Andrew Miller

Where and when in any of my posts I have stated that I think that Canadian government
is not grabbing your money? I have only replied to some hateful posts that new law
was not created with the intention of grabbing money, that's all. If you read it
differently than you may have a problem, not me.

And I know very well what kind of income people make in all countries you just
mentioned.

I will repeat myself here - if you don't like my posts then simply ignore them,
nobody forces you to read them.

I'm only helping here with understanding the rules and the process, I don't make the
rules nor implement them, so don't blame me for them. Don't kill the messenger...

--

../..

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


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Peter_all

Andrew Miller wrote:
> Where and when in any of my posts I have stated that I think that Canadian
> government is not grabbing your money? I have only replied to some hateful posts
> that new law was not created with the intention of grabbing money, that's all.
> If you read it differently than you may have a problem, not me. And I know very
> well what kind of income people make in all countries you just mentioned. I will
> repeat myself here - if you don't like my posts then simply ignore them, nobody
> forces you to read them. I'm only helping here with understanding the rules and
> the process, I don't make the rules nor implement them, so don't blame me for
> them. Don't kill the messenger...
> --
> ../.. Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> [email protected] (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> sending email)
> ________________________________
> > Mr Miller, You dont think canadian Govt has grabbed our money because your
> > business has increased by 50% after the new law.I dont think you know the
> > percapita income of counteries like India,Pakistan,Sri Lanka,china.I see many
> > comments of yours in which you have espoused the new law with respect to your
> > business and clients(presentation of the cases). No wonder you are getting
> > hateful responses from other potential immigrants.So,in the garb of
> > helping,you are just marketing your skills here nothing more.
> >
> >
> > --

Mr jaihanumanj or whatever name you call yourself this days,its quite evident that
your posts are builted on racism, stupidity and on other people's ideas. You do not
have the intelligence nor confidence to make sound arguments instead you lurk around
in the NG waiting till somebody who is asanine like you in reasoning comes alone. .

For instance "Vladimir Potapenko" response to Andrew miller's was, IMHO,very
pathetic, unreasonable, biased and way off the mark.(He clearly did not comprehended
what Andrew said) But you thought you had an evil oppurtunity to build on racism and
cause a flaming war and you took it.

Well sorry to disappoint you but I think every normal person out there knows your
true intentions by now and that your posts are simply shitty.

Its very clear that you cannot get the Canadian immigrant visa both under the old and
the proposed new, systems and you know this very well. Almost all, if not all, of
your NG posts since bill C11 was made public has been about the $500 fee you paid.
Others have been asking questions on how they can acquire the 80 points mark in one
way or the other but you seem to be so concerned about you life savings. Perhaps you
are one of those who falsify documents in other to get our visa.

If the $500 life savings you paid is bothering you that much email me your address
and i will personally send you the money so you can get lost.

Canada does not need anymore potential cab drivers or burger flippers.

--

Peter_all

Mr jaihanumanjee or whatever name you call yourself this days,its quite evident that your posts are built on racism, stupidity and on other people's ideas. You do not have the intelligence nor confidence to make sound arguments instead you lurk around in the NG waiting till somebody who is asanine like you in reasoning comes alone. .

For instance "Vladimir Potapenko" response to Andrew miller's was, IMHO, unreasonable, biased and way off the mark.(He clearly did not comprehend what Andrew said) But you thought you had an evil oppurtunity to build on racism and cause a flaming war and you took it.

Well sorry to disappoint you but I think every normal person out there knows your true intentions by now and that your posts are simply shitty.

Its very clear that you cannot get the Canadian immigrant visa either under the old and the proposed new, systems and you know this very well. Almost all, if not all, of your NG posts since bill C11 was made public has been about the $500 fee you paid. Others have been asking questions on how they can acquire the 80 points mark in one way or the other but you seem to be so concerned about you life savings. Perhaps you are one of those who falsify documents in other to get our visa.

If the $500 life savings you paid is bothering you that much email me your address and i will personally send you the money so you can get lost.

Canada does not need anymore potential cab drivers or burger flippers. I mean with your level of reasoning what else can you do in canada?

[Edited by Peter_all on Jan 18th 2002 at 6:48am]

Mikhail Ivanov

Hi! He is author of idea "Work expands to fill the time available for its
completion." and many others. This is a title of the book :
http://isbn.nu/1568490151/price . It's very useful reading for better understanding
modern bureaucracy. Or use www.google.com searh: parkinson's law...

Sorry. Not familiar with Parkinson's law. Appreciate if you could explain.

