The situation is classic: a grain found itself between two millstones. There were 104,000 such "grains" worldwide. But behind each of them is a family of on average two and a half people, so we are talking about 260,000 unlucky ones. Many of them decided to fight to the end and filed lawsuits, demanding that the retroactivity of the law be canceled. The consideration of these cases may take more than a year. In the meantime, the Federal Court of Canada has forbidden the Ministry of Immigration of Canada from issuing refusals to this category of applicants.
Immigration lawyer Dan Miller, who together with two colleagues achieved the suspension of refusals, spoke about all this in detail. Since many of our compatriots also submit immigration documents in Moscow, our readers will also be interested in the point of view of the Consul General of the Canadian Embassy in Moscow, the director of the immigration program, Mr. Brian CASEY. We publish his interview to the correspondent of the newspaper Inostranets today with minor abridgements.
"There is not much to say about the lawsuit at this point: the issue of the retroactivity's legality is still being heard in court," said Brian Casey. "No verdict has been handed down, so drawing conclusions or commenting is pointless."
"Still, I am interested in the reaction, yours and your department's, to the court's prohibition on refusing visas to those who applied for immigration under the old law but do not meet the new requirements. By the way: how many such cases have accumulated at your consulate?"
"Let me start by saying that we respect any decision of authorized judges and obey it. Our embassy currently has 3,237 cases open for applications submitted before January 1, 2002."
"As I recall, under the old rules, a person could apply for immigration to any Canadian consulate, regardless of their place of residence or citizenship. If so, then not all of these three thousand-plus applicants are necessarily Russians?"
"That's right, they can be from anywhere. But in fact, they are residents of Russia and the CIS countries."
"A year ago, when the validity of the old law was strictly limited, you slowed down the processing of applications. At the time, there was an opinion that this was done deliberately, so that even old applications would be considered under the new rules. Immigration lawyers claim that you did not consider cases for a full 8 months."
"That is not entirely true. The work of any visa department is seasonal. In the summer, immigration matters usually receive significantly less attention: many people go traveling, so the consulate has to deal with temporary tourist visas. Preference is given to this category of applicants, as they are pressed for time. This happens in all visa departments around the world. Moreover, in the summer, some employees return home, and new ones come to work at the consulate. This also reduces our throughput. Nevertheless, we did not stop working on immigration applications for a single day, and we never sought to artificially prolong their review. This summer, too, we are processing fewer immigration cases than, say, in the spring. During the cold months, when there are few temporary visa applications, we manage to interview 300-400 applicants, while in the summer, just over a hundred."
"With the entry into force of the new law, the number of applicants has sharply decreased. This will allow us to pay more attention to those who submitted immigration applications under the old law. All last year we worked a lot with such cases, since these people had to wait for interviews for a very long time. By June 2002, we had accumulated more than 5,000 cases, and now there are 3,257, and some have already been scheduled for interview dates."
"As far as I know, the deadline for processing immigration applications under the old criteria was extended to March 31 of this year. More than three months have passed. How many people have you already managed to refuse by considering their cases under the new criteria?"
"I do not have such data, but I think we have hardly had time to refuse anyone. Recently, we have been informing people about the changes in the criteria and asking them to provide us with new data needed to calculate their score under the new rules. We have allocated 6 months for providing this data, including taking a language test. So we have not even had time for refusals yet."
"I have even heard from immigration lawyers, who can be picky, that your staff are friendly and in some cases use the right to add rescue points 'at their own discretion'."
"That is true. Since April 1, we have been trying not to refuse old applicants at all, but, on the contrary, to make positive decisions regarding them."
"You said that since the new law came into force, the flow of applicants has decreased. By how much?"
"Very significantly. It is about 20% of what it was two years ago."
"Have you had the opportunity to assess, so to speak, the qualitative level of applicants?"
"Undoubtedly, their educational level and language proficiency have noticeably improved..."
"And what was the share of refusals under the old law?"
"From 10 to 20%. Refusal awaited people who overstated their abilities, perhaps not always intentionally. However, during the interview, it became obvious to the immigration officer that either the level of education or language proficiency did not correspond to the information that was indicated in the application."
"Canada is one of the few countries in the world that accepts independent immigrants. This is done not for humanitarian reasons, but from the point of view of usefulness to the country..."
"Absolutely right. We have humanitarian programs - refugee, family reunification. But the economic immigration program was adopted precisely for the benefit of Canadian society."
- In other words, you invite qualified specialists because you need them. So why then does a capable worker, selected by a strict consular official, continue to struggle in search of work? In any Canadian newspaper you can read about how difficult it is for highly qualified specialists, so warmly welcomed by Canada, to find employment. But since you invite specialists, they should at least be placed on equal terms with local residents?
