Archives for 1997

The contents of this newsletter may be redistributed in whole, with the express condition that no changes be made to the content within.
__________________________________________
2.1 Skilled Worker Historical Performance Statistics

Post/Months/Cases

Abidjian/37/1
Accra/0/0
Ankara/27/7
Bangkok/20/2
Beijing/1/3/22

Belgrade/0/0
Bogota/13/41
Bonn/13/47
Bucharest/8/3
Budapest/-/-

[Buenos Airies/Santiago]/16/3
[Buffalo APC/Detroit]/20/202
Cairo/16/9
Colombo/12/19
Damascus/19/41

Guatemala/0/0
Havana/0/0
Hong Kong/16/369
Islamabad/28/18
Kiev/0/0

Kingston/11/2
Lima/0/0
Lisbon/9/5
London/14/52
Los Angeles/10/93

Manila/11/13
Mexico/29/38
Moscow*/10/2
Nairobi/37/1
New Delhi/37/8

New York/12/87
Paris/15/46
Port of Spain/0/0
Port-au-Prince/0/0
Pretoria/12/38

Riyadh/17/81
Rome/12/14
Sao Paulo/5/3
Seattle/27/24
Seoul/13/142

Singapore/12/54
Sydney/13/5
Taipei/0/0
Tel Aviv/0/0
Tokyo/12/4

Vienna/10/17
Warsaw/0/0

Total/15/1513

__________________________________________
2.2 Spousal Sponsorship Historical Performance Statistics

Post/Months/Cases

Abidjian/8/10
Accra/15/31
Ankara/14/17
Bangkok/13/208
Beijing/14/139

Belgrade/9/24
Bogota/12/22
Bonn/8/30
Bucharest/6/30
Budapest/-/-

[Buenos Airies/Santiago]/17/4
[Buffalo APC/Detroit]/13/156
Cairo/11/23
Colombo/7/28
Damascus/10/171

Guatemala/9/30
Havana/8/20
Hong Kong/14/129
Islamabad/13/92
Kiev/8/1

Kingston/19/65
Lima/5/9
Lisbon/8/22
London/6/116
Los Angeles/14/34

Manila/9/347
Mexico/27/20
Moscow*/9/21
Nairobi/21/55
New Delhi/7/586

New York/12/78
Paris/11/101
Port of Spain/11/169
Port-au-Prince/22/117
Pretoria/8/12

Riyadh/20/35
Rome/14/22
Sao Paulo/7/5
Seattle/9/70
Seoul/13/10

Singapore/7/14
Sydney/10/57
Taipei/3/16
Tel Aviv/5/1
Tokyo/4/29

Vienna/5/16
Warsaw/7/49

Total/12/3234

__________________________________________
2.3 Margarosyan v. Canada

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

These reasons arise out of an application for judicial review of a decision of a visa officer wherein the visa officer refused the Applicant’s application for permanent residence in Canada. The decision is dated the 13th day of December, 1995.

The Applicant is a citizen of Turkey. She applied for an immigrant visa to Canada under the self-employed guidelines. At the heart of those guidelines is the definition “self-employed person” in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 which reads as follows:

“self-employed person” means an immigrant who intends and has the ability to establish or purchase a business in Canada that will create an employment opportunity for himself and will make a significant contribution to the economy or the cultural or artistic life of Canada;

The Applicant has received extensive training as a classical ballet dancer. At the time of her application for permission to come to Canada, she was teaching classical ballet in Istanbul, Turkey at the Istanbul University National Conservatoire, and was the principal dancer in the Cagdas Bale Groupe.

In the letter conveying the decision here under review, the visa officer wrote:

In my opinion, you do not meet this definition [the definition “self-employed person”] because you do not have the intention to establish your own school or dance company upon your arrival in Canada. You indicated clearly at the interview that your intention, if you go to Canada, is to first work for existing schools or companies and perhaps later on, start your own business. In addition, you do not appear to possess managerial experience in setting up and administering a private business.
[underlining added by me for emphasis]

The visa officer went on to consider the Applicant’s application as an independent applicant. He determined the then current occupational demand for ballet teachers in Canada to be zero. He was therefore obliged to reject the applicant under this category. Finally, he determined that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to warrant special consideration.

