LMO refused- Administrative Review
- Thread starter Reyan619
- Start date
As "cook" has now been removed from CEC eligibility, it is quite reasonable to believe that Canada is not short of cooks, hence the LMO refusal. What are your "baseless reasons"?
hey there zardoz,
My lmo was refused on september 18th and the rules got changed on nov 8th. By the way the officer said that she has dined at Popeyes Lousiana Kitchen and she thinks that I am not a Cook instead I am just a Food Counter Attendant. So on the basis of personal presumption the officer gave the decision. I studied here in Canada and I was on Post Grad work permit when I applied for the LMO. Then the reasons were:
1. The employer did not sufficiently demonstrate that there is a reasonable employement need for this job in the business.
2.The wages offered are not consistent with prevailing wages paid to Canadian in the requested occupation.
3.The working conditions offered are not consistent with the prevailing working conditions offered to Canadians in requested occupation.
My lmo was refused on september 18th and the rules got changed on nov 8th. By the way the officer said that she has dined at Popeyes Lousiana Kitchen and she thinks that I am not a Cook instead I am just a Food Counter Attendant. So on the basis of personal presumption the officer gave the decision. I studied here in Canada and I was on Post Grad work permit when I applied for the LMO. Then the reasons were:
1. The employer did not sufficiently demonstrate that there is a reasonable employement need for this job in the business.
2.The wages offered are not consistent with prevailing wages paid to Canadian in the requested occupation.
3.The working conditions offered are not consistent with the prevailing working conditions offered to Canadians in requested occupation.
I'm not an LMO expert but those reasons seem far from "baseless". Also, the officer has special knowledge in this area it seems.
I haven't seen anything that prohibits an officer from using relevant information that they possess.
Good luck, but I think that you are unlikely to succeed at an appeal.
Let's see what other, more LMO experienced, members have to offer as advice.
I haven't seen anything that prohibits an officer from using relevant information that they possess.
Good luck, but I think that you are unlikely to succeed at an appeal.
Let's see what other, more LMO experienced, members have to offer as advice.
Sorry I am not an expert either, but just looking at #1 it appears the employer may not have advertised in good faith or provided satisfactory reasons for turning down local candidates. An LMO will only be granted if there are no suitable local applicants. If the job was advertised poorly, offering wages and working conditions that are unattractive, etc. the VO may think the employer was not really trying to fill the position. This would cover points 2 and 3. It sounds as if the employer has to produce a new month of advertising in line with Canadian standards before he applies for a new LMO. All the best.
Ah.. I think that I understand now. http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/variations.shtml
The advertising requirements are only dropped if it's a NOC 0, A or B job. I think that the job was reassessed as not being of a high enough NOC code and therefore the advertising requirements stand. Therefore the refusal.
Yes they have. It's implied by the general statement in 1). If there was a "need", any reasonable employer would have advertised for an employee. The reasons given in 2) and 3) are pretty conclusive as well.
If your PGWP was about to expire, the fact that you were currently employed by them doesn't remove the requirement for a normal LMO assessment. Sorry, but I think that you are out of luck.
Anyway, I have done my best for you. Wait for other experts on LMO processing.
Anyway, I have done my best for you. Wait for other experts on LMO processing.