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

[ADUFE]

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.

I hear you Wayne, but the fact of the matter is that instead of accepting new fast-track applications post February 2008 and June 2010, they should have looked for the in-demand occupations from the Pre- and post Feb 2008 applications and fast tracked these applications instead. This would surely have drastically cut down the backlog. I'm sure if they had in fact done that they would probably have more or less cleared the backlog.

I mean this is not rocket science and that should have been the obvious solution to the backlog, but because what was most importtant to CIC was the funds from the applicants which comes in very handy for the Canadian govt, they decided to worsen the situation so as to get even more money from prospective applicants.
So going back to your last question, there is no way I would have found myself in their shoes and I have already explained why. Besides, there is no reason why yet another "fast track" application category should be introduced in July 2011, let them please go and through the Pre-Feb 2008 applications and fast track the applications of those applicants who meet their yet- to- be announced criteria. But because they have apparently become addicted to the "soft loan" from applicants there is no way that is going to happen.

 

[ADUFE]

[quote author=dreamfro
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”.



[/quote]

Well said, +1 for you!

 

[dreamfromafar]

Thank you.

Hmm, vermas and dreamfromafar are now being very quiet indeed. Seems having so heavily criticised me and accused me of selfishness, instead of responding to my points all they now seem to be able to offer this thread is silence?

Ah well.
Wayne.

I didn't think by not replying in a timely fashion you had expected would entail explaining myself...or maybe explaining my whereabouts or things I did today so to justify my silence????

OMG Wayne! clearly, you are in\/iting trouble. Pathetic! For a while I thought you were serious, apologetic and somehow understand our stance. MY BAD!

I just read your recent posts and must admit that they all make sense. ohhhh, i guess you really ha\/e to hear it...don't you? So there! Damn, you are way ahead of us! kudos to point #7 on how CIC could impro\/e processing....my fa\/ of them all.

The exact purpose of this forum is to exchange \/iews, suggestions, to help and to learn from each other...not to bicker nor taunt people in distress. I belie\/e you ha\/e been preaching the same to Nectar's followers.

The idea of collecti\/e representation is \/ery liquid. It's a suggestion, a healthy SUGGESTION by one of the post feb 2008 forumers which i gladly embraced being in the same batch. It's an intial thought process, one way of releasing frustration, tension and easing the hea\/y feeling of being set aside. And e\/en if it materializes, airing a complaint does not mean attacking CIC. Who would want to jeopardize one's own existing application?

Indeed, truth hurts, but mockery hurts more. So, for the record...I for one did not glady jumped ahead of the queue to disad\/antage the pre feb 2008 applicants.

 

[vermas]

Wayne,

You have made some good comments. Why are you trying to rake up the issue which is dead now? Lets get on with the pupose of this forum.

Cheers..

Thank you.

Hmm, vermas and dreamfromafar are now being very quiet indeed. Seems having so heavily criticised me and accused me of selfishness, instead of responding to my points all they now seem to be able to offer this thread is silence?

Ah well.
Wayne.

 

[Cappuccino]

I didn't think by not replying in a timely fashion you had expected would entail explaining myself...or maybe explaining my whereabouts or things I did today so to justify my silence????

OMG Wayne! clearly, you are in\/iting trouble. Pathetic! For a while I thought you were serious, apologetic and somehow understand our stance. MY BAD!

I just read your recent posts and must admit that they all make sense. ohhhh, i guess you really ha\/e to hear it...don't you? So there! Damn, you are way ahead of us! kudos to point #7 on how CIC could impro\/e processing....my fa\/ of them all.

The exact purpose of this forum is to exchange \/iews, suggestions, to help and to learn from each other...not to bicker nor taunt people in distress. I belie\/e you ha\/e been preaching the same to Nectar's followers.

The idea of collecti\/e representation is \/ery liquid. It's a suggestion, a healthy SUGGESTION by one of the post feb 2008 forumers which i gladly embraced being in the same batch. It's an intial thought process, one way of releasing frustration, tension and easing the hea\/y feeling of being set aside. And e\/en if it materializes, airing a complaint does not mean attacking CIC. Who would want to jeopardize one's own existing application?

Indeed, truth hurts, but mockery hurts more. So, for the record...I for one did not glady jumped ahead of the queue to disad\/antage the pre feb 2008 applicants.

Hello, dreamfromafar.

No I am not inviting trouble, it's just you responded with such speed and vigor when you feel you are able to criticise me, but it takes like 16 hours to begrudgingly respond if you feel I actually make a valid point? Even now you are calling me "pathetic" just to get you to respond to my points. If you criticise someone heavily like that is it not reasonable to at least listen to their defence?

