January 2013 Applicants

Roca wrote: Hey people, Tomorrow I will be sending my application. I would like to invit all new applicants to joint me so we can cross this desert together. There is no way that I can avoid RQ but I can't be discouraged by that... Good luck everybody

Why u can't avoid RQ???

U have too many travels ???

hi,
    My application was received on Dec31, 2012, I am waiting for the acknowledgement letter.

Your chances for RQ are higher than average. Well, you may want to consult with a legal expert or at least order our FOSS/GCMS record before filing, though 25 days on top of the required days to me means you should file sooner rather than later.

Edited by Vancan2012 - 21 Jan 2013 at 4:52am

I am not at all so sure that the risk indicators for RQ are such that just having them will automatically make one likely to get RQ. I think the observation by Vancan2012 is spot on: basically the risk is higher. How much higher is an unknown.

It appears, to me, that your approach to this, Roca, is pretty well a good one.

The U.S. ties were something that was obviously triggering a lot of RQs in 2010 and 2011. So your instincts are probably warranted.

As for obtaining FOSS records: I have the sense that those who have done the ATIP request are, for whatever reason, not getting full FOSS records. I do not know this. But, FOSS should have a lot of information about many PRs, unless they have had minimal interaction with CBSA or CIC. That is, yes, many PRs may have little besides reference to date and event of landing as a PR. But anyone who has been referred to secondary (for immigration not customs) should have some note in their FOSS records reflecting that event. It sounds like you probably do have something in your FOSS that amounts to a flag of some sort.

It may require a very well-crafted, detailed ATIP request (beyond that facilitated by CIC's form) to obtain this information. I do not know this stuff that well, but I can see more than a little frustration being expressed by a number of people who have made ATIP requests and learned little that they did not already know.

In particular: a request for the substantive content of all NCBs (including explanation for all codes used in the NCB) might help to illuminate what the concern has been during these occasions when you have been referred to secondary.

One aspect of what Vancan2012 suggests is contrary to my perspective: to my view there is no sooner rather than later imperative in making a citizenship application. I agree, that once over the 1095 day threshold, that is the key timing factor to consider, that 25 days is plenty of a buffer in terms of the calculation itself. But waiting longer is not going to hurt. I am not certain, but I am fairly confident (maybe quite confident) that waiting longer helps more than hurts. It may not help by much, but the more entrenched and well-established in Canada a person is, that, I think, is better. Particularly for someone who apprehends a higher risk for RQ: just waiting long enough to include another tax reporting year may be one of those small yet significant factors that fills in the picture of a person well-settled permanently in Canada.

Of course not all citizenship applicants are all that well-settled permanently in Canada. Those who have ongoing ties abroad, for example, have many other factors in play which will much outweigh subtle factors (like a few months more of residence and actual presence).

Having a dependent abroad is among such factors. Of course the circumstances surrounding this are likely to have a great deal of influence -- where a dependent resides may indicate, evidentiary wise, where the applicant in-fact resides, unless there are circumstances explaining why the dependent's place of residence is different from the applicants. This can require CIC to do a relatively fact-specific, detail-based examination, to determine (for example) if the applicant's reported residential address(es) are the in-fact residential address(es) of the applicant.

Which is to say: I have no idea whether or not you should consult with, or even hire a lawyer, it depends on your specific circumstances; but if, for example, you have extensive, in-fact residential ties continuing in the States, depending on the strength of your objective evidence supporting your case, you may want to consider at least consulting with a lawyer. I would not bother with any legal expert other than an experienced immigration/citizenship lawyer duly licensed by the respective law society.

Thank you for all your advice. I wish I could afford a lawyer because I barely make my own living.