REJECTED! You must read this!
Sep 6th 2002, 4:41 am
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
Pablo <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] Nobody is forcing anybody to iimigrate. I don't recall ever seeying newspaper
> ads placed by Canadian Government urging people to come over.
Actually, once, when I requested a visitor visa to Canada, the consulate returned my
passport with the visa *and* a small ad saying "come work in Canada!". Granted, not
a newspaper ad, but still...
(it was the Seattle consulate, by the way)
-Wilson
> [...] Nobody is forcing anybody to iimigrate. I don't recall ever seeying newspaper
> ads placed by Canadian Government urging people to come over.
Actually, once, when I requested a visitor visa to Canada, the consulate returned my
passport with the visa *and* a small ad saying "come work in Canada!". Granted, not
a newspaper ad, but still...
(it was the Seattle consulate, by the way)
-Wilson
Sep 6th 2002, 5:29 am
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
Man stop crying and get a life. I heard that they need immigrants in Kenya.
"Bushbaby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Okay, my thread seems to be generating some level of controversy so lets address
> some of the issues that are being raised.
> 1. Mr. Miller, re your first response: my husband and I did employ the services of
> Candian lawyers. Even despite the outcome I would still contend that they are
> very competent and able lawyers that cannot be held responsible for the final
> outcome. They were fully aware of the law and advised us accordingly at all
> stages. The point that everyone is missing is that when we applied we were
> eligible under both new and old systems and submitted the forms for both.
> However, with each review, revision and publication of the Regulations, our
> status became altered. On each of those occasions we submitted further
> documentation to once again bring us up to the appropriate point level. It was
> the final enactment to the Regulations on June 28th, that altered everything
> again for us and ultimately led to our rejection and the visa officer chose not
> to exercise 'positive discretion' in his power and did not even consider an
> interview.
> 2. Pablo, save your diatribe for someone else. I suspect that your response was
> little more than a veiled attempt to hide your dislike for people originating
> from different cultures than yours. Second of all your language is appauling and
> if you intend to correspond on such matters, I suggest you improve both your
> English grammar and spelling!
> 3. Mr. Miller, regarding your second response to my thread: with respect, I am
> afraid I have to tell you that in this instance your knowledge is incorrect and
> you even contradict yourself. The June 12th pulication made mention of the fact
> that 'informal employment offers' would no longer provide 5 points. Further, our
> rejection letter makes specific mention of this being the case. Further you
> yourself have quoted section 83 d ii
> "an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an opinion provided to
> the officer by the Department of Human Resources Development at the request of the
> employer or an officer that ..."
> Mr. Miller, this is HRDC approval and not an 'informal job offer'! It is only on
> the approval of the HRDC that 10 points will be awarded and not on the basis of
> an 'informal job offer' which previously would have provided 5 points.
> I thank you all for your interest in this matter.
> Should anyone wish to further this matter with me they are more than welcome to
> contact me at: [email protected]
> Sincerely, Bushbaby
> Originally posted by Andrew Miller:
> > P.S.
> >
> > I would like to comment on one claim original poster made about "informal job
> > offer".
> >
> > "Bushbaby" claims that "informal job offer" has been eliminated in final set of
> > rules and it was one of the reasons they didn't reach the pass mark. So, let's
> > just deal for a moment with that single factor - "informal job offer" has not
> > been eliminated in final Regulations, only the term "informal" is gone but the
> > non-validated job offer has been included in the Arranged Employment factor. This
> > is exactly what Regulations say about arranged employment:
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 82. (1) In this section, "arranged employment" means an offer of indeterminate
> > employment in Canada.
> >
> > Arranged employment (10 points)
> >
> > (83) Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment in
> > Canada if they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out
> > the employment and
> >
> > (a) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit and
> >
> > (i) there has been a determination by an officer under section 203 that
> > the performance of the employment by the skilled worker would be
> > likely to result in a neutral or positive economic effect in Canada,
> >
> > (ii) the skilled worker is currently working in that employment,
> >
> > (iii) the work permit is valid for at least 12 months after the date of the
> > application for a permanent resident visa, and
> >
> > (iv) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> > indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
> > skilled worker;
> >
> > (b) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit referred to in
> > paragraph
> > 204(a) or 205(a) and the circumstances in subparagraphs (a)(ii) to
> > (c) apply; or
> >
> > (d) the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada before being issued a
> > permanent resident visa and does not hold a work permit and
> >
> > (i) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> > indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
> > skilled worker, and
> >
> > (ii) an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an opinion
> > provided to the officer by the Department of Human Resources
> > Development at the request of the employer or an officer that
> >
> > (A) the offer of employment is genuine,
> >
> > (B) the employment is not part-time or seasonal employment, and
> >
> > (C) the wages and working conditions of the employment would be sufficient
> > to attract and retain Canadian citizens.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> >
> > So, as everyone can see if "Bushbaby's" job offer would have checked out as in
> > 82(2)(c) above they would get for it not 5 points as in proposed in December
> > regulations (as she claims), but full 10 points and most likely extra 5
> > points in the adaptability factor - a total of 15 points for so called
> > "informal" job offer.
> >
> > I understand the frustration "Bushbaby" is going through, but we don't know for
> > sure why case was rejected as all we know is only what "Bushbaby" told us - and
> > everybody started blaming the Canadian government here without knowing any solid
> > facts...
> >
> > --
> >
> > ../..
> >
> > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > [email protected] (delete REMOVE from the above address before
> > sending email)
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Andrew Miller" wrote in message news:OZWd9.- 4041$Y7-
> > [email protected]"]news:OZWd-
> > 9.4041$Y73.215903@new-
> > s1.telusplanet.- net[/url]...
