Got my first GCMS notes.......needs help

[alijumani]

Thanks, but does someone had this similar problem and what did they do?

Below is the screenshot of my notes which are mostly similar to yours. My file was first opened on Sept 8, 2014 and the VO put my file for 2nd review. Although I knew the reason from my GCMS notes but I haven't sent anything voluntarily I waited almost 7 months and finally on April 1, 2015 I received my medical request. Me and my lawyer bother agreed not to send any further documents to CIC without request. Hope is helps, best of luck

 

[nirirome]

Hey alijumani,
Thanks for sharing the info.

 

[Dimadima]

Hi Dimadima,

The conflict is seen in the following GCMS notes:

''Employment letter(s) dated 220CT2013 confirm(s) date(s) of employment, position title and a salary of $40K per year. Both a T4 and a NOA from 2014 show(s) reported earnings of $31.4K. A NOA from 2012 show(s) reported earnings of $15K...'' 40k vrs 31k vrs 15k!!!

First of all I would advise you to check if above statement is the correct facts. What the statement does not record is the earnings in 2013! If CIC does not have this data please provide them asap. If this was close to $40k as per the employment letter then probably you are safe. If not then you need to explain why it was lower than 40k, urgently to CIC before your case gets rejected. If you were doing the NOC duties in 2012, 2013 and 2014 you need to re-iterate that in your statement to CIC. Then you also need to explain why 2012 earning was 15K only, was it only for a part of the year? Same for 2014, you need to explain why this (31K) was so far from 40k! You need to present figures and explanation to justify that these figures are not in contradiction to the letter of employment, asap to CIC.

Hope this helps!

hi rks0101,
Thanks for your help

What you think regarding the letter of job description
Is it Ok or I need to send new one?

 

[rks0101]

hi rks0101,
Thanks for your help

What you think regarding the letter of job description
Is it Ok or I need to send new one?

Hi Dimadima,

The junior officer says that the job description is copied from hrsdc site, nothing more or less. There is nothing stopping employers from copying the JD from hrsdc site and stopping implementation as a guide to duties to be performed, so nothing against this. J officer passes his comments to Visa officer, as something he notices but nothing negative. He also says that - ''applicant meets benchmarks for work experience at this skill level B'', which means that he is OK. Junior officer so not make decision on eligibility, it is mostly done by visa officers, your case is with VO for decision on eligibility which would lead to MR after criminality is also clear. So all seems well and in my opinion you need not revise the letter.

Only grey area is the salary part, which either you can provide clarity earlier or wait for VO to come back to you with a question. Most likely VO will not come back with a question, but there is no harm in making statement that you worked so many months in each year of the qualifying time, it would save VO time and ease out decision..

Hope this helps!!

 

[Dimadima]

Hi Dimadima,

The junior officer says that the job description is copied from hrsdc site, nothing more or less. There is nothing stopping employers from copying the JD from hrsdc site and stopping implementation as a guide to duties to be performed, so nothing against this. J officer passes his comments to Visa officer, as something he notices but nothing negative. He also says that - ''applicant meets benchmarks for work experience at this skill level B'', which means that he is OK. Junior officer so not make decision on eligibility, it is mostly done by visa officers, your case is with VO for decision on eligibility which would lead to MR after criminality is also clear. So all seems well and in my opinion you need not revise the letter.

Only grey area is the salary part, which either you can provide clarity earlier or wait for VO to come back to you with a question. Most likely VO will not come back with a question, but there is no harm in making statement that you worked so many months in each year of the qualifying time, it would save VO time and ease out decision..

Hope this helps!!



thank you!

 

[akimnesh]

There is nothing stopping employers from copying the JD from hrsdc site and stopping implementation as a guide to duties to be performed, so nothing against this.

Hey man you are wrong here. Please read this:

Descriptions of duties taken verbatim from the NOC should be regarded as self-serving. Presented with such documents, visa officers may question whether they accurately describe an applicant’s experience. A document that lacks sufficient detail to permit eventual verification and a credible description of the applicant’s experience is unlikely to satisfy an officer of an applicant’s eligibility.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2009/ob120.asp

 

[rks0101]

Hey man you are wrong here. Please read this:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2009/ob120.asp

Hi Akimnesh,

Did you note that the operational bulletin is no more valid?
Even though not applicable anymore, one can say that if it was still valid the bulletin does not say that verbatim JD would be a cause for rejection. It may be a cause for question...visa officers may question whether they accurately describe an applicant's experience.....

One must realize that many JD can be generic only and this way they best cover all the duties without having to write two pages of a letter!

In my opinion meeting NOC duties is like meeting the minimum criteria but questionable by CIC -- hey why did you go by the book only? why not more?

Other's can input by their actual experience...

Hope this helps!

 

[akimnesh]

Did you note that the operational bulletin is no more valid?

You may search the very recent federal court case law online to ensure that even though the bulletin is outdated, the policy is still the same, and concerns are raised every time when officers see NOC wording in refrence letters.

Even though not applicable anymore, one can say that if it was still valid the bulletin does not say that verbatim JD would be a cause for rejection.

of course not, but it will undermine the applicant's credibility very seriously