms length from other industry players like CAPIC who play a complementary role in terms of education, lobbying etc. We do, however, have much at stake in ensuring an effective regulator is in place. Background and Vision CAPIC has long supported the need for self-regulation; its roots go back to the predecessor groups (OPIC and AICC) who worked tirelessly to accomplish the fact that we are a regulated profession today. But it must be done properly. Many lessons have now been learned, which can and must be used to build an effective profession of the future that we are all proud to belong to. We are very encouraged to see that the selection factors announced in the Gazette reflect so much of CAPIC’s submission made on July 2nd, which was compiled after extensive input from a broad cross-section of the industry. The goal now is to ensure that as much of that advice as possible can be incorporated into the new regulatory body. All industry watchers know the system must contain checks and balances to ensure it works for its intended purposes. There must be transparency and accountability to members on all issues of concern to them, especially the finances. It is also essential to get the bad apples out quickly, and not admit them in the first place. And, most importantly, in order to instil public confidence, all complaints from the public, MPs and any sources must be handled swiftly and effectively. We believe we have considerable expertise that could be put to use in helping to design the new regulatory body along these lines. Our members and others have been encouraging CAPIC to become involved in the bid process. The Bid Process In view of the selection factors that CIC is seeking, which closely match our own vision, as well as the importance of the new regulator for our profession, combined with the encouragement we have received to put in a bid, CAPIC has made the decision to partner with other parties to make our vision for The Better Regulator a reality. It is a very exciting time. To this end, we have taken a number of steps: · Established a committee to lead this effort · Prepared a process to reach out to other parties · Hired a professional firm to help our consortium prepare the winning bid. As far as we know, no parties such as LSUC or the Federation of Law Societies are bidding. We are now in the process of discussions with potential partners and will announce more details as they become available. The deadline to submit the bid is December 29, 2010. Help Your Profession CIC has handed us a second chance. We are grateful for that, and need to seize the moment, which we are confident we can do with broad-based support and help. In the coming months, there will be many such opportunities for interested CCICs to become directly involved, and we will do our best to keep members apprised of how and when. In the meantime, you can communicate with “The Better Regulator” group at tbr.ideas@capic.ca. And now, more than ever, we want all immigration consultants to come on board and find a home with us. We are the democratic voice of the profession – a role made more important if CAPIC members are to take a greater role in the stewardship of the new profession that must earn public trust. Are you already a member? If not, it’s time to join! If you are, please talk to a friend to come on board too. CAPIC believes that all of us are smarter than some of us, and now is a time to join in a united effort to create a new beginning for us all: http://www.capic.ca/index.php?page=benefits_of_membership |
|
|
|
|
|
Why CAPIC lost CPD provider status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPIC - From the Bottom Up Bulletins - UPDATED August 23, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven reasons why CSIC must change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPIC Press Release - May 25, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motions for CSIC 2010 Annual Special Meeting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minister's response to CAPIC letter re regulation of immigration consultants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Ryan's response to CAPIC open letter dated February 4, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CICIP Minutes - English - November 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CICIP Minutes - French - November 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIC - Operational Bulletin 187, February 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service Canada - Directives for Assessing Labour Market Opinion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ontario Bill 210 - Briefing Note prepared by CARE coalition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Bulletin 167 - January 5, 2010
|
Purpose This operational bulletin provides instruction on how to transfer files in relation to in-Canada applications for permanent residence. Background File transfer procedures vary from one office to another. For this reason, instructions are needed in order to promote consistency. Files are transferred: - when an applicant informs CIC (in person or via the Call Centre) of a change in address, placing the file in another jurisdiction;
- when a file is referred to a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) office;
- when a file is referred to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA);
- when a file is referred from the Case Processing Centre in Vegreville (CPC-V) to a local office.
