Once you have completed this and are working through the simulation questions to see why your answer is correct or incorrect, here are the references and analysis of each question to help you out on your study:
- Fido didn’t include them on his original PR application, so he cannot sponsor them at a later date. R117(9)(d)
- Ali’s question shows you that even though students have the right to work off campus while studying, they still need to demonstrate upon arrival to Canada that they have the finances (at that time) to pay for their tuition and expenses in Canada without working. R220
- She has been accepted as a refugee by another country, so there is no reason for her to apply for protection in Canada A101.(1) d)
- Augustin’s question was designed to test your knowledge of Inadmissibility under A34 in terms of espionage against Canada’s interests. Remember that inadmissibility touches on a lot of different areas of immigration and is absolutely essential to understand as the basis to seeing if a person would be able to come to Canada at all, regardless of any other factors pertaining to that person.
In this case, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Augustin will engage in espionage against Canada’s national defence. In inadmissibility, remember that the officer is determining his/her decision based on past, present and future activities.
In ENF 2 Section 6.2, we can this exact scenario ‘Paragraphs A34(1)(a), (b), (b.1), (c), (d), (e) and (f) describe people who are inadmissible to Canada for reasons of national security; this includes espionage, subversion by force, subversion, terrorism and violence. The provision includes all persons whom an officer has reasonable grounds to believe are engaging, will engage or have engaged in any one of the aforementioned activities.’
- This question shows you one of the main differences between the Federal Skilled Trades and other programs. While non-FST applicants get an ECA to verify their degrees, Federal Skilled Tradespersons have to get their certificates issued from the provincial authorities who certify workers in the trades. R87.2(3) (d) (i) and http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/trades/apply-who.asp
- Habibeh does not intend to become economically established in the North-West Territories. Instead, she only wants to merely supplement her income with some part-time, as needed work. OP 7b section 7.8
- Mark certainly meets the requirements of the Self-Employed program in terms of Experience. May 2012 to July 2013 is 14 months experience and October 2013 to June 2015 is 20 months, so he has two periods of 12 months of self-employed experience in an acceptable role for the Self-Employed program. However, the issue is with his intent and ability. Due to the fact that he would not self-support in his cultural activity in Canada, he does not meet the requirements of the Self-Employed program.
R88.(1) Self-Employed Person *He would not self-support in his cultural activity in Canada.
- The settlement plan is a mandatory requirement for the company, regardless of what the employer wants to do.http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/atlantic/needs.asp
- With a question like this, it is important to not get lost in the details and waste time. She needs 3 years in Canada within the last 5 years as a PR in order to qualify for citizenship. There is no mention of other citizenship requirements, such as language exam, citizenship test, taxes, etc., so we would not apply those to this question.
Let’s take a look at the amount of time she spent in Canada to prove that she has met the residency requirements for citizenship:
July 15 2013 to January 3rd 2014 = 172 days (approx 5.5 months)
May 15 2014 to October 18 2014 = 156 days (approx 5 months)
April 20 2015 to November 30 2017 = 954 days (2 years, 7 months)
Citizenship Act section 5.(1)
- ICCRC members have 15 days to respond to complaints. https://registration.iccrc-crcic.ca/admin/contentEngine/contentImages//ICCRC_ComplaintsProfessional_Standards_Process_QA__Final_February_3_2016EN.pdf page 5
- Are you getting good at these CRS points questions yet? Once you start working as an RCIC, this plays a pretty big part in what you do on a daily basis 😉
Right away in this question you can eliminate two answers – 1468 and 268.
1468 doesn’t exist since the maximum score is 1200 and 268 is impossible since he has a Qualifying Job Offer and a Provincial Nomination, which would be a 600 point boost (not 650 because 600 is the maximum amount of additional points in that area).
Now we’re left with 868 vs 823
Alright – let’s take a look at Joshro:
Qualifying Job Offer/ Provincial Nomination = 600
57 years old = 0
Bachelor Degree = 120
CELPIP 9 = CLB 9 = 31 x 2 = 62
CELPIP 8 = CLB 8 = 23 x 2 = 46
*Already at this point, we are at 828 points, which eliminates the option of 823. In a real exam, you’d mark 868 and move on, but let’s continue just for fun.