In her affidavit, the Applicant attested as follows:
…

7. I believe that upon my arrival in Canada I would be able to teach ballet to many different schools as the need for skilled classical ballet teachers is very high as outlined in the letters [found attached to her affidavit]. Through teaching at different schools I would be able to discover how Canadian ballet schools operate and thus have the ability and experience to open my own school. I believe that my qualifications and experience would enable me to open my own school and teach ballet.

In his affidavit that was before me, the visa officer attested in part as follows:

4. At the beginning of the interview, [the interview conducted by the visa officer with the Applicant and her husband] the Applicant showed her reference letters. She had many from dance companies and schools in different countries. We then spoke of her education and of her work experience. It seemed to me that she was a qualified and experienced ballet dancer and teacher. She was teaching in the conservatoire, however, she has never operated her own school, and did not have any experience in the management of a dance school.

5. When I asked the Applicant if she had inquired about the steps and the ways to open a dance school in Canada, she said she had not, but again she showed me letters from Canada which mention that the writers were prepared to help her find employment.

6. At this point, as I was not sure that the Applicant understood, I asked Tulay Nergiz, a locally-engaged employee, to assist as interpreter. Again we repeated the definition of the self-employed category. The Applicant’s spouse said that the consultant advised them to apply as self-employed. He stated further that, of course, like every one, they would like to establish their own business one day, but they have first to work for others in order to raise money. Accordingly, I very clearly asked if their plan was, when they go to Canada, to find work for the Applicant in dance companies or schools. The Applicant and her spouse replied in the affirmative.

In Ho v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), a case with significant features in common with this matter, Associate Chief Justice Jerome wrote:

It is important to bear in mind that Parliament’s intention in enacting the Immigration Act is to define Canada’s immigration policy both to Canadians and to those who wish to come here from abroad. Such a policy cannot exist without complex regulations, a good many of which appear to be restrictive in nature, but the policy should always be interpreted in positive terms. The purpose of the statute is to permit immigration, not prevent it, and it is the corresponding obligation of immigration officers to provide a thorough and fair assessment in compliance with the terms and the spirit of the legislation.

Associate Chief Justice Jerome repeated the paragraph just quoted in Yang v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), heard by him the same day as Ho, and also a case with a factual background similar to that in this matter.

In the paragraph quoted above from the visa officer’s decision letter, I have highlighted the words “…upon your arrival in Canada.” It is to be noted that those words do not appear in the definition “self-employed person” also quoted earlier in these reasons. If the Governor-in-Council had intended that the underlined words be read into the definition “self-employed person”, it would have been an easy matter to insert the words. The Governor-in-Council not having done so, against the “…obligation of immigration officers to provide a thorough and fair assessment in compliance with the terms and the spirit of the [Immigration Act]”, propounded by Associate Chief Justice Jerome, I conclude that it simply was not open to read in those words on the facts of this matter. So long as the Applicant’s intent was bona fide, I conclude that it was not necessary that her intent to establish a business in Canada relate to immediately upon her arrival in Canada or within any finite period following arrival in Canada. The visa officer did not question the bona fides of the Applicant’s intent. In the result, I conclude that the visa officer erred in law on the face of his decision.

Two subsidiary grounds for the visa officer’s decision appear from the quotation above. The visa officer implies that the Applicant’s intention to establish her own business is speculative when he writes “… and perhaps later on, start your own business.” I find nothing in the material that was before the visa officer to support a conclusion that the applicant’s intent was speculative. While the time at which the intent to establish her own business would be realized was undetermined, the material that was before the visa officer, and therefore before me, satisfies me that the Applicant’s intention was firm.

Finally, the visa officer expressed concern that the Applicant did “…not appear to possess managerial experience in setting up and administering a private business”. In Grube v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Mr. Justice MacKay dealt with an application for judicial review of a visa officer decision respecting an individual who sought to come to Canada as a self-employed ballet coach/choreographer. He wrote:

In my view, in the case before me the visa officer placed undue emphasis on the lack of past business experience as a self-employed person when assessing the application[s] of… Ms. Grube… . That experience, as a self-employed person, may well be a factor to be favourably considered when determining whether an applicant is likely to become successfully established as a self-employed person in Canada, but it is not the sole criterion to be considered, and it must be considered in light of the occupation sought to be undertaken in Canada. It may be of greater significance in relation to certain occupation than to others.

