Last week, the American public television channel PBS presented a wide-ranging show dedicated to sensational advances in information systems in recent years, which now have not only the ability to store huge amounts of data, but also to independently analyze them and make predictions on this basis. Just a few days before, in Bucharest, Mr. Brad Smith, President of Microsoft defined Artificial Intelligence as “a computerized system that can learn from experiences (of some games, for example) or data, by identifying patterns in the data with which it is fed and thus making decisions.”  He stressed that the last decade has marked an important qualitative leap, namely the endowment of computers with the ability to understand the world and, as such, to transform it.

This progress was made possible by the massive increase in computing power, by the emergence of the “cloud” which made it possible to manage this computing power (thus eliminating the need for each of us to build our own server and data center at considerable expenses), as well as through the explosion of digital data, which means that we will inaugurate 2020 with 25 times more data than in 2010.

There is talk today about the revolution that will be sparked by the next move to the G5 networks that will create a world in which our fridge communicates with the oven and dishwasher, but also with the library, to transmit information to Amazon’s “Alexa” or to Siri, from where they are directed to the grocery store, or the bookstore, as well as to the bank for making payments, with the consequence that our entire household becomes accessible to the suppliers, thus orienting their marketing policy, but exposing us at the same time to a massive interference in our personal life, even if it starts from the best intentions, such as sending messages designed to rationalize our diet.

This is not science fiction, but the image of radical transformations that will occur in the immediate future. And artificial intelligence (AI) has already penetrated, often unnoticed, not only in the private sector, but also in the structure and activity of officials in different fields. Some countries are very advanced in this regard, such as Estonia, which has implemented a computer program that replaces the judge in the files that are suitable for standardization (in the opinion of the authorities of that country), in particular the litigation regarding claims under seven thousand euros. . Also Estonia is the country that has fully computerized the issuing of identity documents, the voting system and the tax field, thus reducing by 80% the personnel required in the past for these operations

Of course, Canada couldn’t let being left behind.  In his presentation at the recent National Conference of CAPIC (Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants) Mr.  Mario Bellissimo, a Toronto based Barrister and Solicitor,  has outlined with deep analytical spirit not only the framework of the  changes made by IRCC (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada) since 2014, but also their legal and general human consequences, voicing legitimate concerns and providing possible solutions to avoid depersonalization of the Immigration system. With the kind permission of the author, I will continue to reproduce, within the limits of the available space, the main ideas of his presentation, with special reference to the effects of AI on some fundamental aspects of the selection process.   Following his line of thinking,  we will briefly examine how the introduction of AI / ML in the field of immigration can lead to: 1) the loss of discretion in the assessment of individual cases; 2) undermining the principle of “procedural fairness”; 3) the potential perpetuation of past prejudices and discrimination and 4) lack of transparency.

(1) The risk of eliminating human factor intervention in the assessment of individual situations was highlighted by Dr. Vic Satzewich from McMaster University, in the only academic study devoted to the IRCC decision-making process, which highlighted the major importance of human intervention in “implementing the government policy ” that involves not only observing general rules, but also taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. Developing this idea, Mr.  Bellissimo has been wondering to what extent it is acceptable to make room for artificial intelligence: to entrust it with a supporting role, or even the sorting of information, or to allow AI to make decisions all by itself? To give an answer, he used an example in the field of sponsoring spouses, arguing that a negative decision taken by the AI ​​based on the data previously collected in the situation of candidates with multiple divorces , may be incorrect in light of the individual circumstances of a case in which all those divorces are the result of abusive behavior of the former spouses. Thus, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, for example, that a person suffering from a condition that would impose high costs of medical care cannot be declared medically inadmissible, if all the individual circumstances that define his/her situation are not taken into account. The question is: can AI comply with this directive, no matter how rich the amount of previous data it was supplied with?

I would add another situation that seems to me to be significant: IRPA, the Canadian Immigration Act (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) provides the possibility for officials in charge of selecting economic immigrants to approve an applicant even if he/she does not accumulate the required minimum score, if officer considers that they still have real chances of to become successfully established in Canada. In the past, this provision was quite frequently applied by the immigration officers conducting the selection interviews, as a result of studying the file, but also and mainly further to their direct interaction  with the applicant. Since the Express Entry system initiated the introduction of AI technology, I have not heard of such cases, although I am convinced that many candidates would have deserved it.

