Me-and-My-Dog (RQ, the dreaded RQ)

A response to posts in other topics:

sagafemina wrote: . .. . however, we do wonder how you could have predicted that by doing so, you would avoid the black hole we have found ourselves in! . . . you had your own opinion regarding including your CRA Assessments with your original application. I guess we'll never know whether they were discarded as extraneous material or whether this played any role in (I've assumed) your lack of an RQ or speedy processing. Do you believe this would be a wise practice for others to follow?

Foremost, I did not predict that I would avoid the black hole. Well, that depends on what you mean by "black hole." I did not predict I would avoid pre-test RQ. I continued to expect RQ until weeks before I took the oath. In anticipation of my risk for RQ, however, I did deliberately wait until there were no gaps or wrinkles whatsoever, so that if and when I got RQ my response to RQ could be kept relatively small. I strongly believe in the importance of a response to RQ which fully covers the full four years as to key elements, but which does not spill into a large document dump (this derives from my old life experiences, back when I was indeed a litigator and argued cases before judges, referees, administrative judges, juries, and appellate courts -- I long, long ago learned that bureaucrats and judges are like the rest of us, a tendency to have a short attention span, so if you want to get the important point across, don't bury it in a huge mountain of largely insignificant evidence.)

Thus, I had a RQ response planned before I applied, and one near fully prepared within a couple months of applying. I am of course happy I never needed it.

I did expect, however, that a solid response to the RQ could avoid the black hole of the long-haul process . . . but this is also dependent on what the underlying facts and circumstances are, which goes back to waiting, waiting and gathering records so that the odds of an issue, of CIC not being satisfied by the response to RQ, would be minimized. And even then, I would not have predicted, per se, that my RQ would have gone smoothly (as smoothly as any of the RQs have gone), but I was stacking the deck in my favour as well as one could.

My sense is that in general the risks for RQ are not particularly manageable by a prospective applicant. Sure, there are some obvious ones, like waiting to have a good margin of actual presence over 1095 days, but in general it never seemed to me that it would be worth making any real life decisions (like changing jobs, moving, or such) based on how it would potentially affect whether or not one got RQ. In contrast, though, there are some things which could directly affect how it goes for someone given RQ. Taking a job in the U.S. while the application is pending, for example, is not likely to help.

mini_k wrote: My guess is that CRA assessments might become part of the standard application staring July 2015. . . . attaching these assessments upfront is probably not going to make a big difference for anybody applying between now and July 2015. I also read reports on this forum indicating that additional information submitted with initial applications was discarded and RQs were issued anyway requesting the same information that has already been submitted upfront . . .

Both of you mention things being discarded.

Of this I am sure: While an application is still pending, NOTHING is discarded. Not even the envelopes or packaging in which the application or other submissions are delivered to CIC.

On the other hand, one can anticipate that extraneous things may be largely disregarded, given little or no consideration.

We have long known that including the equivalent of a response to RQ with the application did not preclude RQ, and not just from personal reports in the forums. There was a published decision in which there was at least an indication that the applicant had submitted additional documents with the initial application but later still went through the RQ process, and there was a specific reference in some of the internal CIC memos shared here, a reference to a question about RQ issued to an applicant who had, essentially, provided the documents, to which the superior responding said that yes, that applicant should be informed that the submission of requested documents was required although in doing so, to the extent documents had already been submitted the applicant could indicate those particular documents were already submitted. This appeared to be a case where the application was indeed done with the assistance of a lawyer, and the question about responding to the RQ was from the lawyer.

But one should always be aware of simple logic, and that includes, in particular, the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because we know that RQ was not avoided for someone who submitted additional documentation with the application, that does not warrant a conclusion that the submission of additional documentation will necessarily not make a difference.

And, it should be further noted, there is no certainty that it might not make a negative difference.

This is the dilemma I faced.

I was aware that the nature of what I do to earn a living could cause RQ (was aware of this for a long time, long before OB 407 was implemented, but of course OB 407 considerably elevated the risk of RQ for those self-employed). When I was preparing my application (spring 2013) we were not yet aware of the more recent changes to OB 407 (we still do not know these in any detail), but there had been some suggestions that, at the least, risk indicator A5 (in the triage criteria) had been modified to not necessarily capture (in the RQ net) everyone reporting self-employment. In my work history I did not use the term "self-employed" but used, rather, terms more specifically describing my employment relationship to the company that publishes the various publications I provide content for. I also avoided using the term "independent contractor." Either of these would have been accurate ways to describe my employment. Both were known risk indicator triggers. But there were also other ways of describing my employment accurately. I went with another, albeit just as accurate way.

