We don't know beyond what the OP has told us and based on that information, their best chance for a positive appeal lies in challenging the refusal on the grounds of proof of financial capability rather than on the grounds of wrong invitation.jemdill said:
I am trying to understand the process flow of CIC but couldn't come to a conclusion as it always varies from one applicant to the other.Asivad Anac said:
Asivad,so only the applicant who doesnt require funds as of tables are the one who has lmo/lmia job ongoing and has arranged employment..plz correct me if i am wrong?? I currently fall on this category and i have application going on..Asivad Anac said:
I know from personal experience that POF is the final hurdle for FSW applicants. Possibly even after criminality checks and, of course, everything else that comes before it.Quebec_EE_FSW said:
The only ones who are exempted from POF requirements are applicants with either an LMIA job offer or invited under CEC.gorkhethito said:
I totally agree. I believe this is one place where CIC's regulations have overstepped their bounds in deciding the criteria by which financial stability are to be assessed. The point of the law is that the applicant should show that s/he will not become a public burden in Canada, by having sufficient funds to establish him- or herself while finding a job. It makes no sense, then, that regulations say that a CEC applicant outside Canada, who will have to quit a job to return to Canada and find a new one does not have to show settlement funds, while an FSW applicant who has a current, permanent job in Canada does. Doesn't an ongoing salary prove one's ability to support oneself? I think it does - and therefore the regulation is too narrow in carrying out the intent of the law.Asivad Anac said:
Did you apply for your GCMS notes for your previous application? If applied, did it say that initially the POF requirement was met and later the VO took a decision against it? I am asking this because I have seen people reporting on the forum that GCMS notes says MET just after 6 weeks of application.Asivad Anac said:
1) He would never get a CEC ITA if the EE software said he was eligible for FSW as well, and 2) the software itself is problematic in that funds are not a qualification for FSW - but they have been made a factor of admissibility for FSW applicants. So the software rightly said he was qualified for FSW - but failed to note that his answer to funds made him inadmissible under that program. Horrible.jemdill said:
RPRF indicates that you have met all eligibility requirements for the program, excluding criminality, security and medical checks. These are all mutually exclusive processes. Like all other requirements, POF is just another eligibility requirements.Asivad Anac said:
Yes. Along with medical and criminal checks, it's a factor of admissibility to Canada, not of qualification for a particular program. That's why it happens time and again that people who write in a small amount of money, or even zero funds, still find themselves accumulating the necessary 67 points for FSW. They are eligible for FSW, but under that program they are inadmissible to Canada without the money in the bank. It's a real mistake in the software CIC is using, and it may end up harming a lot of people.Asivad Anac said:
I didn't apply for GCMS but I did have multiple CSE-based conversations with the officer and was reassured that POF was the only glitch and, even therein, it was a technicality rather than a problem. Like all human processes, this is also arbitrary and depends on humans making decisions based on their interpretations and understanding. Which is probably why similar circumstances yield different results for different applicants. I've made my peace with it.Quebec_EE_FSW said:
