Nigerians that have applied for Federal Skilled Workers 2013 program

[GENTLEANDREW]

Nice idea but you can also get this info by using Accra VO filter from the main spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Aovj20uHVWyzdGFqSGJUOEtVX0h5eWM0cXB5dlAtOEE&type=view&gid=0&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=Accra&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250


you can use google docs to make it accessible online

This is great.

 

[Floxzy]

@ floxy, lol............ what i mean is that Accra doesn't necessarily update immediately ''we've started processing your .....blah blah'' like NDVO on your ecas when infact they might've started processing it, take LVO for example most guys that got interview calls & MR didn't have their ecas updated thus at first before getting those updates. Get it?

Thanks for the clarification. I got it. Cheers!

 

[phunrae]

@ Pataki, my app was received on 27/05/2013, well done!!!

 

[Pataki]

@pickabeau, you're right.

 

[Floxzy]

@ pickabeau, you're right.

I sent you a PM pls CHECK.

 

[Pataki]

@thebaft, where're you?

 

[1stchoice]

My application was received on the 10/02/2014 and signed for by
Mike Conn at CIO Sydney office.

Coincidentally, my profession chemical Engineer NOC 2134 was capped
today 11/02/2014 after the receipt of my application.

Please I wish to know if I am among the lucky 300 applicants.

Can anyone help please.

Thanks

 

[thebaft]

@ thebaft, where're you?

Present sir!

 

[thebaft]

Thanks all for your lovely messages; I appreciate the love. Na God finally o with the Cap filling just a day after i got my PER.

Thebaft, I gave the oyibo man a bottle of schnapps, kolanuts and 2 wraps of fufu. He was very grateful.

For the water and sandals, dat one no be issue na! Abeg make una arrange the GCMS. lol. Cheers.

Nanonye,

My GCMS notes arrived in the mail yesterday. Nothing much has changed.

ASSESSMENTS
Eligibility: Not Started
Security: Not Started
HIRV:
Criminality: Not Started
Org Crime:
Medical: Not Started
Misrepresentation:
Other Reqs:
Final:

However, the report was generated on 17 January 2014. So the waiting continues.

Also I noticed that my bucket of water is still empty and my sandals have not yet been polished.

 

[GENTLEANDREW]

Nanonye,

My GCMS notes arrived in the mail yesterday. Nothing much has changed.

ASSESSMENTS
Eligibility: Not Started
Security: Not Started
HIRV:
Criminality: Not Started
Org Crime:
Medical: Not Started
Misrepresentation:
Other Reqs:
Final:

However, the report was generated on 17 January 2014. So the waiting continues.

Also I noticed that my bucket of water is still empty and my sandals have not yet been polished.

Hmmmmm.With this it means that they have not opened our file at all.The waiting game continues.

 

[ty]

24.Maskuraid-2263-7/10/13-6/1/13
25.Hopefulval-2263-31/10/13-15/1/13
26.Ty-???-?/11/13-15/1/13
27.Bajay-???-?/11/13-17/1/13
28.Nanonye-2263-18/11/13-20/11/13
*These're June - November applicants, @ BOMBO, Highlyfavoured, Livingmiracle, i don't have info
about your app.pls update your timelines @ Motivated, how far with your PER? Accra must start moving!

Welldone pataki. If it can be done, it will very good and helpful. My timeline is: NOC 2263, application received 1/11/2013. I want to suggest that the date be written in words esplly the month 'cos it could be confusing at times

 

[Aijaynwoke]

Nanonye,

My GCMS notes arrived in the mail yesterday. Nothing much has changed.

ASSESSMENTS
Eligibility: Not Started
Security: Not Started
HIRV:
Criminality: Not Started
Org Crime:
Medical: Not Started
Misrepresentation:
Other Reqs:
Final:

However, the report was generated on 17 January 2014. So the waiting continues.

Also I noticed that my bucket of water is still empty and my sandals have not yet been polished.

Pls what date did they state that your application will be concluded all things being normal.

 

[GENTLEANDREW]

Hmmmmm.With this it means that they have not opened our file at all.The waiting game continues.

http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=3356edab-101f-43d6-84ff-41c325bda934#how

 

[GENTLEANDREW]

http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=3356edab-101f-43d6-84ff-41c325bda934#how

How CIC Evaluates Misrepresentation

Section 40(1)(a) of the 2001 Act requires a determination of whether there has been a direct or indirect misrepresentation or withholding of material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the act.

It is easy to imagine future legal and evidentiary issues surrounding the wording of Section 40(1). For instance, what is meant by the phrase "directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts"? And what are "material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of the act"? What would constitute an "error in the administration of the act"?

CIC's enforcement guidelines(1) currently make allowances for mistakes. Where CIC concludes that there has been an honest mistake, the person will not be rendered inadmissible on the grounds of misrepresentation. The guidelines state that:

"in keeping with the dictates of procedural fairness, the applicant must be given the opportunity to refute any negative information. The decision maker must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person committed the misrepresentation."

It does not appear that the guidelines will be changed further to the proposed regulatory amendment.

Current assessment of misrepresentation
The following examples show how the elements of Section 40(1)(a) are currently assessed.

Direct or indirect
Direct misrepresentation is where a person makes a misrepresentation or withholds information on his or her own behalf. The guidelines offer the example of an individual who, upon arrival at a port of entry, states he or she has never been convicted of a crime when asked about criminality. A subsequent CIC check reveals a criminal record.

Indirect misrepresentation is where a third party makes a misrepresentation or withholds information. The misrepresentation need not be wilful or intentional - therefore, an applicant who asks a relative to obtain documents in support of an application, which later turn out to be false, will be held inadmissible for misrepresentation.

