+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

FSW WORLDWIDE

Lc4life

Hero Member
Aug 9, 2021
532
252
is that dude already on study permit? woa , least profitable and cec is gonna get tightened after the revision of noc b (teer3) where the 90% cec's work exp fall into. TR2PR avoided many noc's and i guess these are the one's which will never be considered for cec eligibility from next year

dude @Tabraez are you on study permit now?
Where did u get the data that 90% of cec are noc B?
 
 

imm2canadaordie

Full Member
Nov 1, 2017
46
35
Category........
FSW
The only logical reason left is that they are probably working on some changes to the system. Only time will reveal the hidden truth
How does that concern post-AOR people? Why should these changes be applied retroactively? No laws or rules are applied retroactively or no one would feel safe
 
  • Like
Reactions: ita_drgen
 

dankboi

VIP Member
Apr 19, 2021
3,627
11,008
London, United Kingdom
Category........
FSW
GUNTER: Liberals to make immigration to Canada much easier
nope not economic immigrants hehe

The Trudeau Liberals are planning to remove nearly all grounds the Immigration department uses to exclude applicants, the Toronto Sun has learned.
It has been the Trudeau government’s goal since 2020 to increase Canada’s intake of immigrants and refugees by nearly one-third to 400,000 annually.

How they plan to achieve this elevated level is outlined in an internal draft document sent to immigration and refugee judges — documents that have been exclusively shared with the Sun.

In an email sent to staff and adjudicators on Sept. 20, Richard Wex, the Liberals’ appointee as chairperson and chief executive officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, laid out a massive expansion of the reasons immigrants can be allowed to enter and stay in Canada.

Under the new guidelines, contained in a document marked “Draft” and covered by solicitor-client privilege, civil service officers who do an initial screening of immigration and refugee claims, plus the immigration and refugee judges who hear appeals of the officers’ decisions, are instructed to accept any applicant who has an “intersectional” claim.

Intersectionality is defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability, or immigration status,” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”

No longer will claimants need to prove, for instance, that they face torture or death if forced to return to their home countries. Nor will they have to satisfy the UN’s definition of a “refugee.”

Now, if they merely claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old, or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman, in the Liberals come.

One of the principal tasks of the immigration officers and judges is to determine whether a claimant is telling the truth.

The Trudeau Liberals have that covered, too.

Chairperson Wex instructs his staff and judges to remember that trauma — whether physical or emotional — can cause people to recollect information or incidents incorrectly. Therefore, if applicants provide evidence that turns out to be false, it may not be because they’re lying.

Rather they might just be misremembering due to the lingering stress caused by a trauma. Don’t exclude them.

Staff and adjudicators are instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt. Unless the officer or judge involved has incontrovertible proof an applicant is lying, the claimant should be admitted. His or her claims of discrimination are to be accepted by default and his or her application approved.

Their falsehoods might just be the side effect of some traumatic experience that is impeding the applicant’s ability to provide evidence that would benefit him or her.

Wex describes a traumatic event as one that elicits “intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair” that is perceived “as a threat to the person’s survival.”

Adjudicators must employ “a ‘Do No Harm’ approach” during hearings, to lead with “compassion, cultural humility, and patience in order to avoid retraumatization” of an applicant.

These new rules render examining refugees’ claims pointless.

Adjudicators, essentially, must now say yes to everyone who makes it to Canadian soil and claims (not proves, merely claims) they are a victim of two more of a broad range of abuses — some invisible and mild.

Already, 22 of just over 300 adjudicators already admit 100% of the claimants appearing before them. (The median acceptance rate across the country is about 70%.)

Accepting 100% of claims is an impossibly high rate, unless these 22 judges are deliberately looking to admit anyone and everyone. Most of the 22 are Liberal appointees. Now it would appear they are to be the models for all the other adjudicators.

Claimants, on average, wait two years for their cases to be heard. During that time, their medical, dental, and even internet is paid for by taxpayers. Sometimes, their housing and food, too.

And now there’s almost no chance they will be sent out of Canada because what applicant and his or her immigration lawyer isn’t going to be capable of thinking up some “interconnectedness” of discriminations or “trauma,” or both?

That’s how the Liberals intend to turn 300,000 or so immigrants a year into 400,000 almost overnight.

Just get rid of all the rules and — presto — a boom in newcomers.

How long do you think it will take for word to get out around the world that Canada, which is already one of the countries most open to immigration, is removing all barriers and throwing the doors open wide?
 