TEF = 117 Reading, 235 Speaking, 199 Listening, 178 Writing
TEF = CLB 3, CLB 5, CLB 5, CLB 3
TEF = 0, 1, 1, 0
Language CLB 8/8/9/9 + Education = 13
Language + 6 years NOC A experience = 25
- She doesn’t have 6 months of continuous employment with one contract, so she does not meet the requirements in the ‘experience’ area according to R112.(c) (ii)
- In working as an RCIC, the Member is only required to have one Client Account unless a client specifically asks (always in writing) for a separate Client Account. Client Account Regulation section 3.4
- Ishimwe’s question relates to Christian’s question (Simulation 2, Question 18) where being a member of a government that commits Crimes against Humanity leads to an inadmissibility under A35. The trick to remember with regard to this form of inadmissibility is that even if the government official did not ‘pull the trigger’ themselves or may have been extremely removed from the crimes, they were still part of the government, which would still make them inadmissible. A35(1)(b), R16(f), ENF 18 3.1, ENF 02 7.1
- This question is designed to test your knowledge of the confidentiality aspects of working as an RCIC. Essentially, confidentiality remains in perpetuity. An RCIC can never reveal confidential information about a client unless authorized to do so (in writing as always) or to help defend against an allegation that the RCIC (or staff) have committed an offence in any realm of law, including the ICCRC regulations, or if the RCIC needs to take a non-paying client to court. Code of Professional Ethics Art. 8.2
- Soco appears to be the perfect sponsor for the perfect family reunification applicant under R117.(1) (h). As long as she is not in violation of a previous sponsorship, there is no barrier for her to sponsor Renata.
- The officer has the right to ask for clarification on anything he assesses to be potentially in violation of the requirements for both the provincial aspects of te PNP and the federal. OP 7b section 7.6
- Nikita can apply for rehabilitation 5 years after the completed sentence. She finished parole in 2013, so 5 years later would be 2018. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5312ETOC.asp
- Amadeus’ question is not necessarily about his situation, but SUV requirements relating to funding in general. When a person gets the support of a designated organization, the financial requirements must reflect the support. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/eligibility/entities.asp
- Even though this may look like a citizenship question, Bibi’s scenario is designed to test your knowledge of residency requirements.
Let’s do the math on how long she’s stayed in Canada over the last 4 years. Feb 2012=2 weeks, May-Aug 2013= 3 months, May-Aug 2014= 3 months, May-Aug 2015= 3 months. Now in May 2016, she has 9.5 months of residency.
May 2016 to Feb 2017 = 9 months.
Even if she stays the entire 9 months, she will not be able to meet her residency requirement of 2 years. As a result of this, under A28(2)(b)(i), she will not be able to demonstrate at examination that she will be able to meet the residency obligation and will likely lose residency regardless of whether or not she has her PR card. A28(2)(b)(i)
- In this case, the RCIC is not an expert in the area of immigration law that the client wants to be represented in. This means that withdrawal is mandatory under the ICCRC Code of Professional Ethics Article 11.1.1(iv), however, when we dig a little deeper into the Code of Professional Ethics, we can see that under Article 5.3.1, we can see that the RCIC has one option left: he can work with another consultant who is competent in the area of immigration needed.
