Pre June,26 applicants Pls give me ur opinion what do mean exactly?

[vermas]

Dear Cappuccino,

You are sounding very selfish and it seems you are trying to dissuade us from making a collective representation to protect your interest. You want your case to be handled first.

Cheers...

 

[canadaforall]

If you decide to collectively approach CIC with this then I wish you the best of luck.

But one piece of advice is rather than going on the offensive with "this is not fair, we should not have to wait this long, it is our RIGHT to be processed" which will just end up in the bin at CIC - I would go with a more constructive approach.

The facts are CIC has over 300,000 applications in its catalog of pre-June-2010 applications. CIC has a certain amount of resource to process it all, and has to by mindful to not allow too many immigrants into the country in any given year which have neither in-demand skills or a job offer, since this will have a big negative impact on Canada's job industry.

With this in mind, my advice is to try to consider it from their side of the fence and make suggestions as to how they can do it better.

In a nutshell, I agree CIC have made some bad mistakes, but without inventing a time machine there is nothing anyone can do about they way things have been handled in the past. Rather, it is much better to focus constructively on how things can be improved for the future.

Best of luck,
Wayne.

Even, those who go in with the notion that their job is in demand end up doing survival jobs, because there is the pretext that they do not have Canadian experience or they are over qualified. So they better process our applications and we go and try our luck. Having a job is a matter of luck. We have spent money and need to have our application processed.

Sometimes i really get upset, because of the responses i read from the forum from CIC.

Just nothing to do.

 

[Cappuccino]

Dear Cappuccino,

You are sounding very selfish and it seems you are trying to dissuade us from making a collective representation to protect your interest. You want your case to be handled first.

Cheers...

????

It is not a question of WANTING my case to be handled first - that decision has already been made by Canadian parliament, not me.

Are you telling me that you think all the 2004 to 2007 applications should be processed before yours? When the first set of MI came out did you stand there and go "Hey no fair, please process all the pre-feb-2008 applications before mine - that would only be right and just". Honestly? If not, then please do not preach "selfish" to me. You were happy to jump the queue ahead of the pre-Feb-2008 crowd when MI-I came out, please do not begrudge MI-II now they have the same advantage you guys had during that time.

And I was not trying to dissuade you at all. I made a constructive post and I was just trying to help. I was trying to offer the best advice I could think which is most likely to get your "collective representation" message listened to by CIC.

I also offered sympathy and said I understood how frustrating it must be.

And for that you call me "selfish"?
-1 for you (and I very rarely give negs to anyone).

Wayne.

 

[vermas]

You have been repeating the same comments again and again on so many threads. You have been heard enough. We all understand what you have been preaching. Please don't think that we all have to buy your ideas and suggestions. I am not going to reciprocate with - points to you, however, you may wish to give me another negative if you are going to derive any pleasure out of it.

Cheers..

????

It is not a question of WANTING my case to be handled first - that decision has already been made by Canadian parliament, not me.

Are you telling me that you think all the 2004 to 2007 applications should be processed before yours? When the first set of MI came out did you stand there and go "Hey no fair, please process all the pre-feb-2008 applications before mine - that would only be right and just". Honestly? If not, then please do not preach "selfish" to me. You were happy to jump the queue ahead of the pre-Feb-2008 crowd when MI-I came out, please do not begrudge MI-II now they have the same advantage you guys had during that time.

And I was not trying to dissuade you at all. I made a constructive post and I was just trying to help. I was trying to offer the best advice I could think which is most likely to get your "collective representation" message listened to by CIC.

I also offered sympathy and said I understood how frustrating it must be.

And for that you call me "selfish"?
-1 for you (and I very rarely give negs to anyone).

Wayne.

 

[ADUFE]

BTW Cappuccino I actually have two pending applications, one from 2005 and another from 2010. I applied again because I thought that would get me in faster; but guess what happened? Yet another set of rules were introduced! Fact of the matter is, has Pb55 rightly said; this is just about money. If it was really about some so-called in demand occupations; why did CIC not simply fast-track the applications of those Pre-Feb 2008 applications with the required NOCs announced in November 2008? Why not do same in May? 2010 instead of introducing yet another category in June 2010? And now they intend to introduce yet another category in July instead of simply looking for these yet-to-be announced NOCs in the Pre-Feb 2008 applications or even the Post Feb 2008 as well as the post-June 25 2010 applications as the case may be.

