Applicant from PhD program after 5 Nov, 2011 connect here to get status

[ojohn22]

I got a very unfavourable and weird processing of my application:

Summary:

Application reached CIO on 2nd May:

Credit Card charged- 10th of May.

June 17th- Rejection letter from CIO. Note that (No NER not PER) even after CC. and this came from CIO.

See letter below:

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism issued instructions which were published in the Canada Gazette on November 5, 2011. These instructions specify that applications from international students who are currently enrolled in a PhD program, or foreign nationals who have completed a PhD program, in a recognized educational institution located in Canada and that are accompanied by the results of the principal applicant’s English or French language proficiency assessment are eligible to be processed in the Federal Skilled Worker class.

I have now completed the assessment of your application for a permanent resident visa as a skilled worker. I have determined that you do not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.

While your application for the Phd program meets one of the requirements of the Ministerial Instructions now in effect, to be eligible for processing, your work experience must still meet the minimal requirements as defined in subsection 75(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations that states that a foreign national is a skilled worker if:

a) within the ten years preceding the date of their application for a permanent resident visa, they, have at least one year of continuous full-time (37.5 hours/week) employment experience as described in subsection 80(7), or the equivalent in continuous part-time employment in one or more occupations, other than a restricted occupation, that are listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Levels A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix;

b) during that period of employment they performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification; and

c) during that period of employment they performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties.

I am not satisfied that you meet part A of these requirements for the following reasons:

All supporting documentation on file regarding your work experience history was taken into consideration. Part-time work experience with Memorial University as Graduate Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant from May 2010 to date of application (03 May 2013) is for a period less than one year at time of application. You have provided employment letters showing work experience with Memorial University from Sept 12, 2011 to 16 Dec 2011 (56 hours), from Jan 9, 2012 to April 13, 2012 (56 hours), and from Sept 10, 2012, to December 14, 2012 (56 hours). This employment is not one year of continuous full-time or equivalent part-time work experience. The employment letter signed by ******* from ***** University indicates your research, laboratory work, and teaching assistantship as 40 hours per week from Monday to Friday. However, according to documents provided, you are enrolled in full-time study and, therefore, I am not satisfied that you also obtained full-time work experience for the same time period. Evidence of part A above cannot be established.

Subsection 75(3) states that if a foreign national fails to meet these requirements, the application shall be refused and no further assessment is required. I am not satisfied that you meet these requirements.

Subsection 11(1) of the Act states that a foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act. Subsection 2(2) specifies that unless otherwise indicated, references in the Act include regulations made under it.

Following an examination of your application, I am not satisfied that you meet the requirements of the Act and the regulations for the reasons explained above. I am therefore refusing your application.

Note: Any different or new information that you submit cannot be taken into consideration.

Should you have different or additional information, you may wish to submit a new application. For up-to-date information on how to apply under the Federal Skilled Workers Class, please visit the website at: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/skilled.asp

There are many ways to immigrate to Canada. Although you have not satisfied the requirements to apply under the Federal Skilled Worker class, you may qualify under another category. To learn more about your options, visit http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.asp.

Thank you for your interest in Canada.


Note that the Officer Judged my case solely because I was registered in the program and yet claiming RA. I have not seen this in a while in this forum.

 

[ojohn22]

Note that I have sent an appeal by email with the following content:

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS/ERROR IN LAW-MY STORY
Name-********
Date of Birth- *****
Client Id #- ***
Application Number/Type-******/FSW PhD Stream.

SUMMARY
In assessing my application (*****) the Officer relied on Section 75 (2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) and thereafter determined that I did not meet the part ‘a’ of the Subsection. These sections definitely imply that WHEN (i.e work experience earned within the last 10 years) and WHAT (i.e duties performed in accordance with the eligible NOC code) was done are the important factors in assessing the work experience of an applicant. However, the Officer used HOW (experience gained during period of study) in assessing my application. Even if he was right, this does not affect the validity of my work experience in my field. Section 7 to 8 of OP6B outlined the procedures for assessing my kind of application and the officer’s reasoning (i.e work experience gained during period of study) is not included in these sections neither can it be found in R 75 and R 80 of IRPR.

