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

[TyrusX]

They never awarded those 5 points to anyone that didn't have a previous degree in Canada.

 

[asbereth]

They never awarded those 5 points to anyone that didn't have a previous degree in Canada.

The rule has changed. If you compare the old (OP6B) and the new wording (OP6C), you'll notice that there is no longer the requirement for the program to be completed anymore.

 

[kg.jadu]

What I do not understand is this: why did so many people get PER one year ago (so they got over 67 points by getting those 5 points?) only to have them chocked off a year later? It seems that even CIC VO's did not fully understand what "previous study" meant or CIC decided to play with the words after seeing thousands of people eligible (more than they initially intended).

My impression is that the Ottawa office is much stricter on the applications and has a slightly different interpretation of the instructions than the now-closed Buffalo office. As for the CIO, apparently they awarded our the points upon our appeals because they do a simple surface check without going into much details---the final decision is responsibility of the Ottawa officers. Possibly the CIO people simply don't care much.

 

[kg.jadu]

Hi asbereth,

If your document request was sent by FA01772, most likely you have already been assessed against the selection factor, and your eligibility is most likely pending proof of settlement funds. However, if it's some other department (for example, RK6165, or somebody else), then most likely they have only checked if there is something that can be done to speed up the process on your side (such as PCC or proof of funds).

Hmmm, that's interesting. I actually had RK6165 written in my email. So that means that I still didn't pass the eligibility check. Actually that might explain why my eCAS hasn't changed after the email from CPP Ottawa.
I applied for CAIPS though, so hopefully in 3 weeks I'll know what's going on with my file.

I assume you had FA01772 in your document request email, right?

 

[asbereth]

Hi asbereth,

Hmmm, that's interesting. I actually had RK6165 written in my email. So that means that I still didn't pass the eligibility check. Actually that might explain why my eCAS hasn't changed after the email from CPP Ottawa.
I applied for CAIPS though, so hopefully in 3 weeks I'll know what's going on with my file.

I assume you had FA01772 in your document request email, right?

Dang, I hope I was wrong then. Let's see it on CAIPS. You'll get them in 3 weeks. Let's hope for the best. And your eCas won't change after document request. Just because you have passed selection factor, it doesn't mean you have passed eligibility. To pass eligibility, you need to pass BOTH selection factor and proof of settlement funds (and maybe RCMP screening). After eligibility is cleared, admissibilities are initiated, and this includes medical (and PCC).

 

[noc4012]

The rule has changed. If you compare the old (OP6B) and the new wording (OP6C), you'll notice that there is no longer the requirement for the program to be completed anymore.

Hi asbereth,

That's true. However, it still says "previous study" so they may still not credit the first 2 years of PhD as it is "current study." That could help applicants who studied for 2 years but not towards a degree and then stopped. I am not sure it means they will list the first 2 years of PhD as "previously completed 2 years of study" towards a current degree. If you ask me, those 2 years should count regardless if it's for a previous program or a current program as a differentiation between them serves NO purpose. Two years towards PhD are definitely more important than 2 years at a community college in the past when it comes to CIC's criterion of "ability to become economically established" in Canada. But this is not the only example where CIC application of rules contradicts their stated goals.

Going by the "Spirit of the Law" everyone here should be accepted. Unfortunately, "Interpretation of the Law" proved detrimental to many of us.

 

[asbereth]

That's true. However, it still says "previous study" so they may still not credit the first 2 years of PhD as it is "current study." That could help applicants who studied for 2 years but not towards a degree and then stopped. I am not sure it means they will list the first 2 years of PhD as "previously completed 2 years of study" towards a current degree. If you ask me, those 2 years should count regardless if it's for a previous program or a current program as a differentiation between them serves NO purpose. Two years towards PhD are definitely more important than 2 years at a community college in the past when it comes to CIC's criterion of "ability to become economically established" in Canada. But this is not the only example where CIC application of rules contradicts their stated goals.

Well, I think 'previous study' here actually refers to 'previous period of study'. For example, I'm almost done with my fourth year of my PhD, so my first two years should be considered 'previous study'.

Also, they remove the wording that states the program needs to be completed, and even in Canada Gazette, they explicitly mentioned that the applicant needs to complete the necessary credits to complete two years of study, rather than to complete a program of two years. I think the experience with Sydney last year probably prompted them to clear the ambiguity once and for all.

But then again, the visa office still has the final say, and they have all the 'rights' to reject applicants for whatever small reasons they may find

 

[oasisfairy]

Hi asbereth,

That's true. However, it still says "previous study" so they may still not credit the first 2 years of PhD as it is "current study." That could help applicants who studied for 2 years but not towards a degree and then stopped. I am not sure it means they will list the first 2 years of PhD as "previously completed 2 years of study" towards a current degree. If you ask me, those 2 years should count regardless if it's for a previous program or a current program as a differentiation between them serves NO purpose. Two years towards PhD are definitely more important than 2 years at a community college in the past when it comes to CIC's criterion of "ability to become economically established" in Canada. But this is not the only example where CIC application of rules contradicts their stated goals.

Going by the "Spirit of the Law" everyone here should be accepted. Unfortunately, "Interpretation of the Law" proved detrimental to many of us.

