Received AOR on 3rd of April; application got denied exactly a week later

[Kozmoj]

Because my contract states that I work "a minimum of 33.75 hours per week;" since I am salaried, there is no data on actual hours worked. At the time, full-time was defined as 37.5 hours per week, so I was technically "part-time." My calculations were confirmed by a VO who used to be based in my city.

-> Based on the old rule, OP-25 (not OP-25A), this statement is true.
But according to the new rule, OP-25A, it is not clear.

We are now talking about the new rule, the case of whymeee.

 

[jes_ON]

So, I think:
the eligible applicant is supposed to have 30 hours per week in one job (in case of full time job) or at least 30 hours per week in more than one job (in case of part time job; two or more part time jobs in the same week).

No. In the case of part-time, "one or more part-time jobs held over the equivalent of at least one year
of full-time work)." Means one part time job is acceptable as long as you work the equivalent of at least one year of full-time work (do the math, 30 hours per week * 52 weeks = 1560 hours - but this ONLY APPLIES to those working fewer than 30 hours per week!!!)

And jes_ON,
I couldn't find anywhere in the manuals which they mentioned "you can add up all your part time hours, divide by 30".

Those are my words, yes. Feel free to ignore them.

 

[jes_ON]

We are now talking about the new rule, the case of whymeee.

The only thing that's changed is the # of hours per week used to define "full-time."

 

[Misscupcake]

Not sure what you mean - you cannot compensate for a 20 hour week by working 40 hours another week. You'd have to work another 10 hours to have 2 weeks.

But like my job is seasonal as I've mentioned earlier and I get paid biweekly. so there are weeks I work less than 30. So racking up the hours to make up the weeks is acceptable yes? Also I'm curious along with Kozmoj. jes_ON where did you find the information that you can add up all your part time hours and divide by 30? Is that legit?

 

[jes_ON]

But like my job is seasonal as I've mentioned earlier and I get paid biweekly. so there are weeks I work less than 30. So racking up the hours to make up the weeks is acceptable yes? Also I'm curious along with Kozmoj. jes_ON where did you find the information that you can add up all your part time hours and divide by 30? Is that legit?

That information has been repeatedly cited in this thread. It doesn't say that word for word.

 

[spookyb]

Let's look at this from a CIC perspective. Previously, applicants were counting hours even if they were working 5 hours a week. I think CIC may have wanted to set a bar for how low you can go, and still be an individual that performs a significant amount of skilled work every week (which is now 30 hours/wk).

But again, our interpretation may be way off base....this is all new stuff.

 

[from_mumbai]

No. In the case of part-time, "one or more part-time jobs held over the equivalent of at least one year
of full-time work)." Means one part time job is acceptable as long as you work the equivalent of at least one year of full-time work (do the math, 30 hours per week * 52 weeks = 1560 hours - but this ONLY APPLIES to those working fewer than 30 hours per week!!!)

Okk.. assuming that you are right; then why did whymee get a rejection even though he worked the hours as you just said...!

I think we should wait for CIC to answer whymee instead of debating too much on this. Ultimately, they are the ones who wrote the rules...

 

[from_mumbai]

Let's look at this from a CIC perspective. Previously, applicants were counting hours even if they were working 5 hours a week. I think CIC may have wanted to set a bar for how low you can go, and still be an individual that performs a significant amount of skilled work every week (which is now 30 hours/wk).

But again, our interpretation may be way off base....this is all new stuff.

thats exactly my point..!

 

[jes_ON]

Okk.. assuming that you are right; then why did whymee get a rejection even though he worked the hours as you just said...!

My GUESS - Because when he calculated his hours, he included hours worked in excess of 30 hours per week in a "total". CIC says you can't do that. When you deduct those hours, then he didn't have enough. Since he included paystubs, that information would have been available to the VO.

I think we should wait for CIC to answer whymee instead of debating too much on this.

Absolutely,and he should appeal if he thinks CIC made a mistake.

 

[jes_ON]

Let's look at this from a CIC perspective. Previously, applicants were counting hours even if they were working 5 hours a week. I think CIC may have wanted to set a bar for how low you can go, and still be an individual that performs a significant amount of skilled work every week (which is now 30 hours/wk).

The "low bar" is that the work can be no older than 3 years at the time your application is received. So if you worked an equal number of hours per week, the mathematical minimum would be 10 hours per week over 3 years (= 30 hours per week over one year).

 

[Kozmoj]

Let's look at this from a CIC perspective. Previously, applicants were counting hours even if they were working 5 hours a week. I think CIC may have wanted to set a bar for how low you can go, and still be an individual that performs a significant amount of skilled work every week (which is now 30 hours/wk).

But again, our interpretation may be way off base....this is all new stuff.

I can guess the minimum baseline of eligible park-time work hours per week.
As the applicant must "have at least 12 months of full-time (or an equal amount in part-time) skilled work experience in Canada in the three years before" applying, the applicant with part-time job should work 10 hours /week if the hours can be accumulated.

 

[Kozmoj]

You are right. I might missed this sentence, "(e.g. more than one part-time job held
simultaneously or one or more part-time jobs held over the equivalent of at least one year
of full-time work)".

"more than one part-time job held simultaneously" might explain my understanding.
And "or one or more part-time jobs held over the equivalent of at least one year
of full-time work" can be explain your description.

I might missed second part of the sentence. :-[

But, the next sentence at the operational manual still remains doubtful for me.

"Work experience can be calculated by adding up the number of weeks of full-time (or equivalent) paid work"

 

[whymeee]

I guess you missed my previous post. How can I appeal? Or is sending an email enough?

 

[Aussieaussie!]

After reading OP posts, DEFINITELY AN ERROR THE OFFICER MADE!

Since Whymeee worked 28.2 hours a week, lets multiply that by 60 since he worked that period.

28.2 x 60 = 1692 / 30 = 56

56 weeks! OP got the equivalent in part time work. I'm really sorry Whymeee this has happened to you, definitely appeal though! You obviously qualify!!

 

[spookyb]

The "low bar" is that the work can be no older than 3 years at the time your application is received. So if you worked an equal number of hours per week, the mathematical minimum would be 10 hours per week over 3 years (= 30 hours per week over one year).

You're right, my gross exaggeration turned out a little inaccurate. But I think your guess may be spot on, that none of the hours over 30 got counted, and therefore, the net number of hours did not meet the minimum hours required for full time equivalency.