LETTER FROM A FAILED IMMIGRANT...
Hello, esteemed editors of the newspaper "Zagranitsa"!
From time to time I read your newspaper. I want to share my problem and maybe get some advice from you.
A year ago my wife and I decided to emigrate to Canada. With the help of one person we prepared the documents. I decided not to deal with firms that handle emigration matters, and I don't regret it – they charge money ($3,000-5,000) that doesn't match the work done. After all, they don't guarantee anything (that's my opinion).
My wife is the principal applicant; she is 25 years old, graduated from a pedagogical institute with a specialty in "school psychologist" and "English language." I graduated from a mechanical engineering college with a specialty in "technician-mechanic"; our son is 3 years old. We submitted the documents.
In the second letter from the embassy, we were asked to take the IELTS exam and try to contact the Canadian Psychological Association for an evaluation (I understand – diploma validation). My wife scored 5 on the IELTS. Of course that's not much, but the exam is difficult. And we did not contact the Association of Psychologists. Perhaps that was our main mistake, although judging by the refusal letter from the embassy, they came up with something there too.
The interview was scheduled for November 9. Before the interview, we went to one of the firms located near the Canadian embassy – to consult for 20-50 hryvnias. They refused us and even took offense – too little. By the way, you also advertise them. I think that's how most immigration firms would have responded.
The atmosphere at the interview was tense; for about 40 minutes they "pressed" us with questions about my wife's specialty. For the embassy official, I essentially did not exist. They asked her to read one paragraph from a magazine and retell it. My wife did that without any problems. During the 40 minutes the interview lasted, my wife was never "cornered." The translator only helped translate questions twice the whole time. I think on one question my wife was a bit "caught": "Can you work with adults?" Answer: "Yes." The consul said that she does not have that in her diploma and would need to study in Canada for 5 years. The consul also asked why we did not contact the Association of Psychologists, to which my wife replied that she has a family and was preparing for the exam, and is ready to do it as soon as she is sure she will leave.
Our documents are completely honest and clean; we both work in our specialties. Unfortunately, the consul did not let my wife speak about working as a psychologist in Canada. Then came the standard interview questions: whether we have a criminal record, how much money we are taking to Canada, etc. At the end of the interview, they asked if we wanted to add anything. I said that I am ready to work hard, that Canada would not regret it if we lived there, and so on. The consul even smiled. Upon leaving, she said she could not give an answer right away and we would receive the result in 6-8 weeks. We left the embassy in a good mood.
The answer came after 10 weeks. If we had simply received a refusal – without explanations – we would have been even less upset. I heard that in Kyiv they almost never approve and lower the scores, but I did not believe it. Before the interview, I spoke with a person who already has a visa. His interview took place in Warsaw – in a calm, pleasant atmosphere, in English, where every word is clear. But I decided to try going through the immigration procedure in Kyiv.
The main reason for refusal is the lack of a "doctoral degree in psychology in Ontario." On this basis, they annulled two most important points – "occupation" and "experience." But when we paid the money, they did not tell us that without a degree you cannot pass the interview.
The second reason – we are not aware of the requirements for psychologists in Canada. I will not argue. The most offensive thing for us is that the consul writes that my wife has difficulty reading in English. That is absurd. If she had difficulty reading, she would have scored zero on the IELTS. She would not have been able to talk to the consul about anything at all. I am a living witness (and the translator too).
From my own experience, I became convinced that the attempt to emigrate is a revenue part of Canada's budget. After all, giving an answer after 10 weeks – that is done cleverly and cunningly. If the answer came immediately (1-2 weeks), all the nuances of the interview, down to every word, could be remembered and challenged. It seems that apart from Nobel laureates and businessmen, they let no one through. In total, the consul awarded 58 points and asked us "not to get too upset."
Please give advice: what and how should we do? Should we try to submit documents again or go study in Canada? Although they might not let us in, they'll say – you'll stay. We've already "missed the boat" with an appeal, although I didn't believe in success anyway.
Alexander LUKASHEV.
...AND THE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT'S REPLY
It is very unfortunate that the author of the letter and his family members were refused entry to Canada, but there are quite explainable reasons for that. The letter raises a very wide range of issues, but to begin with, I would like to focus readers' attention on the main and fundamental question: why were they refused?
I am afraid to seem unoriginal, but nevertheless, the process of immigration to Canada on a professional basis is based on the presence of an occupation in the General Occupations List (GOL). The specialty "psychologist" is on the list and is classified as Psychologist (NOC 4151).
But there is another interesting book that plays a significant role in the immigration process. It is the National Occupational Classification (NOC) – the national classification of occupations. This book describes all the requirements for each specific occupation. Let's open it and read what professional requirements an applicant must meet to be eligible to be considered as a psychologist.
There are a number of requirements for a psychologist. But we will not dwell on them in detail, since in this case the very first requirement specific to the profession of psychologist—having a doctoral degree—is not met for registration in provinces such as Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, or Nova Scotia.
Judging by the negative result, the author's family tried to register in one of these provinces. It was precisely because of the lack of a doctoral degree that two key evaluation points were annulled: the profession and, accordingly, the work experience (since the author's spouse was not recognized as a psychologist).
