Immigration Lawyers - What Are They Good For?

Immigration Lawyers - What Are They Good For?

After I checked my inbox this morning I discovered an important e-mail from a corporation of immigration professionals which I belong to.

In reality, this e mail is so essential to my skill to practice immigration law that I forwarded it to all of my workers, saved it in our firm's digital address book, and printed it for inclusion within the binder that sits on my desk proper by my telephone.

But, the reality is that this email makes me feel like I am a silent companion in a bit of a deception being perpetrated on the public by CIC. Let me explain.

Residentship and Immigration Canada clearly takes great public delight in the quantity of information and sources it offers to the general public by means of its website and call centre. CIC boasts that "All the varieties and knowledge that you should apply for a visa are available without spending a dime on this website."

Therefore, it is no surprise that in the website's FAQ, the answer to the query: "Do I want an immigration representative to assist me apply?" is a "no."

The general public is told that "The Authorities of Canada treats everybody equally, whether they use a consultant or not."

Will your case be processed more shortly for those who hire a representative? CIC advises that "When you choose to hire a consultant, your application won't be given special attention by the immigration officer."

Is this really true? Is all the knowledge you want really on the market? Do you need a lawyer? Wouldn't it make any distinction when you've got one? Put one other approach: are people who find themselves using attorneys and consultants to handle their immigration applications just throwing away their cash?

I hate answering these questions since doing different individuals's immigration work is how I make my living. People could be justified in being sceptical about my solutions to those questions.

However the reality is "all the data you need" is just not really on the market and, sure, in many cases a lawyer or consultant's involvement can spell the distinction between success, delay, or abject failure.

The information at is basic in nature and can't possibly contemplate the infinite factual situations that candidates may present when applying. Additionalmore, the agents on the call centre can't and do not present callers with authorized advice. It is simply not of their mandate to do so. Instead, they give "common info on the CIC lines of business... present case specific info, and settle for orders for CIC publications and utility kits."

In other words, they can't inform you what you 'should' do when confronted with obstacles or strategic choices to make.

Additionally, if you encounter a problem that must be escalated, which is just not unusual, you will discover precious little data on the CIC website as to the place to direct your criticism 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 accommodates the email address for each Canadian visa submit abroad and the names and electronic mail addresses of the immigration program managers at each of these offices. It tells us how, and to whom, to direct case-particular enquiries to the Case Administration Department in Ottawa and when and the best way to follow up if we do not receive a well timed reply. It offers instructions on tips on how to direct communications relating to quality of service complaints, conditions involving attainable misconduct or malfeasance of immigration officers, procedures, operational and selection coverage, and processing instances and levels.

To my information, this info is just not shared with members of the public. CIC's failure to publicise this info doesn't mirror preferential treatment for many who are represented. Instead, it's simply an acknowledgement that immigration professionals do, and have all the time, performed a significant position in making an overburdened and beneath-resourced program operate in any respect (if not perform well).

Sharing this data with the public would lead to an avalanche of correspondence being directed at senior officials who are spread out so thinly that they might by no means get any other work done.

It's true that, besides in exceptional and deserving cases, hiring a lawyer or guide cannot get an software moved from the back of the line to the entrance of the line. Also, an officer is not going to approve an applicant who is just not certified just because she or he is represented. However, additionally it is true that an trustworthy and experienced representative won't clog up the system by submitting an application that merely will not fly.