Reasons for Rejection

[Dynonobel]

Believe me, you don't understand my frustration. And the fact that you have uploaded some letters that no one asked you to, and you and the others are saying that if we are not polite, we might get treated differently is a BIG BS!!!

If you remember how to upload files and submit the application, there is room for only the docents they request and explanation letter. If you wrote 6 'professional' letters, that's your problem. We're not required to. And if any of the officwrs there think like you, then I'm better off Canada. As this is all BS.

I guess your right, I don't understand your frustration, and you clearly don't understand me. You can be rude all you want but it's not going to change your situation.

The letters are my situation, but not my PROBLEM as you stated. As I said, each of the letters were required. The app would have been rejected (or rather unable to upload) without them as there we're that many categories that required letters. I never said YOU were required to write any letters. Everyone's application will vary. My application did require them and I used them as an opportunity.

I've shared my personal experience, others have shared theirs, and I've shared the thoughts of a respected immigration lawyer. You clearly have a different opinion and I'm not trying to change that. However you are misconstruing what myself and others are saying and I'll continue to explain myself so that others are not misled.

Here's where we can agree: It SHOULDN'T make a difference.

That being said, I don't know about you, but I don't live in a make believe land where everyone does what I think they should. I live in the real world where everyone is human, and are susceptible to emotion and to human error. I don't know where you are from but I have traveled to many places and have yet to come across anywhere that is any different. Humans are human.

For the same reasons, when I order a meal in a restaurant, I purposefully do not antagonize the server before my meal is served. If you know what I'm saying...

Please don't include me and my wife in your assumption that no one here has had a perfect life back home and that is why we're applying for permanent residence. Just because someone might be fleeing a bad situation doesn't mean everyone else is. There are many reasons to immigrate. One thing that we definitely did not include in our application was anything related to having a poor life outside of Canada.

I wish you luck in your future applications.

I think what people are trying to say, is that in a situation with an application that allows for some leeway on the part of an agent, then being polite will help. For example, if a person submits a letter of employment from a past employer that is not exactly as it is supposed to be listed. Now at this point the agent can decide to reject it out right, accept it if they feel it is the best an applicant can get, or do some extra work to verify it.
If a person doesn't have a letter of explanation explaining why the letter isn't perfect, it might just get rejected. If they include a letter that is not polite, saying some like they think this requirement is too difficult or doesn't make sense, they might get rejected as well.
However, if a person, apologizes for not getting the letter exactly how it was asked for, explains that the former place of employment refused to follow the CIC instructions, and states that they can attempt to get more verification if needed, the agent might just decide that the letter is acceptable, they may call the former employer to verify, or just request some more documents.
That's the kind of situation that might be when an agent has some discretion and where a polite letter would be beneficial. I don't think anyone believes that writing a polite letter will allow an agent to pass an application that is completely missing information or outright violates the rules.

Well said! Thanks for sharing.

 

[caz1975]

Hi all, my PR application was submitted on 24 March and cancelled on 5 June due to not including traffic history from Australia (I am from Ireland but spent some years in Australia). I checked the requirement for Ireland PCC but did not check into the link for the Australian PCC which required a traffic history report. I have seen at least two other people on the forum who have been rejected for the same reason. So a heads up to check country requirements specifically for each country that you have lived in. The irony is that I already had the document (you need to provide it to get a drivers licence here, so I had got it before). I submitted a CSE with the doc on 5 June but not holding out any hope whatsoever on this.
As my work permit expired on 15 April (and I am awaiting my BOWP permit to be rejected any day now) then it is looking like I will now have to leave the country. The company I work for are going to try and get a C10 visa this week but appear to be only 50-50 hopeful on this coming through. We cannot afford to try again and wait 3-4 months without working for another PR app. So after 2.5 years working here, with a permanent job (also my spouse is here attached to my work permit, also with a permanent job), we are gearing up to be leaving shortly. It is pretty harsh that due to missing one document that we have to leave our jobs, pack up and leave. And before anyone comments back "THEY ARE THE RULES", don't bother, as I have come to know this the hard way. My only consolation is that from following all the postings on here, there are a lot of people less fortunate than I am (as I can return to Ireland or Australia), and my heart goes out to anyone who makes a similar error but has to return to their home country to a perhaps not a good place, which must be devastating after creating a new life here.
Anyways, best of luck everyone !

