7 / 32
January 2016 //
Canadian Government Executive /
7
Management
control decisions such as visa issuance,
most states recognize that it is impossible
to create a set of processing rules for every
variable and consideration that goes into
assessing credibility and risk. Nor it is pos-
sible to create a strict formula or balance
sheet in which individual characteristics
are measured, quantified, and weighed
against each other to mechanically arrive
at a decision.
States can use immigration laws and
regulations to specify various indicators,
criteria, and procedures in assessing cred-
ibility and risk, but they ultimately del-
egate discretion to their border control
officials. Though the scope for discretion
has been progressively narrowed, it re-
mains the case that Canadian visa officers
are expected to exercise their discretion
as they carry out their duties and make
their decisions. They must choose wheth-
er to approve or refuse a visa, and they
must make various other choices as they
progress toward that decision. Legislation
and processing manuals can outline the
options that are available to them and can
instruct them on procedure, but they can-
not tell them what choice to make.
The question of how those choices are
made ultimately leads to the issue of bias.
Are the choices and final decisions of visa
officers fair and reasonable, and are they
free of bias? Various adjudication ap-
peal bodies do sometimes find that the
decisions of visa officers are faulty on the
grounds that they are not reasonable or
that proper procedures have not been fol-
lowed, and so it would be foolish to think
that visa officers are infallible.
Many argue that despite efforts to rid
the system of partiality, bias nonetheless
creeps into the process whereby officers
approve or refuse visas. Of course, certain
kinds of biases are built into the criteria
that officers employ when they deter-
mine whether someone is deserving of a
visa. The federal skilled worker selection
system contains unabashed class biases
that favour applicants with the financial
resources to get a higher education, gain
professional and skilled work experience,
and speak English or French. The “adapt-
ability” points on the selection grid for fed-
eral skilled workers are explicitly skewed
in favour of people who already have cer-
tain family members in Canada.
There is also little question that biases
stem from the way in which immigration
policies and rules are carried out. Visa of-
ficers do not have the time to dig deeper
into every case, so they must triage appli-
cations and use various shortcuts to assess
credibility and risk. For example, appli-
cants from wealthier, developed countries
are perceived as having little incentive to
enter into a sham marriage with a Cana-
dian, and thus officers tend not to dig as
deeply into their files. People from coun-
tries that face relatively favourable global
visa regimes also benefit from discretion
because they are defined as having many
opportunities to work and travel abroad,
so have little need to enter Canada on an
undocumented basis.
Applicants whose class resources have
permitted previous travel to other West-
ern countries may benefit because some
officers will conclude that they are un-
likely to jump in Canada. These biases,
however, are more about socio-economic
standing than about race per se. Profiles,
based on past experience and past pat-
terns in detected fraud, mean that some
applicants are subject to greater scrutiny
than others. Criminologists and police of-
ficers often say that “the more you look for
crime, the more you find crime,” and this
may also apply to visa officers and fraud:
The more one looks for fraud, the more
one finds fraud. Conversely, some appli-
Acting Chief of Operations, Almeida (far right) supervises the processing of Syrian
refugees at Montréal Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport on December 12,
2015. Photo: Canada Border Services Agency.
CBSA BSOs are ready to process first flight of Syrian
refugees. Photo: Canada Border Services Agency.
Visa officers do not have the time to dig deeper into every
case, so they must triage applications and use various
shortcuts to assess credibility and risk.