In the circumstances here, the visa officer stated… that he would not grant favourable consideration to Ms. Grube’s … application for permanent residence unless documentation related to past business records and to past experience as a self-employed person was provided. In my view, those statements indicate that the visa officer placed undue emphasis on past experience. Indeed, the lack of past experience was determinative of the decision…, as the visa officer indicated that it was only through adducing such evidence that [Ms. Grube] could succeed. As in Ho, this undue emphasis on past experience made it virtually impossible for the applicant[s] to succeed in [her] application[s].

I am satisfied that the same can be said on the facts of this matter. The Applicant’s qualifications and experience as a dancer and as a teacher of classical ballet were not in question. She adduced evidence before the visa officer from Canadian sources indicating “continuing need for persons with training such as [hers]” and that there are in Canada “…many opportunities for teaching professionals with [her] level of expertise.” I am prepared to assume that the level of business experience required to operate a ballet school in Canada would be substantially easier to acquire through observation or through employment of others than would be acquisition of the artistic and teaching skills possessed by the Applicant.

For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the visa officer erred in a reviewable manner in rejecting the Applicant’s application in the self-employed category. In the result, this application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the visa officer will be set aside and the matter will be referred back to the Respondent for reconsideration and redetermination by a different visa officer.

Neither counsel recommended certification of a question. No question will be certified.

This newsletter, edited by David Cohen, contains information pertinent to applicants for immigration to Canada in the various categories. The information contained herein is a compilation of recent postings on the misc.immigration.canada newsgroup, and appendices which will vary in content from issue to issue.

1.1 Absence Following Landing

Q1. I believe that one has nine months to enter Canada after receiving PR and then go out for a period of up to two years.

Answer1: This is not correct.

Q2. Is that as simple as it sounds or must one apply for other permits once in Canada?

Answer2: The expiration of landing documents is typically contingent on the expiration of medical examinations, one year after completion of such. Following landing, PRs are not allowed any specific “grace period” by which they may remain outside Canada, nor is there any specified time that one must remain within Canada.

Q. In case that I am absent from Canada for 5 months at the end of my second year of PR and also I am absent in the following first 5 months of my 3rd year, will I lose my PR status.

Answer: Not if you are able to demonstrate, in the event of the necessity of such, that you did not intend to abandon Canada as your place of permanent residence. Such demonstration is often in the form of evidence of ties maintained with Canada.

__________________________________________

1.2 Change/Amendment to Family Status

Q. My friend wants to know if he needs to send a separate application for his spouse if they are applying simultaneously. If so, can they send the applications together?

Answer: Although a separate application procedure should not be undergone, a completed form for the spouse, along with applicable fees and documents should be submitted.

Comment: Failure to adequately inform a visa office as to an amendment or other change in family status can be construed as misrepresentation at the time of landing, and can subsequently result in deportation proceedings. Applicants are often not advised, however, as to this important, yet seemingly small, aspect of immigration policy.

__________________________________________

1.3 Arranged Employment

Q. Is it easier to become a Canadian PR if you go first on working visa and then apply from inside for PR after a while?

Answer: If such experience enhances the points that you are eligible for, then there could be direct benefit to working in Canada prior to submission of a PR application. Such work experience may also be indirectly beneficial by demonstrating your employability in Canada. There is no requirement, however, that such arranged employment be obtained prior to applying.

Q1. Can anyone tell me what the exact procedure is to validate a job offer, what it takes, etc… ?

Answer1: Validation of a job offer entails a prospective employer’s ability to demonstrate that a significant effort had been made to hire a Canadian for a certain position, which proved unsuccessful. Demonstration of the qualities which make a non-immigrant suitable for such a position is generally necessary as well.

Comment: The procedure of obtaining such validation begins with a Canadian Employment Centre (Human Resources and Development Canada) within Canada. The major burden at the initiation of such a process is typically on the prospective employer, who must satisfy the officials as to the above mentioned circumstances.

__________________________________________

1.4 Transfers

Q1. I have been scheduled for an interview at the Canadian Consulate General in NYC in within the next two weeks. Based on your experience and estimate, do you think NYC will accept and approve my transfer request even within such a short time period?

