Rejections due to no duties on ref. letter - VO tracking & MP pressure group

[PMM]

Hi

Hi All,

As there have been more and more cases of CEC applications rejected simply due to the fact that an applicant could not provide a letter detailing his/her duties and responsibilities i think its time to build a database of VO's who have been rejecting applications on the aforementioned grounds.
I'd like to track only cases where the reason for rejection was due to unability to prove SKILLED work experience although additional/alternative supporting documents were provided and it is clear that the ruling of VO was made on purely technical reasons in contrast with the rest of supporting evidence.
The request for detailed reference letter is absurd by itself, it is not a legal or government document which can be obtained for 100% of applicants. Employers often refused to provide such a letter and as such it simply CANNOT be classified as the only document which can prove skilled work experience.
I think anybody who had their case refused for such reasons have a good opportunity to complain to their local MP's. Moreover, we might want to make a pressure group through MP's to request CIC to reopen the cases and change their operating procedures.

It is not a "law" it is a requirement. Do you really believe that CIC will accept you stating that I was a computer programer, so my job meets the criteria?

 

[gta-tor-etob]

Hi


It is not a "law" it is a requirement. Do you really believe that CIC will accept you stating that I was a computer programer, so my job meets the criteria?

Hello,

So what do you suggest in this scenerio, where your employer simply deny to provide info in letter?? we know its the requirement, but here we are trying to resolve this issue, not discussing if it exist or not!!

In addition to that "how would we prove if i am computer engg or etc, every job letter states job title, the problem here is job duties, so if job duties are missing, they should consider option to contact employer to verify, because employer is declined for job duties, not we chooosen not to put in the letter.


Thank you!

 

[roger1726]

I support sashali78 for this cause..

Even though I have got duties and responsibilities letter from my employer , it will not be possible to get letter from all the companies. I feel that reference letter should not be only reason to reject the CEC application , they need to consider supporting documents before taking their final decision.

Also before rejecting CEC application directly they atleast give chance to applicant to provide required letters. It will save time both for applicant(applying it again) and CIC(assess it again).

 

[SkorpionKing23]

Sounds good, rejection based on missing context in employer letter, atleast they should give a chance to prove the worth. There are lot of things at stake, but the CIC should be little considerate on it. Also, under CEC they should acknowledge that a candidate is working on their land and paying taxes for last 24 months, so preference should be given on the skillset and rest of the things but not just for one letter the decision cannot be made.

 

[sashali78]

Thanks everybody for the support.
For all those who got rejected , please put your details in the Google document:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aui2RQO5umnddFA5cFR4Z3J4Y2d5ODZlUDZpaE9RV3c#gid=0

 

[gta-tor-etob]

Great! Can you change the CPP-OTT to actual Visa Officer #? That's what i meant by VO. I have already clarified it in the document.

Done and i deleted non-required posts from here, you should also.

 

[jes_ON]

BTW, are you sure that company violates any laws by not providing a detailed letter?

Never said they violate any laws by refusing to provide a detailed letter. I said that is the expected norm for Canadian Employers. If your employer is not Canadian, then there could be different norms. But if they operate in Canada, I think it's not unreasonable to expect them to respect this norm.

 

[SkorpionKing23]

Pls advise if the below format for emp referral looks good...

Mr. XYZ is a full time permanent employee of ABC. He joined ABC effective December 20, 2004, and came on assignment to our Canadian operations effective September 01, 2008.

Mr. XYZ joined Canadian operation from September 01, 2008 as a Sr. Software Developer and continued on the role till August 17th, 2010. From Aug 18th, 2010 till date, XYZ is currently in role of a Lead for Quality Assurance in IT Project, with one of the clients of ABC. XYZ as apart of his duties is responsible for providing IT solutions and consultancy to the client, analyzing the existing legacy system components used at client end, and provide consultancy for solutions to enhance efficiency of processes implemented at client's end. XYZ has in-depth specialized knowledge of ABC Comapny proprietary development procedures, methodologies, and tools that are used in this assignment.

