Skip to main content

Changes coming to Service Canada for LMO Processing

Online filing

On April 1, 2012, Service Canada is expected to launch its long-awaited web service which will allow users to file applications online. The system is expected to lower processing times for Labour Market Opinions (LMOs), which at present is taking about 6 weeks.

Employers and third party representatives will have to register for an account online and provide certain documents to Service Canada as part of that process. Expect to see further details on April 1st.

Accelerated Labour Market Opinion (ALMO)

The ALMO process is also scheduled to launch on April 1, 2012. The program allows certain employers to file LMO applications and receive expedited processing. The program is designed to benefit employers who have a clean compliance history with the Temporary Foreign Worker program.

The two main objectives of the program are:
  1. to improve program integrity
  2. to increase efficiency
It is expected that ALMOs will be processed within 10 days of submission.

In order to participate, employers must meet the following eligibility criteria:
  • have had at least one positive LMO within the last 2 years
  • have a clean compliance record with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program
  • not have been subject to an investigation, an infraction or a serious complaint, and have no unresolved violations under provincial laws
Employers must also consent to participate in future audit processes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What? There's a backlog?

If you work in immigration, it's no secret that most applications seem to take an inordinately long time to be reviewed. That's the case for almost all applications whether overseas or in-Canada. Well, it seems the government is trying to do 'something' about it.



The BRO-V
The first change is to in-Canada H&C (humanitarian & compassionate) applications for permanent residence. Until now, all H&C applications were filed to the Case Processing Centre in Vegreville ("CPC-V"). Unfortunately, CPC-V did not make a decision on any applications where it felt that an interview was needed (99% of cases, it seems). So, all of those files would get transferred to the local CIC office where the applicant lived. For us, the Calgary office became EXTREMELY backlogged. Last year, I got a letter on a file telling me (and my client) that it was going to take 7 years for the Calgary office to make a decision! Now, for many people, the longer it takes, the better it i…

Refugee (Asylum) Claims - Understanding the Process

There has been a lot of news coverage about the influx of refugees (asylum seekers) into Canada via the United States, particularly into Quebec. This post is meant to explore who is entitled to make such a claim in Canada and what claimants can expect.

Eligibility to make the claimCanada and the US have entered into what's called a "safe third country agreement". Essentially, both countries consider the other to be relatively equal in terms of refugee protection and the refugee process. As such, there is an expectation for claimants to make their refugee claim in the first of these two countries. 
The practical consequence of this agreement is that it prevents individuals crossing from the US into Canada at a land border from making a claim in Canada. 
There are exceptions to this agreement: If the claimant has family in CanadaIf the claim is made at an in-land officeIf the claim is made at an airportThere are other eligibility factors as well, but this is the main issue aff…

Credibility vs. Plausibility in Refugee Claims

I recently appeared before the Federal Court on a judicial review of a negative Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision. The claimant was a Cuban national accused of flouting Cuba's currency controls.  The Applicant was self-represented at his refugee hearing before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). As such, the corroborative evidence was far from idea. However, the RPD did find him to be detailed and consistent in his evidence. The RPD rejected the claimant's documents alleging they could not be independently verified to be authentic. However, the RPD made no actual efforts to verify the documents. The RPD also made a host of negative plausibility findings, which it said disposed of the claim in light of the lack of verifiable corroborative documents. The claimant exercised his appeal rights to the RAD, which agreed that the RPD had no basis to find the claimant's documents to be fraudulent. However, the RAD simply dismissed the claimant's corroborative documents…