Returned My Application

Canada Immigration Forum (discussion group)


 
       
Subject: Returned My Application
  I have been living USA last 8 years without lawfully admitted, in 2003 I have applied in Canada as a Skilled worker, I got my medical report too, but later on I have withdrawn my application due to some personal reasons. I change my mind and again I have applied recently and they are asking to submit any documents of lawfully admission like I-94, etc.. unfortunately I don´t have those, My ques is - in this situation what should I do, where to sumbit my application or what kind of explanation should I provide ? and could process my application ? Please help me out
[30-06-2007,14:40]
[***.84.202.51]
Navid
(in reply to: Returned My Application)
http://canadaimmigrationissues.blogspot.com/2007/06/new-proposal-to-immigration-minister.html

NEW PROPOSAL TO IMMIGRATION MINISTER DIANE FINLEY as CSIC REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT -JUNE 2007 IMMIGRATION ADVISERS LICENSING BILL FAILED-<

CSIC REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT -JUNE 2007 IMMIGRATION ADVISERS LICENSING BILL FAILED
BACKGROUND
In the development of the Immigration Advisers Licensing regulation, 14 recent article posted by the Toronto Star has put CSIC on notice as failure society and the regulation has failed the public and consumer protection.

CSIC Regulatory failure impacted the Immigration industry- the public now considered not to use the regulatory advisors and use the non-regulatory advisors as the safest options to enhance the ability of immigration applicants to make a well-informed choice of immigration adviser and success application.

In 2003, the former Immigration Minister Denis Codere, and the Canadian Cabinet agreed to certify but not license of immigration advisers based on false statement where given to the government by LSUC immigration lawyers and ex immigration officers who practiced as members of AICC and OPIC. The CSIC society was developed in April 2004 and considered the regulatory body but not the licensing authority for immigration advisers.

This Proposal provides a final overview on CSIC and reflects all Cabinet decisions on regulating immigration advisers in 2007.

Statement of the nature and magnitude of the CSIC problem and the need for government action to remove CSIC board from power is in need desperately.

The provision of immigration advice is currently regulated and there are no market incentives for advisers to provide good services.

CSIC Immigration advisers do not advise, assist or represent applicants or potential applicants regarding all types of immigration applications they are limited to certain immigration category and not including residence, temporary entry, appeals, exemptions, and refugee status claims and appeals.

CSIC members also can not advise third parties such as sponsors, employers and education providers unless they receive advanced commissions or cash from the client on demand, A Private investigator have witnessed this particular event about one of CSIC member, Roy Kellogg. We attended his office in 2007 and recorded him asking for immediate $2000 cash or not to continue the service. Roy Kellogg appeared to be a former minister council and former CIC employee, his practice is rather unethical and doubtful with malicious attitude toward clients on deportation status. He collected his clients each morning after his regular visit to GTEC. When we heard him was speaking by names about his clients - which we are sure should be private and not disclosed to get business.

When Kellogg started to claim to be an ex immigration agent and says has contacts in the immigration where he can push case. Where the client decided not to go with him. So eager ones don?t fall for the trap. His advertisment is as follows;

All of our directors are former Senior Immigration Officers and have been trained by Citizenship and Immigration Canada in regards to Canadian Immigration Law and its Regulations. Our friendly team of knowledgeable immigration and promotional professionals offers our clients a comprehensive menu of services designed to help them successfully relocate and settle in their newly chosen country.


CANVISA Immigration (CVImmigration) is headed by Mr. Roy Kellogg. He has been successful in representing thousands of clients in front of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Appeals Division, at admissibility hearings and at various local Citizenship and Immigration local offices including Embassies abroad. He is a member of Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC# MO41632).
Mr. Kellogg also used to work with CIC,holding several posts which includes being a Humanitarian & Compassionate

ROY KELLOGG
President,Canvisa Immigration
Member, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (MO41632)
Program Specialist, Head of the Detained Unit with the responsibility of supervising eight Case Processing officers conducting Inquiry?s and Detention Hearings, Case Processing Officer and Enforcement Detention Officer.



