Four of the Alberta Provincial Nominee Programs, including the AOS, have been changed to a quota system.

Starting June 11, 2024, four of Alberta’s provincial nominee programs will be converted to a first-come, first-served strong quota system, including:

1. Alberta Opportunity Stream (AOS)

2. Rural Renewal Stream

3. Accelerated Tech Pathway

4. Tourism and Hospitality Stream

The application period for each month in 2024 is:

June 11, July 9, August 13, September 10, October 8, November 5, December 10.

Once the number of applications received reaches the quota limit, no new applications will be accepted. The monthly quotas for these four categories are shown in the figure.

Who needs a PAL when applying for a study permit?

On January 22, 2024, the Canadian Immigration Bureau IRCC announced a policy to limit study abroad quotas. The policy stipulates that some international students need to obtain a provincial attestation letter (PAL) issued by the province where the school is located when applying for a study permit, and include the letter in the application, otherwise the study permit application may be returned.

The PAL policy limits the number of study permits for relevant educational institutions. If an educational institution has used up its PAL quota for the year, students will not be able to apply for a study permit based on the school's admission letter in that year. Therefore, this policy allows the Canadian Immigration Department to control the number of applications from international students.

Who needs a PAL when applying for a study permit?

It should be noted that not everyone who applies for a study permit needs a PAL. Only international students who study in a DLI educational institution's college, undergraduate, graduate diploma (graduate thesis), or certificate program in Canada and apply for a study permit from outside Canada need to apply for a PAL. The following international students are exempt:

1. International students in preschool, elementary school (including kindergarten), junior high school, and high school (up to grade 12)

2. Attend a vocational training school in Quebec and obtain a Diploma of Vocational Studies (DVS), a Certificate of Vocational Specialization (AVS) or a Skills Training Certificate (STC) upon completion

3. Master and doctoral students

4. Have entered Canada and meet one of the circumstances described in section 251(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR):

(1) International students who have obtained a study permit and need to renew it in China

(2) Hold a work permit

(3) Visiting students and exchange students currently studying in Canadian schools

(4) Transferring from one school to another and having completed the prerequisite courses

(5) A deportation order has been issued but the deportation cannot be carried out temporarily

(6) Hold a TRP (temporary resident permit) with at least 6 months validity

(7) protected person

(8) Have submitted an application for permanent residence based on Humanitarian and Compassionate status and passed the eligibility check.

(9) Have submitted an onshore spouse/common-law partner sponsorship and passed an eligibility check.

4. Has entered Canada and meets one of the circumstances described in section 251(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR):

(1) Spouse/common-law partner holds a Canadian study permit, work permit, or TRP

(2) Your spouse/common-law partner has already submitted an application for permanent residence based on Humanitarian and Compassionate status and has passed the eligibility test

etc.

If you meet the above exemption conditions, although you do not need to apply for PAL, you need to submit relevant materials to prove that you meet the above conditions when submitting your study permit application.

Talebali v Canada, 2024 FC 867

In this case, the applicant applied to the Federal Court for a judicial review against the visa officer for rejecting his C11 work permit (IMP enterprise/self-employed work permit, LMIA exemption code C11, legal basis IRPR205(a)-Canadian interests).

Case Background:

Applicant: Esmaeil Talebali, Iranian citizen, engaged in poultry production and processing

Application: Planning to operate a poultry production and processing business in Cobourg, Ontario, applying for a work permit as a business/self-employed person under the International Mobility Program (LMIA exemption code C11, legal basis IRPR205(a)-Canadian interests)

Reason for Rejection: The visa officer believes that the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to prove that he/she meets the exemption requirements of C11-Canadian Benefits Class. Specifically, the visa officer believes that

1. The business plan is too general and does not reflect real needs or business benefits;

2. The applicant's planned business is highly competitive in the Ontario market and will not provide significant economic, social or cultural benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents;

3. A large part of the business plan is very general and consists of information copied from the Internet.

The applicant believes that:

1. The business plan has shown that the competition in Cobourg, where the company is going to be established, is not fierce. If the visa officer raises an objection, he should substantiate his point of view. Although the visa officer does not need to give detailed reasons when making a decision, if the evidence provided by the applicant is contrary to the visa officer's point of view, a reasonable explanation is required, otherwise it lacks transparency and logic ;

2. The information cited from the Internet in the business plan is used for market analysis. This information supports the feasibility of the business plan and does not make the business plan too general.

Court decision:

Review standard: Reasonableness review, that is, when the court evaluates the rationality of an administrative decision, it should abide by the professional judgment of the decision maker and intervene only when necessary to ensure the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative procedure.

Result: The court held that the visa officer’s decision was unreasonable. The visa officer failed to explain why he ignored the evidence submitted by the applicant that was contrary to the immigration officer’s conclusion . Specifically,

1. The visa officer considered that the business plan was too general and relied on public information on the Internet, and questioned the rationality of its economic forecasts and the actual competitive situation, but failed to specify the basis for these evaluations.

2. The visa officer’s reasons lack transparency and logic, and fail to reflect a reasonable analysis process.