GUIDES TO GCMS

[Dr Eng X]

I still don't understand the eligibility due date. It's way past it, and the field says not started. Any ideas?

Same here :-\

 

[BCgirl2012]

Same here :-\

I'm really tempted to think it means it was passed. But I guess false hope is not a good thing. So I just hope to see some action in the next notes.

 

[computergeek]

Here is my entry with RC-9515:

SUB ACTIVITIES: 1
Created Date: 2012/09/07 12:51 :42
Created By: ND01111
Updated Date: 201 2/09/0714:57:34
Updated By: SADMIN
UCI #: ********
Family Name: *******
Given Name: *****************
Type: RCMP Screening
Status: No Reportable Trace
Validity Date: 2013/09/07
Status Updated By: SADMIN
Status Updated Date: 2012/09/07
Assigned To: RC-9515
Assigned By: ND01111
Due Date: 2012/10/07
Activity#: 1-1W4UWOR

 

[Deficient]

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!

 

[Deficient]

Does anyone know what "HIRV" stands for , and what does it mean?

Human or international rights violations

 

[BCgirl2012]

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

Deficient, I also agree with your 4th point. I don't think 0 and 1 are for pass fail. I think 0 means not necessary or not relevant. As for what 1 means, right now I have 2 theories:
1. The number of people that need to pass that item in the application
2. The number of sub-items done so far

I googled for GCMS samples and someone over in the FSW forum has posted an excerpt with the number bigger than 1.

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking, do you also see relationship related notes? I've seen that some people have a summery of what the officer thinks about their file, and some don't.

 

[Deficient]

Deficient, I also agree with your 4th point. I don't think 0 and 1 are for pass fail. I think 0 means not necessary or not relevant. As for what 1 means, right now I have 2 theories:
1. The number of people that need to pass that item in the application
2. The number of sub-items done so far

I googled for GCMS samples and someone over in the FSW forum has posted an excerpt with the number bigger than 1.

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking, do you also see relationship related notes? I've seen that some people have a summery of what the officer thinks about their file, and some don't.

Ah that's really interesting about the number >1, thanks for sharing.

Yes, I have relationship related notes, firstly one big paragraph, as follows:
"PENDING MED BRITISH CITIZEN PI IS MARRIED TO A CANADIAN CITIZEN, COUPLE MARRIED IN QUEBEC IN JUN11, PROOF SEEN, FIRST MARRIAGE FOR BOTH. NO REASON TO DOUBT BONA-FIDES. DEPENDANTS: [officer's initials] HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY QUALIFYING DEPENDANTS FOR EXAMINATION. NOTE: SHOULD ADDITIONAL DEPENDANTS BE SPONSORED AT A LATER DATE THEY WILL BE EXCLUDED AS PER R117(9)(d) AS SPONSOR RESIDES IN CANADA, NO INTENT TO RETURN ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED. [officer's initials]: NO ADVERSE FOSS - PI & SPONSOR CLEAN UK/PC, 10FEB12 [there is a strange blank space here, about 3-4 words long, that I can only assume is some blanked out information, likely concerning the medical as 10Feb12 was the date I underwent my medical] PI MED WAS FURTHERED IN JAN12, EMAIL SENT TO LDN MED SECTION REQUESTING THAT THEY CONFIRM IF FURTHERED INFO RECEIVED. FILE TO [officer's initials] TO ENTER ELIGIBILITY DECISION."

One week later the last officer mentioned in the above paragraph entered the eligibility decision with the following note:
"Am satisifed relationship is BF."

(presumably BF = bona fide)

The red bits are my own remarks or censored bits.

I also had a note between those two that confirmed that my medical furtherance was received by the medical section, but it has the actual full names of the officers involved so obviously I won't copy that over. Also baffled by the mention that my medical was furthered in Jan12, in fact it was furthered in Mar12 so perhaps that's just an error.

 

[BCgirl2012]

Ah that's really interesting about the number >1, thanks for sharing.


(presumably BF = bona fide)

The red bits are my own remarks or censored bits.

I also had a note between those two that confirmed that my medical furtherance was received by the medical section, but it has the actual full names of the officers involved so obviously I won't copy that over. Also baffled by the mention that my medical was furthered in Jan12, in fact it was furthered in Mar12 so perhaps that's just an error.

I agree, BF should be bona fide. About the date, I think you are right and typos and mistakes do happen.

CSC date is the date that CIC had the completed package with all of their required documents. If you look at the announced processing times, they always mention the timelines are based on a completed package. So basically this date indicated that they have a completed package on that certain date and from that day on the service commitment dates apply. This is just my 2 cents though.

 

[BCgirl2012]

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

 

[Canadian_Sponsor]

RC-6048. Any guess what it could be?

Btw, "RC" = Regional Centre?

RC-6048 = Buffalo

 

[computergeek]

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

My interpretation has been TFR means "transfer", as in "move to the next office"

 

[BCgirl2012]

My interpretation has been TFR means "transfer", as in "move to the next office"

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.

 

[computergeek]

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 don't think those deadlines are hard or fast in any sense of the word. In one of my applications (the one for which I've requested notes the most) the due date was back in March, 2012 and they didn't bother acting on it until September, 2012.

Maybe they use those dates when they print out reports: "so here's the list of files we need to process from farthest behind to least behind..."

 

[Dr Eng X]

I'm really tempted to think it means it was passed. But I guess false hope is not a good thing. So I just hope to see some action in the next notes.

Nope wishful thinking

 

[Dr Eng X]

Here is my entry with RC-9515:

SUB ACTIVITIES: 1
Created Date: 2012/09/07 12:51 :42
Created By: ND01111
Updated Date: 201 2/09/0714:57:34
Updated By: SADMIN
UCI #: ********
Family Name: *******
Given Name: *****************
Type: RCMP Screening
Status: No Reportable Trace
Validity Date: 2013/09/07
Status Updated By: SADMIN
Status Updated Date: 2012/09/07
Assigned To: RC-9515
Assigned By: ND01111
Due Date: 2012/10/07
Activity#: 1-1W4UWOR

I have this SAMIN in the secondary office guess Senior Adminstrator (could be wrong)