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

[Uwindsor2009]

Please consult me:

A friend of mine has already sent her package and recently found out that CIO cashed the money. The problem is that she just found that she put CIO Sydney as processing office (instead of CCP- Ottawa). She has not received her file number yet, so the question is what's gonna happen and what can she possibly do? For example can she send an email or contact them to correct the mistake? or what?

Hope this will not create any problem. As CIO already charged CC they might have rectified this mistake.

 

[Azeri]

Do you mind providing your dates so that we can put it on the tracker as well?

Thanks.

Received by CIO: March 27, 2012
Money order Cashed: April 3, 2012
Document request: April 13, 2012, Detailed job letter (optional) within 60 days
Document received by CIO: May 30, 2012
PER received: June 21, 2012
Work experiences: TA and also from Iran
Applicant: 1 person
Nationality: Iranian

 

[hamed_hamed_hamed]

Received by CIO: March 27, 2012
Money order Cashed: April 3, 2012
Document request: April 13, 2012, Detailed job letter (optional) within 60 days
Document received by CIO: May 30, 2012
PER received: June 21, 2012
Work experiences: TA and also from Iran
Applicant: 1 person
Nationality: Iranian

May I ask what type of "Detailed job letter" they asked? What was the problem? What do you mean by optional?

 

[Azeri]

May I ask what type of "Detailed job letter" they asked? What was the problem? What do you mean by optional?

Hi

I sent my application on March 27th 2012.
My application fee was charged on April 3 by IMMIGRATION CANADA FSW SYDNEY, NS
I received an e-mail on April 13 2012 from them that they gave me an application number and they said :"Your application has been placed into processing. However, the letter(s) of employment you have supplied do not provide sufficient information to complete the selection assessment of your application. " and then they mentioned that I can provide it within 60 days and If I do not then the application will be assessed with the current information in my file.

I sent them a new updated letter of employment on May 30 2012.
I received an email from them on June 21 2012 and they said: "your application has received a positive final determination of eligibility for processing on the basis of your enrollment in, or completion of, a PhD program as specified in the Instructions issued by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and published in the Canada Gazette on November 5, 2011. Your application will be forwarded to a visa office for further processing."

Since they had mentioned that "If you do not supply the requested letters within 60 days, your application will be assessed with the information on file." I can say that it was an optional choice for me to provide what they wanted otherwise they still were OK with my eligibility.

 

[TyrusX]

Hi

I sent my application on March 27th 2012.
My application fee was charged on April 3 by IMMIGRATION CANADA FSW SYDNEY, NS
I received an e-mail on April 13 2012 from them that they gave me an application number and they said :"Your application has been placed into processing. However, the letter(s) of employment you have supplied do not provide sufficient information to complete the selection assessment of your application. " and then they mentioned that I can provide it within 60 days and If I do not then the application will be assessed with the current information in my file.

I sent them a new updated letter of employment on May 30 2012.
I received an email from them on June 21 2012 and they said: "your application has received a positive final determination of eligibility for processing on the basis of your enrollment in, or completion of, a PhD program as specified in the Instructions issued by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and published in the Canada Gazette on November 5, 2011. Your application will be forwarded to a visa office for further processing."

Since they had mentioned that "If you do not supply the requested letters within 60 days, your application will be assessed with the information on file." I can say that it was an optional choice for me to provide what they wanted otherwise they still were OK with my eligibility.

that is a incorrect interpretation. It meant they would assess your application as it was, incomplete, and you were under a great risk of not getting thru eligibility. Take care with the idea that things are optional in you favor, they are not.

 

[nima2000]

I'm confused, plz help:

Which processing office we should choose, in Question 4 IMM 0008 (The generic form)???

a. CPP-O
b. CPC- Sydney
c. CIO- Sydney

I'm confused coz the explanation is not clear.

Hey Habib,
Have you received my email? I am waiting for your response!

 

[hamed_hamed_hamed]

Hi

I sent my application on March 27th 2012.
My application fee was charged on April 3 by IMMIGRATION CANADA FSW SYDNEY, NS
I received an e-mail on April 13 2012 from them that they gave me an application number and they said :"Your application has been placed into processing. However, the letter(s) of employment you have supplied do not provide sufficient information to complete the selection assessment of your application. " and then they mentioned that I can provide it within 60 days and If I do not then the application will be assessed with the current information in my file.

I sent them a new updated letter of employment on May 30 2012.
I received an email from them on June 21 2012 and they said: "your application has received a positive final determination of eligibility for processing on the basis of your enrollment in, or completion of, a PhD program as specified in the Instructions issued by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and published in the Canada Gazette on November 5, 2011. Your application will be forwarded to a visa office for further processing."

Since they had mentioned that "If you do not supply the requested letters within 60 days, your application will be assessed with the information on file." I can say that it was an optional choice for me to provide what they wanted otherwise they still were OK with my eligibility.

