|
Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Has anybody used/ heard of her? Do you have any thoughts?
I met her randomly having already decided to move back to the UK because my application seemed useless. She gave me a free consultation and seems to think she'll be able to get me in under the PNP programme. I'm just wondering if she's legit or if she's alll talk and trying to get my money! So hard to tell. Any opinions or information appreciated! |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
If she can get you in, then you can get yourself in, so why not save the cash?! Unless you have complicated circumstances you shouldn't need anybody to do it for you.
Although I should caveat that by saying I have no idea of your circumstances or why you were going back to the UK and weren't eligible for any visa ! |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Explain your circumstances and maybe someone can help/advise ;)
|
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
OK I'll refer you to this thread: http://britishexpats.com/forum/immig...worker-827109/
which I started a while ago which kind fo explains the situation but I'll also give a brief summary here: I've been living in Canada since Sept 2012. Moved on an IEC visa and then renewed it for a second year. I've worked as a server all this time (my only job, I came here straight after uni so I don't have any other skills/ work experience). In February, I'd been working at my (then) job 9 months so I started to apply for a non-skilled PNP. I eventually was advised by immigration canada not to go ahead with the application because I wasn't earning over the minimum income threshold (because I make most of my money in tips). I consulted with an immigration lawyer (David Aujla) who told me that my only option would be to go and study on a study permit, then get a post graduate work permit, and in that time try and get a job that qualified under canadian experience class or FSW. However, I can't afford to go to school, so: My current situation. I have one part-time job which I work ten hours a week. I've been working there over a year. I have a recently acquired new job, which I started two weeks ago, and work about 22 hours a week (they are both serving jobs). My combined income from these jobs still doesn't cover the minimum income threshold. My current IEC expires Oct 4th this year, so there is not enough time to fit in the 9 month required period for a PNP. Catherine Sas advised me that if I get a written job offer for full time restaurant supervisor position from one of my jobs, at at least $12/hour (which would cover the income threshold) and put in a PNP application anyway, even though the paperwork won't be through by the time my visa runs out, i can continue to work on an implied status while the PNP application is in. She said that the specification of '9 months full time or the equivalent part-time work' means either full time in one job or part time for two jobs (as opposed to, say, 9 months at 30 hours a week or 18 months at 15 hours a week) which technically means that if my part-time job, where I've been for over a year, agree to support my application, then I meet that requirement. But I'm just wondering if all this advice sounds a bit fishy?? |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
I mean in credit to her she seems to be hugely well respected (quick google search will show!) but I can't help but be nervous when there's so much money involved!
|
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
How much is she charging? Before you make a decision have you fully read the entry level or semi skilled worker under the BC PNP Programme
Welcome BC - Entry Level or Semi-Skilled Have you contacted the BC PNP? I know they won't do an assessment but they might answer a specific question. |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by Sammilc
(Post 11310252)
OK I'll refer you to this thread: http://britishexpats.com/forum/immig...worker-827109/
which I started a while ago which kind fo explains the situation but I'll also give a brief summary here: I've been living in Canada since Sept 2012. Moved on an IEC visa and then renewed it for a second year. I've worked as a server all this time (my only job, I came here straight after uni so I don't have any other skills/ work experience). In February, I'd been working at my (then) job 9 months so I started to apply for a non-skilled PNP. I eventually was advised by immigration canada not to go ahead with the application because I wasn't earning over the minimum income threshold (because I make most of my money in tips). I consulted with an immigration lawyer (David Aujla) who told me that my only option would be to go and study on a study permit, then get a post graduate work permit, and in that time try and get a job that qualified under canadian experience class or FSW. However, I can't afford to go to school, so: My current situation. I have one part-time job which I work ten hours a week. I've been working there over a year. I have a recently acquired new job, which I started two weeks ago, and work about 22 hours a week (they are both serving jobs). My combined income from these jobs still doesn't cover the minimum income threshold. My current IEC expires Oct 4th this year, so there is not enough time to fit in the 9 month required period for a PNP. Catherine Sas advised me that if I get a written job offer for full time restaurant supervisor position from one of my jobs, at at least $12/hour (which would cover the income threshold) and put in a PNP application anyway, even though the paperwork won't be through by the time my visa runs out, i can continue to work on an implied status while the PNP application is in. She said that the specification of '9 months full time or the equivalent part-time work' means either full time in one job or part time for two jobs (as opposed to, say, 9 months at 30 hours a week or 18 months at 15 hours a week) which technically means that if my part-time job, where I've been for over a year, agree to support my application, then I meet that requirement. But I'm just wondering if all this advice sounds a bit fishy?? First if you're applying as a food supervisor you are applying via the skilled stream not semi skilled which means there is no requirement for you to have worked 9 months for the employer. The problem with this option is that if the job offer is not genuine its fraud/misrepresentation. If you do manage to get a supervisor job offer then the problem is convincing the pnp office that you are needed if you don't have at least a years worth of recent supervisor experience. There is no harm in trying though if you're will pay the application fee. If your employer can give a convincing case then your application could quite likely be approved. There is no need to pay someone to do this for you though, if you have a job offer do it yourself. As for working after your IEC has expired then the consensus is that you can not benefit from implied status on the IEC. CBSA seems to care quite a lot about you working without a visa and I know a couple of people who have been caught out at the border with this advise and been sent home with a 6 month visa ban. CIC did not care less and their PR applications went through without any problems however. I've never heard of the part time equivalent this consultant is talking about, for semi skilled you need to have worked for your employer full time (on average 30 hours a week) but it dosnt matter as like I said above you don't need to have worked for 9 months for your employer to apply via the skilled stream so this sounds like bad advise to me. Good luck |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by tee1
(Post 11310499)
I thought you went over this option months ago?
