Well, I must admit to hoping that I would be able to write to everyone today and tell you all that we had just received our interview waiver and that we were about to arrange our medicals. Sadly, that is not to be, as we have just been REJECTED!

For all those of you out there that are expectantly awaiting good news … a word to the wise … “don’t count your chickens before they have hatched�.

For your information:

I am English and married to an Israeli. We were married in England and lived in Leeds, England for a while before returning to Israel to live. We applied under the ‘Skilled Worker Class. We applied whilst living in Israel but through CIC London.

My husband is 33 years old and a Civil Engineer with 12 years work experience. He also speaks fluent English. I am 35 years old, a UK trained lawyer with12 years work experience. Although my husband was the primary applicant, I had an informal job offer from a Canadian lawyer to work as their legal assistant. In addition, whilst, sadly, we are not millionaires, we do have more than sufficient funds to help us establish ourselves and support ourselves.

Our time lines go as follows:

Applied January 11th, 2002
Application received at CIC London, January 20th, 2002
CIC started processing our application January 28th, 2002
File number received from CIC February 21st, 2002
CIC made decision August 15th, 2002
Rejection letter received September 4th, 2002

Okay, for those of you who are interested in the law and would like further details as to the reason for our rejection, here goes…

When we started gathering our papers in order to apply, we did so with the intention of applying under the old system. Under this system we scored exceptionally high and we were not concerned about rejection. However, mid December, 2001, new proposed regulations were published. As a result of the proposed changes we did two things; prepared the forms for the new system as well as the old system and I also managed to obtain an informal job offer. At this time the informal job offer gave an additional 5 points. Under the new system we had 80 points which was the required amount at the time.

We then applied and should have been okay. However, after Mr. Cordere came to office, he published a set of revised regulations on June 12th, 2002. The result of the revision was that whilst it lowered the 80 point pass mark to 75 points, it also lowered the maximum points for experience from 25 points to 21 and the points previously awarded for an informal offer of employment were revoked. For us this meant that we were no longer eligible unless the visa officer exercised positive discretion in our favour. In fact, when the regulations were finally enacted on June 28th, 2002, the application kits published by the government seemed to take into account the controversy over the high threshold, indicating that those with less than 75 points, could still pass if the visa officer considered that the points received were not indicative of the applicant’s ability to establish himself in Canada. As we had previously obtained a positive CCPE assessment for my husband’s Civil Engineering qualification and I had the informal job offer, we were hoping that the discretion would be exercised in our favour, or at the very least we would be granted an interview.

You should also note that the June 12 proposed regulations indicated that they would be applied retroactively to all applications filed after January 1, 2002, not withstanding the fact the applications had been filed from December 2001 to June 2002 with applicants believing they would be assessed in accordance with the proposed regulations published in mid December 2001. This has not proved to be the case.

We are now sitting on 71 points and a rejection. We have been advised that my husband could study for a Masters degree or complete a course of French study in order to pass the TEF course which would then give us the extra points now needed. So that is the next step, he is about to start studying French for the next two to three months to bring his French up to scratch before we re-apply. Pretty ironic when you think that we want to live in Vancouver where French will be of little use to us.

In the meantime we intend to approach the media and if possible, to contact Mr. Cordere himself. We are not bitter, but this is an injustice and together with our Canadian legal and social friends, we want to highlight this highly flawed new system and to get the appropriate changes made so that appropriate candidates can apply to live in Canada without fear of rejection. As it stands now it would seem that you must have a Masters degree, 17 years work experience, be bi-lingual, have an HRDC approved job and a spouse who has previously lived and studied in Canada. Yes, there are many of those candidates applying every day!

If anyone has any questions or comments you are more than welcome to contact me at:
[email protected]

Dear Bushbaby,
I fully empathasize with your situation.The Canadian Immigration authorities have made a mockery of the whole system at the expense of all the immigrants around the world,more so among the third world countries.The best thing you can do is to write a letter to Mr Allan Thompson,Immigration Expert, of TheStar
newspaper.I have got my letter published last month in the
Star newspaper on the net elucidating the bungle/mockery canadian immigration has done and had directly written to his email. I will give you his email in case you wish to write to him.


