IRCC Draw Data Analysis and expectations from rest of 2021

[Samy1403]

Year	Canadian Experience Class	No program specified	Provincial Nominee Program	Total	Immigration Target (FSW)	Balance
2021​	36,708	-	1,949	38,283	108,500	69,843
2020​	34,215	68,100	4,785	107,100
2019​	-	84,300	-	84,300
2018​	-	88,700	200	88,900
2017​	-	84,685	433	85,118

I was just going through IRCC previous years data. Thought of posting the analysis (limiting the comparison to 2020 as it was a pandemic year and so is 2021)

• In just Jan and Feb of 2021, CEC ITAs have already surpassed CEC ITAs issued in 2020 (issued over a period of six months during Mar-Aug 2020). Going by the trends of 2020, this means that remaining 2021 ITAs (69,843) belong to all No-program-specified draw
  • As a result, remaining draws of 2021 ideally should focus on No-program-specified – if Canada is interested in qualified candidates; otherwise if cutoff keeps falling till 75 then they better know the quality of candidates they are making permanent residents and hoping for economic recovery
• In 2020, IRCC issued 16 "No program specified" draw (this category includes out-land FSW candidates) to select 68,100 candidates. Basis that we can assume that in 2021 too there can be ~16 draws for remaining ~70,000 ITAs (this is after deducting issued ITAs minus IRCC target)
  • Cutoffs are too likely to remain similar to 2020, i.e., on average >470
  • When No-program-specified draw resumes cutoff can be as high as >478, then gradually expected to fall to ~470.
• In 2020, IRCC favored in-land candidates till first half of the year. In 2021 too the trend is the same. Only catch is that in-land ITAs have already reached 2020 levels in just March. Therefore, next No-program-specified draws might be coming in March end or definitely April.

Let me know your thoughts and if you are aware of any other info.

 

[yasiralishoro]

Year	Canadian Experience Class	No program specified	Provincial Nominee Program	Total	Immigration Target (FSW)	Balance
2021​	36,708	-	1,949	38,283	108,500	69,843
2020​	34,215	68,100	4,785	107,100
2019​	-	84,300	-	84,300
2018​	-	88,700	200	88,900
2017​	-	84,685	433	85,118

I was just going through IRCC previous years data. Thought of posting the analysis (limiting the comparison to 2020 as it was a pandemic year and so is 2021)

• In just Jan and Feb of 2021, CEC ITAs have already surpassed CEC ITAs issued in 2020 (issued over a period of six months during Mar-Aug 2020). Going by the trends of 2020, this means that remaining 2021 ITAs (69,843) belong to all No-program-specified draw
  • As a result, remaining draws of 2021 ideally should focus on No-program-specified – if Canada is interested in qualified candidates; otherwise if cutoff keeps falling till 75 then they better know the quality of candidates they are making permanent residents and hoping for economic recovery
• In 2020, IRCC issued 16 "No program specified" draw (this category includes out-land FSW candidates) to select 68,100 candidates. Basis that we can assume that in 2021 too there can be ~16 draws for remaining ~70,000 ITAs (this is after deducting issued ITAs minus IRCC target)
  • Cutoffs are too likely to remain similar to 2020, i.e., on average >470
  • When No-program-specified draw resumes cutoff can be as high as >478, then gradually expected to fall to ~470.
• In 2020, IRCC favored in-land candidates till first half of the year. In 2021 too the trend is the same. Only catch is that in-land ITAs have already reached 2020 levels in just March. Therefore, next No-program-specified draws might be coming in March end or definitely April.

Let me know your thoughts and if you are aware of any other info.

I hope so brother, i am also waiting for FSW to resume

 

[EscoBlades]

Your analysis is already highly flawed because you are confusing ITAs (invitations) with IRCC’s targets for LANDED IMMIGRANTS (those who have successfully gone through processing AFTER an invitation to apply)

It all falls apart after that.

 

[scylla]

Your analysis is already highly flawed because you are confusing ITAs (invitations) with IRCC’s targets for LANDED IMMIGRANTS (those who have successfully gone through processing AFTER an invitation to apply)

It all falls apart after that.