And you have still made no suggestions, even now, of your own as to how to improve the situation. As I've said - anybody can criticise, few actually come up with their own ideas to improve things.

And indeed I agree, that the purpose of this forum is to exchange views, suggestions, to help and to learn from each other...not to bicker nor taunt people in distress. But you are the one calling people "pathetic" (not me), vermas is the one calling me "selfish" (not me). All I have been doing is making constructive suggestions as to how things might actually improve. Before you start being criticial of people on the bickering and taunting front I would suggest you take a long, hard look at yourself first.


So fine, I've tried to be helpful, as lubob has already testified to - if this is what I get for it I will stop making suggestions. Please feel free to send your cry-fest and complaint to CIC. We can all take wagers as to how quickly they through it in the bin.

OR you can take on board some of my suggestions, and of course add some of your own, as to how things might actually be improved and voice this in a constructive way to CIC - and maybe, just maybe, they will listen to some of it.

Your call. Either way don't worry I will stop bothering this thread.

Best of luck with it,
Wayne.

 

[Cappuccino]

Wayne,

You have made some good comments. Why are you trying to rake up the issue which is dead now? Lets get on with the pupose of this forum.

Cheers..

Well as I just pointed out, you were very critical of me and even called me selfish - when I tried to the defend that you completely ignore me? If you're going to criticise someone like that at least let them defend themselves.

Wayne.

 

[vermas]

Chill my friend. Take a deep breath and relax yourself. This anger is detrimental for your health.

Cheers..

Well as I just pointed out, you were very critical of me and even called me selfish - when I tried to the defend that you completely ignore me? If you're going to criticise someone like that at least let them defend themselves.

Wayne.

 

[Cappuccino]

Chill my friend. Take a deep breath and relax yourself. This anger is detrimental for your health.

Cheers..

I am not angry? Not sure what gave you that idea.

And I genuinely wish you well with your correspondence to CIC. I just feel if you put it more constructively with suggestions on how they can improve, they are more likely to listen.

Best of luck,
Wayne.

 

[dreamfromafar]

“Before you start being critical of people on the bickering and taunting front I would suggest you take a long, hard look at yourself first” …. Ohhhh Wayne!….this is just a taste of your own medicine!

16hours!!!! So what now? I’m on the clock? I’m being timed?

So every offer of help and valid points you make here need to be acknowledged?

When this thread was started, and the idea of putting forward sentiments through collective representation… it was obvious that the person who posted it was inviting insights, suggestions..etc. In turn, many of us have expressed concurrence to the idea….then boom! There you are, criticizing us post feb 2008. Insinuating we tried to outsmart other applicants, mocking us for not offering to wait….

Are we in a contest here? Are we really offering good suggestions or merely flaunting?

You are amazing in giving out points in a snap ….MINUS THE MOCKERY! I wouldn’t want you out of this thread… In fact, you have served the purpose of this thread very well with all your viable suggestions…(again…MINUS THE TAUNTING). Sadly I am so incapable of reciprocating your skills of giving out suggestions. Anywayssss, you have covered most of the major things. I’ll have to think long and hard to come up with a good one.

Now, if you may please excuse me… I would like to get back to work.

 

[Cappuccino]

“Before you start being critical of people on the bickering and taunting front I would suggest you take a long, hard look at yourself first” .... Ohhhh Wayne!....this is just a taste of your own medicine!

16hours!!!! So what now? I'm on the clock? I'm being timed?

So every offer of help and valid points you make here need to be acknowledged?

When this thread was started, and the idea of putting forward sentiments through collective representation... it was obvious that the person who posted it was inviting insights, suggestions..etc. In turn, many of us have expressed concurrence to the idea....then boom! There you are, criticizing us post feb 2008. Insinuating we tried to outsmart other applicants, mocking us for not offering to wait....

Are we in a contest here? Are we really offering good suggestions or merely flaunting?

You are amazing in giving out points in a snap ....MINUS THE MOCKERY! I wouldn't want you out of this thread... In fact, you have served the purpose of this thread very well with all your viable suggestions...(again...MINUS THE TAUNTING). Sadly I am so incapable of reciprocating your skills of giving out suggestions. Anywayssss, you have covered most of the major things. I'll have to think long and hard to come up with a good one.

Now, if you may please excuse me... I would like to get back to work.

It seems we have probably both read each other wrongly, and that neither of our intentions is to cause arguments. I think you have seriously misunderstood my intentions, and it seems I have also misunderstood yours. Our personality clash makes us wind each other up a bit, but that doesn't mean we have to fight and there certainly is no "competition".

I am sorry if I sounded argumentative.

