Offshore Work Experience with a client in Canada

[aleeabbasi021]

Hello People,

I have over 1 year of work experience with a Canadian company and I have worked for them while staying here in Pakistan. Basically its offshore work experience and it adds up points to my CRS score. Now when I have uploaded my profile, I do not find the slot to add this offshore canadian work experience in my profile. Though I added it in my work experience in my profile, but it does not add points to my CRS when I see my profile data.

Can anyone help me with it and tell me what is the right way to add it?

 

[sumit.singh.hallan]

That is quite logical. Offshore work will never award you points for Canadian experience. It will be foreign experience.

I don't understand the confusion.

 

[aleeabbasi021]

Thank you so much for your response. If a person works with a Candian registered company for full time (30+) hours a week, while staying in his own country, does that experience with a Canadian company does not add points to the profile?

 

[scylla]

Thank you so much for your response. If a person works with a Candian registered company for full time (30+) hours a week, while staying in his own country, does that experience with a Canadian company does not add points to the profile?

Sure - it adds point to your profile - but not as Canadian work experience. This is classified as foreign work experience.

 

[Pippin]

I apologize for hijacking your thread, but this question might be answered under this heading.
For a ship's officer on an American cruise ship , would it be correct to write the address of the local Indian manning office where they were recruited, instead of the California head office? I am thinking this would make it clear that they never lived in the US for work.

 

[aleeabbasi021]

My consultant had been fooling me for the last few days. He told me that work experience with a Canadian company while staying here gives some extra points and its not equivalent to work experience with a local company while residing here. Its an eye opener for me. Just to be confirm once more, work experience with a Canadian company while staying here is equal to work experience with a local company while staying here?

 

[jes_ON]

My consultant had been fooling me for the last few days. He told me that work experience with a Canadian company while staying here gives some extra points and its not equivalent to work experience with a local company while residing here. Its an eye opener for me. Just to be confirm once more, work experience with a Canadian company while staying here is equal to work experience with a local company while staying here?

If "staying here" and "local" both mean "in Pakistan," yes - there is no difference.

 

[scylla]

My consultant had been fooling me for the last few days. He told me that work experience with a Canadian company while staying here gives some extra points and its not equivalent to work experience with a local company while residing here. Its an eye opener for me. Just to be confirm once more, work experience with a Canadian company while staying here is equal to work experience with a local company while staying here?

Sounds like your consultant has no idea what he is doing. I would get rid of him immediately.

 

[jes_ON]

I apologize for hijacking your thread, but this question might be answered under this heading.
For a ship's officer on an American cruise ship , would it be correct to write the address of the local Indian manning office where they were recruited, instead of the California head office? I am thinking this would make it clear that they never lived in the US for work.

In my opinion, that would be misrepresentation. A recruiter is not an employer.

Beyond that, this notion of "not living on US soil" comes up periodically, so I've been reading a bit. I'm certainly not an expert, but legally, coastal waters up to 24 (nautical) miles offshore are under US legal jurisdiction. So ...

- if they were living/working on a cruiseship based in US waters, they were (legally) present in the USA.
- If they were paid by a paid by a US employer (e.g. the California-based company), then proof of employment needs to come from that company.
- If they held any type of US visa, that could be identified by CIC.

Wouldn't it just be easier to accept the need to get the FBI certificate?

 

[Pippin]

In my opinion, that would be misrepresentation. A recruiter is not an employer.

Beyond that, this notion of "not living on US soil" comes up periodically, so I've been reading a bit. I'm certainly not an expert, but legally, coastal waters up to 24 (nautical) miles offshore are under US legal jurisdiction. So ...

- if they were living/working on a cruiseship based in US waters, they were (legally) present in the USA.
- If they were paid by a paid by a US employer (e.g. the California-based company), then proof of employment needs to come from that company.
- If they held any type of US visa, that could be identified by CIC.

Wouldn't it just be easier to accept the need to get the FBI certificate?

Many thanks for your response. To clarify, the manning office is actually a local office of the main company. They do not source crew for anyone else but this cruise line. Does that make a difference? Without counting the days, I am not sure if any contracts lasted six months or more and there would have been a break of 6 weeks to a number of months between contracts. Cruises did not stay in US waters, they were worldwide. If an FBI clearance IS required it will be sought. I am trying to determine whether or not it is necessary in the first place. I know there was another discussion about CIC requesting FBI from someone who listed the US head office of their 9 month employer, when they had never resided outside their home country.
It seems logical to me that someone who only lives ashore in their home country would not be required to get FBI clearance, otherwise it would make as much sense to say they had to get clearance from every country in which they docked.

 

[jes_ON]

Many thanks for your response. To clarify, the manning office is actually a local office of the main company. They do not source crew for anyone else but this cruise line. Does that make a difference?

Maybe, did the manning office pay the crew too?

Without counting the days, I am not sure if any contracts lasted six months or more and there would have been a break of 6 weeks to a number of months between contracts. Cruises did not stay in US waters, they were worldwide. If an FBI clearance IS required it will be sought. I am trying to determine whether or not it is necessary in the first place. I know there was another discussion about CIC requesting FBI from someone who listed the US head office of their 9 month employer, when they had never resided outside their home country.

I saw other discussions of cruise ship staff who were asked for FBI certs for ships based out of Miami (regardless of where they traveled or how long they were in port). They had to hold a certain type of visa for the US, tho.

It seems logical to me that someone who only lives ashore in their home country would not be required to get FBI clearance,

Agreed, but applicants are supposed to indicate the location of employment (where the work is performed). IF that is different from the employer's official address, that really needs to be clarified (a) in the letter of employment, and/or (b) other written explanation...

CIC's instructions are written for the general masses of "classic" employment, and it's simply not possible to write rules that will cover all situations. Anything that deviates or doesn't quite "fit" the mould (per the application requirements) can really benefit from extra explanation...

otherwise it would make as much sense to say they had to get clearance from every country in which they docked in.

: ) There IS a difference between HOME PORT and port of call : )


In any case, given CIC's recent response to "delayed" FBI certificates (returned applications as incomplete), it would be safer to just get the FBI cert "just in case."

 

[Pippin]

Again thank you, Jes. +1