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

[N_O]

seems to me that they want ALL the key duties listed in the NOC code to appear on the reference letter.

Meaning, if it's well explained that the student writes publications/marks assignments, it should ALSO be explicity mentioned that he/she "assists profs in their research".

If TA/RA is not accepted anymore, then this stream will be dead soon: most PhD students have only this experience to show for...

It'd be awesome if people who got accepted with ONLY TA/RA could share their letter

PPB12 has already shared his reference letter, he has submitted a TA/RA only.

 

[Anna2013]

I don't believe that it is really about the contents and wording of letters. Those guys seem to have decided to reject a specific percent of this stream that looks to be more than 50%.
I don't think that the 250 million immigrant of each year are all having super perfect reference letters and documents. It is a total waste of time, focus, money and effort

I totally agree with you. This is all about keeping the number of immigrants limited as we can see "periodically" they start to come to some new things to reject. They are making things harder and harder. This is unfair and they are not aware how much time and energy they are taking from people.

This "lead statement and etc" is totally new. What do they want from us? Copy and paste their terms and have the employer to sign them for us? You are a TA and what TA does the term "assistant" means you are assisting. In some departments a TA "only grades the assignments" and that's all. Now how you can claim substantial number of job duties? Yet you have been a TA and have the work experience in that job category.

Many people becoming PRs every year and that doesn't mean that their job letters were flawless. I agree that the regulations do evolve as time goes by, but rejecting people based on nothing and only because they want to is UNFAIR!

 

[N_O]

Many people becoming PRs every year and that doesn't mean that their job letters were flawless. I agree that the regulations do evolve as time goes by, but rejecting people based on nothing and only because they want to is UNFAIR!

Well said! Would you please share your timeline?

 

[hamed_hamed_hamed]

I agree that they try to keep a limit on the number of accepted applicants.

But our letters are deficient. Most of the first letters we sent last year are deficient.

On the other hand, as I said before, THEY CAN ALWAYS FIND A REASON TO REJECT YOU.

If they want to reject you, they can find something such as lead statement, not assisting the professor, duties, etc... to reject you.

What we can do is only try to write complete letters. Again I say listing some duties is NOT ENOUGH.

Write details, of your research, 1 page of details + duties....

 

[hamed_hamed_hamed]

From my experience GOOD letter should be more direct, especific. Not necessarily talk about how good student you are, what exciting project you are working on, what are the achievements are.... What you need, you need to covey exact information and key words what they are looking for.

For example

To whom it may be concern:

Letter of reference for XXXXXXXXX

I am writing this leter in support of XXXXXX's aplication for permanent residency in Canada. (Should be a bit details about your program name, department and when you joint.)

As a PhD student he is emplyed as FULL time Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant. He spends XXX hours/week for TA and XX hours/week for RA for a total of XXX hours/week. (You can talk about total number of hours, duration of your job and how long you have been employed, I mean your end of contact.)

Mr. XXXXX works under my supervison, His main duties and responsibilities as a RA are as follows

1.Design and conduct experiment
2.XXXXXXXXX
3.XXXXXXXXX
4.Perform literature review
5.XXXXXXXXX
6.Wite journal paper to communicate.......
7. Supervise undergraduate summer research students (additional, not in the list though)

His Main responsibilities as TA are as follows

1.Assist in the preparations of class lecture materials
2.XXXXXXXXXXXX
3. Grade assignments and examinations
4.XXXXXX

His annual salary is XXXXX CAD per year. He also receives XXXXXXXXXX, (you can talk about other benifits and at last total amount of salary).

Please do not hesitate to contact me via email atXXX @ XXX.ca or telephone at XXXXX.

Sincerely


As I did, the important information should be in bold, then no way to miss those and responsibilities to point wise, easy to find out.

I hope it will help others. GOOD LUCK

I think even this is on the border. We had a letter like this that got rejected. And some others like this got accepted.

 

[ppb12]

I think even this is on the border. We had a letter like this that got rejected. And some others like this got accepted.

I partially agree, if the letter is well defined, it is tough for them to reject. I found most of the rejection has come from the letter very week, disorganized, very difficult to extact the actual information. You can argu the information is there. We have to think the officers are dealing with many job categories. Therefore, the point is, it might be granted or rejected but you should be very especific to the point of information which your are providing and that should fit into their requirement. My personal opinion is, as long as every single information according to their requirment is there in a well organized manner, highlighted, you should be fine.

