Applicant from PhD program after 5 Nov, 2011 connect here to get status

[informer2000]

Hi All,

I'm sorry to see all the recent disappointing news from Ottawa. And I hope that all the appeals get accepted.

For someone who is applying now, would it be better to send a cover letter from the beginning along with the application explicitly referring to OP-6b and that we should be awarded the 5 adaptability points? Relating to this, what about questions 7 and 8 in the Schedule-3 form? Should any of them be answered with a "yes"? The only logical answer to me is "no" since they mention completing a program in 7 and full-time in 8. Neither should apply to a PhD student who did not earn a master's degree in Canada.

And for the PhD stream, will the counter be reset in July along with other FSW categories or will that be in November?

 

[TyrusX]

I was talking to a friend today about this whole immigration thing. In their immigration website they say that Canada welcomes everyone, and then they set up all these limitations and complicated rules that turn people down......This friend I was talking with, his aunt applied almost 6, 7 years ago. And now they're returning all the unprocessed applications before 2008...She was qualified when she applied, but now the rules have changed and she's beyond the age of 49 thus no longer qualifies...It's bad that they gave people hope and kept them waiting for so long, only to tell them sorry we cannot let you in anymore...

See, Canada is a country, it is not a charity, it cannot and it will not receive everyone. They need people capable of working and improving their own society and that are young enough to contribute for many years. If you check this forum, you are going to see that many immigrate just go take advantage of the system, get PR and return home immediately. It is totally reasonable that they look forward to accepting younger people instead of old. Remember, they have to put their own people first. And given the amount of homeless people I see everyday, sometimes I think they are failing even doing that.

 

[TyrusX]

Hi All,

I'm sorry to see all the recent disappointing news from Ottawa. And I hope that all the appeals get accepted.

For someone who is applying now, would it be better to send a cover letter from the beginning along with the application explicitly referring to OP-6b and that we should be awarded the 5 adaptability points? Relating to this, what about questions 7 and 8 in the Schedule-3 form? Should any of them be answered with a "yes"? The only logical answer to me is "no" since they mention completing a program in 7 and full-time in 8. Neither should apply to a PhD student who did not earn a master's degree in Canada.

And for the PhD stream, will the counter be reset in July along with other FSW categories or will that be in November?

Yes, put a cover letter explaining that. Show that you know the rules. It will be reset in November or when the cap is reached. I think we are going to reach it by September.

 

[snow_walker]

See, Canada is a country, it is not a charity, it cannot and it will not receive everyone. They need people capable of working and improving their own society and that are young enough to contribute for many years. If you check this forum, you are going to see that many immigrate just go take advantage of the system, get PR and return home immediately. It is totally reasonable that they look forward to accepting younger people instead of old. Remember, they have to put their own people first. And given the amount of homeless people I see everyday, sometimes I think they are failing even doing that.

100% agreed with TyrusX. Getting Canadian PR is a privilege. Each PR will be benefited from Canada and I believe, Canada doesn't gain anything from majority of the PRs. In my community, I know at least 250 PR families who contributes NOTHING to Canadian economy. I am talking about the group who are 35+ and got PR from outside Canada. Most of the successful immigrants are the students with Canadian degree and job. Aside from the humanitarian concern, I don't see a point of bringing a 2004 applicant in Canada. I am quite sure, 95% of that group will find it EXTREMELY difficult to contribute in Canadian economy. We should be realistic. Canada is certainly not a charity. So, please stop whining about their immigration system. SHARE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP OTHER APPLICANTS.

 

[Brit_Immigrant]

100% agreed with TyrusX. Getting Canadian PR is a privilege. Each PR will be benefited from Canada and I believe, Canada doesn't gain anything from majority of the PRs. In my community, I know at least 250 PR families who contributes NOTHING to Canadian economy. I am talking about the group who are 35+ and got PR from outside Canada. Most of the successful immigrants are the students with Canadian degree and job. Aside from the humanitarian concern, I don't see a point of bringing a 2004 applicant in Canada. I am quite sure, 95% of that group will find it EXTREMELY difficult to contribute in Canadian economy. We should be realistic. Canada is certainly not a charity. So, please stop whining about their immigration system. SHARE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP OTHER APPLICANTS.

