|Subject: To Ray Masa - Representatives
TY for your comments regarding my professionalism, much appreciated.
I of course feel that applicant´s should seek out assistance when submitting an application. The problem is there are lots of horror stories. Me being a Consultant see little difference between Lawyers and Consultants. Two clear examples are a Lawyer submitting a H&C application submission and in the fiorst sentence informs the CIC officer that they can see no H&C factors in their clients case. Another is a LSUC Lawyer failing to file an appeal with in the time frame and then billing the client when no leave to appeal will be allowed.
There are some really good Lawyers and Consultants. There are some really bad Lawyers but the average Lawyers like to spread gossip about Consultants that are not always true.
Any representative´s client base that mainly includes his/her own ethnic group are the ones to be most feared whether a Lawyer or a Consultant. When a client only speaks his native tongue which is not English or French is when they are most vulnerable.
Abrams & Krochak who advertise everywhere including at the top of these postings focus on the difference between hiring a Lawyer over a Consultant! http://www.akcanada.com/choose1.cfm
That Abrahms & Krochak can´t stand the quality competition so they try to build themselves up by tearing down quality Consultants. Abrahms & Krochak are members of the Law Society of Upper Canada that does not discipline their fellow Lawyers for making mistakes that are called professional negligence. Go to www.lsuc.ca and see if you can find one Lawyer suspended for doing something wrong in an Immigration application. They always call it something different!
Abrahms & Krochak claim that some Consultants say they are experts when they have no training or experience. Yet they go on to say Lawyers are AUTOMATICALLY recognized by CIC, true, BUT..........
That NOT ONE LAWYER in Ontario has to take one course in IMMIGRATION LAW to be able to practice IMMIGRATION LAW. Abrahms & Krochak fails to mention that, many Consultants have actually worked for CIC then left and started up their own business. CIC trained them but nobody trained the Lawyer!
Abrahms & Krochak have not changed their anti-Consultant web page in four years since I was required to be regulated by CSIC. I personally know of several Lawyers who have been disbarred for not representing their clients properly yet when I read about their hearing details it does not appear to be an Immigration issue that they got suspended for.
Just because a representative is a Lawyer does not mean that they are a quality representative with experience in certain areas of your concern.
What gets me is that a Lawyer can post testimonials that can not be verified and CSIC members can not. Lawyers can charge what ever they want or make mistakes on your file and if deemed professional negligence it is a matter for the courts to rectify.
Professional Negligence is part of the CSIC code of conduct and CSIC members have to comply with fee disputes.
Please stop I am not fully committed to CSIC either.
Professionalism and respect flows two ways. What goes around comes around and any representative should only treat their clients as they themselves would want to be treated.
Just thought I would RANT!
| (in reply to: To Ray Masa - Representatives)
You certainly have the right to rant, we all need to do it every now and then. I agree with what you said and I hope my post hadn?t given you an impression that I prefer lawyers over consultants. I don?t. I am suspicious of lawyers as much as consultants. But as you said there are good and bad in every profession and at the end of the day its really up to each individual to ask the right questions before hiring a representative.
|Who are you Roy (in reply to: To Ray Masa - Representatives)
Roy, stop you propaganda about your self. The difference between you and Abrahms & Krochak. You know the followings but you do not want to convince yourself about it:
First a bit of background on the subject. For many years only lawyers in good standing with their provincial bar association were allowed to represent clients before immigration tribunals. In reality however, individuals seeking to immigrate to Canada were receiving advice from a variety of sources, including consultants from a wide range of backgrounds. With no regulation however, reputable consultants practiced alongside individuals with little in the way of credentials and credibility.
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) was created in 2004 as a way to monitor immigration consultants who are not lawyers. CSIC is a self-regulating body meant to ensure that CSIC standards of service quality are met by its members. The incentive to join CSIC is that its members are allowed to represent clients before the Canadian government for immigration matters. This opportunity to be recognized as a visa applicant´s agent by the Government of Canada was intended to draw consultants into the fold as a means to standardize the industry.
The investigation by the Toronto Star however unearthed a series of behaviours that show that many clients are still being exploited, and the system is being defrauded. Why hasn´t CSIC cleaned up the industry? What it comes down to is that the organization is not enforcing its mission.
The idea was that by creating a standard for professionalism, clients of immigration consultants could be more confident in their services and any unethical and illegal behaviours would be weeded out. Building a standard however takes more than words on a mission statement, it takes active enforcement. Since its founding, the CSIC has not established a pattern of disciplinary proceedings to punish unethical behaviour. Memberships have been revoked for failure to pay dues or to meet language requirements, but very seldom for improper practice.
Unscrupulous behaviour is by no means limited to immigration consultants. The difference however is that if a client is defrauded by a lawyer, his or her law society will use its power to disbar the lawyer. In addition, bar associations can also provide a kind of insurance policy for consumers, by ensuring that defrauded clients are compensated. Potential immigrants, often unfamiliar with the details of Canadian laws and concerned about jeopardizing their applications, are a group whose interests require protecting. The problems highlighted by the Toronto Star investigation show that CSIC is not doing its job.
Even as an organization with voluntary membership, CSIC has within its authority a wide range of options to discipline its members. These tools have not been put to use, and the result is that the industry remains fraught with individuals willing to mislead their consumers and the government, and these individuals are tarnishing the work of others in the field. A concerted effort by CSIC to enforce their mandate will recapture the confidence of honest professionals and of consumers. Until then for those in the process of immigrating to Canada, it remains caveat emptor, or buyer beware, when seeking immigration advice under the CSIC banner."
Again Greatest President of immigration Roy stop promoting your low behaviour.
May Abrahms & Krochak sue you soon because of your postings.
Concentrate on your job and do not try to be a super hero.
| (in reply to: To Ray Masa - Representatives)
Hi Roy, do you not remembering me that I am your client for several months for getting into Canada, and no reply to my repeated e- mails regarding my placement. I lost hope in you, so Please refund my money. This is quite unhappy in posting such a message for you in this forum,but you compellimg me to do so since you are not answering to any of my mails as a primary responsibility of a consultant.