> > > What kind of comments are you expecting from me now Manish? The issue of new
> > > law and it's retroactivity has been discussed here since it was first
> > announced
> > > about a year ago and then again after the pre-publication of proposed
> > > Regulations on December 15th (when many claimed that they heard very first
> > time
> > > about retroactivity) and then again in March when Standing Committee issued
> > > recommendations and again when government responded to recommendations and
> > > again after June 28th implementation of new law.... Everyone was heard
> > > (including many non-Canadians), new Immigration and
> > Refugee
> > > Protection Act was signed into law on November 1st last year, then was the
> > > period of public consultations after Regulations were proposed in December,
> > > extended into March, then were hearings in the Parliament, then more
> > > consultations and finally law with it's Regulations was implemented on June
> > > 28.... Regardless how much regrettable the retroactivity is it doesn't apply to
> > > the original poster's case at all - their case was submitted in January
> > > 2002,
> > after
> > > the publication of proposed Regulations and after countless number of
> > warnings
> > > in this group from me and few other experts telling everyone not to submit
> > > anything until final rules of the game are known. Anyone applying and hoping
> > > for success on the basis of proposed rules was taking a risk and they can
> > blame
> > > only themselves, sorry... I've been here all the time and every day and I was
> > > warning people not to
> > take
> > > chances - what do you want me to do now? To tell the original poster "I told
> > > you so..." - I don't think that such comment would help and it would be more
> > > than inappropriate to make such now so I won't make it. I was here telling
> > that
> > > if someone wants to take a plunge into unknown they would have to have a
> > > perfect case for every imaginable scenario and even then it would not
> > eliminate
> > > the risk. Why I haven't been submitting any cases of my clients until final
> > > rules were known and I made this fact clearly known in this group many times?
> > > Because even I, with all my knowledge and experience wouldn't take such
> > > chances....
> > > --
> > > ../.. Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > > [email protected] (delete REMOVE from the above address
> > > before sending email)
> > > ________________________________
> > > "Manish" wrote in message
> > > news:407533.1031285208@-
> > > britishexpats.comnews:407533.1031285208@britishexp ats.com...
> > > >
> > > > I am sorry to hear about your case.Where is Andrew Miller? he did not post
> > > > his comments, is he ashamed of himself or Canada immigration system? Why the
> > > > Canada immigration does not inform on CIC sites that they have jobs only as
> > > > Truck Drivers or Labor jobs in Canada? they are just trying to collect the
> > > > fees. They talk about Tranparency but in reality Canada immigration system is
> > > > playing the games. Why do not they print everything on Forms? that we need
> > > > Master Degree holders and with more than 5 years exp but they have to work in
> > > > Factory, or Labor job or new Construction sites or waiters. One a person
> > > > lands in Canada, and tries to get job they ask " Have you Canadian
> > > > Experience"? If no Canadian Exp, start from Zero. Why they do not inform in
> > > > advance that they need Canadian experience, so that nobody should apply. It
> > > > is foolish to ask for Canadian Exp from new landed immigrants. If you are in
> > > > IT they ask " Have you Canadian Exp" Do Canada have Diffrent Computers or
> > > > Winoows? it is all B..
> > > >
> > > > If the Orignal Poster is not a VOTE BANK than why not persons like Andrew,
> > > > David, PMM are ready to help the lady or take her case to ministers or
> > > > Newspapers? others who are Citizen of Canada should take up her case let it
> > > > reach the immigration department and let the public know how the Canada
> > > > immigration operates.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Posted via http://b-
> > > > ritishexpats.com/http://britishexpats.com
> > > >
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
"Bushbaby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Okay, my thread seems to be generating some level of controversy so lets address
> some of the issues that are being raised.
> 1. Mr. Miller, re your first response: my husband and I did employ the services of
> Candian lawyers. Even despite the outcome I would still contend that they are
> very competent and able lawyers that cannot be held responsible for the final
> outcome. They were fully aware of the law and advised us accordingly at all
> stages. The point that everyone is missing is that when we applied we were
> eligible under both new and old systems and submitted the forms for both.
> However, with each review, revision and publication of the Regulations, our
> status became altered. On each of those occasions we submitted further
> documentation to once again bring us up to the appropriate point level. It was
> the final enactment to the Regulations on June 28th, that altered everything
> again for us and ultimately led to our rejection and the visa officer chose not
> to exercise 'positive discretion' in his power and did not even consider an
> interview.
> 2. Pablo, save your diatribe for someone else. I suspect that your response was
> little more than a veiled attempt to hide your dislike for people originating
> from different cultures than yours. Second of all your language is appauling and
> if you intend to correspond on such matters, I suggest you improve both your
> English grammar and spelling!
> 3. Mr. Miller, regarding your second response to my thread: with respect, I am
> afraid I have to tell you that in this instance your knowledge is incorrect and
> you even contradict yourself. The June 12th pulication made mention of the fact
> that 'informal employment offers' would no longer provide 5 points. Further, our
> rejection letter makes specific mention of this being the case. Further you
> yourself have quoted section 83 d ii
> "an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an opinion provided to
> the officer by the Department of Human Resources Development at the request of the
> employer or an officer that ..."
> Mr. Miller, this is HRDC approval and not an 'informal job offer'! It is only on
> the approval of the HRDC that 10 points will be awarded and not on the basis of
> an 'informal job offer' which previously would have provided 5 points.
> I thank you all for your interest in this matter.
> Should anyone wish to further this matter with me they are more than welcome to
> contact me at: [email protected]
> Sincerely, Bushbaby
> Originally posted by Andrew Miller:
> > P.S.
> >
> > I would like to comment on one claim original poster made about "informal job
> > offer".
> >
> > "Bushbaby" claims that "informal job offer" has been eliminated in final set of
> > rules and it was one of the reasons they didn't reach the pass mark. So, let's
> > just deal for a moment with that single factor - "informal job offer" has not
> > been eliminated in final Regulations, only the term "informal" is gone but the
> > non-validated job offer has been included in the Arranged Employment factor. This
> > is exactly what Regulations say about arranged employment:
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 82. (1) In this section, "arranged employment" means an offer of indeterminate
> > employment in Canada.
> >
> > Arranged employment (10 points)
> >
> > (83) Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment in
> > Canada if they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out
> > the employment and
> >
> > (a) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit and
> >
> > (i) there has been a determination by an officer under section 203 that
> > the performance of the employment by the skilled worker would be
> > likely to result in a neutral or positive economic effect in Canada,
> >
> > (ii) the skilled worker is currently working in that employment,
> >
> > (iii) the work permit is valid for at least 12 months after the date of the
> > application for a permanent resident visa, and
> >
> > (iv) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> > indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
> > skilled worker;
> >
> > (b) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit referred to in
> > paragraph
> > 204(a) or 205(a) and the circumstances in subparagraphs (a)(ii) to
> > (c) apply; or
> >
> > (d) the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada before being issued a
> > permanent resident visa and does not hold a work permit and
> >
> > (i) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> > indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
> > skilled worker, and
> >
> > (ii) an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an opinion
> > provided to the officer by the Department of Human Resources
> > Development at the request of the employer or an officer that
> >
> > (A) the offer of employment is genuine,
> >
> > (B) the employment is not part-time or seasonal employment, and
> >
> > (C) the wages and working conditions of the employment would be sufficient
> > to attract and retain Canadian citizens.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> >
> > So, as everyone can see if "Bushbaby's" job offer would have checked out as in
> > 82(2)(c) above they would get for it not 5 points as in proposed in December
> > regulations (as she claims), but full 10 points and most likely extra 5
> > points in the adaptability factor - a total of 15 points for so called
> > "informal" job offer.