Answer1: There would most likely be no difficulty in the transfer of the application at this point. If you choose to do so, NYC should be immediately informed that the interview will not be attended, and that a formal transfer request will follow. As the transfer request must be accompanied by the CAD$55 fee, it is unlikely that a fax indicating such will be acceptable.

Q2. If yes, do you think there may be still some potential negative influence on my application due to this?

Answer2: Following a transfer request, processing of your application will have to recommence from the beginning. Given that you have already been waiting at least 8-9 months for your interview, the additional delays will not likely be welcomed.

__________________________________________

1.5 Visitors

Q. My boyfriend is born in Greece. He is a citizen of Greece. He has been in the US for 7 years and is still waiting for his green card. What can we do to have him visit me in Montreal?

Answer: As a citizen of Greece, he is not required to obtain a passport visa to appear at a Canadian port of entry. All visitors, however, must satisfy the minimum requirements for admissibility as such.

Comment: The definition of a visitor precludes anyone who has the intention (or appears to have such in the immigration officer’s discretion) to remain within Canada permanently. Regardless of whether or not a visitor visa is required to appear at a port of entry, immigration officials must be satisfied with an individuals intentions as such. A visitor visa entitles a visitor to appear at a port of entry, as does exemption from the requirement of such.

__________________________________________

1.6 One “Other” Family Member

Q. Can a Permanent Resident of Canada sponsor his/ her brothers and sisters who are OVER 19 years of age and are married?

Answer: Although provisions exist by which a permanent resident may sponsor a sibling, the circumstances in which this may take place are not common. The sponsor would have to be unmarried, have no family (as defined by ‘assisted relative’ or ‘family class’) within Canada or applying for landing therein, and would have to be ineligible to sponsor a member of the Family Class.

__________________________________________

1.7 Selection Interview

Q1. Is the fact that I have been asked to attend a selection interview a good sign?

Answer1: All applicants who score a total of 60 points or greater, discounting personal suitability, are granted a selection interview with a visa officer. The fact that an interview was granted, in itself, is not necessarily an indicator as to the chances of an applicant succeeding in the process.

Q2. What kind of questions do they ask in the interview?

Answer2: Questions will generally focus on the establishment of the applicant’s qualifications under the Selection Criteria (i.e., establishment of work experience, education, etc.), and on the applicant’s personally suitability for immigration to Canada.

Comment: In as much as the fact that an interview is requested is not necessarily a positive sign, it is not necessarily a negative sign either. With more visa offices waiving interviews at increasing frequency, applicants at such offices who are requested to attend are often concerned as to why that may be the case. Although concern regarding qualifications can be a component, there are other reasons which may result in such (i.e., audit of the waiving policies, confusion arising from elements of the application form, risk management, chance, etc.).

Q. With the interview coming in two weeks, my wife and I started to worry about what kind of questions could be asked during the interview. In particular, what kind of question will be asked about jobs. Is it really important for interview? We wish we could find some but it is so hard to find Canadian job market information, no matter it is on the internet or the local newspapers.

Answer: Many visa offices are placing increasing importance on demonstration by applicants that an effort had been made to obtain employment, or to at least establish contacts and develop the skills required for job seeking in Canada. Although it is often very difficult to get a firm job offer from outside Canada, there are resources available by which an effort can be made.

__________________________________________

1.8 Accompanying Dependents

Q1. I will be married to my fiance(e) by the time of conclusion of my application. Should I indicate Engaged or Married on the application form? Can he/she be included?

Answer: Although a fiancee is not included within the typical definition of an accompanying dependent, she may be included at such time if the marriage will be concluded prior to the conclusion of the application. Indicate “engaged” under your marital status, and include specification as to when the marriage will take place in the supporting materials. Include the materials, forms, and fees which would apply for an accompanying spouse.

Q2. What Surname should she should use. She is going to change her name after the wedding.

Answer2: The accurate name should be entered until such time as the name is officially changed.

__________________________________________

1.9 Public Affairs Passport

Q. I am interested in immigration to CAN. It was told that the passport for public affairs of P.R. China is also valid for applying for PR. Is it true?

Answer: Current policy does not allow applicants to land without possession of a private/common passport.

Comment: Submission of an application with the Public Affairs Passport is not prohibited. A private passport would be required by the time of landing, however.

