Acceptable personal identification (pieces of ID)

roadmr wrote: Hello! I'd like to ask about information or experiences people have had regarding the ID requirement when submitting a citizenship application. The list of documents to gather asks for : Two (2) pieces of personal identification Both pieces of identification should show your name and date of birth, one of which must have your photo on it. Examples include: a Canadian driver’s licence a Canadian health insurance card a copy of your passport page containing your photo and personal details, etc. I have a provincial health insurance card with photo, which would constitute one piece of ID. As part of the other citizenship documentation requirements I would already be attaching a copy of my passport's photo and details page, as well as my PR card, both of which fulfill the requirements (all have photos, DOB and my name). Will this cover the "two pieces of ID" requirement? I wouldn't want to find out that they meant "two pieces *additional* to other documents you've already included". I don't have any other photo IDs that I could send; I could try to get a driver's licence but it would take a few months to issue, plus would make me a "target" for RQ risk factor C1 (or force me to wait *another* three months before applying). Thanks in advance!

Guide says that a copy of bio page of passport can be one of the two forms of identification submitted.

My understanding is that the PR card cannot be used as one of the pieces of identification.

Note that there may be a difference between what is required and what is least likely to risk a concern.

Adequate proof of identity meets the requirement.

But what is submitted may be examined and considered for other, more general purposes. For example, recently issued identification from a province may indicate (to CIC) that the applicant recently moved to that province, and may be reason for CIC to request additional information or documentation as to residency.

Best identification to submit: provincial health care card and provincial drivers license, or alternative as suggested above.

Not so good but perhaps adequate for identification itself: identification issued by a foreign government.

While the passport may be one of the two forms of identification, and adequate, my sense it is better to include two additional forms of identification if possible.

roadmr wrote: Whether CIC is "black-and-white" about the 3-month requirement, meaning that a "3-month-and-one-day" id won't put us at risk for RQ, would be good information to know. Of course, it may be down to the specific individual reviewing the application.

So far as we know, based on the criteria used in 2012, three months appears to be a magic cutoff for recently issued forms of identification (ID issued in less than three months prior to the application triggers RQ).

We know it was a definite three month tipping point in 2012 based on a copy of the File Requirements Checklist shared by someone who obtained a copy in a response to an ATIP request, and because it was specifically mentioned in some internal memos as a hard and fast trigger for RQ.

There have been some interpretations, and probably some modifications to triage criteria since then, probably in the direction of a less strict application. But whether or not CIC is less strict relative to this particular risk indicator is an unknown.

My sense is that the tipping point is probably still three months, almost certainly not longer. My guess is there is some possibility the interpretations or modifications might allow an otherwise convincing application to pass without being issued RQ. I would not count on that.

I would assume that this criteria is still used and that three months is the cutoff.

What about three months and a week?

This leads to this observation you made:

roadmr wrote: I'd just hate to be RQ'd because of a too-recent second ID.

All too true. But most of what will determine whether or not RQ is issued is probably outside the applicant's control.

From all the information we have seen, in 2012 the triage criteria were being applied literally, and strictly, with apparently no discretionary judgment in play. The individual doing the screening probably made little or no difference, since there was no room for judgment calls. It was largely black and white.

And what we know of the first round of interpretations, the on/off or black-n-white approach was still being used, except some of the particular risk indicators were "interpreted" to be more narrow than they initially were. For example, applicants who listed time spent as a homemaker or student was not considered time "unemployed" under the late fall 2012 interpretations. Similarly for those who reported being "retired."

Later interpretations, or modifications, appear to have either narrowed the defined scope more, or given screening personnel some discretion, or a combination of these. But, for example, we have seen a few reports of persons who reported being unemployed for at least a part of the relevant time period, and who declared some time absent during the relevant time period, but who were not issued RQ. We do not know what makes the difference between applicants going through the level one screening in 2013 versus how it was done in 2012, but there is a difference, and it is a difference that almost certainly is resulting in fewer applicants being issued RQ.

That's the up side, the aspect which suggests that before issuing RQ there may be an effort, in the level one screening, to distinguish what level of risk there appears to be, not just issuing RQ based on a technical check for a risk indicator in the triage criteria list.

But, nonetheless, I am quite sure that the core elements of the triage criteria remain, and that RQ can and will be triggered in many cases due to the technical elements of an applicant's life which are not necessarily (and often will not be at all) connected to any actual risk the applicant has failed to declare all absences.

This is a long way around to saying: beyond some of the more obvious things, it is probably foolish to try to manage one's life around avoiding the risk of RQ. For most of us, the risk is what it is. A nudge to the left, a step to the right, this or that date, is not likely to be what makes the difference.

Sure, there are some obvious things. Don't use an ID issued more recently than three months. Don't apply just two days after passing the 1095 days of APP threshold. If there was a long gap between the date of landing and the date the PR actually came to establish a residence in Canada, do not rely on any days before actually establishing an in fact residence in Canada (even though the residence calculator will count all days going back four years or to the date of landing whichever is more recent). Spouses should apply together so long as there is not a lot of difference in the underlying facts.

But mostly a person could drive themselves crazy trying to figure out all the angles and trying to maximize their odds of avoiding RQ. We are who we are. Immigrants tend to have some complicating factors in their lives. Make sure to be qualified, to have significantly more than 1100 days of APP to declare, and to be accurate and complete in all the information provided, including of course the travel declarations in the residency calculation.

Besides, while I am not certain, my sense is that pre-test RQ in the future is not going to be as big a stall as it has been for those issued pre-test RQ in the past, so long as the applicant is qualified and can and does submit a good response to the RQ.


But, back to the what about ID issued three months and a week prior to applying?

From what we know, that would not be something that triggers RQ.

Moreover, if otherwise there is no indication that the date the ID was issued reflects a move into the province, particularly from out of the country, it is not likely to be a negative factor at all.

But, what if there are other borderline factors in the applicant's situation? Could this be something that is considered along with other factors in deciding to issue RQ for a different reason, one the person doing the screening has some discretion in deciding how strictly to apply?

Additionally, the assessment of the applicant's residency is not over with just because RQ is not issued at the level one screening. So if down the road (pre-interview check, or at the interview) there are some questions, the case is teetering on the fence, could it be a factor?

What would really matter is context. And thus, even an ID issued a year before could be a factor, if in context it appears to indicate a move the applicant has not truthfully disclosed. All factors, all circumstances, can be examined relative to each other, and it is often more about how they fit together than what the specific factor is itself. Context matters.

Bottomline: qualified applicants with credible cases based on accurate and complete information submitted to CIC have very little to worry about. While RQ remains a possiblity, for such applicants pre-test RQ should not (going forward) be the problem it has been in the past. For most of us, we want to avoid RQ but there is little point in going far out of our way in an effort to fix the odds. Best to be who we are and be accurate and complete.