FSW 2014 Applicants Timeline- Lets Network Here.

[Ammani]

Your analysis is seriously flawed. You cannot use subset (only rejection) to represent global pictures. I calculated the overall pictures in below:

Current Status Number of Applicant
Reject after Charge 7
PER 184
Interview 8
File Transferred 128
Medical 150
Visas 268
Total 745

So overall reject after charge = number of rejection after charge/Number of application charged = 7/745 = 0.94%

So, there is only less than one percent chance of rejection after charging.

And remember, Century don't show any cheap emotion.

Thank you for this. Do you happen to have the reasons behind these 7 cases?

Thanks again.

 

[neel-here]

@ hussam,

The Job duties you have performed and mentioned in the letter are at shop-floor level.... it sounds more of being a 'technician' rather than 'engineering'. Plus you also mentioned you are supervising technicians.

May i know your Edu qual. .. do you hold a BE/ BTech (4 year degree course in Electrical Engg) or is it something else (like Diplomas, ITI etc) ?

"I am not sure what went wrong" : Certainly, what went wrong in CIO eyes is a mismatch of NOC. Don't get drifted by your Job title (Electrical Engineer). Did you consider matching your role with another Occupation NOC 2241 in the Eligibility List :

2241 Electrical and electronics engineering technologists and technicians

For detailed job duties pls visit : http://www5.hrsdc.gc.ca/NOC/English/NOC/2011/QuickSearch.aspx?val65=2241

Suggest you to do a thorough check of your duties with either of the NOC 2133 or NOC 2241 .. and re-apply with a detailed Ref letter . You have all the chances of making it to the Cap

I got my application back yesterday 5th July. The reason is that the duties I listed don't match those for NOC2133 Electrical Engineer. I am a 7th May applicant.

Here are the duties I listed in my reference letter:

Name: XXXX
Job title: Electrical Engineer
Period: April, 2008 to August, 2009
Working hours: 48 hours/week (Full time)
Base Salary: XXX
Job responsibilities:
• Inspecting the electrical components and the control devices of the production lines.
• Examining any failure in the electrical components and/or the control devices and solve the problem in a timely manner.
• Supervising electrical technicians and offer assistance when needed.
• Submitting weekly reports about the production processes to the management.



I am not sure what went wrong. What do you guys thin I can do? Do I still have any chances to make it?

 

[hussam_k]

@ hussam,

The Job duties you have performed and mentioned in the letter are at shop-floor level.... it sounds more of being a 'technician' rather than 'engineering'. Plus you also mentioned you are supervising technicians.

May i know your Edu qual. .. do you hold a BE/ BTech (4 year degree course in Electrical Engg) or is it something else (like Diplomas, ITI etc) ?

"I am not sure what went wrong" : Certainly, what went wrong in CIO eyes is a mismatch of NOC. Don't get drifted by your Job title (Electrical Engineer). Did you consider matching your role with another Occupation NOC 2241 in the Eligibility List :

2241 Electrical and electronics engineering technologists and technicians

For detailed job duties pls visit : http://www5.hrsdc.gc.ca/NOC/English/NOC/2011/QuickSearch.aspx?val65=2241

Suggest you to do a thorough check of your duties with either of the NOC 2133 or NOC 2241 .. and re-apply with a detailed Ref letter . You have all the chances of making it to the Cap

I hold a master degree in Electrical Engineering from Ohio State University. I might need to rewrite my duties with full details but don't you think this will raise flags when I resubmit my application?

 

[neel-here]

You might need to provide an Explanation letter to strengthen your case... because you are pitching for same Occupation with a detailed (new) letter from same Employer 8)

(Tip: Search some job portals like Monster etc.. to get more descriptive about Job duties of an Electrical Engg Graduate.... not just rely on HRSDC site)

Also ask for inputs from some Returning Applicants how covered up for any shortcomings in letter when they re-applied.

Good luck !

I hold a master degree in Electrical Engineering from Ohio State University. I might need to rewrite my duties with full details but don't you think this will raise flags when I resubmit my application?

 

[Century]

Thank you for this. Do you happen to have the reasons behind these 7 cases?

Thanks again.

You can check in the FSWP2013 spreadsheet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aovj20uHVWyzdGFqSGJUOEtVX0h5eWM0cXB5dlAtOEE#gid=46

Forum Name Rejection Reason
Shree1985 Application rejected by CIO inspite of CC charge and ECAS IN PROCESS. Work experience for current job not provided.

harsh4nature Failed to prove 67 points, got 66 points instead, self declared main duties not accepted by CIC

rodtakular Not able to reach 67 point due to points for Relative in Canada not considered by CIC.

vj_ae Failed to prove 67 points, got 66 points instead, failed to claim work experience points by not attaching duties for 2 years

hassanwiz17 WES Report provided indicated the Canadian Equivalency Summary as two years of undergraduate study which did not
demonstrate that he has completed the equivalent of a Canadian secondary educational credential. Decision made by CIO.

ez2remember job experience was not approved because main duties were not provided in the employer letters or documentation.