So let's start over

I can probably think of more suggestions as to how to improve things, so please let me know if you want any contributions in your correspondence to CIC. I guess the key is to be constructive but also not swamp them with TOO many suggestions or make the letter too long, since then they probably won't bother reading it.

Best wishes,
Wayne.

 

[gerlalo]

please stop arguments. its not good to post your words here. if u do then send it in a personal message. please, god bless us

 

[CACA]

Dear ALL,


pls pls i need ur help My e-cas change from "RECEIVED BY VISA OFFICE" to "IN PROCESS" with received by visa office detail today.let us share our experiences in this case , have we crossed the initial assessment and secured 67 points to move further like pure in process??

thanks!

 

[Cappuccino]

Dear ALL,


pls pls i need ur help My e-cas change from "RECEIVED BY VISA OFFICE" to "IN PROCESS" with received by visa office detail today.let us share our experiences in this case , have we crossed the initial assessment and secured 67 points to move further like pure in process??

thanks!

Hi friend,

Yes "In Process" means that the visa office eligibility review has been completed. If you failed this your ECAS status would be "Visa office eligibility review complete" rather than "In Process" (and would then in turn change to "Decision Made").

So this means visa office agree with CIO that you have 67 points, sufficent job duties etc.

Next your application will undergo document background checks where they will, with use of some third party companies, validate that your education, funding, work experience and other documents are genuine. This may involve their contacting your employer to verify your work experience.

Once they are satisfied that all your supporting documents are in order, they will issue medical requests to you. Once those results come back, they will begin the second part of the background checks which is security checks. Then they request passports.

Hope this information helps.
Wayne.

 

[canadaforall]

It seems we have probably both read each other wrongly, and that neither of our intentions is to cause arguments. I think you have seriously misunderstood my intentions, and it seems I have also misunderstood yours. Our personality clash makes us wind each other up a bit, but that doesn't mean we have to fight and there certainly is no "competition".

I am sorry if I sounded argumentative.

So let's start over

I can probably think of more suggestions as to how to improve things, so please let me know if you want any contributions in your correspondence to CIC. I guess the key is to be constructive but also not swamp them with TOO many suggestions or make the letter too long, since then they probably won't bother reading it.

Best wishes,
Wayne.

Hi Wayne,
I am so happy, that you have decided to take it all over. Lets make the points very straight forward, short and precise to the point. I really think that we should do something.

We are in a modern society and we have the right to voice our concerns. If you have a problem and stay quiet, it means, it is not a problem, but when you complain, definitely something will be done.

Let them not think that we are a bunch of fools. We all know what it means by a written commitment, if there is any change, it should be well handled and also well communicated to the persons concerned. But they have failed in good communication to keep us calm and wait. Then they way the send e.mails makes one really angry. If you find good communication on CHC website, i bet you no one will send information asking for update.

In my opinion
1) We will ask them to better put update and communicate to all visa offices, when and how applications are being processed. If it is put on their website, maybe monthly , we will refrain from sending e.mails every time asking for our update.

Waiting for others to bring their points. It should be very important points.

After all the argument , you finally decided to take it all over, which is a good sign.

Wayne +1 for you.

 

[canadaforall]

“Before you start being critical of people on the bickering and taunting front I would suggest you take a long, hard look at yourself first” .... Ohhhh Wayne!....this is just a taste of your own medicine!

16hours!!!! So what now? I'm on the clock? I'm being timed?

So every offer of help and valid points you make here need to be acknowledged?

When this thread was started, and the idea of putting forward sentiments through collective representation... it was obvious that the person who posted it was inviting insights, suggestions..etc. In turn, many of us have expressed concurrence to the idea....then boom! There you are, criticizing us post feb 2008. Insinuating we tried to outsmart other applicants, mocking us for not offering to wait....

Are we in a contest here? Are we really offering good suggestions or merely flaunting?

You are amazing in giving out points in a snap ....MINUS THE MOCKERY! I wouldn't want you out of this thread... In fact, you have served the purpose of this thread very well with all your viable suggestions...(again...MINUS THE TAUNTING). Sadly I am so incapable of reciprocating your skills of giving out suggestions. Anywayssss, you have covered most of the major things. I'll have to think long and hard to come up with a good one.

Now, if you may please excuse me... I would like to get back to work.

Hi Dreamfromafar,
Yes, Wayne has decided to take it all over, so let go back to our collective representation. We thought about it and i think it was a good idea and should be done. Let the CIC not sit relax, thinking they are dealing with fools, who do not know their rights. The had made written commitments in our AORs and have not respected it. They instead send us mockery e.mails which makes us feel really angry.

1) My point is for them to improve communication and also for all the CHC to also lets us know how they process our applications. At first we head if first in first out, but that is the not the case with the processing these days, so they should let us know how it works.

Ok waiting then.