This success rate being referred to pertains to AEO approval at Buffalo Visa Office:
Source:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/evaluation/fswp/section5.asp#sub4CVOA staff are much less supportive of using AEOs as they currently exist because of concerns regarding the authenticity of arranged employment offers.
AEOs tend to be perceived very negatively by all levels of staff across the large visa offices visited. In interviews and focus groups, staff and managers expressed concern and frustration over the due diligence required to assess the validity of the job offers and the legitimacy of the employers.
Initial processing and assessment of arranged employment offers is administered through an HRSDC Centre of Specialization located in Saint John, New Brunswick. HRSDC officers provide an opinion regarding an offer of employment on an indeterminate basis to a prospective skilled worker. In forming the opinion, the officers assess whether:
* The offer of employment is genuine;
* The employment represents full-time, non-seasonal employment; and
* The wages offered to the skilled worker are consistent with the prevailing wage rate for the occupation and the working conditions meet generally accepted Canadian standards.
In reviewing the genuineness of the job offer, HRSDC officers examine the consistency of the predominant duties defined for the position with the duties outlined in the NOC, whether mandatory licensing/certifications are identified, and whether the employment offer is consistent with the needs of the company given its business activities, size and operations. In addition, HRSDC officers assess employer-related factors such as business location, the active engagement of the employer in business activities, whether at least one full-time employee has been working for the employer for a minimum of one year, and whether it is reasonable to expect that the employer will fulfill the terms of employment (e.g. the company's ability to indeterminately support the salary offered to skilled workers)32.
If HRSDC officers provide a positive opinion on the offer of employment, it is forwarded to CIC visa offices where the applicant is assessed against the selection criteria including whether or not to allocate the 15 points for the AEO. In doing so, visa officers may review whether the applicant will be able to fulfil the duties described in the job offer and may conduct final verifications of employers which, in many cases, is difficult to do from abroad. The missions employ different strategies to verify the job offer. For example, the Hong Kong office typically requests a number of documents from employers such as tax return assessments, banking information, financial statement information, etc. Other strategies used include calling employers in Canada and asking them specific questions about the job duties, or conducting further investigation by checking their business registration and company website.
The case studies showed that the quality of applications with AEOs varies across the missions. For example,
the Buffalo office reports that most AEOs are approved and points awarded (about 90%), while the New Delhi office estimated an acceptance rate of about 30%. New Delhi officers have been compiling information on small businesses that have made multiple job offers.
Examples of fraudulent AEO applications include job offers from non-existent employers, fictitious positions incompatible with the type of business or business operations, offers of convenience from friends or family members, and genuine offers with inflated job descriptions. There is also a concern in CVOAs that AEOs can be purchased and that clients are being lured to pay large fees to consultants for job offers that they believe await them in Canada. Fraud is generally hard to prove, and AEO fraud-related refusals cannot be extracted from the administrative systems. Some visa offices are conducting independent investigations in an effort to demonstrate the lack of integrity and level of fraud associated with AEOs.
In the interviews, CVOA staff (particularly those from Hong Kong and New Delhi) indicated that applicants often use AEOs to compensate for not receiving sufficient points under the language or education criteria (or more recently, as a means to by-pass Ministerial Instructions and the list of 38 occupations; the percentage of FSWs with AEOs has increased significantly since the introduction of Ministerial Instructions in 200833).
Visa officers in Hong Kong believe that the increase in AEO applications under IRPA has at least to some extent impacted the drop in the approval rates in recent years. For example, as outlined in Table 3‑4, the Hong Kong office has seen a significant increase in AEO applications, most notably in the last few years, and a significant drop in approval rates (from over 90% at the time of IRPA implementation to just over 40% in 2007, and to only 24% in 2008 - likely due to the introduction of Ministerial Instructions). In the view of the visa office staff, this trend might have been, at least in part, the result of applicants abusing AEO in the desire to compensate for lower scores on other criteria (e.g. English language skills) or to get a priority assessment.
Visa Officers note that it may take longer to process a refusal than an acceptance, and this is particularly problematic with AEOs. Additional steps can be taken to investigate suspected fraud and, as noted above, additional documentation may be requested. Concerns often center on the authenticity of the job offer; follow-up with employers in Canada is hindered by time differences. If the visa officer intends to refuse the AEO, he/she must send a letter of concern to the applicant stating the concerns, and provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond. Processing AEOs is generally viewed as highly inefficient and time-consuming, with insufficient support within Canada to address fraud in the process.
Immigration Forum
