Bhaskar

"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.
    > --
    > Jim Humphries, former visa officer

Thats true...had the system of central planning worked...then soviet union
had been successful.

Master Jedi Koji Kabuto

    >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.

sir,

i would just like to ask clarification about this. i am assuming that
this will be applied to all new and pending applications which were
submitted under the IRPA regulations. am i correct? what about those
application still pending in backlog which were filed under the former
regulations (pre-2002)? are those applicants going to be subjected
again to what the CIC tried to do with their applications the first
time IRPA regulation took effect?

Web_Guru2003

Andrew when you say "Law change will apply to all pending cases too".
Is this applicable to cases in which initial assesment/medical is
completed and background check is on or this is only applicable to
pending cases waiting for Initial assesment?


"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<MLecc.6417$Sh4.1594@edtnps84>...
    > 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..

Andrew Miller

Please read again the section 77 of Regulations here:

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

As you can see it clearly says "as well as at the time the visa is issued" -
that means that regardless getting through assessment stage and getting
positive selection decision you may still be refused later if pass mark goes
above what you have before your visa is finally issued.

--

../..

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


"Web_Guru2003" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Andrew when you say "Law change will apply to all pending cases too".
    > Is this applicable to cases in which initial assesment/medical is
    > completed and background check is on or this is only applicable to
    > pending cases waiting for Initial assesment?
    > "Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<MLecc.6417$Sh4.1594@edtnps84>...
    > > 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..

Ravi

"Ashok" <member18804@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
    > 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.

You are comparing apples to oranges. I don't see how The Toronto Star
article was misleading. There wasn't remotely any discussion about the
immigrants' arrivals drop. It was reported that the *number of applications*
during the period June 2002-June2003 were dropped to less than 50,000 which
is less than half of previous two years number pf applications. So, the
minister realized that thay won't be able to meet the immigration quota,
hence prompting to lower the passmark.

I didn't see anything in that article linking between 2002's applicants'
number with 2003's actual immigrants arrival number. Now a days immigration
application processing takes anywhere between 1-4 years plus 1 year time
period to land. So, basically we are looking forward to 2-6 years timeframe
to see the real effect of low number of applications on the real number of
landed immigrants. Toronto Star's that article can't be in any way related
with the article on "The Monitor". Probably you should give that article a
good read before accusing that to be distorted.

--

Ravi

"Bhaskar" <[email protected]> wrote in message

<snip>
    > 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.

This is exactly my feeling, 67 point seems still a bit tougher than the old
regulations. Most single guys from the major immigrants source countries
will still have tough time to get the required points. Single professionals
are usually very dynamic and and full of spirit. They can easily adopt to
new environment and willing to take challenge. Being (usually) yonger,
single guys will live longer and contribute to Canadian economy longer than
married ones. I doubt that CIC's preference to choose married immigrants
over single ones is a good decision.

--

Andrew Miller

Please read CIC statistics used to support legislation and you'll see why
extra points for spouse's education. CIC clearly explained that accordingly
to their and Stats Canada statistics married immigrants have much higher
rate of success than single immigrants who have the highest rate of failure.

--

../..

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]...
    > "Bhaskar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > <snip>
    > > 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.
    > This is exactly my feeling, 67 point seems still a bit tougher than the
old
    > regulations. Most single guys from the major immigrants source countries
    > will still have tough time to get the required points. Single
professionals
    > are usually very dynamic and and full of spirit. They can easily adopt to
    > new environment and willing to take challenge. Being (usually) yonger,
    > single guys will live longer and contribute to Canadian economy longer
than
    > married ones. I doubt that CIC's preference to choose married immigrants
    > over single ones is a good decision.
    > --

Ashok

It is Toronto star not me comparing apples with oranges.
look into this sentence from TS

>>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. <<<

This reduction in 80,000 to 43000 in year 2003 has nothing to do with new pont system. All these arrivals are from old point system and a huge number of applications are still pending to be assessed on old point system. How can this observation lead to tweaking of new point sytem to 67 point from 75 point.

From this it is clear, an unrelated cause and effect has been used to justify lowering of pass marks.

Ashok

Let me quote from "THE MONITOR"

In 2002 , 53437 Skilled Principal applicants reached Canada.
In 2003, by 3rd qtr,36822 skilled PA's reached Canada, this figure was 17% lower than 2002 figure of 44412.

Above are the figures , which TS should have quoted. Even if TS quotes wrong figures, TS corresspondant should realise, they do not become basis for lowering the pass marks.

Andrew Miller's Observation is quite correct when he says 50,000 applicantion in this category coupled with huge pile of backlog was sufficient to carry on.