__________________________________________

1.10 CCPE Assessment

Q. As a computer professional, will I require CCPE assessment?

Answer: The procedure of informal assessment by the CCPE is intended to provide visas officers with an arbitrary measure of the employability of a professional engineer. This procedure does not typically apply to professions in the computing field (i.e., CCDO 2183-???).

Appendices Readers are reminded that the following statistics are historical, and do not necessarily reflect expected future performance of each respective office. Accurate determinations of such can only be made on an ongoing basis through continuous contact with a visa office.

In addition, all numbers are averages, and will therefore be affected by extremes at each end of the continuum of processing times at that office. The tables indicate the time in months that is required to process 80% of all final cases in each mentioned overseas immigration processing post for the second quarter of 1996. Indication is also given of the number of cases that had been finalized by that post. The data source is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, informal access request by Lexbase. Statistics for the business class, and for spousal sponsorships will be made available in the next edition of the Canada Immigration Newsletter.

__________________________________________

2.1 Skilled Worker Historical Performance Statistics

Visa Office/Months/Cases

Abidjian/15/0

Accra/0/0

Ankara/17/24

Bangkok/13/57

Beijing/14/209

Belgrade/15/91

Bogota/13/41

Bonn/13/138

Bucharest/10/178

Budapest/-/-

[Buenos Airies/Santiago]/11/4

[Buffalo APC/Detroit]/14/1975

Cairo/11/123

Colombo/9/398

Damascus/15/313

Guatemala/18/13

Havana/0/0

Hong Kong/12/v1253

Islamabad/19/149

Kiev/23/33

Kingston/10/16

Lima/10/7

Lisbon/9/41

London/14/644

Los Angeles/9/685

Manila/11/558

Mexico/19/96

Moscow*/19/176

Nairobi/22/26

New Delhi/11/346

New York/11/757

Paris/11/420

Port of Spain/11/39

Port-au-Prince/15/5

Pretoria/10/151

Riyadh/21/469

Rome/11/175

Sao Paulo/11/40

Seattle/17/355

Seoul/13/106

Singapore/12/466

Sydney/11/121

Taipei/19/3

Tel Aviv/21/16

Tokyo/11/59

Vienna/15/147

Warsaw/7/58

Total/13/10984

__________________________________________

2.2 Family Class Historical Performance Statistics

Visa Office/Months/Cases

Abidjian/31/10

Accra/22/58

Ankara/15/22

Bangkok/26/317

Beijing/13/450

Belgrade/8/49

Bogota/24/26

Bonn/12/37

Bucharest/6/79

Budapest/-/-

[Buenos Airies/Santiago]/22/4

[Buffalo APC/Detroit]/16/226

Cairo/19/34

Colombo/11/252

Damascus/20/135

Guatemala/11/92

Havana/17/5

Hong Kong/18/560

Islamabad/27/43

Kiev/30/9

Kingston/12/202

Lima/6/10

Lisbon/15/20

London/8/131

Los Angeles/17/55

Manila/17/728

Mexico/15/20

Moscow*/11/60

Nairobi/27/144

New Delhi/22/704

New York/12/74

Paris/15/67

Port of Spain/20/215

Port-au-Prince/21/172

Pretoria/13/38

Riyadh/24/27

Rome/15/29

Sao Paulo/10/19

Seattle/16/116

Seoul/26/10

Singapore/11/26

Sydney/11/40

Taipei/12/24

Tel Aviv/4/2

Tokyo/6/17

Vienna/13/24

Warsaw/7/82

Total/17/5464

2.1 Criminal Inadmissibility

Section 19 of the Immigration Act makes certain persons inadmissible for immigration to Canada due to criminality. These can be classified into eleven categories as follows:

A19(1)(c), A19(2)(a), A19(2)(b)(i) – persons convicted of offences within Canada under any Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum of ten years or more imprisonment; less than ten years imprisonment; or summary convictions (two or more separate offences, if seeking admission less than five year following the full completion of sentences).

A19(1)(C.1)(i), A19(2)(a.1)(i), A19(2)(b)(ii) – persons in which reasonable grounds exist to believe (* i.e., having an objective grounds for such, based on credible information) that a conviction or convictions for an offence or offences had occurred outside Canada. The offences must have an equivalent in Canada, punishable by Act of Parliament by a maximum of 10 years or more imprisonment, less than 10 years imprisonment, or summary conviction (two or more separate offences, if seeking admission less than five year following the full completion of sentences).

