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

[asbereth]

Plz don't be. Try to stay as much as possible, u r here as the most reliable guideline. If it is really necessary to quiet then I have nothing to say. All of us r really really grateful for all of ur effort, time and contribution into this forum. I personally got helped and encouraged from u in many occasions and really appreciate for all those.

Thanks for the kind word I myself was actually not planning on retiring from the forum, just that I would probably sign up with a different user name

There is no experience like this in this forum before. Please do not mislead people.

The rejections for RA letters were mostly because of two reasons:
1) The duties in the letter did not match the duties in NOC 4012.
2) The letter missed the NOC 4012 lead statement.

In this forum, maybe not, but there have been several rejections of late 2012 CEC applicants, where their work experience as TA/RA was not accepted. This was strange because the new CEC rule that work experience cannot be gained while doing full-time study should only be applied to January 2013 applications and later, but Ottawa seems to retro-actively be applying this new rule to late 2012 applicants as well, which was not fair obviously.

 

[aililia]

If you come across the rule that explicitly (or even implicitly) states that your work experience cannot be related to your study at all, then you're welcomed to share it with all of us (with references too obviously).

In fact, for work experience to be considered valid for immigration purposes, it needs to
1. be paid
2. match the lead statement of the corresponding NOC code
3. match a substantial number of main duties prescribed for the corresponding NOC code.

If you 'assist' your professors in their research activities, and perform the majority of the main duties of NOC 4012, and you legally get paid for performing these activities, then your work experience should be qualified to be considered for immigration purposes.

EDIT: I'm considering retiring the handle 'asbereth' once I hit 888 posts

To answer your post, I quote a post from past in the forum here:

Hey guys,

I thought you might find this link useful: http://grad.uwo.ca/faculty_staff/financial_support/compensation.html. It distinguishes between the "Graduate Research Assistant" (GRA) and "Research Assistant" (RA). GRA is the research you are doing your Professor, and it is directly related to your thesis work. RA might be the research not related to your thesis, for example working for your Professor on a side project OR working for other Professor(s) from your University. GRA is not an employment, and its sole purpose is financial compensation:

On the other hand, RA is valid employment.

What I mean is that if a Western student asks HR to write a letter detailing employment as a GRA, she is not going to get anything useful for immigration. On the other hand, if she has valid RA experience, not related to her thesis work, she may get a sensible letter from the HR. I'm not sure how these two experiences are called in other schools, but it should be similar due to the nature of work of PhD students.

Apparently, CIC is interested in the RA, not GRA. So IMHO, what hadikhan64 received is a request to explain how much time was spent on the thesis work ("GRA"), and how much time was spent on other research ("RA"). The reason GRA is less valuable than RA is that you HAVE to do it to get a degree, while RA is more voluntary and up to you. That's why most universities cap the maximum time you can work as a RA at 20 hours/week---because in addition to that, you have to do your thesis work.

If you ask me, I think this is ridiculous: You are getting this NOC 4012 experience anyways, no matter if you work as a RA or GRA. But apparently CIC officers really go by the book and want to distinguish the two.

also I am sure everybody accepts that work is different from the study and everything toward your study wont be consider as work. That's right that either PhD student and RA publish their results in journal papers however they can publish no paper but the difference is the PhD thesis which is compulsory for PhD study. When the PhD student brings the work in the thesis so that project can't be considered as RA project whether received money or not.

And the post after your post is another evidence for that!

 

[beh467]

In this forum, maybe not, but there have been several rejections of late 2012 CEC applicants, where their work experience as TA/RA was not accepted. This was strange because the new CEC rule that work experience cannot be gained while doing full-time study should only be applied to January 2013 applications and later, but Ottawa seems to retro-actively be applying this new rule to late 2012 applicants as well, which was not fair obviously.

As far as I remember, we don't have any rejection from Ottawa for PhD stream because of this reason. Also, there is nowhere on CIC website that mentions the experience gained during the study is not acceptable for skilled worker category.

For CEC, I know that they have changed the rule from January 2013 and this is clearly mentioned on CIC website (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/cec.asp)
"It is also important to note that work experience you may have acquired as part of your academic program, such as an internship or a co-op placement, does not qualify under the CEC. Part-time work you may have performed during your studies does not qualify either."

It is really unfair that they are applying this to 2012 CEC applicants.

 

[aililia]

There is no experience like this in this forum before. Please do not mislead people.

The Ottawa has rejected RA letters mostly because of two reasons:

1) The duties in the letter did not match the duties in NOC 4012.
2) The letter missed the NOC 4012 lead statement.

