Thank you >>>>>>>>> Legalfalcon <<<<<<<<<<<

[lujiabao56]

If the security is not started, then your eligibility is not passed. The eligibility takes place in 2 stages, first an analyst or assistant will review your documents and make a recommendation, and then an officer will review the recommendation and make a final determination. Only after the officer's conclusive determination, will the security start.

Thanks for reply me,very appreciate! however, I have different opinion, according to you said eligibility is not passed, my cbsa notes and Call IRCC agent they are all say is passed, not recommend pass. I was confused that because I read very carefully with your article from page one. base on my understanding, my notes said location is READY FOR PS- SEC.

 

[lujiabao56]

thanks a lot! you are right RCMP did screening for my case last year. and done by last year june 14th, that is why my criminality was passed. everthing shows up in notes. I just do not understand what is current my stats for my case

 

[Mr_fabrizio]

There is no need to worry. Many applicants get a Review required for PoF, especially when it is in a foreign currency and when it is not clear whether you have clear access to funds. If your PF letter states that you can get the PF funds liquidated at any time, you do not have to worry. Even if the letter does not state it, most officers know what a PR in terms of Indian context is.

If you would like to send a supplement letter, you can where it expressly states that your PF funds are unencumbered and can be liquidated any time. You can even explain this if getting a letter is difficult with this language.

Alternatively, you can just wait and most applicants see that review required is changed to passed as soon as the officer finishes reviewing the documents.

I would not not worry much. Also, PoF is not a ground of rejection and if IRCC needs any clarification, they will ask.

Please I want to ask? How many days/weeks/months does it take to determine if an applicant PoF is complete,and when does assessment stop?

 

[legalfalcon]

Thanks for reply me,very appreciate! however, I have different opinion, according to you said eligibility is not passed, my cbsa notes and Call IRCC agent they are all say is passed, not recommend pass. I was confused that because I read very carefully with your article from page one. base on my understanding, my notes said location is READY FOR PS- SEC.

See the notes in the last 4-5 pages, and see if you have an officer note on eligibility, after an analyst note / assistant notes. If you do not have it, then your eligibility is not passed. Just because the status says something, does not mean it is passed.

 

[lujiabao56]

See the notes in the last 4-5 pages, and see if you have an officer note on eligibility, after an analyst note / assistant notes. If you do not have it, then your eligibility is not passed. Just because the status says something, does not mean it is passed.

can I call you ? or how can I contact you ? I need to talk with you, your information is significant for me .

 

[lujiabao56]

See the notes in the last 4-5 pages, and see if you have an officer note on eligibility, after an analyst note / assistant notes. If you do not have it, then your eligibility is not passed. Just because the status says something, does not mean it is passed.

when I use your suggestions go back my notes to see under NOTES 6 said case type: Economic Case. Schedule 4 on file: yes- Appears to meet eligibility decision. this notes time is 2018/06/07. and then Notes 5 created Date 2018/06/14 label Eligibility nothing in there, TEXT: noting shows in there. this notes order last year December.

 

[lujiabao56]

I used another gcm notes SHOWS NOTE 5

CREATED DATE: 2018/06/14
LABEL: ELIGIBILITY
OFFICE: CENTRALIZED INTAKE OFFICE
TEXT: FOSS NAI RECEIVED JAPAN PC FOR SPOUSE POLICE CERTIFICATES ON FILE NO A36 CONCERNS EVIDENT CRIMINALITY PASSED NO ADDITIONAL DOCS REQUIRED AT THIS TIME

 

[shah009]

I don't see any concerns. There are just two issues:

1. MI3 - Effective July 1, 2011, the third set of Ministerial Instructions (MI3) further limited the intake of new FSW applications by lowering the global cap to 10,000, with sub-caps of 500 for each of the 29 priority occupations.


2. For Company 1, your work reference letters does not have job description. The work reference letter should have job duties, and the JDs should substantially match the JDs of the NOC selected.

Hello @legalfalcon

For company1, employer refused to give me experience letter. So, I don’t have it and officer mentioned that i had enough experience from company2 and company3 and i am eligible because i have one year experience. How can i solve this issue of company1?

 

[legalfalcon]

Hello @legalfalcon

For company1, employer refused to give me experience letter. So, I don’t have it and officer mentioned that i had enough experience from company2 and company3 and i am eligible because i have one year experience. How can i solve this issue of company1?

If you have enough experience and the CRS, you could have just not mentioned company 1. The analyst has baked this for review by the officer.

If you meet the CRS and the MEC, you can just wait and your eligibility will be passed as soon as the file is reviewed by an officer.

 

[Naruto_Uzumaki]

For Age no need to worry. For clarification see
https://www.getgcms.com/blog/age-impact-express-entry-application/


Just wait and there is no nothing to worry. The age change will have no impact on your CRS due to the public policy.

Thanks a lot legalfalcon

 

[shah009]

If you have enough experience and the CRS, you could have just not mentioned company 1. The analyst has baked this for review by the officer.

If you meet the CRS and the MEC, you can just wait and your eligibility will be passed as soon as the file is reviewed by an officer.

@legalfalcon Thank you so much...

Yeah probably i should not mentioned company1. But I can’t change it now

I applied with my spouse in express entry.
In notes, A11.2 appears met and R 87.1 appears met according to analyst.
Does it mean officer will neglect company1 and approve It

And one more question, while ordering notes, I haven’t added my spouse consent form. Is it necessary to add it. Because i am not able to see my spouse information. Some pages are blank and says according to 19(1) privacy act. And my spouse has a previous study visa rejection. Is it possible why there is RR?

 

[legalfalcon]

@legalfalcon Thank you so much...

Yeah probably i should not mentioned company1. But I can’t change it now

I applied with my spouse in express entry.
In notes, A11.2 appears met and R 87.1 appears met according to analyst.
Does it mean officer will neglect company1 and approve It

And one more question, while ordering notes, I haven’t added my spouse consent form. Is it necessary to add it. Because i am not able to see my spouse information. Some pages are blank and says according to 19(1) privacy act. And my spouse has a previous study visa rejection. Is it possible why there is RR?

If your meet the CRS and MEC, the officer will approved it.

section 19 in your notes is there because your spouse did not sign the consent form. Information in the GCMS notes is only released when the consent form is signed by all the individuals in the application.

 

[shah009]

If your meet the CRS and MEC, the officer will approved it.

section 19 in your notes is there because your spouse did not sign the consent form. Information in the GCMS notes is only released when the consent form is signed by all the individuals in the application.

@legalfalcon
And my wife has a three study permit rejection. So, can it be reason for RR?

 

[legalfalcon]

@legalfalcon
And my wife has a three study permit rejection. So, can it be reason for RR?

No, a prior visa rejection is not a ground or a factor, unless there was any immigration violation. The criteria for study permit and PR application is different.

 

[shah009]

No, a prior visa rejection is not a ground or a factor, unless there was any immigration violation. The criteria for study permit and PR application is different.

@legalfalcon thank you so much