First if you're applying as a food supervisor you are applying via the skilled stream not semi skilled which means there is no requirement for you to have worked 9 months for the employer. The problem with this option is that if the job offer is not genuine its fraud/misrepresentation. If you do manage to get a supervisor job offer then the problem is convincing the pnp office that you are needed if you don't have at least a years worth of recent supervisor experience. There is no harm in trying though if you're will pay the application fee. If your employer can give a convincing case then your application could quite likely be approved. There is no need to pay someone to do this for you though, if you have a job offer do it yourself. As for working after your IEC has expired then the consensus is that you can not benefit from implied status on the IEC. CBSA seems to care quite a lot about you working without a visa and I know a couple of people who have been caught out at the border with this advise and been sent home with a 6 month visa ban. CIC did not care less and their PR applications went through without any problems however. I've never heard of the part time equivalent this consultant is talking about, for semi skilled you need to have worked for your employer full time (on average 30 hours a week) but it dosnt matter as like I said above you don't need to have worked for 9 months for your employer to apply via the skilled stream so this sounds like bad advise to me. Good luck Any immigration consultant that tells you that you can continue to work on 'implied status' from an IEC work permit is to be avoided. Once you obtain PNP nomination you could apply for a TWP, but you can't continue to work on implied status on an IEC. There are several threads explaining why you can't. http://britishexpats.com/forum/immig...us-iec-815262/ |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
It definitely isn't a misrepresentation, I approached my employer yesterday to ask if he would consider offering me a full time, permanent, supervisory position. It's only dependent on his answer whether I go through with it. I've been with the company over a year and I have a great relationship with him and the other staff that work there.
At my other job, which I just left, I was technically working as a supervisor. They 'don't believe in titles' as I was told by my employer, so my job title was kind of unexplained, and I was on a server's wage (9/hour) but my actual duties were supervisory (it's actually a big part of why I left- they were taking advantage and paying me shit). I was there for a year. Would this qualify as 'experience' even though I wasn't being paid a market wage? If my old employer was willing to write a letter detailing my duties etc. would it give me more credibility? |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by Sammilc
(Post 11311010)
It definitely isn't a misrepresentation, I approached my employer yesterday to ask if he would consider offering me a full time, permanent, supervisory position. It's only dependent on his answer whether I go through with it. I've been with the company over a year and I have a great relationship with him and the other staff that work there.
At my other job, which I just left, I was technically working as a supervisor. They 'don't believe in titles' as I was told by my employer, so my job title was kind of unexplained, and I was on a server's wage (9/hour) but my actual duties were supervisory (it's actually a big part of why I left- they were taking advantage and paying me shit). I was there for a year. Would this qualify as 'experience' even though I wasn't being paid a market wage? If my old employer was willing to write a letter detailing my duties etc. would it give me more credibility? |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by Sammilc
(Post 11311010)
It definitely isn't a misrepresentation, I approached my employer yesterday to ask if he would consider offering me a full time, permanent, supervisory position. It's only dependent on his answer whether I go through with it. I've been with the company over a year and I have a great relationship with him and the other staff that work there.
