[requester]

Record

+ was this degree, diploma or certificate: + from a public post-secondary school, such as a college, trade/technical school, university or CEGEP (in Quebec) + from a private post-secondary school that operates under the same rules as public schools + adiplome d'études professionnelles (DEP) or an attestation de spécialisation professionnelle (ASP) earned through a qualifying study program of a¢ least 900 hours from a private school in Quebec, oF «+ a [requester] or Doctorate degree from a Canadian private school that can legally award degrees under provincial law. (The student must have been enrolled in a study program that led toa degree as set out by the province.) (required) at The Program Delivery Instructions (PDIs) are designed for officer consumption and the requirements are outlined in the profile builder. If the institution is not public or any of the other above status’s, the applicant must update their profile and say “No”. With regards to verifying whether the program the applicant completed is also eligible, this is referring to the requirement of 30(:4)(c) and the need to have graduated with a “Bachelor’s, Master’s or doctoral degree” if the applicant attended a private post-secondary institution, if a provincial statute authorizes that institution to confer that credential. Please be advised that the assessment of an application is based on a case-by-case basis; each application will be considered on its ‘own merits, with a final decision based on a review of all the information available to the officer at the time of decision. The onus is atways on the applicant to provide sufficient documentation to satisfy an officer that they meet the requirements. We trust that this information will assist you. Thank you kindly, [requester] From: Sent: [requester] To: Immigration Representatives / Représentants immigration (IRCC) <[requester email]> Subject: [requester] Importance: High \sb280\f0Dear Sir/Madam: According to IRCC’s operational guidelines on assessing electronic applications under section Al 1.2, “Institutions or programs that are not eligible for a PGWP (at the time of e-APR) should not be awarded CRS points for additional factors.” [requester] points for core human capital factors and skill transferability can still be awarded ifthe institution is a The eligibility requirements to be awarded CRS points for addtional factors for education are generally aligned withthe requirements for past-graduation work perimit (PGWP) eligible programs and institutions. Institutions or programs that are not eligible for a PGWP (at the time of -APR) should dot be awarded CRS points for additional factors (they can, however, be awarded points for core human capital factors and sl transferability f the institution isa DLD Designated Leaming Institution (DL). I would appreciate clarification on the following issue: At the profile creation stage, the system currently awards CRS points for additional factors, even if the program in question— while PGWP-cligible during the candidate’s period of study—is no longer PGWP-eligible at the time of profile creation, an04aa

and consequently, not at the time of e-APR submission either. The questions used to determine eligibility for Canadian : education points have not been updated, nor has the dropdown menu for the field of study. As a result, a graduate from a business management program at a publicly funded college continues to receive 15 points for Canadian education, even though, according to the guidelines, they should not if the program was not PGWP-eligible at the time of e-APR submission. The system does not prompt candidates to differentiate whether their program was PGWP-eligible during their period of study versus at the time of profile creation. If candidates answer truthfully based on the questions presented, they are technically following the system as designed. This creates a clear misalignment between the system’s logic and the operational guidelines. While officers could remove these points during the assessment phase if the program is not PGWP--eligible at the time of e-APR, the system does not provide applicants or representatives with the proper tools to account for this issue proactively. This situation could inadvertently disadvantage applicants who have acted in good faith. Given this gap, should officers be expected to penalize candidates for an issue that stems from the system’s design? Are there any plans to address this inconsistency or provide clearer guidance for applicants and representatives? Thank you for your time and consideration.

e004