Congratulations may be now minister of immigration gave some new instructions to CIC otherwise during Conservative regime most of us with so many stamps gone through secondary review and still waiting for renewal.shekhawatmx said:
Email from CIC that PR card renewal needs secondary review
- Thread starter Pual Newman
- Start date
shekhawatmx
Star Member
- Mar 28, 2010
- 21
- Visa Office......
- London
- NOC Code......
- 0631
- App. Filed.......
- 22 May 2009
- File Transfer...
- 16 june 2009 from CIO
- Med's Request
- 26 aug 2009
- Med's Done....
- 8 oct 2009 at mumbai INDIA
- Passport Req..
- 17 feb 2010 by email
- VISA ISSUED...
- 22 march 2010 got pp back on 29 march 2010
- LANDED..........
- 20 Aug 2010
thanks Deepak, how many days u had when you applied and where in GCC u were based?heeradeepak said:
@shekawatmx - have you got your new PR card ? From your post, I understood you got AOR in Feb which would be Acknowledgement of Receipt of application ?
Well if you have got yr new PR card, congrats and hope the process is going to speed up for all the applicants waiting from so long.
Well if you have got yr new PR card, congrats and hope the process is going to speed up for all the applicants waiting from so long.
shekhawatmx
Star Member
- Mar 28, 2010
- 21
- Visa Office......
- London
- NOC Code......
- 0631
- App. Filed.......
- 22 May 2009
- File Transfer...
- 16 june 2009 from CIO
- Med's Request
- 26 aug 2009
- Med's Done....
- 8 oct 2009 at mumbai INDIA
- Passport Req..
- 17 feb 2010 by email
- VISA ISSUED...
- 22 march 2010 got pp back on 29 march 2010
- LANDED..........
- 20 Aug 2010
shekhawatmx
Star Member
- Mar 28, 2010
- 21
- Visa Office......
- London
- NOC Code......
- 0631
- App. Filed.......
- 22 May 2009
- File Transfer...
- 16 june 2009 from CIO
- Med's Request
- 26 aug 2009
- Med's Done....
- 8 oct 2009 at mumbai INDIA
- Passport Req..
- 17 feb 2010 by email
- VISA ISSUED...
- 22 march 2010 got pp back on 29 march 2010
- LANDED..........
- 20 Aug 2010
shekhawatmx
Star Member
- Mar 28, 2010
- 21
- Visa Office......
- London
- NOC Code......
- 0631
- App. Filed.......
- 22 May 2009
- File Transfer...
- 16 june 2009 from CIO
- Med's Request
- 26 aug 2009
- Med's Done....
- 8 oct 2009 at mumbai INDIA
- Passport Req..
- 17 feb 2010 by email
- VISA ISSUED...
- 22 march 2010 got pp back on 29 march 2010
- LANDED..........
- 20 Aug 2010
Ya deepak can't believe my self, I think no travel in last 28 months helped my case....heeradeepak said:
Good news from CIC Renewal time reduce to 124 days, all of us remembered when it was climbed to 190 days.
I cant understand why CIC always forgetting the old applicants and just trying to push new one.
We appreciate their efforts to reduce the processing time for PR renewal, but they should consider the old applicant also.
I cant understand why CIC always forgetting the old applicants and just trying to push new one.
We appreciate their efforts to reduce the processing time for PR renewal, but they should consider the old applicant also.
I believe they are sending applications to secondary review so it looks like they are reducing the processing time ans as if they are efficient. But they are creating backlog of secondary reviews applications as these applications doesn't count against the current processing time.
I don't know what to call these strategy!!
I don't know what to call these strategy!!
Ya? do you work with CIC? how sure are you? as I can see a lot of people are stranded waiting for their PR's to be renewed since one year now. how efficient do you call that?heeradeepak said:
adding to that some people provided half the proofs others did and still got their PR faster!
I see they have no standardization. and it all depends on the employee your papers gets to.
Actually it undoubtedly depends far more on the individual PR's personal circumstances and history.teko said:
Yes, all sorts of internal circumstances can and do affect the timeline. Staffing resources are of course a huge factor. But the routine PR card replacement/renewal applications will generally be uniformly affected by these factors, with some variations between local offices. But these are applications resulting in the PR card being mailed to the PR.
Any application which slips into a non-routine track is then subject to a wide range of factors influencing how it goes, including especially how long it takes.
Quantity of proof is not a reliable indicator. Foremost, what concerns or questions there might be loom far larger, and then the quality of documentation and information submitted is important, particularly as to how well it resolves whatever concerns or questions there are (from IRCC's perspective of course) and how well it shows the PR is living in Canada and has lived in Canada, including presence for two plus years within the preceding five years.
Bottom-line, of course the applicant who has a regular job in Canada, has been filing CRA tax returns for at least the previous two years, and who is well above the minimum threshold for compliance with the PR RO, is likely to see a more expedient timeline. In contrast, applicants who have been present in Canada for less than 900 days, especially those with relatively recent extended absences, are likely to be scrutinized far more, taking longer, since they have been outside Canada more than they have been in Canada . . . obviously, for anyone who has been outside Canada more than in Canada, the reasonable inference is that individual was OUTSIDE Canada any days not clearly documented as in Canada. That is, if a person's whereabouts are not certain on a given day, the rational inference is the person was more likely where he was most of the time . . . so the applicant who has been outside Canada more than in Canada has this to overcome unless the applicant clearly documents the days he was in Canada. The burden of proof is on the PR.
In any event, there is a tendency by some to pile redundant evidence, to create a mountain of evidence, but overlooking gaps. Proof of being in Canada one month or one full year suffices for that month or year. Piling on additional evidence which goes to prove presence during that month or year adds NOTHING. A mountain of evidence, two mountains of evidence, proving presence for 23 months will still fall short if presence for at least a 24th month is not proven.
Moreover, the larger the quantity of evidence submitted, the more there is for the assessing officer to examine and cross-check.
Moreover, the larger the quantity of evidence submitted, the more tendency there is for the good evidence to be lost or buried, obscured, by a lot of redundant not-so-persuasive evidence.
Moreover, the larger the quantity of evidence submitted, the more likely it will contain anomalies, incongruities, even incidental inconsistencies, which will not help, but rather tend to muddy things.
Summary: better to give far less attention to quantity of evidence, more attention to how well key evidence proves the full period of time.