The worst part about it all is the utter disdain with which the applicants are treated, in that they do not even bother to inform us of what they intend to do with our applications with regards to giving an estimate of how long it is going to take to finalize. Surely that is not too much to ask.

 

[Cappuccino]

You have been repeating the same comments again and again on so many threads. You have been heard enough. We all understand what you have been preaching. Please don't think that we all have to buy your ideas and suggestions. I am not going to reciprocate with - points to you, however, you may wish to give me another negative if you are going to derive any pleasure out of it.

Cheers..

Lol.

I am not asking anyone to "buy" my ideas. They are not, in fact, for sale. I am stating my opinion and someone like you saying "You have been heard enough" isn't going to stop me posting. If you think you can psych me into silence you obviously don't know me very well.

I don't derive pleasure from giving people negatives, hence why I very very rarely give anyone negatives - but I have to draw the line somewhere when a hypocrit like YOU (who clearly feel his application should be processed ahead of pre-Feb-2008, but at the same time ahead of post-June-2010) calls me selfish when I am being constructive, sympathetic and helpful.

Wayne.

 

[Cappuccino]

Even, those who go in with the notion that their job is in demand end up doing survival jobs, because there is the pretext that they do not have Canadian experience or they are over qualified. So they better process our applications and we go and try our luck. Having a job is a matter of luck. We have spent money and need to have our application processed.

Sometimes i really get upset, because of the responses i read from the forum from CIC.

Just nothing to do.

And, as I suggested, rather than getting upset and saying you need to have your application processed - do you actually have a suggestion as to how CIC can process 300,000 applications - with the resource they have and without flooding or negatively impacting the Canadian job market? If you were in charge of CIC, how would you handle it?

As I said, despite the drivel that vermas is spouting, I do really sympathise with pre-June-2010 applicants - but unless any communication with CIC is constructive I fear it will fall on deaf ears.

Anyone can criticise - but it is a lot more useful to come up with actual suggestions as to how to improve things.

Wayne.

 

[Adroit]

Well said Wayne.

+1 for u

 

[vermas]

Your statement in red colour shows your arrogance. You could be a President or a Prime Minister or a muscle man, but does it really matter? You are like one of us, aspiring to immigrate to Canada. Calm down my friend. Not even once I have mentioned of a preferential treatment like what you have been advocating on all the threads. You are free to make comments on any thread, though this thread is primarily for the pre-June 2010 applicants to unite together and share our views to address the situation we are all facing and it should not bother.

Once again cheers up buddy..

Lol.

I am not asking anyone to "buy" my ideas. They are not, in fact, for sale. I am stating my opinion and someone like you saying "You have been heard enough" isn't going to stop me posting. If you think you can psych me into silence you obviously don't know me very well.I don't derive pleasure from giving people negatives, hence why I very very rarely give anyone negatives - but I have to draw the line somewhere when a hypocrit like YOU (who clearly feel his application should be processed ahead of pre-Feb-2008, but at the same time ahead of post-June-2010) calls me selfish when I am being constructive, sympathetic and helpful.

Wayne.

 

[Cappuccino]

BTW Cappuccino I actually have two pending applications, one from 2005 and another from 2010. I applied again because I thought that would get me in faster; but guess what happened? Yet another set of rules were introduced! Fact of the matter is, has Pb55 rightly said; this is just about money. If it was really about some so-called in demand occupations; why did CIC not simply fast-track the applications of those Pre-Feb 2008 applications with the required NOCs announced in November 2008? Why not do same in May? 2010 instead of introducing yet another category in June 2010? And now they intend to introduce yet another category in July instead of simply looking for these yet-to-be announced NOCs in the Pre-Feb 2008 applications or even the Post Feb 2008 as well as the post-June 25 2010 applications as the case may be.

The worst part about it all is the utter disdain with which the applicants are treated, in that they do not even bother to inform us of what they intend to do with our applications with regards to giving an estimate of how long it is going to take to finalize. Surely that is not too much to ask.

Hi Adufe,

I completely agree regarding the way they are treating applications - the communication from CIC is very poor in places, and NEEDS to improve.

I have said for a long time that they need to employ people to be continually updating their web sites, and those of the visa offices, with the latest information on work patterns and exactly what is going on and give the best timeframes they are able to.

Such communication would not only relieve the stress of applicants still waiting, but also save themselves man-time in the hundreds and thousands of queries they would not be getting as a result.

