Applications after 26/6 in any NOC CONNECT HERE TO GET THE STATUS

[Cam1234]

  BOAR CONTESTANTS 

Cam1234                   Dec 15 2010
Cappuccino                Dec 1 2010
Pippin                        Feb 1 2011
Smiler11                    Dec 10, 2011
Jeanne                       Dec 2 2010   
Canada 1                   Jan 25 2011
CanadaJimmy              Nov 22 2010
JINCYMARAMON          Jan 15 2011
Canady                      Dec 20 2010
Temasek                    Nov 17 2010
jignesh79                   Dec 20 2010  ** Date already taken, Please choose another...
mchowdhury               Jan 14 2011
wenstumped               Jan 26 2011
Cur-Rozen                  Feb 2 2011
Kolhapuri                    Jan 20 2011
Bindu                         Jan 10 2011
pun123                      Nov.29 2010

Best of Luck to Everyone!

[Cam1234]

Wayne, thanks again for the original draft. could you please also have a look at para 4 regarding PCC that I drafted, your help as a native English speaker (and more writer :-) will be greatly appreciated!

dear members,

please contribute to bringing the below public document to the final draft before sending to CIC.

Temasek, I am not sure if I captured well your idea, can you please share with proposed amendment to the draft?

thanks,

Coffee

******************************

Dear Sirs,

I am writing on behalf of a sizable number of Federal Skilled Worker Category 1 (FSW1) applicants who share a public forum and have applied for Permanent Residence to Canada on or after 26th June 2010.

We are wondering if you could please consider clarifying the following questions which we have compiled regarding the immigration process under this category since the new rules were introduced?

Since these questions have been frequently asked in our forum and represent the concerns of many applicants, could we please also ask you to consider adding the questions and their answers to the Frequently Asked Questions section of your website if you think there is sufficient value and merit?

We believe this will help clarify things for many post June 26th 2010 applicants and therefore help reduce phone calls and queries to CIC.

We are very grateful to you for considering us for immigration to Canada, so please take our request for information in the spirit we intend, that we just wish to make things as clear as we can from both sides.

1) Acknowledgment Of Receipt - timelines

We understand that after the eligibility review at CIO is successfully complete, the applicant should expect to be informed by way of an Acknowledgment Of Receipt (AOR) as their application is forwarded to the visa office for background checks and further processing.

During the past few weeks several members have phoned CIC to enquire on the status of their application. Prior to 19th October they have been told that it would take approximately 10 weeks before they receive an acknowledgment from CIC. Since then, during three past few weeks, many members are now being told it would take 33 weeks. This is obviously a large jump and falls well outside the current estimate of 45 to 90 days to get an AOR.

Can you please tell us why there is now such a long expected delay, since we are under the impression that by removing the 120 day part the application process should have become quicker? Several members have been told by CIC that eligibility reviews have been completed for applications up to the end of September/start of October, yet even the applicants whose application was received at the start of July have yet to receive an AOR.

There are still currently no timelines outlined on the CIC website in this regard, and we believe it will save significant number of unnecessary phone calls of applicants to CIC if some expected timelines can be given.


2) CAP limits

We understand the current process is that on receipt of an application it undergoes a completeness check. If that is successful, the funds are encashed and the application then goes through an eligibility review, prior to the applicant being informed and the application being forward to the visa office.

We note you have now published some figures on the CIC web site, which is being updated every few days, regarding how many applications have been received as counting towards the cap for each NOC.

Where there great confusion is - do these figures published on the CIC website represent those applications which have only passed the completeness check, or which have also passed an eligibility review? Several parts of your website elude to the phrase "considered for processing" but it is unclear at which side of the eligibility review these applications are being counted.


3) Returned applications

Several of our forum members have reported that their application has been returned prior to encashment of funds, but that they have only just learnt about this and they have never received the application back. They now have to go through the timely and costly process of re-printing their application and re-gathering all their supporting documentation in order that they can submit another application.