Apparently Mr Coderre and his Cohorts are doing the buffonery in the name of "National Interest" of Canadians ,when the actual reason is reducing the backlog of applications.
This raises many profound question about the integrity of
canadian Immigration :-
1.With so much statistical information,Population research was available to the Immigration stalwarts and federal government , Why the trend going towards a huge backlog was not predicted earlier and why wasn't the old selection grid removed earlier than 1999-2000 to contain the applicants.
2.With so much information on skilled migrants,Why suddenly the old selection grid was unable to cater to the demands of the market ,even though it was perfectly valid
in 1999-2000 and why the new selection grid was not released earlier .?
3.Why were they shamelessly collecting Immigration application forms for people who applied in 1999-2000
when the new regulations were not even in a foetal stage and then subsequently are now applying it retroactively though with a reduced passmark on a diferent selection grid.?

All in the name of "fair play" and "National Interest of Canada" is all what they proclaim.This undoubtedly shows
how canadian immigration authorities view potential skilled
immigrants - doormats who can be dispensed with because
they are weak,voiceless,faceless common people from different countries ,cultures and ethnicity and most importantly are not Canadian citizens, though they were qualified when they applied in 1999,2000 but were not given a slightest hint of the coming new regulations.A classic case of fraud and web of misinformation by the immigration authorities of Canada.

It's ironic that we want to immigrate to a country that cannot create an immigration system that will fit its own needs for several years now.

I agree with you 100%,I applied in August 2001 and as per the new regulations proposed by Mr Coderre,The Immigration
Minister in March 2001.The passmark was made "70" for candidates who applied before Dec 17 2001.
I easily qualified in it. But then again in June '2002 ,Mr COderre,revised even the proposed regulation and made a complete new selection grid for "Canadian" National Interests.

Also,I think the people who make hue and cry about the fairness and say it in the "national interest of Canadians" in this N.G ,No matter who they are, are actually proclaiming that it is "ok" to swindle money from potential immigrants and make a fool of them because they can get away scot free.
The weight of Canadian Immigration worth of fair play is not even worth a dime and this bait of "collecting funds for immigration from people of other countries " and using it for saving their own government surrival wont last long.

Quote :-
[When we started gathering our papers in order to apply, we did so with the intention of applying under the old system. Under this system we scored exceptionally high and we were not concerned about rejection. However, mid December, 2001, new proposed regulations were published. As a result of the proposed changes we did two things; prepared the forms for the new system as well as the old system and I also managed to obtain an informal job offer. At this time the informal job offer gave an additional 5 points. Under the new system we had 80 points which was the required amount at the time.

We then applied and should have been okay. However, after Mr. Cordere came to office, he published a set of revised regulations on June 12th, 2002. The result of the revision was that whilst it lowered the 80 point pass mark to 75 points, it also lowered the maximum points for experience from 25 points to 21 and the points previously awarded for an informal offer of employment were revoked.]

Sorry to hear you've been rejected, but maybe check to see if you could be eligible
for Australia or New Zealand?

Jeremy

    >On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 06:03:15 +0000, Bushbaby <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Well, I must admit to hoping that I would be able to write to everyone today and
    >tell you all that we had just received our interview waiver and that we were about
    >to arrange our medicals. Sadly, that is not to be, as we have just been REJECTED!

Sorry to hear of your situation. You are probably the first of many though, as the
CIC clearly intends to use the high pass mark to reduce its self-inflicted back log
of cases. We have been saying for some time that the CIC should not apply new
regulations retroactively because it is patently unfair. Jim Humphries