> >
> > I understand the frustration "Bushbaby" is going through, but we don't know for
> > sure why case was rejected as all we know is only what "Bushbaby" told us - and
> > everybody started blaming the Canadian government here without knowing any solid
> > facts...
> >
> > --
> >
> > ../..
> >
> > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > [email protected] (delete REMOVE from the above address before
> > sending email)
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Andrew Miller" wrote in message news:OZWd9.- 4041$Y7-
> > [email protected]"]news:OZWd-
> > 9.4041$Y73.215903@new-
> > s1.telusplanet.- net[/url]...
> > > What kind of comments are you expecting from me now Manish? The issue of new
> > > law and it's retroactivity has been discussed here since it was first
> > announced
> > > about a year ago and then again after the pre-publication of proposed
> > > Regulations on December 15th (when many claimed that they heard very first
> > time
> > > about retroactivity) and then again in March when Standing Committee issued
> > > recommendations and again when government responded to recommendations and
> > > again after June 28th implementation of new law.... Everyone was heard
> > > (including many non-Canadians), new Immigration and
> > Refugee
> > > Protection Act was signed into law on November 1st last year, then was the
> > > period of public consultations after Regulations were proposed in December,
> > > extended into March, then were hearings in the Parliament, then more
> > > consultations and finally law with it's Regulations was implemented on June
> > > 28.... Regardless how much regrettable the retroactivity is it doesn't apply to
> > > the original poster's case at all - their case was submitted in January
> > > 2002,
> > after
> > > the publication of proposed Regulations and after countless number of
> > warnings
> > > in this group from me and few other experts telling everyone not to submit
> > > anything until final rules of the game are known. Anyone applying and hoping
> > > for success on the basis of proposed rules was taking a risk and they can
> > blame
> > > only themselves, sorry... I've been here all the time and every day and I was
> > > warning people not to
> > take
> > > chances - what do you want me to do now? To tell the original poster "I told
> > > you so..." - I don't think that such comment would help and it would be more
> > > than inappropriate to make such now so I won't make it. I was here telling
> > that
> > > if someone wants to take a plunge into unknown they would have to have a
> > > perfect case for every imaginable scenario and even then it would not
> > eliminate
> > > the risk. Why I haven't been submitting any cases of my clients until final
> > > rules were known and I made this fact clearly known in this group many times?
> > > Because even I, with all my knowledge and experience wouldn't take such
> > > chances....
> > > --
> > > ../.. Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> > > [email protected] (delete REMOVE from the above address
> > > before sending email)
> > > ________________________________
> > > "Manish" wrote in message
> > > news:407533.1031285208@-
> > > britishexpats.comnews:407533.1031285208@britishexp ats.com...
> > > >
> > > > I am sorry to hear about your case.Where is Andrew Miller? he did not post
> > > > his comments, is he ashamed of himself or Canada immigration system? Why the
> > > > Canada immigration does not inform on CIC sites that they have jobs only as
> > > > Truck Drivers or Labor jobs in Canada? they are just trying to collect the
> > > > fees. They talk about Tranparency but in reality Canada immigration system is
> > > > playing the games. Why do not they print everything on Forms? that we need
> > > > Master Degree holders and with more than 5 years exp but they have to work in
> > > > Factory, or Labor job or new Construction sites or waiters. One a person
> > > > lands in Canada, and tries to get job they ask " Have you Canadian
> > > > Experience"? If no Canadian Exp, start from Zero. Why they do not inform in
> > > > advance that they need Canadian experience, so that nobody should apply. It
> > > > is foolish to ask for Canadian Exp from new landed immigrants. If you are in
> > > > IT they ask " Have you Canadian Exp" Do Canada have Diffrent Computers or
> > > > Winoows? it is all B..
> > > >
> > > > If the Orignal Poster is not a VOTE BANK than why not persons like Andrew,
> > > > David, PMM are ready to help the lady or take her case to ministers or
> > > > Newspapers? others who are Citizen of Canada should take up her case let it
> > > > reach the immigration department and let the public know how the Canada
> > > > immigration operates.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Posted via http://b-
> > > > ritishexpats.com/http://britishexpats.com
> > > >
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Sep 6th 2002, 6:25 am
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Non-validated job offer
"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]> ...
> P.S.
> I would like to comment on one claim original poster made about "informal
> job offer".
> "Bushbaby" claims that "informal job offer" has been eliminated in final set of
> rules and it was one of the reasons they didn't reach the pass mark. So, let's just
> deal for a moment with that single factor - "informal job offer" has not been
> eliminated in final Regulations, only the term "informal" is gone but the
> non-validated job offer has been included in the Arranged Employment factor. This
> is exactly what Regulations say about arranged employment:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 82. (1) In this section, "arranged employment" means an offer of indeterminate
> employment in Canada.
> Arranged employment (10 points)
> (2) Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment in
> Canada if they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out the
> employment and
> (a) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit and
> (i) there has been a determination by an officer under section 203 that the
> performance of the employment by the skilled worker would be likely to
> result in a neutral or positive economic effect in Canada,
> (ii) the skilled worker is currently working in that employment,
> (iii) the work permit is valid for at least 12 months after the date of the
> application for a permanent resident visa, and
> (iv) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
> skilled worker;
> (b) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit referred to in
> paragraph 204(a) or 205(a) and the circumstances in subparagraphs (a)(ii) to
> (iv) apply; or
> (c) the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada before being issued a
> permanent resident visa and does not hold a work permit and
> (i) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
> skilled worker, and
> (ii) an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an opinion
> provided to the officer by the Department of Human Resources Development
> at the request of the employer or an officer that
> (A) the offer of employment is genuine,
> (B) the employment is not part-time or seasonal employment, and
> (C) the wages and working conditions of the employment would be sufficient
> to attract and retain Canadian citizens.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So, as everyone can see if "Bushbaby's" job offer would have checked out as in
> 82(2)(c) above they would get for it not 5 points as in proposed in December
> regulations (as she claims), but full 10 points and most likely extra 5
> points in the adaptability factor - a total of 15 points for so called
> "informal" job offer.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that 82.2.c.ii mentions validation
by the HRDC. So why is the employment offer "non validated"?