Bruce_wayne Obtained insufficient points to qualify for immigration to Canada, 65 points

 

[neel-here]

@ Century bhai,

Good number crunching !

But i have a high level query..why should these nos. be MECE ?

[Visas- 268 shouldn't it include { Medicals- 150 should include ( File Transferred -128 ; PER - 184) } ] etc etc

Is there any missing link ?

Your analysis is seriously flawed. You cannot use subset (only rejection) to represent global pictures. I calculated the overall pictures in below:

Current Status Number of Applicant
Reject after Charge 7
PER 184
Interview 8
File Transferred 128
Medical 150
Visas 268
Total 745

So overall reject after charge = number of rejection after charge/Number of application charged = 7/745 = 0.94%

So, there is only less than one percent chance of rejection after charging.

And remember, Century don't show any cheap emotion.

 

[rababkazim]

i have made a DD on the name of receiver general for canada.
what do i write in Name of Payer and address of payer in fee payment form

 

[nskatcv]

i have made a DD on the name of receiver general for canada.
what do i write in Name of Payer and address of payer in fee payment form

Your own name and address, if you are the principal applicant.

Regards

 

[Century]

@ Century bhai,

Good number crunching !

But i have a high level query..why should these nos. be MECE ?

[Visas- 268 shouldn't it include { Medicals- 150 should include ( File Transferred -128 ; PER - 184) } ] etc etc

Is there any missing link ?

For FSWP 2013, they prepared different sheet according to status of the applicants and all are mutually exclusive.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aovj20uHVWyzdGFqSGJUOEtVX0h5eWM0cXB5dlAtOEE#gid=0

 

[Century]

Thanks, Century!!!!

Brother ashif, neel et al. I think we need to plan a convocation ceremony to award our dear friend Century a Ph. D. in the FSWP process. His detailed thesis on the FWP 2013 candidates seems to have met the requirements of the Doctorate program offered by the Canadavisa forum.

As always, I remain open to your feedback on the same. Cheers!!! ;D

PS - Seems brother neel is still evaluating last semester papers!

I am just thinking where should I do the assessment? Do you think WES is best for it or I should select Toronto University??

 

[hussam_k]

Pal, Just re-write it. CIC doesn't care about the change as the first one could be an error on behalf of the applicant. No flags will be up, trust me. The reason they sent you the package so soon is to be able to help you correct the error, and re-apply. CIC also has targets to fulfill and they want the 'right' candidates to go through. Good luck!

You might need to provide an Explanation letter to strengthen your case... because you are pitching for same Occupation with a detailed (new) letter from same Employer 8)

(Tip: Search some job portals like Monster etc.. to get more descriptive about Job duties of an Electrical Engg Graduate.... not just rely on HRSDC site)

Also ask for inputs from some Returning Applicants how covered up for any shortcomings in letter when they re-applied.

Good luck !

Thanks Guys! You replies boosted my mood

 

[neel-here]

okk.. I don't feel like digging into FSW 2013 file* after you have done the hard work.
But it doesn't make a sense for them to be mutually exclusive. And there's bigger concern.. then, NER ratio would move up [ 7/ (268+7+delta)]= more than 2 % from currently less than 1 %

(P. S. - certainly, I'm still left with soo many papers for evaluation and the next semester is starting tomorrow :'( ..
@ Oscar shall i courier you some bundles- for a Pro bono work )

For FSWP 2013, they prepared different sheet according to status of the applicants and all are mutually exclusive.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aovj20uHVWyzdGFqSGJUOEtVX0h5eWM0cXB5dlAtOEE#gid=0

 

[rababkazim]

what should i write in

Assest = fixed deposit + cash in bank + gold ornament price + property ?

Settlement funds = cash in bank only or fixed deposit too?

 

[hellen119119]

Hi, my cc got charged 16th June, but no per yet.

In my reference letter only describe what I have done on what project, rather than list the duties one by one, e.g., I was responsible to improve the video algorithms for 3dtv.

I apply with noc 2174 as multimedia developer. Is this format of ref letter fine?

Cos no per received yet, I am a bit anxious

 

[neel-here]

Good then.. Thanks

I was concerned that NER ratio might go up.. it must remain under 1 %

They are mutually exclusive because they are data for a given point of time. A snap shot for a certain time.

2013 sheet has been divided nicely as I see from a quick look, they even have a sheet for non-active members from the original sheet I believe to weed out the unnecessary noise in the data. Those people who had once planned on submitting but either didn't or got their package back and didn't inform the group etc. etc. And I see some familiar names in that sheet for our current members LOL.