Bushbaby wrote:
    > Well, I must admit to hoping that I would be able to write to everyone today and
    > tell you all that we had just received our interview waiver and that we were about
    > to arrange our medicals. Sadly, that is not to be, as we have just been REJECTED!
    > For all those of you out there that are expectantly awaiting good news … a word to
    > the wise … “don’t count your chickens before they have hatchedâ€?.
    > For your information:
    > I am English and married to an Israeli. We were married in England and lived in
    > Leeds, England for a while before returning to Israel to live. We applied under the
    > ‘Skilled Worker Class. We applied whilst living in Israel but through CIC London.
    > My husband is 33 years old and a Civil Engineer with 12 years work experience. He
    > also speaks fluent English. I am 35 years old, a UK trained lawyer with12 years
    > work experience. Although my husband was the primary applicant, I had an informal
    > job offer from a Canadian lawyer to work as their legal assistant. In addition,
    > whilst, sadly, we are not millionaires, we do have more than sufficient funds to
    > help us establish ourselves and support ourselves.
    > Our time lines go as follows:
    > Applied January 11th, 2002 Application received at CIC London, January 20th, 2002
    > CIC started processing our application January 28th, 2002 File number received from
    > CIC February 21st, 2002 CIC made decision August 15th, 2002 Rejection letter
    > received September 4th, 2002
    > Okay, for those of you who are interested in the law and would like further details
    > as to the reason for our rejection, here goes…
    > When we started gathering our papers in order to apply, we did so with the
    > intention of applying under the old system. Under this system we scored
    > exceptionally high and we were not concerned about rejection. However, mid
    > December, 2001, new proposed regulations were published. As a result of the
    > proposed changes we did two things; prepared the forms for the new system as well
    > as the old system and I also managed to obtain an informal job offer. At this time
    > the informal job offer gave an additional 5 points. Under the new system we had 80
    > points which was the required amount at the time.
    > We then applied and should have been okay. However, after Mr. Cordere came to
    > office, he published a set of revised regulations on June 12th, 2002. The result of
    > the revision was that whilst it lowered the 80 point pass mark to 75 points, it
    > also lowered the maximum points for experience from 25 points to 21 and the points
    > previously awarded for an informal offer of employment were revoked. For us this
    > meant that we were no longer eligible unless the visa officer exercised positive
    > discretion in our favour. In fact, when the regulations were finally enacted on
    > June 28th, 2002, the application kits published by the government seemed to take
    > into account the controversy over the high threshold, indicating that those with
    > less than 75 points, could still pass if the visa officer considered that the
    > points received were not indicative of the applicant’s ability to establish himself
    > in Canada. As we had previously obtained a positive CCPE assessment for my
    > husband’s Civil Engineering qualification and I had the informal job offer, we were
    > hoping that the discretion would be exercised in our favour, or at the very least
    > we would be granted an interview.
    > You should also note that the June 12 proposed regulations indicated that they
    > would be applied retroactively to all applications filed after January 1, 2002,
    > not withstanding the fact the applications had been filed from December 2001 to
    > June 2002 with applicants believing they would be assessed in accordance with the
    > proposed regulations published in mid December 2001. This has not proved to be
    > the case.
    > We are now sitting on 71 points and a rejection. We have been advised that my
    > husband could study for a Masters degree or complete a course of French study in
    > order to pass the TEF course which would then give us the extra points now needed.
    > So that is the next step, he is about to start studying French for the next two to
    > three months to bring his French up to scratch before we re-apply. Pretty ironic
    > when you think that we want to live in Vancouver where French will be of little
    > use to us.
    > In the meantime we intend to approach the media and if possible, to contact Mr.
    > Cordere himself. We are not bitter, but this is an injustice and together with our
    > Canadian legal and social friends, we want to highlight this highly flawed new
    > system and to get the appropriate changes made so that appropriate candidates can
    > apply to live in Canada without fear of rejection. As it stands now it would seem
    > that you must have a Masters degree, 17 years work experience, be bi-lingual, have
    > an HRDC approved job and a spouse who has previously lived and studied in Canada.
    > Yes, there are many of those candidates applying every day!
    > If anyone has any questions or comments you are more than welcome to contact me at:
    > [email protected]
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I am with you ..another suferrer of a BAD system who is going to loose processing fee due to retroactive application of the law ..I was wondering if we can legally file a case of fraud against CIC and ask for refund of Processing fee ..?