- PNPs can be tricky, especially with the large amount of information you might need to demonstrate knowledge of. We discuss techniques on how to address these types of questions in our seminar, but for this question, you will need to look at the requirements of the BC Strategic Projects Entrepreneur Program. In this program, there are the requirements of signing a performance agreement, investing a minimum of $500,000, purchasing/expanding a BC company and (the important one for this question) creating at least 3 new jobs for Canadians for each foreign key staff member proposed. In this case, Emilio plans on bringing 3 key staff members, but only plans on hiring 8 Canadian employees. https://www.welcomebc.ca/Immigrate-to-B-C/BC-PNP-Entrepreneur-Immigration/Strategic-Projects
- Canadian citizens must live in Canada when a sponsored spouse obtains PR status according to R130.(2)
- There aren’t any provincial nominee programs for protected persons. www.iti.gov.nt.ca/sites/default/files/northwestterritoriesnomineeprogramguidelines_0.pdf
- As both courses are under 6 months in length, she does not need a study permit. R188.(1) c)
- There aren’t any minimum net worth requirements in the Self-Employed program, although the applicant would have to prove that a lack of financial resources would not hinder his ability to become economically established in Canada in his profession. Candidates still need to meet the Proof of Funds requirements though. R88.(1), R102, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/self_employed/selection_factors.asp
- As we know, for a first step, in order to obtain Citizenship, a person needs to be in Canada for 3 of the last 5 years. While Veng certainly was in Canada for this required amount of time, he only has 8-20 months that actually count towards citizenship.
Here is the breakdown of his timeline:
2006-2009- in Canada as a permanent resident
2009-2015- in prison
2015 – 2017 – parole
2017 – August 2018 = 8(min)-20(max) months
Time spent in prison or on parole does not count towards citizenship purposes, so he definitely does not have the required amount of time spent in Canada to qualify as a Canadian citizen.
- Whether or not the RCIC is working for free, or even if it is just an initial consultation, there must always, always, always be a written agreement. Retainer Agreement Regulation section 4 iv
- Here is another PNP question that will force you to use your knowledge of the Saskatchewan programs. Before we even begin, we know that he is not a self-employed worker and that the Saskatchewan International Skilled Worker Program does not exist, so now we are only left with two options: the Saskatchewan Long Haul Truck Driver PNP and the Saskatchewan Existing Work Permit PNP. The Existing Work Permit option might be a tempting choice in Bruce’s case because he has the experience and the job offer, however, we have to remember that a long-haul truck driver is a NOC C position, which eliminates this option. Instead, we can see that the Log-Haul Truck Drivers PNP is the best option for us.
- Everyone must declare if they’ve ever received a removal order. R240.(1)
- R30(1) a)
- 12 months of on-the-job training does not qualify for any of the 2 years of work experience needed to qualify as a member of the Federal Skilled Trades Class. The work experience can only be counted after the person is qualified to work independently (ie. not as an intern or as part of a training session). R87.2(3)(b)
- A 63.(4)
- Family holds the processing priorities of the IRCC according to OP 2 section 5.6
- Section 6 http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/temp/work/international/nafta.asp
- The salary he receives is not funds received on behalf of a client for immigration services/fees, but is instead his regular salary that he receives from the company he works for. If the RCIC, working on behalf of an immigration company, signs a contract with a client, the funds received from that would go into the Client Account while the money earned at the end would likely go back into the company, not to the RCIC. Client Account Regulation section 3.3
- This question is pretty straightforward in testing your understanding of what agents can and cannot do in their scope as working for an RCIC. The most basic thing to remember in order to master this topic is that Agents should be taking orders from the RCIC and cannot give immigration advice. ICCRC ByLaws Section 1.1
- He is in Canada, so he has 15 days according to A72.(2)
- Funds obtained illegally cannot be used in the IIVC and might even lead to an A36 inadmissibility. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/iivc/eligibility.asp
- This person has the option of Portuguese citizenship, but he chose to not take it. This would be an example of ‘Asylum shopping,’ where he prefers to go to Canada, though he can obviously go to Portugal. With refugee questions, remember that claiming the need for protection in Canada (or outside) should always be a last resort option. If there are other options available, like going to Portugal, where he has status, then the person must take that other option. http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/references/LegJur/Pages/ProtectLifVie.aspx#n31
- In any economic immigration program, it is essential for the applicant to meet ALL of the requirements. In this case, Christian is missing the funding for the SUV, though he might qualify for other programs, though there are no viable options in the answers. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/index.asp
- Nothing tricky here. She worked as an Engineer (NOC A) for a year in Vancouver within the last years. There is no mention of language in the answers, so this is a straightforward question on whether or not she meets the experience requirements of the CEC, which she does. R87.1(2)
- One of the best parts about starting your business as an RCIC is that you can often work from home. However, working from home does not mean that you do not have to abide by the high standards of the ICCRC with regards to maintaining client property to a professional standard. In this case, although his house may be secure, having client information and documents stored in a way where pretty much anybody can walk up and take them is against the ICCRC Code of Professional Ethics Art. 8.3 and Client File Management Regulation section 6 i.
