Work placement as foreign work experience

[Elrud]

I have a querry from a friend who is claiming only 1 year of foreign work experience and nothing about Canadian work experience in order to become eligible at least under FSWP to come to Canada.

For accounting work placement after graduation to be counted as foreign work experience:

Can someone spend the articling in different sets (3 months each in 4 firms in order to be exposed in different areas as imposed by the regulatory body), provided it is continuous?

Also, the 4 reference letters from each firm mention the duties as articling student but did not mentioned income earned. There is no proof of income earned as the payment was made by cheque and cashed directly. However, the income tax authority can provide an attestation for trade income earned mentioning that this income was exempt from filing. Will it be fine as the income was low and did not meet the threshold requesting a filing?

As far as I know, there is no minimum income imposed?

 

[pfse]

I have a querry from a friend who is claiming only 1 year of foreign work experience and nothing about Canadian work experience in order to become eligible at least under FSWP to come to Canada.

For accounting work placement after graduation to be counted as foreign work experience:

Can someone spend the articling in different sets (3 months each in 4 firms in order to be exposed in different areas as imposed by the regulatory body), provided it is continuous?

Also, the 4 reference letters from each firm mention the duties as articling student but did not mentioned income earned. There is no proof of income earned as the payment was made by cheque and cashed directly. However, the income tax authority can provide an attestation for trade income earned mentioning that this income was exempt from filing. Will it be fine as the income was low and did not meet the threshold requesting a filing?

As far as I know, there is no minimum income imposed?

Even w/o detail understanding his situation I can say that he is not eligible as he can't claim 1 year continuous work experience at the same job (as required by FSW).

 

[vensak]

I have a querry from a friend who is claiming only 1 year of foreign work experience and nothing about Canadian work experience in order to become eligible at least under FSWP to come to Canada.

For accounting work placement after graduation to be counted as foreign work experience:

Can someone spend the articling in different sets (3 months each in 4 firms in order to be exposed in different areas as imposed by the regulatory body), provided it is continuous?

Also, the 4 reference letters from each firm mention the duties as articling student but did not mentioned income earned. There is no proof of income earned as the payment was made by cheque and cashed directly. However, the income tax authority can provide an attestation for trade income earned mentioning that this income was exempt from filing. Will it be fine as the income was low and did not meet the threshold requesting a filing?

As far as I know, there is no minimum income imposed?

My opinion is that, this would most likely not be accepted. Your friend is missing the proof of income. Info from the tax authority that certain incomes (like income of your friend) are extempt from taxes is not proof that your friend was actually paid. I am afraid, that unless the company will confirm that he or she was paid on official document, it will not be counted as proof.
another problem is the work itself. Unless he she had 1 work contract and then as a part of her work was sent to work in different work place (different company) it will not count as continous employment. If it were inside Canada experience, that it can be counted together, but FSW needs to have at least 1 year from 1 employer (under 1 work contract so to say).

So what you described will not make your friend elligible.

 

[Elrud]

My opinion is that, this would most likely not be accepted. Your friend is missing the proof of income. Info from the tax authority that certain incomes (like income of your friend) are extempt from taxes is not proof that your friend was actually paid. I am afraid, that unless the company will confirm that he or she was paid on official document, it will not be counted as proof.
another problem is the work itself. Unless he she had 1 work contract and then as a part of her work was sent to work in different work place (different company) it will not count as continous employment. If it were inside Canada experience, that it can be counted together, but FSW needs to have at least 1 year from 1 employer (under 1 work contract so to say).

So what you described will not make your friend elligible.

Yes, but I believe for articling students, the situation is different. That's why, CIC explicitly mention "articling students are included in the list...", which infers they might know the situation might be different for such category considered as work experience. For instance, the articling can be under the supervision of different principals in different firms.

Normally, articling students are not considered as permanent employees and will not be on HR list, thus no pay slips.

I think it is the regulatory who will make the letter confirming the 12 months of work placement, rather than submitting individual reference letters from the 4 principals because it remains confidential within the regulatory body.

Further, income earned cannot be disclosed of confidentiality and that's why the applicant will furnish the attestion from the tax authority.

Will it be an issue?


Further, it is the regulatory who will make the letter

 

[Elrud]

My opinion is that, this would most likely not be accepted. Your friend is missing the proof of income. Info from the tax authority that certain incomes (like income of your friend) are extempt from taxes is not proof that your friend was actually paid. I am afraid, that unless the company will confirm that he or she was paid on official document, it will not be counted as proof.
another problem is the work itself. Unless he she had 1 work contract and then as a part of her work was sent to work in different work place (different company) it will not count as continous employment. If it were inside Canada experience, that it can be counted together, but FSW needs to have at least 1 year from 1 employer (under 1 work contract so to say).

So what you described will not make your friend elligible.

You might be wrong. I found this:
Calculating work experience for FSW

Work experience can be calculated by:

adding up the number of continuous weeks of full-time (or equivalent in part-time) paid work (i.e., 30 hours/37.5 hours per week in one full-time job, a combined total of at least 30 hours/37.5 hours per week in more than one part-time job,
15 hours per week in one part-time job over a period of two years, etc) in one or more skilled occupations at Skill Type 0 (Managerial occupations), Skill Level A (Professional occupations) or B (Technical occupations and skilled trades).

It clearly mentions in "one or more..."

Any thoughts?