Don't you ask yourself why they didn't accept the letters!? While everybody who was rejected presented somehow well written letters! If you want I can bring back some of them which was posted here.

The obvious reason is that they didn't considered that work as RA.

For everyone in this forum, please don't be aggressive in your comments as everyone is free to states his/her ideas here and you can simply criticize the comments whether they are correct or not. I don't want to mislead anybody here as there is no benefit for me.
So just be positive and just share the experiences which you believe they're true and helpful.

 

[beh467]

To answer your post, I quote a post from past in the forum here:
also I am sure everybody accepts that work is different from the study and everything toward your study wont be consider as work. That's right that either PhD student and RA publish their results in journal papers however they can publish no paper but the difference is the PhD thesis which is compulsory for PhD study. When the PhD student brings the work in the thesis so that project can't be considered as RA project whether received money or not.

And the post after your post is another evidence for that!

The only acceptable reference is the CIC website and as Asbereth has mentioned, there are 3 requirements for the work experience in skilled worker categoy.

In fact, for work experience to be considered valid for immigration purposes, it needs to
1. be paid
2. match the lead statement of the corresponding NOC code
3. match a substantial number of main duties prescribed for the corresponding NOC code.

 

[beh467]

Don't you ask yourself why they didn't accept the letters!? While everybody who was rejected presented somehow well written letters! If you want I can bring back some of them which was posted here.

The obvious reason is that they didn't considered that work as RA.

For everyone in this forum, please don't be aggressive in your comments as everyone is free to states his/her ideas here and you can simply criticize the comments whether they are correct or not. I don't want to mislead anybody here as there is no benefit for me.
So just be positive and just share the experiences which you believe they're true and helpful.

As I mentioned before, they did not accept the letters because the duties did not match the NOC 4012 or the letter missed the lead statement.

You can find the requirements for work experience in page 23 of the operation manual 6B (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op06b-eng.pdf):

The applicant must have:
- performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation (or occupations) as set out in the occupational description of the NOC (R75(2)(b));
- performed a substantial number of the main duties, including all of the essential duties, of the occupation as set out in the occupational description of the NOC (R75(2)(c)).

That is why they are rejecting some RA letters.

 

[asbereth]

As I mentioned before, they did not accept the letters because the duties did not match the NOC 4012 or the letter missed the lead statement.

You can find the requirements for work experience in page 23 of the operation manual 6B (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op06b-eng.pdf):

The applicant must have:
- performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation (or occupations) as set out in the occupational description of the NOC (R75(2)(b));
- performed a substantial number of the main duties, including all of the essential duties, of the occupation as set out in the occupational description of the NOC (R75(2)(c)).

That is why they are rejecting some RA letters.

Most TA/RA rejections were due to job description mismatch. Some others were due to not having enough number of hours. I don't think, so far, we have rejections because TA/RA is not considered "real" work within the PhD stream. In fact, several applicants just recently got approved that were claiming ONLY TA/RA work experience.

Yes there were rejections due to this within CEC applicants, but that was because the amended rule had made it clear that any work experience gained while studying full-time is not accepted (for applications accepted after January 2013), so if you gain your work experience using study permit, the distinction between study and work will now need to be clear (for CEC).

Again, aililia, you're welcomed to refer us to the rule of the law that states that our work experience cannot be related to our PhD study for FSWP. I suggest you review the IRPR and IRPA (links as follows)

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/

and point out to us where you got this from.

 

[Houra]

Your friend got this comment on the RA letter from Sydney or Ottawa?

She was a 2012 applicant in CEC, before the rules changed. The comment was from the VO.

Hello everyone,

I am a September 2012 applicant. I applied under NOC 4012 but in Canadian Experience Class.

I got my ATIP/GCMS notes last week and looks like I will be rejected. Here is what VO has to say (he reviewed the file on 10th May 2013):

"Letter provided from the PA's supervisor confirms the work of research assistant. However, the letter explains that the research conducted by the PA is directly in support of her studies and thus does not qualify as work."

My friend had the same note and got rejected. Definitely try and update your letter and make it explicit that this RA experience was different than your PhD research.


Although it seems that they are applying the new rule to 2012 CEC applicants, but they are NOT rejecting people because of the new rule that "their experience was at the same time of studies". The reason of rejection is that "the work experience is not distinguished from their PhD research" in the letters. That's why I suggest that in this stream we make sure we do that too.

 

[beh467]

She was a 2012 applicant in CEC, before the rules changed. The comment was from the VO.

