marhaba

Received letter from CHC London dated 15 Nov asking for updated/ new docs including original police certs, and evidence of sufficient settlement funds. Makes point to mention it is in my best interest to submit the requested docs within 90 days.

Hope someone offers advice with regards to requested evidence of sufficient funds.

At the moment do *not* have the C$ 15,600 required amount for family of 3 either as cash in bank or any other liquid form. I and OH together own some assets (jewellery, a second car) which we would sell and able to meet the minimum threshold. However such move may cause CHC London to become suspicious why sudden ly unusually large amount was debited to bank account. Could seem like borrowed money for purpose of showing funds.

So, what steps to take in light of above situation?

Someone suggested to purchase financial certificates (available with 3-4 month maturity date), or deposit the funds from sale of asset into fixed bank deposits. Does this still seem unconvincing?

Hope someone could suggest most appropriate route to take to show conclusive proof of funds given the above situation of not enough funds in bank but own assets - jewellery etc - which would be sold to raise the required amount.

Thanks

Andrew Miller

Just sell your assets, deposit proceeds in your account and submit proof of funds to visa post. Don't make it more complicated and more suspicious than it already is.

marhaba

Should I send cover letter explaining the deposit activity (that it is from sale of assets) and enclose sale receipts etc, or would this be complicating it further?

Andrew Miller

Why would you want to raise red flag?

smitp11

Exactly, proof of funds now and proof of funds when you land...no more.

marhaba

I guess the best thing now is to just deposit the monies in bank, as advised here.

Also just wondering what the '90 day letter' implies.

Obviously I need to 'update' some documents like settlement funds, job description, etc. But, I also see some other posters whose AOR is around the same as mine, Aug or Sep 04 (my is Oct 04) who did not get any 90 day letter and directly got the medical papers.

So, why some get the 90 day letter and some others directly medicals though timelines are about the same?

Andrew Miller

Because each application package is different - some are well prepared with 100% conclusive evidence, while others (majority) always lack something and/or are not conclusive enough.

marhaba

I can understand how submitting well prepared vs. not conclusive applications can impact on IA. Some applicants get waivers, while others called for interview or otherwise outright refusal.

Not so sure how 90 day letter implies how well application was prepared. This letter asked to update those factors for which circumastances could have changed since application was first submitted - funds, PCC, updated photos, immigration summary form.

Quite possible for many applicants that those factors could have changed. So, again, wonder why only some, not all, asked for those updates?

Just trying to decipher if this is mainly on whim on visa officer or if there is method to madness

shri_ram

Mejority of people got 90 days letter, Some people got medical req without updated proof of funds, police clearance & new application forms

hejhej

If you have any equity in your house, that also counts towards your settlement funds.
Harvey

marhaba

Nope no such equity. This is lesson to no matter how maintain required settlement funds and save much trouble and anxiety later.

Andrew Miller

Only at the time of application and only in London and Sydney. When asked for updated proof of funds close to the end of process you must show real money, not equity.

macmike41

I don't follow your logic Andrew, if you only apply once with your ‘house’ as proof of funds and are given residency how/when do you update proof of funds with ‘money in the bank’. On various sites I have seen comments/advice from first (and only) time successful applicants who provided only mortgage/house valuation evidence as proof of funds – I have never seen a comment that someone was rejected due to no money in the bank, its either medical or overoptimistic points claim that let them down.
Don’t get me wrong Andrew – I respect the advice and solid support you give to this site – but, as I say, on this occasion I just don’t follow the logic re proof of funds, prior to landing, being a must have money in the bank condition - given that other applicants have been successful without money in the bank prior to landing.

Andrew Miller

It is not my logic - it is the law. Read Section 76(b) here:

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

It is only the "flexibility" of CHC London and CHC Sydney to go outside the law and accept house equity as proof of funds at the time of application. And this "flexibility" also creates confusion as you can see on your own example.

You are not "given" PR visa nor PR status under SW class if you don't meet the requirement of R76(b), period. When asked for updated proof of funds you must show that you have required to settle in Canada amount in the form of transferable and available funds, unencumbered by debts or other obligations. Same you must show at the time of landing.

Does home equity meets the requirement that funds must be transferable and available? It is not.

Don't rely on posts of others, don't even rely on what is written on CIC website as site provides only a guidance, nothing more. You can see on CIC site that they clearly indicate this and ask reader to read and follow the law.

macmike41

Yes Andrew I see what you mean, I have always accepted that 'money in the bank' was required at landing - you can't pay your way with equity. But as CHC do not yet appear to have rejected anyone for no cash lets trust they continue their flexible and understanding attitude with regard to applications that are supported only by equity as I imagine not too many people can bank the required funds without the sale of their house.