(And yes, the nature of my employment did come up in my interview, with what seemed to be some concern, and while it seemed to go well, despite my garbled answer to the questions, as I was nervous, I left the interview still uncertain. Fortunately I did not have to wait long. I was already scheduled to take the oath the day after the next, and the interviewer gave me the formal notice for the oath, and instructed me to show up for it unless I got a telephone call the next day. So I only had to wait a little over thirty hours or so, to not get the phone call, before I knew I had for sure escaped RQ.)

Thing is, no matter how I described my employment, to be accurate it would be obvious that it meant I was an independent contractor of some sort, and thus for tax reporting purposes, essentially "self-employed."

To some extent the difference was comparable to the issue with the "unemployed" part of the A5 criteria. In retrospect it appears that level one screening done in Sydney, and in some local offices (in 2012 there was a period of time in which the local offices did the level one screening for applications already transferred to the local office, applications in their inventory, which had not already progressed to the test/interview step), interpreted "retired" to not trigger A5 (relative to reporting being "unemployed"), whereas some local offices (Montreal and GTA offices in particular) were interpreting "retired," "homemaker," "student," and so on, as all constituting a report of being "unemployed" and thus triggering RQ (which contributed to the number of those issued RQ ballooning dramatically in the summer of 2012). In fact, we saw this playing out in the internal CIC memos (from 2012 mostly) and it is what made me aware that just the words used, rather than what they really meant, could make a difference. A "retired" person is not employed any more than an "unemployed" person is, yet reporting one versus the other made a difference (across all applications after CIC issued "interpretations" for A5).

Thus, I recognized that even though I was not using the terms "self-employed," or "independent contractor," my description indicated I was both, and was thus well within scope of A5 potentially triggering RQ for me.

Since I formally established my place of doing business here in Canada as of the day I landed (had it set up for some time before actually landing, and it was ready to go as soon as I had status to work in Canada), and had done all the proper tax filings with the CRA, it seemed to me that the CRA documents were the best evidence I had that my employment had been located here in Canada.

The question was whether or not to include them with the application.

They might be disregarded, I knew. That would be no big deal. Adding eight pages of documents (my CRA Notices of Assessment for each of four years, consisting of two pages for each of the four years), would not take much effort or add any appreciable cost. So, if they were not considered, nothing lost.

Might they be considered in the course of the level one screening? Was A5 being applied with consideration given to other factors? If some applicants who were self-employed would be given RQ and some might not, depending on what other factors are considered by the person doing the level one screening, I thought that the inclusion of the CRA NoAs might affect that decision. I recognized there were two elements to this:
-- what other factors might be considered in level one screening relative to the A5 criteria (self-employed in particular)
-- whether or not the additional documents would be examined and considered in this

In contrast to that, I did indeed wonder whether the inclusion of extra documents might cause questions, could be interpreted as a sign to CIC that there could be reason to take-a-look-under-the-hood, so to say.

Ultimately I decided that
(1) no big deal if the CRA NoA were ignored (no loss),
(2) there was a chance that the way A5 had been modified or interpreted that the CRA NoA might be examined and considered, and help, and    
(3) the odds that just eight pages of additional documents, the CRA NoA, might raise questions is minimal

So why not. I did. I have NO idea if it made any difference at all.

Part of why I concluded that including the CRA NoA should not have a negative effect, and potentially could have a positive impact, is that by the time I applied, CIC was already asking for CRA documents in the PR card renewal process, and while there was still only speculation about what changes the Conservative government was planning, there were hints that tax related considerations or documentation could play a role (and indeed, Bill C-24 has implemented some changes which will bring CRA and tax documentation directly into the process). Additionally, many Federal Court cases indicated that CRA documents were perhaps among the most important ones considered other than travel documents (passports).

So including a small number of extra documents seemed OK, and the CRA NoAs seemed the most likely to be of any benefit.

Further notes about CRA documents going forward:

For a long while now (but after I applied) the application has indicated that photocopies of work records should be included with the application. In particular, for item 6.F., regarding "work and education history," the instruction states:

If you answered yes [to question "Have you worked in the last four years], you must provide photocopies of your work and/or education records.

The document checklist, however, does not list any item for work records, and the Guide does not specify any work records in the "Gather Documents" instructions.

I have long anticipated that the checklist will be amended to, similar to the required documents to submit with an application to renew the PR card, require the inclusion of CRA documents. This might not happen now until the application is amended pursuant to the provisions in Bill C-24 taking effect, since when that happens section 5(1)(c)(iii) will undoubtedly mean that applicants will have to show compliance with Canada's Income Tax Act for four taxation years.

