Hi all,

I'd really appreciate your opinion on this:

I've sent the documentation to ACS for the skills assessment about 2 weeks ago. Among the documents, a letter of reference from an employer I worked for between 1995 and 2001, issued before I left the company in May 2001.

When ACS answered me asking for "Certified copy of your employer reference from [...] to include the precise date of employment and the detail of the job for each position held. " (in my humble opinion this information was already in the reference letter, but anyway...), I realised that obtaining another letter of reference would be quite impossible now, given that the company was dissolved back in 2003 and the GM at that time is now retired, so I wrote back, asking if, in this particular situation, a Statutory Declaration from me would "be considered an acceptable solution".

The answer I got was:
My old, tired brain gets dizzy when reading this paragraph ... What do you think this could mean? which of the statements should I consider?

Thanks,

pika13

Sorry if I have misunderstood - did you send the actual reference letter to ACS, or did you send a certified copy of the reference letter? ACS only expects a certified copy of the letter, not the original. You'll need to send another certified copy of the same reference letter to DIMIA later on once you've got your positive assessment from ACS.

You might also want to post on the Immigration forum so that the experts don't miss your question.

Mrs JTL

Thanks Jack(?)

Yes I sent an original as I've got a couple of them (should have sent a certified copy though), but I also sent an original from my current employer and there was no objection on that... So I assumed it's rather the content than the "original vs. certified" issue.

Thx for the Immigration forum suggestion, guess I got stuck in the Lifestyle area when I posted this.

As a matter of fact I'm expecting a "semantic analysis" of the contradictory answer ("acceptable" vs. "could not be considered...").

Just to add, I used some originals like you to save on the cost of £££ for each signature. No one questioned it then, so I guess it must be the content.
Good luck with understanding it all.