The responsibility centre ( RC) code should always reflect where the application is being processed. This information is necessary for reporting and evaluation purposes and will ensure that the correct office is credited with the decision taken on the application. Note: A jurisdiction may include more than one CIC office ( i.e. the Greater Toronto Area [ GTA] includes CIC Scarborough, CIC Etobicoke and CIC Mississauga.) Files are not transferred within the GTA. File transfers should not delay decision-making or processing. If there is sufficient information to make a stage 1 or stage 2 decision, either of these decisions should be made before a file is transferred. If there is any reason to transfer a file after making either of these decisions, the procedures outlined below should be followed. Procedure Call Centre Some applicants may call the CIC Call Centre informing them of a change of address or requesting a file transfer. The Call Centre agent will follow the procedures described in WebCart. If the applicant wishes to change their address and the Call Centre agent realizes the applicant is ready to be granted permanent residence, the agent will follow the procedures described in WebCart. Local offices and CPC-Vegreville As a general rule, when an applicant moves from one jurisdiction to another, the file moves with the applicant unless the officer has sufficient information on file to make the decision at either stage. When transferring a file, the officer will: - decide which office will receive the file;
- change the RC code to the receiving office in the FOSS APL screen (refer to WebCart for a list of RC codes);
- enter FOSS notes detailing the reasons for the transfer;
- transfer the paper file, in line with existing file transfer policies.
As a common practice, offices should always check to ensure the correct RC code appears on the APL screen when processing an application. Some applicants may attend a local CIC office to inform that they have moved to the area and request a file transfer. In these cases the new address should be recorded in FOSS. An email message should be sent to the CIC processing the applicant’s file, requesting the file be transferred to the new office. Although clients may request file transfers, CIC decides if one is necessary. When a file transfer is necessary, CIC also decides which office will receive the file. Files cannot be transferred to offices that are not responsible for the jurisdiction in which the client lives. Exceptions Some applicants may request that the application continue to be processed at the current CIC office, despite the fact they may reside in another jurisdiction. In this case, if the applicant is willing to travel in the event an interview becomes necessary, do not transfer the application. For further information on the procedures outlined in this operational bulletin, please contact your supervisor or your Regional Program Advisor ( RPA). RPAs may in turn contact Operational Management and Coordination Branch at OMC-GOC-Immigration@cic.gc.ca. |
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Bulletin 173 - January 8, 2010
|
Purpose The purpose of this operational bulletin is to clarify the requirement in the Ministerial Instructions ( MI) that Federal Skilled Worker ( FSW) applicants in the SW1 category must have one year of continuous full-time (or equivalent part-time) paid work experience in the last ten years in one or more of the occupations listed in the MI. This also clarifies the issue of breaks in continuity of employment for both SW1 and SW3 applicants. Background “Applications from skilled workers with evidence of experience [ Note 1 ] under one or more of the following National Occupation Classification ( NOC) categories…†Instruction Effective immediately, the requirement of having at least one year of continuous full-time or equivalent paid work experience in the last ten years in “one or more†NOC code in the MI means that an SW1 applicant may use any combination of full-time or part-time work experience in more than one eligible NOC category in the last 10 years in calculating their one year of continuous work experience, as long as their experience adds up to at least one year. For example, an SW1 applicant would be eligible under the MI if they had 7 months of full-time (or equivalent) work experience in NOC 6242 immediately followed by 10 months full-time (or equivalent) work experience in NOC 6241 in the last 10 years. Experience accumulated in each NOC counts towards calculating one year of continuous experience. It is not necessary for the NOCs to be in related occupations, as long as all NOCs are listed in the Ministerial Instructions. Previous instructions that an applicant cannot make up the one year of continuous full-time employment experience in a series of continuous periods of employment in different occupations that total one year are revoked (see OB 93 – question 5, OB 101 – questioon 5). Instructions on how to proceed with applications that were previously found ineligible for processing for this reason will be issued in a follow-up operational bulletin. Until instructions are issued, please direct your questions about how to handle such requests to your Regional Program Advisor. Break in continuity of employment (SW1 and SW3) For applicants in the SW1 category and temporary foreign workers in the SW3 category, anticipated short breaks between jobs are acceptable. For example, if an applicant is employed in one occupation for a 4 month contract and before the end of that contract, has secured other employment that will begin shortly after the end of the first contract, this break in continuity would be acceptable. For SW1 applicants the occupations must be one that is listed in the MI. For further information on the procedures outlined in this operational bulletin, please contact your supervisor or your Regional Program Advisor ( RPA). RPAs may in turn contact Operational Management and Coordination Branch at OMC-GOC-Immigration@cic.gc.ca. |