DISCUSSION
The officer inferred that I did not meet the R 75 2(a) because my work experience was gained during period of study and NOT because I did not carry out a substantial part of the NOC 4012 description. As acknowledged by the officer (‘The employment letter signed by ***** from **** University indicates your research, laboratory work, and teaching assistantship as 40 hours per week from Monday to Friday’) these duties were contained in the reference letter I submitted and are consistent with the eligible NOC 4012 description.
Asides under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) stream, I can contrastively state that IRPR Sections 75 (2) and 80 and mirrored in section 8.1 and 9.12 of OP6B do not bear any clause that invalidates employment experience gained during period of study for the PhD stream of the Skilled Worker Program (except for CEC).
Furthermore, the Subsection 80 (3) of the IRPR accommodates applicants who did not meet the employment requirements of their stated work experience. My case even surpasses this requirement, in that my work experience as described in NOC 4012 states that ‘enrolment in a university or college program is required’ to qualify for this type of work. Therefore, if it should be, the Officer’s should have considered this clause in favour of my case because the work experience is the most significant subject and not my personal circumstance as a PhD candidate.
 
Additionally, my application was assessed (including my work experience) and refused at the CIO (Not the Visa Office, as contained in the address of the letter issued to me) more than one month after charging my credit card. However, it is contained in Section 8.2 of OP6B that:
Applicants who applied under the AEO or PhD stream are determined to meet the MI because they have an offer of arranged employment, or have two years completed towards their PhD and are in good standing or have completed their PhD in the past 12 months. The CIO does not verify that the applicant holds one year of continuous experience in a NOC 0, A or B when making a final MI eligibility determination. As such, for these applications, minimal requirements is assessed after a final eligibility determination has been made at the CIO.

Kindly note that after charging my Credit Card I did not receive point calculation to indicate how my application was assessed. Therefore I did not receive any Positive or Negative Eligibility Report like my other colleagues did.

In view of the above and according to OP 1 which states that: Applicants must have an opportunity to disabuse officers of any concerns; I believe my application should still be in process at the visa office for the following reasons:
1. Section 8.2 of the OP6B states that ‘Applicants who were determined to meet the MI because their work experience was in an eligible NOC code should automatically meet minimal requirements pursuant to R75(2). My work experience is in an eligible NOC 4012 and is consistent with R 75 (2).

2. The Officer should consider the procedures in Section 9.12 of the OP6B which states that he/she should ‘award points only if the applicant has performed the actions described in the lead
statement of the particular NOC description and has performed at least a substantial
number of the duties described in the “Main Duties” summary – including all the essential
duties (R80(3). I have simply performed these duties and therefore eligible to be awarded the points.


 
CONCLUSION
Based on these it appears that the following principles of Procedural Fairness, as contained in OP1 have been not been painstakingly applied in judging my case:
Principle Explanation
Decisions must be based on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations I met the stated requirements listed under the eligible NOC 4012 (including being registered in a University or college) as has also been implied by the Officer. The IRPR 75 (2) and 80 state this as the condition for eligible work experience under the PhD stream. Accordingly the notion that the experience was gained during period of enrolment does not constitute a ground for eligibility hence cannot form a decision-making factor in this case.
Applicants must receive fair and equitable treatment 1. ‘Officers must be consistent in the treatment of applicants in similar situations’. Many of my colleagues in similar situations (i.e PhD candidates) have successfully used their Research Assistant work experience under the PhD stream and many in my research group). Therefore, as we are under the same MI, I believe we should be treated in the same manner.

At this point it should be noted that my research in the field of petroleum Geology bears direct application for hydrocarbon exploration in ****Canada. Colleagues in research institutes of major exploration companies (e.g ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron) use the same multi-proxy approach that we use, to study these carbonate rocks in order to better understand them. American Association of Petroleum Geologists has accepted our results for publication which indicates that this not a mere academic exercise. More so, the research is being funded by a consortium of oil exploration companies******.
Lastly, I have consulted the webpage containing the appropriate Regulations set out for Highly Skilled Worker Program (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/page-34.html#docCont) and also Operational Bulletin OP6B in writing this response. I write this response because I believe both CIC and clients should agree on the outcome of an application and that applications should be judged fairly and indiscriminately as set out in the principles of procedural fairness. If there is any other section of IRPR that states that employment experience gained during period of study is invalid under PhD stream of FSW, then I will surely accept the Officers decision.
The interpretations were done according to my understanding of British and Canadian English language.

