2173 Applicants who applied after Aug 12, 2014 - Join here

[naticom]

Glad that someone is interested in my analysis.

(ONLY PERSONAL VIEW)

So far we know that the CAP value should be the number passed c-check, but I think at least it should reflect the number of charged apps.
(charged apps are definitely entered into GCMS system and the cap value should update)

I collected some data from SS and official numbers:

Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 11/7 11/11
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/24 8/12
C-Check Until 7/28 All Aug


Official #[1] 218 242 294 343 392 425 699 1000

(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 92 104 117 138 171 192 250 286
SS Charged # [3] 76 85 89 108 129 145 191 201

(a) [3]/[2] 0.82 0.817 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.70
(b) [2]/[1] 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.44 0.45 0.36 0.286
(c) [3]/[1] 0.344 0.351 0.304 0.312 0.33 0.342 0.274 0.2

All the data and info are from SS and this forum

1. Assume CAP value is *really* based on c-check number, all Aug apps should fall in cap, but now it does not seem so.

2. Assume CAP value is based on charged numbers, it would be impossible for CIC to charge 300 ppl for on NOC in 4 days.

3. Assume CAP was perviously based on charged numbers, and after 11/7 they decided to boost their speed so the 301 counts are based on C-check.
In this case, CIC received 301 applications from 7/24 to 8/12 (19 days including weekends), while they only charged 699 from 5/1 to 7/24.
I know that some 2174 applicants turned to apply 2173 after July, but do you think the amount is reasonable?

5. Let's talk about the ratio (a), (b), and (c). We can see that the ratio are pretty stable before 10/9, but in NOV ratio (b) and (c) dropped sharply.
Several possibilities:
i) 2173 people outside SS increased in an amazing speed, is this possible?
ii) people are getting lazy creating and updating entries on SS after mid-July and Aug, is this possible?
iii) CIC did not actually charged 1000 applications. They are tired of dealing with massive 217X apps so they cut the quota internally. ;D
iv) the CAP value before NOV is way behind charged date or c-check date. That means CIC is counting the numbers manually but not extracting from their system.
Come on....manual calculation in 21st century?

In my opinion, iv) may be most possible because 2174 shows the same trend.

Appendix:

2174 records:

Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 10/21
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/2
Official #[1] 481 537 662 718 778 817 1000

(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 243 261 279 295 318 334 342
SS Charged # [3] 199 214 232 240 257 267 278

(a) [3]/[2] 0.819 0.820 0.832 0.814 0.808 0.799 0.813
(b) [2]/[1] 0.505 0.486 0.421 0.411 0.409 0.409 0.342
(c) [3]/[1] 0.413 0.399 0.350 0.334 0.330 0.327 0.278

2174 Final Charged Ratio (Charged # on SS/1000) : 287/1000=0.278


How do you guys think?

naticom, +1 for you


i read your previous posts

you have given good analysis on cap filling for 2173 and estimate on how worldwide spreadsheet looks

However, i have not sent a second application like you.


Feeling unlucky :<

 

[bhavin_55]

Glad that someone is interested in my analysis.

(ONLY PERSONAL VIEW)

So far we know that the CAP value should be the number passed c-check, but I think at least it should reflect the number of charged apps.
(charged apps are definitely entered into GCMS system and the cap value should update)

I collected some data from SS and official numbers:

Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 11/7 11/11
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/24 8/12
C-Check Until 7/28 All Aug


Official #[1] 218 242 294 343 392 425 699 1000

(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 92 104 117 138 171 192 250 286
SS Charged # [3] 76 85 89 108 129 145 191 201

(a) [3]/[2] 0.82 0.817 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.70
(b) [2]/[1] 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.44 0.45 0.36 0.286
(c) [3]/[1] 0.344 0.351 0.304 0.312 0.33 0.342 0.274 0.2

All the data and info are from SS and this forum

1. Assume CAP value is *really* based on c-check number, all Aug apps should fall in cap, but now it does not seem so.

2. Assume CAP value is based on charged numbers, it would be impossible for CIC to charge 300 ppl for on NOC in 4 days.

3. Assume CAP was perviously based on charged numbers, and after 11/7 they decided to boost their speed so the 301 counts are based on C-check.
In this case, CIC received 301 applications from 7/24 to 8/12 (19 days including weekends), while they only charged 699 from 5/1 to 7/24.
I know that some 2174 applicants turned to apply 2173 after July, but do you think the amount is reasonable?