Bushbaby <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > Well, I must admit to hoping that I would be able to write to everyone today and
    > tell you all that we had just received our interview waiver and that we were about
    > to arrange our medicals. Sadly, that is not to be, as we have just been REJECTED!
    > For all those of you out there that are expectantly awaiting good news … a
    > word to the wise … “don’t count your chickens before they have
    > hatched”.
    > For your information:
    > I am English and married to an Israeli. We were married in England and lived in
    > Leeds, England for a while before returning to Israel to live. We applied under
    > the ‘Skilled Worker Class. We applied whilst living in Israel but through
    > CIC London.
    > My husband is 33 years old and a Civil Engineer with 12 years work experience. He
    > also speaks fluent English. I am 35 years old, a UK trained lawyer with12 years
    > work experience. Although my husband was the primary applicant, I had an informal
    > job offer from a Canadian lawyer to work as their legal assistant. In addition,
    > whilst, sadly, we are not millionaires, we do have more than sufficient funds to
    > help us establish ourselves and support ourselves.
    > Our time lines go as follows:
    > Applied January 11th, 2002 Application received at CIC London, January 20th, 2002
    > CIC started processing our application January 28th, 2002 File number received from
    > CIC February 21st, 2002 CIC made decision August 15th, 2002 Rejection letter
    > received September 4th, 2002
    > Okay, for those of you who are interested in the law and would like further details
    > as to the reason for our rejection, here goes…
    > When we started gathering our papers in order to apply, we did so with the
    > intention of applying under the old system. Under this system we scored
    > exceptionally high and we were not concerned about rejection. However, mid
    > December, 2001, new proposed regulations were published. As a result of the
    > proposed changes we did two things; prepared the forms for the new system as well
    > as the old system and I also managed to obtain an informal job offer. At this time
    > the informal job offer gave an additional 5 points. Under the new system we had 80
    > points which was the required amount at the time.
    > We then applied and should have been okay. However, after Mr. Cordere came to
    > office, he published a set of revised regulations on June 12th, 2002. The result of
    > the revision was that whilst it lowered the 80 point pass mark to 75 points, it
    > also lowered the maximum points for experience from 25 points to 21 and the points
    > previously awarded for an informal offer of employment were revoked. For us this
    > meant that we were no longer eligible unless the visa officer exercised positive
    > discretion in our favour. In fact, when the regulations were finally enacted on
    > June 28th, 2002, the application kits published by the government seemed to take
    > into account the controversy over the high threshold, indicating that those with
    > less than 75 points, could still pass if the visa officer considered that the
    > points received were not indicative of the applicant’s ability to establish
    > himself in Canada. As we had previously obtained a positive CCPE assessment for my
    > husband’s Civil Engineering qualification and I had the informal job offer,
    > we were hoping that the discretion would be exercised in our favour, or at the very
    > least we would be granted an interview.
    > You should also note that the June 12 proposed regulations indicated that they
    > would be applied retroactively to all applications filed after January 1, 2002,
    > not withstanding the fact the applications had been filed from December 2001 to
    > June 2002 with applicants believing they would be assessed in accordance with the
    > proposed regulations published in mid December 2001. This has not proved to be
    > the case.
    > We are now sitting on 71 points and a rejection. We have been advised that my
    > husband could study for a Masters degree or complete a course of French study in
    > order to pass the TEF course which would then give us the extra points now needed.
    > So that is the next step, he is about to start studying French for the next two to
    > three months to bring his French up to scratch before we re-apply. Pretty ironic
    > when you think that we want to live in Vancouver where French will be of little
    > use to us.
    > In the meantime we intend to approach the media and if possible, to contact Mr.
    > Cordere himself. We are not bitter, but this is an injustice and together with our
    > Canadian legal and social friends, we want to highlight this highly flawed new
    > system and to get the appropriate changes made so that appropriate candidates can
    > apply to live in Canada without fear of rejection. As it stands now it would seem
    > that you must have a Masters degree, 17 years work experience, be bi-lingual, have
    > an HRDC approved job and a spouse who has previously lived and studied in Canada.
    > Yes, there are many of those candidates applying every day!
    > If anyone has any questions or comments you are more than welcome to contact me at:
    > [email protected]

I sympathize with your situation and I am certain that you are not the only person
caught in the trap. Unfortunately Ottawa is concerend about the big numbers and not
about the lives of individuals and thier aspirations. If you feel like venting your
frustrations on the Minister go ahead. Your individual letter may have no effect but
perhaps if enough person wrote it may sink in but I would not count on
it.

Looking at your particular situation there is not much hope in the short run unless
the point total is changed. I suggest you try and get your informal job offer
upgraded to something more substantial.

Jim Metcalfe, Consultant and former visa officer

Doesn't matter how many letter you ( potential immigrants ) would be able to send to
the minister or Toronto Star Columnist, the current policy wouldn't change.

Why? My answer to the question is " Are you eligible to vote for him ( Liberal ) in
the next election?". If your answer is "No" , then forget about it the letter
writing campaign. If you're not his party member or his constituents, you're no
interest to him.

Suck? Yeah, but that's reality.


