So every criteria for express entry seems to be fairly straight forward except for proof of funds. I have seen two posts from people in this forum that mentions they were rejected because of high student loans. One even mentioned that repayment for his student loan does not need to start for a few years because they are deferred.
It just seems very odd to me that they would be rejected because clearly those loans would not affect their economic status in Canada, they would have more than enough time to get a job in Canada before they even have to start paying those student loans.
Because of this, I can't help but think, do they really take into consideration your entire net worth rather than just your unencumbered liquid savings? If so, that would be very weird because most new doctors have net worths that are WAAAYY in the red ( overwhelmingly negative net worth). Are they going to turn down doctors because of student loans even when these doctors can clearly pay those off with future income? It just seems dubious to me.
This is my case as well. I am a US educated professional with student loans from an advanced degree. I have more than enough savings that have no debt attached to them. My student loans do not go into repayment until 2024, and my job has been touted "the most in demand job in North America" with compensation levels around $140,000 CAD. This means I highly doubt I will be unemployed until 2024, wherein my debts could be a burden to me.
Would there be a scenario where my student loans would even be a problem for me in the eyes of IRCC when they asses my proof of funds? Should I just show my wife's savings as proof of funds instead since her savings alone would be more than enough to meet the minimum, plus she has no debts?
It just seems very odd to me that they would be rejected because clearly those loans would not affect their economic status in Canada, they would have more than enough time to get a job in Canada before they even have to start paying those student loans.
Because of this, I can't help but think, do they really take into consideration your entire net worth rather than just your unencumbered liquid savings? If so, that would be very weird because most new doctors have net worths that are WAAAYY in the red ( overwhelmingly negative net worth). Are they going to turn down doctors because of student loans even when these doctors can clearly pay those off with future income? It just seems dubious to me.
This is my case as well. I am a US educated professional with student loans from an advanced degree. I have more than enough savings that have no debt attached to them. My student loans do not go into repayment until 2024, and my job has been touted "the most in demand job in North America" with compensation levels around $140,000 CAD. This means I highly doubt I will be unemployed until 2024, wherein my debts could be a burden to me.
Would there be a scenario where my student loans would even be a problem for me in the eyes of IRCC when they asses my proof of funds? Should I just show my wife's savings as proof of funds instead since her savings alone would be more than enough to meet the minimum, plus she has no debts?