Any case rejected from VO after getting initial PER from CIO???

[sho78]

Hi everybody,

Have you came across any case which was rejected by VO after getting initial PER from CIO, and what was the reasons for rejections??

Regards.

[Cappuccino]

It is rare, but it can happen, even under the new system whereby all the documents are with CIO from the outset.

The main 2 reasons I have heard are visa office disgreeing with CIO on the number of points scored, or disagreeing that the duties are sufficient.

Given that CIO do very clearly state in their email positive "final determination of eligibility" I would be surprised if people had not tried challenging visa office on legal grounds, since in effect they have in writing confirmation from CIC that they are eligible, and that the determination is final. Therefore for CIC (and visa office and CIO are both "CIC") to then backtrack on that I think places it into somewhat dubious legal territory.

Wayne.

[mandiebraxton]

It is rare, but it can happen, even under the new system whereby all the documents are with CIO from the outset.

The main 2 reasons I have heard are visa office disgreeing with CIO on the number of points scored, or disagreeing that the duties are sufficient.

Given that CIO do very clearly state in their email positive "final determination of eligibility" I would be surprised if people had not tried challenging visa office on legal grounds, since in effect they have in writing confirmation from CIC that they are eligible, and that the determination is final. Therefore for CIC (and visa office and CIO are both "CIC") to then backtrack on that I think places it into somewhat dubious legal territory.

Wayne.

"final determination of eligibility"....Very deceptive as VOs also do paper screening and reject applications...Mandie

[kochi]

It is rare, but it can happen, even under the new system whereby all the documents are with CIO from the outset.

The main 2 reasons I have heard are visa office disgreeing with CIO on the number of points scored, or disagreeing that the duties are sufficient.

Given that CIO do very clearly state in their email positive "final determination of eligibility" I would be surprised if people had not tried challenging visa office on legal grounds, since in effect they have in writing confirmation from CIC that they are eligible, and that the determination is final. Therefore for CIC (and visa office and CIO are both "CIC") to then backtrack on that I think places it into somewhat dubious legal territory.

Wayne.

You are very much correct. If any body rejected by VO under new system obviously need to voice raise because CIO has written Positive final determination. If rejected for insufficient points & not match job responsibilities. It will be money collect game. Already CIO has calculated points & review her/his papers. Thanks for your nice comments.  

[sho78]

You are very much correct. If any body rejected by VO under new system obviously need to voice raise because CIO has written Positive final determination. If rejected for insufficient points & not match job responsibilities. It will be money collect game. Already CIO has calculated points & review her/his papers. Thanks for your nice comments.  

Thanks everybody for your comments, actually I was just thinking what could be the reasons for rejection from VO in the current system.

[yukon]

PER does not certify the authenticity of documents submitted or the verification of job/educational experience/qualifications being claimed by an applicant.
CIO, Sydney only does a determination of eligibility based on the face value of documents submitted & they do not carry knowledge of local documents of any country that are submitted.

The Visa Office can therefore reject applications based on verification/procedural fairness/fraud etc. even though CIO gives a PER.

PER is just qualification of 67 points & a first look of the documents submitted.

[alexchristi]

PER does not certify the authenticity of documents submitted or the verification of job/educational experience/qualifications being claimed by an applicant.
CIO, Sydney only does a determination of eligibility based on the face value of documents submitted & they do not carry knowledge of local documents of any country that are submitted.

The Visa Office can therefore reject applications based on verification/procedural fairness/fraud etc. even though CIO gives a PER.

PER is just qualification of 67 points & a first look of the documents submitted.

Ok I can agree with that.
Only if the VO finds any untruth (false) documents they can reject the app.
This can happen in any stage of the proces... even when you land in Canada.   

[SandySurrey]

Agreed with Yukon.

PER does not certify the authenticity of documents submitted or the verification of job/educational experience/qualifications being claimed by an applicant.
CIO, Sydney only does a determination of eligibility based on the face value of documents submitted & they do not carry knowledge of local documents of any country that are submitted.