<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
    > Bushbaby <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Well, I must admit to hoping that I would be able to write to everyone today and
    > > tell you all that we had just received our interview waiver and that we were
    > > about to arrange our medicals. Sadly, that is not to be, as we have just been
    > > REJECTED!
    > >
    > > For all those of you out there that are expectantly awaiting good news … a
    > > word to the wise … “don’t count your
chickens before they
    > > have hatched”.
    > >
    > > For your information:
    > >
    > > I am English and married to an Israeli. We were married in England and lived in
    > > Leeds, England for a while before returning to Israel to live. We applied under
    > > the ‘Skilled Worker Class. We applied whilst
living in
    > > Israel but through CIC London.
    > >
    > > My husband is 33 years old and a Civil Engineer with 12 years work experience. He
    > > also speaks fluent English. I am 35 years old, a UK trained lawyer with12 years
    > > work experience. Although my husband was the primary applicant, I had an informal
    > > job offer from a Canadian lawyer to work as their legal assistant. In addition,
    > > whilst, sadly, we are not millionaires, we do have more than sufficient funds to
    > > help us establish ourselves and support ourselves.
    > >
    > > Our time lines go as follows:
    > >
    > > Applied January 11th, 2002 Application received at CIC London, January 20th, 2002
    > > CIC started processing our application January 28th, 2002 File number received
    > > from CIC February 21st, 2002 CIC made decision August 15th, 2002 Rejection letter
    > > received September 4th, 2002
    > >
    > > Okay, for those of you who are interested in the law and would like further
    > > details as to the reason for our rejection, here goes…
    > >
    > > When we started gathering our papers in order to apply, we did so with the
    > > intention of applying under the old system. Under this system we scored
    > > exceptionally high and we were not concerned about rejection. However, mid
    > > December, 2001, new proposed regulations were published. As a result of the
    > > proposed changes we did two things; prepared the forms for the new system as well
    > > as the old system and I also managed to obtain an informal job offer. At this
    > > time the informal job offer gave an additional 5 points. Under the new system we
    > > had 80 points which was the required amount at the time.
    > >
    > > We then applied and should have been okay. However, after Mr. Cordere came to
    > > office, he published a set of revised regulations on June 12th, 2002. The result
    > > of the revision was that whilst it lowered the 80 point pass mark to 75 points,
    > > it also lowered the maximum points for experience from 25 points to 21 and the
    > > points previously awarded for an informal offer of employment were revoked. For
    > > us this meant that we were no longer eligible unless the visa officer exercised
    > > positive discretion in our favour. In fact, when the regulations were finally
    > > enacted on June 28th, 2002, the application kits published by the government
    > > seemed to take into account the controversy over the high threshold, indicating
    > > that those with less than 75 points, could still pass if the visa officer
    > > considered that the points received were not indicative of the applicant’s
    > > ability to establish himself in
Canada. As
    > > we had previously obtained a positive CCPE assessment for my
husband’s
    > > Civil Engineering qualification and I had the informal job offer, we were hoping
    > > that the discretion would be exercised in our favour, or at the very least we
    > > would be granted an interview.
    > >
    > > You should also note that the June 12 proposed regulations indicated that they
    > > would be applied retroactively to all applications filed after January 1, 2002,
    > > not withstanding the fact the applications had been filed from December 2001 to
    > > June 2002 with applicants believing they would be assessed in accordance with the
    > > proposed regulations published in mid December 2001. This has not proved to be
    > > the case.
    > >
    > > We are now sitting on 71 points and a rejection. We have been advised that my
    > > husband could study for a Masters degree or complete a course of French study in
    > > order to pass the TEF course which would then give us the extra points now
    > > needed. So that is the next step, he is about to start studying French for the
    > > next two to three months to bring his French up to scratch before we re-apply.
    > > Pretty ironic when you think that we want to live in Vancouver where French will
    > > be of little use to us.
    > >
    > > In the meantime we intend to approach the media and if possible, to contact Mr.
    > > Cordere himself. We are not bitter, but this is an injustice and together with
    > > our Canadian legal and social friends, we want to highlight this highly flawed
    > > new system and to get the appropriate changes made so that appropriate candidates
    > > can apply to live in Canada without fear of rejection. As it stands now it would
    > > seem that you must have a Masters degree, 17 years work experience, be
    > > bi-lingual, have an HRDC approved job and a spouse who has previously lived and
    > > studied in Canada. Yes, there are many of those candidates applying every day!
    > >
    > > If anyone has any questions or comments you are more than welcome to contact me
    > > at: [email protected]
    > I sympathize with your situation and I am certain that you are not the only person
    > caught in the trap. Unfortunately Ottawa is concerend about the big numbers and not
    > about the lives of individuals and thier aspirations. If you feel like venting your
    > frustrations on the Minister go ahead. Your individual letter may have no effect
    > but perhaps if enough person wrote it may sink in but I would not count on
    > it.
    > Looking at your particular situation there is not much hope in the short run unless
    > the point total is changed. I suggest you try and get your informal job offer
    > upgraded to something more substantial.
    > Jim Metcalfe, Consultant and former visa officer

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Humphries:
Sorry to hear of your situation. You are probably the first of many though, as the
CIC clearly intends to use the high pass mark to reduce its self-inflicted back log
of cases. We have been saying for some time that the CIC should not apply new
regulations retroactively because it is patently unfair. Jim Humphries

It's unclear why the pass mark was set high: for the backlogs or the minister wants to streamline immigrants toward nordic rural areas, as suggested with the new plan

Hi there everyone.