  • Like
Reactions: purohitab

axmac

Star Member
Nov 5, 2020
102
163
How is this possible? They claim 80% of the FSW applications were finalized in 12 months in 2020. This looks obviously false to me.
I agree with most of @RSub 's answer on this, it is plain old "How to lie with statistics 101", but with just one difference that the finalized applications are not/need not be from the pool of 45,000 applications at all.
It is not xxx out of 45,000, it is just xxx from 2019 and maybe early 2020.

What they would have done is back calculate from the finalized applications. Say, between 2020 January and 2020 March, there were 1000 finalized FSW applications (pre-COVID), they will back calculate the time to process those applications and they will find 10 months average and 50℅ within 6 months.
Between April to September, if they did not finalize any application, they have no penalty to the above numbers. It is still 10 months and 50℅.

Between October to December, say they finalized 50 applications, and they were from 2019 and early 2020, they'd recalculate the time to process and because of the bigger lag, the above averages would have come down to the reported 12 months and 40℅ within 6 months.

In data science, we remove null values from the model data as long as the the null values are random and small in number.
In IRCTC's case, the null values are all of us, and they are significantly bigger than the chunk of 'processed' applications.

The shameful part is, once you layer in the PPR % to this, it looks so much worse for FSW and Itime (

The questions we want them to answer:
What % of FSW applications between Jan 2020 and Dec 2020 were finalized between Jan 2020 and July 2021? (The answer might not even be 10%)
What % of them were given PPRs? (Not even 2% I'd guess)

The question they answered:
Out of all the applications finalized between Jan 2020 and Dec 2020, what was the processing time, and how many of them were processed under 6 months.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RSub and janaor2021

Lc4life

Hero Member
Aug 9, 2021
532
252
GUNTER: Liberals to make immigration to Canada much easier
nope not economic immigrants hehe

The Trudeau Liberals are planning to remove nearly all grounds the Immigration department uses to exclude applicants, the Toronto Sun has learned.
It has been the Trudeau government’s goal since 2020 to increase Canada’s intake of immigrants and refugees by nearly one-third to 400,000 annually.

How they plan to achieve this elevated level is outlined in an internal draft document sent to immigration and refugee judges — documents that have been exclusively shared with the Sun.

In an email sent to staff and adjudicators on Sept. 20, Richard Wex, the Liberals’ appointee as chairperson and chief executive officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, laid out a massive expansion of the reasons immigrants can be allowed to enter and stay in Canada.

Under the new guidelines, contained in a document marked “Draft” and covered by solicitor-client privilege, civil service officers who do an initial screening of immigration and refugee claims, plus the immigration and refugee judges who hear appeals of the officers’ decisions, are instructed to accept any applicant who has an “intersectional” claim.

Intersectionality is defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability, or immigration status,” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”

No longer will claimants need to prove, for instance, that they face torture or death if forced to return to their home countries. Nor will they have to satisfy the UN’s definition of a “refugee.”

Now, if they merely claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old, or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman, in the Liberals come.

One of the principal tasks of the immigration officers and judges is to determine whether a claimant is telling the truth.

The Trudeau Liberals have that covered, too.

Chairperson Wex instructs his staff and judges to remember that trauma — whether physical or emotional — can cause people to recollect information or incidents incorrectly. Therefore, if applicants provide evidence that turns out to be false, it may not be because they’re lying.

Rather they might just be misremembering due to the lingering stress caused by a trauma. Don’t exclude them.

Staff and adjudicators are instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt. Unless the officer or judge involved has incontrovertible proof an applicant is lying, the claimant should be admitted. His or her claims of discrimination are to be accepted by default and his or her application approved.

Their falsehoods might just be the side effect of some traumatic experience that is impeding the applicant’s ability to provide evidence that would benefit him or her.

Wex describes a traumatic event as one that elicits “intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair” that is perceived “as a threat to the person’s survival.”

Adjudicators must employ “a ‘Do No Harm’ approach” during hearings, to lead with “compassion, cultural humility, and patience in order to avoid retraumatization” of an applicant.

These new rules render examining refugees’ claims pointless.

Adjudicators, essentially, must now say yes to everyone who makes it to Canadian soil and claims (not proves, merely claims) they are a victim of two more of a broad range of abuses — some invisible and mild.

Already, 22 of just over 300 adjudicators already admit 100% of the claimants appearing before them. (The median acceptance rate across the country is about 70%.)

Accepting 100% of claims is an impossibly high rate, unless these 22 judges are deliberately looking to admit anyone and everyone. Most of the 22 are Liberal appointees. Now it would appear they are to be the models for all the other adjudicators.