Due to the above misleading advertisment and recorded event including the recent Toronto Star 14 articles about CSIC members public mischief- CSIC immigration adviser was used in around 2% residence applications and around (99 percent) temporary entry applications in 2004/05. Around 2 percent of immigration ´transactions´ CSIC immigration adviser was not involved but 98 % were from CSIC immigration advisers agents based offshore. The level of advice provided to potential applicants who did not go on to make an immigration application or to third parties is unknown.

The immigration advice industry is not a diverse system, with advice being provided by a range of occupational groupings that had self interest and Liberal political gain, including CSIC board and CSIC immigration consultants, LSUC ? Manitoba lawyers
Education recruitment advisers and not-for-profit organisations were not involved in the process as it will impact their NGO system, as well as personal contacts.

The provision of immigration advice is currently regulated and there are no market incentives for advisers to provide good services as we have seen and heard from the Toronto Star.

There is limited self-regulation body that discriminated against its members which this action led to 1000 members to resign; with few main voluntary industry associations is the Canadian society of Immigration Practitioners (CSIP) that has the largest advisers and Immigration Society service (ISS), and the supported COSTI Immigrant Services, the Catholic Community Services of York Region (CCSYR), the Centre for Information and Community Services (CICS), Job Skills, and the York Region Neighbourhood Services (YNS) ? that represent more than 99 participating community organizations who are not regulated in Canada and practice under section 5.4 of IP9 of IRPA that total the advisers of no regulated to 11000 advisers in Canada alone.


The number of active immigration advisers at any one time varies in response to immigration policy changes and other external factors. It is estimated that the number of people providing Canada immigration advice both on and offshore is around 12,000 -16,000, based on the Vancouver Department of Labour statistics and an October 2006 survey of immigration advisers who had interacted with the CIC from May 2004 to May 2006. The October 2006 survey indicated that of the 209 active immigration advisers who responded, 10 percent belonged to CSIC and 90 percent belonged to CSIP.

A formal statistics are available on the number of complaints about immigration advisers, however, every year complaints are made to the Minister of Immigration, the CIC, and the industry associations about both CSIC onshore and offshore immigration advisers.

the reasons for complaints have included:
lodging unfounded or abusive refugees status claims without the knowledge of the client, inaccurate advice about immigration policy leading to poor and costly decisions, theft of money and documents, failing to lodge applications and appeals, failing to pass on information from the CIC to the client, knowingly submitting false or fraudulent documents to the CIC, and failure to provide services for which the member has been paid.

The cumulative harm caused is significant in many cases and irreversible in others. Some applicants have faced serious financial loss due to high fees, relocating to Canada (on the basis of poor advice), and lengthy periods of time without employment.

Others have suffered irreparable damage to careers, family dislocation, and significant personal hardship. Where immigration applications (or refugee status claims) have been declined due to poor or CSIC members incompetent advice, some people have had to leave ´Canada, be removed, or remain here illegally (and face removal in the future where possible).


Immigration applicants often use CSIC adviser´s services in 2006-2007 only once and often have insufficient information to make a well-informed choice of adviser.

Immigration applicants are unlikely (and sometimes unable) to make use of Canada´s consumer protection measures once harm has occurred as they may be CSIC offshore, in Canada unlawfully and/or unaware of existing legal remedies. Although under few Section of the Immigration Act makes it an offence to wilfully mislead, or act negligently or unprofessionally while assisting a person in a visa or permit application or appeal, this section has not been tested since its introduction as its wording makes proof of an offence problematic.


THE RECENT TORONTO STAR´S 14 ARTICLES AND THE STATEMENT MADE BY CSIC BOARD OF THE PUBLIC AND CSIC POLICY OBJECTIVE

The CSIC policy objective has failed to ensure that regulating immigration advice as it:
? Failed to enhance the ability of immigration applicants to make a well-informed choice of immigration adviser;
? Failed to reduce the risk of serious harm to those who use an immigration adviser by creating effective incentives for advisers to provide competent and ethical services; and
? Failed to provide clear and accessible complaint and redress procedures for those who use an immigration adviser.
The underlying principles behind these three objectives have failed the consumer protection, and failed in enhancing the reputation of Canada as a migration destination.