What I see in this story is how different Sydney operates from CPP-Ottawa. Sydney gave you a last chance to provide more details, while CPP-O simply refuses people after 1 year for small issues like 150$ below the minimum, or insufficient details in reference letter without giving even a last chance.
I would say Buffalo used to work more like Sydney. Many people got rejected for such small issues recently.

Which one is better? Rejecting people for small issues and making them to re-apply and pay extra and wait 1 extra year, and possibly more work even for CPP-Ottawa for processing a new application OR
giving a last chance to provide additional information/documents?

 

[kg.jadu]

Hi kg.jadu, if I'm not mistaken, you also have to apply to Sydney to get your PER? Was it related to the 5 adaptability points? Did you need to rely to these points to get above 67 points?

Yes, it was related to adaptability points. Without them, I was getting less than 67.

Also, just to make it clear, the wording regarding credits for two years study (along with 30 hours per week for full-time work) is only applicable when the new point system is implemented for the new FSWP program (which hopefully still includes the PhD stream). As of now, the program needs to be completed to claim these 5 points.

Yes, seems like the wording has been changed to award 5 points to people like ourselves. But their logic is incomprehensible to me. My understanding (and in fact, my school lawyer's, too) when I applied was that these points were specifically intended for people like us, who have lived in this country for 2 years and adapted to the culture, way of doing things etc. It served its purpose when students who have been in Canada for 1--2 years could apply through the stream that subsequently got eliminated in June 2010. Now it looks like the system is out of tune---the stream was resurrected for highly-skilled applicants but it's not operating the way it used to. Some people get through, some get rejected, yet others (andy.fan) get rejected twice.

Again, I don't understand why when you get rejected in Sydney you can appeal, while the Ottawa officers have the final say on your application. I'm paying my freaking money for the application, and I wanna at least have a (semi)reasonable customer service and feedback. And sure, it would be nice to have things fair and consistent, because right now it's a lottery unless your case is bullet-proof. But again, can somebody define "bullet-proof"?

Summarizing, I believe things may still go random as they used to unless the freshly-minted Ottawa visa officers get more training on this and other issues.

 

[morena34]

Yes, it was related to adaptability points. Without them, I was getting less than 67.

Yes, seems like the wording has been changed to award 5 points to people like ourselves. But their logic is incomprehensible to me. My understanding (and in fact, my school lawyer's, too) when I applied was that these points were specifically intended for people like us, who have lived in this country for 2 years and adapted to the culture, way of doing things etc. It served its purpose when students who have been in Canada for 1--2 years could apply through the stream that subsequently got eliminated in June 2010. Now it looks like the system is out of tune---the stream was resurrected for highly-skilled applicants but it's not operating the way it used to. Some people get through, some get rejected, yet others (andy.fan) get rejected twice.

Again, I don't understand why when you get rejected in Sydney you can appeal, while the Ottawa officers have the final say on your application. I'm paying my freaking money for the application, and I wanna at least have a (semi)reasonable customer service and feedback. And sure, it would be nice to have things fair and consistent, because right now it's a lottery unless your case is bullet-proof. But again, can somebody define "bullet-proof"?

Summarizing, I believe things may still go random as they used to unless the freshly-minted Ottawa visa officers get more training on this and other issues.

Couldn't agree more

 

[anjuku]

Yes, it was related to adaptability points. Without them, I was getting less than 67.

Yes, seems like the wording has been changed to award 5 points to people like ourselves. But their logic is incomprehensible to me. My understanding (and in fact, my school lawyer's, too) when I applied was that these points were specifically intended for people like us, who have lived in this country for 2 years and adapted to the culture, way of doing things etc. It served its purpose when students who have been in Canada for 1--2 years could apply through the stream that subsequently got eliminated in June 2010. Now it looks like the system is out of tune---the stream was resurrected for highly-skilled applicants but it's not operating the way it used to. Some people get through, some get rejected, yet others (andy.fan) get rejected twice.

Again, I don't understand why when you get rejected in Sydney you can appeal, while the Ottawa officers have the final say on your application. I'm paying my freaking money for the application, and I wanna at least have a (semi)reasonable customer service and feedback. And sure, it would be nice to have things fair and consistent, because right now it's a lottery unless your case is bullet-proof. But again, can somebody define "bullet-proof"?

Summarizing, I believe things may still go random as they used to unless the freshly-minted Ottawa visa officers get more training on this and other issues.

I agree with your views..but i have a theory regarding why they are not giving us the 2 years previous study in Canada credit...they have already given Ph.D students the eligibility to apply by taking into account the fact that they should have completed 2 years towards their Ph.D degree...so in a way they have already given us credit for those two years of Ph.D study...and hence don't want to give any additional points solely on that basis.. ....this is why i think it was a bad move to put the Ph.D stream under the FSW category..they should just have introduced it as an entirely new and separate stream with it's own set of rules and eligibility criteria!