 

[zorroo]

Is there anybody here who have experience with ECA assessment? How long does it take? How much does it cost? should we contact with our previous university in the back home or the organization which do this assessment do it? what if we have the transcript and degree documents and be able to submit it by ourselves to the organization?

Hi everybody, any idea about this?

 

[Bobi1]

Hi

I am waiting to receive medical. Will I have to submit new bank statement in future? The last one I submitted was in February.

Cheers

 

[Stuck In Quebec]

Note that I have sent an appeal by email with the following content:

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS/ERROR IN LAW-MY STORY
Name-********
Date of Birth- *****
Client Id #- ***
Application Number/Type-******/FSW PhD Stream.

SUMMARY
In assessing my application (*****) the Officer relied on Section 75 (2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) and thereafter determined that I did not meet the part ‘a' of the Subsection. These sections definitely imply that WHEN (i.e work experience earned within the last 10 years) and WHAT (i.e duties performed in accordance with the eligible NOC code) was done are the important factors in assessing the work experience of an applicant. However, the Officer used HOW (experience gained during period of study) in assessing my application. Even if he was right, this does not affect the validity of my work experience in my field. Section 7 to 8 of OP6B outlined the procedures for assessing my kind of application and the officer's reasoning (i.e work experience gained during period of study) is not included in these sections neither can it be found in R 75 and R 80 of IRPR.

DISCUSSION
The officer inferred that I did not meet the R 75 2(a) because my work experience was gained during period of study and NOT because I did not carry out a substantial part of the NOC 4012 description. As acknowledged by the officer (‘The employment letter signed by ***** from **** University indicates your research, laboratory work, and teaching assistantship as 40 hours per week from Monday to Friday') these duties were contained in the reference letter I submitted and are consistent with the eligible NOC 4012 description.
Asides under the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) stream, I can contrastively state that IRPR Sections 75 (2) and 80 and mirrored in section 8.1 and 9.12 of OP6B do not bear any clause that invalidates employment experience gained during period of study for the PhD stream of the Skilled Worker Program (except for CEC).
Furthermore, the Subsection 80 (3) of the IRPR accommodates applicants who did not meet the employment requirements of their stated work experience. My case even surpasses this requirement, in that my work experience as described in NOC 4012 states that ‘enrolment in a university or college program is required' to qualify for this type of work. Therefore, if it should be, the Officer's should have considered this clause in favour of my case because the work experience is the most significant subject and not my personal circumstance as a PhD candidate.
 
Additionally, my application was assessed (including my work experience) and refused at the CIO (Not the Visa Office, as contained in the address of the letter issued to me) more than one month after charging my credit card. However, it is contained in Section 8.2 of OP6B that:
Applicants who applied under the AEO or PhD stream are determined to meet the MI because they have an offer of arranged employment, or have two years completed towards their PhD and are in good standing or have completed their PhD in the past 12 months. The CIO does not verify that the applicant holds one year of continuous experience in a NOC 0, A or B when making a final MI eligibility determination. As such, for these applications, minimal requirements is assessed after a final eligibility determination has been made at the CIO.

Kindly note that after charging my Credit Card I did not receive point calculation to indicate how my application was assessed. Therefore I did not receive any Positive or Negative Eligibility Report like my other colleagues did.

In view of the above and according to OP 1 which states that: Applicants must have an opportunity to disabuse officers of any concerns; I believe my application should still be in process at the visa office for the following reasons:
1. Section 8.2 of the OP6B states that ‘Applicants who were determined to meet the MI because their work experience was in an eligible NOC code should automatically meet minimal requirements pursuant to R75(2). My work experience is in an eligible NOC 4012 and is consistent with R 75 (2).