We understand that standard Canada post in Canada and local standard post in the applicant's country are being used to return applications, but this is evidently leading to some applications being lost, which has led to a lot of distress for a few of our forum members. May we respectfully suggest an amendment to the process, that as part of the processing fees with the initial application an option for returns fee is included with the fee payment so that a courier may be used to return important documents such as the originals which are included in our applications? Such a fee would be much smaller than cost of having to re-compile the application if original documents are lost in transit using traditional post.

There are also growing concerns amongst our forum members of identity theft/fraud if their applications with such a large quantity of personal information is lost in the post.

4) Police clearance certificates


Police clearance certificates (PCC) are valid for 3 months from issue date.  Whilst it takes from 1 week to 6 months to obtain PCCs, some applicants never visited again certain countries where they spent more than 180 days.  Could you please clarify if PCCs from countries that the applicant never entered again and dated more than 3 months from the date of issue remain valid for immigration application purposes?

Any clarification you can give us regarding the above would be greatly appreciated (especially AOR! I will remove this AOR joke part, my bit of emotions).
Best wishes,
X

Hi Coffee:

Current PCC rules are problematic in two ways:

1- Current guidelines state, PCCs are valid for one year from the time of issue, and they cannot be more than 3 months old when they are submitted to VO. Problem is, we have no idea when our applications will arrive at VO and it takes 1 to 5 months to get a new PCC in some countries. This will certainly cause delays and backlogs for some applications. If the rules could state that PCCs cannot be older than 3 months when your application passes completeness check and is encashed, the problem would be solved.

2- Some applicants have lived in countries other than the one they currently reside in, for a short period of time, many years ago; and have never gone back. Why can't these PCCs be more than 3 months old?

Thank you for putting our PCC concern in the letter Coffee,
Cam

[smaaar]

  BOAR CONTESTANTS 

Cam1234                   Dec 15 2010
Cappuccino                Dec 1 2010
Pippin                        Feb 1 2011
Smiler11                    Dec 10, 2011
Jeanne                       Dec 2 2010   
Canada 1                   Jan 25 2011
CanadaJimmy              Nov 22 2010
JINCYMARAMON          Jan 15 2011
Canady                      Dec 20 2010
Temasek                    Nov 17 2010
jignesh79                   Dec 20 2010  ** Date already taken, Please choose another...
mchowdhury               Jan 14 2011
wenstumped               Jan 26 2011
Cur-Rozen                  Feb 2 2011
Kolhapuri                    Jan 20 2011
Bindu                         Jan 10 2011
pun123                      Nov.29 2010

Best of Luck to Everyone!

My expected date to recieve 1st AOR for post 26 june applicants would be Jan 11th 2011 from related visa offices

[wenstumped]

Hey guys,

I just went through some of the threads for the pre June applicants and noticed that there are still a lot of them who are gathering and now sending their documents. The whole 33 week waiting period that we are being put through could be a result of this. IMO, they first want to completely clear the backlog they have from pre June before sending our applications over to the VO. So in effect, we have to wait for them to get their first AORs- roughly 12 weeks (which has been done) and then the 120 days -roughly 16 weeks, for their document gathering process plus however long it takes to process them- approx. 5 weeks.  So all in all-33 weeks.

It would be a lot more helpful if they could just send us a quick email to let us know about this and also confirm that we have passed some sort of completeness check or eligibility review.

[jignesh79]

My expected date to recieve 1st AOR for post 26 june applicants would be Jan 11th 2011 from related visa offices

Ok. then I will opt for 21st december,2010.

[harvin]

A snail-mail from CIC today (Nov-13) AFTER my cc was charged on 10/27 had me skipping my heartbeats multiple times.

A quick flashback in order - after a friend on the forum pointed out that his application had been returned due to incomplete 'date' field on section-'b' of the fee payment form (applicable for CC payment only) - I hastily prepared an explanation letter and requesting them to consider my original application date, printed out another form, signed it, dated it, and attached a copy of my 'cc' and sent it across. The day after I sent it, I see that my cc was charged.