Decision to lower the pass marks could be taken after June / July 2004.

wandering bard

I have another question in this regard:
would the raising pf the pass mark affect those who were already issued a visa, but still haven't landed?

Ravi

"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vpHcc.7980$Sh4.319@edtnps84
    > Please read CIC statistics used to support legislation and you'll see why
    > extra points for spouse's education. CIC clearly explained that
    > accordingly to their and Stats Canada statistics married immigrants have
    > much higher rate of success than single immigrants who have the highest
    > rate of failure.

I have seen those statistics when they were debating about the new point
system. The statistics indicate that that married immigrants have higher
initial success rate. But, IMHO, this is more to do with the fact that
married immigrants are usually older than singles and usually at their mid
to high career level. For initial success married immigrants have advantage
over singles. But if singles were compared at a later year when they are
similar aged as married immigrants, then usually they are more successful
than their married counterpart. This is just based on my personal
observation, I haven't seen any statistics on that. However, we need to wait
at least more than a decade to see whether the new point system has any
benefit over the old one in the long run.

--

Ravi

"Ashok" <member18804@british_expats.com> wrote in message

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

For an umpteenth time.... this prediction of 80,000 immigrants were based on
less than 50,000 applications received and for an unspecified future
timeframe, not for year 2003.

    > 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.
    > <<<
    > This reduction in 80,000 to 43000 in year 2003 has nothing to do
    > with new pont system. All these arrivals are from old point system and a
    > huge number of applications are still pending to be assessed on old
    > point system.

Exactly, number of newcomers in 2003 has nothing to do with that article.

    > How can this observation lead to tweaking of new point
    > sytem to 67 point from 75 point.

As I already pointed out before, they need at least 55,000 APPROVED
applicants to meet the quota (goal). If they continue to receive less than
50,000 applications (fresh, NOT approved), there is no friggin way they will
be able to meet ammigration quota in future.

    > From this it is clear, an unrelated
    > cause and effect has been used to justify lowering of pass marks.

Rich_007

Getting away from the stats and politics, it is a real ballsache to even think about CIC fiddling around with the passmark, especially when time effort and financial investment has been put in by 1000's of people at a set point in time, then CIC goes and changes situation big style. It is 100% inconsiderate and plain unfair to change retrospectively the pass mark. So, someone's at the pijt of getting their visa, then POP the mark rises they're out of the race. Fair ? No.

The new minister for immigration started off with a fanfare of blurb about making it easier to immigrate, attract skills etc. So, show me the money.

CIC makes it deliberately harder, and lengthlier, than ever thought possible. Trained chimps could work out a more effective plan and process.

People stake such an investment of time, life planning, emotional input and energy into this cack handed amateur procedure. The last thing CIC should do at the moment is fiddle with the pass mark. Focus some time and effort on speeding up the process, unburdening some of the beaurocracy, making the forms easier, deal with queries and correspondence quicker and more effectively. And for Jeez sakes, get a few more staff on board.

Tiaribbon

Well said Rich. Especially in the London CHC.....are those people asleep?

Ravi

"Rich_007" <member20440@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
    > Getting away from the stats and politics, it is a real ballsache to even
    > think about CIC fiddling around with the passmark, especially when time
    > effort and financial investment has been put in by 1000's of people at a
    > set point in time, then CIC goes and changes situation big style. It is
    > 100% inconsiderate and plain unfair to change retrospectively the pass
    > mark. So, someone's at the pijt of getting their visa, then POP the mark
    > rises they're out of the race. Fair ? No.
    > The new minister for
    > immigration started off with a fanfare of blurb about making it easier
    > to immigrate, attract skills etc. So, show me the money.
    > CIC makes it
    > deliberately harder, and lengthlier, than ever thought possible. Trained
    > chimps could work out a more effective plan and process.
    > People stake
    > such an investment of time, life planning, emotional input and energy
    > into this cack handed amateur procedure. The last thing CIC should do at
    > the moment is fiddle with the pass mark. Focus some time and effort on
    > speeding up the process, unburdening some of the beaurocracy, making the
    > forms easier, deal with queries and correspondence quicker and more
    > effectively. And for Jeez sakes, get a few more staff on board.

Retroactivity was the dumbest ever idea that CIC wanted to introduce. This
is simply unfair to take applications based on some set of rules and then
change it midway and apply retroactively. There were already some law suits
against CIC's last attempt to play that game. If they are going to re-try it
then I see similar lawsuits against them again. IMO, if retroactivity is
applied then just refunding the application fee is not enough. There are
many other financial and non-financial expenses involved in the application
process. CIC should be penalized for not doing proper job to estimate their
needs, not the applicants.

--