The wording used is -
'When a change in age results in the candidate no longer meeting the MEC or having their recalculated CRS points score fall below the lowest points score in that round of invitations, officers should consider applying the public policy to exempt applicants for permanent residence from certain age-based requirements between invitation to apply and application, based on section A25.2.
This consideration can result in an exemption from the refusal of an application under section A11.2.'
Thus the word here used is '
should' and not '
may'. That gives us a pretty good idea that CIC mandates the officers to consider the public policy in such cases.
The public policy itself is also very clear on its implementation. If you fall below the minimum threshold on account of a birthday post ITA pre e-APR, the Officer has to consider the policy.
But then again, it also states that -
'Based on the public policy considerations outlined above, delegated officers may grant an exemption from the criteria and obligations found in the provisions...'
The use of
'may' here suggests that even though the officers have to consider the policy, they are not particularly bound by it. They have some discretion, at least in theory. But I guess that's just to account for any unforseen situation.
Besides, I am yet to hear any case in which the application was rejected because points fell below cut off on account of a post ITA birthday.