WHEN YOUR PARENT SPONSORSHIP 2014 APPLICATION REACHED CPC-M? UPDATE HERE...

[user828]

If CIC does in fact keep tabs on financial docs, why those on EIC and PGWP continue to work illegally past their expire dates under the assumption of "implied status" under the inland spousal sponsorhip. Why aren't they all caught. CIC may keep tabs but in depth as you think they are. This is why CIC now wants option C printout as official proof of income.

I am speaking from pure PGP perspective where certain income is a must, I thought spouse sponsorship has no income requirement. I am sorry, got no idea what you talking about implied status and illegal work, was simply suggesting it was more than a coincidence where LVO's asked for more financial info only to those who had a change in the yearly income via EI or some other change ( and the fact being it takes 4-5 years for PGP so they have all the time to inquire )

 

[milpan]

I was under impression that once your CC is charged they already checked your income status NOA or Option C for 2010-11-12 to determine eligibility as if they are going to check later its lots of admin work for them like returning money also if from 5K apps they are returning 1K later on than that is holding spot of 1k as on website it says that all incomplete or not meeting criteria apps will be returned without process.. i think picture will be clear after 1st communication to ones whoes apps are approved or whose apps are returned due to income issue..... hope in 3 months we get to know something

 

[screech339]

I am speaking from pure PGP perspective where certain income is a must, I thought spouse sponsorship has no income requirement. I am sorry, got no idea what you talking about implied status and illegal work, was simply suggesting it was more than a coincidence where LVO's asked for more financial info only to those who had a change in the yearly income via EI or some other change ( and the fact being it takes 4-5 years for PGP so they have all the time to inquire )

There is no minimum income requirement. CIC still wants to know how you intent to support yourself to make sure you don't go collecting welfare after sponsored spouse landed. However there was a "implied status" with inland sponsorship that if one were to be on work visa or visitor visa, by sending in open work permit, they get implied status. They can continue working past their work visa expire date. Those on IEC or PGWP work visa do not get "implied status" by sending in open work application in with the spousal sponsorship. But these people assume so. So I am sure there are lots of people working illegally past their IEC /PGWP visa dates under the assumption the implied status applies to IEC/PGWP.

That said, if CIC are keeping tabs on income closely as you say they are with PGP, these people working illegally would all have been caught. So I doubt that CIC is keep tabs on people's income through contact with CRA. They want NOAs or Option C as proof of income and don't want to have to deal with CRA on a constant basis. I think they should but, they probably maintain minimal contact with CRA.

 

[quinnman]

For that have had money taken from Credit Cards, I would assume CIC would need to send us a receipts soon?

 

[Rob_TO]

as on website it says that all incomplete or not meeting criteria apps will be returned without process..

The website doesn't say anything about "meeting criteria". They are just saying the first 5000 "complete" apps will be accepted into the 5000 cap. One could submit NOAs showing $0 income for each year, but as long as the NOAs are there, the app is technically "complete".

Meeting all the criteria, checking family size, matching it to NOA/Option Cs for 2010,11,12... will most likely not happen until sponsor review stage.

 

[RPh]

credit card charged June 28,2014
app received Jan8, 2014

 

[mastersonicdog]

Finally! Credit card charged today January 28, 2014 - the money on hold in the credit card since yesterday.

I sent my app on January 13, CIC received it on the 14th. I waited 10 days for the option c printout, fully qualified for 2010-2013 LICO.

Hope this info helps.

Please update my timeline, thanks!

 

[mspjal]

toronto ji,

Please upload the under mentioned information in ur spreadsheet :

Date application sent to CPC -M = Jan 07,2014
Consignment sent through = CANADA POST
Date on which packet reached CPC = Jan 10,2014. AT 11.30 AM
Date on which Credit charged = Jan 25,2014,as confirmed from Bank statement.

Thanx.

