Regarding the remarks from Wayne & Cam on My BLOG entry.
When I say "harsh" - I mean some of you appear to judge quickly. If somebody offers their strategic view on what to do in a situation, and he happens to be an immigration practitioner, it doesn't necessary mean that this is all part of a ruse to "get your money". I agree that a lot of practitioners are crooks. I know - and I see it all the time. So the feeling is understandable. There's one guy in Houston, for instance, who is driving me crazy and putting a really bad name for hard-working folks like my staff and other honest CSIC associates – and ruining client applications in the process.
Cam is correct in that I recommend that people continue with their 1122 and 3152 applications for possible stock-pilling. We plan to execute this strategy, if applicable by July. Remember that all of our affected customers have already paid their first (of two) instalments. The first instalment, in most cases, is $1250. Since all the work was done, that instalment is non-refundable. Since Cam has used very strong words about my situation, I'm happy that he's given me an opportunity to reply.
For those who haven't entered in an agreement with us and want to apply for a 1122 or 3152, our offer is very simple. For any applicant who prepares a FSW1 through us in an occupation that is not available, gets a full refund of his first instalment in the event the NOC is not available (in July 2011). This offer is in writing and available only to 1122 and 3152. I have put my money where my mouth is. The risk is thus shared by both client and our Firm. I take grain pains to warn clients that there's an element of risk in time and money, despite the refund; given our $125 consultation fee won't be refundable and the IELTS test is obviously non-refundable - not to mention the hard work involved in preparing a complete packet.
The back discussions that are going on with my order is not some malicious or mysterious interplay. CSIC and the other law societies of Canada appropriately lobby the CIC all the time – to exchange ideas of what works and what doesn't. Minister Kenney doesn't have to declare all the lobbying activity that goes on; at least not until official commentary is due when public policy is forming. There's nothing sinister about the process.
Regarding the said “inaccuracies” that I posted. Allow me the opportunity to explain. I'm well informed that CIC advises people to submit police certificates at the CIO stage – and we of course know that CIC went back-and-forth a few times on this one. As a policy, we submit police certificates at the CIO stage but only if it won't exacerbate the “dead-zone”; that dangerous period between a Client's decision to move forward and the time the application is received at CIO. If a Client has his application ready, including verification letters and language tests, and we're just waiting on his FBI report – there's no way I'm going to risk his FSW1 eligibility on notoriously slow FBI certificates. Remember June 2010 when IT managers were suddenly removed from the list? Remember when college instructors were removed? Did CIC give any warning? Of course not. Had I waited on the perfect application – with all the police certificates up front as what Wayne appears to advocate – before filing these occupations, they would have been denied at the gate. In some cases, being a perfectionist is not ideal. Indian police certificates are quick – I would include them at the CIO stage. Police certificates from the Middle East can be slow. The FBI can be slow or fast.
Again, I don't wish to be defensive and I'm very comfortable about what I do. I, and my dedicated two-person team, work 12-hours days. I resent that somebody who knows little about our practice lashes out at me for expressing thoughts.