2. The Officer should consider the procedures in Section 9.12 of the OP6B which states that he/she should ‘award points only if the applicant has performed the actions described in the lead
statement of the particular NOC description and has performed at least a substantial
number of the duties described in the “Main Duties” summary – including all the essential
duties (R80(3). I have simply performed these duties and therefore eligible to be awarded the points.


 
CONCLUSION
Based on these it appears that the following principles of Procedural Fairness, as contained in OP1 have been not been painstakingly applied in judging my case:
Principle Explanation
Decisions must be based on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations I met the stated requirements listed under the eligible NOC 4012 (including being registered in a University or college) as has also been implied by the Officer. The IRPR 75 (2) and 80 state this as the condition for eligible work experience under the PhD stream. Accordingly the notion that the experience was gained during period of enrolment does not constitute a ground for eligibility hence cannot form a decision-making factor in this case.
Applicants must receive fair and equitable treatment 1. ‘Officers must be consistent in the treatment of applicants in similar situations'. Many of my colleagues in similar situations (i.e PhD candidates) have successfully used their Research Assistant work experience under the PhD stream and many in my research group). Therefore, as we are under the same MI, I believe we should be treated in the same manner.

At this point it should be noted that my research in the field of petroleum Geology bears direct application for hydrocarbon exploration in ****Canada. Colleagues in research institutes of major exploration companies (e.g ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron) use the same multi-proxy approach that we use, to study these carbonate rocks in order to better understand them. American Association of Petroleum Geologists has accepted our results for publication which indicates that this not a mere academic exercise. More so, the research is being funded by a consortium of oil exploration companies******.
Lastly, I have consulted the webpage containing the appropriate Regulations set out for Highly Skilled Worker Program (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/page-34.html#docCont) and also Operational Bulletin OP6B in writing this response. I write this response because I believe both CIC and clients should agree on the outcome of an application and that applications should be judged fairly and indiscriminately as set out in the principles of procedural fairness. If there is any other section of IRPR that states that employment experience gained during period of study is invalid under PhD stream of FSW, then I will surely accept the Officers decision.
The interpretations were done according to my understanding of British and Canadian English language.

I personally think it is a very well worded defense and counter points. I think its logical and relevant and points out to some extent some disparities in inferring rules by various parties involved.

I wish all the best luck and thanks for sharing.

 

[sarsanballa]

I got a very unfavourable and weird processing of my application:

Summary:

Application reached CIO on 2nd May:

Credit Card charged- 10th of May.

June 17th- Rejection letter from CIO. Note that (No NER not PER) even after CC. and this came from CIO.

See letter below:

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism issued instructions which were published in the Canada Gazette on November 5, 2011. These instructions specify that applications from international students who are currently enrolled in a PhD program, or foreign nationals who have completed a PhD program, in a recognized educational institution located in Canada and that are accompanied by the results of the principal applicant's English or French language proficiency assessment are eligible to be processed in the Federal Skilled Worker class.

I have now completed the assessment of your application for a permanent resident visa as a skilled worker. I have determined that you do not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.

While your application for the Phd program meets one of the requirements of the Ministerial Instructions now in effect, to be eligible for processing, your work experience must still meet the minimal requirements as defined in subsection 75(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations that states that a foreign national is a skilled worker if:

a) within the ten years preceding the date of their application for a permanent resident visa, they, have at least one year of continuous full-time (37.5 hours/week) employment experience as described in subsection 80(7), or the equivalent in continuous part-time employment in one or more occupations, other than a restricted occupation, that are listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Levels A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix;

b) during that period of employment they performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification; and

c) during that period of employment they performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties.