(2) The risk that the predictive analysis will affect the procedural fairness is obvious if we take into account the fact that the principle of “procedural fairness”, which is the basis of all common-law systems (including the Canadian one), requires that every individual who is the subject of an administrative procedure ( including the selection of immigrants) to have the opportunity to present their case completely and correctly, and the decisions that affect it be the result of a fair, impartial and open evaluation process.

The question that arises is whether the introduction of artificial intelligence can, for example, supplement the obligation of the immigration officials to inform the candidates not only about the doubts that trouble them, but also about the mechanism that generated these doubts. It is hard to believe that predictive analysis based on previous data and experiences, which are biased by the mere way they were set up, can satisfy these requirements that continue to be absolutely mandatory in light of the constant practice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Summoning the famous decision in the Baker case, Mr. Bellissimo points out that the entire decision-making process will be upset by this biased configuration, even if the final decision is made by an official and not by a machine.

It is even more difficult to believe that the AI ​​will be able to satisfy the requirement to explain to the person in question the motivation behind the decision, which in the end affects the candidate’s possibility of attacking such a decision and ultimately empties of its full content the requirement for the applicants to participate themselves in the decision-making process, as established by the Federal Court in the case of El Maghraoui.  In Mr. Bellissimo’s opinion, this shortcoming will in the future be the main argument of those who will challenge the decisions taken by, or with the help of, artificial intelligence.

3) The risk of perpetuating the prejudices of the past is another possible consequence of the introduction of AI in the selection of immigrants, as long as by the very confession of the immigration authorities, the set of technological tools introduced by the IRCC is based on the machine learning technique aimed at analyzing the results of “thousands of past applications”. In other words, insofar as these previous results incorporate prejudices or discrimination contrary to current moral and legal standards, there is a risk of their reproduction in future decisions, unless corrections are operated by the human factor , which is not easy as long as the decision-making process remains opaque.

Canadian courts have faced such situations in areas other than immigration (such as criminal justice), but the potential risk of perpetuating past discrimination cannot be overlooked even in the field  of immigration, given the manner in which the instruments used by IRCC are built.  For example, if the decision-making process performed by AI is based on 1000 past decisions on temporary visa applications, the question arises whether the database thus constituted does not also encompasses those decisions that were later revised precisely because of the discrimination they contained.  Also, how can the AI ​​correct the database by eliminating decisions that, even if not challenged, contain discriminatory solutions?

Mister Bellissimo rightly suggests that it is to the advantage of immigration authorities to give up the secrecy with which the recourse to AI ​​/ MLs has been surrounded so far, and to involve the practitioners who can better identify the risk factors in this process.

(4) As is clear from the above, the lack of transparency is another major concern regarding the use of AI / ML technology. Little is known about the selection of information that IRCC introduces as part of the machine learning process, or about the manner and limits in which this information is shared with other entities. However, such issues should become of the public domain if it is really intended to ensure fair treatment of applicants. In Mr. Bellissimo’s opinion, in order to ensure the protection of the interests of all participants in the immigration process, the details of the implementation of the AI ​​should be submitted to Parliament’s approval.

The necessary conclusion is that the introduction of artificial intelligence is here to stay, but that this process should lead neither to the elimination of the human factor from the decision-making process, nor to the violation of the principles of the rule of law referred to above. This requires the collaboration of all stakeholders, starting with the immigration authorities, but without excluding the community of practitioners, socio-cultural organizations and each of us, Canadian citizens and residents who are all immigrants or immigrants’ descendants.




Immigration professionals are often asked by their clientele to invoke Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds (H&C) as the basis for successful applications for permanent residence. This is most often the case when it comes to sponsoring parents and is based on information from acquaintances that have obtained or heard from others that they have obtained a positive result from IRCC (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada).

