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

[legalfalcon]

If suppose I have applied for WP in Feb - 2020. While applying gave stay program as 2 years (March - 2020 to Feb - 2022). Due to covid, now processing time became slow and its been 1 year already. So If I get PPR now what will be validity of Visa and Work permit? Is it going to be just only 1 year till Feb 2022 ( as 1 year mentioned in the stay program already over)?

IF you get the PPR and your PR application is approved, and if your re inland you will receive a COPR and effective the date you receive it, you will become a PR and all other temporary visas will be cancelled as you do not need them.

 

[Yumna]

Hi @legalfalcon

hope you are ok.

a quick question.
Are we supposed to upload IELTS certificate in the PR application as it wasn’t asked.
Just to be sure if that is not the case of rejection.

 

[Ahamed06]

@legalfalcon does ordering gcms notes from IRCC / CBSA trigger any movement in the application?

 

[Maplesyrupnaitrutva]

Hi Legalfalcon,
Our COPR was issued prior March 18, 2020 and expired in May 2020. We filled in the web form around December 14, 2020 and followed up on email around Jaunary 14, 2021. As per the IRCC website we must wait for them the call us. We wish to travel around March 2021. Is there anything that we can do to expedite the process?

 

[caipsnotes]

@legalfalcon does ordering gcms notes from IRCC / CBSA trigger any movement in the application?

NO it will not. If you are hoping/asking if the Gcms Notes will result in progress with your application then the answer is NO.

People make statements like the one below which is completely FALSE

Requesting your GCMS Notes may be beneficial and could help move your file forward. This is the case as an immigration officer has to review your file before releasing your GCMS Notes. Thus, the IRCC officer may use this opportunity to update documents received from other agencies.

Even IRCC has clarified this, see

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039207796208803841

 

[jckailun]

@legalfalcon Please give me some advice/suggestions as to what I can do. Please.

Recently I have been anxious because of this mistake I made on my initial Study Permit application. The story is:

I turned 18 in Jan 2014. In Jun 2018, I made my first study permit application from outside Canada for my master's program that was starting in Sept 2018.

From Jan 2014 - Jun 2018, I have only studied as a high school student and an undergraduate student (my undergrad program lasted from Aug 2014 to Jul 2018). Indeed, I have had some part-time jobs during my studies in this period, but my main activity had always remained "studying" as of the date I made this study permit application. I have not held any formal full-time jobs prior to my application.

As part of my study permit application, there were only 3 spaces under the Employment section (in IMM1294) for you to fill out your employment history. Since I didn't know we had to attach additional sheets of paper when there's not enough space, I only filled out the 3 most important part-time jobs that I had in this section, while there were actually 4 or 5. Of those I left out, one I only worked for a few days; and the other one is self-employment as tutor. What would have been reflected on my application is that I had only been studying as my main activity - no full-time formal jobs, no gaps.

It was not my intention to hide the rest of the part-time jobs I had taken in my initial study permit application. I just didn't know I could / had to attach extra sheets. After I finished my studies in Canada in 2020, I applied for my PGWP. For my PGWP application, I DID attach a full employment history declaring all part-time jobs I have taken. There are no gaps since I was 18 as my main activity has always remained "studying". I have no formal full-time work experience at all. My PGWP was indeed approved.

So here you can see that there are previously undeclared employments being declared in my PGWP application. Now the question comes:

When I apply for PR through Quebec Selected Worker stream, I ought to declare all work history since 18 or over the past 10 years. In my case, will there be problems if I supply my full employment history now (as I did for my PGWP), with some part-time jobs taken during my studies being undeclared in my initial study application?

I am feeling very anxious now as I am afraid of being accused of misrepresentation.

Thank you so much.

 

[saver1985]

There are many examples for what eligibility is RR and later passed by an officer. You will have to see why the RR was there. However, there is no time frame as such, and it varies from application to application.

my previous post on RR, re-posting it here.

Understanding “Review Required”

A lot of applicants see “review required” in their GCMS notes for eligibility. There are many theories floating around with regard to what “review required” means and if it is alarming.

