Montreal Visa Office ... Let's connect here.

[cansha]

Guys, I received my 2nd GCMS yesterday. As at the first GCMS note, there was no eligibility evaluation but this time, my eligibility was done in Montreal. According to the case analyst, my eligibility was recommended for a review. Funny enough, the case analyst stated:
Recommendation: Review Required Summary Note: FSW Points for work experience dropped from 11 to 9 as PA has 1 yr and 8 months from Primary NOC. PA still meets the requirement. Client appear to meet all requirements.

The funny thing about the case analyst is that I claimed just 1 year of work experience. Besides, 1 yr and 2 yrs work experience have the same points. So, I don't see how the work experience dropped from 11 to 9. For my work history, I filled in my IT experience which was 1 yr and 8 months (Primary NOC), my 2 research assistant jobs during my MSc (total of 1yr and 1 month according to the case analyst calculations) and my current teaching assistant (TA) job in Canada (No points was awarded as he/she claimed there wasn't any job description whereas there was). Actually, this TA job in Canada was just to clearly inform CIC of my full work history and not for point purposes. The analyst now flagged the teaching assistant position for additional review whereas he/she already acknowledge that I still met the requirements.

I just don't feel bothered that much as I think am good to know. But I don't know the consequences of the review required in my file. Whether Montreal have where they dump files with review required. Am not sure! What is disturbing me is why the analyst still wants a review while my 1 yr and 8 months Primary NOC is more than enough.

Please your advise will be appreciated. And please what is the scaling of work experience?

Scaling of work experience, I think, is that if someone has say work experience at borderline .. analyst and VO on their discretion can give credit for full year. So for example if someone had experience of say 11 months and 15 days. technically it is not 1 year but they can consider this 1 year if they want to. I may be way off target here so please do not consider this absolute truth. I have a vague memory of reading it somewhere.

Now coming back to your notes, as you said I think there is nothing to worry here. Issue is analysts are way down the food chain and may be are instructed to flag anything which is outside of standard operating manual. So, even if they think something is logical they will flag it for review required so that VO can make the final recommendation. I think when a VO sees your file he will approve it.

Having said above, in hindsight, I would say you may have moved any experience for which you were not claiming any points to personal history.

We had one more member on this forum who had review required on his work ex and he proactively uploaded additional documents and his file was not delayed in anyway and he got his PPR. I have made that note in the list of cases as well.

 

[cansha]

Guys, I received my 2nd GCMS yesterday. As at the first GCMS note, there was no eligibility evaluation but this time, my eligibility was done in Montreal. According to the case analyst, my eligibility was recommended for a review. Funny enough, the case analyst stated:
Recommendation: Review Required Summary Note: FSW Points for work experience dropped from 11 to 9 as PA has 1 yr and 8 months from Primary NOC. PA still meets the requirement. Client appear to meet all requirements.

The funny thing about the case analyst is that I claimed just 1 year of work experience. Besides, 1 yr and 2 yrs work experience have the same points. So, I don't see how the work experience dropped from 11 to 9. For my work history, I filled in my IT experience which was 1 yr and 8 months (Primary NOC), my 2 research assistant jobs during my MSc (total of 1yr and 1 month according to the case analyst calculations) and my current teaching assistant (TA) job in Canada (No points was awarded as he/she claimed there wasn't any job description whereas there was). Actually, this TA job in Canada was just to clearly inform CIC of my full work history and not for point purposes. The analyst now flagged the teaching assistant position for additional review whereas he/she already acknowledge that I still met the requirements.

I just don't feel bothered that much as I think am good to know. But I don't know the consequences of the review required in my file. Whether Montreal have where they dump files with review required. Am not sure! What is disturbing me is why the analyst still wants a review while my 1 yr and 8 months Primary NOC is more than enough.

Please your advise will be appreciated. And please what is the scaling of work experience?

