Surrey Expat

I read it as an implied statement. However I do agree completely with your last paragraph.

YYZlover

Andrew, I understand your position as you make a living out of being a consultant and had I been in your shoes I would too make such statements as you are. Simply because people going DIY route and succeeding (despite your claims that people should use a consultant) are taking your bread and butter away from you.

However, there are plenty of cases where people have gone DIY and succeeded. Numerous here on the site have and prove it can be done. Why dispute that? Why discourage people from going DIY?

You know as well as most people here that there are more applicants than there are visas and loads of people will fall between the cracks and not succeed. Plenty still do and I believe the majority who succeed do without the aid of a consultant.

I have no doubt you are very good at what you do or you would not be successful enough to have a branch in China. You also contribute here for free. Please continue doing so. Please do continue advising people to use a consultant. But also, please do not say that the only way to submit a successful application is with the aid of a consultant. You know that it isn't true. (And you stand the risk of coming across as an ambulance chaser which I do not believe you are.)

I chose to use a lawyer. Others chose to use a consultant. Many chose to use neither. There is no guarantee that using a consultant/lawyer will make for a successful applications. They can fail as well as the ones who have gone DIY.

I do agree with you that a naive/ignorant/arrogant applicant could go wrong but so can a naive/ignorant/arrogant lawyer/consultant.

There are people here who HAVE gone DIY and they have been diligent in researching their options and meticulous in filling forms, reading instructions, asking those who made it and research some more, probably scratch the forms and start again when they learnt something new and they have been successful.

It would be interesting to see a poll on how many successful applicants did DIY used a consultant or used a lawyer. I just might start such a poll.

Andrew Miller

I never claimed (prove me wrong please) otherwise. I don't dispute it at all.

I only say that one who's only experience is his/her single application shouldn't advise others to take DIY route, especially without having any knowledge of others abilities and their cases circumstances. This is the only thing I argue about in this thread.

The overwhelming majority of refused achieved it without professional help. The overwhelming majority of those who used professional assistance got approved. (please read both statements carefully and don't misinterpret them)

About 40% to 50% or so (depending from the poll) use DIY route as many polls, including few in the past in this forum show.

Please show me where I have ever stated that "the only way to submit a successful application is with the aid of a consultant".

Never stated otherwise. Again - show me where I did.

Why we have reports here from long time participants who got refused? Although I never seen them stating this in any poll.

We had quite few polls done on the very matter in this forum in the past. Do the search please.

YYZlover

It's the general tone in your posts more than your words that say it.

My impression here is that people who have gone DIY say that it is up to the applicant to chose what route to take. And honestly, it is.


Fact is that a poll here past or present will never be accurate without digging deeper. What original nationality was the applicant? Which immigration scheme did the applicant use? What is the applicants general background (education, skills etc)?

Maybe those numbers could be found in Statistics Canada, I don't know.

It's more the tone and, IMHO, the emphasis on what can go wrong if not using a professional can do.


Exactly, you didn't. That' why I pointed it out.

Times change. Old polls will not be as accurate as users to forums come and go. I feel that a poll now is needed for the reasons that this is currently up for discussion and active users would respond. New people have gained PR status. Those who have moved on probably don't even check back in here.

Cheers!

Andrew Miller

Wrong assumption and/or misinterpretation again...

If I won't explicitly point out the existing dangers most will never know about them until they are hit with refusal letter.

YYZlover

Well, I think in that case the both of us need to take in consideration that there might be a language barrier involved. Considering I am not the only one here who does not have english as mother tongue, there is a chance that I am not the only one making the wrong assumption and/or misinterpretation.



There is nothing wrong with that but I believe it would be beneficial if it was followed with a line saying that it can be done DIY although risky (which I do agree it is).

BristolUK

From everything Andrew Miller has posted that I have read, I am absolutely certain that had my wife and I spent a couple of minutes with him before making our application, that application would have been made in such a way as to have denied CIC the opportunity to make an issue out of something 'straightforward' and then compound matters with their further errors/complications.

I really don't see him discouraging the use of DIY at all; just suggesting that circumstances and people are different and that what works for one may not work for another.

Anyone confident of succeeding by DIY may be absolutely correct. But when one sees clear contradictions in the Guide, confidence begins to slip doesn't it?

Tanty

I think many people here make some valid points, which only serves to indicate that no case is black and white.

I entered Canada via a Spousal Application (my wife being Canadian, myself British) and we did it DIY style. You would think that maybe I should be blowing the DIY Trumpet? Nope.. no way. We only did it DIY because at the time it was not financially viable to use a Lawyer, had we used a lawyer I firmly believe that 2 months could have been shaved off our processing time, simply because we did not anticipate some of the information needed by CIC that maybe Andrew, for example, would have when we sent in our application. I frequented these boards many times an evening looking for potential pitfalls and advice, most of which came from Andrew's posts.

Yeah sometimes it may sound like Andrew is being a little bias when he advises against the DIY route.. but like I said.. as a successful DIY'er myself I strongly advise using a lawyer if you can.

If anything for peace of mind.

Elizabeth I

Yes, I think that would be the best and only necessary use.

Elizabeth I

What happened? (if you don't mind me asking)

Elizabeth I

What misinformation was that?

Elizabeth I

Yeah exactly, just because one uses a professional doesn't mean you're "guaranteed" either.

NewCanadian

And what basis or expertise you have to make such definite statement?