I am not satisfied that you meet part A of these requirements for the following reasons:

All supporting documentation on file regarding your work experience history was taken into consideration. Part-time work experience with Memorial University as Graduate Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant from May 2010 to date of application (03 May 2013) is for a period less than one year at time of application. You have provided employment letters showing work experience with Memorial University from Sept 12, 2011 to 16 Dec 2011 (56 hours), from Jan 9, 2012 to April 13, 2012 (56 hours), and from Sept 10, 2012, to December 14, 2012 (56 hours). This employment is not one year of continuous full-time or equivalent part-time work experience. The employment letter signed by ******* from ***** University indicates your research, laboratory work, and teaching assistantship as 40 hours per week from Monday to Friday. However, according to documents provided, you are enrolled in full-time study and, therefore, I am not satisfied that you also obtained full-time work experience for the same time period. Evidence of part A above cannot be established.

Subsection 75(3) states that if a foreign national fails to meet these requirements, the application shall be refused and no further assessment is required. I am not satisfied that you meet these requirements.

Subsection 11(1) of the Act states that a foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act. Subsection 2(2) specifies that unless otherwise indicated, references in the Act include regulations made under it.

Following an examination of your application, I am not satisfied that you meet the requirements of the Act and the regulations for the reasons explained above. I am therefore refusing your application.

Note: Any different or new information that you submit cannot be taken into consideration.

Should you have different or additional information, you may wish to submit a new application. For up-to-date information on how to apply under the Federal Skilled Workers Class, please visit the website at: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/skilled.asp

There are many ways to immigrate to Canada. Although you have not satisfied the requirements to apply under the Federal Skilled Worker class, you may qualify under another category. To learn more about your options, visit http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.asp.

Thank you for your interest in Canada.


Note that the Officer Judged my case solely because I was registered in the program and yet claiming RA. I have not seen this in a while in this forum.

I think the officer is trying to say that it's not possible to obtain full-time RA experience while you engage in full-time PhD study.

You should have a look at the definition of the full-time study in Op6-b.

 

[sarsanballa]

Hi everybody, any idea about this?

Check the following URL, you will get all the answers to your questions.
http://www.wes.org/ca/application/apply_now.asp

 

[Stuck In Quebec]

Note that I have sent an appeal by email with the following content:

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS/ERROR IN LAW-MY STORY
Name-********
Date of Birth- *****
Client Id #- ***
Application Number/Type-******/FSW PhD Stream.

I was going through OP-6 after reading your post, please see section 11 specially sub section 11.1, it might help I am guessing.

 

[Stuck In Quebec]

Hey Guys

I prepared a letter to be sent to CPP-O proactively and to have a record of communication. Please comment what you think about it. Thanks.

To
The Case Officer
Federal Skilled Worker- PhD Intake Stream
Case Pilot Processing-Ottawa
Ottawa.

Sub: Clarifications and Documents Update post GCMS notes receipt for Application: XXXX, UCI No.XXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam

I XXXX, date of birth XXXX, would like to update my application for permanent residence in Canada under PhD stream. My application number is XXXXX, UCI No.XXXX.

I recently ordered my GCMS notes and found certain notes which I would like to clarify on and update the required documents. The points of concern are as follows along with explanation:-

1. Awarding of no points for work experience and problem with reference letters:-

I saw a noting by the officer that the lead statement matches but significant amounts of NOC listed duties doesn’t seem to be performed. I have since updated the reference letters to reflect the duties performed and the same were sent by email and registered post on 19th June, 2013, 20th June, 2013 and 24th June 2013 by emails and regular mails. I had also updated my RA experience letter in May, 2013.

2. Awarding of no points for adaptability:-
I saw in the selection part of the GCMS notes that I was not awarded points for adaptability though I have completed more than 2 years of full time studies in Canada.

3. Evaluation of educational experience only at bachelor’s level:-

I transferred from MSc to a PhD and have all the requirements of a masters degree and am considered masters equivalent at the university. The reason for non awarding of masters’ degree was explained by the university in a letter which I had submitted along with the original application. I have 17+ years of education. I am reattaching the letter with this correspondence again.

4. Revised work experience letters with proper lead statement and description of duties:-

I asked my referees to reissue the work experience letters to me and the same were sent on 19th June 2013 as email and regular mail. After receiving GCMS notes they were further modified to state the duties performed in bullet form for clarity. The same were sent on 20th June 2013. Another letter was sent on 24th June 2013 from XXXX stating full time employment as XXXX through email and regular outlining duties performed during the period along with the completion certificate issued in March 2006, based on which the letter was issued.