 

[Dynonobel]

Hi all, my PR application was submitted on 24 March and cancelled on 5 June due to not including traffic history from Australia (I am from Ireland but spent some years in Australia). I checked the requirement for Ireland PCC but did not check into the link for the Australian PCC which required a traffic history report. I have seen at least two other people on the forum who have been rejected for the same reason. So a heads up to check country requirements specifically for each country that you have lived in. The irony is that I already had the document (you need to provide it to get a drivers licence here, so I had got it before). I submitted a CSE with the doc on 5 June but not holding out any hope whatsoever on this.
As my work permit expired on 15 April (and I am awaiting my BOWP permit to be rejected any day now) then it is looking like I will now have to leave the country. The company I work for are going to try and get a C10 visa this week but appear to be only 50-50 hopeful on this coming through. We cannot afford to try again and wait 3-4 months without working for another PR app. So after 2.5 years working here, with a permanent job (also my spouse is here attached to my work permit, also with a permanent job), we are gearing up to be leaving shortly. It is pretty harsh that due to missing one document that we have to leave our jobs, pack up and leave. And before anyone comments back "THEY ARE THE RULES", don't bother, as I have come to know this the hard way. My only consolation is that from following all the postings on here, there are a lot of people less fortunate than I am (as I can return to Ireland or Australia), and my heart goes out to anyone who makes a similar error but has to return to their home country to a perhaps not a good place, which must be devastating after creating a new life here.
Anyways, best of luck everyone !

I'm VERY VERY sorry to hear that! I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to post this as it might just be the piece of information that changes someone else's life for the better. Good luck to you and your family.

 

[dobes]

I guess your right, I don't understand your frustration, and you clearly don't understand me. You can be rude all you want but it's not going to change your situation.

The letters are my situation, but not my PROBLEM as you stated. As I said, each of the letters were required. The app would have been rejected (or rather unable to upload) without them as there we're that many categories that required letters. I never said YOU were required to write any letters. Everyone's application will vary. My application did require them and I used them as an opportunity.

I've shared my personal experience, others have shared theirs, and I've shared the thoughts of a respected immigration lawyer. You clearly have a different opinion and I'm not trying to change that. However you are misconstruing what myself and others are saying and I'll continue to explain myself so that others are not misled.

Here's where we can agree: It SHOULDN'T make a difference.

That being said, I don't know about you, but I don't live in a make believe land where everyone does what I think they should. I live in the real world where everyone is human, and are susceptible to emotion and to human error. I don't know where you are from but I have traveled to many places and have yet to come across anywhere that is any different. Humans are human.

For the same reasons, when I order a meal in a restaurant, I purposefully do not antagonize the server before my meal is served. If you know what I'm saying...

Please don't include me and my wife in your assumption that no one here has had a perfect life back home and that is why we're applying for permanent residence. Just because someone might be fleeing a bad situation doesn't mean everyone else is. There are many reasons to immigrate. One thing that we definitely did not include in our application was anything related to having a poor life outside of Canada.

I wish you luck in your future applications.

Well said! Thanks for sharing.

You can't get through to everyone. You made your point well, and today, when I had to write a letter to ICAS, I used your posts to present myself as a human being and to remember that the person receiving my letter is human as well. Thanks.

 

[Fitztorious]

Hi all, my PR application was submitted on 24 March and cancelled on 5 June due to not including traffic history from Australia (I am from Ireland but spent some years in Australia). I checked the requirement for Ireland PCC but did not check into the link for the Australian PCC which required a traffic history report. I have seen at least two other people on the forum who have been rejected for the same reason. So a heads up to check country requirements specifically for each country that you have lived in. The irony is that I already had the document (you need to provide it to get a drivers licence here, so I had got it before). I submitted a CSE with the doc on 5 June but not holding out any hope whatsoever on this.
As my work permit expired on 15 April (and I am awaiting my BOWP permit to be rejected any day now) then it is looking like I will now have to leave the country. The company I work for are going to try and get a C10 visa this week but appear to be only 50-50 hopeful on this coming through. We cannot afford to try again and wait 3-4 months without working for another PR app. So after 2.5 years working here, with a permanent job (also my spouse is here attached to my work permit, also with a permanent job), we are gearing up to be leaving shortly. It is pretty harsh that due to missing one document that we have to leave our jobs, pack up and leave. And before anyone comments back "THEY ARE THE RULES", don't bother, as I have come to know this the hard way. My only consolation is that from following all the postings on here, there are a lot of people less fortunate than I am (as I can return to Ireland or Australia), and my heart goes out to anyone who makes a similar error but has to return to their home country to a perhaps not a good place, which must be devastating after creating a new life here.
Anyways, best of luck everyone !

