robert_masters

Hi!

I'll find out the exact term used, all I know it really helps support your application. I need to look back on my previous emails to find out. Will let you know later. I will also find out if he knows anything new.

Kind Regards

Angela

Andrew Miller

Angela, apart of having at least minimum required funds any amount above it is irrelevant. There may be some very rare circumstances when applicant cannot reach the pass mark and officer tries to use positive (versus negative used to refuse case when there are enough points) substitute evaluation to see what chances for establishment in Canada applicant has - if there are few millions of $$$ in settlement funds plus a lot of other positive factors then it may help, but money alone not. I'm in this business for almost 17 years now and money (except lack of money of course) were never a factor in other than business class applications.

Anything new? He will know as much as we all authorized to work in this business know, nothing less and nothing more.

robert_masters

Dear Andrew

Thanks for the info and will note what everyone is saying. I'll check it out again!

I guess nobody really knows, just have to sit back and cross our little fingers. If that is the case then a lot of people are going to be in the same boat. Surely if you have submitted your application and are on the boarder of 67 points, you have a skill, find work, get work permit, financially comfortable this will be enough? I'm sure the individuals' case can be argued?

Angela

robert_masters

Dear Andrew

Looked at emails he quotes:

"Securing a temporary visa raises your points , can continue to get extensions until PR application is complete. If you have excellent funds he can apply under the 'Discretionary Categort (which is unadvertised). This is done when the CIC request further information".

What do you think?

Angela

Tableland

Anything suggesting that money can grease your way through a skills visa sounds dodgy to me. There are (or used to be anyway) visas where the rich could effectively buy themselves a visa, but a skills visa should not be determined by funds at all.

Andrew Miller

This is an outright lie and extremely misleading statement clearly designed to lure naive clients to sign up for lawyer's service - your lawyer should be reported to CIC and Law Society for making such false and misleading statements. "Discretionary Category" doesn't exist. No such thing as something "not advertised". This statement is unethical as it falsely implies that your lawyer may have some secret access to something what others cannot access.

There is a substitute evaluation which I already mentioned in my previous reply and it is clearly available for anyone to read in the law [R76(3)] here:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor2002-227/sec76.html

And substitute evaluation should be properly requested with application package which must include all evidence to support such request. Of course request to use R76(3) may or may not be granted as it is up to the discretion of processing officer to grant or decline request. Even if request is granted case may still be refused if substitute evaluation leads to the same conclusion as lack of points.

cneldred

Andrew do you mind if i send you a pm with a simple yes/no question?

Chris

macmike41

QUOTE=Tangram;5081567]No, you need a job offer with PNP.[/QUOTE]
Yes of course – sorry memory & brain malfunction.

Hi Tableland - I like your suggetsion, modified by Alan’s view, but I guess the bottom line is that whenever there is a queue you’ve just got to wait in it unless, as Andrew recommends, you find an alternative route by getting a job - but from what I read that ain’t so easy.

Maybe if CIC looked at what led to the present crazy timeline - panic screwing round with the points system for political or whatever reasons - and learnt from their mistake; came up with a reasonable/workable points assessment and compromise on the PNP thingy; had a proper quarterly batching system - I see people who applied early 2005 already in Canada and yet there are Aug/Nov 2004 people still waiting for medicals, how crazy is that for a professional processing organization - surely those queuing should at least have a realistic timeline to set their sights on.

I understand Andrew’s point that all applications have different assessment requirements and therefore the processing times will vary but when you have Aug AOR waiting for meds and people 6/7 months AOR behind them already in Canada there has gotta be something wrong somewhere.

Andrew Miller

2004 applicants still waiting for initial assessment? In London and few other visa posts yes, but in all countries that are the top source of immigrants to Canada such wait now is 7 to 10+ years, so waiting since 2004 doesn't look that bad from their perspective.

On the other hand in countries (mainly Latin America) with low interest in immigration to Canada processing times are steady on the 8 to 12 months level from start to visa. As I always try to remind readers here - it is simply a supply and demand matter, number of annual visa quotas (allocated proportionally to the population) versus number of applicants. More interest in immigration to Canada = longer waiting times, and vice versa, less interest = quicker processing.

Tangram

I'm here ( 2005 applicant here before 2004's are processed ) because I got up off my arse and found a job, came out on the risk of a work permit away from my family and enabled faster processing to occur. So that might explain the "crazy" timeline quoted by macmike.

Tableland

Couldn't have said it better myself. Some in specific occupations are able to jump forward on PNP, but the majority of highly skilled people must wait in line. Therefore the quicker this line is shortened the better for all the 67+ points people with all those skills Canada ostensibly requires!

Tableland

Andrew

First, Latin America has some of the longest waits, like Columbia which is currently 84 months!

Second, your point about countries with less interest having lower waiting times is not necessarily a good thing. The countries you speak of with high waiting lists have this high interest because they have strong cultural links with Canada, like the UK. In other words, this system penalises people who have a lot of shared norms with Canadians. Is this good for Canada?

Gray C

We are so glad that we have got off this crazy treadmill. OK, not got off, but thrown off.

At least we are no longer in limbo.

Andrew Miller

Nice, like a child. Picking just one country with historically long waits and quoting only the longest timeline. And pretending not to see all other 11 countries in the region with processing times historically and currently shorter than London, 80% of them in 11 to 18 months range, compared to London listed as 29 months for the shortest timeline.

As for visa quotas allocation - they are allocated proportionally to the population in the region under the jurisdiction of visa posts. You and others may not like it, I may sometimes not like it too, but at least this doesn't bring any accusations of discrimination and racism. Historical ties don't count when it comes to allocation.

Tableland

You are the one childishly choosing selectively.

When you talk of your countries with low waiting times of 8-12 months "mainly" in Latin America, you mean where exactly? We've established you don't like Bogota's 84 month wait. What about Buenos Aires's 41 month wait? Caracas's 23 month wait? Guatemala City's 23 month wait? Havana's 45 month wait? Kingston's 24 month wait? Lima's 15 month wait? Mexico City's 22 month wait? Port-au-Prince 18 month wait? Port of Spain's 33 month wait? Santiago's 32 month wait? Sau Paulo's 17 month wait?

Well that's the Americas! Not seeing any 8 - 12 month waits.

I agree with your final point about accusations of discrimination though. British people don't deserve to go through any quicker than anyone else for cultural reasons, though you could argue that Commonwealth nations could have priority as they constitute a political organisation not based on a unitary culture or race.