Infocan

Hi Guys,
I heard that passing marks will again rise from 67 to 75.
KIndly let me know if this info can be correct or somebody have heard
about it. Andrew Miller sir you must be knowing about that..

Andrew Miller

It is not announced yet, but it may happen at any time. The only question is
when and how high. I don't expect pass mark to change before September (a
year is needed to assess the impact of current one) and I don't think that
it will go back to 75, but 70 - 72 is quite possible. It is only guessing at
this time, nothing more - so, please don't take it in any other way.

Note that pass mark when and if changed will apply to all new as well as all
pending applications, regardless what was the pass mark at the time of
application.

--

../..

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


"infocan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Hi Guys,
    > I heard that passing marks will again rise from 67 to 75.
    > KIndly let me know if this info can be correct or somebody have heard
    > about it. Andrew Miller sir you must be knowing about that..

someone

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:17:00 GMT, "Andrew Miller"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >It is not announced yet, but it may happen at any time. The only question is
    >when and how high. I don't expect pass mark to change before September (a
    >year is needed to assess the impact of current one) and I don't think that
    >it will go back to 75, but 70 - 72 is quite possible. It is only guessing at
    >this time, nothing more - so, please don't take it in any other way.
    >Note that pass mark when and if changed will apply to all new as well as all
    >pending applications, regardless what was the pass mark at the time of
    >application.


What is the sense in retrospectively applying the new, higher limit,
to existing applications?
Anyone who was in the points between the new and old marks would have
wasted a lot of time and/or money for no purpose. Considering CIC is
taking 2+ years to processan application, it would make no sense for
them to raise the limit for at least that long.
I can see the sense in applying a new lower limit to existing
applications, but not the other way around.
My application is on 70 points, if they raise the limit to higher than
that, will I be able to claim back any money I have spent on my now
wasted application? And if so, from who?

Andrew Miller

It is the law - look here:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor2-227/sec77.html

The reason was discussed here hundreds of times before and after law was
implemented in June 2002 - the intention is to allow CIC to manage
immigration program more efficiently in order to meet needs of Canadian
economy. If you'll look back into posts in this forum between November 2001
and September 2002 you'll find hundreds of posts extensively discussing this
matter.

Originally pass mark was set at 75 points and applied to all applications
submitted since January 1st 2002. Then, in September 2003 it was lowered to
67 points and such lower pass mark was applied to all still pending
applications as per the above section of Regulations. By the same token next
time pass mark is changed it will also apply to all pending applications.

That part of the law has already been challenged in courts in past 2 years
and was upheld.

I understand your desire to benefit from lower pass mark, but not to be
affected by the higher one - unfortunately immigration program serves needs
of Canada, not needs or desires of prospective immigrants and thus law was
enacted as is.

There are many ways to boost your score in the case pass mark goes above
what you currently have - and you'll need to show your ability and
resourcefulness to do so when needed.

--

../..

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


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    > What is the sense in retrospectively applying the new, higher limit,
    > to existing applications?
    > Anyone who was in the points between the new and old marks would have
    > wasted a lot of time and/or money for no purpose. Considering CIC is
    > taking 2+ years to processan application, it would make no sense for
    > them to raise the limit for at least that long.
    > I can see the sense in applying a new lower limit to existing
    > applications, but not the other way around.
    > My application is on 70 points, if they raise the limit to higher than
    > that, will I be able to claim back any money I have spent on my now
    > wasted

    > On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:17:00 GMT, "Andrew Miller"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >It is not announced yet, but it may happen at any time. The only question
is
    > >when and how high. I don't expect pass mark to change before September (a
    > >year is needed to assess the impact of current one) and I don't think
that
    > >it will go back to 75, but 70 - 72 is quite possible. It is only guessing
at
    > >this time, nothing more - so, please don't take it in any other way.
    > >
    > >Note that pass mark when and if changed will apply to all new as well as
all
    > >pending applications, regardless what was the pass mark at the time of
    > >application.
application? And if so, from who?