First of all let me thank all of you who wrote to me regarding my posting on this forum. All your comments are greatly appreciated.

Today I have made a start in preparing letters for Mr. Coderre and various ministers and press. Yes, as one of you rightly said, there is probably very little chance of changing anything, particularly as we are not part of the electorate, but if you don't try, you will never know. Also, in my opinion it is very important that we, the people directly affected by the new Regulations, make a visible stand.

For those of you that read the details of my posting you will be aware that my complaint is not based just on the fact that we were rejected by a harsh, new system, but rather that the system kept changing on us after our application, ie that everytime we brought ourselves within the acceptable levels to ensure a successful application, the 'goal posts' were moved. This is not just nor is it equitable and as such it needs examining even if it is not remedied in our individual case. If the Canadian govenment continue to keep changing the rules and apply them retroactively, then every single person throughout the world who currently has an application pending, could potentially find themselves no longer eligible tomorrow!

As I final point to my dear friend who suggested Australia or New Zealand ... I am not looking to prostitue myself to the mercy of any country that will accept me. I chose Canada for specific reasons and I CERTAINLY DON'T GIVE UP THAT EASY!

Sincerely,
Bushbaby

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sumatra:

"Aung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected] thlink.net>...
    > Doesn't matter how many letter you ( potential immigrants ) would be able to send
    > to the minister or Toronto Star Columnist, the current policy wouldn't change.
    > Why? My answer to the question is " Are you eligible to vote for him ( Liberal ) in
    > the next election?". If your answer is "No" , then forget about it the letter
    > writing campaign. If you're not his party member or his constituents, you're no
    > interest to him.
    > Suck? Yeah, but that's reality.
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
    > > Bushbaby <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > Well, I must admit to hoping that I would be able to write to everyone today
    > > > and tell you all that we had just received our interview waiver and that we
    > > > were about to arrange our medicals. Sadly, that is not to be, as we have just
    > > > been REJECTED!
    > > >
    > > > For all those of you out there that are expectantly awaiting good news …
    > > > a word to the wise … “don’t count your
    > chickens before they
    > > > have hatched”.
    > > >
    > > > For your information:
    > > >
    > > > I am English and married to an Israeli. We were married in England and lived in
    > > > Leeds, England for a while before returning to Israel to live. We applied under
    > > > the ‘Skilled Worker Class. We applied whilst
    > living in
    > > > Israel but through CIC London.
    > > >
    > > > My husband is 33 years old and a Civil Engineer with 12 years work experience.
    > > > He also speaks fluent English. I am 35 years old, a UK trained lawyer with12
    > > > years work experience. Although my husband was the primary applicant, I had an
    > > > informal job offer from a Canadian lawyer to work as their legal assistant. In
    > > > addition, whilst, sadly, we are not millionaires, we do have more than
    > > > sufficient funds to help us establish ourselves and support ourselves.
    > > >
    > > > Our time lines go as follows:
    > > >
    > > > Applied January 11th, 2002 Application received at CIC London, January 20th,
    > > > 2002 CIC started processing our application January 28th, 2002 File number
    > > > received from CIC February 21st, 2002 CIC made decision August 15th, 2002
    > > > Rejection letter received September 4th, 2002
    > > >
    > > > Okay, for those of you who are interested in the law and would like further
    > > > details as to the reason for our rejection, here goes…
    > > >
    > > > When we started gathering our papers in order to apply, we did so with the
    > > > intention of applying under the old system. Under this system we scored
    > > > exceptionally high and we were not concerned about rejection. However, mid
    > > > December, 2001, new proposed regulations were published. As a result of the
    > > > proposed changes we did two things; prepared the forms for the new system as
    > > > well as the old system and I also managed to obtain an informal job offer. At
    > > > this time the informal job offer gave an additional 5 points. Under the new
    > > > system we had 80 points which was the required amount at the time.
    > > >
    > > > We then applied and should have been okay. However, after Mr. Cordere came to
    > > > office, he published a set of revised regulations on June 12th, 2002. The
    > > > result of the revision was that whilst it lowered the 80 point pass mark to 75
    > > > points, it also lowered the maximum points for experience from 25 points to 21
    > > > and the points previously awarded for an informal offer of employment were
    > > > revoked. For us this meant that we were no longer eligible unless the visa