I completely agree with you two.

 

[asbereth]

I can understand where the Canadian government is coming from, and indeed, the fastest LEGAL way to overcome the backlog issue is obviously to get rid of it (they technically and legally can just reject any applications they want for any reasons (or lack thereof) they can come up with; returning applications obviously is too within their rights, even if the applications are eligible and the applicants admissible).

And while I agree that nobody is forcing these applicants to choose Canada, they also wouldn't apply to begin with if they didn't think they were eligible. Yes it is understandable that the government would prefer young and Canadian educated immigrants, but a lot of these applicants were young too when they applied (and nobody can stop the passage of time obviously). I feel that, while it is obviously still within their rights to return, reject, or deny applications for any reasons, it is not right to make applicants wait for, say, 5 years AFTER being told they were eligible for processing, only to later return their applications because they were considered an excess.

In my opinion, the Canadian government is at least partially responsible for allowing this to happen in the first place. Have they really been that understaffed to deal with the situation? They have obviously underestimated the resources required to deal with hundreds of thousands of applications that would respond to the point system (credit to them for issuing the ministerial instructions in response to the backlog issue [though I still remember how devastated I was when they issued MI-2]).

Ah well, life goes on, and in the grand scheme of things, Canada does not owe any of these 3 lakhs applicants anything. Most likely Canada won't gain anything by allowing these people to become PR's. What else can we (and they) do, given such circumstances?

Anyway, this is just my opinion, by the way, and I hope I haven't offended anybody. And sorry for going off-topic.

For someone who is applying now, would it be better to send a cover letter from the beginning along with the application explicitly referring to OP-6b and that we should be awarded the 5 adaptability points? Relating to this, what about questions 7 and 8 in the Schedule-3 form? Should any of them be answered with a "yes"? The only logical answer to me is "no" since they mention completing a program in 7 and full-time in 8. Neither should apply to a PhD student who did not earn a master's degree in Canada.

That's where the ambiguity lies, I guess, especially concerning the 5 adaptability points for previous study. If it is true that everyone that has completed two years of study is eligible for these 5 points, then whether you answer 'yes' or 'no' on question 7 should not matter.

It should not matter whether you have completed the program or not, and the awarding of the 5 adaptability points should be independent on whether the applicants answer 'yes' or 'no' for this question. But then again, the wording of the instruction guide is so ambiguous (because it does mention you have to complete, but a degree is not required) that it can go either way. So I guess we'll see whether or not Ottawa will agree with the more favorable interpretation.

Hopefully, we'll hear the good news from phdapplicant and Dani1982 soon

 

[hamed_hamed]

Referring to OP-6b :
For previous studies:
They said "completed a program of full-time study of at least two years" and then they say "simply to have completed at
least two years of study."

This is very unclear!

For previous work:
they say "for a minimum of one year of full-time work in Canada on a
valid work permit "

Again this can be interpreted as only full-time work is eligible!

 

[asbereth]

Referring to OP-6b :
For previous studies:
They said "completed a program of full-time study of at least two years" and then they say "simply to have completed at
least two years of study."

This is very unclear!

I agree. They say that the program needs to be completed, but simply having completed at least two years of the program is enough, and a degree is not required. So apparently, they seem to be of the opinion that it is possible to complete a post-secondary program without obtaining any degree or credential at the end, but the wording gives the impression that only having completed two years of a program is enough. This is the part that I'm confused the most.

For previous work:
they say "for a minimum of one year of full-time work in Canada on a
valid work permit "

Well, on this one I'm not really confused as it is stated that it needs to be a valid work permit, and most of us have only worked using our study permit in Canada.