However, you need to consider there are some other facts even if the reference letter is very nicely written

1. Duties and responsibilities: you are claiming one but your reference letter is saying another
2. You have not 1 year continuous RA and TA
3. Your salary is coming from scholarship, it might not be considered as job, I know many university pay salary as a non taxable money, which is scholarship.
4. many more which have been discussed in the forum different times

For me I proved the job experience which I am claiming, it is a job as I am paid taxable money. I provided them my tax return and TA T4A and some pay slips. It is not mendatory, but it is better to give them.

 

[hooman2012]

every body has T4A for RA. It is not still tax

 

[Anna2013]

You can argu the information is there.

We are not talking about weak letters. We have seen very detailed letters that got rejected.

Also, the employer or University administratives do not have the time and are not willing to write you a personal letter. They deal with many students and they cannot write each person a personalized letter, or bold/highlight things for you.

Argue? We have seen a reply from CIC saying that "there is no such a thing like appeal and the application is fully concluded". The wording was something like this. Now how can you argue with them? How can you reach them? When your application is concluded, you are done! For some of us, it is not easy to reapply. Some of us are going through second or more re-applications and each time they are coming to something new (big number of these reapplications are due to insufficient/unclear information available and/or CIC officers' mistakes).

 

[ppb12]

We are not talking about weak letters. We have seen very detailed letters that got rejected.

Also, the employer or University administratives do not have the time and are not willing to write you a personal letter. They deal with many students and they cannot write each person a personalized letter, or bold/highlight things for you.

Argue? We have seen a reply from CIC saying that "there is no such a thing like appeal and the application is fully concluded". The wording was something like this. Now how can you argue with them? How can you reach them? When your application is concluded, you are done! For some of us, it is not easy to reapply. Some of us are going through second or more re-applications and each time they are coming to something new (big number of these reapplications are due to insufficient/unclear information available and/or CIC officers' mistake).

You have got the point. I am fortunate because my supervisor is known about the CIC people's behaviour, that is why he could make that. At the first time, he gave me very impressive letter with my knowledge, research, leadership, achievement that did not work. Then he said, ok I know how to write them. But every student does not have same accessibility. Not necessarily you have to make it bold but it would be better. Sometimes, department do not write according to your wish, if the graduate secretary kind enough he or she could modify few sentences. I agree about this point. As long as we are talking about good format, then we are considering the maximum but it might not possible but should be considered.

I mean argue among our self or yourself. If it is rejected, very little to do or nothing to do.

 

[The_Prince]

We are not talking about weak letters. We have seen very detailed letters that got rejected.

Also, the employer or University administratives do not have the time and are not willing to write you a personal letter. They deal with many students and they cannot write each person a personalized letter, or bold/highlight things for you.

Argue? We have seen a reply from CIC saying that "there is no such a thing like appeal and the application is fully concluded". The wording was something like this. Now how can you argue with them? How can you reach them? When your application is concluded, you are done! For some of us, it is not easy to reapply. Some of us are going through second or more re-applications and each time they are coming to something new (big number of these reapplications are due to insufficient/unclear information available and/or CIC officers' mistakes).

That is what I also believe in.

Although I have got many good suggestions about what to include in my supplementary reference letter, however I became more frustrated from the big deal of non-sense rejections and I became even discouraged to e-mail them any supplementary letter, I got the feeling that whatever I include in the letter and however perfect I write it, they will always find a reason to reject it if they want to. I think if they were serious about that, they would have contacted the professors or whoever wrote those letters to ask for more details not to just make a final rejection decision, that is what I know they used to do before, I mean before that stream !

 

[asbereth]

GeoCanadian, congratulations ! I think at this point, you can be pretty sure that your work experience descriptions have been accepted.

For me I proved the job experience which I am claiming, it is a job as I am paid taxable money. I provided them my tax return and TA T4A and some pay slips. It is not mendatory, but it is better to give them.

I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to comment regarding taxable vs. non-taxable incomes. I personally know two persons, both claimed under CEC last year (applied after me), and the majority of their 'work' experience was paid through NON-taxable RA. They had very strong reference letters (I used similar template to these guys for my own reference letter), and they both already landed as PRs.

While it would be much easier if HR or payroll can attest to your number of hours, there has never been a requirement that your letter needs to come from HR or payroll or any other authorities that be. There is never a requirement that the income needs to be taxable as well. It's just that you need to have work experience in skill level A, B, or O, and that you need the equivalent of at least 1 continuous year of work experience for minimum requirements. If your letters contain ALL information they require from the checklist, and if your letters contain descriptions that match substantially the lead statement and the main duties under the corresponding NOC, then I think you should be fine.