Also, what is the difference between 82.2.a and 82.2.b above?
Thanks, Alex.
--
To reply by email, replace myrealbox with alexoren
news:<[email protected]> ...
> P.S.
> I would like to comment on one claim original poster made about "informal
> job offer".
> "Bushbaby" claims that "informal job offer" has been eliminated in final set of
> rules and it was one of the reasons they didn't reach the pass mark. So, let's just
> deal for a moment with that single factor - "informal job offer" has not been
> eliminated in final Regulations, only the term "informal" is gone but the
> non-validated job offer has been included in the Arranged Employment factor. This
> is exactly what Regulations say about arranged employment:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 82. (1) In this section, "arranged employment" means an offer of indeterminate
> employment in Canada.
> Arranged employment (10 points)
> (2) Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment in
> Canada if they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out the
> employment and
> (a) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit and
> (i) there has been a determination by an officer under section 203 that the
> performance of the employment by the skilled worker would be likely to
> result in a neutral or positive economic effect in Canada,
> (ii) the skilled worker is currently working in that employment,
> (iii) the work permit is valid for at least 12 months after the date of the
> application for a permanent resident visa, and
> (iv) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
> skilled worker;
> (b) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit referred to in
> paragraph 204(a) or 205(a) and the circumstances in subparagraphs (a)(ii) to
> (iv) apply; or
> (c) the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada before being issued a
> permanent resident visa and does not hold a work permit and
> (i) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
> skilled worker, and
> (ii) an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an opinion
> provided to the officer by the Department of Human Resources Development
> at the request of the employer or an officer that
> (A) the offer of employment is genuine,
> (B) the employment is not part-time or seasonal employment, and
> (C) the wages and working conditions of the employment would be sufficient
> to attract and retain Canadian citizens.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So, as everyone can see if "Bushbaby's" job offer would have checked out as in
> 82(2)(c) above they would get for it not 5 points as in proposed in December
> regulations (as she claims), but full 10 points and most likely extra 5
> points in the adaptability factor - a total of 15 points for so called
> "informal" job offer.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that 82.2.c.ii mentions validation
by the HRDC. So why is the employment offer "non validated"?
Also, what is the difference between 82.2.a and 82.2.b above?
Thanks, Alex.
--
To reply by email, replace myrealbox with alexoren
Sep 6th 2002, 6:54 am
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
That sucks! Goodluck getting all of it sorted out.
For what it's worth - and I know nothing about Canadian immigration - Atlantic Canada
is hurting for immigrants and I believe it may be way easier to move there. Problem
is you have to live in Atlantic Canada...there is a reason they're dying for
immigrants
For what it's worth - and I know nothing about Canadian immigration - Atlantic Canada
is hurting for immigrants and I believe it may be way easier to move there. Problem
is you have to live in Atlantic Canada...there is a reason they're dying for
immigrants
Sep 6th 2002, 7:50 am
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Non-validated job offer
Alex,
82(2)(c) is not mentioning anything about HRDC validation, it says clearly - "an
opinion". There is huge distinction between validation and opinion -
validation process must take under consideration fact that foreign worker is
entering Canadian workplace as such and thus employer must prove that no
Canadian can be found for the job. An opinion doesn't deal with that factor
at all - it merely verifies A, B and C from 82(2)(c)(ii).
Visit HRDC website here to see the difference between validation for work permit
purpose and an opinion for immigration purpose:
http://www.hrd-
c.gc.ca/hrib/lmd-dmt/fw-te/common/arranged.shtml
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
[email protected] (delete REMOVE from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"Alex Oren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
om...
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that 82.2.c.ii mentions
> validation by the HRDC. So why is the employment offer "non validated"?
> Also, what is the difference between 82.2.a and 82.2.b above?
> Thanks, Alex.>
"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]> ...
> > P.S.
> >
> > I would like to comment on one claim original poster made about "informal
job
> > offer".
> >
> > "Bushbaby" claims that "informal job offer" has been eliminated in final
set of
> > rules and it was one of the reasons they didn't reach the pass mark. So,
let's
> > just deal for a moment with that single factor - "informal job offer" has
not
> > been eliminated in final Regulations, only the term "informal" is gone but
the
> > non-validated job offer has been included in the Arranged Employment
factor.
> > This is exactly what Regulations say about arranged employment:
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 82. (1) In this section, "arranged employment" means an offer of
indeterminate
> > employment in Canada.
> >
> > Arranged employment (10 points)
> >
> > (2) Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment
in
> > Canada if they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out
the
> > employment and
> >
> > (a) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit and
> >
> > (i) there has been a determination by an officer under section 203
that
> > the performance of the employment by the skilled worker would be likely to result
> > in a neutral or positive economic effect in Canada,
> >
> > (ii) the skilled worker is currently working in that employment,
> >
> > (iii) the work permit is valid for at least 12 months after the date
of
> > the application for a permanent resident visa, and
> >
> > (iv) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> > indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
skilled
> > worker;
> >
> > (b) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit referred to in
> > paragraph 204(a) or 205(a) and the circumstances in subparagraphs (a)(ii)
to
> > (iv) apply; or
> >
> > (c) the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada before being
issued a
> > permanent resident visa and does not hold a work permit and
> >
> > (i) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> > indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
skilled
> > worker, and
> >
> > (ii) an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an
opinion
> > provided to the officer by the Department of Human Resources Development at
the
> > request of the employer or an officer that
> >
> > (A) the offer of employment is genuine,
> >
> > (B) the employment is not part-time or seasonal employment, and
> >
> > (C) the wages and working conditions of the employment would be sufficient
> > to attract and retain Canadian citizens.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > So, as everyone can see if "Bushbaby's" job offer would have checked out as
in
> > 82(2)(c) above they would get for it not 5 points as in proposed in
December
> > regulations (as she claims), but full 10 points and most likely extra 5
points
> > in the adaptability factor - a total of 15 points for so called "informal"
job
> > offer.
