applicant received PER in Feb/March...lets connect here

[jaggy999]

haha......dear read 80 pages pdf yesterday night, just to get this small piece on info

[jaggy999]

Reciprocated

[klmy]

haha......dear read 80 pages pdf yesterday night, just to get this small piece on info

80 pages?? ..oh my GOD..u r doing great job...its all on CIC website??? i think i should also start reading the material on cic instead of checking ecas and emails...hats off...u deserve 100 of +  bt cant give

[rawlin4bbhh]

hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

haha......dear read 80 pages pdf yesterday night, just to get this small piece on info

[dudegujrat]

haha......dear read 80 pages pdf yesterday night, just to get this small piece on info

Great job my friend i wish you gud luck for your application your spending more time for us such a nice to have people like you in this world on the other hand BABBU MANN,SPARTAN AND RAWLIN ALL DOING GREAT JOB SUCH AS YOU....BEST OF LUCK TO ALL........GOD BLESS ALL

[jaggy999]

As mentioned in MI(Implementation) on the CIC website:

My own words: The below in layman language means that MI2 applicants get a final determination from CIO itself(more decision making power vested with CIO in MI3) and VO cannot overturn it without procedural fairness. By procedural fairness, it means VO or missions need to ask for further evidence of docs and not reject an application outright. Hence, if you guys are not sure of sumthin in ur appln, be rest assured that VO will give you a chance to explain and cannot reject applns like they did for MI1 applicants.
 
Whats mentioned on the site: "There were subsequent administrative changes made at the CIO to coincide with MI2, the most important of which was that the final eligibility decision was made at the CIO, rather than at missions. Applicants sent their complete application packages, with supporting documents and results from the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), to the CIO. Staff at the CIO then reviewed the application and made the final eligibility decision. They returned and refunded those applications that were not eligible and sent the eligible applications, together with associated documents, to the missions to be processed. Under this new process, missions could not reverse a positive eligibility decision, although they could refuse the application on other grounds.
While mission staff had no problem with the CIO making negative eligibility decisions, as the applicant can re-apply, many stated that their inability to reverse positive decisions can result in substantial additional work at the mission. In cases where they disagree with the CIO assessment, it is necessary to re-review the application and contact the applicant for further evidence of eligibility, in order to demonstrate procedural fairness."

Did you read this dudegujarat?

[dudegujrat]

Did you read this dudegujarat?

YES BRO I DID READ THIS INFO AND TRIED TO GIVE YOU +1 BUT KARMA DIDNT ALLOW ME......GOD BLESS ALL

[Mr.Engineer]

As mentioned in MI(Implementation) on the CIC website:

My own words: The below in layman language means that MI2 applicants get a final determination from CIO itself(more decision making power vested with CIO in MI3) and VO cannot overturn it without procedural fairness. By procedural fairness, it means VO or missions need to ask for further evidence of docs and not reject an application outright. Hence, if you guys are not sure of sumthin in ur appln, be rest assured that VO will give you a chance to explain and cannot reject applns like they did for MI1 applicants.
 
Whats mentioned on the site: "There were subsequent administrative changes made at the CIO to coincide with MI2, the most important of which was that the final eligibility decision was made at the CIO, rather than at missions. Applicants sent their complete application packages, with supporting documents and results from the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), to the CIO. Staff at the CIO then reviewed the application and made the final eligibility decision. They returned and refunded those applications that were not eligible and sent the eligible applications, together with associated documents, to the missions to be processed. Under this new process, missions could not reverse a positive eligibility decision, although they could refuse the application on other grounds.
While mission staff had no problem with the CIO making negative eligibility decisions, as the applicant can re-apply, many stated that their inability to reverse positive decisions can result in substantial additional work at the mission. In cases where they disagree with the CIO assessment, it is necessary to re-review the application and contact the applicant for further evidence of eligibility, in order to demonstrate procedural fairness."

+1

[manish26264]

As mentioned in MI(Implementation) on the CIC website:

My own words: The below in layman language means that MI2 applicants get a final determination from CIO itself(more decision making power vested with CIO in MI3) and VO cannot overturn it without procedural fairness. By procedural fairness, it means VO or missions need to ask for further evidence of docs and not reject an application outright. Hence, if you guys are not sure of sumthin in ur appln, be rest assured that VO will give you a chance to explain and cannot reject applns like they did for MI1 applicants.
 
Whats mentioned on the site: "There were subsequent administrative changes made at the CIO to coincide with MI2, the most important of which was that the final eligibility decision was made at the CIO, rather than at missions. Applicants sent their complete application packages, with supporting documents and results from the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), to the CIO. Staff at the CIO then reviewed the application and made the final eligibility decision. They returned and refunded those applications that were not eligible and sent the eligible applications, together with associated documents, to the missions to be processed. Under this new process, missions could not reverse a positive eligibility decision, although they could refuse the application on other grounds.
While mission staff had no problem with the CIO making negative eligibility decisions, as the applicant can re-apply, many stated that their inability to reverse positive decisions can result in substantial additional work at the mission. In cases where they disagree with the CIO assessment, it is necessary to re-review the application and contact the applicant for further evidence of eligibility, in order to demonstrate procedural fairness."

Hi Jaggy,

That's very good information for MI3 applicants. Can't give +1 as Karma thing is coming in between.

Best wishes to all.
Thanks.

[naaz12]

As mentioned in MI(Implementation) on the CIC website:

My own words: The below in layman language means that MI2 applicants get a final determination from CIO itself(more decision making power vested with CIO in MI3) and VO cannot overturn it without procedural fairness. By procedural fairness, it means VO or missions need to ask for further evidence of docs and not reject an application outright. Hence, if you guys are not sure of sumthin in ur appln, be rest assured that VO will give you a chance to explain and cannot reject applns like they did for MI1 applicants.
 
Whats mentioned on the site: "There were subsequent administrative changes made at the CIO to coincide with MI2, the most important of which was that the final eligibility decision was made at the CIO, rather than at missions. Applicants sent their complete application packages, with supporting documents and results from the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), to the CIO. Staff at the CIO then reviewed the application and made the final eligibility decision. They returned and refunded those applications that were not eligible and sent the eligible applications, together with associated documents, to the missions to be processed. Under this new process, missions could not reverse a positive eligibility decision, although they could refuse the application on other grounds.
While mission staff had no problem with the CIO making negative eligibility decisions, as the applicant can re-apply, many stated that their inability to reverse positive decisions can result in substantial additional work at the mission. In cases where they disagree with the CIO assessment, it is necessary to re-review the application and contact the applicant for further evidence of eligibility, in order to demonstrate procedural fairness."
+1 to you...but karma do no allow me...udhhar raha!!!

[tushar.mistry78]

HURRAY...BABBU BHAI...GOT MY MEDICALS TODAY......!!!!!!!!

Many many congratulations SairRam. Best of Luck for next step. Stay fit.

Om Sai Ram

[princeroi22]

many congratulations fo ur mr.
Stay fit nd best of luck fo ur further process,.

[princeroi22]

 @  sairam
Many congratulations fo MR.
Stay fit nd healthy
best of luck fo further processing..

[princeroi22]

 @  jaggy

excellent wrk done. Appreciate it.
Wish super fast processing to ol.

 @  babbu.maan

be patient,
sehaj pake so meetha hoye....
U 'll get it soon.

[dentist82]

guys,
does any1 knows how many of MI3 applicants receive employment verification call???
just want to know the facts about verification of MI3 applicants.
any inputs please.
cheers!!!!