Ravinder Gill

    > It is not announced yet, but it may happen at any time. The only question
is
    > when and how high. I don't expect pass mark to change before September (a
    > year is needed to assess the impact of current one) and I don't think that
    > it will go back to 75, but 70 - 72 is quite possible. It is only guessing
at
    > this time, nothing more - so, please don't take it in any other way.

That begs the question: What was the point of lowering it in the first
place? On the surface of it, it looks like a scam to take money from
potential immigrants who have no legal right to question the process.

At the very least they should make that explicit on their website so that
people who consider going to Canada have a clearer understanding of that
part of the law.

Pmm

Hi Ravinder

"Ravinder Gill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > It is not announced yet, but it may happen at any time. The only
question
    > is
    > > when and how high. I don't expect pass mark to change before September
(a
    > > year is needed to assess the impact of current one) and I don't think
that
    > > it will go back to 75, but 70 - 72 is quite possible. It is only
guessing
    > at
    > > this time, nothing more - so, please don't take it in any other way.
    > That begs the question: What was the point of lowering it in the first
    > place? On the surface of it, it looks like a scam to take money from
    > potential immigrants who have no legal right to question the process.
    > At the very least they should make that explicit on their website so that
    > people who consider going to Canada have a clearer understanding of that
    > part of the law.

It was a political knee-jerk reaction of the previous Minister, Coderre. He
was getting heat from the parliamentary immigration committee and the
Immigration lobby that 75 was too high and that people like Bill Gates, and
whoever you might want to name wouldn't qualify.

PMM

Andrew Miller

It was lowered under the pressure mainly from lobbyist representing certain,
rather strong group of voters supporting Liberal party. I was trying to
explain it once back in September but I was called a racist, thus I won't
try to explain it in more details as some readers in this forum are little
bit too sensitive to have any open discussion. Number of qualified
applications was steady and exceeding Canadian annual immigration targets
regardless high pass mark, but pressure from certain political groups and
obviously substantial drop in cash flow (as number of applications dropped
significantly, but not below immigration targets) forced previous government
to lower the pass mark. Now, with 67 points pass mark it is much easier to
qualify (for majority of applicants) than it was under the old law - so,
expect raise of pass mark as soon as statistics show that number of
applications exceeds few times our annual targets and new backlogs are being
created.

--

../..

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


"Ravinder Gill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    > That begs the question: What was the point of lowering it in the first
    > place? On the surface of it, it looks like a scam to take money from
    > potential immigrants who have no legal right to question the process.
    > At the very least they should make that explicit on their website so that
    > people who consider going to Canada have a clearer understanding of that
    > part of the law.

    > > It is not announced yet, but it may happen at any time. The only
question
    > is
    > > when and how high. I don't expect pass mark to change before September
(a
    > > year is needed to assess the impact of current one) and I don't think
that
    > > it will go back to 75, but 70 - 72 is quite possible. It is only
guessing
    > at
    > > this time, nothing more - so, please don't take it in any other way.

Ravi

"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1Vhcc.6472$Sh4.4395@edtnps84
    > It was lowered under the pressure mainly from lobbyist representing
    > certain, rather strong group of voters supporting Liberal party. I was
    > trying to explain it once back in September but I was called a racist,
    > thus I won't try to explain it in more details as some readers in this
    > forum are little bit too sensitive to have any open discussion. Number of
    > qualified applications was steady and exceeding Canadian annual
    > immigration targets regardless high pass mark, but pressure from certain
    > political groups and obviously substantial drop in cash flow (as number
    > of applications dropped significantly, but not below immigration targets)
    > forced previous government to lower the pass mark. Now, with 67 points
    > pass mark it is much easier to qualify (for majority of applicants) than
    > it was under the old law - so, expect raise of pass mark as soon as
    > statistics show that number of applications exceeds few times our annual
    > targets and new backlogs are being created.