Although I have got many good suggestions about what to include in my supplementary reference letter, however I became more frustrated from the big deal of non-sense rejections and I became even discouraged to e-mail them any supplementary letter, I got the feeling that whatever I include in the letter and however perfect I write it, they will always find a reason to reject it if they want to. I think if they were serious about that, they would have contacted the professors or whoever wrote those letters to ask for more details not to just make a final rejection decision, that is what I know they used to do before, I mean before that stream !

It may or may not work, but at this point, if you are sure that your letter was too brief, about the only way we can do is to send them additional non-contradictory information. Try quoting OP6B that states that officers must

take into account any years of experience that occur between application and assessment, and for which the applicant has submitted the necessary documentation (R77)

This pursuant to R77 part can be a bit tricky though. R77 goes as follows

77. For the purposes of Part 5, the requirements and criteria set out in sections 75 and 76 must be met at the time an application for a permanent resident visa is made as well as at the time the visa is issued.

And if we look at R75 and R76 as instructed,

(a) within the 10 years preceding the date of their application for a permanent resident visa, they have at least one year of continuous full-time 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 Level 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.

Now, we can always argue that, even though we submit the additional documentation later, it only explains work experience that has already happened by the time of application, so therefore, officers must consider the additional letter we submit that provides extra information. Whether or not they have the same interpretation is, obviously, a different story

 

[knightOfTheWest]

Hi,

I have two questions:

1. Is it true that PhD students in Quebec universities are rejected from PhD stream and told to go to obtain a CSQ before applying? What if they do not want to stay in Quebec in the first place?

2. Can one apply for a CSQ then apply for a a separate federal PhD stream? In case the first gets rejected (i.e. because of French language) the second can still pass through as they are totally different programs?

 

[aidina]

We must include all the elements of the NOC code in our reference letters regardless whether they are minor or major ones. Regarding the Taxation, nowhere on their websites or instruction manuals they talk about TAX issue. They money we get as RA/TA can be taxable or non-taxable, and the 4012 NOC code does not say anything about it.

 

[salam20]

I think it's fine. You'll just be evaluated by the rules in effect at the date of submission. Since you submitted your application before May 4, then they would use the current rules for selection factor rather than the new ones.

Yes, reference letters are required, even for CEC. And there is also the language requirement. But in my opinion, the benefits of applying through CEC are as follows
1. You won't have to worry about the number of points. All you need is pass the bare minimum IELTS for skill level A (CLB 7 or 8 or something), and have 1,560 continuous work experience within the last three years (maximum 30 hours per week you can claim), and you're good to go as far as eligibility is concerned.
2. You don't have to show proof of funds. This is a big thing, since some people did get rejected for not complying with POF rules. These people now won't have to worry about the 6 month bank statement non-sense.
3. Much much faster processing times compared to FSW.
4. The new rule makes it much easier to qualify since now you don't even need to have obtained a Canadian degree.
5. No cap.

The only problem for us PhD students is the fact that, now, no work experience gained while studying full-time (this includes CO-OP) would count towards work experience calculation for CEC. The moral of the story, if you are currently eligible for both FSW and CEC, then you should apply through CEC!

In some cases like unb_wood, I would still suggest that he apply under FSW right now, since he is not yet qualified for CEC, and if no medical yet by the time he's qualified (which would be in September or October), then he should just apply under CEC in parallel.

In Ontario, the straight-forward part would be true (no number of points and no language requirements), but it's not at all fast. My friend did his medical May last year, and hasn't heard since. Another person I know applied in November, and hasn't even gotten nomination yet. I would actually advise against applying under PNP based on these anecdotes, but other people may have different stories?

i totally agree with you. I wish we have the opportunity to apply under the CEC. But the the only way might be a PhD student who got one year of internship at a company ( as co-op or work placement or so..) in order to get the one year work experience and at that time he must be working not a full time student.

 

[salam20]

Finally I got rejected too.

"I am not satisfied that you meet these requirements. Your letters of reference from your employers did not list job duties or responsibilities that match the actions described in the lead statement described in the NOC codes you selected. More specifically, there was no evidence that you assisted university professors and other faculty members in teaching and research activities. As such, you failed to demonstrate that your periods of work experience met the requirements listed above.
"

I am so sorry to hear that