Do not worry . I am going to try this case. guys wish my best! i will let you know the results

 

[oasisfairy]

Well, I think 'previous study' here actually refers to 'previous period of study'. For example, I'm almost done with my fourth year of my PhD, so my first two years should be considered 'previous study'.

Also, they remove the wording that states the program needs to be completed, and even in Canada Gazette, they explicitly mentioned that the applicant needs to complete the necessary credits to complete two years of study, rather than to complete a program of two years. I think the experience with Sydney last year probably prompted them to clear the ambiguity once and for all.

But then again, the visa office still has the final say, and they have all the 'rights' to reject applicants for whatever small reasons they may find

I am going to try it . I will let you know the results. i think i got 66 without that 5.

 

[asbereth]

I am going to try it . I will let you know the results. i think i got 66 without that 5.

Prepare double of every document then. And while waiting for your application, re-take IELTS so that you won't need those 5 points to get above 67 points for re-application. I really hope you will go through (and the interpretation of the new rule indicates that you will), but at least with new IELTS score results (say if you get 24 out of 28), then you will have a backup plan.

 

[oasisfairy]

Prepare double of every document then. And while waiting for your application, re-take IELTS so that you won't need those 5 points to get above 67 points for re-application. I really hope you will go through (and the interpretation of the new rule indicates that you will), but at least with new IELTS score results (say if you get 24 out of 28), then you will have a backup plan.

probably no time for another IELTS. this is my fifth year of phd. . phd study is too stress out and I did not quite enjoy here. If they can not grant me the approval, I am going back home . My mom and dad are super missing me. Haha :-*.however, I will feel bad and super guilty for the money and time they spent to gather all of those document for me. For Canada, I am sorry that you will lose another smart people . ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[Stuck In Quebec]

Hi asbereth,

Hmmm, that's interesting. I actually had RK6165 written in my email. So that means that I still didn't pass the eligibility check. Actually that might explain why my eCAS hasn't changed after the email from CPP Ottawa.
I applied for CAIPS though, so hopefully in 3 weeks I'll know what's going on with my file.

I assume you had FA01772 in your document request email, right?

Mine says RK6165 too. Is it a department or officer number. Besides the definitions for eCAS statuses for FSW applications submitted to CPP-O, In Process means that the eligibility has been passed only the documents needs to be verified. One step away from Decision made when criminality and medicals are done.Am confused.

https://services3.cic.gc.ca/ecas/redir.do?redir=app_perm_wrkr&lang=en&app=ecas

 

[asbereth]

Mine says RK6165 too. Is it a department or officer number. Besides the definitions for eCAS statuses for FSW applications submitted to CPP-O, In Process means that the eligibility has been passed only the documents needs to be verified. One step away from Decision made when criminality and medicals are done.Am confused.

https://services3.cic.gc.ca/ecas/redir.do?redir=app_perm_wrkr&lang=en&app=ecas

I think the following link is more relevant to our cases

https://services3.cic.gc.ca/ecas/redir.do?redir=app_perm_com&lang=en&app=ecas

The one you posted was when applicants would only submit applications to Sydney, then documents to the appropriate visa offices. "In process" now consists of three parts:
1. Application Received
2. Application Processed
3. Medical Results Have Been Received

Based on my GCMS notes, and also based on what I've read from other forum members, within the context of FSW (MI-3 and later), the date indicated by the second line is the date you pass eligibility (though it could also mean the day applications get rejected), and that admissibility checks are now initiated.

The third line indicates that medical has been passed. Your application is 'in process' up to the third line.

'Decision Made' however, can still mean that an interview is still required, though I hardly see anybody on this forum that got interviewed after decision made.

probably no time for another IELTS. this is my fifth year of phd. . phd study is too stress out and I did not quite enjoy here. If they can not grant me the approval, I am going back home . My mom and dad are super missing me. Haha :-*.however, I will feel bad and super guilty for the money and time they spent to gather all of those document for me. For Canada, I am sorry that you will lose another smart people . ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I hope you get your PR then before you head back home Keep us updated. Your case would be a really good case study for all of us (regarding adaptability points).

 

[oasisfairy]

I think the following link is more relevant to our cases

https://services3.cic.gc.ca/ecas/redir.do?redir=app_perm_com&lang=en&app=ecas

The one you posted was when applicants would only submit applications to Sydney, then documents to the appropriate visa offices. "In process" now consists of three parts:
1. Application Received
2. Application Processed
3. Medical Results Have Been Received

Based on my GCMS notes, and also based on what I've read from other forum members, within the context of FSW (MI-3 and later), the date indicated by the second line is the date you pass eligibility (though it could also mean the day applications get rejected), and that admissibility checks are now initiated.

The third line indicates that medical has been passed. Your application is 'in process' up to the third line.

'Decision Made' however, can still mean that an interview is still required, though I hardly see anybody on this forum that got interviewed after decision made.

I hope you get your PR then before you head back home Keep us updated. Your case would be a really good case study for all of us (regarding adaptability points).

no problem

 

[aidina]

Got PER for my 2nd application:

Application received on April 24th
PER issued on May 6th
2 persons included
Only RA/TA was claimed for 3 years
Credit card was charged on April 29th
From Iran