While I had some hope of  an AOR, knowing fully well that it is sent via email, I feared the worst

With fear and hope waging their battle, I opened it, and saw a letter dated Nov-3 (my clarification letter reached them on Nov-1) stating that they are returning my fee payment form because my original application contained completed fee payment form and the due payment has been received. They sent my clarification letter and its content back, and I received it today in USA.

Quite surprised at the speed of their processing, and beginning to wonder whether we should contact them via snail-mail to get faster and clearer response than calling them up and receiving a vague 33-week answer

[Coffee]

Hi Coffee:

Current PCC rules are problematic in two ways:

1- Current guidelines state, PCCs are valid for one year from the time of issue, and they cannot be more than 3 months old when they are submitted to VO. Problem is, we have no idea when our applications will arrive at VO and it takes 1 to 5 months to get a new PCC in some countries. This will certainly cause delays and backlogs for some applications. If the rules could state that PCCs cannot be older than 3 months when your application passes completeness check and is encashed, the problem would be solved.

2- Some applicants have lived in countries other than the one they currently reside in, for a short period of time, many years ago; and have never gone back. Why can't these PCCs be more than 3 months old?

Thank you for putting our PCC concern in the letter Coffee,
Cam

hi Cam,

our friend Harvin put it well on the PCC, I am going to use his para.  are you comfortable with it, I remember PCC was your area of interest?

regards,

[Temasek]

Hi Coffee

While most of us are familiar with the roles CIO and VO play in processing FSW applications previously, this cannot be said with certainty for the post 25 July 2010 applications.  Quite a bit of the current speculation, including those related to the “33 weeks” time-frame, and even why those with an AEO are still not receiving their AORs, could well make sense once clarification on whether there is a corresponding shift in roles by CIO & VO following the 26 June 2010 Ministerial Instruction is provided.  Of course, it may well be that there is no significant change, and that all the supporting documents are merely forwarded to the respective VOs following some form of Eligibility Review by CIO.

While I have no problem in drafting something, I also feel the above query cannot be posed in isolation as it also has an impact on the following 2 of the 4 issues being raised in the letter.

Acknowledgement of Receipt (Timelines) – There are 2 concerns here.

• Firstly the statement “We understand that after the eligibility review at CIO is successfully complete, the applicant should expect to be informed by way of an Acknowledgment Of Receipt (AOR) as their application is forwarded to the visa office for background checks and further processing”, would require minor tweaking if the question on role clarification is posed.

• Secondly, in the event that CIO takes a bigger role, then the previous benchmarks with regards to AORs may not be valid.  In fact depending on the role CIO takes, it could well be longer than previous. I would also add that the sentence “Can you please tell us why there is now such a long expected delay, since we are under the impression that by removing the 120 day part the application process should have become quicker?” may not be entirely correct as the reduction in time would be with regards to the time required by VO and not CIO.   On a related matter, we also need to be mindful that the 120 days given is the maximum the VOs give the prospective applicants to furnish their supporting documents.  From the information provided in the Google spreadsheet by May and June 2010 applicants, sizable numbers are submitting their documents within the first 30 days upon receipt of AOR.  Consequently if there is a reduction in processing time, the primary reason would be the imposition of the cap, and then only the submission of documents.

.
CAP limits
As with the above the statement “We understand the current process is that on receipt of an application it undergoes a completeness check. If that is successful, the funds are encashed and the application then goes through an eligibility review, prior to the applicant being informed and the application being forward to the visa office”, would also require minor tweaking if the question on role clarification is posed.


Do let me have your views.


Cheers

[Coffee]

Hi Coffee

While most of us are familiar with the roles CIO and VO play in processing FSW applications previously, this cannot be said with certainty for the post 25 July 2010 applications.  Quite a bit of the current speculation, including those related to the “33 weeks” time-frame, and even why those with an AEO are still not receiving their AORs, could well make sense once clarification on whether there is a corresponding shift in roles by CIO & VO following the 26 June 2010 Ministerial Instruction is provided.  Of course, it may well be that there is no significant change, and that all the supporting documents are merely forwarded to the respective VOs following some form of Eligibility Review by CIO.

While I have no problem in drafting something, I also feel the above query cannot be posed in isolation as it also has an impact on the following 2 of the 4 issues being raised in the letter.