Good luck. MAY God bless all !!!!

mspjal

 

[ZIDYAY]

I will be stealing a spot from someone else who rightfully deserved it more than me who followed by the book. I would deserved to be called these lovely names you list by these actions if I have done that

@screech,

The right to reject, disapprove, approve, or request additional information rests only with CIC. If people wanted to submit pay stubs or any other document to prove their income in 2013 so they can complete the three year income requirement, that is their choice. You should not treat these people as if they were committing a very serious offense like a thief stealing the property of others. That is a false, condescending, unreasonable and most of all arrogant. If CIC determined that their papers are incomplete because they did not submit NOA for 2010 and returned their application, how can these people, as you said, steal a spot deserved for those with complete NOAs?

As we are seeing now, applications are being returned the moment CIC saw they don't have complete documents like the one that failed to include 2010 NOA. However we have yet to hear a single application returned because they tried to justify their application by presenting pay stubs, bank accounts, or employer certification in 2013. Even if there were, it is totally appalling for you to allege individuals are robbing others of their chance under the program. The program rules as I have said repeatedly are not stated very clearly particularly on the issue of income and this caused confusion to many applicants.The one which has the right to decide and say that some people took it wrong is only CIC. Bloggers may give comment and opinion but must not judge others like they are playing around the law or committing some serious offense against others. I think people you have offended deserve an apology.

 

[petersiddle28]

Screech hates Parents Sponsorship anyways so its obvious his replies will try to undermine and confuse people. As far as I know he tries to indulge in all threads with this snide remarks, and as you said correctly,insults others too. I urge others to ignore this chap

Now wait for a harper style remark from this fella

 

[jhutti]

And you are not even including 2010 NOAs? The 2014 applications ask for 2010 to 2012 income. Not 2011-2013. The 2013 lico are not even released yet. CIC can't even compare your 2013 income despite no 2013 NOAs released until probably June.

I think it is a futile attempt. You are better off applying in 2015 jan when you actually have 2011, 2012 and 2013 NOA to show to CIC.

Screech339

Screech,
Thanks for the comments on my application. On the technical point of of comparing 2013 income. Mine is 6 digit. And the 6 family required 5 digit ie around 70K. The 2013 income should not be that different. In case they accept my application second time. Along with 2013 NOA. I will also submit my world income of 2010. As in 2010 , NOA has 40k in canada But I also earned 25k GBP from UK in first half of year.
In 2010 when we claim child benefits at that time I declare my UK income also. So we get less child benefits.
It is long shot. Let see if I come within the cap limit.

I

 

[screech339]

I will be stealing a spot from someone else who rightfully deserved it more than me who followed by the book. I would deserved to be called these lovely names you list by these actions if I have done that

@ screech,

The right to reject, disapprove, approve, or request additional information rests only with CIC. If people wanted to submit pay stubs or any other document to prove their income in 2013 so they can complete the three year income requirement, that is their choice. You should not treat these people as if they were committing a very serious offense like a thief stealing the property of others. That is a false, condescending, unreasonable and most of all arrogant. If CIC determined that their papers are incomplete because they did not submit NOA for 2010 and returned their application, how can these people, as you said, steal a spot deserved for those with complete NOAs?

As we are seeing now, applications are being returned the moment CIC saw they don't have complete documents like the one that failed to include 2010 NOA. However we have yet to hear a single application returned because they tried to justify their application by presenting pay stubs, bank accounts, or employer certification in 2013. Even if there were, it is totally appalling for you to allege individuals are robbing others of their chance under the program. The program rules as I have said repeatedly are not stated very clearly particularly on the issue of income and this caused confusion to many applicants.The one which has the right to decide and say that some people took it wrong is only CIC. Bloggers may give comment and opinion but must not judge others like they are playing around the law or committing some serious offense against others. I think people you have offended deserve an apology.

Did I strike a nerve with you? I don't have a lot of respect for those who refuses to follow the rules / guidelines in the hope of skipping the line.

