Skilled worker visa questions

Old Aug 19th 2004, 1:10 pm
  #16  
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 8,984
Andrew Miller is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Skilled worker visa questions

Who told you that applicant "must re-supply" anything? Only if specifically requested - as for example commonly with updated police certificate from the country of current residence, updated proof of funds, employment references etc.

Also it is applicant's obligation to notify visa post immediately about any serious change in the circumstances during the process - like birth of new child, marriage or divorce, criminal conviction or charge, change in medical condition etc. just to list few. Failure to do so is called omission and results in fraudulent application.



Originally Posted by SANDRAPAUL
Where is there any evidence that all applicants have to re-supply Police Certificates at the time of Visa issue? If you take this into account ALL documentation may be different from that which was supplied at the time of the original application. Therefore to submit all applicants to the same rules at the time of Visa issue applicants would have to have all documents re-checked and processed for verification. This would take at the current time scale 18-24 months to complete before Visa issue at which time documentation may be different from that which was supplied at the time of the original application. Therefore to submit all applicants to the same rules at the time of Visa issue applicants would have to have all documents re-checked and processed for verification.

Etc Etc.
Andrew Miller is offline  
Old Aug 19th 2004, 2:07 pm
  #17  
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,483
Jim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Skilled worker visa questions

Police certificates are usually considered to be valid for about one year from the date of their issue. If at the time a visa seems to be ready, but the police certificate is out of date then the officer would in most cases request a new one. That has always been the rule.

Originally Posted by Andrew Miller
Who told you that applicant "must re-supply" anything? Only if specifically requested - as for example commonly with updated police certificate from the country of current residence, updated proof of funds, employment references etc.

Also it is applicant's obligation to notify visa post immediately about any serious change in the circumstances during the process - like birth of new child, marriage or divorce, criminal conviction or charge, change in medical condition etc. just to list few. Failure to do so is called omission and results in fraudulent application.
Jim Humphries is offline  
Old Aug 19th 2004, 2:18 pm
  #18  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 41
jeffank is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Skilled worker visa questions

Karen,

You are right on target. Reg 77 is intended to meet such requirement ie applicant must meet admissibility requirement eg no criminal conviction at time of application as well as at time of visa issuance. AND THEREFORE NOT NECESSARILY TO SUGGEST RETROACTIVITY OF PASSMARK.

As an aside on the issue of "insults" and with due respect, you should read the insults hurled by Mr Miller on those lawyers and consultants who have advised their clients that passmark cannot be made retroactive... they are outrageous. If Mr Miller could be more respectful to those with different views, perhaps he will get more respectful responses.

jeff


Originally Posted by Karen S
It would seem logical, apart from anything else, that the applicant should have to meet the requirements both when assessed, and also when the visa is issued.

For example, someone with no criminal record when his application is assessed, but then has a criminal record by the time the visa is issued, should surely not be given a visa just because he met the requirements originally.
jeffank is offline  
Old Aug 19th 2004, 2:55 pm
  #19  
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 8,984
Andrew Miller is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Skilled worker visa questions

First of all please provide reference (link maybe) to "insults hurled by me on those lawyers and consultants who have advised their clients that passmark cannot be made retroactive..." - please, I beg you, show at least one insult hurled by me.

Secondly - what in this world made you say that "Reg 77 is intended to meet such requirement ie applicant must meet admissibility requirement eg no criminal conviction at time of application as well as at time of visa issuance."????

As you can read here:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor2-227/sec77.html

it clearly says only the following:

------------------------------------
77. For the purposes of Part 5, the requirements and criteria set out in sections 75 and 76 must be met at the time an application for a permanent resident visa is made as well as at the time the visa is issued.
------------------------------------

Where in sections 75 and 76 the above refers to you found anything about admissibility requirements??? Both sections are dealing exclusively with definition of skilled worker and minimum experience requirement (section 75) and with selection criteria, points grid, pass mark and substitute evaluation (section 76). Thus the definition, minimum work experience, selection criteria and pass mark must be met accordingly to section 77 at the time of application **and** at the time visa is issued.

Section 77 has absolutely nothing to do with admissibilty criteria which by law must be met at all times, up to and including time of landing as a PR in Canada.

How on Earth can you interpret section 77 and it's intentions your way???



Originally Posted by jeffank
Karen,

You are right on target. Reg 77 is intended to meet such requirement ie applicant must meet admissibility requirement eg no criminal conviction at time of application as well as at time of visa issuance. AND THEREFORE NOT NECESSARILY TO SUGGEST RETROACTIVITY OF PASSMARK.

As an aside on the issue of "insults" and with due respect, you should read the insults hurled by Mr Miller on those lawyers and consultants who have advised their clients that passmark cannot be made retroactive... they are outrageous. If Mr Miller could be more respectful to those with different views, perhaps he will get more respectful responses.

jeff

Last edited by Andrew Miller; Aug 19th 2004 at 3:03 pm.
Andrew Miller is offline  
Old Aug 19th 2004, 3:25 pm
  #20  
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,483
Jim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond reputeJim Humphries has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Skilled worker visa questions

Well, I am not here to defend anyone who acts without due respect to others. I am here to say that the officer who wrote the regulations and shepherded them through to their introduction was clearly of the opinion that a change in passmark could be used to refuse cases that had not yet received their visas. R76 covers the selection criteria including the passmark and is one of the considerations in R77 that must be met when the application is received and when the visas are issued. I do not think its fair and OPIC raised objections based upon fairness but we were told the requirment was "bullet proof" by that officer. He lost in the one instance in court because the court held that it was clearly promised to the Hof C Committee that cases submitted before a certain date would be dealt with before the new regulations were introduced. Therefore it had not been the will of parliament in that sole instance and the judge was apparently clear about that situation being the exception. Now, wher have I gone wrong?


