See recent article here.

For more information on Temporary Migration, please click here.

The post Australia Changes to 457 Visas first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

EE was largely derived from New Zealand and Australia. A few years ago, 87% of applicants approved within the NZ Expression of Interest (EOI) program are onshore while only 13% are offshore.[2]  Onshore landings include applicants in possession of temporary migrant visas.  This number has since climbed to about 89%.[3]

In Australia, the 2013-2014 Migration Programme Report[4] lists the total number of landings at 190,000, 126,550 or 68% of which were in the economic class.  Over 50% of those landings were the result of Regional, State, or Territorial visas (similar in certain respects to the Canadian provincial nominee immigration programs) and the Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS).  In total, on shore immigration landings climbed to over 50% and in the ENS subclass 83.6% were on shore landings.

Canada, by comparison in the Report on Plans and Priorities 2014-2015[5], notes a target of 261,000 landings, 164,500 of which or 63% are to be in the economic class.  My estimation that the onshore or inland permanent resident immigration visas issues would likely not exceed 30%.  So it stood to reason, given the focus on Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs) in the EE roll out, its reliance on the Australian and NZ models and the noted streams for active recruitment, the federal government, provinces and employers like the Australian program, the focus would be onshore landings.

So those in Canada with experience, work and/or nominations are the bread and butter of this program.  This is likely not to change unless the new Government substantially changes the focus of the EE program.  Initially any shortfalls in inventory could likely be obtained from students on post graduate work permits but again this will likely be fleeting and the  focus will remain on in land applicants.  If the focus does not remain on inland applicants, than what?  Occupations?  Exploration of fused economic/family class categories?  Perhaps all of the above.

But as it stands, the EE program is built for employers and provinces and for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to drive the program and the inland ITAs will continue to heavily out number off shore invitations.  Only missteps in terms of issues I have commented upon extensively – transparency, respecting privacy rights, coordination with Employment and Skills Development Canada (ESDC), lack of innovative processing paradigms and the rule of law in administering the system – would prevent the flourishing inland program IRCC likely envisioned from the outset, unless of course that vision changes.

Fore more information on Express Entry, please click here.

(Sources)

The post Express Entry – Why People Should Not be Surprised first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

The program development, for example, focused a course for compliance field officers. This area, as well as detention services, had been identified as needing cultural change and skill development in order to change behaviour and supervision practices when dealing with clients.[8] Another goal of the college was to improve the performance of senior and middle managers.[9]

Also, at the time, plans were afoot to include cultural awareness training “culture, language and ethnicity as well as the responsibilities of compliance officers when engaging with clients of diverse backgrounds.”[10] A positive outcome of the college and bringing regionally based staff together for training had been interstate cooperation and coordination to the extent that two department state offices could run joint operations.  It appears the initiative was a success and they now have a graduate development program:

We are an innovative, high-profile global agency responsible for protecting Australia’s border, and managing the movement of people and goods across it.  The work we do supports the Australian Government to achieve:

• strong national security
• a strong economy
• a prosperous and cohesive society.

 Following the integration of the former Department of Immigration and Citizenship with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the new department has an expanded policy, service delivery and law enforcement role, which brings with it a unique opportunity to join an organisation that touches almost every part of Australian life.

…

The Graduate Development Programme is a 10 month programme designed to provide graduates with a range of work experiences within the Department.

Following selection and commencement with the Department, Graduates receive ongoing support from orientation and induction programmes to ongoing Learning and Development opportunities.[11]

This is an innovative idea that appears not only to enhance training for Australian officers but offer a fuller and richer experience and an in depth understanding across various agencies of the entire immigration and enforcement scheme.

In Canada, there are now officers that have worked exclusively for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) or the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC, unlike the experience up to the mid to late 2000s before the CBSA had solidified its operations where many officers performed shared roles. It would be interesting to further learn about IRCC and CBSA training and the potential benefit of a “Canadian” College of Immigration.

(Sources)

The post Should We Send Immigration Officers Back to School? first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.