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

[rgb]

That is very good news. So far we have had more applicants in February getting MR than in January already. I'm doing my MR on Tuesday. Hopefully I can get PR before my visa expires in June . Felicitaciones!

Thank you TyrusX. I'm pretty sure you will get your PR before June. My theory is that you usually get passport request within 3 months after medical request (does anyone have info about this?). So you should expect passport request in March or April. After that, you can get your passport back in 3 weeks and do the landing
Most of my friends got passport request 40 days after medical request.
Good luck!!

 

[rgb]

Thanks for sharing One more thing: is the money actually here in Canada, or did you use a bank statement from a bank back home?

It's hard to say whether they consider the 6 months bank statement transaction history that you sent before they requested it. I would have thought that they would, but after TyrusX mentioned that he only included one month transaction history, and he did NOT get requested to submit additional bank statement history, it's hard to say.

Thanks, rgb Did you have the money all in Canadian accounts(s)?

Yes

 

[rgb]

Yes

You should be getting MR soon

 

[TyrusX]

Thanks for sharing One more thing: is the money actually here in Canada, or did you use a bank statement from a bank back home?

It's hard to say whether they consider the 6 months bank statement transaction history that you sent before they requested it. I would have thought that they would, but after TyrusX mentioned that he only included one month transaction history, and he did NOT get requested to submit additional bank statement history, it's hard to say.

Thanks, rgb Did you have the money all in Canadian accounts(s)?

Oh. I remembered one detail. The money I presented from back home didn't change from when I applied to get my Student Visa back in 2009. So they may have compared the data of the two applications and decided it was not necessary further requests

 

[asbereth]

Oh. I remembered one detail. The money I presented from back home didn't change from when I applied to get my Student Visa back in 2009. So they may have compared the data of the two applications and decided it was not necessary further requests

Ya, that's probably why you could get away with just a single month's statement from your Canadian account. They probably noted the consistency in your bank account(s) and the amount, and did not notice anything suspicious or extraordinary from your activities.

I mean, you just have to show that the money is yours, not that you have to have had the money for over 6 months. If they have no reason to doubt that the money is yours, even if you just get it yesterday (though if you just get the money right after they request it, then it will look suspicious), technically speaking it should be fine, which is why the 6 month transaction history is never meant as something that's mandatory.

Yes

Thanks, man. It's still premature to say this, but based on what we've seen so far, I think if you have all of your money in a Canadian account, and you submitted a 6-month bank statement history, which showed you never went under the balance for even a single day, then it may be likely you would not get requested for further verification. Can anybody here contradict that?

 

[utopie]

Ok guys I met with an immigration consultant but I'm still not sure as to which course of action I should take.
He told me to ask the human resources department of the university where I am currently as a prof to write an official letter restating that my conditional full-time employment (which goes until August 15 of this year) will become a full-time permanent position otherwise known as a arranged employment offer as soon as I am granted my PhD along with all the details that an arranged employment offer contain (salary, etc..).
He said to attach my current job contract (stating that sai-position will turn permanent) along with the LMO which the university was granted in order to get the work permit under which I am currently working. Finally, he thinks that I should write a letter requesting the VO to waive the required funds and instead accept the arranged employment. I should also tell them that I will provide them with the official arranged employment letter once my PhD is completed. Finally he said that I should state that I have worked and lived in Canada for 8 years, that I have always been employed. I was also thinking of adding that they can put my application on hold until that time if deemed suitable and a finish by saying that if they cannot accept the documentation I would like to withdraw my application since I was unable to maintain the funds as an international student (the truth).


He concluded by saying that I might very well have a shot BUT, huge "but" that made me turn cold, the case officer could also say that I misrepresented myself with the funds which means I would not be allowed to apply for PR for 2 years. Now that scared me big time! I don't know anymore:I am not willing to take such a huge risk.

What to do? :-[

 

[asbereth]

Ok guys I met with an immigration consultant but I'm still not sure as to which course of action I should take.
He told me to ask the human resources department of the university where I am currently as a prof to write an official letter restating that my conditional full-time employment (which goes until August 15 of this year) will become a full-time permanent position otherwise known as a arranged employment offer as soon as I am granted my PhD along with all the details that an arranged employment offer contain (salary, etc..).
He said to attach my current job contract (stating that sai-position will turn permanent) along with the LMO which the university was granted in order to get the work permit under which I am currently working. Finally, he thinks that I should write a letter requesting the VO to waive the required funds and instead accept the arranged employment. I should also tell them that I will provide them with the official arranged employment letter once my PhD is completed. Finally he said that I should state that I have worked and lived in Canada for 8 years, that I have always been employed. I was also thinking of adding that they can put my application on hold until that time if deemed suitable and a finish by saying that if they cannot accept the documentation I would like to withdraw my application since I was unable to maintain the funds as an international student (the truth).