STATEMENT OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS (REGULATORY AND/OR NON-REGULATORY) THAT MAY CONSTITUTE VIABLE MEANS FOR ACHIEVING THE DESIRED OBJECTIVE OF CSIP THE CANADIAN SOCIETY OF IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS
NON-REGULATORY OPTIONS

Status Quo (voluntary self-regulation)
People providing advice relating to Canada immigration policy are subject to normal business legal requirements and the offence provisions under the Immigration Act, the Crimes Act and other legislation, and are also subject to consumer protection measures, such as the Fair Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Disputes Tribunal. Some immigration advisers are members of the CSIP, the CSIC or voluntary associations CAPIC or Association of education advisers ISS, and are subject to their organisation´s standards.

Lawyers providing immigration advice are subject to their professional body´s disciplinary processes.

the status quo should not have been rejected in favour of the preferred option to have other regulator than CISC and law societies as regulator because its retention would have achieved the public policy objectives.

Certification
A new Act would be developed to provide for a certification scheme for immigration advisers. The Act would: reserve a title for the sole use of certified immigration advisers; empower CSIP as another regulator agency to certify and license that individuals had satisfied certain requirements before they could use the reserved title; and empower the agency to remove the reserved title if an immigration adviser fell below the acceptable minimum standards.

Certification would not be compulsory. Those who were not certified would be able to offer their services in competition with certified immigration advisers, but under a different title (CSIC).

Certification should have not been discarded by the advisory committee recommendation in May 2003 because it could have prevented the practices of those advisers of most concern. Stakeholders should have supported this option, and should have not considered it as would allow some advisers to continue to provide incompetent and unethical services, because it would address the real problem in the industry.

CSIP Preferred option: licensing
Under this option as CSIP created and submitted a new Act would be developed to provide for the licensing of immigration advisers. The legislative framework would have the following key features:

? A title reserved for the sole use of licensed immigration advisers;
? Definitions of what immigration advice is, and what it is not, and therefore who is an immigration adviser;
? a requirement for all individual immigration advisers, including not-for-profit and offshore advisers, to be licensed, with some exemptions from the licensing regime for certain individuals who may choose to opt-in (for example, MP´s), and who may not opt in (for example, lawyers);
? offshore advisers based offshore are temporarily exempt from the licensing scheme (but may opt in), however, the exemption expires three years after enactment and at that time, offshore advisers will need to be licensed;
? statutory fitness standards that prohibit certain individuals from obtaining a licence;
? a complaints body within the regulating body, and the right of appeal and review made to the District Court;
? a regulating body to maintain a register of immigration advisers; develop and maintain competency standards and a code of conduct; facilitate the education and development of immigration advisers; enhance public awareness of the regulating body and its functions; and enforce the legislation;
? sanctions and penalties for unlicensed immigration advisers, including allowing the Department of Labour´s Immigration Service to refuse to accept applications lodged by unlicensed immigration advisers; and both knowledge and strict liability offences;
? government contributes to the costs of establishment, regulating not-for-profit advisers, investigating and prosecuting unlicensed advisers, and the departmental costs; and
? a period of 12 months from enactment to allow all immigration advisers to become licensed.


CSIP OPTIONS FOR THE CSIC REGULATING BODY TO BE REMOVED
Industry regulating body

The CSIC regulating body have comprised more than 1000 competent representatives of the immigration advice industry between the periods of 2006-2007. As outlined above,
CSIC failed its responsibility for investigating well over 1000 complaints and disciplining licensed advisers regarding breaches of the code of conduct as the majorities of the complaints were against board members, board members friends or protecting members of AICC.

Investigation and prosecution of unlicensed advisers would sit with government CIC only and not with CSIC.

This option was not recommended on the basis that the immigration advice industry is too diverse and lacks the homogeneous objectives required for an industry body to function as an effective regulatory body that could administer the statutory framework.

CSIP Preferred option: Independent regulating body
The CSIP regulating body will be independent from industry, and be established within the Department of Labour. It will maintain functional independence from the Immigration Service. It will have responsibility for investigating complaints about and disciplining licensed advisers, as well as investigating and prosecuting unlicensed advisers.


