PMM is 100% correct. The 67 Points must be met, although there is what you call the positive and negative substitution power of the IO, which he may exercise, if he wishes to. Below is the reason why PMM has said for 99.9% of the cases and not 100% of the cases.
11. Procedure: Determining eligibility
11.1. The pass mark
R76(2) empowers the Minister to set the “minimum number of points required of a skilled worker”
– or, as it is more commonly known, the “pass mark”.
The pass mark was last set on September 18, 2003 at 67 points.
To determine the most up-to-date pass mark, consult the Web site at
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/index.asp.
Total the applicant's points in the six selection factors.
If ... Then the officer will ...
The applicant's total score is • approve the application; or
equal to or greater than the
• consider substituted evaluation (Section 11.3).
pass mark
The applicant's total score is • refuse the application; or
less than the pass mark
• consider substituted evaluation (Section 11.3).
The officer is unable to make a • request in writing specific information or documentation to
decision due to lack of clarify; or
information or documentation,
• consider a personal interview (Section 11.2).
or there are doubts as to the
legitimacy of the documents
submitted
11.2. Use of interviews
Selection standards are objective and clearly defined, and eligibility can be assessed in
straightforward cases through the information provided on the application for permanent
residence forms and the accompanying supporting documentation.
In most cases, officers should be able to make selection decisions—either to approve or refuse
applications—from the documentation provided. However, in some cases, an interview may be
necessary.
Any concerns officers have regarding the accuracy or authenticity of information or documentation
should be communicated to the applicant, whether these concerns are raised as the result of site
visits, telephone checks or other means. Concerns can be communicated to the applicant in
writing or at interview.
Officers may conduct interviews with applicants to:
• ensure that information submitted on the application is truthful and complete;
• detect and deter fraudulent information and documents;
• clarify specific information;
• conduct quality control.
Officers may not conduct interviews to:
• assess language abilities;
• determine personal suitability (as this factor no longer exists).
Note: Visa offices will be expected to undertake both targeted and random verifications to detect and
deter fraud. The number and percentage of cases subjected to verification should be high enough to
act as a meaningful disincentive to those who would attempt such practices. A40 makes material
misrepresentation a grounds for inadmissibility in its own right and prescribes a two-year ban on those
both directly and indirectly involved in such practices.
Interviews, site visits and telephone checks have proven to be the most effective ways to detect
and to combat fraud. The information gained at interviews where fraud is detected will help
officers to identify current trends and patterns and to refine their profiles for ongoing use.
11.3. Substituted evaluation
R76(3) makes possible substituted evaluation by an officer. This authority may be used if an
officer believes the point total is not a sufficient indicator of whether or not the applicant may
become economically established in Canada.
Substituted evaluation is to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The scope of what an officer
might consider as relevant cannot be limited by a prescribed list of factors to be used in support of
exercising substituted evaluation. There are any number and combination of considerations that
an officer might cite as being pertinent to assessing, as per the wording of R76(3): “. . . the
likelihood of the ability of the skilled worker to become economically established in Canada. . . .”
Frequency of use will vary from visa office to visa office, as some will find in their caseloads more
situations of disconnect between the point total and establishment prospects than will others. The
fact that the applicant “almost attained” a pass mark is not, in itself, grounds to recommend the
use of substituted evaluation. Rather, the officer needs to identify and document the facts
demonstrating that the points awarded are not a sufficient indicator of the applicant's ability to
become economically established in Canada.
For legal clarity, officers should employ the terms used in legislation, such as “substituted
evaluation” or “ability to become economically established.”
If an officer decides to use Then the officer will ...
substituted evaluation when ...
the applicant did meet the pass • communicate their concerns to the applicant and provide
mark (i.e., negative substituted sufficient opportunity to the applicant to respond to these
evaluation) concerns, through correspondence or an interview;
• obtain written concurrence from a designated officer.
the applicant did not meet the • obtain written concurrence from a designated officer.
pass mark (i.e., positive
substituted evaluation)
Substituted evaluation is not to be confused with humanitarian and compassionate
authority, which enables the Minister or his/her delegates to override inadmissibility and grant
admission to Canada in a range of situations involving sufficiently compelling circumstances.
Substituted evaluation cannot be used to override:
• a refusal due to insufficient funds [R76(3)]
• a failure to meet the definition of a skilled worker as outlined in R75 (R75(3) clearly states that
a failure to meet the requirements of a skilled worker as outlined in R75(2) will result in an
application being refused)
• a failure to meet the Ministerial Instructions
