Dear Berto,
Maybe I was not clear in my message.
No, the officer did not refuse my application.
She said she could not finalise my application because I scored only 67.
Let's see what happens to the proposed amendments.
Hmm
"Berto Volpentesta" wrote in message
news:ChWrb.25375$6i7.19528@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> This is a problem for now. The amendments were supposed to be in for 31
OCT
> 2003. But I think Justice and the lawyers could not make agreements on
> time.
>
> Pre publication allowed for 60 days (I think) that means mid NOV.
>
> Mr. Martin takes mid Nov.
>
> I guess we will see.
>
> Odd though. I do not believe the officer would go ahead and fail people
at
> this point. It may be that they wait for official word and then decide.
>
> If you do get a refusal, you should appeal to protect your right. Or, it
> may be cheaper and easier to apply again.
>
> --
> All opinions expressed are my own.
>
> Berto Volpentesta
> Member and Director, AICC (Association of Immigration Counsel of Canada)
> National Chairman, AICC Education
>
> Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc.
> Toronto, Canada
>
> Serving People Around the World since 1991
> www.svcanada.com
>
>
> "Andrew Miller" wrote in message
> news:cCCrb.10742$jy.6326@clgrps13...
> > The problem is that pass mark has been reduced to 67 points for everyone
> > applying under IRPA. You applied under old law and transition rules for
> > pre-2002 cases set pass mark at 70 points level. Those transition rules
> > haven't been changed yet, although there is an amendment to Regulations
> > proposed, but not yet implemented (as far as I know) allowing old cases
to
> > be first assessed under old law and only if they can't meet criteria to
be
> > assessed under new law with current pass mark.
> >
> > Did you get refusal? As far as amendment is not yet implemented then the
> > federal court order is still in place and refusal cannot be mailed to
you.
> > So, officer told you that you didn't pass, but you won't be refused -
> after
> > Regulations are amended as proposed you will be re-assessed under old
law.
> >
> > --
> >
> > ../..
> >
> > Andrew Miller
> > Immigration Consultant
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > email: AndrewMillerREMOVE@REMOVEcanada.com
> > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> > "Hmm" wrote in message
> > news:FgCrb.4517$aT.2437@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > Mr. Miller,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your prompt reply.
> > >
> > > The interviewing officer in LA told me that I was going to be assessed
> > under
> > > the IRPA, then proceeded to say that the pass mark for me under the
new
> > rule
> > > was 70, not 67, because I had applied in Nov. 2001 under the old rule.
> > >
> > > I told her that I thought the new pass mark of 67 was for everyone
being
> > > processed under the IRPA, but she firmly said that a different pass
mark
> > of
> > > 70 would be applicable to old applicants under the IRPA.
> > >
> > > Since my score was 67, I did not pass. (I would have been well clear
of
> > 70
> > > points under the old system.)
> > > She then told me she would put in a recommendation for her superior to
> > > consider granting me a visa as a special case.
> > > I have been told that this kind of practice was stopped when the IRPA
> came
> > > in.
> > > I have a nagging feeling that this whole thing was a mistake.
> > >
> > > Your insight will be greatly, greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thank you very much!
> > >
> > > hmm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Andrew Miller" wrote in message
> > > news:UTBrb.10524$jy.4012@clgrps13...
> > > > Pass mark of 67 points applies only to cases being assessed under
> IRPA.
> > > > Cases being assessed under the old law must meet old selection
> criteria
> > > and
> > > > old pass mark of 70 points.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > ../..
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Miller
> > > > Immigration Consultant
> > > > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > > > email: AndrewMillerREMOVE@REMOVEcanada.com
> > > > (delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Hmm" wrote in message
> > > > news:B6Brb.4457$aT.1574@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > Hi people,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was very confused after attending my interview for a skilled
> migrant
> > > > visa
> > > > > at the Canadian consulate general in L.A. last week.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought the pass mark for everyone still in the pipeline was
> lowered
> > > to
> > > > > 67, but the interviewing officer told me that the pass mark for
> people
> > > who
> > > > > applied under the old rule was still unchanged at 70 as of the
last
> > > week.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, people who applied under the old rule were still assessed
under
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > rule as of the last week. (Forget about th rumor that old
> applicants
> > > are
> > > > > assessed under the old rules after October 31, 2003.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you guys know this?
> > > > >
> > > > > hmm
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|