 

[vensak]

You might be wrong. I found this:
Calculating work experience for FSW

Work experience can be calculated by:

adding up the number of continuous weeks of full-time (or equivalent in part-time) paid work (i.e., 30 hours/37.5 hours per week in one full-time job, a combined total of at least 30 hours/37.5 hours per week in more than one part-time job,
15 hours per week in one part-time job over a period of two years, etc) in one or more skilled occupations at Skill Type 0 (Managerial occupations), Skill Level A (Professional occupations) or B (Technical occupations and skilled trades).

It clearly mentions in "one or more..."

Any thoughts?

Occupation means that your job duties can change over the time, but you have to have:
1. One full time job (AKA one contract) in the period of at least 1 year
2. More than 1 part time jobs in the period of 1 year (that means to have several jobs simultanously, but they are part time).
2. One part time job within period of 2 years where you would get enough hours to count 1 year.

If your Friend has 4 different contracts for 4 different jobs one after another during the period of 1 year, he or she cannot qualify

Furthermore your job has to be paid one. And as such it has to be listed as costs somewhere.
Since there is no direct proof of paid job, the application will be rejected.

 

[Elrud]

Occupation means that your job duties can change over the time, but you have to have:
1. One full time job (AKA one contract) in the period of at least 1 year
2. More than 1 part time jobs in the period of 1 year (that means to have several jobs simultanously, but they are part time).
2. One part time job within period of 2 years where you would get enough hours to count 1 year.

If your Friend has 4 different contracts for 4 different jobs one after another during the period of 1 year, he or she cannot qualify

Furthermore your job has to be paid one. And as such it has to be listed as costs somewhere.
Since there is no direct proof of paid job, the application will be rejected.

CIC want to know whether someone got paid in order to be sure whether the applicant really perform the duties.

In this case, my friend has proof that she fulfilled the duties under the NOC, as there is proof that she got registered as a professional with the respective regulatory body upon fulfilment of articling. Further the tax authority will mention that she earned income. To say, things are very confidential in Germany.

This situation seems unique. Anyway thanks.

 

[vensak]

CIC want to know whether someone got paid in order to be sure whether the applicant really perform the duties.

In this case, my friend has proof that she fulfilled the duties under the NOC, as there is proof that she got registered as a professional with the respective regulatory body upon fulfilment of articling. Further the tax authority will mention that she earned income. To say, things are very confidential in Germany.

This situation seems unique. Anyway thanks.

The problem is direct connection there. There is no official document saying that he or she got salary from the company x, y, z.
Again just saying that she had income that is extempt from tax paying is not the same.

 

[pfse]

CIC want to know whether someone got paid in order to be sure whether the applicant really perform the duties.

In this case, my friend has proof that she fulfilled the duties under the NOC, as there is proof that she got registered as a professional with the respective regulatory body upon fulfilment of articling. Further the tax authority will mention that she earned income. To say, things are very confidential in Germany.

This situation seems unique. Anyway thanks.

It doesn't matter what CIC wants to know. CIC is assessing the applications by the rules described in "Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations"
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-16.html#h-43

(2) A foreign national is a skilled worker if

(a) within the 10 years before the date on which their application for a permanent resident visa is made, they have accumulated, over a continuous period, at least one year of full-time work experience, or the equivalent in part-time work, in the occupation identified by the foreign national in their application as their primary occupation, other than a restricted occupation, that is listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Level A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix;

 

[Elrud]

The problem is direct connection there. There is no official document saying that he or she got salary from the company x, y, z.
Again just saying that she had income that is extempt from tax paying is not the same.

Yes, but normally articling student's income is exempt from tax, so as for majority of work placements in some countries.

After all, CIC says that if you cannot furnish direct proof like pay slips, any other documents like that from tax authority might be an option.

The work placement contract/agreement (unwritten) normally lies within the regulatory body.

Let's see whether it works as CIC explicitly amended the NOC list to include artilcing students in 2015.

 

[Elrud]

It doesn't matter what CIC wants to know. CIC is assessing the applications by the rules described in "Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations"
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-16.html#h-43

(2) A foreign national is a skilled worker if

(a) within the 10 years before the date on which their application for a permanent resident visa is made, they have accumulated, over a continuous period, at least one year of full-time work experience, or the equivalent in part-time work, in the occupation identified by the foreign national in their application as their primary occupation, other than a restricted occupation, that is listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Level A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix;

No, discretion lies within this rule.

There are applicants who complied exactly with this rule, furnish reference letters with salary mentioned. Still CIC reject their applications because of doubt they did not performing the stated NOC due to income received.

So, yes, CIC wants to know rather than follow blindly this rule.

 

[pfse]

No, discretion lies within this rule.

There are applicants who complied exactly with this rule, furnish reference letters with salary mentioned. Still CIC reject their applications because of doubt they did not performing the stated NOC due to income received.

So, yes, CIC wants to know rather than follow blindly this rule.

VOs may apply discretion, but only within very narrow boundaries. They would not approve application which doesn't meet eligibility rules outlined in "Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations". The fact that NOC list has been changed to include artilcing students doesn't eliminate requirement to meet FSW eligibility rules by these artilcing students. BTW, CIC dosn't change NOC list, it's not their responsibility.

 

[kryt0n]

No, discretion lies within this rule.

There are applicants who complied exactly with this rule, furnish reference letters with salary mentioned. Still CIC reject their applications because of doubt they did not performing the stated NOC due to income received.

So, yes, CIC wants to know rather than follow blindly this rule.

If you're sure it's not going to be a problem then why all other people's opinions?

 

[Elrud]

If you're sure it's not going to be a problem then why all other people's opinions?

Because it's confusing. I'm helping her and I see people got rejected in this forum because CIC has doubt that they did not perform the duties...