Here is a scenario that I think reflects what people who do not meet 2010 LICOs but add 2013 paystubs.

A 18 year old guy walks into a liquor store. He sees the last bottle of 15 year old scotch on the shelf that restocks 5000 bottles once a year. He knows he has to wait until he is 19 next year. He takes it in the hope that the checkout counter doesn't noticed he is underage to buy it. He believes he deserved this bottle as much as everyone else. A 19 year old guy walks in and sees that all 5000 bottles of scotch is gone from the shelf. He is disappointed he knowing he has to wait another year. He goes pick up a bottle of wine and waits at the line at checkout. The 18 year old guy passes the scotch to the cashier. The cashier asked for ID and discovered that he is not old enough to buy it. The cashier takes the scotch away from the 18 year old and accidently dropped it. The bottle shattered on the floor, obviously that it can't be restocked. The 19 year old guy sees all this and gets angry that his potential bottle of scotch was lost.

Have I got this right? Is this a fair comparison? And you want me to apologize to this 18 year old? Notice that the 18 year old guy never made any crime like you made comment about. But he did undermine the process.

I still stick with my argument. I am for fairness for everyone, Canadians and PRs, in getting equal share in getting a spot in the 5000 cap who follow the rules that is laid out in front of them.

Screech339

 

[Hishman]

Hi All

I am still waiting for my CC to get charged. That being said, I am wondering given that some of the CCs got charged "out-of-order" (i.e. for some applications received earlier, the charged appeared after others), do you think that the CC getting charged actually means anything? As in, do you think it is a confirmation that you are within the 5000 quota, or do you think CIC may be charging more CCs than 5000, and then refunding the money later?

 

[Rob_TO]

Screech,
Thanks for the comments on my application. On the technical point of of comparing 2013 income. Mine is 6 digit. And the 6 family required 5 digit ie around 70K. The 2013 income should not be that different. In case they accept my application second time. Along with 2013 NOA. I will also submit my world income of 2010. As in 2010 , NOA has 40k in canada But I also earned 25k GBP from UK in first half of year.
In 2010 when we claim child benefits at that time I declare my UK income also. So we get less child benefits.
It is long shot. Let see if I come within the cap limit.

I really think you should wait until Jan 2015.

CIC has said VERY clearly they will not accept any proofs other than CRA NOAs or Option C. They will not even consider "world" income. Quite simply you must meet the LICO requirements, and CIC doesn't care if you are a billionaire today... if you don't meet the old LICOs, you don't qualify.

If you are somehow accepted into the cap by including your 2010 NOA that does not meet the 2010 LICO, then they will accept your application. However by the time they get to actually processing it and if it's rejected due to not meeting 2010 LICO, it will be sometime in 2015 or 2016. Because you have an application "in process", you will miss applying in Jan 2015, and possibly miss applying in 2016. So if/when app is finally rejected, you may be applying next in Jan 2017.

If you just wait till you actually qualify from the start like you are supposed to, then you will have no problem applying in Jan 2015.

 

[screech339]

Screech hates Parents Sponsorship anyways so its obvious his replies will try to undermine and confuse people. As far as I know he tries to indulge in all threads with this snide remarks, and as you said correctly,insults others too. I urge others to ignore this chap

Now wait for a harper style remark from this fella

I do not try to undermine anyone who wants to bring their parents / grandparents to Canada. Who doesn't. In fact I will be co-signer for my wife's parents but I don't meet the 2012 LICO requirement so I have no choice but to wait until 2017 Jan to apply.

But I would not be very happy if someone who did not meet the 2013 lico and put in paystubs for 2016 in the hope to get the 5000 spot.

At least with the 5000 cap, the inlaws will have a reasonable time in getting PR as those who applied this year. Otherwise, without the cap, the in laws would likely have to wait much much longer to get their PRs like it has been happening under the old pgp without any caps.

As for your harper comment, that is very mature of you. I don't talk about politics in this form. It has no place for it here.

Screech339