STATEMENT OF THE NET BENEFIT OF THE PROPOSAL, INCLUDING THE TOTAL REGULATORY COSTS (ADMINISTRATIVE, COMPLIANCE AND ECONOMIC COSTS) AND BENEFITS (INCLUDING NON-QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS) OF THE PROPOSAL, AND OTHER FEASIBLE OPTIONS
GOVERNMENT
Canada government wasted 1.2 million dollars of tax payer?s funds for the costs associated with the establishment of the licensing regime and annual on-going costs relating to the administration of CSIC.

CSIC wasted 11 million dollars since 2003 on false enforcement of the licensing regime and caused the CIC department put on alarm.

Under the CSIP proposal, the Crown must agree in principle to bear:? establishment costs (such as setting up operating systems, employing staff at limited cost which in CSIC case was not limited)

? CSIC spent million of dollars on annual costs of regulating not-for-profit advisers, but not investigating consumer complaint that shift the idea that CSIC is failure regulator.
?
? CSIC spent all their energy on fighting ghost consultants when the fact is there is are no such ghost consultants. CSIC were after all NGO organization?s advisers to be part of CSIC.


? It was a matter of a political interest and financial gain issue to have CSIC board members increase their salary and lavish spending through the increase of its revenue. Although, the internal mismanagement with funds lead to more unnecessary spending but less for consumer protection
?
? The costs of licensing for-profit advisers will be met through fees charged to advisers as the similar level of other profession; unfortunately this did not happen in CSIC and the cost of each advisor reach well 2500.00 a year.

? The Crown should have considered an additional supplement to reduce the annual licence fee charged to advisers when the fiscal implications of this initiative were considered by Liberal Cabinet but was washed under the rug by conservatives.

It is apparent that CSIC failed to improved consumer protection for those using the services of CSIC immigration adviser and the failed to enhance ´Canada´s reputation as an attractive destination for both temporary and permanent migrants.


CSIC harsh and imposed membership criteria led to other regulator CSIP to merge strong and effective by progressively extending the regime offshore, ´Canada´s international relations and reputation as a safe, reliable destination could also improve with the recognition of CSIP as another regulator it is better for the consumer and for CSIC existence to associated and knowledge the fact that there is another regulatory body.

It is clear that the competition of CSIP against CSIC led to CSIC improvement in the last year to its self regulator body and expose its failure as the authority body. The attraction of skilled migrants, skilled temporary workers, international students and visitors to Canada is likely to contribute to growing an inclusive, innovative economy and improving ´Canada´s skills base is using CSIP advisors.

Canadian Government is also likely to make efficiency gains in its immigration operations due to fewer poor quality immigration applications and appeals being lodged by immigration advisers.

Introducing clear new incentives for immigration advisers to provide acceptable standards of immigration advice, and disincentives to drop below these standards, May also result in reduced immigration fraud over time.

Reduced immigration fraud (regarding health status, job offers, and criminal records among other things) may lead to savings in the health, welfare and justice systems.


IMMIGRATION APPLICANTS/CONSUMERS
The cost to migrants and potential migrants of using the services of both CSIC and CSIP for-profit immigration advisers could increase, as it is likely that advisers will pass on the increased costs associated with obtaining a licence and complying with the code of conduct.

The cost of using both CSIC and CSIP not-for-profit immigration advisers should not increase as their costs are to be met through Federal and Provincial Crown funding. However, minimum competence standards and a code of conduct will increase the likelihood that services are conducted in a competent and ethical manner, and thus reduce the risk of harm to consumers. Some consumers may remain vulnerable in the short term, as licensing will be initially optional for offshore advisers for the first three years following enactment.


A public register of licensed immigration advisers will improve an immigration applicant´s ability to make a well-informed choice of immigration adviser.
Consumers will also have a clear and accessible avenue for complaint and redress if necessary through two regulatory bodies to secure the consumer protection. The independence of the regulator from industry and its inclusion in the CIC will provide immigration applicants with confidence in the standards set and maintained for the industry, and in the administration of the complaints procedure.