The frequency of requests for sponsorship of parents is explained by the lately introduced caps, which  from year to year leave frustrated a proportion of about 80% of Canadians wishing to sponsor their parents, but unable to count among the 20% who have either won the lottery or were quicker to enter the information when (as this year) IRCC posted a form then withdrew it after four minutes. However, H&C grounds may be invoked not only in this matter, but also in any other permanent residence file, such as in the field of economic immigration or asylum seekers.

The optimism of those who rely on what they have learned from others is completely inadequate, because the humanitarian grounds are carefully assessed according to the specific details of each case. Therefore, even if two cases are almost similar, the officials in charge of examining the respective applications proceed to a thorough analysis of all the probative material in the file and can reach completely different decisions despite the apparent similarity of the respective situations.

The good news, however, is that in recent years the severity of the appreciation of H&C grounds has relaxed considerably as a result of the intervention of the judiciary in particular. The Federal and Supreme courts have taken a stand against the narrow interpretation that IRCC officials have given over the course years to Article 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which authorizes the Minister of Immigration to exempt an applicant for permanent residence from the application of criteria that would lead to the rejection of his file, when he (the Minister)  “is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected.”

This section of IRPA represents the only legal provision on which the entire scaffolding of indications and interpretations issued by IRCC after the coming into force of the IRPA was based and which have led to numerous refusals until the aforementioned intervention of the courts of justice. The explanation lies in the restrictive instructions issued by the IRCC through IP Guide 5 (currently withdrawn from circulation), which asked immigration officials not to accept a request based on H&C reasons unless they reach the firm conclusion that, otherwise, the candidate would suffer consequences defined by the expression “unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship”.

It should be noted that such an assessment benchmark is completely absent from the text of the law. This is what the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted in 2015 in resolving the dispute in Kanthasamy v. Canada MCI.  In essence, the Supreme Court decision states that IP Guide 5 does not contain mandatory rules, but descriptive elements for the use of officials, which are not exhaustive and cannot limit their freedom of appreciation.  In any case, according to the aforementioned decision, it is not necessary for the officer in charge with such applications to approve them only if all the three qualifications of IP 5 (unusual, undeserved and disproportionate) are met and be limited only to the assessment of the “risk” that would confront the applicant. I n contrast, immigration officials must assess in a “flexible” manner whether or not the circumstances of the file justify the application of Section 25 of IRPA, using not the standard “unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship”, but a criterion introduced since 1970 by the decision of the Federal Court in Chirwa v. Canada (MCI), namely the existence of circumstances “would excite in a reasonable [person] in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another”.

Following the intervention of the Supreme Court, the IRCC removed from its guides the phrase “unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship”, but replaced it with “extreme hardship”. On its official site, the IRCC continues to put in place a set of criteria that should guide its officials facing such demands, respectively: to what extent that person has integrated into Canadian society, his family ties, the best interests of any affected child and the consequences they would suffer in case of refusal.  In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court though, these criteria are neither exhaustive nor mandatory.

Essential in a request based on H&C grounds are the arguments relied upon by the applicant and the evidence administered to convince the IRCC that their application involves circumstances which “would excite in a reasonable [person] in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another”.

The judicial practice subsequent to the decision in Kanthasamy v. Canada further developed, mostly in favor of applicants for H&C grouns, the ideas and criteria established by the Supreme Court. Let us recall that, unlike most of the continental European law systems that many of us are familiar with, in Canada judges’ decisions have the power of “judicial precedents”, becoming mandatory not only for the parties who have tried, but for any other persons or governmental authorities facing similar situations. Therefore, immigration officials will be kept in the future to respect such judicial commands as: to consider not only the existence of hardship, but also humanitarian and compassionate considerations in the broad sense of the term (Marshall v. Canada, 2017); to avoid examining each aspect of the file in isolation, fragmented, instead of taking into account the unifying elements of the case (Mursalim v. Canada, 2018). In particular, the courts have set out detailed rules on how officials should assess the interests of children affected by the decision they will make, such as the emotional consequences, age and needs of the child, and the extent to which they will have the opportunity to satisfies them (Daugdaug v. Canada (MCI), 2018). The same Supreme Court decision in Kanthasamy v. Canada pointed out that due to the sensitivity of the child, circumstances that would not justify the application of H&C grounds for an adult, can nevertheless lead to a positive solution in the case of a child.

