Judy in Calgary

No, CIC does not officially guarantee that.
x

Rubie

Andrew, what do you think about the prospects for future PR applications with PNP and already in Canada on TWP?

Andrew Miller

Absolutely not. There is no such guarantee. Please point me to it if you think it exists.

Again:

1. applications submitted prior to Feb 27 2008 are not affected by proposed amendments. And this is the only thing guaranteed by amendments.

2. amendments don't deal with backlog nor the pass mark

3. applications submitted prior to Feb 27 2008 are subject to existing rules and section 77 of Regulations clearly provides for retroactive implementation of any change to pass mark, just as it already happened back in 2003

4. unless there will be amendments to Regulations which will change or repel section 77 any change to pass mark will affect all applications, including those submitted prior to Feb 27 2008 and submitted on/after that date

I have no idea how to make it more clear to you my friend. Stop reading what is not there.

Andrew Miller

I don't think that cases with PNP and arranged employment will be affected - but we need to see final rules, Regulations and Instructions to be sure.

immigrants

Very clear and thanks

Do 2003 has been datebacked the changes of passing mark to existing applicants?
In my memory that 2003 is lower the passing mark, so that no existing applicants object it?

If any amendment, such as raising passing mark affected existing applicants,
should you inform us as soon as possible? Thank you!

Andrew Miller

Lowered in 2003 pass mark was retroactively (as per R77) applied to all applications, new and still pending old. People usually don't object to anything what benefits them. But would they (applicants with at least 75 points) known and understood at that time what chaos and delays such irresponsible, clearly politically motivated decision of previous government will inflict on them I have no doubt they would protest. But they simply didn't understand the consequences.

Experts (including myself) posting here were warning that it opens a flood gate of applications as with current selection criteria the 67 pass mark made several times more people qualifying to apply than blamed for previous (pre-2002) backlog old immigration law. Nobody listened and now we have 8 years worth of backlog.

immigrants

Should I ask for raised passing mark in 2002 from 70 to 75, does it raised the mark retroactively?

I think CIC rise the passing mark is legally but may be politically wrong for that, so I'm most concern on political more than legal.

PMM

Hi

You also have to put into perspective where the majority of Immigrants live, and that is in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver. These 3 cities were the power base of the Liberals. The lowering of the pass mark, may have helped their political ambitions in those areas. The Conservative gov't power base if you look at the political map of the last election http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/englis...s/election2004
it is a sea of blue from Ontario west, with Liberal pockets in Vancouver/Victoria. Look at Toronto and Montreal the city area, a sea of Liberal red. So as they are not beholden to the "immigrant vote" (if there is such a thing) any changes will probably not hurt them that much in the next election, with no changes to the family class.

Andrew Miller

You misunderstand and misinterpret what happened in 2002 when current laws (IRPA and it's Regulations) were implemented. It wasn't a raise of pass mark from 70 to 75 points - it was completely new law and brand new selection criteria. The pass mark under old law cannot be compared to the pass mark under IRPA - as under old law points were based on completely different selection criteria. Thus no relevance at all.

Old law was occupation based and a lot of points were awarded for certain occupations and little or none for others - the General Occupations List that was intended to b adjusted when needed was in reality not changed for decades. IRPA by eliminating occupation based criteria and GOL gave everyone (regardless occupation) same chance and with 75 points pass mark Canada was receiving enough qualifying applications to meet and exceed annual quotas.

IRPA was initially implemented without Regulations, which followed in May 2002 - selection criteria and pass mark introduced at that time were retroactively applied to all pending applications. Then due to lawsuits when it was determined that old law didn't have retroactivity provision built in applicants who applied prior to 2002 were being assessed under old and new law and more beneficial results were applied.

But courts decided that all who applied on/after January 1st 2002 are subject to new law as well as selection criteria and pass mark introduced later, in May 2002 - because new law has retroactivity provision already in it. Thus yes, new pass mark and selection criteria were published in May 2002 were applied retroactively to all pending since Jan 2002 applications and that retroactivity was upheld by courts.

If government doesn't have political guts to drastically raise pass mark then the backlog will never be cleared, as I have indicated in my post #48 earlier in this thread. People in the backlog will sooner or later realize this and will either give up or will find arranged employment.

Andrew Miller

You should also take into account how past elections were always as I remember held. I don't accuse anyone of any wrong doing but few years ago I was voting in heavily Liberal "pocket" in Vancouver and have witnessed rather disturbing things. People who didn't have voting cards were allowed (as always) to register at the polls and vote - several people with limited English in line before me were registering with just driver licenses and nobody asked them for any proof of citizenship. I stayed for a while and witnessed dozens doing the same within about an hour period. It was very easy for anyone with valid driver license to register and vote - no proof of citizenship was ever asked for. So, here we may have had "immigrant votes" - now imagine what could have been happening in immigrants strongholds in Ontario and few other places and who they voted for.

immigrants

Dear Andrew,

I have two questions want to ask.

In the recent amendment of the bill, they mentioned a changes:
The visa or document shall be issued -> The visa or document may be issued

You said that Visa officer can refuse anyone if they think they are not
suitable to migrate Canada, even they are enough marks,
so why it need to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
for this wordings?

Second question is, if CIC raise the passing mark, what is the possible effect?
Who will against, who will support? Do opposite party against it?
Or any kind of elector support or against? Thank you

Andrew Miller

Nothing is happening without a reason. Amendments to the Act are just a foundation to other details which will come later in Regulations and Instructions. Devil is always in details...

Possible effect? Depending how high pass mark goes, if it is raised, it will result in different rate of refused applications. But as I said earlier - government may not have guts to raise pass mark and instead may leave backlog untouched. With less and less visas available (if any) for applications without arranged employment people will sooner or later give up or find the job. And the latter is what you should be doing.

Who cares about who will support it or not - moral or political support will not give you a visa. Finding a job will.

immigrants

Oh, I mean if no one (electors) support CIC to do that, that may be not dare to rise passing mark......

Anyway, I'm understanding how to find a job which recognised by CIC offshore.
If I can't find job, I will wait until CIC issue visa to me, and I'll decided come to Canada or not.

bazzz

How many voters do you think know about, much less care about, CIC policies?

escort399

If anyone in CIC really cares about the backlog and as been always mentioned that raising the pass mark will aide in its clearance, why hasn't anyone lifted a finger to do so? What’s the logic behind proposing these new amendments to the IRPA?

What implications will there be politically, logically or economically if and once the pass mark has been raised? Has anyone in CIC been reviewing those regulations/laws you've always mentioned?

I am relieved to be way past the anguish of being “under process” since I am already a PR. OTOH, I should have been one of the victims if the marks were raised to even 72 from Y'2004 to Y'2006 since my application was assessed with 71 points based on my CAIPS file.

It just still pains to see a lot of people left hanging or waiting for eternity not exactly knowing what could happen 4 or 5 or more years down the line .