5. Let's talk about the ratio (a), (b), and (c). We can see that the ratio are pretty stable before 10/9, but in NOV ratio (b) and (c) dropped sharply.
Several possibilities:
i) 2173 people outside SS increased in an amazing speed, is this possible?
ii) people are getting lazy creating and updating entries on SS after mid-July and Aug, is this possible?
iii) CIC did not actually charged 1000 applications. They are tired of dealing with massive 217X apps so they cut the quota internally. ;D
iv) the CAP value before NOV is way behind charged date or c-check date. That means CIC is counting the numbers manually but not extracting from their system.
Come on....manual calculation in 21st century?

In my opinion, iv) may be most possible because 2174 shows the same trend.

Appendix:

2174 records:

Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 10/21
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/2
Official #[1] 481 537 662 718 778 817 1000

(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 243 261 279 295 318 334 342
SS Charged # [3] 199 214 232 240 257 267 278

(a) [3]/[2] 0.819 0.820 0.832 0.814 0.808 0.799 0.813
(b) [2]/[1] 0.505 0.486 0.421 0.411 0.409 0.409 0.342
(c) [3]/[1] 0.413 0.399 0.350 0.334 0.330 0.327 0.278

2174 Final Charged Ratio (Charged # on SS/1000) : 287/1000=0.278


How do you guys think?

Thanks for such a derailed analisys... I am assuming game is spoiled by applicant outside SS. Could be same trend in 2174 which is more likely for 2173,as well.
My personal view..

 

[naticom]

I hope they will return CAP filled packages ASAP so that we can prepare for EE.

Thanks for such a derailed analisys... I am assuming game is spoiled by applicant outside SS. Could be same trend in 2174 which is more likely for 2173,as well.
My personal view..

 

[mks_87]

is there no way we can write to CIC about investigating the real numbers.
I am sure they have not completed charging all 1000 applicants and if we mail them as an urgent request cc'ing the applicants???

 

[canfsw]

Thanks for the detailed analysis naticom, +1 for you

Atleast if we get know someone's application has returned, we can start preparing for Plan B.

noc 2173 is a mystery now.

Rest of all nocs are working normally

yesterday cc charging started for other noc aug 22 applicaions.

Glad that someone is interested in my analysis.

(ONLY PERSONAL VIEW)

So far we know that the CAP value should be the number passed c-check, but I think at least it should reflect the number of charged apps.
(charged apps are definitely entered into GCMS system and the cap value should update)

I collected some data from SS and official numbers:

Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 11/7 11/11
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/24 8/12
C-Check Until 7/28 All Aug


Official #[1] 218 242 294 343 392 425 699 1000

(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 92 104 117 138 171 192 250 286
SS Charged # [3] 76 85 89 108 129 145 191 201

(a) [3]/[2] 0.82 0.817 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.70
(b) [2]/[1] 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.44 0.45 0.36 0.286
(c) [3]/[1] 0.344 0.351 0.304 0.312 0.33 0.342 0.274 0.2

All the data and info are from SS and this forum

1. Assume CAP value is *really* based on c-check number, all Aug apps should fall in cap, but now it does not seem so.

2. Assume CAP value is based on charged numbers, it would be impossible for CIC to charge 300 ppl for on NOC in 4 days.

3. Assume CAP was perviously based on charged numbers, and after 11/7 they decided to boost their speed so the 301 counts are based on C-check.
In this case, CIC received 301 applications from 7/24 to 8/12 (19 days including weekends), while they only charged 699 from 5/1 to 7/24.
I know that some 2174 applicants turned to apply 2173 after July, but do you think the amount is reasonable?

5. Let's talk about the ratio (a), (b), and (c). We can see that the ratio are pretty stable before 10/9, but in NOV ratio (b) and (c) dropped sharply.
Several possibilities:
i) 2173 people outside SS increased in an amazing speed, is this possible?
ii) people are getting lazy creating and updating entries on SS after mid-July and Aug, is this possible?
iii) CIC did not actually charged 1000 applications. They are tired of dealing with massive 217X apps so they cut the quota internally. ;D
iv) the CAP value before NOV is way behind charged date or c-check date. That means CIC is counting the numbers manually but not extracting from their system.
Come on....manual calculation in 21st century?

In my opinion, iv) may be most possible because 2174 shows the same trend.

Appendix:

2174 records:

Date 9/2 9/8 9/15 9/22 9/30 10/9 10/21
Charged Until 5/21 5/23 5/29 6/4 6/12 6/23 7/2
Official #[1] 481 537 662 718 778 817 1000

(# below are based on CIC charged date)
SS # [2] 243 261 279 295 318 334 342
SS Charged # [3] 199 214 232 240 257 267 278

(a) [3]/[2] 0.819 0.820 0.832 0.814 0.808 0.799 0.813
(b) [2]/[1] 0.505 0.486 0.421 0.411 0.409 0.409 0.342
(c) [3]/[1] 0.413 0.399 0.350 0.334 0.330 0.327 0.278

2174 Final Charged Ratio (Charged # on SS/1000) : 287/1000=0.278


How do you guys think?