Before I venture into explaining the significance, it is important to understand that each application goes through the following stages as per the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the regulations (Canadian Immigration Law):

R10 – Completeness Check
Criminality
Medicals
A11.2 – eligibility
Security

Out of the above, the most important stage is eligibility. This is also the most time-consuming stage because your documents have to be verified, evaluated and assessed to ascertain that you meet the eligibility criteria for the program you have applied (FSW / CEC / FTW). To stream line this process and make it easier for an immigration officer (decision making authority), all applications are first evaluated by case analysts or program assistants. They review the documents and summarize it in the GCMS. If they have any concerns with any document or want the immigration officer to carefully look into a specific document, they will flag it as “review required.” It is the content of the note that is important here. If the review required is for a specific document, while the summary of the note says that an applicant has met the eligibility, or “ready to finalize” it simply means that while the applicant has met the eligibility criteria, but the specific document needs a careful examination form the officer before promoting (eligibility pass) by the officer.

However, if there are concerns, there will be a review required for the eligibility, and there will be no text to the effect “ready to finalize” or pass. The note will specifically state job duties do not match, or the employment cannot be verified, or the number of years of work experience claimed cannot be verified. This is where an application can land in muddy waters. But the final decision rests on the immigration officer. He may override the decision of the analyst / assistant or go with the analysis of the analyst / assistant.

Even in cases where the analyst / assistant is of the opinion that the applicant has met the eligibility, and there is no “review required,” the officer can replace it with his own opinion. Though rare, but it does happen. This is why the eligibility is only passed when an officer conclusively marks the eligibility as passed.

Finally, there is “review required” for PoF. This is the most common in many applications. This is because, the financial and banking practices of each country are different. Eg. Fixed deposits are know as Certificate of Deposit (CD) in the US. Similarly, treasury bonds, mutual funds, stocks, and many other investment vehicles are there. If your PoF anything other than a bank deposit, it is more likely that it will be marked as “review required.” Also, IRCC does not go by day to day fluctuations in FOREX. Instead, the Canadian federal government issued a quarterly conversion rate for all FOREX vis-a-via CAD. If your PoF is in a foreign currency, then you may have “review required” for the officer to make a determination.

Just because you have “review required” does not mean that you hit the panic mode. Instead, read the context in which it is there. If there is a concern regarding a document, you can send a replacement document via CSE. The most common reasons for RR are:

1. Work reference letter without job duties
2. Work reference letters missing all the details requested by IRCC
3. If you submitted a letter from a colleague because you were unable to get one from your employer, but did not have a LoE on file, this too will lead to RR.
4. Not sufficient work experience in the primary NOC.
5. Inability to verify your employment as your employer details are missing.

Hi @legalfalcon
Thanks for details answer . Actually officer didn't count my 1 year back home experience because it doesn't have salary written on it (That's what i am thinking) and 1 year Canadian experience officer mentioned job letter was undated however T4 and paystubs are provided. i submitted a new job letter with date just 2 days after AOR . Case analyst mentioned PA "score fall below minimum score for the round"
A11.2 Review Required 87.1 Cec Minimum
REQUIREMENTS - Appear Met Ready to finalize RPRF.
Can you guide what to do

 

[legalfalcon]

Hi @legalfalcon

hope you are ok.

a quick question.
Are we supposed to upload IELTS certificate in the PR application as it wasn’t asked.
Just to be sure if that is not the case of rejection.

IRCC does not ask that you upload your IELTS report and it is not mandatory. However, IRCC checks your report based on the report number that is filled in the form by you. If you fill the number incorrectly then IRCC would not be able to locate it. To be on the safer side, you can upload your report along with your application.

If you have already submitted your application and did not upload your report, no need to be concerned.

 

[legalfalcon]

@legalfalcon does ordering gcms notes from IRCC / CBSA trigger any movement in the application?

Per se requesting GCMS notes or CBSA notes does not trigger a movement. However, some applicants on the forum have reported that upon requesting GCMS notes they received a ghost update or saw a movement, which is anecdotal evidence.

However, when a request for the GCMS notes or CBSA notes is filed, certain redactions are made. Some of these redactions are already entered in the GCMS notes by the officer working on the file, for others, the officer may be consulted, or the ATIP staff can do them based on the ATIP manual.

IRCC in one of its twitter response has clarified:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039207796208803841

 

[legalfalcon]

Hi Legalfalcon,
Our COPR was issued prior March 18, 2020 and expired in May 2020. We filled in the web form around December 14, 2020 and followed up on email around Jaunary 14, 2021. As per the IRCC website we must wait for them the call us. We wish to travel around March 2021. Is there anything that we can do to expedite the process?

unfortunately there is nothing you can do to expedite the process. If you have sent a webform request authorisation to travel, then you have to wait. Since your COPR was issued prior to March, you may seek exemption on that grounds by requesting IRCC, but that is at the discretion of IRCC.

