Immigration
Control
(IC)
Manual-
Chapter
1-
Security
Screening
Process
Manual
Protected B
A "Non-Favourable" recommendation applies in circumstances where the NSSD and/or
screening partners are
of
the opinion that there are sufficient reasonable grounds to believe
the applicant is inadmissible pursuant
to
section(s) 34,
35
and/or 37 ofIRPA.
"Non-Favourable" also applies when a case
is
referred within the validity period
of
a
previous inadmissible assessment.
Inconclusive Findings:
An "Inconclusive Finding" recommendation applies in the following situations:
•
anytime that the NSSD and/or screening partners are unable
to
complete the assessment
of
a case because the visa office or the applicant did not provide sufficient information
when further details were requested.
No
Recommendation
Required:
The "No Recommendation Required" recommendation applies
in
the following situations:
•
the application
was
withdrawn
or
cancelled;
•
IRCC made a final determination prior to the completion
of
security screening;
•
the case
is
a duplicate referral
or
was referred
in
error;
•
the applicant underwent security screening previously and the case was referred
within the validity period
of
a recommendation that was initially "Favourable"; or,
•
the applicant
is
under the age
of
18,
unless special circumstances that require
screening exist (i.e. the officer suspects that the child was a former child soldier) .
16. Admissibility determination (IRCC)
The delegation
of
authority to issue a temporary
or
permanent resident visa rests with IRCC
officers.
If
an lRCC officer reviews
an
inadmissibility recommendation provided by the
CBSA and does not agree with the assessment, the officer should proceed as outlined
in
section
17
below.
In
cases
where
a
temporary
or
permanent
resident visa
is
issued despite a non-
favourable
recommendation,
If
the non-favourable recommendation provided by the CBSA includes information that was
provided by
c
IRCC officers should also advise Client Liaison, Security Screening
Branch, CSIS via.
34
tg9A
-
Releases
dlmb;
11m
A88@§g18iiiiBiiiiQ1iBiiAd
ASFC
-
Divulgation
en
vertu
de
la
loi
sur
l'Acces
a
I'information
Immigration
Control
(IC)
Manual-
Chapter
1-
Security Screening
Process
Manual
Protected B
17.
Contrary
outcomes
The following instructions were developed to ensure that IRCC decision makers undertake a
final consultation with security screening partners before making a final decision on cases
where the final decision is contrary to the recommendation provided
by
the CBSA.
Note:
These instructions apply to overseas cases. Instructions for inland cases are under
development.
17.1
Definition:
•
IRCC has received a non-favourable inadmissibility recommendation from the CBSA
and the IRCC decision maker, after taking into consideration all available information,
wishes to issue a visa with no finding
of
inadmissibility;
or
•
IRCC has received a favourable recommendation from the NSSD and the IRCC
decision maker wishes to refuse the visa pursuant to inadmissibility under section(s)
A34, 35
or
37
ofIRPA.
The definition
of
"contrary outcome" does
not
apply when:
•
An applicant was determined to be inadmissible pursuant to sections 34,
35
or 37
of
IRPA and was (or will be) issued a visa under one
of
the remedies listed
in
section
21
of
this manual.
17.2
'Contrary
outcome'
scenarios
After considering all available information, IRCC decision makers may determine that
limited weight should be given to an inadmissibility recommendation provided
by
the
CBSA, which in tum may result in a favourable
or
unfavourable admissibility
determination, as the case may be.
The most likely reasons contributing to contrary outcomes include, but are not limited to the
following scenarios:
•
The information provided
in
the inadmissibility recommendation
is
insufficient
to
support allegation(s) pursuant to section 34,
35
or
37
ofIRPA.
•
Classified information that can not be released to the applicant
or
used
in
court
proceedings was provided
in
the inadmissibility assessment, which would limit the
IRCC decision maker
in
preparing a strong refusal that can be defended
in
a court
of
law.
•
The IRCC decision maker interviewed the applicant, who provided additional
information related to a potential inadmissibility. The decion maker was satisfied that
the applicant is not inadmissible and proceeded favourably.
•
The inadmissibility recommendation included a possible error based on fact and/or
interpretation
of
the law.
··J5-·
-
e
ease
un
er
e
ccess
0
norma
Ion
c
ASFC
-
Divulgation
en
vertu
de
la
loi
sur
l'Acces
a
I'information