> --
> To reply by email, replace myrealbox with alexoren
82(2)(c) is not mentioning anything about HRDC validation, it says clearly - "an
opinion". There is huge distinction between validation and opinion -
validation process must take under consideration fact that foreign worker is
entering Canadian workplace as such and thus employer must prove that no
Canadian can be found for the job. An opinion doesn't deal with that factor
at all - it merely verifies A, B and C from 82(2)(c)(ii).
Visit HRDC website here to see the difference between validation for work permit
purpose and an opinion for immigration purpose:
http://www.hrd-
c.gc.ca/hrib/lmd-dmt/fw-te/common/arranged.shtml
--
../..
Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
[email protected] (delete REMOVE from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________
"Alex Oren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
om...
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that 82.2.c.ii mentions
> validation by the HRDC. So why is the employment offer "non validated"?
> Also, what is the difference between 82.2.a and 82.2.b above?
> Thanks, Alex.>
"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]> ...
> > P.S.
> >
> > I would like to comment on one claim original poster made about "informal
job
> > offer".
> >
> > "Bushbaby" claims that "informal job offer" has been eliminated in final
set of
> > rules and it was one of the reasons they didn't reach the pass mark. So,
let's
> > just deal for a moment with that single factor - "informal job offer" has
not
> > been eliminated in final Regulations, only the term "informal" is gone but
the
> > non-validated job offer has been included in the Arranged Employment
factor.
> > This is exactly what Regulations say about arranged employment:
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 82. (1) In this section, "arranged employment" means an offer of
indeterminate
> > employment in Canada.
> >
> > Arranged employment (10 points)
> >
> > (2) Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment
in
> > Canada if they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out
the
> > employment and
> >
> > (a) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit and
> >
> > (i) there has been a determination by an officer under section 203
that
> > the performance of the employment by the skilled worker would be likely to result
> > in a neutral or positive economic effect in Canada,
> >
> > (ii) the skilled worker is currently working in that employment,
> >
> > (iii) the work permit is valid for at least 12 months after the date
of
> > the application for a permanent resident visa, and
> >
> > (iv) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> > indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
skilled
> > worker;
> >
> > (b) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit referred to in
> > paragraph 204(a) or 205(a) and the circumstances in subparagraphs (a)(ii)
to
> > (iv) apply; or
> >
> > (c) the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada before being
issued a
> > permanent resident visa and does not hold a work permit and
> >
> > (i) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
> > indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the
skilled
> > worker, and
> >
> > (ii) an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an
opinion
> > provided to the officer by the Department of Human Resources Development at
the
> > request of the employer or an officer that
> >
> > (A) the offer of employment is genuine,
> >
> > (B) the employment is not part-time or seasonal employment, and
> >
> > (C) the wages and working conditions of the employment would be sufficient
> > to attract and retain Canadian citizens.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > So, as everyone can see if "Bushbaby's" job offer would have checked out as
in
> > 82(2)(c) above they would get for it not 5 points as in proposed in
December
> > regulations (as she claims), but full 10 points and most likely extra 5
points
> > in the adaptability factor - a total of 15 points for so called "informal"
job
> > offer.
> --
> To reply by email, replace myrealbox with alexoren
Sep 6th 2002, 9:06 am
#36
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 571
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
This is for: Stuart Brook
You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
I am sorry if Andrew feels hurt by my posting, my intention was not that, it was just to provoke him and wanted his reactions on this Rejected case. Nobody can deny the contribution of Andrew miller to this discussion board, his help to others and credible job. I have lot of respect for him.
You see how many postings have come to this discussion from Andrew Miller after my posting?
FYI, I Personally don’t have any bad exp with Canada immigration.
You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
I am sorry if Andrew feels hurt by my posting, my intention was not that, it was just to provoke him and wanted his reactions on this Rejected case. Nobody can deny the contribution of Andrew miller to this discussion board, his help to others and credible job. I have lot of respect for him.
You see how many postings have come to this discussion from Andrew Miller after my posting?
FYI, I Personally don’t have any bad exp with Canada immigration.
You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
Sep 6th 2002, 9:29 am
#37
Just Joined
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 29
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
Originally posted by Manish:
This is for: Stuart Brook
You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
I am sorry if Andrew feels hurt by my posting, my intention was not that, it was just to provoke him and wanted his reactions on this Rejected case. Nobody can deny the contribution of Andrew miller to this discussion board, his help to others and credible job. I have lot of respect for him.
You see how many postings have come to this discussion from Andrew Miller after my posting?
FYI, I Personally don’t have any bad exp with Canada immigration.
You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
This is for: Stuart Brook
You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
I am sorry if Andrew feels hurt by my posting, my intention was not that, it was just to provoke him and wanted his reactions on this Rejected case. Nobody can deny the contribution of Andrew miller to this discussion board, his help to others and credible job. I have lot of respect for him.
You see how many postings have come to this discussion from Andrew Miller after my posting?
FYI, I Personally don’t have any bad exp with Canada immigration.
You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
Sorry to hear you were refused. It is quite depressing because we are below the points threshold and have no job offer although we were way over the old score. However, we applied in May this year, knowing we would be assessed under the new rules and hoping that the strong aspects of our case would allow the visa officer to exercise positive discretion. It looks as though positive discretion may not really be used at the moment on points below 75, because we read an article in Canada News this month about another couple who were refused with 71 points, one had a bachelors degree-applied January this year.
I would like to think that if cases don't reach the 75 mark, they would be refused before an AOR is issued, but I can't help agreeing with the theory that money is being taken and anything below 75 is being refused anyway.
We also used lawyers who did advise us of the risk- we decided to take the risk and it looks as though we may have gambled wrong at present. Initially we used a different firm of lawyers and had a very bad experience, so we switched. Were your lawyers in Toronto?
I hope to read a post soon from someone who did get in this year, maybe just under the 75, but I have a feeling that there will be more rejections. We will look at the work permit route if we fail - how about your husband trying that rather than French or a masters?
Good luck to you both.
Sep 6th 2002, 9:46 am
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
This was no way to accomplish what you claim your intentions were.
The end doesn't justify the means.
You could have simply asked/invited Mr. Miller to comment.
Personally, I don't buy your explanation and I don't think anybody else does either.
