Low salary lead to CEC rejected and failed in court too

[yixiaop26]

http://www.stevenmeurrens.com/tag/prevailing-wage/

check above link and find the case in it :
...
The Federal Court has certified a question regarding whether immigration officers can consider a position’s prevailing wage rate when determining whether an applicant meets the requirements of the Canadian Experience Class (“CEC“). Although the Court in Qin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 147 stated that it can, the issue is now on its way to the Federal Court of Appeal.

...

the case failed at last, ( I can only find full chinese version about the whole case and the its result, sorry ) but above information is enough to find the case number in court .


so now VO can reject the case where the salary is lower than the standard. the law or the judge, the court is supporting this .

in short, it is a bad news.

 

[rezafc]

http://www.stevenmeurrens.com/tag/prevailing-wage/

check above link and find the case in it :
...
The Federal Court has certified a question regarding whether immigration officers can consider a position's prevailing wage rate when determining whether an applicant meets the requirements of the Canadian Experience Class (“CEC“). Although the Court in Qin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 147 stated that it can, the issue is now on its way to the Federal Court of Appeal.

...

the case failed at last, ( I can only find full chinese version about the whole case and the its result, sorry ) but above information is enough to find the case number in court .


so now VO can reject the case where the salary is lower than the standard. the law or the judge, the court is supporting this .

in short, it is a bad news.

Thanks for sharing the link.

But please next time refer to an official article from CIC website. I still do not believe this is true unless they publish an official statement.
I say this because, it's best if we don't create a panic room here! There are so many applicants that have applied with low wage through CEC. So let's just put ourselves in their shoes for a second.
And one more thing friend. It's good to share information, but it's best if you share it under a related question, not in a new threat, especially when it's not official!

Thanks,

 

[yixiaop26]

Thanks for sharing the link. It's bad news indeed.

But please next time refer to an official article from CIC website. I still do not believe this is true unless they publish an official statement.
I say this because, it's best if we don't create a panic room here! There are so many applicants that have applied with low wage through CEC. So let's just put ourselves in their shoes for a second.

Thanks,

we can check this for official clue :
Although the Court in Qin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 147 stated that it can

this is the case in court number.

 

[Dr_Midnite]

we can check this for official clue :
Although the Court in Qin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 147 stated that it can

this is the case in court number.

Hi

Agree, official sources should only be used, blog's other posts etc are opinions only.

Simply, yes CIC can reject applications where the wage rate is below the prevailing rate for the role. This is to protect the local labour market and to ensure that unscrupulous employers do not undercut the market rate by bringing in lower paid workers from overseas as opposed to paying a Canadian the correct wage. Its a valid concern as this undermines the standard rates for jobs.

Does it mean they will reject, no it does not and there are many cases where PR is passed without issue, so no need to panic.

I will say from experience that CIC are clamping down on companies filing LMIA's or who already have foreign workers. Audits have been increased to ensure that companies who claim to be paying a certain rate on the LMIA application are actually paying the individual that rate. As an example my company technically have to have a wage increase approved for any employee on a TFWP. This is to confirm that the rate increase is in-line with the prevailing increase level for that role in the province.

If the person gained their experience on a TFWP secured through and LMO or LMIA then the wages will have been assessed against the NOC code for the job on the LMO or LMIA application. That information then ultimately forms part of the CEC application and by default there should be no issues.

Thx

A

 

[arowberry]

Qin was not rejected as a result of low pay. She failed to convince the CIC that she did the job duties as specified by the NOC given in her application. She only did 1 of 9 main duties. Low pay was used as supporting evidence that she did know do they job she claimed.

She applied under NOC 1242 Legal Administrative Assistant, yet had only indicated that she doing one of the various main duties for the job. I don't know what duty she did include, but lets imagine it was this one:

"Set up and maintain filing systems, utilizing knowledge of legal records and procedures and frequently controlling confidential materials and documents"

Doing this as part/all of your job really wouldn't make you a Legal Administrative Assistant.

Her salary comes into it, essentially, as supporting evidence. Perhaps she was actually a Receptionist, who happened to do one of the Legal Administrative Assistant duties. Obviously in this situation she'd be paid the Receptionist salary.