As a full time employee XYZ works for 40hrs per week, and his current annual income is $ 67,835 CAD.


Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Signed by HR Manager

 

[sashali78]

Pls advise if the below format for emp referral looks good...

Mr. XYZ is a full time permanent employee of ABC. He joined ABC effective December 20, 2004, and came on assignment to our Canadian operations effective September 01, 2008.

Mr. XYZ joined Canadian operation from September 01, 2008 as a Sr. Software Developer and continued on the role till August 17th, 2010. From Aug 18th, 2010 till date, XYZ is currently in role of a Lead for Quality Assurance in IT Project, with one of the clients of ABC. XYZ as apart of his duties is responsible for providing IT solutions and consultancy to the client, analyzing the existing legacy system components used at client end, and provide consultancy for solutions to enhance efficiency of processes implemented at client's end. XYZ has in-depth specialized knowledge of ABC Comapny proprietary development procedures, methodologies, and tools that are used in this assignment.

As a full time employee XYZ works for 40hrs per week, and his current annual income is $ 67,835 CAD.


Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Signed by HR Manager

The format is fine but don't forget that your duties need to match closely to the NOC you are applying under , as well be the same as your LMO NOC. If Mr.Clerk will think your duties do not match close enough you will end up with rejection again.

 

[SenoritaBella]

In my opinion, it may be worth your while to instead fight for companies to provide reference letters(afterall, if you are/were an employee, the employer should not be hesistant to provide a list of your main duties because it is factual information. I don't see any risk on their part doing that) instead of trying to change CIC's requirements.

CEC is a pass/fail system, hence the gov't has been implementing new rules to assist visa officers with their decision-making. e.g. before the IELTS became a requirement, language assessment was so subjective that some applicants with little or no knowledge of either official language became permanent residents. The problem became more evident as many failed the citizenship test and/or couldn't communicate during the interview. I read one decision on a failed appeal - the applicant attended her citizenship interview with a translator and became upset that the Judge wouldn't allow the person to translate for her.

By the same analogy, they came up with the employment letter which serves as definitive proof of your work experience. The downside to relaxing that requirement is the likelihood of increase in fraud. The main duties also help visa officers determine whether a job is skilled or not. There are cases here of people with "manager" titles(especially in the food industry because only the managerial or supervisory roles are skilled) but it is apparent from the main duties that they do not supervise or manage any employees or do much of the core duties in the NOC code. Without an employment letter or additional convincing evidence, I don't see how visa officers can be certain of someone's work experience.

Since applicants working for MNCs already know they will have a hard time getting employment letters, may I suggest they begin gathering as much evidence over the course of their employment? That is, save a copy of the job advertisement you applied to(it should have a brief summary of duties) and any others(for your position) that come along. Save any info you can find on the employer's website, etc and lastly, try building a strong professional rapport with some managers or supervisors as it could be the difference.

Lastly, I'm not sure any MP would put their neck on the line to challenge CIC's requirements, especially as unemployment rates hit the lowest point recently and increasing immigration numbers are a hot bed issue for many Canadians but good luck with it though. As for elections, the voters being courted are new Canadians(i.e. eligible to vote) not necessarily would be applicants for PR. You are not eligible to vote for a few years anyway and when you do, perhaps you will be so happy with your life that you vote the same MP again or his/her party. LOL

 

[elwebmaster]

I can relate to this problem. I had a really hard time getting such letter from my employer. The employer has procedures in place for giving out letters to employees and the manager is expected to just sign the letter without changing its content. It is very hard (impossible in most cases) to get a list of duties included in the letter.
I am not sure if the change should be on the CIC side or on the HRDC side. In my opinion, CIC does need a proof showing that you are a skilled worker. A job title on its own does not show anything. May be the pressure should be to change the law and make employers obligated to give out reference letters with a list of duties to employees who request them?