- Regardless of how long a person has been in Canada or if they’ve obtained citizenship, if they originally obtained their permanent residency through misrepresentation, their Canadian citizenship will be revoked (and then their PR) according to Citizenship Act S.10
- With Camilla’s experience in writing for a television program, this is irrelevant for our analysis of whether or not she would be an ideal candidate for the Self-Employed stream because she does not intend to pursue these activities in Canada. Instead, we need to focus on her textile work since this qualifies as an acceptable role for the SE and she meets the time requirements. In terms of intent and ability, she has demonstrated both. OP 8 section 11.3 and www5.hrsdc.gc.ca/NOC/English/NOC/2011/Occupations.aspx?val=5
- In this case, if the RCIC were to inform Julio about what he has heard about Jonesy, the RCIC would slander another RCIC based on rumours that he heard, which is in violation of the ICCRC Code of Professional Ethics Art. 4.2. Instead, the RCIC should follow the ICCRC Code of Professional Ethics Art. 4.1 by reporting Jonesy to the ICCRC.
- In analysing the requirements of the Ontario Corporate PNP, we can see that Misha has met all of the requirements of this program. http://www.ontarioimmigration.ca/en/pnp/OI_PNPCORPORATE.html
- When sponsoring a spouse with a dependent child, no LICO is needed. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5482Eguide.asp
- Understanding exceptions is one of the keys to passing the ICCRC Full Skills Exam!
Qualifying job offer is one of the areas that can be tricky since both the employers and potential employees need to meet certain criteria, such as LMIAs and demonstrating the ability to do the work. With the Federal Skilled Trades Program, a job offer may be made by two employers who would ‘split’ the employee as we can see in David’s example. R87.2(3) d) iv) and http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/offer.asp
- By voluntarily going back to the country where he is claiming is too dangerous for him to live in, he would be in violation of A108.(1) d)
- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/temp/work/international/nafta.asp –>
- Visiting exchange students who are required to return to their country must return to their country at the end of their studies and therefore Pedro cannot obtain the Post-Grad Work Permit needed to take the job offer. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/temp/students/work-off-campus.asp
- Like all immigration streams, the person must not be inadmissible. Even if someone applies and is the world’s best mechanical engineer (as Rick appears to be), if they are found inadmissible, they will not receive PR status, regardless of whether or not they’ve received an ITA. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/next_steps.asp
- The maximum amount of time that a person can be given a PGWP for is 3 years. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/temp/students/post-grad.asp
- By being granted a positive PRRA, Dtaa is not granted PR status as a protected person. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/prra.asp
- Caregivers are not allowed to work at more than one place unless it is clearly specified on the LMIA as a joint-partnership. In this case, it appears that Maria worked legally at Mrs. Jones’ place, and then worked at Mrs. Smith’s place without an LMIA, so this work is not counted towards her PR requirements. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/questions-answers-by-topic.asp?top=28
- Nothing too tricky here. With the limited information given, we can see that he has worked in Canada for 12 months in a NOC A position. R87.1(2)(a)
- This question is not about R117(1)(f)(iii) (sponsoring a grandchild), but it is specifically about the amount of money that would constitute excessive demand. As we can see in A38(1)(c), besides the danger to the public health/safety factors, medical inadmissibility also relates to the amount of money that would constitute the amount of money that the Canadian taxpayer would likely have to pay to cover the expenses of the foreign national. A38(1)(c), R1, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/medic/admiss/excessive.asp
- The topic of RISIAs is important to understand in the context of how they relate to RCICs. The ICCRC Regulations for RISIAs states that RISIAs can only help students in their immigration needs as it relates to temporary residence. http://iccrc-crcic.info/for-rcics-and-risias/ RISIA Regulations Section 6
- In order to immigrate under PNP through Express Entry, the applicant must meet the requirements of at least one of the FSW/FST/CEC programs. This would allow the candidate to move into the Pool of Qualified Candidates, which will then allow him to get selected by a province. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/provincial/