Agreed. The starting point for this analysis is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of what the targets actually means.

 

[Deleted member 1006777]

Yeah, this is very optimistic, but unfortunately, unrealistic. You're also assuming that there are only a specified number of CEC candidates they want. That's not the case. 2020's CEC candidate intake was purely driven by covid related travel restrictions. Then daily cases started getting really bad towards december, which likely led to this year's decision to meet the higher goal, by selecting inland candidates not affected by the restrictions. There is nothing to suggest they need to maintain a balance of CEC and FSW candidates.

Everything depends on whether or not the government can step up the pace of the vaccine rollout reasonably quickly. I think we should see FSW draws before September by which time they will have completed the vacccination drive in canada.

 

[Samy1403]

Year	Canadian Experience Class	No program specified	Provincial Nominee Program	Total	Immigration Target (FSW)	Balance
2021​	36,708	-	1,949	38,283	108,500	69,843
2020​	34,215	68,100	4,785	107,100
2019​	-	84,300	-	84,300
2018​	-	88,700	200	88,900
2017​	-	84,685	433	85,118

I was just going through IRCC previous years data. Thought of posting the analysis (limiting the comparison to 2020 as it was a pandemic year and so is 2021)

• In just Jan and Feb of 2021, CEC ITAs have already surpassed CEC ITAs issued in 2020 (issued over a period of six months during Mar-Aug 2020). Going by the trends of 2020, this means that remaining 2021 ITAs (69,843) belong to all No-program-specified draw
  • As a result, remaining draws of 2021 ideally should focus on No-program-specified – if Canada is interested in qualified candidates; otherwise if cutoff keeps falling till 75 then they better know the quality of candidates they are making permanent residents and hoping for economic recovery
• In 2020, IRCC issued 16 "No program specified" draw (this category includes out-land FSW candidates) to select 68,100 candidates. Basis that we can assume that in 2021 too there can be ~16 draws for remaining ~70,000 ITAs (this is after deducting issued ITAs minus IRCC target)
  • Cutoffs are too likely to remain similar to 2020, i.e., on average >470
  • When No-program-specified draw resumes cutoff can be as high as >478, then gradually expected to fall to ~470.
• In 2020, IRCC favored in-land candidates till first half of the year. In 2021 too the trend is the same. Only catch is that in-land ITAs have already reached 2020 levels in just March. Therefore, next No-program-specified draws might be coming in March end or definitely April.

Let me know your thoughts and if you are aware of any other info.

With IRCC continuing CEC draws (of ~5000 ITAs) and no activity on border reopening, All program draws are a long shot. Expect cutoff to be ~480 when FSW reopens. Candidates with great scores are piling up in the pool. CEC guys with not so great scores are having a party!!

 

[Samy1403]

Your analysis is already highly flawed because you are confusing ITAs (invitations) with IRCC’s targets for LANDED IMMIGRANTS (those who have successfully gone through processing AFTER an invitation to apply)

It all falls apart after that.

Well, comparison of immigration target and ITAs is not perfect - but it is fair assumption that ITAs are issued in some proportion of immigration targets. There is no public data available to ascertain that proportion. If you look at immigration plans of previous years and ITAs issued in those years, the difference will tell you that the above analysis still holds.

To further clarify, the data is ITAs issued (doesn't mean landed immigrants) and immigration targets.

 

[Samy1403]

Yeah, this is very optimistic, but unfortunately, unrealistic. You're also assuming that there are only a specified number of CEC candidates they want. That's not the case. 2020's CEC candidate intake was purely driven by covid related travel restrictions. Then daily cases started getting really bad towards december, which likely led to this year's decision to meet the higher goal, by selecting inland candidates not affected by the restrictions. There is nothing to suggest they need to maintain a balance of CEC and FSW candidates.

Everything depends on whether or not the government can step up the pace of the vaccine rollout reasonably quickly. I think we should see FSW draws before September by which time they will have completed the vacccination drive in canada.