Based on this, one cannot accuse the immigration officer of bias. He strictly followed the procedure and did not violate it in any way. As for the girl “at the window” who accepts documents from applicants, evaluating your immigration chances is not her job.
So you can thank the person who, as you write, “prepared the documents” for you. He initially showed his complete incompetence in immigration matters.
Now about English language proficiency and the notorious IELTS. The Canadian Embassy in Kyiv practices the following: to objectively assess your language level and to consider the theoretical possibility of proceeding without a personal interview at the embassy, the applicant is asked to take the IELTS exam. An adequate level of English, which in most cases is necessary for successful immigration processing at the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv (Warsaw, Moscow, Ankara, or any other Canadian embassy handling immigration matters), is “well.” It corresponds to approximately 6 points on the IELTS scale from 1 to 9.
We agree—this exam is not easy to pass. But our reader’s spouse initially received 5 points, thereby indicating that her English knowledge is limited. The help of an interpreter at the interview did not add to a positive impression of the applicant’s English level. And if the applicant’s English is limited, the question arises: how exactly will he be able to study and work fully as a psychologist in Canada? What guarantee is there that such an immigrant will not join the army of welfare recipients—those receiving financial benefits in Canada?
So the consul’s decision to refuse the author and his spouse was completely legal and logical. The refusal in this immigration case was entirely based on the data and knowledge demonstrated by the applicant.
From the tone of the letter, one gets the impression that the employees of the Canadian consulate are doing everything possible to prevent our author from immigrating to Canada. The opposite is indisputable: embassy officers carefully select candidates on common legal grounds. We know of more than one case where an applicant, having a critical number of points in the evaluation of their data, made up for them during the interview through a factor such as “personal impression.” This criterion is assessed by the immigration officer during the interview and shows how well a person, in their opinion, can actually adapt to life in Canada.
According to the Canadian Ministry of Immigration, the country plans to accept 235,000 immigrants as early as 2002. Thousands of our compatriots receive a permanent residence visa at the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv every year. Among them, there are not many wealthy businessmen, and Nobel laureates, by the way, have not been noticed at all.
So, I repeat, the immigration officer’s decision in this case is completely justified and adequate. Appealing such a decision would be, to say the least, ridiculous. If we look at this immigration case retrospectively, it is quite possible that as a mechanical technician, our reader could have been eligible for a visa to Canada under the Quebec provincial immigration program. (Although I will not venture to assert this without seeing the applicant’s documents.) The fact is that federal immigration authorities and the immigration service of the province of Quebec view potential candidates from different perspectives. While federal provinces focus on wanting to see established specialists who are theoretically ready to start working in their field literally on the second day in Canada, Quebec authorities pay more attention to the applicant’s potential. This explains, for example, why the age limit for maximum points is 44 years in federal provinces and 30 years in Quebec. Or the possibility for specialists of almost all professions to qualify under the Quebec program—provided the candidate is young, has education, and minimal French skills.
The Canadian parliament has passed in first reading a draft of a new immigration law, which will likely eliminate this difference. The new immigration law will focus primarily on how quickly and successfully a potential immigrant can adapt in Canada. But the law has not yet come into force, so it is too early to discuss it.
I would also like to dispel another myth regarding interviews at Canadian embassies in other countries. The requirements at all Canadian embassies handling immigration applications are the same. And allow me to disagree with the author of the letter, who claims that “there the interview is conducted in understandable English.” English is the same everywhere; only one’s ability to comprehend it matters.
On my desk right now there are several cases being transferred to Kyiv from the Canadian Embassy in Warsaw. The reason is quite banal: victims of such mistaken beliefs have been waiting for interviews for over a year and a half. For the Warsaw embassy, citizens of Poland and Belarus are prioritized. Any immigration case must be thoroughly studied and verified. And it is quite difficult, while in Warsaw, to verify the workplace of an applicant from Ukraine. Therefore, documents are often forwarded to the Kyiv embassy, verified there, and sent back.
Naturally, any consul has a logical question: "Why are you, a citizen of Ukraine, for whom there is an immigration department at the Canadian embassy in Kyiv, going the roundabout way through Warsaw? You probably have something to hide..." The same applies, for example, to Ankara or London. My advice is to apply through the Kyiv embassy. Especially since the processing times for documents here are more favorable than in most other Canadian embassies that process potential immigrants. It will be much easier for both you and your representative to monitor the progress of your case.
And finally, one last thing. All the information provided here is absolutely accessible and free for everyone who contacts us for a consultation. If the letter's author had sought help in time, he would have at least saved the 1,100 Canadian dollars spent in vain. What is even more important, he would not have wasted an entire year spent in vain hopes. I do not think we should condemn immigration companies for charging money for services and consultations. It is another matter that it is everyone's right to choose whether to use such services or not.
The case of the letter's author once again proves that despite the apparent simplicity of the immigration process, on which many rely, it sometimes hides a multitude of pitfalls and, as a result, requires professional knowledge for its successful completion.
Anton BERG,
Immigration consultant, firm "ILS(1993)".