This is simply BS. Since the introduction of the new rules implemented in
June 2002, I've been seen a lot of message in this forum especially from the
immigration consultants/lawyers suggesting that the number of applicants
were on the rise due to the new rules. But it was in fact far from the
truth. Check this recent news from the Toronto Star:

http://tinyurl.com/38eyn

Snippets from that news:

"In the 12 months after the new point system took effect, from June, 2002 to
June, 2003, less than 50,000 skilled workers applied in missions abroad, the
e-mail said. That's a sharp drop from the 128,788 files created in 2001 and
113,134 in 2000.

The note goes on to say that the vast majority of people from countries that
have traditionally helped Canada meet its labour needs were unable to meet
the new benchmark.

Last summer, officials were predicting 80,000 skilled workers would come to
Canada — about 43,000 below the target. In August, Coderre was told
"corrective measures" were needed to meet the target.

A number of options were considered but lowering the pass mark was seen as
the only way the department was going to meet its targets. On Sept. 18,
Coderre lowered the pass mark to 67, down from 75.

The change seems to have worked — in the final months of 2003, applications
from skilled workers jumped 25 per cent."

So the truth is, due to increased passmark criteria number of applicants
were decreased drastically. There are two reasons that I can imagine as a
logical explanation why immigration consultants were in favour of higher
passmark and saying that applicant number were being increased:

1) Immigration consultants/lawyers don't see the whole picture due to lack
of complete data or statistics.
2) It is to the immigration consultants' interest to have passmark higher,
hence forcing more clients' to seek for professional assistance.

I think it's time to stop spreading FUD and stick to the truth for the sake
of majority's interests.

--

Jim Humphries

The sad truth is that it is a matter entirely in the hands of the minister.
He/She will change the pass mark as she/he sees fit in order to meet the
targets set for the year in question. The new system has some kinks and
does not deliver exactly what skills are wanted but that is another problem.
--
Jim Humphries, former visa officer
"Ravi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:1Vhcc.6472$Sh4.4395@edtnps84
    > > It was lowered under the pressure mainly from lobbyist representing
    > > certain, rather strong group of voters supporting Liberal party. I was
    > > trying to explain it once back in September but I was called a racist,
    > > thus I won't try to explain it in more details as some readers in this
    > > forum are little bit too sensitive to have any open discussion. Number
of
    > > qualified applications was steady and exceeding Canadian annual
    > > immigration targets regardless high pass mark, but pressure from certain
    > > political groups and obviously substantial drop in cash flow (as number
    > > of applications dropped significantly, but not below immigration
targets)
    > > forced previous government to lower the pass mark. Now, with 67 points
    > > pass mark it is much easier to qualify (for majority of applicants) than
    > > it was under the old law - so, expect raise of pass mark as soon as
    > > statistics show that number of applications exceeds few times our annual
    > > targets and new backlogs are being created.
    > This is simply BS. Since the introduction of the new rules implemented in
    > June 2002, I've been seen a lot of message in this forum especially from
the
    > immigration consultants/lawyers suggesting that the number of applicants
    > were on the rise due to the new rules. But it was in fact far from the
    > truth. Check this recent news from the Toronto Star:
    > http://tinyurl.com/38eyn
    > Snippets from that news:
    > "In the 12 months after the new point system took effect, from June, 2002
to
    > June, 2003, less than 50,000 skilled workers applied in missions abroad,
the
    > e-mail said. That's a sharp drop from the 128,788 files created in 2001
and
    > 113,134 in 2000.
    > The note goes on to say that the vast majority of people from countries
that
    > have traditionally helped Canada meet its labour needs were unable to meet
    > the new benchmark.
    > Last summer, officials were predicting 80,000 skilled workers would come
to
    > Canada - about 43,000 below the target. In August, Coderre was told
    > "corrective measures" were needed to meet the target.
    > A number of options were considered but lowering the pass mark was seen as
    > the only way the department was going to meet its targets. On Sept. 18,
    > Coderre lowered the pass mark to 67, down from 75.
    > The change seems to have worked - in the final months of 2003,
applications
    > from skilled workers jumped 25 per cent."
    > So the truth is, due to increased passmark criteria number of applicants
    > were decreased drastically. There are two reasons that I can imagine as a
    > logical explanation why immigration consultants were in favour of higher
    > passmark and saying that applicant number were being increased:
    > 1) Immigration consultants/lawyers don't see the whole picture due to lack
    > of complete data or statistics.
    > 2) It is to the immigration consultants' interest to have passmark higher,
    > hence forcing more clients' to seek for professional assistance.
    > I think it's time to stop spreading FUD and stick to the truth for the
sake
    > of majority's interests.
    > --

