RQ AFTER THE TEST

What are the chances of being given the RQ after the test now a days. If someone does not get RQ before test and on the day of test.

Mostly we do not know.

Many risk factors for RQ are screened now prior to being scheduled for the test, so now most applicants being scheduled for the test have cleared at least those criteria.

There are, however, other risk factors which are not screened until the applicant appears for the test/interview and goes through at least a documents check -- which includes, of course, examination of passports and other travel documents, which in turn may be scrutinized and compared to absences declared in the residency calculation. Applicants may also be asked some questions intended to probe residency issues, like confirmation of place of abode, place of employment, and so on.

Additionally, my impression (though I am not sure this is shared by anyone else here) is that the local office may actually group together some applicants for whom there are some concerns, and call these applicants into a test/interview for the same session, so that a whole group of applicants might already be targeted for potential RQ. (This what I infer from reports of some test sessions at which three out of four, or more, of the applicants appeared to get RQ.)

Bottom-line: yes, there is still a risk of RQ notwithstanding the pre-test RQ process.

I would also note, though, as I have noted here often, I am quite confident that for the majority of well-qualified applicants, the risk of RQ is generally quite low.

dpenabill wrote: [quote]   I would also note, though, as I have noted here often, I am quite confident that for the majority of well-qualified applicants, the risk of RQ is generally quite low.

SARABC: We have lived here since 2008… worked , studied.. bought a house. Not many travels. Yet got RQed . Please do NOT draw personal conclusions dpenabill as it can mislead people!

I am confused by your remark. Are you claiming to be the majority of well-qualified applicants? That those in the "we" you are referring to, add up to more than a hundred thousand applicants? And that all of you were well-qualified and were given RQ?

Relative to the misleading of people, I try hard to balance all the various sources of information we have, with due consideration given to a great deal of information we do not have, and offer what is, in my judgment, a fair estimation of how things work, why this or that works this way or that way, what some of the risks are, what can be anticipated, what we do not know, what we do know.

I have often said: Anyone can get RQ. Anyone.

There is no guarantee that this or that individual will not get RQ.

I never say to someone that there is "no" risk they will get RQ. (There is always some risk.)

In fact, in my post above I explicitly said:

Bottom-line: yes, there is still a risk of RQ notwithstanding the pre-test RQ process.

Except in the most obvious situation, I rarely even suggest that someone will for sure get RQ, though I might point out some looming risk indicators and say the risk of RQ is high (anyone who applies with less than 1095 days of actual presence, very high risk of RQ; anyone who shows up at the test interview without required passports, very high risk of RQ; among other high risk factors).

In the meantime, the fact that one, or ten, or a thousand well-qualified applicants get RQ does not change the fact that overall over a hundred thousand applicants, perhaps as many as 150,000 applicants, go through the process every year without getting RQ.

So, I do not believe that there is anything at all misleading about stating that I am confident that for the majority of well-qualified applicants, the risk of RQ is generally quite low.

Unfortunately for some, the fact the risk is low does not mean it is zero: some well-qualified applicants get RQ.

clayton: One point, you never answer, does CIC have the right to put RQ file aside on the black corner for so long time and no citizenship officials never touched? Do you think this is correct or not?

I am not sure what you mean by the question. Generally government bodies do not have "rights" per se.

They have policies and practices, based on statutes and regulations and internal operating rules and guidelines.

The Citizenship Act and the regulations are easily accessed online.

The CIC operating manuals are still posted online by CIC (they will be implementing a major do-over soon, so who knows whether all this information will continue to be readily accessible or not). Most of their operational bulletins are also available online, though some are not. Some have been obtained by ATI requests and shared here.

I suppose you are trying to ask whether CIC has the lawful authority to not take action on an application for an extended period of time. And whether long shelf periods, during which there is no apparent action taken, are consistent with proper procedure. That is, does the suspending of action on a file constitute an unfair or illegal procedure or practice?

My opinion: Sometimes yes. Oft times no. It depends. The factors it depends on are many.

Sometimes the long delay is simply a matter of waiting in a queue, waiting for one's turn.

The RQ case in which the applicant's response to RQ does not satisfy the CIC officer, that is that both the applicant declared 1095+ days actual presence, and the applicant accurately declared all days absent, becomes a residency case to be, in effect, adjudicated. Ajudications, even quasi-adjudication in adminstrative agencies, tend to be very backed up processes. Cases sit for a long time before they are taken to a trial, or hearing, or whatever the adjudicatory process in that body calls for.

There is legal recourse for applicants who are denied fair procedure. To pursue such recourse a lawyer's assistance is almost an absolute necessity.

Dpenabill!

I am too sad to argue and I do appreciate your efforts but please you did say

MAJORITY & the risk of being RQed is QUITE LOW?

Honest to God do you think so?

I don't!

Sarah

Originally posted by dpenabill

[quote]  

I would also note, though, as I have noted here often, I am quite confident that for the majority of well-qualified applicants, the risk of RQ is generally quite low.

I can understand the frustration, SARABC, but, again, the fact that a thousand or three thousand applicants get RQ, does not change the fact that tens of thousands do not.

And well-qualified applicants do not need to worry much about the RQ. Especially if indeed you are not traveling much. It is intrusive, and inconvenient, and it probably will delay the timeline. But the task now is to prepare a complete response. Be careful. Be meticulous. Follow the instructions.

There are so many possible reasons for RQ, many of which are not a big deal at all, that worrying about the why is not worth spending time or energy on it.

The focus is to simply gather the information, be as complete and accurate as you can, and provide a significant amount of corroborating documentation (for well-qualified applicants there is no need to go overboard in this -- read the instructions, the requests in the RQ form, and respond appropriately to those requests . . . do not get knocked off track by suggestions to do a massive document dump).

We do not know for certain, but I believe (honestly, genuinely) that the new procedures in place are designed to assist CIC in separating well-qualified applicants who, for whatever reason, were identified for RQ, from applicants for whom CIC has real questions, real concerns, cause to doubt. So, if you can compile the information requested, and support that with a reasonable amount of corroborating documentation, I really believe that the new process will help the well-qualified, but RQ'd applicant, to proceed through the process more efficiently, and not get bogged down in the mire of long-haul RQ.

Of course I cannot guarantee how it will go. No one can.

And even though I really do believe that the majority of well-qualified applicants are not getting RQ, there are many reports suggesting that there are, indeed, many well-qualified applicants who do. So there is no reason to panic. This is business as usual. CIC is doing due diligence. They want to see more information and documentation. This is essentially a quality control and fraud detection process.

Please do not let the hyperbolic and derisive characterizations of CIC in forums like this discourage you. CIC is not a nitpicking, draconian monster out to capriciously obstruct the innocent immigrant's path to citizenship. They have a job to do. They are making adjustments in an effort to do that job better, more efficiently. They are slow. They are a bureaucracy during a time of government austerity. It does get frustrating. But mostly it is a process that works, and mostly (not always) works fairly.

Do your part to get the submission as well-done as possible, and CIC will do its part to get you to taking the oath. May take awhile, but no, they are not out to block genuine immigrants from getting citizenship.