zam7 said:
Yes I did read and I quoted both!
Here's the quote again (as you say the bottom 2 points were raised):
"You do not have to show that you have these funds if:
you have a valid offer of arranged employment in Canada AND
you are currently working or authorized to work in Canada."
Did you read and understand the word AND?
It has to satisfy both conditions and not either one. It doesn't say OR but "you have a valid offer of arranged employment in Canada (which in simple words means LMIA) AND authorized to work in Canada (a work permit).
How is it different to what I said earlier? Please stop misleading people! Cheers!
You probably don't understand the statement.
So answer the question.
The qoute says if you have a valid job offer and authorized to work OR currently working in Canada?
There is no point arguing with you.
I have those who have applied FSW inland with payslips and less than required funds and given PR.
No point arguing with you. I feel it's rational enough.
The premise for CEC not showing funds clearly applies to FSW inland.
But people are usually very scared especially when they encounter people like you overblowing requirements.
Let's pass on this