Claimants, on average, wait two years for their cases to be heard. During that time, their medical, dental, and even internet is paid for by taxpayers. Sometimes, their housing and food, too.

And now there’s almost no chance they will be sent out of Canada because what applicant and his or her immigration lawyer isn’t going to be capable of thinking up some “interconnectedness” of discriminations or “trauma,” or both?

That’s how the Liberals intend to turn 300,000 or so immigrants a year into 400,000 almost overnight.

Just get rid of all the rules and — presto — a boom in newcomers.

How long do you think it will take for word to get out around the world that Canada, which is already one of the countries most open to immigration, is removing all barriers and throwing the doors open wide?
Such a bullshit
 
  • Like
Reactions: tahashanouha
 

Kiran Jayachandran

Hero Member
Jan 1, 2019
265
62
Study route steps: Get admitted to a Canadian school -> Apply to IRCC for study visa -> Get your visa if you can convince IRCC you're not trying to get back to school just to get a PR -> Finish your studies -> Apply for PGWP if you're eligible -> Find a job in Canada if you can and work for 1+ years -> Apply for PR under CEC (or TR to PR if it still exists at the time you're applying)

The absolute shortest time of any program you will find will be 1 year; but that's risky because a 1 year program usually gives you a 1 year PGWP. I'm sure you understand why it's risky. So you'll be looking at 2 year programs (master's probably). Assuming you graduate in 2 years (might take longer), you get a 3 year long PGWP which is the max duration of it you can get. Assuming you end up lucky and find a job immediately after graduating, you're looking at 2 + 1 = 3 years from the start date of your studies before you can get your PR. A more realistic time to your PR is below:

Today's date + time till you start your program (~1 year if you ask me) + time to your graduation (>2 years) + time to find a job in Canada (6-12 months) + 1 year Canadian work experience = Today's date + at least 4.5 years

If you end up lucky and find a TR-to-PR opportunity, then you remove the 1 year work experience and get to apply for PR in 3.5 years from today.

I think you're saying you're already on a study permit, then...

Finish your studies (~1 year?) + time to find a job in Canada (6-12 months) + 1 year Canadian work experience = Today's date + at least 2.5 (?) years
Do you have any idea about medical insurance for international student's spouse and dependent child? I know for students, medicals are covered under the tuition fee. But any idea about their dependent child and their spouse who is on a work permit?
 

mr.preetsingh

VIP Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,478
1,037
Canada
Category........
FSW
NOC Code......
2171
App. Filed.......
14-04-2018
Doc's Request.
NA
Nomination.....
NA
AOR Received.
14-04-2018
IELTS Request
NA
File Transfer...
NA
Med's Request
Upfront
Med's Done....
07-04-2018
Interview........
NA
Passport Req..
19-06-2018
VISA ISSUED...
25-06-2018
LANDED..........
06-09-2018
Do you have any idea about medical insurance for international student's spouse and dependent child? I know for students, medicals are covered under the tuition fee. But any idea about their dependent child and their spouse who is on a work permit?
If in Ontario, Read this : https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ohip/temp_foreign.aspx

Alberta : https://www.alberta.ca/ahcip-temporary-residents.aspx

You can find details on your province's website.

The logic is, If the spouse is on open work permit, he/she is eligible if working
 

Kiran Jayachandran

Hero Member
Jan 1, 2019
265
62
 

mr.preetsingh

VIP Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,478
1,037
Canada
Category........
FSW
NOC Code......
2171
App. Filed.......
14-04-2018
Doc's Request.
NA
Nomination.....
NA
AOR Received.
14-04-2018
IELTS Request
NA
File Transfer...
NA
Med's Request
Upfront
Med's Done....
07-04-2018
Interview........
NA
Passport Req..
19-06-2018
VISA ISSUED...
25-06-2018
LANDED..........
06-09-2018

3L1C

Full Member
Jul 26, 2021
35
35
I'm actually curious to see what will happen after the India flight ban is lifted today.

There was a document saying IRCC stop issuing COPR because some COPR holders travelled to Canada against the travel restrictions. As far as i understand, COPR holders can enter Canada without being vaccinated (correct me if i'm wrong). Hence, confirming these people are Covid-free is the way to "protect Canada from Covid". Now that they lifted the India flight ban while they figure out a way to make sure all travellers from India have valid covid test report.

I didn't think the flight ban with one single country has any impacts on FSW, but what if they are correlated? Majority of Express Entry applicants are Indians according to figures from previous years.

This is just my theory, let's see if IRCC will prove me wrong lol.