Timing depends on how many open items the first review identifies, not on a single processing estimate. A clean profession match moves faster than one requiring a corrected duty letter or a credential evaluation. Build the schedule around resolving each open item, then layer the admission or visa step on top.
Sequence the open items before setting a start date
List what needs resolving, such as a duty letter revision or a licence confirmation, and assign a realistic date to each rather than one combined guess. Only after those close should travel booking, resignation, or housing decisions be finalized. An employer wanting an early start date should be told plainly which items remain open, so the pressure to move fast does not push the applicant into travel before the case is actually ready.
Two clocks deserve separate attention. The period of admission granted is finite and renewable, so the first extension is worth planning while the initial documents are still being assembled rather than in the month it falls due. And the profession-specific qualification often sets the true critical path, because a licence issued on a board's own schedule cannot be accelerated by an employer's urgency.
Hypothetical example: a dairy scientist's employer wants an August start, but the sequence produced by the first review runs credential evaluation, then licence confirmation, then a corrected duty letter, and only then the admission or petition step, placing a realistic start several weeks later than the employer assumed.