The IRCC is now urging officials to look at other issues, such as the level of dependence between the child and the person applying for H&C grounds, the impact on the education of the child, consequences related to the sex of the child, etc., and the officials with decision-making power understand now that these are exemplary enumerations, not mandatory instructions that limit their ability to appreciate the specificity of each situation. Therefore, the years that have elapsed since Kanthasamy v. Canada have marked a decline in the number of refusals, which doesn’t mean that anyone can invoke H&C grounds  and expect to see their application approved. The most important thing for those who are convinced that they have such H&C reasons is not to rely simply on the understanding and good will of the officials on whom the file will fall, but to prepare it with all the attention, presenting in extenso their arguments and producing as much evidence as possible: medical certificates, even psychiatric reports if needed, notarized statements from those affected and witnesses who know their situation, relevant photos, evidence of the material situation, verifiable information about the country where the person should return to  in case of refusal, even drawings made by the affected children. In the light of the above, a considerable impact on the evaluation of the case may have references to different judicial precedents applicable to their case[1].

Finally, it should be noted that not everyone can apply for humanitarian reasons. For example, those who enter Canada illegally are included in the so-called category of “designated foreign nationals” who are prohibited from invoking humanitarian and compassionate considerations for five years from entering Canada or from the date they were denied the refugee claim. It is interesting to note, however, that those who are the subject of a removal order for reasons other than illegal border crossing, are not stopped to invoke Section 25 of IRPA.

In conclusion, with little exceptions, the invocation of H&C grounds is within the reach of any applicant for permanent residence, but the approval of this approach depends decisively on the ability of the person concerned to present his/her situation exploiting all the elements that define its uniqueness. It is their task to highlight these elements, and not the Government official’s to discover them. However, the assessment of H&C grounds requires in my opinion the intervention of the human factor; that is, the discernment of a being in the flesh and bones is essential for the correct evaluation of the situations invoked by the applicants. In a future article we will examine the extent to which this component is currently threatened by the increasingly widespread introduction of artificial intelligence into decision-making processes taking place within the IRCC.

[1] It is significant in this sense that the IRCC itself suggests to its officials to carefully study (but very few do) all the precedents presented in this article, plus others, such as  Baker v. MCI, Legault v. MCI, MCI v. Hawthorne and Owusu v. MCI.


Coming soon: The College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants

Members of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) Approve
Transition to a College

September 19, 2019 – Members of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) have approved a motion authorizing ICCRC to apply to become a new self-regulatory organization, the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants.

In Spring 2019, federal legislation titled the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act (the “College Act”), received Royal assent, which provides a mechanism for ICCRC to be continued as the statutory professional self-regulatory body for Canadian immigration and citizenship consultants. Once proclaimed into force, this legislation allows ICCRC with member approval, to apply to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to become the new College.

The new College will have enhanced powers to provide professional oversight, enforcement, investigations and governance for citizenship and immigration consultants across Canada and abroad. These changes will allow for better protection of Canadians, newcomers and good-standing consultants.

ICCRC is the national self-regulatory body that promotes and protects the public interest by overseeing regulated immigration and citizenship consultants and international student advisors.

ICCRC’s federal mandate stems from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the Citizenship Act which require anyone providing Canadian immigration or citizenship advice or representation for a fee or other consideration to be a member in good standing of ICCRC, a Canadian law society or the Chambre des notaires du Québec.

Individuals providing Canadian immigration/citizenship services abroad are subject to Canadian law even if they reside outside of Canada.  In this respect, the new College, being governed by a federal status,  will possess larger powers than the provincial Canadian bar associations that can only take legal action against individuals living in Canada.








