I don't think so but I think you should put your facts in a letter of explanation and let them know. Because as an outsider if someone sees that you're saying that spouse is not accompanying and spouse is already with you in Canada they would want to have a look at it again. But as I said this doesn't seem a big enough reason for denial. I think a letter of explanation should help. All the best!
June 2018 AOR - join here
- Thread starter andy108
- Start date
Yes. I think you are almost there. Plus the notes are a month old so it is possible a senior officer has already approved your eligibility.But I am glad that all others (work experience, degree, age, language...) seem fine.It could have been worse if they question other things.
I don't think they will reject you because of this but you should have either included your common-law partner as your dependent accompanying you since he is already in Canada and you could land together or you could just not mention that you are common-law partner if you were planning to apply for permanent residency separately.
Saying that, I personally think they will not reject you because of this and they might send you an email or something asking for further info and clarification of this issue.
Thanks for your reply.
I don't think I can not declare him as common-law because that way will be misrepresentation. But chose "common-law partner accompanying" was not an option because CRS score would be too low to get invitation.
I received a ghost update on Monday morning, but nothing afterwards. I wonder if that means file was at final reviewed by VO or not.
Now I had been wondering if the ghost update that I got on Monday was related to my eligibility review.
ha ha ha it could very well be. I have heard Friday is a good day for PPRs. So let's hope you get the PPR mail this Friday.Now I had been wondering if the ghost update that I got on Monday was related to my eligibility review.
Hi INTamir,
I have a question for you: At my previous job, I had a contract for 8 months. Most reference letter samples say "XYZ was employed at ABC as a permanent, full time employee". What do you write when you weren't a permanent employee? I wrote:
I have a question for you: At my previous job, I had a contract for 8 months. Most reference letter samples say "XYZ was employed at ABC as a permanent, full time employee". What do you write when you weren't a permanent employee? I wrote:
- Type of Employment: Full time, term appointment.
- Duration of term: 5th May, 2017 up to 31st January, 2018.
The GCMS notes were like 100 pages and I looked at every single page. All looked really positive and "passed" "met". The only thing that worries me was this sentence right next to Review Required. After this sentence, there are a few more paraphrases. And those look fine too.
Oh, I see. So, let's wait and see what CIC brings for you. Hopefully it will be a PPR email.Thanks for your reply.
I don't think I can not declare him as common-law because that way will be misrepresentation. But chose "common-law partner accompanying" was not an option because CRS score would be too low to get invitation.
I received a ghost update on Monday morning, but nothing afterwards. I wonder if that means file was at final reviewed by VO or not.
They did ask for my spouse's passport though, which clears shows my partner's study permit and my partner's three year PGWP. Plus when they ask why spouse not accompanying, I did again mention he's right now on his own PGWP and he's just not ready to be a PR yet.
But you are right, the note was like one month old. Maybe by now everything was cleared, hopefully
They never asked me for any additional document yet.In my point of view, if you are applying under CEC, it is not really important to mention the term-appointment although its meaning is quite clear which is same as temporary full-time. I would say just mention your experience as a full-time job with the start date, end date, detailed list of responsibilities, your salary, number of working hours per week, and of course with the university letter head.
Oh, I see. So, let's wait and see what CIC brings for you. Hopefully it will be a PPR email.
Yes. Hopefully!Yes, it is the same as temporary appointment! Is that something people mention? I changed things a bit and wrote:
"This is to certify that XYZ was part of my research team as a full-time Research Technician from 5th May, 2017 up to 6th October, 2017." Is that sufficient?
Or should I say,
"This is to certify that XYZ was part of my research team as a temporary, full-time employee from 5th May, 2017 up to 6th October, 2017." (and then later mention my designation).
"This is to certify that XYZ was part of my research team as a full-time Research Technician from 5th May, 2017 up to 6th October, 2017." Is that sufficient?
Or should I say,
"This is to certify that XYZ was part of my research team as a temporary, full-time employee from 5th May, 2017 up to 6th October, 2017." (and then later mention my designation).
You have already left that job so, term of employment is not important in my opinion. First one should be good enough.