Andrew Miller

If you would take newspaper articles at their face value then you have no
idea what is what. The author of the article you mentioned has no idea about
anything.

But one thing mentioned there is about right - "In the 12 months after the
new point system took effect, from June, 2002 to June, 2003, less than
50,000 skilled workers applied in missions abroad".

And this is already more than needed to meet Canada's annual target in
Skilled Workers class - to achieve 125,000 immigrants in this class all what
is needed is about 45,000 applications (as past statistics show) as most
applicants have spouses and children making up to the 125,000 level. So, as
you can see I didn't make any BS here - I stated the fact that regardless
high pass mark visa posts were getting more than enough applications to meet
annual quota.

Remember that annual target (quota) in any immigration class includes not
only principal applicants but also their dependants.

In respect to your insulting comment about immigration consultants - you are
wrong. Lower pass mark means more clients for us, we absolutely have no
interest in high pass mark.

Hiring immigration practitioner has nothing to do with number of points
scored against current pass mark - no immigration practitioner can give you
more points. If someone is telling you that "go ahead, give me your money
and I make sure that you get visa regardless lack of points" then I am
telling you (exactly as I am telling this here for years) - run as fast and
as far as you can from such "professional".

--

../..

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



"Ravi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    > This is simply BS. Since the introduction of the new rules implemented in
    > June 2002, I've been seen a lot of message in this forum especially from
the
    > immigration consultants/lawyers suggesting that the number of applicants
    > were on the rise due to the new rules. But it was in fact far from the
    > truth. Check this recent news from the Toronto Star:
    > http://tinyurl.com/38eyn
    > Snippets from that news:
    > "In the 12 months after the new point system took effect, from June, 2002
to
    > June, 2003, less than 50,000 skilled workers applied in missions abroad,
the
    > e-mail said. That's a sharp drop from the 128,788 files created in 2001
and
    > 113,134 in 2000.
    > The note goes on to say that the vast majority of people from countries
that
    > have traditionally helped Canada meet its labour needs were unable to meet
    > the new benchmark.
    > Last summer, officials were predicting 80,000 skilled workers would come
to
    > Canada — about 43,000 below the target. In August, Coderre was told
    > "corrective measures" were needed to meet the target.
    > A number of options were considered but lowering the pass mark was seen as
    > the only way the department was going to meet its targets. On Sept. 18,
    > Coderre lowered the pass mark to 67, down from 75.
    > The change seems to have worked — in the final months of 2003,
applications
    > from skilled workers jumped 25 per cent."
    > So the truth is, due to increased passmark criteria number of applicants
    > were decreased drastically. There are two reasons that I can imagine as a
    > logical explanation why immigration consultants were in favour of higher
    > passmark and saying that applicant number were being increased:
    > 1) Immigration consultants/lawyers don't see the whole picture due to lack
    > of complete data or statistics.
    > 2) It is to the immigration consultants' interest to have passmark higher,
    > hence forcing more clients' to seek for professional assistance.
    > I think it's time to stop spreading FUD and stick to the truth for the
sake
    > of majority's interests.

    > "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:1Vhcc.6472$Sh4.4395@edtnps84
    > > It was lowered under the pressure mainly from lobbyist representing
    > > certain, rather strong group of voters supporting Liberal party. I was
    > > trying to explain it once back in September but I was called a racist,
    > > thus I won't try to explain it in more details as some readers in this
    > > forum are little bit too sensitive to have any open discussion. Number
of
    > > qualified applications was steady and exceeding Canadian annual
    > > immigration targets regardless high pass mark, but pressure from certain
    > > political groups and obviously substantial drop in cash flow (as number
    > > of applications dropped significantly, but not below immigration
targets)
    > > forced previous government to lower the pass mark. Now, with 67 points
    > > pass mark it is much easier to qualify (for majority of applicants) than
    > > it was under the old law - so, expect raise of pass mark as soon as
    > > statistics show that number of applications exceeds few times our annual
    > > targets and new backlogs are being created.

    > --

Ravi

"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:epncc.3305$mn3.1865@clgrps13
    > If you would take newspaper articles at their face value then you have no
    > idea what is what. The author of the article you mentioned has no idea
    > about anything.
    > But one thing mentioned there is about right - "In the 12 months after the
    > new point system took effect, from June, 2002 to June, 2003, less than
    > 50,000 skilled workers applied in missions abroad".
    > And this is already more than needed to meet Canada's annual target in
    > Skilled Workers class - to achieve 125,000 immigrants in this class all
    > what is needed is about 45,000 applications (as past statistics show) as
    > most applicants have spouses and children making up to the 125,000 level.
    > So, as you can see I didn't make any BS here - I stated the fact that
    > regardless high pass mark visa posts were getting more than enough
    > applications to meet annual quota.
    > Remember that annual target (quota) in any immigration class includes not
    > only principal applicants but also their dependants.
    > In respect to your insulting comment about immigration consultants - you
    > are wrong. Lower pass mark means more clients for us, we absolutely have
    > no interest in high pass mark.
    > Hiring immigration practitioner has nothing to do with number of points
    > scored against current pass mark - no immigration practitioner can give
    > you more points. If someone is telling you that "go ahead, give me your
    > money and I make sure that you get visa regardless lack of points" then I
    > am telling you (exactly as I am telling this here for years) - run as
    > fast and as far as you can from such "professional".

I am not taking any comments by the journalist. Just based on the hard
numbers, your points do not make any sense. Without even considering your
reluctance to take any news from the media that does not fit your idea, if
that number of applicants were sufficient to meet immigration target then
the minister wouldn't lower the passmark with a substantial margin in a
hurry. CIC never look for applicants only to marginally fill up the annual
quota. They target to process way more than immigrants needed in a year
because a good number of approved applicants don't land in time or abandon
the visa/status.

I don't understand how could only 45,000 applicants fulfil immigration
quota. From the previous years data it does actually look like we need at
least ~55,000 APPROVED principal applicants to fulfil immigration quota:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/fac...workers_1.html

You have to add a big numbers of applicants in addition to 55,000 *approved*
applicants who would not meet required passmark due to various reason. Even
in the year 2001 and 2000 when CIC received 128,788 and 113,134
applications, Canada barely met the immigration target (which is roughly
around 125,000/yr).

So saying that the passmark set in June 2002 was about right is completely
false. Moreover your hypothesis about some lobby group behind the decision
to lower the pass mark does not seem right. Well there might be slight
influence but so far you haven't present any proof to believe it. To me it
is obvious that the passmark was set too high to meet Canada's yearly
immigration goal.

As for the remark about insulting, my comments were not meant to insult
anybody. It was only my observation and meant to point out the obvious flaw
in the statements that some of the consultants were spreading in the public
news group. During the year 2002 many of your posts indicated that you were
receiving more clients seeking professional assistance even though overall
number of applicants had been dropped to less that 50%.

