"CIO is acting in a bias manner in the processing of its skilled worker applications and applying different standards of evaluation of skilled worker files. This is the precise definition of systemic discrimination and it has to stop immediately."
This part of Mr Mokhtari&#۳۹;s new letter to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Mr. Jason Kenney, clearly shows what is happening now in CIO and why taking a quick action is vital for everybody who believes in Canada and Canadian values.
The complete content of the letter is coming...
Montreal, April ۱۸, ۲۰۱۱
Government of Canada
Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Re: Processing of Iranian files
Honorable Jason Kenney
I wish to bring forward a behavior pattern of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, more specifically, the Centralized Intake office, responsible for the processing of skilled worker applications, toward Iranian files and more specifically professionals such as medical practitioners, dentists etc.
My fellow Iranian Colleagues and I received numerous refusals recently in an important number of cases and we are completely clueless and outraged as to the motives and reasons of these refusals.
The refusal indicated in all the letters is phrased as follows: ‘After taking into consideration the work experience supporting documentation on file, I am not satisfied that you have performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation or that you performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation or that you performed a substantial number of the main duties of Pharmacist (۳۱۳۱) or Medical Practitioners (۳۱۱۲).’
Firstly, in regards to the principles of procedural fairness, these refusals are in complete violation of this concept. Canada is a democracy and benefits of a democratic government who should show accountability and transparency.
As per OP ۱, page ۳۲, the ‘applicants must have an opportunity to disabuse officers of any concerns. Applicants, must be allowed to bring evidence and to make argument.’ For example, if the evidence received from sources other than the applicant (in this case, the university bodies), the officer must give the applicant an opportunity to respond to such evidence. (…) Officers must also follow specific instructions to assess the occupational experience of skilled workers (OP ۶). Officers should give factual and objective reasons for their decision.’
Furthermore, ‘ officers must be consistent in the treatment of applications in similar situations.’
May we ask what kind of interpretation an officer makes of an employment letter that states the applicant has been working as a Doctor or a Pharmacist? What exactly could be missing in terms of relevant and required information to conclude that these applicants practice in their field of studies? What is expected of a Pharmacist? How can they not perform the essential duties of his occupation in a pharmacy?
How can this be interpreted negatively and result in refusing an application. In addition, the cap for this specific occupation has been reached therefore denying the possibility for a pharmacist to re-apply. How can we conclude that procedural fairness has been applied to such cases?
The same arguments apply for the Medical Practitioners. Once more, we ask: What exactly is a Doctor suppose to be doing when he or she practices in a clinic as a Doctor except the essential duties related to his or her occupation?
Once more, we ask, do the officers simply overlook these documents and content and systematically refused the applicants? Are we witnessing the beginning of a pattern of systemic discrimination?
So, we ask: what exactly happened in all these cases and how many more of these refusals will we receive?
The profession of Pharmacist was in the new list of June ۲۶, ۲۰۱۰ therefore representing an occupation in demand. How can an officer bluntly disregard the documentary evidence and deny so recklessly an application? In addition, no recourse is offered to the applicant who has been refused but to re-apply after how many weeks? When will he receive his documents to do so? What if the cap is reached in the same timeframe? How can this all be justified legally?
Furthermore, the OP ۱ Procedures at p. ۴۸ state the guidelines for the retention and disposal of documents in an applicant’s file and we quote: ‘after their receipt has been recorded, the documents are either discarded or, if they are originals, they are returned to the applicant.’ We ask: why is it that the documents are not immediately returned to the applicant so he or she has the opportunity to immediately re-apply and not be confronted to a cap that has been reached in the meantime?
The internal policies in place at Citizenship and Immigration Canada via the Centralized Intake Office are creating barriers and excluding valid and legitimate applications from serious and more than qualified Iranian professionals.
CIO is acting in a bias manner in the processing of its skilled worker applications and applying different standards of evaluation of skilled worker files. This is the precise definition of systemic discrimination and it has to stop immediately. CIO needs to take responsibility and review these files with their own differences and modify their recent policy and absurd decision making towards Iranian files.
We strongly believe that Canada is in great need of these professionals with fantastic profiles and the decisions rendered in regards to these files are legally unjustified and we will have no choice but to appeal them in the event that you refuse to reconsider and reopen these cases.
Yours sincerely,
Ali Mokhtari, CCIC