Henry
"Manish" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> This is for: Stuart Brook You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook I am sorry if Andrew
> feels hurt by my posting, my intention was not that, it was just to provoke him and
> wanted his reactions on this Rejected case. Nobody can deny the contribution of
> Andrew miller to this discussion board, his help to others and credible job. I have
> lot of respect for him. You see how many postings have come to this discussion from
> Andrew Miller after my posting? FYI, I Personally don’t have any bad exp with
> Canada immigration. You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
The end doesn't justify the means.
You could have simply asked/invited Mr. Miller to comment.
Personally, I don't buy your explanation and I don't think anybody else does either.
Henry
"Manish" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> This is for: Stuart Brook You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook I am sorry if Andrew
> feels hurt by my posting, my intention was not that, it was just to provoke him and
> wanted his reactions on this Rejected case. Nobody can deny the contribution of
> Andrew miller to this discussion board, his help to others and credible job. I have
> lot of respect for him. You see how many postings have come to this discussion from
> Andrew Miller after my posting? FYI, I Personally don’t have any bad exp with
> Canada immigration. You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Sep 6th 2002, 11:29 am
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Non-validated job offer
what it means is that the immigration officer should contact HRDC and have them very
the subclauses :
A) the offer of employment is genuine,
B) the employment is not part-time or seasonal employment, and
C) the wages and working conditions of the employment would be sufficient to attract
and retain Canadian citizens.
so what it is basicaly saying is that the immigraiton officer shouldnt just believe
that the job is correct because they have a piece of paper offering the applicant a
job, they shoudl call HRDC and make sure the job actually exists and its a real full
time job not just like operating an icecream stand outside the CN tower for 2 months
in summer and that it pays a proper wage that a citizen would accept, so its not just
like their uncle harry creating a job as a coffee lady in the office for $2 an hour.
this is not the same as a job being validated by HRDC as they do for a work permit
which is a lot more indepth and difficult with teh clauses about it having to have
been offered to citizens and non found etc. that doesnt apply in this case.
clasuses a) and b) are concerned with those that already are in Canada on a work
permit and are using that job as their offer of employment.
Drew
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that 82.2.c.ii mentions
> validation by the HRDC. So why is the employment offer "non validated"?
> Also, what is the difference between 82.2.a and 82.2.b above?
> Thanks, Alex.
> --
> To reply by email, replace myrealbox with alexoren
the subclauses :
A) the offer of employment is genuine,
B) the employment is not part-time or seasonal employment, and
C) the wages and working conditions of the employment would be sufficient to attract
and retain Canadian citizens.
so what it is basicaly saying is that the immigraiton officer shouldnt just believe
that the job is correct because they have a piece of paper offering the applicant a
job, they shoudl call HRDC and make sure the job actually exists and its a real full
time job not just like operating an icecream stand outside the CN tower for 2 months
in summer and that it pays a proper wage that a citizen would accept, so its not just
like their uncle harry creating a job as a coffee lady in the office for $2 an hour.
this is not the same as a job being validated by HRDC as they do for a work permit
which is a lot more indepth and difficult with teh clauses about it having to have
been offered to citizens and non found etc. that doesnt apply in this case.
clasuses a) and b) are concerned with those that already are in Canada on a work
permit and are using that job as their offer of employment.
Drew
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that 82.2.c.ii mentions
> validation by the HRDC. So why is the employment offer "non validated"?
> Also, what is the difference between 82.2.a and 82.2.b above?
> Thanks, Alex.
> --
> To reply by email, replace myrealbox with alexoren
Sep 6th 2002, 12:46 pm
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
Manish wrote:
> This is for: Stuart Brook You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
No, Manish, You are the Fool, and you proved it by attempting to provoke Andrew
Miller with harsh words about a situation that was not of his making. If you wanted
his reactions, you could have asked for them ... not make comments like you did.
The words you used for him showed absolutely no respect for him whatsoever. So,
either you were lying before, or you're lying NOW.
You call me a fool but you provide no evidence that I am other than attempting to
backtrack from your unkind words. That clearly proves who is the fool.
> This is for: Stuart Brook You are Big Fool, Mr. Stuart Brook
No, Manish, You are the Fool, and you proved it by attempting to provoke Andrew
Miller with harsh words about a situation that was not of his making. If you wanted
his reactions, you could have asked for them ... not make comments like you did.
The words you used for him showed absolutely no respect for him whatsoever. So,
either you were lying before, or you're lying NOW.
You call me a fool but you provide no evidence that I am other than attempting to
backtrack from your unkind words. That clearly proves who is the fool.
Sep 6th 2002, 2:06 pm
#41
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 320
About Mr Miller
I dont know about others but I am very grateful to Mr Miller
fo his keen insight into Canadian Immigration laws,right advice (99%) and his integrity(100%),though I may not qualify as an immigrant because of retroactivity.I,through this N.G, pay my heartfelt thanks to him.
fo his keen insight into Canadian Immigration laws,right advice (99%) and his integrity(100%),though I may not qualify as an immigrant because of retroactivity.I,through this N.G, pay my heartfelt thanks to him.
Sep 6th 2002, 5:46 pm
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
Dear Mr Miller,
While we all appreciate yout time and inputs to this group, please do not advice
people in this group in the way you did (cited below). I am sure that 'Tito' knows
what is AOR, what is assessment notice, as in his post, he clearly stated that he
decided to take risk by submmiting his application against unknown regulations.
It seems that you have enjoyed enormous pleasure in other's 'misfortune' - blaming
their doings against your warnings, hiring an agent not as competent as you ... --
although I do not think it is wrong to hire someone to prepare applications, I trust
it is applicant's education, experience and language ability that decide their
ability to set in Canada, 'Tito' said he has made the cut, there must be a reason for
this optimism, it might be not very right to frustrate people's sanguineness and wish
someone's failure.
Coming back to a immigration regulation, if the way how people prepared their
applications can enormously increase one's chance for application (which we know that
it is impossible to enhance person's ability for successful set in Canada), then I do
not understand why the system should be linked with the word 'good'
Andrew Miller <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I hope you "made the cut", but AOR is not a proof of such in any way,
shape or
> form. AOR is only the Acknowledgment of Receipt of your application,
nothing
> more. If you receive the assessment notice with interview waiver or pass
the
> interview if one is needed then you'll know if you "made the cut" in
respect to
> reaching or exceeding pass mark.
> You are now waiting not just for request for additional documents - you
are
> waiting for the assessment notice as such assessment hasn't been made yet.