|
|
|
|
|
CBA - Guidelines For Practicing Ethically with New Information Technologies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Bulletin 170 December 30, 2009
|
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2009/ob170.asp Updated instructions IRPR subsection 200(3)(a) states that: An officer shall not issue a work permit to a foreign national if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national is unable to perform the work sought; Recent legal guidance obtained states that a refusal based on 200(3)(a) needs to be clearly based on the specific application and the situation in that particular workplace. Immigration officers should not limit their assessment of language, or other requirements to perform the work sought, solely to those described in the Labour Market Opinion (LMO). However, the language requirement stated in the LMO should be part of the officer’s assessment of the applicant’s ability to perform the specific work sought because it is the employer’s assessment on the language requirement(s) for the job. Please note that currently, Service Canada does not assess a job’s language requirements. Additionally, the officer can consider:
the specific work conditions and any arrangements the employer has made or has undertaken to make to accommodate the applicant’s limited ability in English or French and to address potential safety concerns if any; and
terms in the actual job offer, in addition to general requirements set out in the National Occupational Classification (NOC) description for the occupation. This is applied in assessing the extent to which weak official language skills could compromise the applicant’s “ability to perform the work sought” Current legal advice is that it is not appropriate for an officer to consider perceived challenges the applicant might face in interacting with the broader community, such as availing him/herself of community services, if this is not relevant to their job performance. Such a consideration is beyond the scope of the current legislation. The same principles respecting official language capability and the applicant’s ability to perform the work sought apply irrespective of the skill level of the intended occupation. There is no separate standard or criteria for applicants at NOC skill levels C or D. Applicant’s language ability can be assessed through an interview or official testing such as IELTS/TEF or in-house mission testing practice. In deciding to require proof of language ability, the officer’s notes should refer to the LMO requirements, working conditions as described in the job offer and NOC requirements for the specific occupation, in determining what precise level of language requirement is necessary to perform the work sought. System notes must clearly indicate the officer’s language assessment, and in the case of a refusal, clearly show a detailed analysis on how the applicant failed to satisfy the officer that he/she would be able to perform the work sought. |
|
|
|
|
|
Operational Bulletin 171
|
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2009/ob171.asp New Service As of December 19, 2009, in addition to off-campus work permits and study permits, applicants in Canada will be able to apply for work permits, visitor extensions, and post-graduate work permits electronically. This initiative eliminates the need for CIC staff to engage in data entry. It also ensures thatCICreceives complete applications as the applicant can only submit an e-Application when all the information is provided, supporting documents are scanned and attached and payment is made. Paper applications will continue to be available; however, clients should be encouraged to complete an e-Application where possible. The e-Channel includes four components: e-Application: This system allows applicants to complete, sign, pay, attach scanned documents and submit their application online in a secure manner. It also includes the e-Application View for CIC employees who are processing applications at CPC-Vegreville, local CIC offices, and Call Centre staff. Electronic Notification System (ENS): This system allows CIC, educational institutions participating in the Off-Campus Work Permit Program (OCWPP), and provinces/territories to exchange information regarding a student’s eligibility for the OCWPP within a secure online environment. Requests for OCWPP eligibility verification, transfers of student OCWPP eligibility, and the annual compliance report process can now be completed within ENS. MyCIC: This is an online user account on CIC’s Web site that contains the personal profile of temporary residents who are eligible to apply. Applicants can also receive information from CIC relating to their e-Applications through their MyCIC account. Partner Portal: The Partner Portal is a secure access point that links Designated Institutional Representatives at participating OCWPP schools and provincial/territorial representatives of the OCWPP to CIC. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lobby for a better Bill 210 - Protection of Foreign Workers in Ontario
|