If you have not yet heard back from IRCC, you can send another webform.

 

[legalfalcon]

@legalfalcon Please give me some advice/suggestions as to what I can do. Please.

Recently I have been anxious because of this mistake I made on my initial Study Permit application. The story is:

I turned 18 in Jan 2014. In Jun 2018, I made my first study permit application from outside Canada for my master's program that was starting in Sept 2018.

From Jan 2014 - Jun 2018, I have only studied as a high school student and an undergraduate student (my undergrad program lasted from Aug 2014 to Jul 2018). Indeed, I have had some part-time jobs during my studies in this period, but my main activity had always remained "studying" as of the date I made this study permit application. I have not held any formal full-time jobs prior to my application.

As part of my study permit application, there were only 3 spaces under the Employment section (in IMM1294) for you to fill out your employment history. Since I didn't know we had to attach additional sheets of paper when there's not enough space, I only filled out the 3 most important part-time jobs that I had in this section, while there were actually 4 or 5. Of those I left out, one I only worked for a few days; and the other one is self-employment as tutor. What would have been reflected on my application is that I had only been studying as my main activity - no full-time formal jobs, no gaps.

It was not my intention to hide the rest of the part-time jobs I had taken in my initial study permit application. I just didn't know I could / had to attach extra sheets. After I finished my studies in Canada in 2020, I applied for my PGWP. For my PGWP application, I DID attach a full employment history declaring all part-time jobs I have taken. There are no gaps since I was 18 as my main activity has always remained "studying". I have no formal full-time work experience at all. My PGWP was indeed approved.

So here you can see that there are previously undeclared employments being declared in my PGWP application. Now the question comes:

When I apply for PR through Quebec Selected Worker stream, I ought to declare all work history since 18 or over the past 10 years. In my case, will there be problems if I supply my full employment history now (as I did for my PGWP), with some part-time jobs taken during my studies being undeclared in my initial study application?

I am feeling very anxious now as I am afraid of being accused of misrepresentation.

Thank you so much.

Whether a prior TRV application in which an employment detail was left out can be added to the PR application, and would this inconsistency be of any concern.

The answer is simple. If you file any application with IRCC, TRV, WP, PR etc, any of them can be looked into to review your current application and any inconsistency can be a cause of misrepresentation. All applications have to be consistent, and if they are not, a reason on why you omitted the information has to be provided.

They law is clear, while applications for different types of status engage different considerations, it does not necessarily flow that statements made in temporary residence applications cannot affect subsequent permanent residence applications (or vice versa). In Suri v. Canada , the court found that the Officer’s concerns vis-à-vis the contradictions between the Applicants’ temporary and permanent applications were reasonable and based on that the applicant's misrepresentation ban was upheld.

Similarly, in the case of In Goburdhun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 971 at para 28, Justice Strickland summarized the key considerations outlined in the jurisprudence, including the fact that paragraph 40(1)(a) is to be given a broad interpretation, capturing misrepresentations even if made by a third party such as a consultant, without the knowledge of the applicant (see also Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 647 at para 25). The only exception to this rule is narrow and applies in the truly extraordinary circumstances where an applicant honestly and reasonably believed that they were not misrepresenting a material fact and knowledge of the misrepresentation was beyond the applicant’s control.

_____________________________________

However, this is a determination that is done on a case by case basis and the inquiry is factual. If you did not disclose some information in a prior application, going forward you should amend that and disclose all information and be truthful.

As per law you have an obligation to be truthful. Section 16(1) of the IRPA states:

• 16 (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.

Also, when you submit your PR application, you can explain that you may have inadvertently missed providing some of your part-time work information. If you re not claiming points for the information you did not provide before, the information will be immaterial in the context of making a decision on your PR application anyway.

 

[legalfalcon]

Hi @legalfalcon
Thanks for details answer . Actually officer didn't count my 1 year back home experience because it doesn't have salary written on it (That's what i am thinking) and 1 year Canadian experience officer mentioned job letter was undated however T4 and paystubs are provided. i submitted a new job letter with date just 2 days after AOR . Case analyst mentioned PA "score fall below minimum score for the round"
A11.2 Review Required 87.1 Cec Minimum
REQUIREMENTS - Appear Met Ready to finalize RPRF.
Can you guide what to do

If you have provided the documents and the information due to which your score ma have fallen below the CRS, then the officer will make a determination based on the documents you provided.

