According to: http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/eng/labourmarket/ojf/pdf/6252_e.pdfAn update to the National Occupational Classification system between 2006 and 2011 resulted in a
change to the occupational code for this occupation. However, the nature of the occupational group is the
same. The new code is:
• 6332 Bakers
TeddyXYZ said:Both of them are baker NOC, 6252 is an old one. If you are applying for CEC as a baker use the one indicated on your LMO/LMIA.
Baker
(NOC 6332 & 6252)
thank you for the info.. and by the way.. if i write to my application the old one it is possible that my application will be refused...
chad_wapu said:Yes, the chance for your refusal would be very high due to an incorrect NOC number (such cases were here on this forum). You have to use the current NOC numbers.TeddyXYZ said:Both of them are baker NOC, 6252 is an old one. If you are applying for CEC as a baker use the one indicated on your LMO/LMIA.
Baker
(NOC 6332 & 6252)
thank you for the info.. and by the way.. if i write to my application the old one it is possible that my application will be refused...
No - CIC is fully aware of the existence of NOC 2006 and NOC 2011 codes, both are valid, but you should use NOC 2011 on your application. It won't matter that the NOC 2006 code is on your work permit, the VO will completely understand that.nov1061 said:Yes, the chance for your refusal would be very high due to an incorrect NOC number (such cases were here on this forum). You have to use the current NOC numbers.
Hi,jes_ON said:No - CIC is fully aware of the existence of NOC 2006 and NOC 2011 codes, both are valid, but you should use NOC 2011 on your application. It won't matter that the NOC 2006 code is on your work permit, the VO will completely understand that.
Refusals for incorrect NOC codes are for codes that don't match the job duties, or other inconsistencies with the application, indicating that the applicant may be trying to "upskill" his or her NOC from an ineligible C/D level...
I have not seen that. And if the VO did make that error - it would be an error on the VO's part, and the applicant could appeal the decision.nov1061 said:Hi,
it's not completely true otherwise I wouldn't mentioned it. I've seen cases on this forum being refused exactly for using the NOC 2006 code instead of the current one (2011). I know the VO should be aware about all stuff you have just mentioned here, but in reality it may be different. It's my last intention to get someone scarred.
Yes, I agree with you and it make sense, but who would like to go trough an appealing process.jes_ON said:I have not seen that. And if the VO did make that error - it would be an error on the VO's part, and the applicant could appeal the decision.
As always, if in doubt, you can include a letter of explanation.