December 4, 2009 Report on Bill 210 – Ontario legislation on protection of foreign workers CAPIC joined forces with a group of caregiver agencies operating in Ontario under the umbrella of CARE (Caregiver Advocacy, Rights and Education) to provide input on the proposed Bill 210 at a hearing before the Standing Committee held on December 2, 2009, at Queen's Park legislative building. The message delivered by the group was clear and concise: foreign workers must be given the opportunity to retain services of professionals – whether it's a professional development services provided by the caregiver agency or immigration services provided by members of CSIC or lawyers. The agencies' point of view was supported by many Ontario employers and caregivers. While all parties support implementation of rules to protect vulnerable foreign workers, the opinion on what such protection should look like varies. If approved as proposed, Bill 210 would prohibit agencies and immigration consultants and/or lawyers from charging any fees to the foreign worker. The entire burden of recruitment, professional development and immigration services would be carried by the Ontario employer. The consequences would be: 1) fewer responsible and trustworthy agencies would operate; 2) more underground agencies would prey on those who are supposed to be protected by the Bill; 3) authorized representatives would not take on caregivers' representation and more applicants would be refused at the visa office or later during processing of their permanent residence applications. The bill will affect all foreign workers, not only caregivers. It's application to other categories of foreign workers can be extended through regulations, without actually changing the legislation. While CAPIC absolutely agrees that foreign workers should not pay recruitment fees and these should be paid by the employer, the rights of authorized representatives to charge fees for immigration services must be preserved, as well as the right of foreign workers to use services that would enhance their chance to find a suitable position in Canada (professional development, English/French communication skills, specific knowledge and/or skills related to Canadian labour market). The fight is far from over. CAPIC will continue its lobbying activities with Ontario government. In order to do so, we need financial help from those whose livelihood may be at stake if Bill 210 is passed as formulated. No contribution is too small or too big – the strength is in numbers. If you can help, please fill out the contribution form on the next page and fax or email back to CAPIC office. Submissions to Standing CommitteeLCP.agency.services.pdfSelect Nannies follow-up.pdfCAPIC Bill 210 Presentation.pdfTax4Nanny.pdfShure Consulting Services - nannytax.ca.pdfContribution.pledge.pdfCARE LCP Agency Services Final.pdfCARE Brief Bill 210 Dec 2 Committee Final.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
Amendments for the Quebec Selection of Foreign Nationals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPIC Obtains Legal Opinions
|
1. Pre-registration Requirements Imposed on Members to Attend Members' Meeting (AGM or Special Meeting)
2. Additional Conditions on Running for Director CAPIC has heard from many members about recent decisions taken by the CSIC Board on the subject of how the By-laws apply to the above issues. We have therefore had our legal firm, Miller Thomson, research these issues and give us their professional opinions. We have posted their opinions on the CAPIC Discussion Board under the headings CAPIC DISCUSSIONS > CSIC, and we encourage you to read them. |
|
|
|
|
|
CSIC Complaint and Discipline Procedure
|
|
|
CSIC_C_and_D_Process_Final.doc
|
|
|
|
CSIC Complaints and Discipline process- Know your rights
|
|
|
CSIC_C_and_D_processfor_Posting_Final.doc
|
|
|
|
CSIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS REFUSE MOTIONS
|
With the distribution of the Agenda for the Annual General Meeting September 25th, it appears that the Board of Directors of CSIC has refused to allow all but one Motion to come forward to be discussed and voted on by the membership. The Motion would require applicants for CSIC membership to have current immigration experience. Members can view Motions submitted to the Board with the required number of signatures, at www.csicsccimembersmotions.ca. The Board did not see fit to allow members the opportunity to decide on issues raised in the Motions which included topics such as: - Terms of Directors service
- Initiatives to improve communication with CSIC staff and the Board
- Changes to how CPD points are delivered and earned
- Changes to the relationship between CMI and CSIC
- Rules for limiting the costs of mandatory CSIC programs and fees
- Changes to rules governing how members can exercise their right to free speech when criticizing the Regulator
- Rules governing the holding of AGMs
- Rules governing the holding of special meetings of membership if requested by a specified number of members in writing
And more. Allowing some or all of these Motions to be discussed at the AGM would have allowed members to agree or disagree, and only if 2/3rds of the members agreed with the Motion would it be accepted. The Board of Directors of CSIC has exercised their right according to the bylaws to refuse to have these Motions brought forward. Submitting Motions for changes to bylaws and policies of the Society is one of two ways that members of the Society have to affect how the Society operates. The second way is through voting for two Consultant Directors each year, in June. Individuals who submitted the Motions have reported that the letters from the CSIC Board explaining why the specific Motion was refused are email attachments that are password formatted so that they cannot be printed or saved. Members who wish to receive copies of the reasons for refusal are encouraged to email the member who proposed the motion directly. The email addresses are available at www.csicsccimembersmotions.ca. CSIC Board of Directors and Executives can be contacted through the CSIC web site at www.csic-scci.ca |
|
|
|
|
|
Open letter on CSIC complaint and application to quash
|
|
Download and view application
|
Notice of Application.pdf
|
|