Acknowledgement of Receipt (Timelines) – There are 2 concerns here.

• Firstly the statement “We understand that after the eligibility review at CIO is successfully complete, the applicant should expect to be informed by way of an Acknowledgment Of Receipt (AOR) as their application is forwarded to the visa office for background checks and further processing”, would require minor tweaking if the question on role clarification is posed.

• Secondly, in the event that CIO takes a bigger role, then the previous benchmarks with regards to AORs may not be valid.  In fact depending on the role CIO takes, it could well be longer than previous. I would also add that the sentence “Can you please tell us why there is now such a long expected delay, since we are under the impression that by removing the 120 day part the application process should have become quicker?” may not be entirely correct as the reduction in time would be with regards to the time required by VO and not CIO.   On a related matter, we also need to be mindful that the 120 days given is the maximum the VOs give the prospective applicants to furnish their supporting documents.  From the information provided in the Google spreadsheet by May and June 2010 applicants, sizable numbers are submitting their documents within the first 30 days upon receipt of AOR.  Consequently if there is a reduction in processing time, the primary reason would be the imposition of the cap, and then only the submission of documents.

.
CAP limits
As with the above the statement “We understand the current process is that on receipt of an application it undergoes a completeness check. If that is successful, the funds are encashed and the application then goes through an eligibility review, prior to the applicant being informed and the application being forward to the visa office”, would also require minor tweaking if the question on role clarification is posed.


Do let me have your views.


Cheers

hi Temasek,

thanks for your comments.  can you please put your version of the wording of that para?

thanks!

[canady]

Dear Coffee,

Please add to the letter the following:

1) What will be the contents & instructions which will be in the AOR ??
2) Why they don't send the rejection letters for those who failed in the eligibility review so they can have a fair chance to rectify their application & resubmit ?

Thanks for your effort guys

[Temasek]

hi Temasek,

thanks for your comments.  can you please put your version of the wording of that para?

thanks!

Hi Coffee
Have made the suggested changes to the draft to capture the concerns I had mentioned earlier.  The changes are in red, and are only confined to the 1st two issues.
Do feel to make any changes if deemed fit.
Cheers
........................

Dear Sirs,

I am writing on behalf of a sizable number of Federal Skilled Worker Category 1 (FSW1) applicants who share a public forum and have applied for Permanent Residence to Canada on or after 26th June 2010.

We are wondering if you could please consider clarifying the following questions which we have compiled regarding the immigration process under this category since the new rules were introduced?

Since these questions have been frequently asked in our forum and represent the concerns of many applicants, could we please also ask you to consider adding the questions and their answers to the Frequently Asked Questions section of your website if you think there is sufficient value and merit?

We believe this will help clarify things for many on or after 26th June 2010 applicants and therefore help reduce phone calls and queries to CIC.

We are very grateful to you for considering us for immigration to Canada, so please take our request for information in the spirit we intend, that we just wish to make things as clear as we can from both sides.

Quite a few of our concerns related to the role of CIO and VO for post 25 June applications.  While most of us are familiar with the roles both play in processing FSW applications previously, we are not sure whether this has changed following the 26 June 2010 Ministerial Instruction.  We believe that understanding whether there has been a corresponding shift in role would not only implicitly help mitigate the current concerns which we have described below, but also manage the expectations with regards to timeline for many.
     
1) Acknowledgment Of Receipt - timelines
Based on the previous process,  we understand that after eligibility review at CIO is successfully completed, the applicant should expect to be informed by way of an Acknowledgment Of Receipt (AOR) as their application is forwarded to the visa office for background checks and further processing.

During the past few weeks several members have phoned CIC to enquire on the status of their application. Prior to 19th October they have been told that it would take approximately 10 weeks before they receive an acknowledgment from CIC. Since then, during three past few weeks, many members are now being told it would take 33 weeks. This is obviously a large jump and falls well outside the previous estimate of 45 to 90 days to get an AOR. 