But the point I am trying to get across is that yes, CIC made a big mistake in not controlling these numbers earlier. But in 2010 they had a massive increase in their application intake. I believe in April and May 2010 they had over 100,000 (just in those 2 months!). Nobody, including CIC, could have reasonably predicted such a sharp increase in the application in-take.

So, to their credit, the reacted by introducing rules on 26 June 2010 which is probably the fastest they could actually get them agreed (you notice they did not even wait until 1st July 2010) massively limiting the number of FSW applications they would accept, and at the same time changing the system so that all supporting documents must be included. This not only streamlined the process to make the total process faster, but also prevented time-wasting applications who could not provide enough evidence of their claims with supporting documents.

And personally I do agree that they could do more to sensibly fast-track at least some of the pre-Feb-2008 and pre-June-2010 applicants who still have in-demand skills. But there are hundreds of thousands of such applications, far more than CIC have the capacity to process in a single year. There are less than 13,000 post-June-2010 applications total. So for them my guess is that it was just a matter of simplicity to prioritise post-June-2010 applications wholesale.

Most post-June-2010 will be processed in a matter of a few months leaving time and resource to process pre-June-2010 and pre-Feb-2008 applicants.

I really sympathise with your situation, especially when it seems that whenever you mail off another application they change the goalposts!

But this goes back to putting yourselves in their shoes. They have 300,000 applications and a finite resource to handle them, how would YOU change things?

Wayne.

 

[Cappuccino]

Your statement in red colour shows your arrogance. You could be a President or a Prime Minister or a muscle man, but does it really matter? You are like one of us, aspiring to immigrate to Canada. Calm down my friend. Not even once I have mentioned of a preferential treatment like what you have been advocating on all the threads. You are free to make comments on any thread, though this thread is primarily for the pre-June 2010 applicants to unite together and share our views to address the situation we are all facing and it should not bother you beacuse you.

Once again cheers up buddy..

Well, you were the one calling me selfish - when I was being anything BUT selfish and was genuinely trying to help.

I don't think there's anything arrogant about saying that you won't psych me out with phrases like "You have been heard enough" - because you are making a sweeping assumption about what the majority of forum members feel, when it fact that is just your own opinion.

If you don't want flames, don't stoke the fire m8!

Anyway, if you read above you will see I have made when I feel are very valid points about the subject of this thread - points which you have still neglected to respond to constructively and instead just say "we've heard enough".

I can assure you I am perfectly calm, and if you actually read what I am writing I am trying to HELP you unite to share your views and contact CIC regarding the current situation.

But as I have said to the others I would ask you to consider one question whilst doing so - if you were in their position, what would you DO to change things to make it better - given their current resource and number of applications in their back catalog?

Anyway - I am sorry if I upset you or came across as arrogant, because that was not my intention. And we've all been victims of CIC's bureacracy to a greater or lesser extent.

Wayne.

 

[cana2011]

Dear ALL,

If we ask for the case specific enquiry they will not give us the answer in detail or the strictly accurate processing time, as to me CIC better stop taking a new application first they must treat the application on their hand but always they are keeping their interset i am sure after introducing the new rule they will ignore post 26 June 2010 applicants.

Any way thanks!

 

[dreamfromafar]

Wayne,

I take it you refused to see our point or did not understand my post. Like I said, collective representation that would embody all applications: pre Feb 2008, post Feb 2008 and who knows even some of the post June 26, 2010, taking into consideration the new MI to be released soon.

Why do you keep on dragging the issue of pre Feb 2008? Not just once or twice I have read in your posts about the “jumping ahead of queue”. There are also applicants from pre Feb 2008 who went out of their way and lodged a parallel application in the hope they’d stand a better chance….. only to be disappointed again. So you also think they cunningly jumped out of their own queue to outsmart themselves? Are you trying to subtly create a rift….stirring up dissension? I am not familiar with the application process for the pre-Feb 2008. Don’t know if there was even a "suggestion" of the number of processing years for them. I am open for correction should I am wrong....as for the MI-I, a very lucrative 6 to 12 months!

OK, I am not good in math/numbers…. neither good in conducting research. As said, I am very much open for correction. Help me with below analyses:

- How many applications did you think were lodged during the past years when there was no suggestion or there was uncertainty for the number of years of processing time? 50, 100, 200?

- How many did you think or would you think would jump into a very appealing invitation of a way lesser processing time? Same number? Ohhhh yeah…they didn’t see it coming, an oversight!