 

[canfsw]

May be game is spoiled by applicant outside SS. I am 15 sept so very little hope as some of July and many of august are still pending to be charge. I have confidence on senior regarding their analisys and forcastin CIC made it wrong some where specially in case of 2173.

Yes Bhavin, thats true.

Also there are lot of silent readers, who are not updating SS once they get cc charged, as well as new applicants

 

[naticom]

Thanks

My mailing address is in Canada so I'll update at the first second when I receive the returned package.

Please don't give up, we still have EE. We could be the pioneers of EE because we have almost all required documents at hand.
Although we may not succeed in this year, God gives us another path which starts in Jan 2015.
We won't have to wait until May as this year or last year; we just have to wait for 40 days!

Cheers!

Thanks for the detailed analysis naticom, +1 for you

Atleast if we get know someone's application has returned, we can start preparing for Plan B.

noc 2173 is a mystery now.

Rest of all nocs are working normally

yesterday cc charging started for other noc aug 22 applicaions.

 

[nik2can]

how many of you have provided reference letter in company letter head, or have you provided affidavit?

I have provided affidavit from my manager for all Work experiences.

The reason for few of 2173 applicants till Aug 12 got their cc charged could be they provided reference letter in company letter head and for others they might have kept on hold

What opinion does other have. please share

I have provided 3 reference letters of all the companies I have worked for with referral's ID cards and other details mentioned.But it is not on company's letter head.Affidavit will do.Lets hope for the best.As long as our application is not returned we all have hope.

Cheers

 

[canfsw]

I have provided 3 reference letters of all the companies I have worked for with referral's ID cards and other details mentioned.But it is not on company's letter head.Affidavit will do.Lets hope for the best.As long as our application is not returned we all have hope.

Cheers

nik2can, +1 to you

for your positive hopes

 

[WishingCanada]

Guys, I am not sure if my analysis is correct but now that we see 2171 was already capped maybe they will now return on reviewing August applicants for 2173. I guess they had their full attention to 2171 for the last few weeks so it will be capped and all IT hot NOC's will now reviewed thoroughly. Also, it will stop other to-be-applicants to send docs on IT NOC's. Thus, in the few more weeks we can hear 2173 moving till end of August.

This is just my 2 cents. I hope I am right on this.

 

[sandep12]

Its little unfortunate for Aug , Sep , Oct and Even Nov till date cap jumped for 2173 applicants that they could not make it.

Its very difficult to explain why CIC updated Cap in 2 days as filled.

There are chances that they worked on many 2173 and updated but almost 500. It surely means they did not update the website.

If CIC had worked on an average speed they would have hinted a cap close for OCT and NOV applicants.

The operational process of CIC looks like needs a real good look.

Its not only resulted in dissappointment for many applicants but also piled up applications at CIC, which is slowing process for other NOCs.

Also now they have a big task of returning all these applications back.. If my guess is right then there is a big mess in CIC currenlty which they are trying their best to sort it out.

But all this could have been avoided.

 

[bhavin_55]

I hope they will return CAP filled packages ASAP so that we can prepare for EE.

I really appreciate if CIC show same pace to return the application so we shouldn't be late in EE.

 

[bhavin_55]

Its little unfortunate for Aug , Sep , Oct and Even Nov till date cap jumped for 2173 applicants that they could not make it.

Its very difficult to explain why CIC updated Cap in 2 days as filled.

There are chances that they worked on many 2173 and updated but almost 500. It surely means they did not update the website.

If CIC had worked on an average speed they would have hinted a cap close for OCT and NOV applicants.

The operational process of CIC looks like needs a real good look.

Its not only resulted in dissappointment for many applicants but also piled up applications at CIC, which is slowing process for other NOCs.

Also now they have a big task of returning all these applications back.. If my guess is right then there is a big mess in CIC currenlty which they are trying their best to sort it out.

But all this could have been avoided.

I agree with you. I really don't expect such uncertainty when they are far better in technology. They worked hard to prove as well..

 

[canfsw]

I agree with you. I really don't expect such uncertainty when they are far better in technology. They worked hard to prove as well..

Compared to US, they still lagging behind in technology.

Many have this preconceived notion that Canada is better in technology, in fact they are not.

But the reality is something different in Canada.

 

[canfsw]

Is it true that 2173 - sep 4 has returned because of document missing or something whereas it is not cap filled reason.

Anyone has read the post ?

i'm unable to find the post, and there is no spreadsheet entry