--

    >> This is simply BS. Since the introduction of the new rules implemented in
    >> June 2002, I've been seen a lot of message in this forum especially from
    >> the immigration consultants/lawyers suggesting that the number of
    >> applicants were on the rise due to the new rules. But it was in fact far
    >> from the truth. Check this recent news from the Toronto Star:
    >> http://tinyurl.com/38eyn
    >> Snippets from that news:
    >> "In the 12 months after the new point system took effect, from June,
    >> 2002 to June, 2003, less than 50,000 skilled workers applied in missions
    >> abroad, the e-mail said. That's a sharp drop from the 128,788 files
    >> created in 2001 and 113,134 in 2000.
    >> The note goes on to say that the vast majority of people from countries
    >> that have traditionally helped Canada meet its labour needs were unable
    >> to meet the new benchmark.
    >> Last summer, officials were predicting 80,000 skilled workers would come
    >> to Canada — about 43,000 below the target. In August, Coderre was told
    >> "corrective measures" were needed to meet the target.
    >> A number of options were considered but lowering the pass mark was seen
    >> as the only way the department was going to meet its targets. On Sept.
    >> 18, Coderre lowered the pass mark to 67, down from 75.
    >> The change seems to have worked — in the final months of 2003,
    >> applications from skilled workers jumped 25 per cent."
    >> So the truth is, due to increased passmark criteria number of applicants
    >> were decreased drastically. There are two reasons that I can imagine as a
    >> logical explanation why immigration consultants were in favour of higher
    >> passmark and saying that applicant number were being increased:
    >> 1) Immigration consultants/lawyers don't see the whole picture due to
    >> lack of complete data or statistics.
    >> 2) It is to the immigration consultants' interest to have passmark
    >> higher, hence forcing more clients' to seek for professional assistance.
    >> I think it's time to stop spreading FUD and stick to the truth for the
    >> sake of majority's interests.
    >> "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:1Vhcc.6472$Sh4.4395@edtnps84
    >>> It was lowered under the pressure mainly from lobbyist representing
    >>> certain, rather strong group of voters supporting Liberal party. I was
    >>> trying to explain it once back in September but I was called a racist,
    >>> thus I won't try to explain it in more details as some readers in this
    >>> forum are little bit too sensitive to have any open discussion. Number
    >>> of qualified applications was steady and exceeding Canadian annual
    >>> immigration targets regardless high pass mark, but pressure from certain
    >>> political groups and obviously substantial drop in cash flow (as number
    >>> of applications dropped significantly, but not below immigration
    >>> targets) forced previous government to lower the pass mark. Now, with
    >>> 67 points pass mark it is much easier to qualify (for majority of
    >>> applicants) than it was under the old law - so, expect raise of pass
    >>> mark as soon as statistics show that number of applications exceeds few
    >>> times our annual targets and new backlogs are being created.
    >> --

Ravi

"Jim Humphries" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kUmcc.34321$Ig.31680@pd7tw2no
    > The sad truth is that it is a matter entirely in the hands of the
    > minister. He/She will change the pass mark as she/he sees fit in order to
    > meet the targets set for the year in question. The new system has some
    > kinks and does not deliver exactly what skills are wanted but that is
    > another problem.


It might be true that there are some kinks in the new system, but the
previous system was not flawless either. Without gathering any substantial
data and proper analysis it is hard to say that the current system is worse.
I believe there was a good reason to reduce the passmark just one year after
implementing a new system which took quite sometime to prepare and get
approved. Ministers may have full power to change the law anytime and apply
it retroactively, but it does not make it RIGHT to deal with a sensitive and
lengthy process like immigration.