At my other job, which I just left, I was technically working as a supervisor. They 'don't believe in titles' as I was told by my employer, so my job title was kind of unexplained, and I was on a server's wage (9/hour) but my actual duties were supervisory (it's actually a big part of why I left- they were taking advantage and paying me shit). I was there for a year. Would this qualify as 'experience' even though I wasn't being paid a market wage? If my old employer was willing to write a letter detailing my duties etc. would it give me more credibility? If you had supervisor duties at your old job then make sure you mention them in the resume you submit with your application. If its relevant your new employer could mention the supervisor skills you gained from the old job and how they/you contribute to their company. If you/the employer are eligible in all other aspects then a strong support letter can win them over. I've always found the BC PNP to be very helpful and in general they seem to want to help employer keep workers if there needed |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by Sammilc
(Post 11311010)
It definitely isn't a misrepresentation, I approached my employer yesterday to ask if he would consider offering me a full time, permanent, supervisory position. It's only dependent on his answer whether I go through with it. I've been with the company over a year and I have a great relationship with him and the other staff that work there.
At my other job, which I just left, I was technically working as a supervisor. They 'don't believe in titles' as I was told by my employer, so my job title was kind of unexplained, and I was on a server's wage (9/hour) but my actual duties were supervisory (it's actually a big part of why I left- they were taking advantage and paying me shit). I was there for a year. Would this qualify as 'experience' even though I wasn't being paid a market wage? If my old employer was willing to write a letter detailing my duties etc. would it give me more credibility? HTDH |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 11317790)
Technicalities and rhetoric aside, I'd say you're screwed and should be making other plans for your future.
HTDH |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Hello,
Here is my answer: 1) or IEP holders, you can do an extension of visitor's stay in Canada, but you will not be able to work beyond the expiration of your working holiday visa. 2) BC PNP Skilled Worker Stream specifically says "several years experience" which means you do not submit an application unless you have this experience, which would be a minimum of 2 years. 9 months refers to C & D semi-skilled occupational streams which are not skilled streams. 3) Income threshold of 30 hours a week at $12.00/hr do the math - this doesn't meet the minimum income threshold. 4) Yes, implied status while you await a VISITOR's status extension, not able to work though. And hope for approval, but nothing is guaranteed. I hope this helps, Best, Julie |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
I would imagine Sammilk is likely to have packed up his pencils by now. Didn't their visa run out at the beginning of October?
|
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
That is probably true, however I just joined today, and hopefully getting the right answers is better late than never.
Best, Julie |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by juliemcmahon
(Post 11453061)
That is probably true, however I just joined today, and hopefully getting the right answers is better late than never.
Best, Julie |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 11453067)
But they're not right are they?
|
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by Siouxie
(Post 11310877)
+1
Any immigration consultant that tells you that you can continue to work on 'implied status' from an IEC work permit is to be avoided. Once you obtain PNP nomination you could apply for a TWP, but you can't continue to work on implied status on an IEC. There are several threads explaining why you can't. http://britishexpats.com/forum/immig...us-iec-815262/ |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by juliemcmahon
(Post 11453061)
That is probably true, however I just joined today, and hopefully getting the right answers is better late than never.
Best, Julie If you could read the Newcomers to the Forum sticky thread that would be fab, thanks.
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 11453067)
But they're not right are they?
Which bit do you think isn't right? |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by davedba
(Post 11453108)
Hi, do you know by any chance if PGWP holders can continue to work on implied status? Thank you.
|
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by christmasoompa
(Post 11453223)
Which bit do you think isn't right? |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 11453968)
1) or IEP?
|
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by christmasoompa
(Post 11454089)
Ah. I took that to just be a typo for IEC.
|
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by christmasoompa
(Post 11453225)
If applying for what? Highly unlikely I'd say, as a PGWP can't be extended either. But tell us what you've actually applied for and hopefully somebody will be able to help.
Thank you. |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by davedba
(Post 11454506)
Thank you for your response. I'm on a PGWP expiring January 1, 2015, applied for BC PNP under the International Graduate Stream back in July. However the processing times now are 8-9 months as per Welcome BC - Processing Times
Thank you. HTH. |
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
I think I've read elsewhere that IEC and PWGP are the two programs that aren't applicable for applied status as neither visa is extendible, which is the main barrier with implied status.
|
Re: Immigration Lawyer Catherine Sas- opinions?
Originally Posted by christmasoompa
(Post 11454672)
OK, so in my layman's opinion, you wouldn't qualify for implied status, as you haven't applied to extend anything, but rather applied for a whole new type of visa.
HTH. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:54 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.