While we all appreciate yout time and inputs to this group, please do not advice
people in this group in the way you did (cited below). I am sure that 'Tito' knows
what is AOR, what is assessment notice, as in his post, he clearly stated that he
decided to take risk by submmiting his application against unknown regulations.
It seems that you have enjoyed enormous pleasure in other's 'misfortune' - blaming
their doings against your warnings, hiring an agent not as competent as you ... --
although I do not think it is wrong to hire someone to prepare applications, I trust
it is applicant's education, experience and language ability that decide their
ability to set in Canada, 'Tito' said he has made the cut, there must be a reason for
this optimism, it might be not very right to frustrate people's sanguineness and wish
someone's failure.
Coming back to a immigration regulation, if the way how people prepared their
applications can enormously increase one's chance for application (which we know that
it is impossible to enhance person's ability for successful set in Canada), then I do
not understand why the system should be linked with the word 'good'
Andrew Miller <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I hope you "made the cut", but AOR is not a proof of such in any way,
shape or
> form. AOR is only the Acknowledgment of Receipt of your application,
nothing
> more. If you receive the assessment notice with interview waiver or pass
the
> interview if one is needed then you'll know if you "made the cut" in
respect to
> reaching or exceeding pass mark.
> You are now waiting not just for request for additional documents - you
are
> waiting for the assessment notice as such assessment hasn't been made yet.
Sep 6th 2002, 11:19 pm
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
> I would like to think that if cases don't reach the 75 mark, they would be refused
> before an AOR is issued, but I can't help agreeing with the theory that money is
> being taken and anything below 75 is being refused anyway.
unfortunately it doesnt work like that. Not enough examination is done at the AOR
stage to determine what points you may have, it merely acknowledges that everythign
that needs to be tehre seems to be there (you didnt like forget to include form
IMM0008 or somethign crazy) and its been submitted into the system and is waiting to
be looked at. To determine the points it has to be examined in detail by an
immigration officer and that is what the fee is for. It really isnt that
unreasonable. The fee is only $550, take off the $50 for the PR card and you have the
$500 for one case. If you think that that case can take maybe a year to be processed
then you are talking $500 for a years worth of work. sur ethey arent working on it
24/7 but i am pretty sure a lot of work goes into it. Even if they only spent 2 weeks
actually working on it, that would still work out at only $12.50 an hour for
processing and they work on it longer than two weeks with the medical officers
checks as well and issuing everything etc etc $500 isnt really that much money. The
right of permanent residence fee is more at $975 but thats fully refundable so you
only pay it if you land and to say that (especially for say americans who dont have
all teh social things) you are moving into a country with access to their healthcare
and other social benefits pretty much as soon as you land without ever having paid
any taxes or anytihng like that then its not unreasonable. So unfortuantely you have
to pay the $500 to get the case processed to find out wether you qualify or not,
thats half of what you are paying for, to see if they will accept you or not. Now if
you have been very thourough in your reading or have a half decent consultant/lawyer
you hsould pretty much know 99% before you apply wether or not you qualify and not
apply if you think you get less than the required number of points. I think possibly
this is a left over attitude from the old rules where you could get say only 65 and
no worry because they could call an interview and give you 10 points and youd be
fine. so you could apply with a slightly lower score, but there are no more points to
be given in this new system. Sure there is officers discretion, both positive and
negative, but thats not gonna help you if you only have 71 points thats liek almost
having no points in one category and youd have to have a really strong case. i tihnk
teh discretion is more aimed at people who have maybe one point less or 2 like 74
points. but of course it could also be used negativly against someone with say 75
points who technicaly qualifies but they feel you wouldnt b suited to Canada. so if
you havnt got 75 points then of course you are taking a gamble applying but most
peopel would feel, if they are only a few points short, that for $550 is worth the
risk if they really want to move to Canada.you could spend maybe $550 on a new chair
or a new monitor for your computer or maybe decorate yoru living room or you could
spend it on trying to immigrate to Canada. It costs people a lot more when they pick
bac lawyers though who charge em a fortune as well.
Drew
> before an AOR is issued, but I can't help agreeing with the theory that money is
> being taken and anything below 75 is being refused anyway.
unfortunately it doesnt work like that. Not enough examination is done at the AOR
stage to determine what points you may have, it merely acknowledges that everythign
that needs to be tehre seems to be there (you didnt like forget to include form
IMM0008 or somethign crazy) and its been submitted into the system and is waiting to
be looked at. To determine the points it has to be examined in detail by an
immigration officer and that is what the fee is for. It really isnt that
unreasonable. The fee is only $550, take off the $50 for the PR card and you have the
$500 for one case. If you think that that case can take maybe a year to be processed
then you are talking $500 for a years worth of work. sur ethey arent working on it
24/7 but i am pretty sure a lot of work goes into it. Even if they only spent 2 weeks
actually working on it, that would still work out at only $12.50 an hour for
processing and they work on it longer than two weeks with the medical officers
checks as well and issuing everything etc etc $500 isnt really that much money. The
right of permanent residence fee is more at $975 but thats fully refundable so you
only pay it if you land and to say that (especially for say americans who dont have
all teh social things) you are moving into a country with access to their healthcare
and other social benefits pretty much as soon as you land without ever having paid
any taxes or anytihng like that then its not unreasonable. So unfortuantely you have
to pay the $500 to get the case processed to find out wether you qualify or not,
thats half of what you are paying for, to see if they will accept you or not. Now if
you have been very thourough in your reading or have a half decent consultant/lawyer
you hsould pretty much know 99% before you apply wether or not you qualify and not
apply if you think you get less than the required number of points. I think possibly
this is a left over attitude from the old rules where you could get say only 65 and
no worry because they could call an interview and give you 10 points and youd be
fine. so you could apply with a slightly lower score, but there are no more points to
be given in this new system. Sure there is officers discretion, both positive and
negative, but thats not gonna help you if you only have 71 points thats liek almost
having no points in one category and youd have to have a really strong case. i tihnk
teh discretion is more aimed at people who have maybe one point less or 2 like 74
points. but of course it could also be used negativly against someone with say 75
points who technicaly qualifies but they feel you wouldnt b suited to Canada. so if
you havnt got 75 points then of course you are taking a gamble applying but most
peopel would feel, if they are only a few points short, that for $550 is worth the
risk if they really want to move to Canada.you could spend maybe $550 on a new chair
or a new monitor for your computer or maybe decorate yoru living room or you could
spend it on trying to immigrate to Canada. It costs people a lot more when they pick
bac lawyers though who charge em a fortune as well.