 

[EH2010]

Hello there,
Please add my information in the spreadsheet:

Application reached CIO: Nov. 15th
Encashed: Jan 10th
PER issued (CIO): March 15th
Current eCAS status: In process
No. of persons in the application: 1
TA/RA Experience: Included+other
Request "A letter of reference from the university, including job duties, hours worked and salary": June, 5th
(I included the same letter in my documentations at first but they requested it again !!!)
Nationality: Iran

 

[Luigiovemma]

And while I agree that nobody is forcing these applicants to choose Canada, they also wouldn't apply to begin with if they didn't think they were eligible. Yes it is understandable that the government would prefer young and Canadian educated immigrants, but a lot of these applicants were young too when they applied (and nobody can stop the passage of time obviously). I feel that, while it is obviously still within their rights to return, reject, or deny applications for any reasons, it is not right to make applicants wait for, say, 5 years AFTER being told they were eligible for processing, only to later return their applications because they were considered an excess.

In my opinion, the Canadian government is at least partially responsible for allowing this to happen in the first place. Have they really been that understaffed to deal with the situation? They have obviously underestimated the resources required to deal with hundreds of thousands of applications that would respond to the point system (credit to them for issuing the ministerial instructions in response to the backlog issue [though I still remember how devastated I was when they issued MI-2]).

Sorry that I brought this up...I didn't mean to "whining" about it, it's more of the conversation with my friend got me thinking. I agree with you asbereth that the government should have learnt by now that they need to have a better allocation of resources and staff to process the application. I just feel that if they cannot handle so many applicants in a timely fashion, maybe they shouldn't receive so many applications at the first place. Anyways, I should have spoken in a more positive tone

Speaking of that 5 adaptability points, indeed it's very confusing and frustrating. Actually I heard that the staff from our university international student center also suggest students who depend on this 5 points should withhold for a while till it's all clear out. I guess it's now "clear" in Sydney but seems they don't quite communicate with Ottawa...Hopefully we can hear some positive news soon.

Have a good weekend everyone.

 

[moonbow2010]

Just my 2 cents.

To those intend to apply with work experience especially non-TA/RA one, be very specific on your letters of reference.

I have seen somes cases on this forum rejected due to mismatching of job duties. Main may face the same problem of not detailed enough to match 60% of their essential duties. Be sure to include other supporting docs as many as possible so that to prove your proficiency.

I have seen some people under this stream depending entirely on their foreign work experience to fetch points.

Let's hope all of us having the good luck.

 

[GeoCanadian]

Just my 2 cents.

To those intend to apply with work experience especially non-TA/RA one, be very specific on your letters of reference.

I have seen somes cases on this forum rejected due to mismatching of job duties. Main may face the same problem of not detailed enough to match 60% of their essential duties. Be sure to include other supporting docs as many as possible so that to prove your proficiency.

I have seen some people under this stream depending entirely on their foreign work experience to fetch points.

Let's hope all of us having the good luck.

Yes, it is very important for the reference letters to substantiate what you claim as your job duties. Equally important is to describe your job duties in the "Schedule 3" closely in line with HRSDC description of the NOC your job falls under. Here are couple of examples from my application that may be useful to the new applicants:

1)NOC4166 description by HRSDC: "Education policy researchers, consultants and program officers perform some or all of the following duties:
•Conduct research, produce reports and administer education policies and programs
•Evaluate curriculum programs and recommend improvements
•Develop the structure, content and objectives of new programs
•Conduct statistical analyses to determine cost and effectiveness of education policies and programs
•Provide ongoing professional development, training and consultative services to teachers and other professionals throughout the public and private sector
•Develop teaching materials and other resources for program delivery
•Deliver presentations at conferences, workshops and symposia
•May supervise the work of other education policy researchers, consultants or program officers
•May administer specialized testing and assessment programs."

