Mahesh Kurup

Dear Mr. Miller:

Thank you for the outstanding support and guidance offered by you to the readers of
this newsgroup.

According to the present rule I guess the assessment process of an application is
closely rated for the final outcome. For eg. an engineer (4 years full time course
with 4 years full time experience) filed after June 28, 2002 - whether be
successful as per the division of points below(without arranged employment and
adaptability points):

Age: 10 Education: 20 Language: 16 AE:0 Adap:0 Exp:25

Total:71

My concern is that how a visa officer can refuse his/her application based on the
above point scores. The new rule emphasis that only prospective candidates gets
qualified. Is the above candidate not prospective?

My another concern is the adaptability factor? I guess this must be changed to
Requirement factor. For eg; how can you justify/explain the points awarded to spouse
education as an adaptability. similiarly the informal job offer letter and the
relatives points - how can they be awarded under adaptability?

I know that experts may answer my questions in their own versions of overview. But I
guess someone like you could provide me with a good explanation.

Regards

Mahesh Kurup

Andrew Miller

Dear Makesh,

Your question is - how the visa officer can refuse application based on 71 points
score? The full answer is rather lengthy, but I'll give you a shorter and abbreviated
version here. Visa officers can and will in 90%+ cases refuse such applications,
period. Less than 10% of applications will be approved regardless of low points score
- such decisions will be based on other strong factors.

The annual goal for immigrants in the Skilled Worker category is about 100,000 - so
if there are 300,000 or more already pending applications in the queue and it is
estimated that opening all skilled occupations for immigration by elimination of GOL
will result in another few hundred thousands of cases then the pass mark is used as a
micro management tool and allows to select the best 100,000 out of the 500,000+ pool
of candidates. What is wrong with that?

I may be repeating myself here but please bear in mind that Canadian immigration law
(as the similar laws in other countries) is designed to serve Canada's and Canadian
economy needs, not the desires of potential immigrants. Government data shows that
prior to 1988 economic immigrants averaged higher job earnings then Canadians, many
of them well within 12 months from landing. But already in 1990 that performance has
fallen well below the average Canadian. Now it takes average university educated
immigrant about 10 years to reach the salary level of comparable educated Canadian.
Why? Because old immigration law permits the selection of immigrants with lower
education level (Bachelor degree without requirement for having at least 15 years of
education) and with rather short work experience. So, this is why you read often in
this newsgroup posts from engineers that they are driving cabs or delivering pizzas
to supplement their income, if they have a job in their respective occupation at all.
The new system will prefer higher educated and more experienced candidates who will
have better chances to compete on Canadian job market.

The same principle applies to rewarding additional points for spouse's education -
statistic shows that immigrants with spouses who are also well educated substantially
outperform in respect to earnings those who are single or with less educated spouses.
So, you have simple justification for the spousal points here.

The new immigration law hasn't been created overnight - it took several years of
analyzing statistics, drawing conclusions and designing new law, including extensive
consultations with all groups in Canada which are affected by this law.

--

../..

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


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Mahesh Kurup

[email protected] (Mahesh Kurup)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Dear Mr. Miller:

Thank you for the detailed reply. As always I appreciate your immediate response.

Regards

Mahesh Kurup

Dennis Cade

Mahesh,

I would advise you to benefit out of the 10 points offered for Arranged employment.
There's a chronic shortage of Engineers in Canada and your occupation may come within
a field where skilled labour is hard to come by. My partner got her arranged
employment (Chemical Engineer) attested within 4 months. It's actually not all that
difficult.

Most employers will be happy to do the paperwork for you provided you have the right
skills. It's a matter of making the right contacts.

Good luck to you.

D.C.

[email protected] (Mahesh Kurup)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Berto Volpentesta

If you have the right contacts I have a thousand engineers to fill those =
positions. =20

--=20 Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed. Member, OPIC Director, OPIC and
Education Committee Chairman

Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving people around the world since 1991

www.svcanada.com

"Dennis Cade" <[email protected]>
[usenetquote2]> > Dear Mr. Miller:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Thank you for the outstanding support and guidance offered by you to the readers[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > of this newsgroup.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > According to the present rule I guess the assessment process of an application is[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > closely rated for the final outcome. For eg. an engineer (4 years full time[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > course with 4 years full time =[/usenetquote2]
experience)
[usenetquote2]> > filed after June 28, 2002 - whether be successful as per the =[/usenetquote2]
division
[usenetquote2]> > of points below(without arranged employment and adaptability =[/usenetquote2]
points):
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Age: 10 Education: 20 Language: 16 AE:0 Adap:0 Exp:25[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Total:71[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > My concern is that how a visa officer can refuse his/her application based on the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > above point scores. The new rule emphasis that only prospective candidates gets[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > qualified. Is the above candidate not prospective?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > My another concern is the adaptability factor? I guess this must be changed to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Requirement factor. For eg; how can you justify/explain =[/usenetquote2]
the
[usenetquote2]> > points awarded to spouse education as an adaptability. similiarly =[/usenetquote2]
the
[usenetquote2]> > informal job offer letter and the relatives points - how can they be awarded[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > under adaptability?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I know that experts may answer my questions in their own versions of overview.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > But I guess someone like you could provide me with a good explanation.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Regards[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Mahesh Kurup[/usenetquote2]