You are absolutely right. The analysis does not suggest that IRCC does/will maintain CEC vs. FSW balance. It just tries to project IRCC activities of 2020 into 2021, as both are pandemic years. Now it appears that IRCC (with lessons learned from previous years) does not want to open borders (or start FSW ITAs) till they achieve significant success in vaccinations - which they can get around May/June. Then probably FSW draws may start again. But by that time, high scoring FSW candidates would have piled up and cutoff might not fall below >478 for a long period of time, unless they pull a 27,000-CEC-specific draw stunt.

Probably they do not want to deal with FSW-related expired medical/COPR, etc., issues this year. Hence, they are keeping FSW at bay.

 

[EscoBlades]

Well, comparison of immigration target and ITAs is not perfect - but it is fair assumption that ITAs are issued in some proportion of immigration targets. There is no public data available to ascertain that proportion. If you look at immigration plans of previous years and ITAs issued in those years, the difference will tell you that the above analysis still holds.

To further clarify, the data is ITAs issued (doesn't mean landed immigrants) and immigration targets.

The only link between ITAs and Immigration targets is the fact that more ITAs are issued than expected landed immigrants due to the drop off between the former and the latter. Beyond that, you are comparing apples to oranges; they are two entirely different metrics.

After ITAs are issued, some of that bucket of applicants don't ever accept the application (and either return to the pool or change their aspirations). Then you have those that fail at the R10 stage. Then those who never clear Eligibility. Those that can't produce additional docs in time. The list goes on. A comparison can't be made between invites and landed immigrants simply because the drop off can't ever accurately be measured.

 

[Samy1403]

The only link between ITAs and Immigration targets is the fact that more ITAs are issued than expected landed immigrants due to the drop off between the former and the latter. Beyond that, you are comparing apples to oranges; they are two entirely different metrics.

After ITAs are issued, some of that bucket of applicants don't ever accept the application (and either return to the pool or change their aspirations). Then you have those that fail at the R10 stage. Then those who never clear Eligibility. Those that can't produce additional docs in time. The list goes on. A comparison can't be made between invites and landed immigrants simply because the drop off can't ever accurately be measured.

That's where the assumptions part kick in. Study 2018/2019 immigration plans (landed immigrant can't be ) and ITAs issued against them. 'Estimates'/'projection' are not 100% accurate, but they are used for a reason - there are margins of errors, within that every is safe and accepted.

The only link between ITAs and Immigration targets is the fact that more ITAs are issued than expected landed immigrants due to the drop off between the former and the latter. Beyond that, you are comparing apples to oranges; they are two entirely different metrics.

After ITAs are issued, some of that bucket of applicants don't ever accept the application (and either return to the pool or change their aspirations). Then you have those that fail at the R10 stage. Then those who never clear Eligibility. Those that can't produce additional docs in time. The list goes on. A comparison can't be made between invites and landed immigrants simply because the drop off can't ever accurately be measured.

• "drop off can't ever accurately be measured"
  • That's why these are estimates. Estimates/projections are never meant to be accurate - yet they are used for a reason
  • Study immigration plan (IP) for 2018 or 2019 compare it with ITAs issued for those years - you will have a fair idea of relation between ITAs issued and immigration plan (for your quick referece, in 2019, Federal high skilled target: 81,400 vs. ITAs issued: ~85,300. How significant is the difference?)
    • This was never about landed immigrants anyway - the idea is to extrapolate the previous year's relation between IP and ITAs to 2021
      • So your theory suggesting that this is apples to oranges comparison falls flat here
• The only factor the analysis doesn't count is the IRCC's draw issuing pattern - which is almost impossible to model. That is why, now in the hindsight the above analysis might appear failing, as IRCC has surpassed CEC-specific draws beyond imagination.
• As long as they can get candidates within Canada during Covid, IRCC's life is easier processing them rather than FSW guys
• Nevertheless, I am still hopeful of FSW resuming by May-end, at least.

 

[Samy1403]

Agreed. The starting point for this analysis is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of what the targets actually means.

Agreed that, plans are for landed immigrants and ITAs issued are likely to be on the higher side - direct subtraction is a little off. I would suggest reading 2019 data. Federal high skilled target: 81,400 vs. ITAs issued: ~85,300. How significant is the difference - may be just a draw apart? I don't think that renders the theory invalid. Cheers!!