Ministerial Instructions: Canadian Experience Class Applications

[yahoo7]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2013/ob554.asp

What I found very interesting is this para" If, after considering all other skilled NOC occupations specified in the application, the officer determines that the applicant does not have the qualifying work experience, they must return to the occupation and claimed work experience about which they have concerns and that was subject to the final determination of eligibility at the CIO. In accordance with the principles of procedural fairness, the officer must afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to any concerns related to the occupation and work experience in question".

The above para can be found right at the end of the article.

 

[skm12345]

This means applicant will get a chance to prove their experience before the reject their application. This is really a positive point for everyone.

 

[Konan1982]

They are making room for applicants to prove that they are eligible..

 

[LPS]

It makes sense that the VO should give the applicant a chance to address their concerns about work experience. For instance, a quick search turns up this thread - http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/cec-nov-2173-noc-email-from-ottawa-with-serious-concerns-please-advise-t162559.0.html

It's encouraging to me, too, because in hindsight the duties listed in my employment letters were probably not detailed enough.

 

[Konan1982]

KOnan's post is a bit humorous.
It's like a convict proving his innocence.

But, the problem is very serious. There are different companies, different industries, even different on the job requirements.

For instance, my employer gave me a job description that they use for recruitment proces. It is not bad, but I do not even understand half of its content.
My attepmts to change it ended up in the pot.

I was doing what was required at that time. Now the company has a new HR manager and a new supply chain manager.

It is very convienent for me to prove as was a buyer by bringing referencce letters from my vendors If a need be.

Pan..it is so hard to understand these VO-rs ..all these laws ..seriously, they ll reject applicant and after admit that they were wrong, or before rejection , they ll email and ask applicant, like tell us your last words and wishes..

 

[spookyb]

My understanding of is, and I might be wrong, that this only applies to applications received after Nov 9th. Many of you know that there was a pilot project for some applications received between Jan and May that were assessed for eligibility at CIO-Sydney. It seems that is going to be the standard practice going forward. Now, since eligibility will already have been assessed, for a VO to later find it ineligible will require that the VO send a procedural fairness letter.

I don't think this applies to applicants already waiting in queue, since we have not had eligibility assessed yet, and therefore, could still be rejected outright without a chance to respond.

 

[i_love_toast]

I hope your wrong but I think you are right. My application was received in July and is still yet to be processed, hope they will contact me if they have any questions or issues. Waiting 8-12 months to find out if there is an issue is not reasonable. Good to see changes for the better though.

My understanding of is, and I might be wrong, that this only applies to applications received after Nov 9th. Many of you know that there was a pilot project for some applications received between Jan and May that were assessed for eligibility at CIO-Sydney. It seems that is going to be the standard practice going forward. Now, since eligibility will already have been assessed, for a VO to later find it ineligible will require that the VO send a procedural fairness letter.

I don't think this applies to applicants already waiting in queue, since we have not had eligibility assessed yet, and therefore, could still be rejected outright without a chance to respond.

 

[MrB]

My understanding of is, and I might be wrong, that this only applies to applications received after Nov 9th. Many of you know that there was a pilot project for some applications received between Jan and May that were assessed for eligibility at CIO-Sydney. It seems that is going to be the standard practice going forward. Now, since eligibility will already have been assessed, for a VO to later find it ineligible will require that the VO send a procedural fairness letter.

I don't think this applies to applicants already waiting in queue, since we have not had eligibility assessed yet, and therefore, could still be rejected outright without a chance to respond.

You're correct! it's for applications after November 9th. The principle of procedural fairness is actually a standard for many immigration processes, so it's definitely nice to see it being introduced to the Canadian Experience Class. Applicants should keep in mind though that even if you are refused and procedural fairness is not applied, you can request an administrative review simultaneously with an appeal at the federal court.

For the administrative review you just have to write the visa office, make your arguments preferably referencing the IRPA, IRPR, OP MANUALS OR the Ministerial Instructions.

 

[gladaki]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2013/ob554.asp

What I found very interesting is this para" If, after considering all other skilled NOC occupations specified in the application, the officer determines that the applicant does not have the qualifying work experience, they must return to the occupation and claimed work experience about which they have concerns and that was subject to the final determination of eligibility at the CIO. In accordance with the principles of procedural fairness, the officer must afford the applicant the opportunity to respond to any concerns related to the occupation and work experience in question".

The above para can be found right at the end of the article.

I really like new rules , they are very clear