Originally Posted by jeffank
Karen,

You are right on target. Reg 77 is intended to meet such requirement ie applicant must meet admissibility requirement eg no criminal conviction at time of application as well as at time of visa issuance. AND THEREFORE NOT NECESSARILY TO SUGGEST RETROACTIVITY OF PASSMARK.

As an aside on the issue of "insults" and with due respect, you should read the insults hurled by Mr Miller on those lawyers and consultants who have advised their clients that passmark cannot be made retroactive... they are outrageous. If Mr Miller could be more respectful to those with different views, perhaps he will get more respectful responses.

jeff
Jim Humphries is offline  
Old Aug 20th 2004, 3:35 am
  #21  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 41
jeffank is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Skilled worker visa questions

Mr Miller

OK, since you asked for it.

Refer to thread on Jul 17 started by dextroyer under "Passing Mark going up" and your post on Jul 19: you wrote:

"Your agent is dead wrong and doesn't know the law....there are still crooks out there who lie to clients and promise them impossible just to get their money..."

It is worst than insult, it is defamatory on that poor agent who might not even be aware on this day the aspersions (not just being ignorant, but also a criminal cheat) cast by you on him/her, and which was done by you without basis and justification whatsoever.

It was only last month, and you couldn't remember?

oh....btw, I am not that agent

jeff


Originally Posted by Andrew Miller
First of all please provide reference (link maybe) to "insults hurled by me on those lawyers and consultants who have advised their clients that passmark cannot be made retroactive..." - please, I beg you, show at least one insult hurled by me.

Secondly - what in this world made you say that "Reg 77 is intended to meet such requirement ie applicant must meet admissibility requirement eg no criminal conviction at time of application as well as at time of visa issuance."????

As you can read here:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor2-227/sec77.html

it clearly says only the following:

------------------------------------
77. For the purposes of Part 5, the requirements and criteria set out in sections 75 and 76 must be met at the time an application for a permanent resident visa is made as well as at the time the visa is issued.
------------------------------------

Where in sections 75 and 76 the above refers to you found anything about admissibility requirements??? Both sections are dealing exclusively with definition of skilled worker and minimum experience requirement (section 75) and with selection criteria, points grid, pass mark and substitute evaluation (section 76). Thus the definition, minimum work experience, selection criteria and pass mark must be met accordingly to section 77 at the time of application **and** at the time visa is issued.

Section 77 has absolutely nothing to do with admissibilty criteria which by law must be met at all times, up to and including time of landing as a PR in Canada.

How on Earth can you interpret section 77 and it's intentions your way???
jeffank is offline  
Old Aug 20th 2004, 4:12 am
  #22  
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 8,984
Andrew Miller is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Skilled worker visa questions

It was statement of fact, not an insult of any kind, at least not intended. It was the warning to the poster about him being misinformed and/or mislead. It wasn't directed to any particular, named or otherwise identifiable by others in this forum person.

More - you just combined partial quotes taken out of context from two completely separate sentences to make your point stick. It doesn't work that way.

So far your only posts in this forum are arguing with my comments about pass mark, you never replied nor contributed in any way to other posts - one would be courious about your motives.

If you are such an expert maybe you will start contributing here as well? What holds you back? Participants here would benefit from having more experts contributing in this forum, as long as contributions are based on the law and verifiable facts and/or legal decisions, not on wishfull thinking.

And it is you who in your attacks directed towards me used quite strong descriptions of my character or knowledge. One could call them insults, especially when posted by someone hiding behind anonymous post.


And I never said that you are "that agent" - but now you just made me think... hmmmm...


Originally Posted by jeffank
Mr Miller

OK, since you asked for it.

Refer to thread on Jul 17 started by dextroyer under "Passing Mark going up" and your post on Jul 19: you wrote:

"Your agent is dead wrong and doesn't know the law....there are still crooks out there who lie to clients and promise them impossible just to get their money..."

It is worst than insult, it is defamatory on that poor agent who might not even be aware on this day the aspersions (not just being ignorant, but also a criminal cheat) cast by you on him/her, and which was done by you without basis and justification whatsoever.

It was only last month, and you couldn't remember?

oh....btw, I am not that agent

jeff
Andrew Miller is offline  
Old Aug 20th 2004, 4:21 am
  #23  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 41
jeffank is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Skilled worker visa questions

"statement of fact, not an insult" = what marvellous distinction!

"...and just combined partial quotes taken out of context..." = well, I am inviting all to read the post in its entirety and judge for themselves.

jeff


Originally Posted by Andrew Miller
It was statement of fact, not an insult of any kind, at least not intended. It was the warning to the poster about him being misinformed and/or mislead. It wasn't directed to any particular, named or otherwise identifiable by others in this forum person.

More - you just combined partial quotes taken out of context from two completely separate sentences to make your point stick. It doesn't work that way.

So far your only posts in this forum are arguing with my comments about pass mark, you never replied nor contributed in any way to other posts - one would be courious about your motives.

If you are such an expert maybe you will start contributing here as well? What holds you back? Participants here would benefit from having more experts contributing in this forum, as long as contributions are based on the law and verifiable facts and/or legal decisions, not on wishfull thinking.

And it is you who in your attacks directed towards me used quite strong descriptions of my character or knowledge. One could call them insults, especially when posted by someone hiding behind anonymous post.


And I never said that you are "that agent" - but now you just made me think... hmmmm...
jeffank is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.