 

[sashali78]

I can relate to this problem. I had a really hard time getting such letter from my employer. The employer has procedures in place for giving out letters to employees and the manager is expected to just sign the letter without changing its content. It is very hard (impossible in most cases) to get a list of duties included in the letter.
I am not sure if the change should be on the CIC side or on the HRDC side. In my opinion, CIC does need a proof showing that you are a skilled worker. A job title on its own does not show anything. May be the pressure should be to change the law and make employers obligated to give out reference letters with a list of duties to employees who request them?

I don't know how it will be possible to obligate private firms to provide this sort of documents. The whole problem with this situation is that the letter is customized per employee and the bigger the company is the stricter and more cumbersome the process of approving each customer letter would be. The starting point is why CIC is ready to accept just this as a prove of skilled worker experience?
Is LMO obtained for the same job is not enough to prove a skilled level? After all it is the HRDC itself issuing it.
Would job contract or additional letter from manager, even if not on the official company letter (for the aforementioned reasons) not enough?
Is job title/annual salary not enough to conclude skilled level? Would anyone pay more than 50K$ a year for non-skilled labour?
Aren't pay stubs and tax reports not enough to conclude job period? It is simply absurd

I have to say that although my initial application was filed without the detailed letter from my past employer I was able to obtain it recently and going to apend it to my file. However, this doesn't change the situation for many other who are going to be rejected time over time without a reason.
Being a 2007 applicant and passing through the long line of CIC abuse (slashing of 2008 files, although my case can pass by pre-2008, 2009-2010 and newest rules my case is still not processed) I can relate well to all those who will pass similar abuse with CIC processing. Unlike FSW case, which is really a lost cause, most CEC applicants are in Canada, with access to MP's and CIC officials and there is no reason why this situation cannot be changed (not that it will be easy and fast)

 

[CEC2013]

Perhaps I'm just spinning my wheels here, but what about voicing your concerns during a stakeholder consultation? CIC consultations are organized a few times annually. One would need to be informed/up to date about the consultations and choose the correct venue. This is a public forum and I would assume that if enough people voice this concern, the least that could happen is that this topic is now on their radar and perhaps you even get a response, through one of their summative reports. Another assumption would be that those "petitioning" for this change would need to be vigilant. Meaning, they take advantage of each and every opportunity to bring forth this concern, through any appropriate venue. And as always - everything is in the numbers!

Just thinking out loud..

 

[sashali78]

Perhaps I'm just spinning my wheels here, but what about voicing your concerns during a stakeholder consultation? CIC consultations are organized a few times annually. One would need to be informed/up to date about the consultations and choose the correct venue. This is a public forum and I would assume that if enough people voice this concern, the least that could happen is that this topic is now on their radar and perhaps you even get a response, through one of their summative reports. Another assumption would be that those "petitioning" for this change would need to be vigilant. Meaning, they take advantage of each and every opportunity to bring forth this concern, through any appropriate venue. And as always - everything is in the numbers!

Just thinking out loud..

It's not a bad idea , but the truth is that although so many complaint about rejections , almost no one to signed in for this case. So, without the numbers there is not much to do. Unless there is going to be a sudden influx of people signing in, i am going to drop it whatsoever.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aui2RQO5umnddFA5cFR4Z3J4Y2d5ODZlUDZpaE9RV3c#gid=0

 

[Cos]

It's not a bad idea , but the truth is that although so many complaint about rejections , almost no one to signed in for this case. So, without the numbers there is not much to do. Unless there is going to be a sudden influx of people signing in, i am going to drop it whatsoever.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aui2RQO5umnddFA5cFR4Z3J4Y2d5ODZlUDZpaE9RV3c#gid=0

Sashali,

I strongly believe that this is a genuine cause and the signatures should not be limited only to those that have been rejected. We had similar views regarding the destabilization caused to families as a result of job losses associated with work permit expiration. Thank goodness, someone listened and the new open work permit was born.