GUIDES TO GCMS

[Dr Eng X]

I requested my GCMS notes. The only remarks on mine I would make are:

1. The very first note added to my file by CPC-M, on the same day we got our sponsor approval, said "CSCD date not entered as back of photo not completed" and indeed the field entitled CSC date was not completed in the file. Of course, there seems to be no mention anywhere that I can find in the West Europe instructions about completing the backs of the photos with anything (correct me if I missed it) so I don't know what the issue is. When I searched online about it, the best I could come up with is that CSC Date is 'Client Service Commitment Date' and that there doesn't seem to be any real consequence for not having completed the backs of the photos.

2. My next note concerned the fact that I am a Quebec-bound applicant and was added by CHC London saying "QUEBEC - SPONSOR HAS OPTED TO DISCONTINUE IF FOUND INELIGIBLE, SO WE CANNOT PUT CASE INTO PROCESS UNTIL WE RECEIVE CSQ, E-MAIL SENT TO PI REQUESTING COPY OF CSQ." and indeed I did receive said email on that date. What I think can be inferred from that is that if you tick the box choosing to abandon your application in the event that the sponsor is found ineligible, you might very well be causing yourself a slight delay in processing, but the merits of each choice are discussed elsewhere on this forum anyway. If you know your sponsor is a dead cert for approval, this is possibly something to consider. But clearly it depends on the visa office and their usual timescales. In my case, I can see that London reviewed my file and made all of its decisions remarkably quickly (less than two months after sponsor approval) regardless of this supposed delay.

3. As someone else mentioned, the details of the security decision is blanked out in my notes. Under 'CLIENT DETAILS' it shows as 'Passed' but under the 'ADMISSIBILITIES' heading in the section entitled 'SECURITIES' the dates and status are blanked out, but interestingly the codes for the persons making the updates on the section are not blanked out. In any case, I know I have passed the security. The censoring is probably due to the following, which I quote from their email: "Certain information qualifies for exemption pursuant to section(s) 15(1) the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities of the Access to Information Act."

4. I don't know if this view is controversial but... I am not convinced that 0=Not passed and 1=Passed. The reason for this view is that I have not yet passed my medicals, my medical saga is still very much ongoing, and yet I am designated with 1 against medicals. I am marked with 0 against a number of things, including HIRV, Organised Crime and Misrepresentation. My suspicion, which could very well be incorrect, is that you are given a 0 for sections which are for whatever reason irrelevant to you, and these sections are never completed. You are given a 1 for sections that *are* relevant to you, and you are marked as Passed if you pass these sections, and nothing or 'In Progress' as appropriate if you have not yet passed or failed. I don't know what it would say if you have failed, presumably 'Failed' or explicitly 'Not Passed'. I'd be interested to read what people think about this and what other people are seeing!

Thanks very useful
Is that what you think of (guess)
CSC Date is 'Client Service Commitment Date or you are sure?

 

[Dr Eng X]

Human or international rights violations

100% Agree

 

[Dr Eng X]

Could TFR mean The Final Review? (e.g. TFR-Eligibility)

i think it has something to do with transfer however transfers are not done unless a review of a stage has been finalized
(which to us in both cases mean a stage is over)

 

[Dr Eng X]

This has been my other guess, either Transfer, or The Final Review. What confuses me is that for example on Eligibility I have a deadline of early August, but no notes on this having any sort of movement at all.
I think Dr Eng X is also in the same boat regarding this particular item.

Yes

 

[Deficient]

Thanks very useful
Is that what you think of (guess)
CSC Date is 'Client Service Commitment Date or you are sure?

I'm really not sure. I saw a post online where someone else had quoted "service commitment date" directly from their notes but I definitely haven't seen/heard anything from CIC that would confirm it, and the word "client" is completely a guess on my part.

I quote the following note from a post on another forum where someone was sharing their CAIPS notes (which I realise are very different in format):

"Please note no info on back of photos and additional family information from section 'B' not signed. Therefore, service commitment date not entered. CPCM/AO. Case referred to Paris. User ID: XXXXXXXX"

It's a rather similar remark to the one added to my GCMS notes so I felt it probably refers to the same thing (CAIPS "service commitment date" vs GCMS "CSC date")

 

[URIFiggy]

I'm hoping that someone can help me here. I'm wanting to request my GCMS from the CIC (I am the applicant). Can I still request a GCMS even though I'm not the Sponsor, or would he have to do it. Also, if I can request it, would I have had to have filled out the use of representative in our case file (we didn't fill that part out).

 

[computergeek]

I'm hoping that someone can help me here. I'm wanting to request my GCMS from the CIC (I am the applicant). Can I still request a GCMS even though I'm not the Sponsor, or would he have to do it. Also, if I can request it, would I have had to have filled out the use of representative in our case file (we didn't fill that part out).

The person requesting must be in Canada. You don't need to fill out a use of representative form, unless you plan on appointing someone as your representative. If someone else requests your GCMS notes you have to fill out the release of information form OR the use of representative form (but not both).