 

[Uwindsor2009]

I agree with your views..but i have a theory regarding why they are not giving us the 2 years previous study in Canada credit...they have already given Ph.D students the eligibility to apply by taking into account the fact that they should have completed 2 years towards their Ph.D degree...so in a way they have already given us credit for those two years of Ph.D study...and hence don't want to give any additional points solely on that basis.. ....this is why i think it was a bad move to put the Ph.D stream under the FSW category..they should just have introduced it as an entirely new and separate stream with it's own set of rules and eligibility criteria!

I do not know why visa office treat adaptability point differently for some individual cases.

If one go through OP 6b (Federal Skilled Workers - Applications received on or after June 26, 2010) then it will clear that an eligible applicant in this category always gets 5 adaptability point that is either
1) 2 years of phd study (not required education credential i.e phd attestation letter)
or
2) arranged employment

This 5 adaptability point is in fact the eligibility requirement for this category.

 

[steven30000]

Regarding the 5 adaptability points for previous study in Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations say:

For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a skilled worker shall be awarded 5 points if the skilled worker or their accompanying spouse or accompanying common-law partner, by the age of 17 or older, completed a program of full-time study of at least two years' duration at a post-secondary institution in Canada under a study permit, whether or not they obtained an educational credential for completing that program.

I think what Ottawa insists is that, as per IRPR, the applicant need to complete the program to get the 5 points. The applicant doesn't have to receive the credential (for completing that program), but still need to complete the program.

The application guide and operational manuals are interpretations of the IRPR. If there are any discrepancies between them, they would follow the IRPR.

 

[TyrusX]

Regarding the 5 adaptability points for previous study in Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations say:

For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a skilled worker shall be awarded 5 points if the skilled worker or their accompanying spouse or accompanying common-law partner, by the age of 17 or older, completed a program of full-time study of at least two years' duration at a post-secondary institution in Canada under a study permit, whether or not they obtained an educational credential for completing that program.

I think what Ottawa insists is that, as per IRPR, the applicant need to complete the program to get the 5 points. The applicant doesn't have to receive the credential (for completing that program), but still need to complete the program.

Yep. It just seems we are not eligible for those points unless we graduate or had another degree from Canada.

 

[asbereth]

Yep. It just seems we are not eligible for those points unless we graduate or had another degree from Canada.

What's interesting is the change of wording when it comes to these 5 points for previous study

To be awarded points for their previous study in Canada, the applicant or accompanying spouse would need to have obtained, studying full time in a program of at least a two-year duration, the necessary credits to successfully complete two years of study. For the purposes of adaptability, secondary school will be accepted as an eligible program of study.

which I got from

http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2012/2012-08-18/html/reg2-eng.html

vs. the old wording

a skilled worker shall be awarded 5 points if the skilled worker or their accompanying spouse or accompanying common-law partner, by the age of 17 or older, completed a program of full-time study of at least two years' duration at a post-secondary institution in Canada under a study permit, whether or not they obtained an educational credential for completing that program.

I'm assuming that, in the context of PhD students, the necessary credits for two years of study would be the completion of qualifying exams and all the courses (and also, the fact that you have studied for more than two years; since some students finish these requirements much faster than others).

Just a couple of paragraphs above that sentence, they mentioned:

CIC is proposing changes to the adaptability criteria to emphasize factors that are shown to have positive impacts on an immigrant's economic and social integration. As employers value workers with Canadian work experience, the maximum number of points (10) would be awarded if the principal applicant (PA) has qualifying previous work experience in Canada. The points for their previous study in Canada would remain the same (5).

I wonder if that means that the number of points would stay the same, or that the interpretation would remain the same. Because it is clear that, the new wording clearly states that we don't have to complete the program, but rather, only complete two years of the program.

But then again, if even the interpretation needs to change, and the fact that now you don't have to complete program, don't you think they would have mentioned it (by saying that 'now we have changed the criteria for previous study adaptability points etc ect')?

 

[Uwindsor2009]

Regarding the 5 adaptability points for previous study in Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations say:

For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a skilled worker shall be awarded 5 points if the skilled worker or their accompanying spouse or accompanying common-law partner, by the age of 17 or older, completed a program of full-time study of at least two years' duration at a post-secondary institution in Canada under a study permit, whether or not they obtained an educational credential for completing that program.

I think what Ottawa insists is that, as per IRPR, the applicant need to complete the program to get the 5 points. The applicant doesn't have to receive the credential (for completing that program), but still need to complete the program.

The application guide and operational manuals are interpretations of the IRPR. If there are any discrepancies between them, they would follow the IRPR.

you may be right. As per IRPR one need educational credential. Some what confusing .....

Depends upon VO to interpret ??