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

[jes_ON]

Apart from that, they have also changed some phrases related to calculation of equivalency.

Yes, they TRIED to clarify it. From this thread, it would seem they were unsucessful : ) There is no real change. I gave the same advice to ujbaby last year.

 

[from_mumbai]

Yes, they TRIED to clarify it. From this thread, it would seem they were unsucessful : ) There is no real change. I gave the same advice to ujbaby last year.

I understand my friend..

by the way, can you check http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/hours-of-eligibility-calculator-spreadsheet-t141742.0.html and verify to see if what I wrote is correct...

 

[jes_ON]

by the way, can you check http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/hours-of-eligibility-calculator-spreadsheet-t141742.0.html and verify to see if what I wrote is correct...

It looks good, but for some reason I'm not able to enter data to test it. (Just got a new system, new version of Office, etc. - haven't worked it all out yet!). I'll try again once I figure out the problem...

The only caution I would give - accepting the hours from the bi-weekly paystub should be a last resort, since the hours are supposed to be calculated on a weekly basis. The spreadsheet might give the impression that weekly or biweekly are equally acceptable, which is not really true. But I understand how difficult it might be for some people to find that data after-the-fact, and sometimes you just have to do the best you can.

 

[from_mumbai]

It looks good, but for some reason I'm not able to enter data to test it. (Just got a new system, new version of Office, etc. - haven't worked it all out yet!). I'll try again once I figure out the problem...

The only caution I would give - accepting the hours from the bi-weekly paystub should be a last resort, since the hours are supposed to be calculated on a weekly basis. The spreadsheet might give the impression that weekly or biweekly are equally acceptable, which is not really true. But I understand how difficult it might be for some people to find that data after-the-fact, and sometimes you just have to do the best you can.

I purposely did not allow permission to edit, as it would be a mess in it if everyone wants to try calculating at the same time.. So you have to download and open in excel...

I completely understand your thinking. I also thought the same way, but its hard to remember when and how much you actually worked. So, I just made it assuming that you worked equal hours in that biweekly period.

If someone actually knows how much they worked every week, then they can use the weekly section...

 

[whymeee]

Hey Jes_ON, do you mind chiming in on how I should calculate my eligible hours if my pay stubs are bi-weekly? Right now I'm not counting any bi-weekly hours in excess of 60, same as From_Mumbai's calculator.

 

[noc4012]

Hi whymeee

Did they at least refund your application fees?

 

[pmpm]

Hi whymeee

Did they at least refund your application fees?

Yeah did you get any reply from Sydney?

 

[GinnyPi]

Hi whymeee,

Have you been to your MP's office? CIC is required to respond to your MP's office in a timely manner, usually within a week. You can tell the MP's office that you think CIC made a mistake, and give them your explanation and other relevant details about yourself and your application. They will contact CIC for clarification.

Good luck.

 

[whymeee]

Hi whymeee

Did they at least refund your application fees?

No? And I understand I'm not getting them back as they refused the application after sending me an AOR. :

Yeah did you get any reply from Sydney?

Not yet. We'll see what the next week brings.

Hi whymeee,

Have you been to your MP's office? CIC is required to respond to your MP's office in a timely manner, usually within a week. You can tell the MP's office that you think CIC made a mistake, and give them your explanation and other relevant details about yourself and your application. They will contact CIC for clarification.

Good luck.

I didn't know that. I think I will wait for GCMS notes first and then decide how to proceed. Thanks for the suggestion though!

 

[GinnyPi]

Sooner is best, besides the MP's office would be able to speak with someone who has access to the notes in GCMS. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable, and good luck either way!

 

[jes_ON]

Hey Jes_ON, do you mind chiming in on how I should calculate my eligible hours if my pay stubs are bi-weekly? Right now I'm not counting any bi-weekly hours in excess of 60, same as From_Mumbai's calculator.

If that's best you can do (biweekly, that is), then that is all you can do...

 

[whymeee]

I JUST received my GCMS notes.

It was a lot of information to take in, but it seems that the below quote is the only interesting thing I could find.

CEC FILE REVIEWED BY PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICER PA'S file has been reviewed under Canadian Experience Class category. Although PA has indicated work experience at an 0, A or B NOC level, I am not satisfied that PA has a minimum of 12 months of work experience within the past 36 months. Qualifying work experience from Dec 2011 to Feb 2012 (28.21 average weekly hours) is not at least 12 months. Work experience from July 2011 to Dec 2011 could not be included as qualifying work experience because it was work done on a student work permit. It appears PA has not met all requirements to submit an application under the CEC category. Letter emailing to address(es) on file informing PA that s/he is application is refused. File sent to RETENTION.

Dec 2011 to Feb 2012? 2012? What.. My reference letter and pay stubs were from Dec 2011-Feb 2013! Does this mean they made a mistake? CIO-Sydney got back to me, but their email pretty much said "read what we sent you on April 10th", just in a nice way.

Although in my refusal email said that the period from Dec 2011-Feb 2013 is for a period of less than 12 months which just confuses me even more.

 

[jsm0085]

I JUST received my GCMS notes.

It was a lot of information to take in, but it seems that the below quote is the only interesting thing I could find.

Dec 2011 to Feb 2012? 2012? What.. My reference letter and pay stubs were from Dec 2011-Feb 2013! Does this mean they made a mistake? CIO-Sydney got back to me, but their email pretty much said "read what we sent you on April 10th", just in a nice way.

Although in my refusal email said that the period from Dec 2011-Feb 2013 is for a period of less than 12 months which just confuses me even more.

Did your refusal letter come from Sydney or Ottawa?

 

[whymeee]

Did your refusal letter come from Sydney or Ottawa?

CPC-Sydney.

 

[random123]

This continues to baffle me. I wish they could be held more accountable for their decisions as this requires some explanation.

I JUST received my GCMS notes.

It was a lot of information to take in, but it seems that the below quote is the only interesting thing I could find.

Dec 2011 to Feb 2012? 2012? What.. My reference letter and pay stubs were from Dec 2011-Feb 2013! Does this mean they made a mistake? CIO-Sydney got back to me, but their email pretty much said "read what we sent you on April 10th", just in a nice way.

Although in my refusal email said that the period from Dec 2011-Feb 2013 is for a period of less than 12 months which just confuses me even more.