- BOC must be submitted within 15 days. Even though this person will obviously be rejected for misrepresentation, theoretically, he can still make a claim. http://www.irbcisr.gc.ca/Eng/RefClaDem/Pages/ClaDemGuide.aspx#_Toc340245792 Basis of Claim Form and Paperwork
- The Canadian Experience Class is unique in the language requirements needed as it splits between people who gained experience in NOC O/A jobs (they need CLB 7) and people who gained their experience in NOC B jobs (they need CLB 5). As we can see here, Louis has a NOC A job, so he would need a CLB 7. R87.1(2)(d)
- Marcia’s question shows us that inadmissibility plays a role long after a decision is made and residency or citizenship has been obtained. In this case, Marcia did not outright lie, but she withheld information, which you should view as the exact same as misrepresenting (as you can see in A40(1)(a) as well as throughout IRPA).
Even if Marcia had innocently forgotten to mention the arrest, she still withheld material facts and will have her PR status revoked in this scenario. A109(1)-(3)
- Pankaj does not have any experience in his intended economic activity in Canada, so won’t qualify for the Self-Employed stream. R88(1) Self-Employed Definition, OP 8 Section 11
- No this isn’t a typo, though it is a little tricky.As we’ve seen, an Invitation to Apply is valid for 90 days, so the completed application must be submitted during that time.In this case, July 6 – October 6 = 93 Days, which would be too late, making October 1 (87 Days) the more correct option. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-how.asp
- This question was designed to test your knowledge of inadmissibility under A37 and to understand the exception that exists for people who were trafficked. People who used the services of an organized crime syndicate or the services of a person engaged in these activities does not make the person (who was trafficked) inadmissible under this article, even though, technically, they engaged in people smuggling. A37(1)(b)
- In this case, the 3 year undertaking has passed, so Anita is free to sponsor another spouse/CL/CJ. Remember that the couple does not have to have been divorced for 3 years (Flavio, in this scenario). Instead, refer to the Test Day Data Booklet to see the 3 vs. 5 year rule. R117.(9)(b)
- Even in Express Entry, the candidate must meet the minimum requirements of CEC, FST or FSW, regardless of whether or not the person has a job offer. Even with a job offer, Emeril would have to prove that there aren’t any Canadian Citizens or Permanent Resident who could do the job and that Gino is the most talented applicant for this. Since working as a restaurant host is not a NOC O/A/B position, it will not be eligible as a valid job offer for sponsorship.
- R189 – the person must remain in Canada in order to get implied status. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/temp/visa/validity/implied.asp
- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-policy/menu-safethird.asp *He might be a 1E exclusion though, but not rejected under safe 3rd country agreement.
- This person was issued a removal order and is without status in Canada, so has no choice but to leave. R228.(1)(c)(iv)
- Una definitely does not meet the experience requirements of the Canadian Experience Class in this case as she only received a part time job offer and it’s not clear if she has even completed that contract. Kindly note that if she had worked 2 part time jobs for a year, she would meet the experience requirements of the CEC assuming both were NOC O/A/B. R87.1(2)(a)
- Nina’s question shows you that in terms of Criminal Inadmissibility, there is an exception to the inadmissibility when the person is sentenced as a minor. A36(3)(e)(iii) and http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/conviction.asp
- Changes cannot be reported to the IRB within 10 days of the hearing. http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/RefClaDem/Pages/ClaDemGuide.aspx Basis of Claim Form and Paperwork section
- Li’s question is pretty straightforward as well since he meets the requirements of the SUV quite easily. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/eligibility.asp
- Nearly every economic immigration program has a regulation about substituted evaluation where an officer can award or take away points depending on his views (that are concurred by another officer) that the candidate will/will not be able to successful become economically established in Canada regardless of what the points show. R76.(3)
- When a person signs an undertaking, they are committing to supporting that person and this undertaking is not cancelled in the event of a divorce as we can see in this question. According to R131, the sponsor would have to pay back the government for the money that Lalo took while still in the time-frame of the undertaking.