Appear Met Ready to finalize RPRF, merely means that apart from the issues flagged, the application is ready to finalize.

Just wait and a final determination will be made by the officer. In most cases, the officer will consider the additional document you have submitted.

 

[caipsnotes]

Entering Canada by air during COVID-19

Testing on arrival and during quarantine is effective as of February 21, 2021, at 11:59 pm ET.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/awareness-resources/entering-canada-covid-19.html

 

[jckailun]

Whether a prior TRV application in which an employment detail was left out can be added to the PR application, and would this inconsistency be of any concern.

The answer is simple. If you file any application with IRCC, TRV, WP, PR etc, any of them can be looked into to review your current application and any inconsistency can be a cause of misrepresentation. All applications have to be consistent, and if they are not, a reason on why you omitted the information has to be provided.

They law is clear, while applications for different types of status engage different considerations, it does not necessarily flow that statements made in temporary residence applications cannot affect subsequent permanent residence applications (or vice versa). In Suri v. Canada , the court found that the Officer’s concerns vis-à-vis the contradictions between the Applicants’ temporary and permanent applications were reasonable and based on that the applicant's misrepresentation ban was upheld.

Similarly, in the case of In Goburdhun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 971 at para 28, Justice Strickland summarized the key considerations outlined in the jurisprudence, including the fact that paragraph 40(1)(a) is to be given a broad interpretation, capturing misrepresentations even if made by a third party such as a consultant, without the knowledge of the applicant (see also Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 647 at para 25). The only exception to this rule is narrow and applies in the truly extraordinary circumstances where an applicant honestly and reasonably believed that they were not misrepresenting a material fact and knowledge of the misrepresentation was beyond the applicant’s control.

_____________________________________

However, this is a determination that is done on a case by case basis and the inquiry is factual. If you did not disclose some information in a prior application, going forward you should amend that and disclose all information and be truthful.

As per law you have an obligation to be truthful. Section 16(1) of the IRPA states:

• 16 (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.

Also, when you submit your PR application, you can explain that you may have inadvertently missed providing some of your part-time work information. If you re not claiming points for the information you did not provide before, the information will be immaterial in the context of making a decision on your PR application anyway.

Thank you soooooo much @legalfalcon ! I sincerely appreciate your detailed response and articulation of this matter that has been bothering me way too much these couple of days.

1. Yes, when I apply for PR, I have amended the mistakes I had committed making the prior application. The mistake occurred because we did not know we were supposed to attach extra sheets of paper to the application forms when there's not enough space to put down everything.

2. Coincidentally, all my so-called "employment experiences" were acquired while I was a full-time student. They are all very short-term jobs.

3. There are absolutely no gaps in my life so far. I have only been either studying, preparing for studying abroad (in Canada), or unemployed (which is my current situation) since 18 (I am 25 now) - all of which are consistently demonstrated and accounted for in all my applications.

4. And no, I am not applying under any work-experience based PR program that requires claiming points, such as CEC, FSW as you said. I applied through QSW - by virtue of having obtained a CSQ for having genuinely fulfilled all requirements for getting one. The program (PEQ - student) through which I got my CSQ is based on education - not work.

So I am guessing that I do not need to be worried about being accused of misrepresentation in my unique scenario. But yes, I have learnt a lesson, absolutely a lesson for life.

I believe I should have provided explanations as to why I "omitted" the 1 or 2 short part-time jobs done during school as part of my initial SP application. But my paper-based application has already been mailed out ~3 weeks ago, and the wait time for getting AOR from CIC is currently around 12 months (or even more) for my application category.

Two extra questions for you:
1. Should I supply the explanation with WebForm as soon as possible? Or should I do it in case I was asked about it?

2. Will the "omission" affect the validity of my study permit and PGWP thereafter?

 

[Rtc2021]

Admitting a person at the PoE is the prerogative of the Border Services Officer. If you have a AL, you can travel. Once you become a PR, then your family is exempt from the travel restrictions as they are an immediate family member of PR. So technically yes.

Thank you @legalfalcon.

It is better to be seperated for a couple of days and travel this summer instead of pushing it 1 year, new medicals, new copr etc...

Now lets just hope this hotel quarantine issue is discarded soon. 8k for 3 days stay is just not feasible.