From the Canadian Bar Association (search for 'Qin'):
"Is there a minimum necessary income?
No. However, as per the Qin decision, a low wage may result in questions about whether applicant performed NOC duties."


This is my interpretation of the document I have linked to below. I have also left a link to the website of a law company who make the same points.

http://www.cba.org/CBA/cle/PDF/IMM13_paper_meurrens.pdf
http://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/qin-v-canada

Also for the CBA article:
"The Court in Qin did state, however, that a salary below the market rate cannot in of itself
disqualify someone from the CEC. The Court stated:

Contrary to what the applicant asserts, the officer did not use salary as a preliminary disqualifying factor or to perform a “gatekeeper function” to disqualify the applicant's application. Had the officer done so – as the respondent conceded – he may well have engaged in an unreasonable and incorrect interpretation of the Regulations. In this regard, there is a significant difference between requiring a minimum salary as the starting point for consideration – and weeding out those who do not earn the minimum salary – as compared to examining the salary paid as but one of the data points relevant to determining if an applicant possesses the
requisite experience to qualify as a member of the Canadian Experience Class."

I think my work here is done.

 

[jes_ON]

http://www.stevenmeurrens.com/tag/prevailing-wage/

check above link and find the case in it :
...
The Federal Court has certified a question regarding whether immigration officers can consider a position's prevailing wage rate when determining whether an applicant meets the requirements of the Canadian Experience Class (“CEC“). Although the Court in Qin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 147 stated that it can, the issue is now on its way to the Federal Court of Appeal.

...

the case failed at last, ( I can only find full chinese version about the whole case and the its result, sorry ) but above information is enough to find the case number in court .

so now VO can reject the case where the salary is lower than the standard. the law or the judge, the court is supporting this

in short, it is a bad news.

Well, no, it's not news at all.

1) The standing court decision says exactly what we have been saying on this board for years - that salary cannot used as the sole criterion for refusal, but can be considered along with other evidence in determining whether the applicant has the claimed work experience.

2) The question is subject to Supreme Court review, response has not yet been made.

 

[wssun]

I read about this Qin person's news last year and clearly the low wage was not the only problem with her application

 

[zardoz]

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2013/2013fc147/2013fc147.html

 

[sab2020]

Qin was not rejected as a result of low pay. She failed to convince the CIC that she did the job duties as specified by the NOC given in her application. She only did 1 of 9 main duties. Low pay was used as supporting evidence that she did know do they job she claimed.

She applied under NOC 1242 Legal Administrative Assistant, yet had only indicated that she doing one of the various main duties for the job. I don't know what duty she did include, but lets imagine it was this one:

"Set up and maintain filing systems, utilizing knowledge of legal records and procedures and frequently controlling confidential materials and documents"

Doing this as part/all of your job really wouldn't make you a Legal Administrative Assistant.

Her salary comes into it, essentially, as supporting evidence. Perhaps she was actually a Receptionist, who happened to do one of the Legal Administrative Assistant duties. Obviously in this situation she'd be paid the Receptionist salary.


From the Canadian Bar Association (search for 'Qin'):
"Is there a minimum necessary income?
No. However, as per the Qin decision, a low wage may result in questions about whether applicant performed NOC duties."


This is my interpretation of the document I have linked to below. I have also left a link to the website of a law company who make the same points.

http://www.cba.org/CBA/cle/PDF/IMM13_paper_meurrens.pdf
http://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/qin-v-canada

Also for the CBA article:
"The Court in Qin did state, however, that a salary below the market rate cannot in of itself
disqualify someone from the CEC. The Court stated:

Contrary to what the applicant asserts, the officer did not use salary as a preliminary disqualifying factor or to perform a “gatekeeper function” to disqualify the applicant's application. Had the officer done so – as the respondent conceded – he may well have engaged in an unreasonable and incorrect interpretation of the Regulations. In this regard, there is a significant difference between requiring a minimum salary as the starting point for consideration – and weeding out those who do not earn the minimum salary – as compared to examining the salary paid as but one of the data points relevant to determining if an applicant possesses the
requisite experience to qualify as a member of the Canadian Experience Class."

I think my work here is done.

Thank you! you did help