My wording: "Expert-consultant, Edu.: >Provide consulting services in developing structure, content & policies of new prog's; >assist institutions to prepare for 3rd party accreditations; >provide prof. development workshops to various professionals."

2)NOC4011 description by HRSDC: "University professors and lecturers perform some or all of the following duties:
•Teach one or more university subjects to undergraduate and graduate students
•Prepare and deliver lectures to students and conduct laboratory sessions or discussion groups
•Prepare, administer and grade examinations, laboratory assignments and reports
•Advise students on course and academic matters and career decisions
•Direct research programs of graduate students and advise on research matters
•Conduct research in field of specialization and publish findings in scholarly journals or books
•May serve on faculty committees dealing with such matters as curriculum planning and degree requirements, and perform a variety of administrative duties
•May represent their universities as speakers and guest lecturers
•May provide professional consultative services to government, industry and private individuals.
University professors and lecturers specialize in a particular subject matter such as biology, chemistry, anatomy, sociology, business administration or law."

My wording: "F/T University Faculty: Taught graduate and undergraduate business courses; >prepared & delivered lectures; >designed, administered & graded exams & assignments; >supervised Master's thesis; >provide consultative services to org's; >worked in committees."

good luck...

 

[moonbow2010]

Yes, it is very important for the reference letters to substantiate what you claim as your job duties. Equally important is to describe your job duties in the "Schedule 3" closely in line with HRSDC description of the NOC your job falls under. Here are couple of examples from my application that may be useful to the new applicants:

1)NOC4166 description by HRSDC: "Education policy researchers, consultants and program officers perform some or all of the following duties:
•Conduct research, produce reports and administer education policies and programs
•Evaluate curriculum programs and recommend improvements
•Develop the structure, content and objectives of new programs
•Conduct statistical analyses to determine cost and effectiveness of education policies and programs
•Provide ongoing professional development, training and consultative services to teachers and other professionals throughout the public and private sector
•Develop teaching materials and other resources for program delivery
•Deliver presentations at conferences, workshops and symposia
•May supervise the work of other education policy researchers, consultants or program officers
•May administer specialized testing and assessment programs."

My wording: "Expert-consultant, Edu.: >Provide consulting services in developing structure, content & policies of new prog's; >assist institutions to prepare for 3rd party accreditations; >provide prof. development workshops to various professionals."

2)NOC4011 description by HRSDC: "University professors and lecturers perform some or all of the following duties:
•Teach one or more university subjects to undergraduate and graduate students
•Prepare and deliver lectures to students and conduct laboratory sessions or discussion groups
•Prepare, administer and grade examinations, laboratory assignments and reports
•Advise students on course and academic matters and career decisions
•Direct research programs of graduate students and advise on research matters
•Conduct research in field of specialization and publish findings in scholarly journals or books
•May serve on faculty committees dealing with such matters as curriculum planning and degree requirements, and perform a variety of administrative duties
•May represent their universities as speakers and guest lecturers
•May provide professional consultative services to government, industry and private individuals.
University professors and lecturers specialize in a particular subject matter such as biology, chemistry, anatomy, sociology, business administration or law."

My wording: "F/T University Faculty: Taught graduate and undergraduate business courses; >prepared & delivered lectures; >designed, administered & graded exams & assignments; >supervised Master's thesis; >provide consultative services to org's; >worked in committees."

good luck...

Thanks, man. It is a paradox. If the letter of reference is written by your boss, it is hard to match similar wording of NOC. To some extent, it will be self-serving.

I just feel sorry for Dani1982 not being awarded any points for his foreign work experience.

 

[moonbow2010]

Have any of guys who got refused thought of ordering CAIPS?

Plus, those of you can also appeal with CIC or appeal of Federal Court within 60 days.

 

[tahhiir]

A small query, I have applied on 18 May, got PER on 4th June. I got letter from CIC. I didn't include my email so everything is by post. Does it mean that they will not put my record on ECAS?

I cannot open my status on ECAS. How long does it take, if it will come?