    > > > officer exercised positive discretion in our favour. In fact, when the
    > > > regulations were finally enacted on June 28th, 2002, the application kits
    > > > published by the government seemed to take into account the controversy over
    > > > the high threshold, indicating that those with less than 75 points, could still
    > > > pass if the visa officer considered that the points received were not
    > > > indicative of the applicant’s ability to establish himself in
    > Canada. As
    > > > we had previously obtained a positive CCPE assessment for my
    > husband’s
    > > > Civil Engineering qualification and I had the informal job offer, we were
    > > > hoping that the discretion would be exercised in our favour, or at the very
    > > > least we would be granted an interview.
    > > >
    > > > You should also note that the June 12 proposed regulations indicated that they
    > > > would be applied retroactively to all applications filed after January 1, 2002,
    > > > not withstanding the fact the applications had been filed from December 2001 to
    > > > June 2002 with applicants believing they would be assessed in accordance with
    > > > the proposed regulations published in mid December 2001. This has not proved to
    > > > be the case.
    > > >
    > > > We are now sitting on 71 points and a rejection. We have been advised that my
    > > > husband could study for a Masters degree or complete a course of French study
    > > > in order to pass the TEF course which would then give us the extra points now
    > > > needed. So that is the next step, he is about to start studying French for the
    > > > next two to three months to bring his French up to scratch before we re-apply.
    > > > Pretty ironic when you think that we want to live in Vancouver where French
    > > > will be of little use to us.
    > > >
    > > > In the meantime we intend to approach the media and if possible, to contact Mr.
    > > > Cordere himself. We are not bitter, but this is an injustice and together with
    > > > our Canadian legal and social friends, we want to highlight this highly flawed
    > > > new system and to get the appropriate changes made so that appropriate
    > > > candidates can apply to live in Canada without fear of rejection. As it stands
    > > > now it would seem that you must have a Masters degree, 17 years work
    > > > experience, be bi-lingual, have an HRDC approved job and a spouse who has
    > > > previously lived and studied in Canada. Yes, there are many of those candidates
    > > > applying every day!
    > > >
    > > > If anyone has any questions or comments you are more than welcome to contact me
    > > > at: [email protected]
    > >
    > > I sympathize with your situation and I am certain that you are not the only
    > > person caught in the trap. Unfortunately Ottawa is concerend about the big
    > > numbers and not about the lives of individuals and thier aspirations. If you feel
    > > like venting your frustrations on the Minister go ahead. Your individual letter
    > > may have no effect but perhaps if enough person wrote it may sink in but I would
    > > not count on
    > > it.
    > >
    > > Looking at your particular situation there is not much hope in the short run
    > > unless the point total is changed. I suggest you try and get your informal job
    > > offer upgraded to something more substantial.
    > >
    > > Jim Metcalfe, Consultant and former visa officer


As the above note suggests, don't give up and try again. Yes, we have a broken
immigration system that needs a complete overhaul and in the crossfire, we do lose
some potentially valuable immigrants like yourselves who would benefit the country so
I would encourage you again, to keep trying.

Ironically, under our equally disasterous refugee policies designed for the early
1950's, 100's!! of bogus "refugees" (70% crossing the U.S. border!) enter our country
EVERY day by simply uttering the magic password. Despite having no passport, no
identification, no money, no language or work skills, no health checks they become
immediate wards of Canadian taxpayers with easy accessiblility to monthly welfare
cheques, free hospitalization, subsidized housing, clothing allowances, education,
legal aid, etc. etc. Yet, we reject qualified applicants such as yourselves who
attempt to come through the 'front door'.

I am sorry to hear about your case.Where is Andrew Miller? he did not post his comments, is he ashamed of himself or Canada immigration system?
Why the Canada immigration does not inform on CIC sites that they have jobs only as Truck Drivers or Labor jobs in Canada? they are just trying to collect the fees. They talk about Tranparency but in reality Canada immigration system is playing the games. Why do not they print everything on Forms? that we need Master Degree holders and with more than 5 years exp but they have to work in Factory, or Labor job or new Construction sites or waiters.
One a person lands in Canada, and tries to get job they ask " Have you Canadian Experience"? If no Canadian Exp, start from Zero. Why they do not inform in advance that they need Canadian experience, so that nobody should apply. It is foolish to ask for Canadian Exp from new landed immigrants. If you are in IT they ask " Have you Canadian Exp" Do Canada have Diffrent Computers or Winoows? it is all B..