- One would be too naive or playing dumb to think that two equally delicious cake, same flavor and same amount of icing - the one being sold for half the price wouldn’t get double or triple the attention of the consumers.

I would like to quote myself or re-post this:
“it's just about right to voice out ones sentiments. for us post feb 2008/pre-june 26, 2010, I believe this is the right time....as early as possible. if we don't react now, then when? who would react for us? would you? of course I sympathize with the pre-feb 2008 applicants. they should be the first to be processed...I know that, we all know that. especially those whose NOC still belong to the 29 list...but this doesn't mean I/we should take a backseat....it shouldn't keep us from voicing out our sentiments”.

Quoting you:
“You haven't been "cheated" any more than the pre-Feb-2008 applicants were "cheated" when the first set of MI's came out. I don't recall too many of you guys offering to wait for all the pre-Feb-2008 applications to be processed before you, because that would only be fair and you wouldn't want to cheat them?”

Wayne, is this statement tantamount to you offering to wait so our papers would be processed first?...ohhh yes, “It is not a question of WANTING your case to be handled first - that decision has already been made by Canadian parliament, not you…..feeling is mutual when they released the 6 to 12 months for MI-I.

The main point here is, whether you are a pre Feb 2008 or post Feb 2008 or a post June 26, 2010 applicant, another miscalculation or major oversight is not welcomed! Sad to say that at the end of each day I am just one of the many applicants. Being a post Feb 2008 applicant, I am not sure if there will ever be an appeal.

Having said all these… do not mean I/we are not happy for the post June 26, 2010 applicants.


My 2 cents…

 

[vermas]

Very well said. +1 from me and its my pleasure.
Cheers..

Wayne,

I take it you refused to see our point or did not understand my post. Like I said, collective representation that would embody all applications: pre Feb 2008, post Feb 2008 and who knows even some of the post June 26, 2010, taking into consideration the new MI to be released soon.

Why do you keep on dragging the issue of pre Feb 2008? Not just once or twice I have read in your posts about the “jumping ahead of queue”. There are also applicants from pre Feb 2008 who went out of their way and lodged a parallel application in the hope they'd stand a better chance..... only to be disappointed again. So you also think they cunningly jumped out of their own queue to outsmart themselves? Are you trying to subtly create a rift....stirring up dissension? I am not familiar with the application process for the pre-Feb 2008. Don't know if there was even a "suggestion" of the number of processing years for them. I am open for correction should I am wrong....as for the MI-I, a very lucrative 6 to 12 months!

OK, I am not good in math/numbers.... neither good in conducting research. As said, I am very much open for correction. Help me with below analyses:

- How many applications did you think were lodged during the past years when there was no suggestion or there was uncertainty for the number of years of processing time? 50, 100, 200?

- How many did you think or would you think would jump into a very appealing invitation of a way lesser processing time? Same number? Ohhhh yeah...they didn't see it coming, an oversight!

- One would be too naive or playing dumb to think that two equally delicious cake, same flavor and same amount of icing - the one being sold for half the price wouldn't get double or triple the attention of the consumers.

I would like to quote myself or re-post this:
“it's just about right to voice out ones sentiments. for us post feb 2008/pre-june 26, 2010, I believe this is the right time....as early as possible. if we don't react now, then when? who would react for us? would you? of course I sympathize with the pre-feb 2008 applicants. they should be the first to be processed...I know that, we all know that. especially those whose NOC still belong to the 29 list...but this doesn't mean I/we should take a backseat....it shouldn't keep us from voicing out our sentiments”.

Quoting you:
“You haven't been "cheated" any more than the pre-Feb-2008 applicants were "cheated" when the first set of MI's came out. I don't recall too many of you guys offering to wait for all the pre-Feb-2008 applications to be processed before you, because that would only be fair and you wouldn't want to cheat them?”

Wayne, is this statement tantamount to you offering to wait so our papers would be processed first?...ohhh yes, “It is not a question of WANTING your case to be handled first - that decision has already been made by Canadian parliament, not you.....feeling is mutual when they released the 6 to 12 months for MI-I.

The main point here is, whether you are a pre Feb 2008 or post Feb 2008 or a post June 26, 2010 applicant, another miscalculation or major oversight is not welcomed! Sad to say that at the end of each day I am just one of the many applicants. Being a post Feb 2008 applicant, I am not sure if there will ever be an appeal.