Drew
Sep 6th 2002, 11:25 pm
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
chill out. all he was saying was that from his post Tito appeared to believe he had
made the point because he had recieved his AOR and there was the possibility that he
thought that had he not had enough points he would have been rejected instead of
receiveing an AOR. However as said earlier no points calculation is made before the
AOR is issued, it merely means they got your application ok, nothing seems at first
to be missing (like you forgot yoru fees or something) and its gone off to be
assessed. Far from trying to take glee from the situation is it not more fair to make
sure Tito knows this so his hopes are not unfairly raised in case he recieves a
letter of rejection after the officer went through his case and deemed not enough
points? I hope that does not happen but until he gets an interview waiver or a
succesful interview then he should just er(no pun intended er) on the side of caution
sp as not to leave himself open to much emotional anguish. if he knows he has no
medical problems and his background is as clean as a whistle then once he gets an
interview waiver or passes his interview he can break out the champagne and
celebrate.
"er" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] om...
> Dear Mr Miller,
> While we all appreciate yout time and inputs to this group, please do not advice
> people in this group in the way you did (cited below). I am sure that 'Tito' knows
> what is AOR, what is assessment notice, as in his post,
he
> clearly stated that he decided to take risk by submmiting his application against
> unknown regulations.
> It seems that you have enjoyed enormous pleasure in other's 'misfortune' - blaming
> their doings against your warnings, hiring an agent not as
competent
> as you ... --
> although I do not think it is wrong to hire someone to prepare
applications,
> I trust it is applicant's education, experience and language ability that decide
> their ability to set in Canada, 'Tito' said he has made the cut, there must be a
> reason for this optimism, it might be not very right to frustrate people's
> sanguineness and wish someone's failure.
> Coming back to a immigration regulation, if the way how people prepared their
> applications can enormously increase one's chance for application (which we know
> that it is impossible to enhance person's ability for successful set in Canada),
> then I do not understand why the system should
be
> linked with the word 'good'
> Andrew Miller <[email protected]> wrote in message [url="news:nE3e-[/q1]
[q1]> [email protected]"]news:[email protected][-
> /url]...
> > I hope you "made the cut", but AOR is not a proof of such in any way,
> shape or
> > form. AOR is only the Acknowledgment of Receipt of your application,
> nothing
> > more. If you receive the assessment notice with interview waiver or pass
> the
> > interview if one is needed then you'll know if you "made the cut" in
> respect to
> > reaching or exceeding pass mark.
> >
> > You are now waiting not just for request for additional documents - you
> are
> > waiting for the assessment notice as such assessment hasn't been made
yet.
> >
made the point because he had recieved his AOR and there was the possibility that he
thought that had he not had enough points he would have been rejected instead of
receiveing an AOR. However as said earlier no points calculation is made before the
AOR is issued, it merely means they got your application ok, nothing seems at first
to be missing (like you forgot yoru fees or something) and its gone off to be
assessed. Far from trying to take glee from the situation is it not more fair to make
sure Tito knows this so his hopes are not unfairly raised in case he recieves a
letter of rejection after the officer went through his case and deemed not enough
points? I hope that does not happen but until he gets an interview waiver or a
succesful interview then he should just er(no pun intended er) on the side of caution
sp as not to leave himself open to much emotional anguish. if he knows he has no
medical problems and his background is as clean as a whistle then once he gets an
interview waiver or passes his interview he can break out the champagne and
celebrate.
"er" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] om...
> Dear Mr Miller,
> While we all appreciate yout time and inputs to this group, please do not advice
> people in this group in the way you did (cited below). I am sure that 'Tito' knows
> what is AOR, what is assessment notice, as in his post,
he
> clearly stated that he decided to take risk by submmiting his application against
> unknown regulations.
> It seems that you have enjoyed enormous pleasure in other's 'misfortune' - blaming
> their doings against your warnings, hiring an agent not as
competent
> as you ... --
> although I do not think it is wrong to hire someone to prepare
applications,
> I trust it is applicant's education, experience and language ability that decide
> their ability to set in Canada, 'Tito' said he has made the cut, there must be a
> reason for this optimism, it might be not very right to frustrate people's
> sanguineness and wish someone's failure.
> Coming back to a immigration regulation, if the way how people prepared their
> applications can enormously increase one's chance for application (which we know
> that it is impossible to enhance person's ability for successful set in Canada),
> then I do not understand why the system should
be
> linked with the word 'good'
> Andrew Miller <[email protected]> wrote in message [url="news:nE3e-[/q1]
[q1]> [email protected]"]news:[email protected][-
> /url]...
> > I hope you "made the cut", but AOR is not a proof of such in any way,
> shape or
> > form. AOR is only the Acknowledgment of Receipt of your application,
> nothing
> > more. If you receive the assessment notice with interview waiver or pass
> the
> > interview if one is needed then you'll know if you "made the cut" in
> respect to
> > reaching or exceeding pass mark.
> >
> > You are now waiting not just for request for additional documents - you
> are
> > waiting for the assessment notice as such assessment hasn't been made
yet.
> >
Sep 7th 2002, 4:59 am
#45
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2002
Location: Our World
Posts: 48
Re: REJECTED! You must read this!
Thanks alles for all the comments (esp that of Andrew Miller), I quite agree with the bit about AOR but getting them to confirm that I included all required documents was enough for a start (afterall my friend lost money just because they claimed the fees was not included). Surely, I didn't spend all the months researching for fun!
I got more than 75 with the new rules and that is ok for now, I don't expect another set of rules aside those of June 28 before my case is decided but I definitely will not drop dead if the CIC guys are interested in performing magic. Isn't it their show?
Interview, medical, security and background checks are still far away and I will cross those bridges when I get there. Let's keep the mind busy with the business of today.
This site is fun and once again kudos to everybody for making it so.
tito
--
I got more than 75 with the new rules and that is ok for now, I don't expect another set of rules aside those of June 28 before my case is decided but I definitely will not drop dead if the CIC guys are interested in performing magic. Isn't it their show?
Interview, medical, security and background checks are still far away and I will cross those bridges when I get there. Let's keep the mind busy with the business of today.
This site is fun and once again kudos to everybody for making it so.
tito
--