Good luck!

 

[URIFiggy]

The person requesting must be in Canada. You don't need to fill out a use of representative form, unless you plan on appointing someone as your representative. If someone else requests your GCMS notes you have to fill out the release of information form OR the use of representative form (but not both).

Good luck!

Ok, so since I'm not in Canada, I can't request it. Not even via AIA (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/requests-atip.asp).

If I want my sponsor to release it for me, where can I find the release of information form?

 

[computergeek]

Ok, so since I'm not in Canada, I can't request it. Not even via AIA (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/requests-atip.asp).

If I want my sponsor to release it for me, where can I find the release of information form?

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/form-imm5563.asp

Look at the right hand column under "Authority to Release Personal Information".

 

[URIFiggy]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/form-imm5563.asp

Look at the right hand column under "Authority to Release Personal Information".

Thanks for the help, I found that link shortly after posting. Maybe I'll just have my sponsor request it.

 

[Dr Eng X]

I am asking this question here since those having GCMS can answer it and those who have CPP-Ottawa acting as their primary VO
Does CPP-Ottawa conduct eligibility of the principle applicant? Or is it done by the Visa office? In other words, which of these assessment is done by Ottawa and which is done by the American visa office
Assessment of Eligibility:
Assessment of Security
Assessment of Criminality

 

[Canadian_Sponsor]

I am asking this question here since those having GCMS can answer it and those who have CPP-Ottawa acting as their primary VO
Does CPP-Ottawa conduct eligibility of the principle applicant? Or is it done by the Visa office? In other words, which of these assessment is done by Ottawa and which is done by the American visa office
Assessment of Eligibility:
Assessment of Security
Assessment of Criminality

In my GCMS, against Eligibility, Security and Criminality, there is an American visa office (Buffalo) code .
Eligibility is in "Passed" status, and based on date it was "Passed" when the file was at Buffalo Office.
Security and Criminality fields are just <blank>. Not sure why Buffalo code is still presented against these too... But afraid it is because the file has not even been touched since transferred tp CPP-Ottawa :-[

 

[Dr Eng X]

In my GCMS, against Eligibility, Security and Criminality, there is an American visa office (Buffalo) code .
Eligibility is in "Passed" status, and based on date it was "Passed" when the file was at Buffalo Office.
Security and Criminality fields are just <blank>. Not sure why Buffalo code is still presented against these too... But afraid it is because the file has not even been touched since transferred tp CPP-Ottawa :-[

thanks
All this time I have been thinking that eligibility is "related" to proof of relationship
Now, I understand it is different, this means all CPP-Ottawa does is basically checking proof of relationship

 

[computergeek]

In my file, CPP-O approved the application and I was advised this by two different non-GCMS sources. It is consistent with what it says in the GCMS notes as well:

All requirements met: File RFV. File forwarded to Los Angeles for finalization

I believe the identifiers are the VOs initials and something similar to an employee number, with higher numbers seeming to correspond to higher seniority. In one of my files, I see an identifier "SH01319" as the responsible VO. One month ago I spoke with the person I believe is this officer - her first name was "Susan". I'm stretching a bit here.

My PR file was reviewed on 7 September by "ND01111". While positive, the VO indicated "Based on information provided, further review required due to previous inadmissibility. RPRF - Paid"

My PR file was approved by "SO00214" the following week. I believe this review was "encouraged" by Justice Canada, which is consistent with the idea that this represents a more senior officer - lower number. "All requirements met: File RFV. File forwarded to Los Angeles for finalization."

There is one final note on 17 September by "DV00073" in LA. "E-mail to sent to SEATTLE once visa issued, so that they may close their TRP application for subject."

But as to my original point: the file was processed in Ottawa, with LA just doing the final visa issuance.

 

[Dr Eng X]

I believe the identifiers are the VOs initials and something similar to an employee number, with higher numbers seeming to correspond to higher seniority. In one of my files, I see an identifier "SH01319" as the responsible VO. One month ago I spoke with the person I believe is this officer - her first name was "Susan". I'm stretching a bit here.

My PR file was reviewed on 7 September by "ND01111". While positive, the VO indicated "Based on information provided, further review required due to previous inadmissibility. RPRF - Paid"

My PR file was approved by "SO00214" the following week. I believe this review was "encouraged" by Justice Canada (which is consistent with the idea that this represents a more senior officer - lower number. "All requirements met: File RFV. File forwarded to Los Angeles for finalization."

There is one final note on 17 September by "DV00073" in LA. "E-mail to sent to SEATTLE once visa issued, so that they may close their TRP application for subject."

I thought the numbers mean the opposite; the reasons I am saying this are
1- Correspondence which I believe is not important is done by high numbers
2- Most agencies assign small numbers to big/senior people also they normally assign the number based on number of employee or so

Anyway, it does not matter for us. Has anyone noticed weird dates?