INLAND APPLICATIONS 2013

[shilru]

Congrats todare for your sponsor approval.My husband got sponsor approval .After 2 days i got Aip and DM together.So hang in there.You will hear soon.Good luck.

 

[Tilikun]

My wife received an email from CPC - M today , but it's not AIP or anything like that , it is just a status update email , and to tell her about the high volume of inquiries and applications received on the office , and reminded her that they received our application on august 9 , and they are working on July 16 , 2013 .
Letter is dated June 18 , 2014 .
My wife did call the agents 1 week ago when the processing time was still at 10 months on their website .

 

[nurse2012]

Congrats todare for your sponsor approval.My husband got sponsor approval .After 2 days i got Aip and DM together.So hang in there.You will hear soon.Good luck.

Congrats todare. According to shilru , you will hear good news soon.
The process is faster now. I think CIC just want to show us that they are woorking now

 

[sophieee]

I found something that supports that there is two different type of AIP. See page 50:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip08-eng.pdf

 

[Ponga]

I found something that supports that there is two different type of AIP. See page 50:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip08-eng.pdf

Look at the flow chart on page 43.

Step 1 approval is where CIC issues two separate letters. One to the Sponsor (letter in appendix G) and one to the PR applicant (letter in appendix B). These are both part of Step 1 (AIP).

 

[Linden]

Look at the flow chart on page 43.

Step 1 approval is where CIC issues two separate letters. One to the Sponsor (letter in appendix G) and one to the PR applicant (letter in appendix B). These are both part of Step 1 (AIP).

Ok but I dont believe people were getting the sponsor letters before. Can any senior members comment on this?

I dont think todare has received the email to the applicant so technically his AIP hasn't been issued in full...yet that is. Actually when I read the flowchart again it seems you can get sponsorship approval (after Q3) prior to AIP. AIP comes after Q4.

Anyways thanks for posting something with hard facts as opposed to speculation.

 

[Daizey]

Look at the flow chart on page 43.

Step 1 approval is where CIC issues two separate letters. One to the Sponsor (letter in appendix G) and one to the PR applicant (letter in appendix B). These are both part of Step 1 (AIP).

Ahhh, that flow chart really helps! Glad you guys found this PDF, I've been looking for it.

 

[thegorchess]

It would definitely be an interesting read. I wouldn't past the Toronto Star to be un-bias in their articles. The Toronto Star is known trying to make mountains out of molehill. What newspaper doesn't. They got to sell to make money.

To be honest, I will read the article with a grain of salt as it will be printed from a "political left point of view". After all Toronto Star will print any articles that would make the current PC government look bad. Until the CIC immigration issues over PR sponsorship are also covered in other newspapers, provide opposing views, it will be hard to convince me there is a problem if only one viewpoint is only offered.

Screech339

Haven't your personal experiences and the experiences of those on this forum convinced you there is a problem? Put your politics aside and think of the hardships people face in this process. Is that not a problem?

I have been lurking for a long time but this post had me so upset I had to join in and respond.

 

[yata520]

Ok but I dont believe people were getting the sponsor letters before. Can any senior members comment on this?

I dont think todare has received the email to the applicant so technically his AIP hasn't been issued in full...yet that is. Actually when I read the flowchart again it seems you can get sponsorship approval (after Q3) prior to AIP. AIP comes after Q4.

Anyways thanks for posting something with hard facts as opposed to speculation.

no they do have , some of people here only 1 person received letter ( either sponsor or applicant ) i remember i saw it in during 2013 aug to 2014 jun , u can search on either 2012 inland or 2013 inland thread

 

[bankerguy]

Last week Friday - they changed the website section for inland family class from July 12th to July 16th
They claim to update the site once every week so this Friday they'll most likely update it again!

If they are aiming for 11 months then they have to do MORE than 7 days of processing in a week..so maybe 8 days? 9 days???
So, when they update the site again this Friday, It better say July 25th or July 26th.

If it only goes forward 4 or 5 days then there is NO way they can keep the 11 month timeline and most likely they will have to change step 1 processing from 11 months to 12 months by August.

 

[Mrs_Canuck]

Hubby just called me at work to let me know that his PR card came in the mail today! Hallelujah! Only took 99 days from the landing date. So quick! [/sarcasm]

No more dealings with immigration until citizenship and it looks like they're changing the amount of time you have to spend in Canada to 5 years very soon. So a hit of a break for us.

 

[screech339]

Haven't your personal experiences and the experiences of those on this forum convinced you there is a problem? Put your politics aside and think of the hardships people face in this process. Is that not a problem?

I have been lurking for a long time but this post had me so upset I had to join in and respond.

Sorry that my post upsets you. I do and still believe that there is a problem with the system. However some media would try to portray it to be current government fault's. The Sun would blame the Liberal government for any CIC's failings and the Star would blame PC government for any CIC's failings both past and present, would be the examples. Media will always cherry pick any issues with CIC to make the current government look bad. Some of the issues with CIC is having has been around for a long long time. The same issues has been happening under both Liberal and PC government mandates. Why has the Star decided to pick up the story issue just now. Why didn't they cover it while the Liberal government were in. The Star doesn't want to make their supporting government look bad. The TFW program has gotten a lot of heat under the current government which was covered by all news network and rightfully so. At least the TFW can be viewed from both sides of the coin ranging from companies unable to find workers, employers taking advantage of it, to Canadians/PRs not wanting to do the job (usually thinks the job is beneath them) despite fully qualified to do it. I can make my own personal judgment as to how TFW should be view. Personally I support TFW with limitations. TFW should only apply to agriculture industry and Highly Specialized work positions where qualified applicants are very hard to come by.