The IRCC (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada) is going to launch on June 18, 2019 two new pilot programs in support of foreign caregivers who wish to become permanent residents. Called “The Home Child Care Provider” and “Home Support Worker,” these programs will result in  work permits being issued to those who benefit from job offers and meet the criteria of a Canadian immigration program. The novelty lies in the fact that their permits will no longer be  employer-specific but rather occupation-specific, which will allow the holders to engage anywhere they get an offer for the job; as a consequence of this spectacular shift, those who want to hire internally through the new pilot programs will no longer need approval from the ESDC (Employment and Social Development Canada) in the form of a Labor Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) currently a major obstacle for most employers. In addition, family members of the holder of such a permit will also receive open work permits or study permits as the case may be. IRCC will soon publish new rules whereby those who have accumulated two years of activity in Canada through one of these pilot programs will get permanent residence with a minimum of formalities and reduced processing times. Specifically, the occupation-specific work permit is expected to be obtained within a maximum of 12 months, during which time the IRCC also checks the admissibility in principle of the permanent residence (PR) application, while the actual PR status will be granted to the holder and his / her family in up to 6 months from the time they submit proof that they have worked in Canada on the basis of that work permit. Meanwhile, candidates who have started their permanent residence applications under the old pilot programs will continue to benefit from the procedure in force at the time of the filing of their applications. Finally, the IRCC announced the extension for another three months starting on 8 July 2019 of  the provisions allowing the submission of permanent residence applications  by caregivers  who arrived in Canada after 2014 and were subject to regulations which would no longer allow them to reach this goal (see our February 2019 issue). Please note that for each of the two pilot programs launched on June 18, 2019, the IRCC has set an annual cap of 2,750 files, so time is essential if you want to benefit from them. Share



On May 31, 2019, IRCC (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada) announced a set of measures to improve the protection of vulnerable foreign workers and newcomers facing family abuses, as well as to help new immigrants  sponsor family members whom they did not initially declare.

1) Canadian mass media frequently report situations where work permit holders are victims of abuses committed by their employers, but hesitate to complain to the authorities for fear that they will lose their jobs. So far, this fear has been fully justified because most work permits are “employer-specific,” meaning they do not entitle the holder to engage elsewhere, creating a situation similar to serfdom. Abuses can be of a variety of types, starting with physical or verbal violence (especially for domestic staff) and ending with unjustified salary reduction or charging the employee with expenses that the law compels the employer to bear. Those who suffer such abuses have the alternative of finding another employer who has to go through a lengthy and costly procedure to get work offer validation through an Labor Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) which Employment Canada issues only after being satisfied that he/she has made sufficient efforts to hire a Canadian and failed; in short, in very few cases, the foreign worker can still work in Canada if he comes into conflict with the employer indicated on his work permit.

Starting June 4, 2019, holders of such work permits that are the target of abuse by the employer will be able to apply for an open work permit free of charge, which gives them the right to be hired by any employer. When such situations arise, employers found guilty may be sentenced to considerable fines and are included in a public list that prohibits them from  hiring other “foreign workers” in the future. Even under the current legislation, such sanctions has been applied to 160 employees found guilty. It remains to be seen whether the new provisions will not generate situations where the employer himself becomes the victim of pressure from the employees without committing any abuse, and if such a perspective will discourage or not the companies concerned from recruiting foreigners despite the current crisis of manpower in the Canadian economy.

2) Starting July 26, 2019, people in Canada who become victims of abuse by Canadian spouses or partners will be able to apply for and obtain temporary residence permits (TRPs) if they have not been able yet to obtain their permanent resident status. Such situations may arise when  people have entered Canada as visitors or students or foreign workers have formed a couple with Canadian residents who are either on the process of sponsoring them, or are simply indulging in a romantic relationship without any thought of a long-term relationship. It is important to note that the possession of a TRP should not be confused with the status of a simple visitor; as a general rule, such permits are released in exceptional circumstances to  medically or criminally inadmissible people, when the IRCC finds that there are compelling grounds for which they should be allowed to enter or remain in Canada.  The person who gets a TRP automatically receives not only the right to stay in Canada, but also medical coverage and the right to work. Such permits are usually issued for one year and are often prolonged for another year at the end of which the holder is entitled to claim permanent residence without any other condition (studies, linguistic test, etc.).

Simultaneously with the release of temporary permits, IRRC is launching another initiative to protect people who fall victim to conjugal violence in that it will accelerate the processing of applications for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds that have been filed by such persons. It is an important measure because such H&C applications, when no violence is invoked, are known for their lengthy processing time. It should be noted, however, that if for the release of a TRP, with all the collateral advantages described above, is enough to invoke and prove violence, in the case of H&C cases, this violence only leads to the acceleration of the processing, not to the approval of the application as such. In order to obtain this approval, the person concerned must prove that returning to his / her country of citizenship would expose them to considerable hardship, such as a risk to their own life due to poor health assistance national systems.

