6 weeks and still no CAP update?

[zardoz]

And that's the issue.. It's 300 complete applications. Nobody can assume that represents 300 successful applications. So, for each of those that fail, a potentially good alternative one will be ignored.

 

[Cappuccino]

And that's the issue.. It's 300 complete applications. Nobody can assume that represents 300 successful applications. So, for each of those that fail, a potentially good alternative one will be ignored.

Yes that is true, of those we must also include some kind of failing completeness check factor. However, I do not believe there are any figures published which show how many applications fail the completeness check.

Indeed, CIC do not even consider an application as having been received if it fails the completeness check, it is returned wholesale, and so CIC don't publish any figures on this, and we therefore have no data to work from in order to make an estimation.

Therefore, it would be a pure guess as to which % of applications on average fail the completeness check. If you want me to guess I'd imagine it would be in the region of 5% to 10%, given most of the applicants do their research via forums such as this, or go via an agent.

So one might saw off 10% of the estimated received applications to guess how many passed the completeness check. This is even more wild guesswork than the initial 2.5% to 5% worldwide total estimate though, since we don't even have historic figures to draw from.

Wayne.

 

[Cappuccino]

There's one more witty school of thought to this -
CIC says - lets examine all the applications and charge them the initial processing fee. After the PER is complete, we are no longer obliged to refund the initial fee.

That would be going against their own operating procedures. I believe it would be completely illegal for them to take and keep a processing fee knowing full well that an application did not fall within the cap and that they could not possibly be processing it.

Please also bare in mind, that an application after completeness check also has 2 eligibility reviews (one at CIO and another at the visa office) before the applicant can no longer receive a refund.

Wayne.

 

[Hasni]

Well one only has to look at the FSW 2013 spreadsheet to be able to draw conclusions.

What I will say is that I when was an administrator of the June 2010 spreadsheet, our spreadsheet members represented around 2.5% of the global figure.

There is a NOC analysis in the spreadsheet which is useful, however I think the 5% assumption is a little generous (of course, we don't know for sure). But I would think 2.5% is more realistic.

Take 2.5%, this means multiply each of those NOC numbers by 40 to get the worldwide total.
If you want to go for the more optimistic 5%, then multiple those numbers by 20 to get the worldwide total.



Let's try half way, and multiply the number of our forum applicants by 30 in each NOC in order to estimate a worldwide total. The actual numbers in that case might look like this:

The numbers are NOC, applications sent on our spreadsheet, estimated total worldwide applications (* 30)

2174 66 1980
1112 50 1500
2147 40 1200
2132 29 870
211 18 540
2131 15 450
2263 11 330
3142 5 150
3211 3 90
3212 2 60
3215 1 30
2113 1 30
3216 1 30
2145 1 30
2243 1 30
3143 1 30
2154 0 0
2134 0 0
2143 0 0
2144 0 0
2146 0 0
3141 0 0
3214 0 0
3217 0 0


You must understand this is all guesswork, but it's reasonable to assume that those NOCs highlight in red are either already full, or certainly must be close by now. I would say NOCs 2174, 1122 and 2147 are definitely full.

Wayne.

Interesting, you mean the day you are posting, status would look like this. This way the ones which are over 1000 would have been caped around three weeks back, like in May last week !! I am bit surprised on 211, it wasn't less hot either but your calculations show it otherwise, nice work anyways.

 

[Vats]

Interesting, you mean the day you are posting, status would look like this. This way the ones which are over 1000 would have been caped around three weeks back, like in May last week !! I am bit surprised on 211, it wasn't less hot either but your calculations show it otherwise, nice work anyways.

its really useful
and if more and more members joined in that it will be near to actual