A19(1)(c.1)(ii), A19(2)(a.1)(ii) – persons in which reasonable grounds exist to believe* that an act or omission (an offence in the country in which it occurred) had been committed outside Canada, in which an equivalent offence exists within Canada which is punishable by Act of Parliament by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, or less than 10 years imprisonment. An act or omission leading to a charge that did not result in a conviction will not usually result in inadmissibility (except where conviction was avoided by legal technicality). A finding of guilt of an act or omission is not necessarily considered a conviction. Pending charges can be sufficient to allow inadmissibility.

A19(1)(c.2) – where reasonable grounds exist to believe* that an individual was or is a member of an organization that was or is involved in the commission of a pattern of indictable offences in Canada, or of acts or omissions outside of Canada which would be such an offence in Canada punishable under the Criminal Code (including knowledge that the organization is involved in such activity), the Narcotic Control Act or Part III or IV of the Food and Drug Act, unless the Minister is satisfied that the individual’s admission is not detrimental to the national interest.

A19(1)(d) – where reasonable grounds exist to believe that a person (i) will commit one ore more offences punishable by indictment under Act of Parliament, or (ii) will participate in a group pattern of criminal activity which is planned to held in the commission of an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament.

A19(2)(b)(iii) – where an applicant has been convicted in Canada of an offence punishable by summary conviction, and where reasonable grounds to believe* exist that the applicant had been convicted of one such offence outside Canada, and where five years has not passed since the full completion of all sentences.

In the evaluation of an equivalent Canadian offence, the following factors must be taken into consideration:

– the offence must exist under an Act of Parliament, and not exclusively in provincial or municipal legislation;
– statutes must be current at the time of the application;
– common elements, and not only nomenclature should exist, and consideration of the circumstances should be granted;
– political offences should be considered in consideration of the likelihood of such an offence being prosecuted within Canada;
– the severity of the offence, where several equivalencies exist, should be considered;

Admission cannot be issued to persons who committed or have been convicted of criminal acts which lead to criminal inadmissibility as outlined above. Approval of rehabilitation may be granted by the Minister or a suitable delegate under A19(1)(c.1) and A19(2)(a.1) where there exists sufficient demonstration that future unlawful activities are extremely unlikely. The result of a successful application for such is that an applicant would no longer be considered inadmissible for those specific those specific acts. An applicant is eligible for such an application where criminal activity occurred outside of Canada, and falls within the provisions of A19(1)(c.1)(ii), A19(2)(a.1)(i), or A19(2)(a.1)(ii).

Persons convicted of an offence within Canada must obtain a Pardon under the Criminal Records Act to overcome inadmissibility.

__________________________________________

2.2 1996 Immigration Forecast

The following numbers show the expected arrivals via immigration as tabled in the 1996 plan on November 1st of 1995, and the projected arrivals as of September 15th of this year.

1996 Plan(01/11/95)                 1996 Projection (15/09/96)

Skilled Worker                               66,500-73,000                               83,000-85,900

Business                                        18,000-20,000                              20,700-21,400

Spouses, Fiance(e)s, and Children 47,000-51,000                               38,000-39,500

Parents and Grandparents               31,000-34,700                               22,500-23,400

Other                                                            8,500                                         8,800

– Live-in Caregiver Program
– Special Categories
– Humanitarian and Compassionate
– Provincial/Territorial Nominees

Total Immigrant                                171,000-187,000                       173,000-179,000

1996 projected Immigrant Arrivals          Canada, Quebec, and other provinces

Other Provinces           Quebec           Canada

Total Family           51,900-54,300           8,600           60,500-62,900

Total Economic           93,730-97-330           9,970           103,700-107,330

Total Other **           7,700                      1,100                   8,800

Total Immigrant           153,330-159,330           19,670           173,000-179,000

** Includes members of the Live-in Caregiver Class, Special Categories, Provincial/Territorial Nominees, and those landed on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds.