CSIP ?CSIC IMMIGRATION ADVISERS
The proposal is expected to result in increased costs to immigration advisers through licence application fees, and compliance costs associated with applying for and renewing licences, meeting minimum competence standards and complying with a code of conduct (details yet to be decided). Application fees will be prescribed in regulations after the enactment of new legislation.
An annual licence fee is expected to be in the order of $500 - $700. CSIP ? CSIC Not-for-profit immigration advisers will not have to bear the full costs of licensing, but may incur some compliance costs, which are likely to be similar in time to those set out in the CSIP_CSIC below, but not in dollar value.

Some exemptions from the licensing regime were proposed and implemented but was given to few selected members of the former association AICC executives. A conflict of interest surfaced in CSIC since 2003.

Certain exempt people may obtain a licence voluntarily, but others will be excluded from the licensing regime for medical reason.


Offshore advisers will bear the costs of the proposals after three years when offshore licensing will become compulsory. The proposals will also affect those who may not consider themselves to be immigration advisers but who nonetheless provide immigration advice in the course of their work (for example, recruitment advisers). It is likely that some will choose to either discontinue providing immigration advice or some organisations may choose to nominate particular individuals to be licensed.

The costs are considered to be offset for immigration advisers by the benefits of licensing. Requiring immigration advisers to meet minimum competence standards and comply with a code of conduct is likely to enhance the overall quality of advice provided by CSIP_CSIC immigration advisers, both for-profit and not-for-profit. Together with removing unethical and incompetent advisers from the industry, this will enhance the credibility and reputation of the industry as a whole. The proposals will particularly benefit those advisers who already provide competent and ethical services and will obtain a practical and marketing advantage over those who do not.

In the longer term, minimum competence standards will give rise to education and training opportunities for all CSIP_CSIClicensed immigration advisers, which are likely to provide them with marketing advantages and to improve their relationships with the CIC. The requirement for the regulator to develop the competency standards and code of conduct in consultation with stakeholders will help the licensing regime to be developed in a way that supports the industry.

CANADIAN SOCIETY
Canada as a society as a whole could benefit from savings to the immigration, health, welfare and justice systems due to reduced immigration fraud. Reduced fraud relating to health and character requirements (such as declarations of diseases and criminal offences) could increase the general safety and security of Canadians. Moreover, Canada as a whole benefits both economically and culturally when migrants, temporary workers, international students and visitors are attracted to and settle well in Canada.



CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN
The Ministries of Consumer Affairs, Economic Development, Education, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Justice, Social Development, and Tourism and the Department of Internal Affairs, the State Services Commission, the Treasury, and the Offices of the Community and Voluntary Sector, Ethnic Affairs, and the Police Commissioner must be consulted in the development of these proposals. The Department of the Conservatives Prime Minister and Cabinet should be informed;

The Ministry of Justice´s strong view that practising lawyers should be excluded from the licensing regime, rather than simply exempted, is reflected in the previous 2003 recommendation The Office of Ethnic Affairs concern about compliance costs on the not-for-profit sector is also been reflected in the preferred option.

The not-for-profit sector´s inclusion in the proposed regulation will be supported by the proposed education and public awareness functions as the regulation is implemented.

Selected Stakeholders (including OPIC- AICC immigration advisers, ISS community groups, LSUC lawyers, recruitment agents and regional development agencies) were sent the discussion document Regulation of the Immigration Advice Industry in May 2002, and feedback was gathered via focus group meetings but was not held throughout the country and was provided in closed doors in May 2003 with 2 written submissions received from AICC and LSUC.

Participants supported the regulation of immigration advice via certification and not licensing by an independent regulator CSIC but expressed concern that the costs should not be prohibitive.
These concerns were not taken into account in the development of the detailed proposals and left it to CSIC abuse.

Further dialogues were held with stakeholders in Ottawa in secrets, in July 2004 to discuss the detail of the certification and not the licensing framework. Liberal Cabinet decisions and proposals were not made publicly and were not available on the immigration website.



Not all the participants were provided with the opportunity to provide written feedback and 2 submissions were received. (The low number of submissions is likely due to AICC_ OPIC and LSUC stakeholder perception that their views were already adequately recorded and anticipation of select committee consultation). There was biased support for the proposals.