You probably already mentioned this somewhere, but did you get the conditional offer of arranged employment before or after you submitted your application? If you got your conditional offer AFTER you submitted your application, then it's probably not a good idea to try to make them accept it right now. They would probably advice you to just submit a new application, along with the job offer letter and the LMO.

If you got it before you applied, then you could probably argue that what you're doing regarding your funds should not be considered a misrepresentation, since you technically have already waived the proof of funds requirements by the time you applied, and the bank statement you submitted was just an extra information that they technically would not need (anyway, this is NOT an expert's advice, so treat it not as such).

The most risk free course of action would be obviously to just submit a new application, but this time, also include your job contract and LMO, so you're considered to have secured an arranged employment (which would waive the proof of funds requirements).

 

[utopie]

You probably already mentioned this somewhere, but did you get the conditional offer of arranged employment before or after you submitted your application? If you got your conditional offer AFTER you submitted your application, then it's probably not a good idea to try to make them accept it right now. They would probably advice you to just submit a new application, along with the job offer letter and the LMO.

If you got it before you applied, then you could probably argue that what you're doing regarding your funds should not be considered a misrepresentation, since you technically have already waived the proof of funds requirements by the time you applied, and the bank statement you submitted was just an extra information that they technically would not need (anyway, this is NOT an expert's advice, so treat it not as such).

The most risk free course of action would be obviously to just submit a new application, but this time, also include your job contract and LMO, so you're considered to have secured an arranged employment (which would waive the proof of funds requirements).

It was after I applied. I also think it's too complicated a letter to read. What I will do though is write an email to them in March before the deadline requesting they waive the funds because my work status is going to change within the next 2 months (I'm defending early May), which is is what the call centre agent told me to do although he could not let me know whether it would work. 1. I am getting an arranged employment when I finish my program (copy of contract along with official HR letter), 2. I am defending/completing my thesis in May (official letter from my supervisors and department secretary)
If they cannot accept the documentation I want to withdraw my application. And that's it.

 

[TyrusX]

It was after I applied. I also think it's too complicated a letter to read. What I will do though is write an email to them in March before the deadline requesting they waive the funds because my work status is going to change within the next 2 months (I'm defending early May), which is is what the call centre agent told me to do although he could not let me know whether it would work. 1. I am getting an arranged employment when I finish my program (copy of contract along with official HR letter), 2. I am defending/completing my thesis in May (official letter from my supervisors and department secretary)
If they cannot accept the documentation I want to withdraw my application. And that's it.

In this case I don't think it matter if you got your offer of employment after the submissions. This is one of those event changing things that would not affect negatively your application. I think you should write a letter asking the visa officer opinion about the inclusion or not of your arranged employment immediately.

 

[asbereth]

In this case I don't think it matter if you got your offer of employment after the submissions. This is one of those event changing things that would not affect negatively your application. I think you should write a letter asking the visa officer opinion about the inclusion or not of your arranged employment immediately.

The way I see it, they would only consider your conditions at the time of applications. There may have been anectodes here and there where conditions after time of application are considered (phdapplicant being the first one to come to mind), but they are rare, and exceptional (they won't even, for example, consider extra work experience after the time of submission).

Of course, her case is a different case, and if she's willing to take the risk of being labelled misrepresentation (IMO, I really don't think it's an issue, though you never know what they may do, proceed with caution) , then I too would advise her to do as the lawyer said (though, while waiting, it's probably still a good idea to prepare a completely new application; maybe get like two copies of the LMO letters or something that you can use to submit with the new application).

 

[TyrusX]

The way I see it, they would only consider your conditions at the time of applications. There may have been anectodes here and there where conditions after time of application are considered (phdapplicant being the first one to come to mind), but they are rare, and exceptional (they won't even, for example, consider extra work experience after the time of submission).