The letter from XXXX was not updated due to the fact that they refused to issue me a letter for work experience apart from their own performa, same that was provided with the initial submission of application. The case officer may kindly use a favourable discretion for that letter.

4. No points awarded for arranged employment:-

I observed another noting that I was not awarded points for arranged employment. The letter for same along with mentorship plan to attain faculty position in future has been provided and its receipt has been acknowledged in GCMS notes.

For this position, no LMO was obtained as research post doctoral fellow position is LMO exempt and the same was confirmed by HRSDC agent when contacted and I was guided to the following website which indicates that academic positions for research fellowship may be LMO exempt.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/apply-who-permit.asp

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/higher_skilled/academics/index.shtml

I would kindly request you to take this arranged employment into account.

Please feel free to contact me for any other documents that might be required to support my application.

Thanking you.

Sincerely yours.

 

[Stuck In Quebec]

What do you guys think about the above?? Do you think it is more on the lines of telling them what to do or just raising concerns based on received GCMS notes??

I don't want to piss them off but want to point out my concerns before it goes for final review.

Please advice as to should I send it, tone down the language more etc etc.

Thanks

 

[Stuck In Quebec]

So, is it the first time you are updating your reference letter? I am bit surprised since I found u are a very active member in the forum then what made u not to update the reference letter so far? Sorry may be I am wrong, the reason I am asking if you have already send any updated letter then why they still missing the main duties or lead statement in the letter, could you please share ur previous letter or the one u have sent now, may be we could better suggest or could get some help.

Hi Kazi

Please check your inbox, sent you a PM.

Best.

 

[JVJ]

Hi Guys, I just received my PR about 15 mins ago (It arrived at post-office on Friday (21 June) but couldn't be delivered due to weather conditions). You guys are the first ones I am sharing this news with. Thank you so much for this wonderful forum..specially to Tyrus, Asbereth and mkrp who provided their valuable guidance when I needed it.

We will do our landing procedure this Friday or next Wednesday. Will let you know how it goes. And I'd be more than happy to help anyone who needs it.

Thanks again

 

[Stuck In Quebec]

Hi Guys, I just received my PR about 15 mins ago (It arrived at post-office on Friday (21 June) but couldn't be delivered due to weather conditions). You guys are the first ones I am sharing this news with. Thank you so much for this wonderful forum..specially to Tyrus, Asbereth and mkrp who provided their valuable guidance when I needed it.

We will do our landing procedure this Friday or next Wednesday. Will let you know how it goes. And I'd be more than happy to help anyone who needs it.

Thanks again

Congrats!!! Best wishes for times to come.

 

[anjuku]

What do you guys think about the above?? Do you think it is more on the lines of telling them what to do or just raising concerns based on received GCMS notes??

I don't want to piss them off but want to point out my concerns before it goes for final review.

Please advice as to should I send it, tone down the language more etc etc.

Thanks

Hi....just a few things that might help
1. Since you transferred from a masters to a Ph.D. i can now see why they didn't give you the points for your masters...a friend of mine had done the same and CIC had clarified that you need a degree certificate confirming that you are a Master of Science graduate in so and so field to get those points...so i don't know if your argument will hold but you can try of course ;D

2. For the arranged employment, have you received an offer in writing for PDF yet?..if yes, include a copy of that letter. If No, i doubt they will accept that claim. As per my understanding, for arranged employment you need an employers letter stating your position, start date and salary

3. And regarding the points for previous study, it seems they are not giving those to anyone who has not completed their degree.

Hope this helps

 

[anjuku]

Hi Guys, I just received my PR about 15 mins ago (It arrived at post-office on Friday (21 June) but couldn't be delivered due to weather conditions). You guys are the first ones I am sharing this news with. Thank you so much for this wonderful forum..specially to Tyrus, Asbereth and mkrp who provided their valuable guidance when I needed it.

We will do our landing procedure this Friday or next Wednesday. Will let you know how it goes. And I'd be more than happy to help anyone who needs it.

Thanks again

Congrats!!..