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

The truth is, this e mail is so crucial to my means to practice immigration law that I forwarded it to all of my workers, saved it in our firm's electronic address book, and printed it for inclusion in 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 accomplice in a little bit of a deception being perpetrated on the public by CIC. Let me explain.

Residentship and immigration attorney Atlanta Canada clearly takes nice public satisfaction within the amount of data and sources it offers to the general public by its website and call centre. CIC boasts that "All of the forms and knowledge that you might want to apply for a visa are available for free on this website."

Due to this fact, it's no wonder that within the website's FAQ, the reply to the question: "Do I would like an immigration consultant to assist me apply?" is a "no."

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

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

Is this really true? Is all the information you want really out there? Do you need a lawyer? Wouldn't it make any distinction in case you have one? Put another way: are people who find themselves using attorneys and consultants to deal with 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. Individuals would be justified in being sceptical about my solutions to those questions.

But the fact is "all the information you want" will not be really out there and, sure, in lots of cases a lawyer or marketing consultant's involvement can spell the distinction between success, delay, or abject failure.

The information at cic.gc.ca is normal in nature and can't possibly ponder the infinite factual situations that candidates may current when applying. Additionalmore, the agents at the call centre can't and don't provide callers with legal advice. It is merely not of their mandate to do so. Instead, they give "basic information on the CIC lines of business... provide case particular information, and accept orders for CIC publications and software kits."

In different words, they can not let you know what you 'ought to' do when confronted with obstacles or strategic selections to make.

Also, if you happen to encounter a problem that must be escalated, which just isn't unusual, you'll discover valuable little data on the CIC website as to where to direct your grievance or question.

Not so with immigration professionals.

The e-mail I acquired this morning is an update of CIC's protocol on how immigration professionals should direct their queries. The correspondence incorporates the e-mail address for every Canadian visa submit overseas and the names and email addresses of the immigration program managers at each of those offices. It tells us how, and to whom, to direct case-particular enquiries to the Case Administration Department in Ottawa and when and find out how to observe up if we do not obtain a timely reply. It offers directions on the way to direct communications regarding high quality of service complaints, situations involving doable misconduct or malfeasance of immigration officers, procedures, operational and selection coverage, and processing times and levels.

To my data, this info isn't shared with members of the public. CIC's failure to publicise this information doesn't reflect preferential remedy for many who are represented. Instead, it's merely an acknowledgement that immigration professionals do, and have at all times, played an important role in making an overburdened and under-resourced program operate at all (if not operate well).

Sharing this info with the general 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 another work done.

It is true that, except in exceptional and deserving cases, hiring a lawyer or advisor cannot get an utility moved from the back of the line to the entrance of the line. Additionally, an officer won't approve an applicant who will not be certified just because she or he is represented. Nonetheless, it is also true that an honest and experienced representative will not clog up the system by submitting an software that merely won't fly.