We have in this forum a former visa officer (Jim Humphries) who contributes his expertise here for as long, or maybe longer, as Andrew does. I haven't seen him ever discouraging anyone from using expert's assistance. I haven't seen him promoting DIY route either.

Are you former CIC officer with experience in assessing applications?

How many applications you have processed in past few years?

How many other applicants' cases you intimately know (not what they told you, but what have you seen in their files)?

It is crazy how many people who only know their own case (and maybe one or two of their friends) voice such strong opinions and give irresponsoble advise.

Maybe it is the time to put your money where your mouth is?

Many immigration experts provide money back guarantee (I know Andrew does) - are you willing to pay back fees and other expenses to people who took your advice mistakenly assuming that you are some kind of "expert" and got refused after years of lost hopes?

mc_dub

as livetoski said, I had issues with one of the more well known immigration lawyers. In hindsight I would only use a different lawyer rather than totally dismissing the idea of using one purely because of my circumstances where I had some really good factors (two work permits in Canada) and some not so good factors (age, borderline points) although my case ended up being so bizarre I could write a book about it (although I wouldn't as it would give some prospective applicants false confidence due to some of the factors)

BristolUK

I touched on it in a previous post. I'm quite happy to give more detail. It shows what may go wrong. It's a bit long but it's really the only way to explain it all.

Ours was a 'straightforward' spousal sponsorship. The application was not missing any documents. We gave no incomplete or wrong information.

The CIC Guide said a sponsor would sign an agreement to be responsible for the sponsored person. That agreement would be specific to a particular situation and was not the same in all cases. That must mean that one is only an actual Sponsor from the time a sponsorship agreement is in place, ie only when it is signed/agreed upon. Is that fair to say? I think so.

One applies for a Power of Attorney, but one doesn't hold it until the document exists. One applies in advance for one's pension but one isn't a pensioner until pension age. One applies for a loan but one isn't a borrower until terms have been agreed/cash been advanced.

All these things happen after the application. The sponsorship agreement was supposed to be specific to the circumstances - as identified by the information on the application. Clearly it cannot be agreed at the time of the application as the details/conditions are not known at the time of the application.

A 'Sponsor' cannot be receiving Social Assistance (SA). Before we met, my student wife's ex husband had reneged on child support payments and 'disappeared' leaving her with no alternative but to claim SA to top up her p/t earnings.

Now obviously we knew she could not keep SA and be a 'Sponsor' but as I say, the agreement to sponsor would come later - according to the Guide and common sense. We kept the SA office informed to make sure she wasn't getting something not due and they were happy for it to continue.

So we eagerly completed the forms. We did it in Quebec where a different process was needed. Upon reading the Guide it was suggested that the medical report would be requested later.

We highlighted the existence of SA and the fact that it would be cancelled prior to Sponsorship agreement.

We expected them to say "all seems in order, just get the SA cancelled and confirm that when you return the enclosed Sponsorship agreement" - or maybe they'd say "we can't do it yet, cancel the SA and let us know you've done it" - or "here are your forms back - return them when you've cancelled the SA." Or even a phone call from them about it.

The first thing that happened is that CIC sent the entire application back and asked for the medical to be completed. So we did that.

Then came the sponsorship refusal because of the SA. Ironically we had cancelled the SA anyway.

I asked them to reconsider given the SA no longer existed. (I also advised the CHC in London that they may hear Sponsorship had been refused because of SA which had since been cancelled.)

CIC wrote back to say "Sorry we can't as it existed on the day of application. If your circumstances have changed, feel free to apply again."

We applied again.

"Sorry, you cannot apply for sponsorship again as the application is still outstanding." Even though we had their 'refusal' letter?

Then the CHC wrote asking for proof SA was cancelled. This suggested all was back on track given the letters I'd written to both offices. We sent the proof and I was then asked for the 'police certificate'...further suggesting everything was progressing nicely.

Eventually PR was refused because sponsorship was unsuccessful.

So right from the start they knew it was doomed to failure but still returned the original application pack and insisted the medical be done. Then the CHC followed all those logical steps when there was no chance of success.

We were guilty of over eagerness, perhaps. We could have waited and cancelled the SA first. But remember, all indications were that the actual sponsorship agreement would come later - after SA had been cancelled.

I consider that straightforward. If they didn't think so, a phone call from them or a letter as I mentioned above would have clarified matters.

Guess what. During the process, CIC did write apologising for their error in refusing and inviting a new application and then saying I couldn't re-apply etc.

They also admitted they should have written to say that flexibility on the issue of circumstances on the day the form was signed was NOT possible and that they should have given us the option of delaying the application.

Clearly, had they done that, we would obviously have delayed it a few days but they have done nothing to right that situation. I complained to the Immigration Minister but my letter was simply passed on to CIC and a standard pre-prepared letter about procedure was sent. No accountability at all.

Now you can argue we jumped the gun but remember, we were eager. Also, the response they agree they should have made was one possibility we anticipated.

I have since experienced most Canadian Government offices are tied up in red tape.

I was a civil servant for 30 years. I would have phoned and said I'll hold it until that bit's done. Simple. I used to complain about some of our procedures but none were as daft as my discoveries here.

Anyway, the point is - to me this was pretty straightforward with a simple bit of thought. It would have been so easy for them to have responded in the way they admitted they should have - better still if common sense had been applied.

I have no doubt any decent legal advisor would have said "Don't expect common sense, everything must be as they insist. Wait until you have proof SA has been cancelled. Don't be over eager."