Can you please tell us why there is now such a long expected delay, in light of several members being told by CIC's Call Centre that eligibility reviews have been completed for applications up to the end of September/start of October and yet even the applicants whose application received at the start of July have not received an AOR.

There are still currently no timelines outlined on the CIC website in this regard, and we believe it will save significant number of unnecessary phone calls of applicants to CIC if some expected timelines can be given.


2) CAP limits
Based on the previous process, we understand that on receipt of an application it undergoes a completeness check.  If that is successful, the funds are encashed and the application then goes through an eligibility review.  If deemed eligible, the applicant is informed and the application is forwarded to the visa office.

We note you have now published some figures on the CIC web site, which is being updated every few days, regarding how many applications have been received as counting towards the cap for each NOC.

Where there great confusion is - do these figures published on the CIC website represent those applications which have only passed the completeness check, or which have also passed an eligibility review? Several parts of your website elude to the phrase "considered for processing" but it is unclear at which side of the eligibility review these applications are being counted.
....
...
..
.

[Cam1234]

hi Cam,

our friend Harvin put it well on the PCC, I am going to use his para.  are you comfortable with it, I remember PCC was your area of interest?

regards,

Hi Coffee:

How about the paragraph below, harvin please make corrections as you deem necessary:

"Current PCC guidelines state that they cannot be more than 3 months old when they are submitted to the VO. Problem is, applicants have no way of knowing when their application will reach the VO, and since it takes 1 to 6 months to get a new PCC in some countries, this will cause delays and backlogs for some applications. Additionally, some applicants who have lived in other countries for more than 180 days in the past, and have never entered those countries again, have PCCs that are older than 3 months, could their PCC be valid for immigration application purposes?"

I think the paragraph above addresses both problems with PCCs, it is certainly not the best way to say it, and all corrections are welcome...

Cam

[Cam1234]

  BOAR CONTESTANTS 

Cam1234                   Dec 15 2010
Cappuccino                Dec 1 2010
Pippin                        Feb 1 2011
Smiler11                    Dec 10, 2011
Jeanne                       Dec 2 2010   
Canada 1                   Jan 25 2011
CanadaJimmy              Nov 22 2010
JINCYMARAMON          Jan 15 2011
Canady                      Dec 20 2010
Temasek                    Nov 17 2010
jignesh79                   Dec 21 2010 
mchowdhury               Jan 14 2011
wenstumped               Jan 26 2011
Cur-Rozen                  Feb 2 2011
Kolhapuri                    Jan 20 2011
Bindu                         Jan 10 2011
pun123                      Nov 29 2010
smaaar                       Jan 11 2011

Best of Luck to Everyone!

[harvin]

Hi Coffee:

How about the paragraph below, harvin please make corrections as you deem necessary:

"Current PCC guidelines state that they cannot be more than 3 months old when they are submitted to the VO. Problem is, applicants have no way of knowing when their application will reach the VO, and since it takes 1 to 6 months to get a new PCC in some countries, this will cause delays and backlogs for some applications. Additionally, some applicants who have lived in other countries for more than 180 days in the past, and have never entered those countries again, have PCCs that are older than 3 months, could their PCC be valid for immigration application purposes?"

I think the paragraph above addresses both problems with PCCs, it is certainly not the best way to say it, and all corrections are welcome...

Cam

I am ok with this - thanks for initiative !

[Cappuccino]

I agree with you here, but the question is what is the reason for taking so long in dealing with pre6/26, they are not doing eligibility on them right? They should have finished them 2 weeks ago. On the second part, yup they could indicate a schedule on when to submit your papers to VO in order to give time for the VO personel to work on the applications on timely manner.

If reports of members who phoned CIC are to be believed, they have DONE the eligibility reviews for the applications received up until the end of September, at least.

So either there is some lag between an eligiblity review being complete and whichever department sending out AORs sending them out, OR they are purposefully withholding all the AORs and rejections until the end of this 33 week thing.

If it's the latter then I feel it's incredibly unfair, and very discourteous. Some people who cannot tell if their banker's draft has been cashed may not neve know if CIC RECEIVED their application until April 2011!!! Just ridiculous.

Wayne.