- Canadian society realizes that to integrate successfully, new residents have to overcome very serious barriers. Moreover, not only foreigners face such difficulties, but also Canadians themselves who move from one province to another, especially if their professions require special licenses to practice. Take doctors. On one hand, there is a shortage of medical professionals, but on the other, in Toronto or Vancouver you will often meet a taxi driver with a medical diploma from a foreign university who could not pass the local medical exams and obtain a license to work in the field. This problem concerns both the federal government and provincial authorities. It is not easy to solve, but special commissions are working on it, and it is given very serious attention.
Integration into a new society is not easy for anyone. Immigrants must look at things realistically: they are going to a new country, among strangers who live by their own laws and speak their own languages, and adapting to these new conditions is very difficult. Almost no one can immediately find a job exactly matching their qualifications, or take the place in society they had at home.
- You speak of natural difficulties. But artificial barriers are often erected as well. Does the Canadian government intend to take any specific measures to reduce such obstacles?
- The state pays much attention to this issue, and our Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, Denis Coderre, constantly raises it. It is not easy to find optimal solutions that would satisfy both society and the country's new residents. But work in this direction is underway...
Your newspaper regularly publishes articles in which you explain in detail quite complex matters related to the introduction of new immigration legislation in Canada. Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to once again dwell on the differences between the old and new systems for selecting immigrants.
These are fundamentally different systems. The main advantage of the new one is its absolute objectivity. Clearly developed criteria allow one to calculate an applicant's points and make a decision within minutes. There is no need to wait for some responsible official to hand down his lofty verdict. Under the old system, a consular officer decided how suitable a person was for life in Canada (personal suitability), and during the interview he assessed the applicant's knowledge of English or French... Now everything is extremely formalized. The applicant can accurately assess his own chances. There is only one problem: the high requirements. I think the Ministry of Immigration did this deliberately: we simply could not cope with the flow of applicants. The Canadian consulates needed a breather, and the only way to get one was to change the selection criteria—to raise the requirements for applicants. In a year or two we will clear the accumulated backlog and start thinking about how to attract more people who want to live in Canada.
- So, will you lower the passing score?
- Possibly by some amount. But that decision will not be made by me... For my part, I want to address those who are seriously thinking about leaving for Canada: assess your chances—calculate your points. If you yourself are convinced that your education and language skills are sufficient for successful adaptation in the country, even if you did not get the required number of points, take a risk and submit an application. We are ready to listen to your arguments—perhaps they will convince us. This is what I would like to bring to the attention of readers.
Let me continue. The reduction in the number of applicants has allowed us to sharply cut the time it takes to process applications. Previously, as everyone knows well, people waited for interview invitations for years; now the whole procedure takes about three months. Once a person quickly receives a positive or negative answer, they can plan their life instead of being in limbo.
- The point counting is clear. Have security checks become stricter after the September 11 attacks?
- Nothing new is happening that would be noticeable to applicants. Of course, after September 11, all countries have somewhat changed the behind-the-scenes work of security services and have become more cautious. Very rarely, there are refusals for reasons of unreliability.
- And one more thing about immigration visas. Under the old system, occupations were divided into more and less preferred, and some were completely unacceptable. In particular, the medical professionals you mentioned. The new system abolished that classification. Nevertheless, at first there was talk of a kind of blacklist of occupations for which an applicant would receive no points at all. However, I have not seen such a list anywhere.
- And you could not have seen it—this list is only planned but not yet developed. For now, qualified specialists in any field are accepted.
- Let us finish with immigration and move on to what is certainly of interest to a wider circle of our readers. Let us talk about tourist and student visas. How many people want to get them, how long does it take, and how many refusals are issued?
- The number of temporary visas we issue is stable. We invite young people to study in Canada - our universities are competitive and provide a good education. Today the number of young men and women who would like to study with us has increased somewhat - both on short-term language courses and in colleges and universities. We issue 500 student visas a year. And the total number of temporary visas approaches 15,000 annually. In the last few years, the number of refusals for temporary visas has been constantly declining.
- Thanks to what?
- The economic situation in the country is becoming more stable. People have started to live better - and that means there are fewer incentives for illegal immigration. Two years ago we refused temporary visas to 25% of applicants, and today the number of refusals for these visas is approaching 10%.
- As far as I understand, the most common ground for refusal is the suspicion that a person will stay in Canada?
- Yes. Or the suspicion that he is asking for a visa not for the purpose stated in the application: he wants to stay illegally or request political asylum.
- To whom do you, employees of the Canadian embassy in Russia, grant refugee status? How many such people?
- Very few - 300 people a year. These are mainly people from Afghanistan and Africa. They come to us through the UN.
- How troublesome is the procedure for obtaining a temporary Canadian visa?
- The most ordinary one - a guest visa - can be obtained in a day or two, and a student visa - in one to three weeks.