--
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

    >
    >

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

[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> > > As I said earlier - we'll have to wait and see, but don't count on any[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > major[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > changes. Government is changing the law for a reason and lowering[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > selection[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > criteria in any substantial matter will just leave the existing status[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > years long backlog of applications - this is not what the government[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > wants.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I have stupid question - you always mention long backlog - why govs[/usenetquote2]
can't
[usenetquote2]> > just hire some extra clerks for application processing, using that money they[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > already collected from applicants ( _application_ fee) and trying[/usenetquote2]
to
[usenetquote2]> > change rules instead?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Thanks, Mike[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]

jaihanumanjee

Well,Mr Peter_all or whatever your real name is,Do you want me to go through your posts which were sent here under the nick of "Conrad" and "zulu" and were full of racist abuses. By changing your nicks to Peter_all what are you trying to prove here --> that you are different than "conrad" or "zulu". By cutting and pasting some lawyer's comments does not make you a lawyer since an "ass" like you will always remain an "ass" and by changing your "nicks" does not make you a different person since you are the same piece of rotting shit as before.Hope you are able to comprehend this Mr Retard.If not,ask somebody to help you out.
By the way,thanks for the offer of sending me money,but first get off the welfare and foodstamps and try having a bank balance Mr Urchin.After that,We can see.To cut things short(No use arguing with you) here is a link which will help you the most :
http://www.namiscc.org/.BookMark it.
I hope your dual citizenship of US and Canada ,about,which you brag a lot of times in this post will help you in getting the treatment free!.Also for your dual citizenship give credit to your parents,else otherwise with your intellect nobody would have hired you even as a "coolie" in a third world country.
Thanks again for your "generous" offer Mr Ironhead.

Berto Volpentesta

It appears that they may return the procesing fees to avoid potential = law suits.

None the less, the fees were just a small part of what was going to be = lost. From a
policy analysts point of view we should consider:

The opportuntiy cost to clients The time it took 200 - 300 staff to process the
applications that will = now be refused. The bad reputation and bad word of mouth (1
bad reference =3D 10 lost = clients) The cost of change

Some less tangible than others, but in my view all costly.

Note, none of these deal with any costs to consultants and lawyers. I = beleive this
is a cost as well, however small or large, but don't want = to sound concerned about
self interest only.

--=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

    >
    >
    >
    >
the
    >
    >
potential
    >
skills
    >
    >
    >

    >

Ihate Spam

Hi Berto,

Thanks! At last I read a post from someone that acknowledges that much more than
C$500.00 are at stake here! I *pray* that CIC just does not go refunding processing
fees (with or without a "nominal processing fee", whatever that means). That would be
the easy way out. Even applicants filling out their own forms have, I presume,
invested some time, resources, and effort in getting their files together.

I hope CIC finds a more creative way to implement the regulations. I agree, to my
disadvantage, that if there's an extra supply of applicants, and targets are
being met, regulations have to be more demanding as to get the "best" people. I
can also presume that some applicants (much as I did) may have been thinking
about immigrating to Canada for a long time, and waited until they had a good
case (i.e. getting an advanced degree, getting at least 4 years of work
experience, enhancing language skills, even waiting for a police clearance
report) before submitting their application. I have nor voice nor vote; may this
very subjective aspects be considered before deciding which will be the final
regulations for the transition period.

As it stands, it looks like we could get very stringent selection criteria to clear
all the backlog, and after queues are cleared a lower pass mark would be set to
regulate the number of applicants accepted. This would definitely help Canada reach
required immigration volumes, but at the intentional expense of a generation of
applicants. I bet that the idea of a "lock-in-date" was conceived to avoid this
situation.

Best regards,

Pac

"Berto Volpentesta" <[email protected]>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> > Mr Miller, You dont think canadian Govt has grabbed our money because your[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > business has increased by 50% after the new law.I dont think you know the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > percapita income of counteries like India,Pakistan,Sri Lanka,china.I see many[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > comments of yours in which you have espoused[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > new law with respect to your business and clients(presentation of the cases). No[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > wonder you are getting hateful responses from other[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > immigrants.So,in the garb of helping,you are just marketing your[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > here nothing more.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > --[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]

Sheila

I agree with Pac, for some the return of $500 is nothing compared to the other things
they have lost. My friend who is applying to come here lives in a Communist country
and when he had to get the letter from his work about his job and what he did there
and how long he worked there etc. for the Canadian embassy, his employers asked him
why he wanted this letter and he was honest with them and he told them that he was
trying to immigrate to Canada. Well to make a long story short, less than two weeks
later he was fired from his job and now can not work anylonger in his country in the
field of work he was trained for. Not everyone lives in a country like Canada and now
this person no longer has a job. He has so much more to lose than just the $500.

Sheila

Andrew Miller

Please note that scoring 70 or more points under the old selection criteria was never
a guarantee that immigration visa will be granted - it was only a pre-requisite for
further processing, that's all. So using the argument that some people lost more than
$500 due to the new law is really stretching the facts, as they never had any
guarantee under the old law that they will be approved.

--

../..

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

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

Berto Volpentesta

Heard the new minister today. Seems like a less arogant and more even = minded and
level headed person. Says he will take a look at it (retro) = and nothing is decided
yet. A clear reversal of what Ms. Caplan was = saying even in her dying days.