If the Orignal Poster is not a VOTE BANK than why not persons like Andrew, David, PMM are ready to help the lady or take her case to ministers or Newspapers? others who are Citizen of Canada should take up her case let it reach the immigration department and let the public know how the Canada immigration operates.

I am sorry to hear about your case.Where is Andrew Miller? he did not post his comments, is he ashamed of himself or Canada immigration system?
Why the Canada immigration does not inform on CIC sites that they have jobs only as Truck Drivers or Labor jobs in Canada? they are just trying to collect the fees. They talk about Tranparency but in reality Canada immigration system is playing the games. Why do not they print everything on Forms? that we need Master Degree holders and with more than 5 years exp but they have to work in Factory, or Labor job or new Construction sites or waiters.
One a person lands in Canada, and tries to get job they ask " Have you Canadian Experience"? If no Canadian Exp, start from Zero. Why they do not inform in advance that they need Canadian experience, so that nobody should apply. It is foolish to ask for Canadian Exp from new landed immigrants. If you are in IT they ask " Have you Canadian Exp" Do Canada have Diffrent Computers or Winoows? it is all B..

If the Orignal Poster is not a VOTE BANK than why not persons like Andrew, David, PMM are ready to help the lady or take her case to ministers or Newspapers? others who are Citizen of Canada should take up her case let it reach the immigration department and let the public know how the Canada immigration operates.

What kind of comments are you expecting from me now Manish? The issue of new law and
it's retroactivity has been discussed here since it was first announced about a year
ago and then again after the pre-publication of proposed Regulations on December 15th
(when many claimed that they heard very first time about retroactivity) and then
again in March when Standing Committee issued recommendations and again when
government responded to recommendations and again after June 28th implementation of
new law....

Everyone was heard (including many non-Canadians), new Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act was signed into law on November 1st last year, then was the period of
public consultations after Regulations were proposed in December, extended into
March, then were hearings in the Parliament, then more consultations and finally law
with it's Regulations was implemented on June
28....

Regardless how much regrettable the retroactivity is it doesn't apply to the
original poster's case at all - their case was submitted in January 2002, after
the publication of proposed Regulations and after countless number of warnings in
this group from me and few other experts telling everyone not to submit anything
until final rules of the game are known. Anyone applying and hoping for success
on the basis of proposed rules was taking a risk and they can blame only
themselves, sorry...

I've been here all the time and every day and I was warning people not to take
chances - what do you want me to do now? To tell the original poster "I told you
so..." - I don't think that such comment would help and it would be more than
inappropriate to make such now so I won't make it. I was here telling that if someone
wants to take a plunge into unknown they would have to have a perfect case for every
imaginable scenario and even then it would not eliminate the risk. Why I haven't been
submitting any cases of my clients until final rules were known and I made this fact
clearly known in this group many times? Because even I, with all my knowledge and
experience wouldn't take such chances....

--

../..

Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
[email protected] (delete REMOVE from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________




"Manish" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > I am sorry to hear about your case.Where is Andrew Miller? he did not post his
    > comments, is he ashamed of himself or Canada immigration system? Why the Canada
    > immigration does not inform on CIC sites that they have jobs only as Truck Drivers
    > or Labor jobs in Canada? they are just trying to collect the fees. They talk about
    > Tranparency but in reality Canada immigration system is playing the games. Why do
    > not they print everything on Forms? that we need Master Degree holders and with
    > more than 5 years exp but they have to work in Factory, or Labor job or new
    > Construction sites or waiters. One a person lands in Canada, and tries to get job
    > they ask " Have you Canadian Experience"? If no Canadian Exp, start from Zero. Why
    > they do not inform in advance that they need Canadian experience, so that nobody
    > should apply. It is foolish to ask for Canadian Exp from new landed immigrants. If
    > you are in IT they ask " Have you Canadian Exp" Do Canada have Diffrent Computers
    > or Winoows? it is all B..
    > If the Orignal Poster is not a VOTE BANK than why not persons like Andrew, David,
    > PMM are ready to help the lady or take her case to ministers or Newspapers? others
    > who are Citizen of Canada should take up her case let it reach the immigration
    > department and let the public know how the Canada immigration operates.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com