--

Bhaskar

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:17:00 GMT, "Andrew Miller"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >It is not announced yet, but it may happen at any time. The only question is
    > >when and how high. I don't expect pass mark to change before September (a
    > >year is needed to assess the impact of current one) and I don't think that
    > >it will go back to 75, but 70 - 72 is quite possible. It is only guessing at
    > >this time, nothing more - so, please don't take it in any other way.
    > >
    > >Note that pass mark when and if changed will apply to all new as well as all
    > >pending applications, regardless what was the pass mark at the time of
    > >application.
    >
    >
    > What is the sense in retrospectively applying the new, higher limit,
    > to existing applications?
    > Anyone who was in the points between the new and old marks would have
    > wasted a lot of time and/or money for no purpose. Considering CIC is
    > taking 2+ years to processan application, it would make no sense for
    > them to raise the limit for at least that long.
    > I can see the sense in applying a new lower limit to existing
    > applications, but not the other way around.
    > My application is on 70 points, if they raise the limit to higher than
    > that, will I be able to claim back any money I have spent on my now
    > wasted application? And if so, from who?


yeah it is a scam....first they will reduce the passmark and take in
applicants
(more money). Then when the time comes to process them they will
increase pass mark so that they dont have to process.

Ashok

Toronto star has given a totally misleading picture .
It is clear they do not know what they are talking about.
look into CIC Monitor magzine, things will be clear.

2003 application drop has nothing to do with 2003 actual immigrant arrival drop. CIC has huge backlog of applicants they could always , increase 2003 arrival figures. Why it was not done, CIC knows it best. I wonder why Toronto Star is giving distorted interpretations.

Bhaskar

"Ravi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<X1kcc.2302>
    > This is simply BS. Since the introduction of the new rules implemented in
    > June 2002, I've been seen a lot of message in this forum especially from the
    > immigration consultants/lawyers suggesting that the number of applicants
    > were on the rise due to the new rules. But it was in fact far from the
    > truth. Check this recent news from the Toronto Star:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/38eyn
    >
    > Snippets from that news:
    >
    > "In the 12 months after the new point system took effect, from June, 2002 to
    > June, 2003, less than 50,000 skilled workers applied in missions abroad, the
    > e-mail said. That's a sharp drop from the 128,788 files created in 2001 and
    > 113,134 in 2000.

during the period june 2002 to june 2003 the pass mark was sky high
(75).
so it is obvious that only 50000 applications will be there.

    > The note goes on to say that the vast majority of people from countries that
    > have traditionally helped Canada meet its labour needs were unable to meet
    > the new benchmark.

they will lose points due to the language test requirements...


    > Last summer, officials were predicting 80,000 skilled workers would come to
    > Canada ? about 43,000 below the target. In August, Coderre was told
    > "corrective measures" were needed to meet the target.
    >
    > A number of options were considered but lowering the pass mark was seen as
    > the only way the department was going to meet its targets. On Sept. 18,
    > Coderre lowered the pass mark to 67, down from 75.
    >
    > The change seems to have worked ? in the final months of 2003, applications
    > from skilled workers jumped 25 per cent."
    >
    > So the truth is, due to increased passmark criteria number of applicants
    > were decreased drastically. There are two reasons that I can imagine as a
    > logical explanation why immigration consultants were in favour of higher
    > passmark and saying that applicant number were being increased:
    >
    > 1) Immigration consultants/lawyers don't see the whole picture due to lack
    > of complete data or statistics.



    > 2) It is to the immigration consultants' interest to have passmark higher,
    > hence forcing more clients' to seek for professional assistance.

Actually fluctuation pass mark is in no one's interest. pass mark too
low
make the wait too long. However given the old regulation backlog they
already have they can meet the quota for a long time.

it would have made sense to keep the pass mark high till they clean up
all the backlog but then they would not earn any money.

    > I think it's time to stop spreading FUD and stick to the truth for the sake
    > of majority's interests.

we are yet to know the complete truth (effect of 67 points)
However do i feel that with pass mark as 67 it will still be tougher
than
the old regulations.

A single person with bachelors from india /china will score 65 (below
67).
I am guessing they will get less that 7 in atleast one section. From
china
they are likely to score less than 7 in atleast 2 sections.