--=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

"IHate Spam" <[email protected]>
[usenetquote2]> > It appears that they may return the procesing fees to avoid =[/usenetquote2]
potential=20
[usenetquote2]> > law suits.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > None the less, the fees were just a small part of what was going to =[/usenetquote2]
be=20
[usenetquote2]> > lost. From a policy analysts point of view we should consider:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > The opportuntiy cost to clients The time it took 200 - 300 staff to process the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > applications that =[/usenetquote2]
will=20
[usenetquote2]> > now be refused. The bad reputation and bad word of mouth (1 bad reference[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > =3D 10 =[/usenetquote2]
lost=20
[usenetquote2]> > clients) The cost of change[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Some less tangible than others, but in my view all costly.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Note, none of these deal with any costs to consultants and lawyers. =[/usenetquote2]
I=20
[usenetquote2]> > beleive this is a cost as well, however small or large, but don't =[/usenetquote2]
want=20
[usenetquote2]> > to sound concerned about self interest only.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > --=20 Good luck,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed. Member, OPIC Director, OPIC and[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Education Committee Chairman[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving people around the world since 1991[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > www.svcanada.com[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20 20 20[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> > > Mr Miller, You dont think canadian Govt has grabbed our money =[/usenetquote2]
because
[usenetquote2]> > > your business has increased by 50% after the new law.I dont think =[/usenetquote2]
you
[usenetquote2]> > > know the percapita income of counteries like India,Pakistan,Sri Lanka,china.I[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > see many comments of yours in which you have =[/usenetquote2]
espoused=20
[usenetquote2]> > the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > new law with respect to your business and clients(presentation of =[/usenetquote2]
the
[usenetquote2]> > > cases). No wonder you are getting hateful responses from other=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > potential[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > immigrants.So,in the garb of helping,you are just marketing your=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > skills[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > here nothing more.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >=20 20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > --[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> > >=20[/usenetquote2]
    >

jaihanumanjee

How much was the rejection rate under the old selection criteria for a person who had more than 70 points and yet was disqualified?

Ihate Spam

Hi Andrew!

I agree... 70 points under the old regs (without considering adaptability points
awarded during the interview) gave you a solid application and a ticket for an
interview (possibly even a waiver), but no guarantees. 70 points under new regs
leaves you at "officers' discretion" (which may actually be a good thing, but I
really don't know) and gives you a default ticket for a refusal letter, again, with
no guarantees.

In the end, everybody's mileage will vary. I'm completely aware that this is not a
math test, it's about measuring people's suitability for the daunting task of
immigrating to Canada. I think the regs. try to give a guideline as to how to
measure the almost unmeasurable. Given the subjectiveness in measuring suitability,
I bet applicants try to have as much objectively regulated factors in their favour,
and so incur in risks to be better off for the evaluation, that is, reducing risks
of being refused.

Sheila's story is just an example of what an applicant puts at stake to immigrate to
Canada. Similar stories may quote people delaying marriage or having a kid or getting
a mortage, foregoing the chance for advanced studies like a PhD, hiring lawyers or
consultants to "do it right the first time"... you name it. All this happens just
because they are given the "mid term" possibility of immigrating, but with a
prescription date (i.e. "one year after latest medicals"). By following this
newsgroup, it is not difficult to see that some immigrants have a rough time making
this fit into their lifes and so end up losing PR status or applying for RRPs, in
order to finish things like a PhD or being with his/her significant other. I don't
have any stats, so I know not if this is endemic.

My point is that from an economic point of view, this is hardly quantifiable. There's
much more than $500 at stake. In fact, refunding applicants other quantities than
$500 is sheer nonsense much by the same arguments (i.e., I don't want a class lawsuit
either). Speaking for myself, I don't want my money back... I just want that my
chances for successful immigration be kept at least as good-looking as when I
submitted my application. If I end up being refused by discretionary power, so be it;
please don't disqualify me de-facto and justify it by giving me my money back).

Again, I do agree with you that all this is very subjective and particular to each
and every case (and most of the time it doesn't show in applicants' files); I
wouldn't dream of winning an argument in court with it. As I said before, may CIC
find a more creative way out of this mess.

I apologize for the long post. Just my 0.02

Best regards,

Pac

"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> > I agree with Pac, for some the return of $500 is nothing compared to the other[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > things they have lost. My friend who is applying to come here lives in a[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Communist country and when he had to get the letter from his work about his job[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > and what he did there and how long he worked there etc. for the Canadian embassy,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > his employers asked him why he wanted this letter and he was honest with them and[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > he told them that he was trying to immigrate to Canada. Well to make a long story[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > short, less than two weeks later he was fired from his job and now can not work[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > anylonger in his country in the field of work he was trained for. Not everyone[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > lives in a country like Canada and now this person no longer has a job. He has so[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > much more to lose than just the $500.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Sheila[/usenetquote2]