There was a huge debate on the how the "inland" applicants felt they were treated unfairly compared to "outland" applicants and felt they deserved the same privileges as "outland" applicant especially when it come to getting "open work permit". While it is correct that "inland" applicants does get the end of the stick comparing to "outland", the media would try to make the "inland" as victims compare to "outland". The media doesn't focus on the one thing that made a huge difference. Almost all applicants had a "choice" to make between two difference routes. The media does not want to focus on that as it would negate their argument that all "inland" applicants are victims.

The story The Star is picking up and presenting will only provide one side of the story. So unless the Star will truly be un-bias and focus the problem on CIC's internal problem, providing both side of the arguments CIC's arguments, applicant's argument, CBSA's arguments, without any political blame, in a strictly subjective manner, I will read any Star articles with a grain of salt.

Screech339

 

[April Fajardo]

Hubby just called me at work to let me know that his PR card came in the mail today! Hallelujah! Only took 99 days from the landing date. So quick! [/sarcasm]

No more dealings with immigration until citizenship and it looks like they're changing the amount of time you have to spend in Canada to 5 years very soon. So a hit of a break for us.

3 mos for PR card arrival.
Congrats , your ordeal is over.

 

[todare]

Sorry that my post upsets you. I do and still believe that there is a problem with the system. However some media would try to portray it to be current government fault's. The Sun would blame the Liberal government for any CIC's failings and the Star would blame PC government for any CIC's failings both past and present, would be the examples. Media will always cherry pick any issues with CIC to make the current government look bad. Some of the issues with CIC is having has been around for a long long time. The same issues has been happening under both Liberal and PC government mandates. Why has the Star decided to pick up the story issue just now. Why didn't they cover it while the Liberal government were in. The Star doesn't want to make their supporting government look bad. The TWP program has gotten a lot of heat under the current government which was covered by all news network and rightfully so. At least the TWP can be viewed from both sides of the coin and I can make my own personal judgment as to how TWP should be view as.

There was a huge debate on the how the "inland" applicants felt they were treated unfairly compared to "outland" applicants and felt they deserved the same privileges as "outland" applicant especially when it come to getting "open work permit". While it is correct that "inland" applicants does get the end of the stick comparing to "outland", the media would try to make the "inland" as victims compare to "outland". The media doesn't focus on the one thing that made a huge difference. The applicants had a "choice" to make between two difference routes. The media does not want to focus on that as it would negate their argument that "inland" applicants are victims.

The story The Star is picking up and presenting will only provide one side of the story. So unless the Star will truly be un-bias and focus the problem on CIC's internal problem, providing both side of the arguments CIC's arguments, applicant's argument, CBSA's arguments, without any political blame, in a strictly subjective manner, I will read any Star articles with a grain of salt.

Screech339

You are so funny! Not to be political but under this government there has been cutbacks in personel to the extent that it is affecting services. For example a friend works at DFO and where he works they are not filling positions that become vacant. it is the point now that the building he works in is largely vacant. The work they do is important and is now not being done. This is a systemic problem caused by the current governments policies. Talking to CIC they are experiencing the same problems. If you are unaware of this that is unfortunate. The victimization of persons inland is caused by the the structure of the process, which this government put in place in 2006, in which a OWP is not granted until late in the process. This in fact causes undue hardship (even in not being able to at least drive).

In fact your arguement can be disproven by the amount of government cutbacks to our embassies abroad. This government talks about security and yet how can we process immigrants if we don't have properly funded embassies. It is nice to be an ideologue but the facts prohibit your current stance.

 

[screech339]

You are so funny! Not to be political but under this government there has been cutbacks in personel to the extent that it is affecting services. For example a friend works at DFO and where he works they are not filling positions that become vacant. it is the point now that the building he works in is largely vacant. The work they do is important and is now not being done. This is a systemic problem caused by the current governments policies. Talking to CIC they are experiencing the same problems. If you are unaware of this that is unfortunate. The victimization of persons inland is caused by the the structure of the process, which this government put in place in 2006, in which a OWP is not granted until late in the process. This in fact causes undue hardship (even in not being able to at least drive).

In fact your arguement can be disproven by the amount of government cutbacks to our embassies abroad. This government talks about security and yet how can we process immigrants if we don't have properly funded embassies. It is nice to be an ideologue but the facts prohibit your current stance.

Yes it is unfortunate that the current government had to cut back on expenses / service on foreign embassies. This is needed to get their budget back on track and balanced. The embassy services cutbacks was done on the back on the need to maintain social services that Canadian/PRs needs or want to maintain. The money has to come from somewhere. The previous Liberal government stripped the military bone dry of their funding to support their social programs so the current government couldn't cut back there. Non-social programs will always get the brunt of the cutbacks over social programs. Always have, always will.

Look to the recent ontario election. Ontarians wants the government to keep spending on social programs. Once the credit rating drop, the liberal government will have no choice but to cut back services. You can bet they will cut back non-social programs first, raise taxes before they even dare touch social programs. Much like what the Chretien/Martin did when Canada lost their triple A rating. They raided the EI surplus, kept the GST, starved the military of their funding, raised taxes, downloaded some of the programs to the provinces' responsibilities meanwhile keeping social program cuts to a minimum.

All political parties knows that any cuts to any important social program is making political suicide in any future chances of getting re-elected. Only once in government will they be forced their hands to cut social services by outside means.