Need advice CJ hearing

Were you not employed in the 4 years you were here?

Mdonald wrote: Long story short ,my citizenship test and interview was 1 week ago and i was told to expect CJ hearing in 1 to 3 years .So lets makes things clear:this is from CIC site To be eligible to become a Canadian citizen, you must meet the conditions in all these areas:      age, permanent resident status, time you have lived in Canada, language skills, criminal history (prohibitions) and how well you know Canada.           Im +18, PR , lived in CA 1,150 days/60 days + requirement/ in the past four years,proved my language skills with Celpip test,dont have any criminal history and scored 20/20 on citizenship test. My only "mistake" was that i Leave Ca after applying for citizenship and come back 3 days before interview.90% of the interview was questions related to period after i left CA !!    wtf ? Also i have 1 trip outside CA for 60 days in my 4 year period , got pre test RQ and sent very strong evidence when, where, why. During the interview,agent told me they are not sure i will live in CA if i got sitizenship and that why i need to meet CJ   wtf ? I ask is that new rule to not left CA after applying and after became canadian she didnt tell me. So,what i should do now,do i need a lawyer? Any advice is welcome

I am not sure I follow your residency calculation. You state that you lived in Canada 1,150 days in the past four years (I interpret this to be the four years prior to applying, the relevant four years) but you also state that you were outside Canada for only 60 days in the relevant four years. Since there are 1460 days in four years, and deducting 60 days as time outside Canada would leave 1400 days in Canada, there is a discrepancy between 1,150 days and 1400 days. My sense is that you were outside Canada 310 days during the relevant four years . . . 250 of that before landing?



Leaving Canada After Applying
If you really do intend to pursue Canadian citizenship, yes, you should probably obtain the assistance of a lawyer sooner rather than later. At the least, you should obtain a consultation with a lawyer.

There is no rule that a PR cannot leave Canada after applying. Leaving Canada after applying does not directly affect the formal calculation of residency during the relevant four years.

Leaving Canada after applying, though, is a contextual factor and one that can affect CIC's assessment of the evidence, of what it believes the facts to be. And of course the applicant must continue to be in compliance with the PR residency obligation right up to the day the oath is actually taken. Thus, obviously, for an applicant who leaves Canada after applying, if the process takes long enough for the applicant to, at any point, have been outside Canada for 1,095 days within the five years immediately preceding that date, they will be in breach of the obligation and subject to being deemed inadmissible, which would preclude eligibility for citizenship and will result in loss of PR status. Nothing secretive about this.

In particular, depending on why, duration, and other contextual factors, however, CIC oft times will elevate its scrutiny of applicants who have extended absences from Canada after applying. There are many reasons for this. In general CIC appears to particularly target applicants, for further inquiry and investigation, who appear to have been trying to take advantage of the Canadian immigration system by coming to Canada just long enough to obtain citizenship and a Canadian passport, rather than seeking to become an in fact citizen of Canada. Over the last few years there have been various attributions employed to describe such applicants. A Federal Court justice, for example, has referred to such applicants as applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, and more recently the Minister and others are referring to applicants seeking a citizenship-of-convenience. However described, it is clear that CIC is concerned about efforts to exploit the Canadian immigration system primarily for the purpose of obtaining a Canadian passport and an applicant identified as potentially such a person is quite likely going to face RQ and delays, and ultimately require such individuals to wait for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge.

Some people have speculated that for applicants living abroad CIC deliberately stalls processing in order to wait until the applicant has breached the PR residency obligation, so that proceedings for removal may be initiated which would bar the applicant from being approved for citizenship, and as I said above, eventually to loss of PR status. CIC has denied suspending processing for applicants outside Canada but beyond that has not confirmed or denied that there is a policy or practice to target some abroad applicants for more difficult, longer processing.

See the topic Leaving Canada after applying for citizenship for further, more in-depth discussion of this.

Note: Tomorrow the Tories are planning to table a Bill containing significant reforms to the Citizenship Act. There are likely to be some provisions relevant to this issue included. It may only be that prospectively a longer residency period is required. We should find out tomorrow. But there is some chance that this issue may be more directly addressed in this legislation.

dpenabill wrote: Note, while I agree with much of the post by canuck25 (which I did not see before I posted above), it is worth emphasizing that at this point the reason for RQ is irrelevant. Some reasons for RQ are technical.

Edited by canuck25 - 17 May 2014 at 1:29am

canuck25 wrote: dpenabill wrote: Note, while I agree with much of the post by canuck25 (which I did not see before I posted above), it is worth emphasizing that at this point the reason for RQ is irrelevant. Some reasons for RQ are technical. Agreed, though reasons for RQ are certainly of interest to RQ recipients, and that's what I was attempting to convey. Further, would you agree that finding out the reason for RQ can help better prepare for a CJ meeting, since you can provide stronger evidence to address the exact specific concern that led CIC to issue an RQ?

For some, perhaps. For those who were issued RQ at or following the test interview, more so (since at that point the RQ is probably issued for a substantive reason rather than a technical one).

But, really, the focus for the applicant should be on fully proving residency. That is not to suggest a huge document dump. Quantity is of little weight. Key documents are important. Beyond that, yes, if the applicant can identify what the substantive question is in the applicant's case, that is information which can be used to help gather and organize evidence to be submitted.

We used to be a lot more focused on the reasons for RQ before OB 407, since back then they were more or less directly indicative of what the issue was.

I have long stressed how important it is for applicants to objectively, and be brutal about it, doing a thorough self-assessment of their case looking for its weaknesses and being sure those are adequately addressed in a RQ reponse, or in what the applicant prepares for the CJ hearing.

Newbie_CAN_US wrote:   I also left Canada after I landed as I was still employed by a Company in the US but HAD to land as they only gave you 6 months or so (if I remember correctly) to land. I eventually moved in March 2009 (Landed July 2008). But since arriving permanently in March 2009, my trips to the US were mostly for events such as US Thanksgiving, Xmas etc. (3-4 day trips).