Materiality and relevancy
The guidelines set out several principles that apply with respect to relevancy and materiality. What is relevant is a broader concept than what is material. All material factors will be relevant, but what is relevant may not always prove to be material. Information requested from applicants will be considered relevant, since it is requested. Only when the relevant information affects the process undertaken or the final decision does it become material. At this point the information means that Section 40 would apply, regardless of the outcome of the decision.

The materiality of a misrepresentation under the 1985 act has been the subject of many court decisions. The guidelines under the 2001 act regarding materiality and relevancy appear to continue the jurisprudence developed previously. In Canada (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) v Brooks(2) the Supreme Court of Canada held the design to mislead was not an essential element for misrepresentation. This case held that "fraudulent or improper means" was broad enough to embrace non-disclosure of facts which, if known, would be material to admission or non-admission. Similarly, in Khamsei v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)(3) the court found that whether misrepresentation is a material fact is a question of fact. Therefore, there does not need to be direct evidence that a visa would not have been granted had there been no misrepresentation.

Withholding of information that could induce an error in administration of the act
Erroneous determinations that a person satisfies the requirements for, among other things, a visa or permanent resident status are errors in the administration of the act. An example given in the guidelines is where the misrepresentation prevented (or could have prevented) an officer from undertaking the correct procedures that would normally have been taken. In such an instance the fact is material. It can also be said that if the correct procedure is followed, but using incorrect information provided, this could induce an error in the administration of the act. For instance, if an applicant states he was in the United Kingdom when in fact he was in the United States, the officer would proceed with a background security check (correct procedure) but based on the wrong information (wrong location to conduct the security checks).

The resulting error does not have to relate to the person who makes the misrepresentation - it may relate to another person, such as an accompanying family member, in which case all the family members will be inadmissible pursuant to Section 42.

Fraudulent documents
The guidelines appear to place less emphasis on fraudulent documents than did the previous incarnation of the misrepresentation provisions under the 1985 Act. Where a fraudulent document was not submitted for the purpose of misrepresentation, it should not be reason for a determination of inadmissibility. Further, the information contained in a fraudulent document must be material for misrepresentation to be found.

Examples of misrepresentation
The following examples are provided by the CIC guidelines to indicate misrepresentations that would generally render an applicant or permanent resident inadmissible:

An applicant fails to disclose that he or she recently applied for a visa to Canada;

An applicant fails to disclose a criminal record, even if it is eventually established that he or she is not inadmissible under the criminality provisions (eg, due to a lack of equivalency);

An applicant for a visa fails to disclose the existence of family members, even if the family members could satisfy the requirements of the act;

An applicant fails to disclose that he or she was previously issued with a removal order in Canada, even if he or she would not require consent to return;

An applicant includes his or her nephew or niece in the application and lists this person as his or her son or daughter;

An applicant misrepresents the age of a family member who could otherwise not be included in the application;

A skilled worker applicant submits a false education certificate in an effort to meet selection criteria that he or she would otherwise not meet; or

An applicant fails to disclose changes in marital status or changes in material facts since visa issuance abroad.
The following are provided as examples that would not generally constitute misrepresentation:

An applicant indicates the current year as his or her year of birth, or reverses the date and month of birth on an application form;

An applicant indicates being single, when in fact he or she is widowed;

An applicant fails to disclose that he or she was denied admission to Canada when attempting to enter from the United States for an afternoon five years ago - the applicant explains that because withdrawal was effected, the notion of having been denied admission was not properly understood and the applicant, in the officer's opinion, is credible;

A case where a person answers truthfully at an interview without hesitation and it is reasonable to believe that the person did not understand the question on the application form or forgot the relevant information at that time;

An elderly family-class applicant misleads an officer by indicating graduation from high school when, in fact, graduation was not achieved; or

An applicant fails to disclose the birth of a child that was given up for adoption.
Of the last list of examples, the proposed amendments would change several of these (the first, second and sixth) from not generally constituting misrepresentation to always resulting in admissibility. This is in spite of the clear irrelevance of such matters as a failure to disclose the existence of a child given up for adoption.

Impact on 2001 Act's Provisions

Counselling misrepresentation
The proposed changes to make personal information always material and relevant for the purposes of the 2001 act would necessarily broaden the offence of counselling misrepresentation as well. This offence is set out at Section 126 as follows:

"Every person who knowingly counsels, induces, aids or abets, or attempts to counsel, induce, aid or abet any person to directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this act is guilty of an offence."

This counselling offence is broadened under the 2001 act from the 1985 act to apply to those who provide or give unscrupulous counsel in any immigration matters. The 1985 act limited the offence of counselling misrepresentation to the making of refugee claims. Section 126 should be read together with Section 127, the misrepresentation offence itself, which states that:

"No person shall knowingly:

directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this act;

communicate, directly or indirectly, by any means, false or misleading information or declarations with intent to induce or deter immigration to Canada; or

refuse to be sworn or to affirm or declare, as the case may be, or to answer a question put to the person at an examination or at a proceeding held under this act."
This offence clarifies that the withholding of material facts is a form of misrepresentation. The broadening of these offences is particularly disconcerting given that Section 128 provides that anyone found guilty of violating Sections 126 or 127 is liable for a maximum fine of C$100,000 or a maximum prison term of five years, or both; on summary conviction, the penalty is a maximum fine of C$50,000 or a maximum prison term of two years, or both.



http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=3356edab-101f-43d6-84ff-41c325bda934#how

 

[Pataki]

@thebaft, thanks for the gcms update. We can only continue to pray that God should hasten our case, hopefully in the month of May we shall hear from Accra.
@ty, I've noted your advise!