ALL ABOUT GCMS - HOW TO ORDER, READ, & GENERAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED

[ptitfemme]

Hi @legalfalcon could you please shed more light on review required for job duties please.

 

[ptitfemme]

Do you mean you attached your cash salary certificate?

What does the notes of the Program Assistant say? It's usually the first note, or the note before the Case Processing Agent's.

I have recently seen a similar case in AVO.

Docs submitted for work experience: Reference letter, employment letter and cash salary certificate for the two roles
Here's the link to the Program Assistant note: https://ibb.co/Hq7kkZZ
Subsequent notes after this and that of the case analyst are just CSE's I raised. What was the issue with the other case?
Thank you

 

[Akin01]

You have to understand that the info sharing is done to find the criminal incidents of an applicant or know if an individual is wanted is for any criminal, human rights, or money laundering cases. Info sharing is very minimal and has privacy concerns, so only info of substantial nature is shared, not previous visa applications or statements to via officials.

See https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements.html

Hi Legal Falcon, Sir, have you seen such cases like this before..

 

[legalfalcon]

Hi @legalfalcon could you please shed more light on review required for job duties please.

My post on RR:


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.

There are just some of the scenarios.

Hope this helps.

 

[Mike@2019]

Docs submitted for work experience: Reference letter, employment letter and cash salary certificate for the two roles
Here's the link to the Program Assistant note: https://ibb.co/Hq7kkZZ
Subsequent notes after this and that of the case analyst are just CSE's I raised. What was the issue with the other case?
Thank you

I don't see any concerns in the Program Assistant's notes.

The case i was referring to was for @dypo

Maybe you should contact him/her to find out how his/her case is progressing. I think he/she was also paid in cash.

 

[legalfalcon]

Hi Legal Falcon, Sir, have you seen such cases like this before..

I have explained it to you, misrepresentation only happens when there is something material which was hidden when it was disclosed, or when you had an obligation to disclose and you didn't.

Misrepresentation

• 40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
  • (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
  • (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation;
  • (c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow their claim for refugee protection or application for protection; or
  • (d) on ceasing to be a citizen under
    • (i) paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the coming into force of section 8 of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before that coming into force,
    • (ii) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act, or
    • (iii) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act.
• Marginal note:

What you said or did in another country is immaterial for your current application.

 

[Mike@2019]

Docs submitted for work experience: Reference letter, employment letter and cash salary certificate for the two roles
Here's the link to the Program Assistant note: https://ibb.co/Hq7kkZZ
Subsequent notes after this and that of the case analyst are just CSE's I raised. What was the issue with the other case?
Thank you

I don't think you should worry though. From what @legalfalcon said, I see there's a Ready to Finalise in the agent's note. And also, you FSW is assessed as 68 which is above the minimum.

 

[YouGotMeHere]

Docs submitted for work experience: Reference letter, employment letter and cash salary certificate for the two roles
Here's the link to the Program Assistant note: https://ibb.co/Hq7kkZZ
Subsequent notes after this and that of the case analyst are just CSE's I raised. What was the issue with the other case?
Thank you

Most of the cash salary cases that I have seen since March'20 being dealt under ACCRA are struck either under RR or Recomend Interview. There hasn't been much progress with either of those cases in lieu of the CoVID delay. Never the less, I don't see any alarming concerns based on the last notes. What does your Info sharing say? In progress / Error or Complete?

 

[ptitfemme]

Thank you @legalfalcon @YouGotMeHere @Mike@2019 your inputs have been encouraging. I guess I would wait for the Officer's review and order another GCMS notes after awhile if the interview invitation doesn't come

 

[Mpsadr3239rr]

Hi friends.
Having received my GCMS note, I need some help to comprehend a part of it.
In the section titled "notes", the officer's text is not really clear.
Created date: ....
Update date: ....
Restricted: No
Lable: General
Office: CPC-Ottawa
Text: **OFFICER REVIEW** I
What does this "I" mean?

 

[legalfalcon]

Hi friends.
Having received my GCMS note, I need some help to comprehend a part of it.
In the section titled "notes", the officer's text is not really clear.
Created date: ....
Update date: ....
Restricted: No
Lable: General
Office: CPC-Ottawa
Text: **OFFICER REVIEW** I
What does this "I" mean?

Is the note redacted, do you see s15 / 16 in the top right side of the page this note is on.

 

[Mpsadr3239rr]

Is the note redacted, do you see s15 / 16 in the top right side of the page this note is on.

Yes. There are s15 and s16 in the top right side of this page.

 

[legalfalcon]

Yes. There are s15 and s16 in the top right side of this page.

So it is a redacted note, i.e. the information in there has been redacted. See https://bit.ly/2PpqH16

What you see as "I" is the start of the redacted portion. What does your assessment on page 2 of the notes say?

 

[kiniri]

The analyst is simply stating that he / she was able to verify 419 CRS points. This is why you have review required, and it will be upon the officer to make a final determination on the issue.

Reporting one of my old posts here:

Thank you so much for the help. I resent letters of experience with job duties mentioned. Hopefully that should help.

 

[legalfalcon]

Thank you so much for the help. I resent letters of experience with job duties mentioned. Hopefully that should help.

It will help alleviate any concerns that may be there. All the best!