- The Parole Board of Canada awards pardons. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/conviction.asp
- Juan does not meet the experience requirements in terms of time because he needs two periods of 12 continuous months of experience within the last 5 years. He visits the RCIC on January 3rd 2015, so we need to see if he has the relevant experience from January 3rd 2010 to January 3rd 2015 (hypothetically assuming the RCICs can send all of the documents in that day). We can see he has one year at a world class level from 2012-2013 (after that first year…). The next round of experience is only 2 months at the Olympics, so he does not meet the experience requirements in terms of time. R88.(1) relevant experience
- Everybody loves Montreal, but Michelle and Barack are applying under a Federal immigration program which means that they have to have the intent to live anywhere in Canada outside of Quebec, although their experience in Quebec counts towards the CEC. R87.1(1)
- A job offer without an LMIA does not count for anything in this scenario. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/offer.asp
- Harpreet’s question is a tough one! First, it deals with residency requirements and ways for people to meet those requirements if they are living outside of Canada, so you are going to have to transform A28(2)(a)(i-v) into the scenario. As we saw in our lesson on Residency Requirements, you need to analyze two factors when the Permanent Resident is working outside of Canada – the business requirements and the job requirements. The company Harpreet works for in India meets these requirements under R61(1), but while the employment matches up to R61(3), when we dig a bit deeper and take a look at ENF 23 Section 6.5, we can see that the assignment must be temporary and the employee must be assigned to a temporary assignment in that country and will continue working for the employer in Canada after the assignment. As we saw in the scenario, Harpreet’s contract is permanent. A28(2), R61, ENF 23 section 6.5 *The outside assignment must be temporary.
- Under A99.(3), we can see that a person who is subject of a removal order cannot make a claim for refugee protection.
- In spite of the requirement that a temporary resident leave the country at the end of his/her status (A29(2)), under A30(1.2), if a foreign national meets the requirements, he/she may be granted permission to work in Canada. This means that you, as an RCIC, can help him in reaching his goal of becoming a permanent resident (most likely by helping him obtain his PGWP, then applying under a PNP or CEC/FSW, depending on his work experience at that point, but this is outside of the scope of the question).
- There is an exception to the LICO requirement of not being on government assistance for people who are on disability as we can see under R133.(1) k)
- Mistakes are never good news in your life as an RCIC, but in Mr. Bunny’s situation, the mistake was easily corrected, so there is no need to inform anyone unless it had some sort of impact on the application. If the mistake means that the candidate would likely be rejected, he would have to follow the procedures outlined in the Code of Professional Ethics Art. 13.2
- Misrepresentation leads to a 5-year exclusion. A40.(2)(a)
- In the SUV, up to 5 people can be included in the business proposal as long as each owns at least 10 percent of the company. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/start-up/eligibility.asp
- R186(o) allows for an exemption of the need for a work permit for foreign experts who are entering Canada to testify in court.
- Understanding Express Entry procedures is an important factor in passing your ICCRC Full Skills Exam but you will also use this system with your clients on a daily basis.
Express Entry is not first come, first served. Instead, it is almost like a job interview where the high-ranked candidate gets selected.
- Gurjeet’s question is another inadmissibility question referring to Misrepresentation under A40 and the fact that, regardless of the status obtained of the person and the amount of time, inadmissibility overrules all of this and withholding information is the same as giving fraudulent information. Citizenship Act 10.1 (1) and A40.(1)(a)