Canadian Citizenship & Immigration Resource Center [CCIRC] / Immigration.ca
Reviews and Complaints

Dear Mr. Kambhampati,

I refer to your message posted today. I will reply to each of your statements as follows.
You wrote:

“Possibly he did not want to let the world especially my part of the world to know his mischiefs with the clients”

“Not that the language was offensive or terse but the rebuttal exposes the approach and aggressive attitude of Colin Singer towards his clients.”

Our REPLY:

We have not received or read your complaint, until today. No rebuttal was ever written, prior to today.

Perhaps you are not aware but we do not have any control over removing postings on this board. As you can see from above, there were a number of fake, false postings, that were never removed. Instead, we obtained a legal judgement for the world to read, confirming that the majority of previous postings on this board, are fake, false, and fictitious.

You wrote:

“This guy is an experienced intellect and quite influential. But not worth the investment as he takes you for a ride on the contractual obligations and tries to prove that the services provided are sufficient for the monies paid no matter you have met the goal of immigration and job placements that you have hired him for, ... or not. Be cautious. be careful . Be warned of the immigration.ca services.”

Our REPLY:

As you are aware, you hired our services on March 3, 2016 to apply for admission to Canada as a Federal Skilled Worker under the Express Entry system. We agreed to represent you using our best efforts, on the basis of your claimed qualifications, which you presented on January 27, 2016.

We signed a written agreement providing for very extensive services with a specified term of 24-months. We believe this is the right period of time for our clients to meet all of the required elements. It gives them the best chances to benefit from our extensive services. This includes up to 2 submissions to the Express Entry pool, a comprehensive employment search and free English language tutorials. Following free language tutorials, our third party language provider offers additional excellent on-line language courses at reasonable fees.

Our legal fees are charged under a fixed fee basis, in amount of $3, 250 payable in 4-installments. You received a discount. You have paid 3-installments totalling $2350. Again, our obligations to you are carried out using our best efforts. We do not provide services under guaranteed results. Our obligations to you begin after you hire our services.

Before you remitted the first installment fee, we informed you in writing, that both you and your spouse would need to each write an English language test. While the client duties require you to provide us with all supporting documentation quickly, you took 6 months. From March 2016 through September 2016, we provided you with extensive counsel, including strategies to address the following problem.

When you completed our online questionnaire on January 27, 2016, you wrote that you have HIGH ability in speaking, reading, writing, and listening in English. However, when you wrote the mandatory IELTS test, you did not reach HIGH levels in all of the 4 elements. You could therefore not qualify to submit an application. We could not have possibly known this until long after you hired our services.

We provided you with an extensive job search comprising of a tailored data base of potential hiring employers in your field, across Canada, a revised CV, tips on how to find a job from outside Canada – 14 stand-alone, comprehensive documents with videos, power points and other written content. In our job search, we encouraged you to visit Canada for the purpose of meeting with potential employers. You never followed through with this undertaking, that we are aware of.

On May 9th 2016, we gave you two possible options to overcome your insufficient language test scores. First, either you could re-write the IELTS and score a slightly higher score, that would be consistent with what you initially stated you possessed in January 2016. Or, second, your wife could become the main applicant, on the basis of her existing test results.

However, if you chose the second option, with your wife becoming the main applicant, we specifically informed you in writing, that she would lose 1 point on February 10, 2017. This would result in her profile becoming “automatically disqualified” and removed from the express entry system by immigration authorities as she would no longer meet the minimum requirements as a Federal Skilled Worker.

We encouraged you both to study English and re-write the IELTS language test to try and improve your scores. In this way, we you could increase your chances to Canada.

On May 10th 2016, you wrote that you are not yet decided on which solution you and your wife would choose.
You re-wrote the English language IELTS on June 24th 2016, and still, you did not reach all the required levels that you claimed in your initial communications with us. You were only short a single level in listening.

In September 2016, six months into our mandate, you finally provided us with all the essential documentation for your wife to become the main applicant, knowing that this profile would only remain valid until February 2017.

We submitted your wife as the main applicant on September 16, 2016 into the Express Entry Pool.

On February 10th 2017, we informed you that your Express Entry profile was removed from the pool. We re-iterated what your spouse must do to enable re-submission of the application.

We sent you a reminder message on May 31, 2017. You remained silent until June 19th 2017.

On June 19th 2017, you wrote us that you “acknowledge your advice for reappearance at the IELTS test”. You went on to say in simple terms that you are both not prepared to give this undertaking any more effort. Instead, you tried to shift the burden onto our shoulders to find you a route to Canada.

You wrote: “It would be worthwhile if, as an experienced attorney in this line of business, if you can think of other options that could help us with, like the Provincial Nominations”.

In essence you tried to shift the Client Duties, which you agreed to abide, unto the Lawyer’s duties to achieve a successful result. Clearly this was never the agreed terms of engagement between us.

Your wife, when we submitted the application in September 2016, had reasonable English language skills that could surely be improved, with modest effort. This is based on our experience with many other candidates. Regardless, this was your obligation to meet, or not.

Had she worked on this, from September 2016 until today, November 30, 2017, we could provide you with the second submission of this application, under contract and possibly create new doors to Canada.

While your message contains sufficient language to allow us to conclude a termination of this mandate, we still welcome you to try and embrace the challenges that you agreed to, when you hired our services.

In fact, we have many other clients, with weaker English language skills, who have re-written the IELTS language test many times before finally reaching the required levels to qualify under Express Entry. By doing so, this opened the doors for other options that became available to them during our 24-month contract and led them to a successful application to Canada.

To date, we have exchanged with you more than 150 written messages, providing you with extensive services, outlined above. There remains a full 3-months left on this 24-month mandate and another submission, to the express entry pool.

Language requirements in this field, have been proven to affect income earnings of newcomers to Canada. Our government imposes minimum language requirements in your best interests, for this reason.

It would provide us with much pleasure, and we are ready to welcome you with open arms, with hope that your family will meet the English language requirements for this Canada project. This is what you agreed to embrace, in good faith, when you started with us in March 2016.

However, trying to blame your lawyer for your failures to meet these challenges; trying to turn this mandate into one of "result" instead of "best efforts" which is the standard we both agreed to, and using descriptive language which is entirely inaccurate and less than respectful, given the best efforts we have given, is most regrettable.

We remain,
Yours Sincerely

Colin Singer, Immigration Lawyer & Managing Partner, immigration.ca