Of course, her case is a different case, and if she's willing to take the risk of being labelled misrepresentation (IMO, I really don't think it's an issue, though you never know what they may do, proceed with caution) , then I too would advise her to do as the lawyer said (though, while waiting, it's probably still a good idea to prepare a completely new application; maybe get like two copies of the LMO letters or something that you can use to submit with the new application).

It may be the case that another application could be better. I was looking the OP6 and I will have to do some more research to say for sure.

 

[utopie]

It may be the case that another application could be better. I was looking the OP6 and I will have to do some more research to say for sure.

I had no idea what you were talking about when you said "OP6" until I got a flash of recognition. You mean operating manual 6 and section 10.3 right?

R76(3) makes possible substituted evaluation by an officer. This authority may be used if an
officer believes the point total is not a sufficient indicator of whether or not the applicant may
become economically established in Canada.
Substituted evaluation is to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The scope of what an officer
might consider as relevant cannot be limited by a prescribed list of factors to be used in support of
exercising substituted evaluation. There are any number and combination of considerations that
an officer might cite as being pertinent to assessing, as per the wording of R76(3): “. . . the
likelihood of the ability of the skilled worker to become economically established in Canada. . . .”
Frequency of use will vary from visa office to visa office, as some will find in their caseloads more
situations of disconnect between the point total and establishment prospects than will others. The
fact that the applicant “almost attained” a pass mark is not, in itself, grounds to recommend the
use of substituted evaluation. Rather, the officer needs to identify and document the facts
demonstrating that the points awarded are not a sufficient indicator of the applicant's ability to
become economically established in Canada.
For legal clarity, officers should employ the terms used in legislation, such as “substituted
evaluation” or “ability to become economically established.”

Sorry for the long jargon-filled post

So pretty much he/she might decided whether or not it is acceptable. It all depends on the case officer.
Thanks for the help guys! Very much appreciated

 

[TyrusX]

I had no idea what you were talking about when you said "OP6" until I got a flash of recognition. You mean operating manual 6 and section 10.3 right?

R76(3) makes possible substituted evaluation by an officer. This authority may be used if an
officer believes the point total is not a sufficient indicator of whether or not the applicant may
become economically established in Canada.
Substituted evaluation is to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The scope of what an officer
might consider as relevant cannot be limited by a prescribed list of factors to be used in support of
exercising substituted evaluation. There are any number and combination of considerations that
an officer might cite as being pertinent to assessing, as per the wording of R76(3): “. . . the
likelihood of the ability of the skilled worker to become economically established in Canada. . . .”
Frequency of use will vary from visa office to visa office, as some will find in their caseloads more
situations of disconnect between the point total and establishment prospects than will others. The
fact that the applicant “almost attained” a pass mark is not, in itself, grounds to recommend the
use of substituted evaluation. Rather, the officer needs to identify and document the facts
demonstrating that the points awarded are not a sufficient indicator of the applicant's ability to
become economically established in Canada.
For legal clarity, officers should employ the terms used in legislation, such as “substituted
evaluation” or “ability to become economically established.”

Sorry for the long jargon-filled post

So pretty much he/she might decided whether or not it is acceptable. It all depends on the case officer.
Thanks for the help guys! Very much appreciated

Yep. It is actually overseas procedures 06. Also:

Selection criteria - Settlement funds
In addition to the selection factors stated in R76(1)(a), the applicant must also have sufficient funds available for settlement in Canada pursuant to R76(1)(b)(i). This requirement is waived if the applicant has an offer of arranged employment as defined in R82.

But this is normally the case only for the AEO stream. But you may be able to argue that since the job offer already exist, that this could also apply to your case. ALSO:

Note: Pursuant to R76(3), subsituted evaluation (Section 10.2) cannot be used to override a refusal due to insufficent funds.

which may make that impossible. It is a very trick situation indeed.

 

[asbereth]

Yep. It is actually overseas procedures 06. Also:
But this is normally the case only for the AEO stream. But you may be able to argue that since the job offer already exist, that this could also apply to your case. ALSO:
which may make that impossible. It is a very trick situation indeed.

The thing is, she is not yet refused on the ground of insufficient funds, so it is still probably worth trying. Though obviously, while waiting for them to reconsider the LMO, she should probably try to prepare for a completely new application as well. I'm still wondering though, why exactly would the lawyer tell her that there is a risk of misrepresentation if she does it.

 

[TyrusX]

Also have to study:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf02-eng.pdf