It doesn't help at this point but I feel really bad for you and your spouse

I wish you luck, hopefully you can get a C10 visa.

 

[mattima]

I also got a rejection notice just today... The reason was that we did not include Consent to Disclosure Information form regarding New Zealand police certificates. Instead we obtained and uploaded Criminal Convictions History reports directly form New Zealand Ministry of Justice because the document checklist asked us to upload police certificates (multiple) without specifying which ones (we have lived in a couple of countries) and we did not read the instructions carefully through. So another proof that you must read the instructions really, really carefully before submitting application.

Now the most frustrating thing is that we actually waited for a month to receive the criminal convictions history reports and could have submitted the application way earlier if we only had understood that we just have to fill out a stupid consent form. How annoying!

 

[katja2684]

Take it for what it is worth.

Also, no one said anything about breaking the rules. I worked for the Province of British Columbia for 3 years and although it is not a division of the federal government it operates in many of the same ways. I also have worked under a number of Federal government contracts in the private sector and liaised weekly with Federal employees (although never with CIC). I can tell you from personal experience that government officials in many sectors have a lot of leeway to make decisions and can interpret policy in wildly different ways without actually going against policy (or breaking the rules as you put it). I don't see CIC as being any different. Simply put, it can't hurt to be courteous and professional.

Well if the same immigration rules can be interpreted in wildly different ways then I'm sorry because it gives room to a lot of abuse.
If the copy of your passport was missing from your application, what should an immigration officer do with it?
Remember the applications are assessed for completeness upfront.
Well, according to the rules, the officer should reject your application.
However theory and practice are not always hand in hand therefore you might get a nice letter from CIC asking for the missing document.
In the same moment another applicant might get a rejection letter from CIC because of the missing passport copy. Tell me, is that fairness?

 

[katja2684]

But I think one of those rules is that they're allowed to use their own judgement to some degree...

I agree but the problem is they don't use their own judgement to the SAME degree

 

[hulahoop]

I agree but the problem is they don't use their own judgement to the SAME degree

It could be framed like that yes, or it could be framed as judgement varies because it takes an objective process and makes it incrementally more subjective the more leeway and judgement are allowed.

On the one hand I'm no fan of bureaucracy and I believe human decision will always beat dogma but on the other hand that creates an extremely frustrating system where some of us get a completely raw deal.

It's hard not to feel frustrated for instance when some of us have been waiting for over 4 months now while others sail through in 2 months or less.

Tempers are fraying because we're all so stressed out by this whole situation but we're basically all on the same page.

 

[hulahoop]

I made a mess of my Schedule A request for instance (I added a rogue date in the worst possible place, claiming incorrectly that my LMIA job ended in December last year which would make me technically ineligible) so I'm just hoping to god I get one of the human ones who realises I just messed up.

 

[kateg]

I don't understand in what way we can or can't be polite when uploading docs to the express entry. When my app was rejected due to a missing original of the PCC, I've sent an email, where I nicely asked to take the doc in consideration. Dunno if I could or couldn't be more hearts and flowers. but the officers are supposed to do their job unbiased.

That would be the letter of explanation. If you call, or send a CSE, you can also be polite and respectful.

They are supposed to be unbiased (in terms of race), and follow the law. Beyond that, they have a bunch of discretion.

Some examples:

If you look at the inadmissability manual (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf02-eng.pdf):

Put another way, generally, although officers will not write an A44(1) inadmissibility
report— preferring instead to await the court disposition with respect to the charges and if
a conviction results, apply the provisions relating to having a conviction in Canada—
officers may choose to exercise their discretion and write an inadmissibility report using
the provisions of A37(1).

The relief provisions in the Act are at the discretion of the respective Ministers.
The existence of these provisions does not constitute a right for inadmissible persons to
be considered under them. An officer is not required to advise or counsel applicants on
the existence or application of these provisions. Although an officer may submit a request
for relief with a recommendation, the onus rests on the applicant to establish that relief
(that is, an exemption) is warranted. To recommend relief, an officer must be satisfied
that it is highly unlikely that the person concerned will become involved in any further
criminal activities.

But what if you aren't a criminal?

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/perm/econ/fsw/selection.asp

R76(3) makes possible the substitution of an officer’s evaluation for the requirements set forth in R76(1)(a) in respect of an application for permanent residence in the Federal Skilled Worker Class.