3) Finally, a very positive step is going to be the launch, starting on September 9, 2019, of a two-year pilot program, through which those who have already become permanent residents or Canadian citizens can sponsor their dependents that they failed to declare when they filed their own permanent residence applications. The reasons for such an omission can be of a wide variety and are particularly common with those who have requested and obtained refugee status. However, there may be other situations, such as the case of a former client of ours who did not declare his out of wed child when he immigrated with his legitimate wife; at that time, there was a need for strong argumentation and a lot of evidence to persuade the authorities to accept the sponsorship of the child, who later proved to be a brilliant valedictorian student.

The rationale for which such a ban still exists (for a few more months) lies in the Government’s fear that the dependant could be medically or criminally inadmissible, which would have led to the denial of permanent residence for the whole family. It seems that the IRCC has decided to reconsider this position and to take the view, at least for the next two years, that the benefits for Canada are greater in the long run than the above-mentioned risk.

What it does not result from the text of the IRCC communiqué is what will happen to those who did declare their dependents but they had not been medically examined. The question is legitimate, because the outcome is the same as for the unreported dependents. Such situations are extremely frequent and occur especially when the potential sponsor requested permanent residence after divorcing and the minor child was entrusted to the other parent (usually the mother) who refuses to let him/her undergo the medical examination. Our experience show that, in such cases, the child who grows to become an adult will never forgive this refusal and this episode will motivate her/him to try and emigrate on their own. We hope that these situations will also be embedded in the next pilot program.

In conclusion, we can count on accelerating measures that have a positive effect on the electorate’s mass as the parliamentary elections get closer. In fact, just two days after the communiqué commented on in this article, the IRCC launched a new initiative called “Rainbow Refugee Assistance Partnership” to facilitate private sponsorship of refugees belonging to the LGBTQ2 community.




Immigration Minister, Mr. Ahmed Hussen has just announced the immediate launch of two new five-year pilot programs that will allow those in the caregivers category to settle with their entire family in Canada if they receive a work permit and then file an application for permanent residence after working for two years on the basis of that permit.

These programs are designed to replace the current ones Caring for Children and Caring for People with High Medical Needs which cannot serve as a starting point for obtaining permanent residence except for the nurses who meet the very drastic criteria imposed by the Express Entry system. Other temporary foreign workers that are included in this second category, i.e. home support workers, do not meet the criteria of the Express Entry system because they occupy positions  Level C of the National Occupational Classification (NOC).

While waiting for the two new pilot programs to be launched, Minister Hussen announced the launch of an interim program starting March 4, 2019, whereby those currently in a situation where they cannot ask for permanent residence will have three months (so a very short interval) to prepare and submit applications for permanent residence based on “public policy” grounds. The conditions to be fulfilled by applicants are as follows:

1) Being in Canada on the basis of a valid work permit, or waiting for an extension.
2) Have at least 12 months of full-time experience (at least 30 hours per week) starting from November 30, 2014, either as a “home child provider” (as defined in NOC 4411, but with the exclusion of so-called “foster parents” ) or as a “home support worker” (as defined in NOC 4412, but excluding “hosekeepers”).
3) Present the results of an English or French test at least at the level of CLB 5 (beginner-advanced) at all four tested abilities. CLICK HERE to find out what this level means for the different tests that IRCC (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada) accepts.
4) Provide evidence of having a secondary school diploma in Canada or its equivalent confirmed by an IRCC-accredited institution (CLICK HERE to peruse their list).

As you can see, candidates who want to take advantage of these three months within which they can apply for permanent residence have to collect a lot of documents, not to mention that they must immediately enroll in a language test to pass within the short range available to them.

It goes without saying that such circumstances call for qualified professional assistance.
We will come back with details when we know more about the new pilot programs.Share



On January 11, 2019, IRCC (Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada) posted the rules that will govern this procedure that will allow 20,000 Canadians (permanent residents and citizens) to sponsor their parents and grandparents. Basically, unlike the previous intake process, in 2019 the Government will provide a first-in-first-served approach, but will maintain the on-line registration of the candidates’ interest to sponsor forms.