Also, your statements about 1 year experience and 2 year experience having same points is correct for CRS score BUT incorrect for FSW points.

There is that 6 criteria scale for FSW points where your score needs to be >67. Even after losing those points your score would have been > 67 But, my guess is, as per rule they need to flag any reduction in points.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/eligibility/federal-skilled-workers/six-selection-factors-federal-skilled-workers.html

Summary still is you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Rijo02]

Also, your statements about 1 year experience and 2 year experience having same points is correct for CRS score BUT incorrect for FSW points.

There is that 6 criteria scale for FSW points where your score needs to be >67. Even after losing those points your score would have been > 67 But, my guess is, as per rule they need to flag any reduction in points.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/eligibility/federal-skilled-workers/six-selection-factors-federal-skilled-workers.html

Summary still is you have nothing to worry about.

@cansha thanks for the explanation. I am just hearing the difference between CRS score and FSW points. So, does it mean that 2 years work experience has 11 points whereas 1 year has 9 points? If yes, that is good to know. Also I have read that NOC's can be combined. Am just surprised that the case analyst only counted my Primary NOC (1 yr and 8 months) and did not include my other NOC which was 1 yr and 1 month. Assuming my primary NOC wasn't up to 1 yr and I was hoping on combining it with the other NOC, so the case analyst would have given me an FSW points less than 67?

 

[cansha]

@cansha thanks for the explanation. I am just hearing the difference between CRS score and FSW points. So, does it mean that 2 years work experience has 11 points whereas 1 year has 9 points? If yes, that is good to know. Also I have read that NOC's can be combined. Am just surprised that the case analyst only counted my Primary NOC (1 yr and 8 months) and did not include my other NOC which was 1 yr and 1 month. Assuming my primary NOC wasn't up to 1 yr and I was hoping on combining it with the other NOC, so the case analyst would have given me an FSW points less than 67?

My understanding is also that NOCs can be combined. So I'm not sure what happened there. Read the link I have pasted above. There is a table explaining the points. It clearly shows 9 points for 1 year experience and 11 for 2-3 years.

 

[cansha]

@cansha thanks for the explanation. I am just hearing the difference between CRS score and FSW points. So, does it mean that 2 years work experience has 11 points whereas 1 year has 9 points? If yes, that is good to know. Also I have read that NOC's can be combined. Am just surprised that the case analyst only counted my Primary NOC (1 yr and 8 months) and did not include my other NOC which was 1 yr and 1 month. Assuming my primary NOC wasn't up to 1 yr and I was hoping on combining it with the other NOC, so the case analyst would have given me an FSW points less than 67?

Also, if you read your notes carefully you will see that agent would have recalculated both the CRS and FSW score.

Many people on forum just say oh more than 3 years experience doesn't matter. IT IS INCORRECT. 3+ years gives maximum CRS score. But 6+ years experience gives 15 points in FSW.

 

[Rijo02]

My understanding is also that NOCs can be combined. So I'm not sure what happened there. Read the link I have pasted above. There is a table explaining the points. It clearly shows 9 points for 1 year experience and 11 for 2-3 years.

I just saw the table now. Thanks! However, I do not see the distinguishing factor when FSW point for 1 year work experience is 9 and 2-3 years is 11 but they still amount to the same CRS. I personally think that the CRS supersedes the FSW point as there is no way an applicant can get a high CRS score without making the FSW points!

 

[cansha]

I just saw the table now. Thanks! However, I do not see the distinguishing factor when FSW point for 1 year work experience is 9 and 2-3 years is 11 but they still amount to the same CRS. I personally think that the CRS supersedes the FSW point as there is no way an applicant can get a high CRS score without making the FSW points!

I misread your post and replied incorrectly. So deleted the other post. Your point is valid but there is no preference. You need to be eligible on both scales. Even, I can't think of a case where you would meet CRS score but fail on FSW scale. But, I'm sure there are cases like that and hence they check both. And if not may be there is a simplification opportunity for them

 

[Rijo02]

Also, if you read your notes carefully you will see that agent would have recalculated both the CRS and FSW score.

