|
|
| Subject: Regulating Immigration Consultants |
|
|
|
MY SUNDAY RANT!!!!!!!!!!!
How many on this forum or any where has ever read the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement about the reason for regulating Immigration Consultants?
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2004/20040414-x/html/sor59-e.html
Here is what the Politicians said about Immigration Consultants.
"Most representatives conduct their work in an ethical, professional and effective manner". SO WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT REGULATE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS???????????
I have always said a crook is a crook is a crook. THERE HAS BEEN HORROR STORIES BUT AFTER YEARS OF INVESTIGATION THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVED THAT IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS WERE ETHICAL, PROFESSIONAL AND EFFECTIVE!
A beautiful women is a beautiful woman as well but that does not make her a good person.
The politicians were concerned with people smuggling and the creation of false documents as the reason to regulate Immigration Consultants.
See this-------------
"However, there are persistent and credible reports that some unscrupulous immigration consultants, both in Canada and abroad, facilitate people smuggling and fabricate documents permitting foreign nationals to enter this country illegally".
The (former) Overseas Processing Manual OP1 of the day stated clearly with examples that as long as the person attended the interview they were entitled to be interviewed no matter how they entered the Visa Post country. NOT SO ANYMORE!
So since regulation 11 sneaking someone into the USA to attend a FSW interview would not be effective. Since 9/11 the chances of getting caught goes up by 300%. There is no purpose to do that.
As long as the lines get to apply for FSW the more opportunity for smugglers to bring people to Canada on false documents.
Then a Law is a Law by the quality of its words but regulation 13.1 Subsection (1) is being interpreted or the government employees are being told to interpret it this way. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/ip/ip09e.pdf
Chapter Two last Paragraph.
It is important to understand that CIC, the IRB and the CBSA are interpreting the Regulations to mean that R13.1(1) does not apply to any representations that are made to a client before an application is
submitted to CIC. In other words, an applicant is obliged to disclose the name of their representative (authorized or unpaid) on the Use of a Representative (IMM 5476) form only if the individual will
represent them once the application is submitted to CIC (i.e., either at the time of submission or postsubmission).
SO ANYBODY CAN CHARGE A FEE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING ANYTHING! THAT LAWYERS FROM BACK WOODS COUNTRY CAN CLAIM THEY ARE A LAWYER AND CHARGE A FEE. SO TOM, DICK AND WANG CAN CHARGE A FEE AND NO ONE CAN DO ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN CHECK YOUR CLIENTS FILE ON E-CAS.
Now the government is changing the rules again and claiming people in the Industry agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone has to help those that need help but not a politician. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states all persons must be treated equally and so does IRPA 3 (3) (d)
MIS FINLAY READ YOUR OWN IMMIGRATION OBJECTIVES.
I WOULD LOVE TO POST ABOUT MY REGULATORY BODY BUT I AM NOT ALLOWED TO SAY CERTAIN THINGS.
Roy
www.cvimmigration.com
[04-05-2008,18:51]
[**.15.49.229]
Roy |
|
(in reply to: Regulating Immigration Consultants)
Oh my Gosh, mrs Finley does not understand a thing about Immigration objective.
Evryday they are looking into changing somethimg, some law, and nothing that they are doing make sense.
It takes for ever to speak with a rep at CIC and they are sometimes never right.
Consultants help a tong od people who would otherwise have given up and went home.
[06-05-2008,17:51]
[***.186.167.6]
pearline |
|