__________________________________________

2.3 1997 Immigration Plan

On October 29th, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tabled the 1997 Immigration Plan in the House of Commons. The following is an excerpt of the News Release by the Citizenship and Immigration Department:

The Immigration Plan for 1997 sets 195,000 – 220,000 as the overall range of immigrants and refugees. The 1997 number includes 168,900 – 187,700 immigrants and 26,100 – 32,300 refugees. Within the immigrant category, 102,000 to 113,000 are in the economic class (including their dependents) and 58,400 to 66,200 are in the family class.

The immigration levels for 1997 represent a range that is consistent with the Strategic Framework that was announced in November 1994, following extensive consultations with Canadians. The Government remains committed to its election promise that “we should continue to target immigration levels of approximately one percent of the population each year… within the limit of our ability to absorb and settle immigrants.”

“The 1997 Immigration Plan is a tangible example of this government’s pro-immigration philosophy. This government — and the Canadians that it serves — recognizes the importance of promoting immigration as an instrument of positive social and economic development,” Madame Robillard said. “Yet we take very seriously our international commitment to respond to refugees and people in need: last year we met and even exceeded our refugee resettlement targets,” the Minister added.

The Minister also reported on the number of newcomers to Canada in 1996. Madame Robillard announced that by the end of this year, Canada will have welcomed just over 200,000 new immigrants and refugees which is within the range forecast in the 1996 Immigration Plan.

1997 IMMIGRATION PLAN

Immigrant Category

-Economic
Skilled Worker 82,000 – 90,000
Business 20,000 – 23,000

-Family
Spouses, Fiance(e)s and Children 35,000 – 40,000
Parents and Grandparents 23,400 – 26,200

-Other
Live-in Caregiver Program
Special Categories
Humanitarian and Compassionate
Provincial/Territorial Nominees 8,500

Total Immigrant 168,900 – 187,700

IMMIGRATION LEVELS, 1997 CANADA, QUEBEC* AND OTHER PROVINCES

Immigrant (all numbers in thousands)

Other Provinces                     Quebec                     Canada

Total Family                     50.4-58.2                              8                              58.4-66.2
Total Economic                    90.0-101.0                               12.0                               102.0-113.0
Total Other**                               8.5                               8,500
Total                               148.9-167.7                               20.0                               168.9-187.7

* The Immigration Act requires that the government’s annual immigration plan include separate numbers for provinces with selection powers. At this time, Quebec is the only province with this responsibility.

**Includes members of the Live-in Caregiver Class, Special Categories, Provincial/Territorial Nominees, and those landed on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds.

__________________________________________

2.4 Campbell, Cohen

1996 saw many achievements for Campbell, Cohen on the internet, and otherwise:

– According to the records of the DejaNews archive service, David Cohen was responsible for almost 2900 informative postings on the misc.immigration.canada newsgroup, making Campbell, Cohen, by far, the most substantial contributor. Over 90% of the contributions made, approximately 2610 posts, were responses to inquiries made by individuals seeking information regarding immigration to Canada. The remaining posts constituted the provision of continuously valuable information, updates to documents such as the Canadian Immigration FAQ, and informing readers how to obtain access to other informative information from our internet resources.

Those who wish to gain full access to the information posted to the above mentioned newsgroup by David Cohen should make use of the commercial newsgroup archives which are available.

These include:

DejaNews: www.dejanews.com
AltaVista: www.altavista.digital.com

These resources may be accessed from our own Web Site at:

http://www.cam.org/~dcohen/txt/usenet/

– Campbell, Cohen’s World Wide Web Site underwent major revisions early in the spring of 1996. These revisions constituted aesthetic changes, content changes, and technical changes – the latter made possible largely by the excellent work of the talented Misha D’yachkov.

– The Campbell, Cohen World Wide Web Site was named Canuck Site of the day in June of 1996. This award is granted to Canadian sites which display innovation in design and content. If you wish to vote for Campbell, Cohen for the Canuck Site of the Year for 1996, following the link from our home page to the voting page.

– Our World Wide Web Site was also conferred “5 Star Legal Site” status by a body presenting and rating legal Web Sites in Canada, and worldwide.

– Brahm Campbell, the other senior partner at Campbell, Cohen, won an impressive Supreme Court victory in late 1996. In a surprisingly quick judgment, Canada’s highest court awarded the case to Mr. Campbell’s client, re-instating a long held precedent in Canada.