Many people on forum just say oh more than 3 years experience doesn't matter. IT IS INCORRECT. 3+ years gives maximum CRS score. But 6+ years experience gives 15 points in FSW. I qualified for FSW based off that only.

The agent did not even quote the recalculated CRS score in my case as I compared my notes with that of my friend. As the agent did not add my NOC work experiences, I suppose the person might either be new on the job or is following a different standard.

About the CRS and FSW points, I still don't get the difference! Its just like the Chicken and the egg theory. Infact, the CRS score is better as it automatically confirms that you meet the FSW point. Or is there a scenario where someone can have a high (say 450) and still did not get the FSW points? And what did you mean by "I qualified for FSW based off that only"

 

[cansha]

The agent did not even quote the recalculated CRS score in my case as I compared my notes with that of my friend. As the agent did not add my NOC work experiences, I suppose the person might either be new on the job or is following a different standard.

About the CRS and FSW points, I still don't get the difference! Its just like the Chicken and the egg theory. Infact, the CRS score is better as it automatically confirms that you meet the FSW point. Or is there a scenario where someone can have a high (say 450) and still did not get the FSW points? And what did you mean by "I qualified for FSW based off that only"

My apologies that sentence is very poorly written. i just wanted to say I got 15 points on my FSW scale for my work ex. As I said even I can't think of a scenario right now. But, I would like to think it exists.

 

[Rijo02]

My apologies that sentence is very poorly written. i just wanted to say I got 15 points on my FSW scale for my work ex. As I said even I can't think of a scenario right now. But, I would like to think it exists.

Yea.....its alright! I get your point. What was the agent ID that conducted your eligibility check?

 

[cansha]

The agent did not even quote the recalculated CRS score in my case as I compared my notes with that of my friend. As the agent did not add my NOC work experiences, I suppose the person might either be new on the job or is following a different standard.

About the CRS and FSW points, I still don't get the difference! Its just like the Chicken and the egg theory. Infact, the CRS score is better as it automatically confirms that you meet the FSW point. Or is there a scenario where someone can have a high (say 450) and still did not get the FSW points? And what did you mean by "I qualified for FSW based off that only"

Your theory may be correct about the agent. May be a new person. I know another case where analyst messed up on very simple documentation.

 

[cansha]

Yea.....its alright! I get your point. What was the agent ID that conducted your eligibility check?

Will have to check notes again .. I remember some SP<4digitnumber>. Do initials match for you.

 

[Arod]

I'm not at Montreal but this thread has been moving a lot recently so I will drop this question here:

I have requested two set of notes so far, but noticed that only the second set of notes delivered to me last week contains the group name and group number. What do these represent? It has been over 7 months since AOR.

The group number starts with 1-G..... and the group name says "Review Required for Proof of Funds" which is what I was expecting to see. I read somewhere that when an application shows this information is because it is close to be finalized, but I'm not so sure. To me it sounds more like what identifies the queue where the file is currently sitting.

 

[Rijo02]

Will have to check notes again .. I remember some SP<4digitnumber>. Do initials match for you.

Nop....It started with A in my case.

 

[cansha]

I'm not at Montreal but this thread has been moving a lot recently so I will drop this question here:

I have requested two set of notes so far, but noticed that only the second set of notes delivered to me last week contains the group name and group number. What do these represent? It has been over 7 months since AOR.

The group number starts with 1-G..... and the group name says "Review Required for Proof of Funds" which is what I was expecting to see. I read somewhere that when an application shows this information is because it is close to be finalized, but I'm not so sure. To me it sounds more like what identifies the queue where the file is currently sitting.

They represent nothing ... I think those are like an ID in Siebel system .. Just an ID for activity. @Y@$h is Siebel expert. He can correct me.

However, point is those numbers should not matter.