Please click on the link below to read the details:

Since the last year more than 80 thousand potential sponsors could not file their applications because they didn’t win the lottery, it is expected that all of them and perhaps many more will rush to file on-line their  interest to sponsor forms immediately after noon, on January 28, 2019.  We still don’t have any indication as to how will IRCC prevent the system from crashing, and, more importantly, how is it going to establish the order in which those forms have been filed when almost 100,000 candidates have clicked “submit” in the very same moment.Share



As we have already indicated a couple of months ago, the Trudeau government announced in August that it would be dropping a contentious lottery system in favour of quotas, and admit up to 20,500 parents and grandparents in 2019, selected on the basis of the order they registered their on-line declarations of intention.

For the last few years the critical moment when the potential Canadian sponsors were expected to act in order to be included in the IRCC annual quotas, was the first working day of January.  It is understandable then why everybody grew more and more frustrated seeing that the end of 2018 was closing and IRCC (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada ) gave no sign of posting the new instructions.

Finally, a spokesperson for IRCC said the department issued a social media post on the last day of 2018 saying that applications would be accepted again soon; this is how the tweet in question looks:

IRCC‏Verified account @CitImmCanada 31 Dec 2018

“We understand there is much excitement about the re-opening of the Parents and Grandparents Program. Please be advised that the program will be opening in late January, not on the 2nd, but rest assured we will give you advance notice before it opens.”

We encourage you to keep watching our site for news to be posted in the very near future.Share



During the last week of August 2018, MIDI (Quebec Ministry of Immigration) organized a webinar  for authorized immigration representatives to explain how the new system works.

As we have already announced, the selection will be based on on-line declarations of interest, based on which MIDI will establish the list of candidates with the highest scores to be invited to submit their actual applications. So, no more “first come, first served” system: invitations to apply will get not those who expressed first their interest, but those who obtain the highest scores.

Therefore, the declarations of interest should contain all the information needed to calculate the points according to the Quebec “grille de selection”.  It goes without saying that the manner of completing the declaration will be decisive in determining the score. Therefore, the fact that MIDI has created a separate “space” for authorized representatives can provide a substantial advantage to those who benefit from the services of such a representative.

Regarding the actual selection system, it seems to have been inspired by both the federal Express Entry and the  Ontario’s Human Capital Priorities Stream. Unlike those systems though, the Quebec’s one does not impose the evaluation of the candidate’s degrees and diplomas by a Canadian institution, and will not use multiple point systems to consecutively assess the applicants. Those who prefer to do it by themselves will see however that it is not easy to correctly formulate  the answers to the numerous and sophisticated questions that the new Arrima portal poses, not to mention the technical difficulties raised by the uploading of the supporting documentation.

We are at your disposal for the free evaluation of your chances of success.Share

A more convenient way to validate permanent residence from within Canada thanks to pilot project

A more convenient way to validate permanent residence from within Canada thanks to pilot project

(from Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada)

Ottawa, March 19, 2018 — As part of our initiatives to improve client service, we will be testing an option for clients to have their permanent residence (PR) validated at an IRCC office without needing to make an appointment.

This pilot project benefits clients as it offers a more flexible and convenient landing process. Clients will not need to reach out to book an appointment in advance and will have the confidence of knowing they will be able to confirm their PR during their visit.

Between March 19 and April 20, 2018, IRCC will be emailing selected clients in the Montreal, Fredericton and Halifax areas who have received their Confirmation of PR document. The email will be from an address ending in “” and will list dates and times when clients can visit their local IRCC office to be confirmed as a PR.

Typically in order to validate your PR status you need to make an appointment at one of our offices near where you live in Canada. If you are not able to make an appointment, you may leave Canada and return through an international airport or a Canadian land border. When you arrive, an IRCC officer will interview you, and grant you entry into Canada based on the information in your visa.

Clients cannot request to be included in this pilot project. However, IRCC will determine if this landing process should be expanded to become part of the normal process for all clients based on the results of this pilot project.