The Visa Office can therefore reject applications based on verification/procedural fairness/fraud etc. even though CIO gives a PER.

PER is just qualification of 67 points & a first look of the documents submitted.

[kochi]

PER does not certify the authenticity of documents submitted or the verification of job/educational experience/qualifications being claimed by an applicant.
CIO, Sydney only does a determination of eligibility based on the face value of documents submitted & they do not carry knowledge of local documents of any country that are submitted.

The Visa Office can therefore reject applications based on verification/procedural fairness/fraud etc. even though CIO gives a PER.

PER is just qualification of 67 points & a first look of the documents submitted.

You are a 100% right. I agree with you, if VO reject for insufficient point is it legal?? I have read in forum london vo rejected for insufficient points, like CIO calculated 25 from education but VO counted 22 points from education. Where is gap? What is their understanding level?

[Cappuccino]

"final determination of eligibility"....Very deceptive as VOs also do paper screening and reject applications...Mandie

I completely agree. Which is why I think CIC would be in a somewhat dubious legal position if anyone actually took them to court over it.

They have already confirmed to the applicant, in writing, that the final decision on their eligibility is positive. And then CIC are sending another communication to the client, albeit from a satellite visa office, saying they are not eligible.

I suspect if it ever got to court the courts would find in favour of the applicant.

Wayne.

[SandySurrey]

I think we can't challenge CIO as there Decision is totally based on the documents you provided and the information you mentioned in your forms, they don't verify the documents , it's the later VO who checks the authenticity of the documents. If they found any thing suspicious or fraudulent they can reject the application.

I completely agree. Which is why I think CIC would be in a somewhat dubious legal position if anyone actually took them to court over it.

They have already confirmed to the applicant, in writing, that the final decision on their eligibility is positive. And then CIC are sending another communication to the client, albeit from a satellite visa office, saying they are not eligible.

I suspect if it ever got to court the courts would find in favour of the applicant.

Wayne.

[yukon]

I completely agree. Which is why I think CIC would be in a somewhat dubious legal position if anyone actually took them to court over it.

They have already confirmed to the applicant, in writing, that the final decision on their eligibility is positive. And then CIC are sending another communication to the client, albeit from a satellite visa office, saying they are not eligible.

I suspect if it ever got to court the courts would find in favour of the applicant.

Wayne.

Visa Office does not say "you are not eligible" they mostly put it as a rejection due to reasons of documents not matching the claims.
Eligibility qualification done at CIO, Sydney is just a "qualification" to get your application processed.....processing can lead to either acceptance or rejection.

[sho78]

Visa Office does not say "you are not eligible" they mostly put it as a rejection due to reasons of documents not matching the claims.
Eligibility qualification done at CIO, Sydney is just a "qualification" to get your application processed.....processing can lead to either acceptance or rejection.

CIO also does the same (mathching the documents with the claims) thatshow they give NERs, VO might be verifying the authenticity of the documents and may be some other factors.

[kochi]

On Page 52, in Completness Check section of Instruction Guide, it is mentioned that an application will be returned incomplete if any required document mentioned in Document Checklist (IMM 5612) is missing.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada reviews your application to make sure that:
- all required fields in your application forms are complete,
- all required documents are submitted from the Document Checklist (IMM 5612) , and
- the correct processing fee payment has been made.
If your application is:
- incomplete or;
- the occupation you are applying under has reached the allowable limit under category 1,
your entire package (including your payment) will be returned to you with a letter explaining why it is being returned.

As per Document Checklist (IMM 5612), Proof of relationship doc is required for whoever is claiming adaptability point, but i failed to submit it. Suprisingly, CIC didn't reject my file in "Check Completeness" stage but instead rejected in "Selection and Admissibility" stage. At this stage, CIC does not refund the processing fee. Do you think i have the above valid point to claim the refund ?

You application rejected by CIO. If you application was incomplete then they will return full package to you but sorry you received Negative eligibility review. They will not refund your fee. We are discussing who rejected by VO after received PER from VO.