The proposals have been discussed with the Office of the Immigration Minister Denis Coder to enhance his new election for the year 2005 in Canada. The Canadian Department of Immigration and Multicultural has also been consulted in light of Canada´s obligations but recommendation was not given. AICC= OPIC= LSUC indicated support for the proposals and is confident that they will fit well with CSIC requirements.

CSIC as the regulator will need to consult further with ´Canada´s Migration Agents but failed to proceed with the communication when developing competency standards and the code of conduct to ensure CSIC obligations are met.

[30-06-2007,15:09]
[**.83.69.228]
Berto
Returned My Application (in reply to: Returned My Application)
Sorry I really don´t find my answer which has been submitted by Berto
[30-06-2007,21:15]
[***.84.202.51]
Navid
(in reply to: Returned My Application)
the above article appears on a blog with no author.

the blog has this as its title-

Canada Immigration Issue ( Uncensored Immigration critics, The highest traffic blog in 2007
CSIC registered members are defrauding the public for hundreds of thousands of dollars. But they are protected under CSIC registration certificate which has been indorsed by the Immigration Minister Diane Finley to allow them to cheat the system. Do not hire CSIC members, and do not believe in Canada Immigration program.


I suspect Berto is the author. I also suspect Berto is a jealous immigration consultant. Berto, if you want to rant and take pot shots at someone, have the guts to put your name on it.

On the Blog where this article is found, the following is printed at the very bottom of the page -

ALERT TO READERS

CIP provides links to other Web sites that may have privacy policies that are different from ours and not affiliated or associated with The Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners CSIP or The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants CSIC.We are advocate group based in Toronto and strongly believe that CSIC creation is unconstitutional.

Defamation/Libel. Users should not publish any content that is unlawful, defamatory, and fraudulent. Note that an allegation of defamatory expression, in and of itself, does not establish defamation. The truth or falsehood of a bit of expression is a key element in establishing defamation, and we are not in a position to make that sort of fact-based judgment. That said, if we have reason to believe that a particular statement is defamatory (a court order, for example), we will remove that statement.




[30-06-2007,22:53]
[***.121.220.199]
sharon
(in reply to: Returned My Application)
half of Berto´s article does not even make sense.

you flunk english.

[30-06-2007,23:22]
[***.121.220.199]
sharon
Returned My Application (in reply to: Returned My Application)
I am very upset, Could someone get me the proper solution please ??
[01-07-2007,00:31]
[***.84.202.51]
Navid
(in reply to: Returned My Application)
I don´t think there is anyone here that can solve your problem. I am sorry you are upset.

if you have been asked for proof of lawful admission, I guess you need to figure out how to make yourself lawful. It is within CIC´s rights to make such a request. You can go back to your home country and apply to re-enter the US or you can apply to immigrate to Canada directly from your home country. You may be able to apply from home but you will need to insure you can attend an interview and will need to be able to provide police clearances for the years you have been living in the US.

Not sure what solution you are hoping we can offer.

[01-07-2007,00:59]
[***.121.220.199]
sharon
(in reply to: Returned My Application)
If you were not lawfully admitted to US at any stage then you have to apply in your home country. At any stage means initially or if you were given some kind of status if you applied for refugee status.
[01-07-2007,04:04]
[***.21.154.113]
Anonymous
Private Sponsor Refugee (in reply to: Returned My Application)
I don´t have any legal Status in USA , I applied in Buffalo as a Skilled worker and they returned my application due to non having legal status, so my question is -I have my own sister who is the citizen in Canada, Can she apply for me as " Private sponsor Refugee" If Yes- what are the procedures ?? Please Help me
[06-07-2007,12:16]
[**.105.72.18]
Navid
My shares (in reply to: Returned My Application)
My boss mr Boargers paid us for shares but i did not paid out please can u help me
[04-09-2015,09:17]
[***.0.12.250]
Deano september
My shares (in reply to: Returned My Application)
Can u help me because i did not paid out my shares my i.d. No. Is 7403295657083
[04-09-2015,09:22]
[***.0.12.250]
Deano september