If an officer decides to use substituted evaluation when the applicant did meet all the requirements to become a member of the Federal Skilled Worker Class (i.e., negative substituted evaluation), then the officer will:

communicate their concerns to the applicant in writing and provide sufficient opportunity for the applicant to respond to those concerns, through correspondence/documentation and/or an interview;

if the applicant still fails to satisfy an officer as to their ability to become economically established, obtain written concurrence from a second designated officer; and
provide reasons for the use of negative substituted evaluation in the formal refusal letter sent to the applicant and in GCMS.

In other words, if the officer believes you won't become economically established, regardless of you meeting the criteria, he may interview you, and if another officer agrees, he may still deny you.

What about the other way?

If an officer decides to use substituted evaluation when the applicant did not obtain the minimum number of points required to become a member of the Federal Skilled Worker Class (i.e., positive substituted evaluation), then the officer will:
obtain written concurrence from a second designated officer; and
add a note in GCMS providing reasons for the use of positive substituted evaluation.

In other words, if an officer believes that you did not meet the requirements (because you made a mistake that increased your points), he may choose to process you anyway.

They are not permitted to be arbitrary, it cannot be racially motivated. It may however be motivated by attitude.

 

[wifedoctor]

Until the whole procedure is performed by a computer, you can't escape subjectivity.

This can be to your advantage or disadvantage unfortunately, depending on your "mistake" and the mood of the officer in charge of your application.

 

[kateg]

What makes me sick is the whole thing. I hate the thing they want all my transactions in the last 6 months.. if it's all under their discretion, if I buy in a store they don't like, they might delay my app and reject it for reasons others are not?

Sort-of. If your transactions lead to questions (such as your spending exceeding your stated income, or being evidence of criminality), the officer has discretion to question you on it. If he finds evidence of misrepresentation or fraud, then he has the option to concur with another officer, and should that officer concur, he may deny your application (and prevent you from reapplying). You are, of course, free to appeal, but the burden then falls upon you to prove your innocence more than him to prove your guilt.

They aren't arbitrary, but they are human. If there is anything wrong with your application, they are free to deny you, and let's face it, it's a complicated application.

I'm in that boat myself - the FBI (in the states) is taking months to get Police Certificates out, there is 60 days to apply for Express Entry, and they tell you not to get the PCC until after you get the ITA. This means that I had no choice but to send my application out without the PCC.

Technically speaking, my application is incomplete. This means that the officer has the ability (but not the requirement) to deny me. He may choose to exercise his discretion by permitting me to fix my application. He may choose not to, and I will have to resubmit a correct application.

If this were truly about being exact, we'd have the web site do everything. Instead, we have human beings, who have knowledge and expertise. Along with that comes biases.

 

[katja2684]

I made a mess of my Schedule A request for instance (I added a rogue date in the worst possible place, claiming incorrectly that my LMIA job ended in December last year which would make me technically ineligible) so I'm just hoping to god I get one of the human ones who realises I just messed up.

I would lie if I said the thought of being rejected didn't cross my mind.
I was fearing for my medicals for weeks because the receptionist put the wrong passport issue date and misspelled my address and wasn't willing to correct them.
Returning to the original idea of this thread, the idea of favoritism is what is repulsive to me, maybe because I come from a country where you 'have to know someone' to get things done.

 

[kateg]

Believe me, you don't understand my frustration. And the fact that you have uploaded some letters that no one asked you to, and you and the others are saying that if we are not polite, we might get treated differently is a BIG BS!!!

If you remember how to upload files and submit the application, there is room for only the docents they request and explanation letter. If you wrote 6 'professional' letters, that's your problem. We're not required to. And if any of the officwrs there think like you, then I'm better off Canada. As this is all BS.

I cross the Canadian border many times a month to the states. I deal with the CBSA quite regularly. I have a Nexus (trusted traveller) card, and am on a first name basis with several of the agents.

Being nice makes a difference.

Part of it is efficiency - when I interact with officers, I treat them with deference and respect. I value protective tariffs, and the Canadian economy, so I declare everything. Always. I follow the rules, to the letter. Every minute they spend hassling me is a minute they aren't stopping actual criminals.

People who show disrespect are more likely to break the law, so they are more likely to get scrutinized for breaking the law. People try to bring in meat all the time (for example), and it's a threat to Canadian agriculture. I know this, I understand this, and I'm not going to break the rules. They know me, they know that I know the rules, and we all do our jobs.

If you think that a letter of explanation is BS, that's unfortunate. There's a reason they offer it. I'm a student, which means that (normally) I can't work full-time. I telecommute to another country, though, which means that I don't need a work permit and am able to legally do so. This is odd, which requires a letter of explanation. Without it, the officer might decide that I look weird and want to investigate further. A letter of explanation helps avoid that issue.