That is really unfair that they are applying this rule on 2012 CEC applicants.
But for PhD stream (Federal Skilled Worker Program), as far as the letter includes the lead statement and substantial number of duties, they accept the letter.

 

[kaziahmmed]

Thanks for the kind word I myself was actually not planning on retiring from the forum, just that I would probably sign up with a different user name

Thats Great!!

 

[Theorician]

Hi all,

I have just sent my application to Sidney (two days ago). After reading the posts on work experience letter here, I am worried that they may not accept one of my reference letters (from my home country) which is very hard to get another one. Without that I would have 63 points, assuming that I will not get 5 adaptability points for my past study in Canada (I have been studying PhD here for 3 years and its not finished yet).
I was thinking to have my wife take the IELTS exam in 21 September and send them her IELTS score to get 5 more adaptability points resulting in 68. Does any one know if they will accept to add my wife's IELTS score to my applicatoin then (two months after submitting the application).

Thanks

 

[dfbb]

received passport request. We did medical exam last Thursday.

 

[S_Govind]

received passport request. We did medical exam last Thursday.

congrats !! could you share your reference letter if possible? did you ever update / proactively send them any documents?

 

[aililia]

Most TA/RA rejections were due to job description mismatch. Some others were due to not having enough number of hours. I don't think, so far, we have rejections because TA/RA is not considered "real" work within the PhD stream. In fact, several applicants just recently got approved that were claiming ONLY TA/RA work experience.

Yes there were rejections due to this within CEC applicants, but that was because the amended rule had made it clear that any work experience gained while studying full-time is not accepted (for applications accepted after January 2013), so if you gain your work experience using study permit, the distinction between study and work will now need to be clear (for CEC).

Again, aililia, you're welcomed to refer us to the rule of the law that states that our work experience cannot be related to our PhD study for FSWP. I suggest you review the IRPR and IRPA (links as follows)

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/

and point out to us where you got this from.

I refer you to "hadikhan64" who was asked to present this letter:

"Employment Reference Letter: A letter of reference from your employer indicating how many hours are spent in each role: Research Assistant, Teaching Assistant, and PhD student. "

Why he was asked for such a letter?!

Is there any rule saying saying we should discriminate between RAship and PhD study?

I have a friend who was rejected because of only one sentence in his reference letter "the research will be toward his thesis"!

Generally they follow the rules but they also kind of assess everything in your application not only according to the rules but also their own personal judgement. For instance, in which part of the rules it's mentioned that if you copy and paste job duties and descriptions you will be rejected? But they reject as I know some cases. Please show me this rule if you can find it!

Again, obviously you can work during your study and it's acceptable as a work experience in this category (not CEC), there is no doubt about it.
But I believe if you received money for a research which will be used in your thesis, that wouldn't be considered as a legitimate work experience and this is the officer's job to discriminate between work and study.

 

[anjuku]

Most TA/RA rejections were due to job description mismatch. Some others were due to not having enough number of hours. I don't think, so far, we have rejections because TA/RA is not considered "real" work within the PhD stream. In fact, several applicants just recently got approved that were claiming ONLY TA/RA work experience.

Yes there were rejections due to this within CEC applicants, but that was because the amended rule had made it clear that any work experience gained while studying full-time is not accepted (for applications accepted after January 2013), so if you gain your work experience using study permit, the distinction between study and work will now need to be clear (for CEC).

Again, aililia, you're welcomed to refer us to the rule of the law that states that our work experience cannot be related to our PhD study for FSWP. I suggest you review the IRPR and IRPA (links as follows)

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-227/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/

and point out to us where you got this from.

Asbereth has put it really well...one thing to add is that this job description mismatch and not matching the lead statement thing is not something limited to people who claim RA/TA work experience...there are several posts on the canadavisa.com forum regarding people that got rejected based on this for "real work experience (as some on this forum like to call it!)" of 5 and 10 years that they claimed..there was even a thread of people trying to legally challenge this verdict!...so rejections we see on this forum with regard to RA/TA job mismatch has nothing to do with them not accepting RA/TA as real work experience (atleast for the Ph.D. stream)...i know they changed rules for CEC..but if you think about it, CEC stream is based on JUST work experience (or in other words Canadian Experience)...so they have the right to say periods worked while in school don't count!...but the Ph.D stream has other eligibilty criteria too
You should have completed 2 years of Ph.D
be in good standing
show proficiency in one or more of the official languages
and of course the famous 1 year of continuous full time experience....
So i think that's why they havn't implemented the "no work while in school counted" rule yet for this stream