When I checked my inbox this morning I discovered a vital e-mail from an organization of immigration professionals which I belong to.
The truth is, this electronic mail is so essential to my potential to practice immigration law that I forwarded it to all of my staff, saved it in our agency's digital address book, and printed it for inclusion in the binder that sits on my desk right by my telephone.
Yet, the truth is that this e mail makes me really feel like I'm a silent associate in a little bit of a deception being perpetrated on the general public by CIC. Let me explain.
Residentship and Immigration Canada clearly takes nice public delight in the amount of data and resources it supplies to the general public via its website and call centre. CIC boasts that "All the kinds and data that it's essential apply for a visa are available totally free on this website."
Due to this fact, it is no surprise that in the website's FAQ, the answer to the query: "Do I need an immigration representative to assist me apply?" is a "no."
The general public is told that "The Government of Canada treats everybody equally, whether or not they use a consultant or not."
Will your case be processed more rapidly in the event you hire a consultant? CIC advises that "If you select to hire a consultant, your utility will not be given particular attention by the immigration officer."
Is this really true? Is all the data you need really on the market? Do you want a lawyer? Would it make any difference you probably have one? Put one other way: are people who are using legal professionals and consultants to handle their immigration purposes just throwing away their cash?
I hate answering these questions since doing different people's immigration work is how I make my living. Folks would be justified in being sceptical about my solutions to these questions.
However the reality is "all the data you want" isn't really out there and, sure, in lots of cases a lawyer or advisor's involvement can spell the distinction between success, delay, or abject failure.
The information at cic.gc.ca is basic in nature and http://lawreferralconnect.com/blogs/242862/623/working-as-an-atlanta-immigration-counselor
cannot probably ponder the infinite factual eventualities that applicants may current when applying. Additionalmore, the agents on the call centre can't and don't present callers with authorized advice. It is merely not of their mandate to do so. Instead, they provide "basic data on the CIC lines of business... provide case specific information, and settle for orders for CIC publications and application kits."
In other words, they can not let you know what you 'ought to' do when confronted with obstacles or strategic choices to make.
Also, for those who encounter a problem that must be escalated, which is not unusual, you will find precious little info on the CIC website as to the place to direct your grievance or question.
Not so with immigration professionals.
The e-mail I received this morning is an replace of CIC's protocol on how immigration professionals ought to direct their queries. The correspondence comprises the e-mail address for every Canadian visa put up overseas and the names and e mail addresses of the immigration program managers at every of those offices. It tells us how, and to whom, to direct case-particular enquiries to the Case Management Department in Ottawa and when and find out how to comply with up if we don't receive a well timed reply. It offers directions on methods to direct communications relating to high quality of service complaints, situations involving doable misconduct or malfeasance of immigration officers, procedures, operational and selection policy, and processing times and levels.
To my knowledge, this info will not be shared with members of the public. CIC's failure to publicise this information doesn't replicate preferential remedy for many who are represented. Instead, it's simply an acknowledgement that immigration professionals do, and have at all times, played a vital position in making an overburdened and under-resourced program perform in any respect (if not function well).
Sharing this information with the public would result in an avalanche of correspondence being directed at senior officers who are spread out so thinly that they might by no means get another work done.
It's true that, besides in distinctive and deserving cases, hiring a lawyer or marketing consultant can't get an software moved from the back of the line to the front of the line. Additionally, an officer won't approve an applicant who is not certified just because she or he is represented. However, additionally it is true that an trustworthy and skilled representative won't clog up the system by submitting an software that merely will not fly.