Having said all these... do not mean I/we are not happy for the post June 26, 2010 applicants.


My 2 cents...

 

[Cappuccino]

Wayne,

I take it you refused to see our point or did not understand my post. Like I said, collective representation that would embody all applications: pre Feb 2008, post Feb 2008 and who knows even some of the post June 26, 2010, taking into consideration the new MI to be released soon.

Why do you keep on dragging the issue of pre Feb 2008? Not just once or twice I have read in your posts about the “jumping ahead of queue”. There are also applicants from pre Feb 2008 who went out of their way and lodged a parallel application in the hope they'd stand a better chance..... only to be disappointed again. So you also think they cunningly jumped out of their own queue to outsmart themselves? Are you trying to subtly create a rift....stirring up dissension? I am not familiar with the application process for the pre-Feb 2008. Don't know if there was even a "suggestion" of the number of processing years for them. I am open for correction should I am wrong....as for the MI-I, a very lucrative 6 to 12 months!

OK, I am not good in math/numbers.... neither good in conducting research. As said, I am very much open for correction. Help me with below analyses:

- How many applications did you think were lodged during the past years when there was no suggestion or there was uncertainty for the number of years of processing time? 50, 100, 200?

- How many did you think or would you think would jump into a very appealing invitation of a way lesser processing time? Same number? Ohhhh yeah...they didn't see it coming, an oversight!

- One would be too naive or playing dumb to think that two equally delicious cake, same flavor and same amount of icing - the one being sold for half the price wouldn't get double or triple the attention of the consumers.

I would like to quote myself or re-post this:
“it's just about right to voice out ones sentiments. for us post feb 2008/pre-june 26, 2010, I believe this is the right time....as early as possible. if we don't react now, then when? who would react for us? would you? of course I sympathize with the pre-feb 2008 applicants. they should be the first to be processed...I know that, we all know that. especially those whose NOC still belong to the 29 list...but this doesn't mean I/we should take a backseat....it shouldn't keep us from voicing out our sentiments”.

Quoting you:
“You haven't been "cheated" any more than the pre-Feb-2008 applicants were "cheated" when the first set of MI's came out. I don't recall too many of you guys offering to wait for all the pre-Feb-2008 applications to be processed before you, because that would only be fair and you wouldn't want to cheat them?”

Wayne, is this statement tantamount to you offering to wait so our papers would be processed first?...ohhh yes, “It is not a question of WANTING your case to be handled first - that decision has already been made by Canadian parliament, not you.....feeling is mutual when they released the 6 to 12 months for MI-I.

The main point here is, whether you are a pre Feb 2008 or post Feb 2008 or a post June 26, 2010 applicant, another miscalculation or major oversight is not welcomed! Sad to say that at the end of each day I am just one of the many applicants. Being a post Feb 2008 applicant, I am not sure if there will ever be an appeal.

Having said all these... do not mean I/we are not happy for the post June 26, 2010 applicants.


My 2 cents...

Then my apologies - I am sorry for misreading your point on collective representation.

But my advice, whether this is for all applicants or just for pre-June-2010 applicants is the same - that it is much better to present a constructive message to CIC with suggestions on how they can improve matters, given the numbers they have and the resource they have, than it is to go on the offensive with a "we were promised our applications would be processed in 6 to 12 months, this is not fair" etc etc since I believed and still believe this kind of post would not even be read by CIC.

I took exception at vermas falsely accusing me of being selfish and accusing me of trying to dissuade you from sending this for my own selfish ends so that my case would be handled first. Firstly, I had in no way disuaded anyone I was merely giving advice as to how I felt the message would most likely be read by CIC and the best way to send it.

Secondly, since we are almost at PPR stage of our application so how could any letter you sent to CIC possibly affect my personal application? So I was not trying to protect my interests or disuade you guys from sending the message, as vermas was ridiculously claiming, I was just trying to help.

And you were the one who started talking about being cheated, not me. I merely responded to what you had written.

So I am sorry if I failed to see any of the points you raised, but you and vermas have also failed to see my central point.

Neither of you have come up with any actual, viable suggestions as to how to improve the situation. You seem to want to complain and say it's not fair and point out to CIC their big mistakes. CIC already know they made big mistakes which is why they have changed the system to control the number of applications coming in, making them manageable and giving them resource with which to tackle the backlog.

In addition to this, what do you suggest they do to further improve things?

Wayne.