In the meantime, I would interpret the instruction in item 6.F., which refers to including photocopies of work records, as an invitation to include CRA NoAs or T4s or such. Between the Guide and checklist, it is clear that as of right now CIC is not specifically requiring work records with the application, but at the least the door is open and including a relatively small number of documents should do no harm, potentially making a difference for some applicants (including such documents will not, for example, make up for or otherwise negate a substantive reason for the issuance of RQ -- for some applicants, they are going to get RQ no matter what they send).

In response to the following post, plus a lot more derived from lessons-learned:

mini_k wrote: Applicants would benefit the most if CIC first of all knew what they wanted and secondly communicated their requirements to the applicants in a clear and concise manner. It is unfair to issue RQs to applicants and have their applications in process for 3+ years due to IDs renewed within 3 months of the application date (even if it was one of many ID documents submitted) because CIC a)      Did not state that ID’s renewed within 3 months of application are not acceptable for citizenship application purposes b)      Did not require to attach copies of expired ID documents c)       Did not disclose RQ criteria In the above circumstances, how anybody can anticipate an RQ and indefinite processing timeline and conclude it will be beneficial to attach CRA assessments with an application?

Foremost: key issue is not so much about avoiding RQ, as it is about avoiding the long-haul RQ process even if RQ'd.

Any and all applicants can anticipate RQ.

Since any applicant may be issued RQ, for a wide range of reasons many of which CIC deliberately avoids disclosing to the public and many of which are relatively technical, and perhaps CIC even issues RQ randomly, again, any and all applicants can anticipate receiving RQ.

I doubt anyone can conclude that the inclusion of any additional documentation with the application (including CRA documents) will be beneficial.

All I did was conclude that it might help, and that the risk it might hurt was very low, so I did include the CRA NoAs; why not? And, as I said with some emphasis, there is nothing to say that this did help my case. We simply do not know.

While it is always dangerous to draw too many conclusions, or too firm a conclusion, from individual experiences or even from a range of reported experiences by numerous individuals, it is safe to say, I'd venture, that the prudent applicant anticipates the possibility of RQ even if there is no particular reason to expect RQ, and the prudent applicant can prepare for the possible RQ. In doing so, I firmly believe that applicants can approach the process in a way that very substantially reduces the risk of getting bogged down in a long-haul RQ process even if they are issued RQ.

Not all RQ'd cases fall into the black-hole (so to say), or are mired in a processing timeline that surpasses three years leaning toward four plus.

That said, for those issued RQ in 2012, perhaps some into 2013, which is mostly about a significant percentage of applicants who applied between sometime in 2011 and late 2012, there is clearly a much larger percentage of qualified applicants swept into the quagmire of a RQ process beseiged by the collateral consequences of a poorly planned, even more poorly implemented, enforcement campaign with the initial OB 407 process at its rotten core.

For me, this is where the lucky part played a big role. I just happened to have avoided applying during that ill-fated time. Part of why I avoided applying during that time had to do with being among the prudent applicants who do not apply until the circumstances are most favourable, but that is mostly a function of when I happened to become a PR and waiting four years before applying (and then a few months longer spent procrastinating).

There is another lucky part, or at least a factor which applicants cannot control. While being from a visa-exempt country does not preclude getting RQ (we have seen many reports of Americans and Brits being RQ'd for example), my strong impression is that it makes a difference in terms of degree, relative to the skepticism with which an applicant is examined. This is not mere prejudice. Applicants from visa-exempt countries, particularly the U.S., U.K., Australia, among others, have little or no incentive to pursue obtaining a Canadian passport as a passport of convenience. There are, in fact, large numbers of PRs from such countries who do not apply for Canadian citizenship (although changes to the PR card renewal process, which has become increasingly onerous, is tipping many toward finally getting citizenship so that they do not have the hassle of renewing the PR card every five years). Again, being from the U.S. or the U.K. does not preclude RQ, nor even a denial of citizenship, but the degree of suspicion is probably at least a little lower.

The core of my personal experience reflects an applicant well-prepared for RQ, in the event RQ was to be issued. As I indicated, except for the collateral damage inflicted on applicants issued RQ in 2012 (or just before, or early 2013), being prepared for RQ can probably make a big difference in how the RQ process goes. I think this is particularly true going forward. That is, I think that a solid RQ response by a qualified applicant, one who does not otherwise have serious issues (compromised credibility for example, significant discrepancies in declared facts, or missing travel documents, as other examples), can make a big difference in the level of scrutiny, the scope of investigation, and the overall timeline.

That is, while I was not issued RQ, and perhaps in a sense I avoided RQ, the lessons-to-be-learned are not about avoiding RQ, but rather about being prepared for RQ in the event RQ is issued. That, I believe, is where an applicant's efforts are more likely to pay off. And of course, most of that preparation precedes submitting the application.

Note in particular, that once CIC has diverted the application on a path leading to the long-haul RQ process, there is little an applicant can do to accelerate the process, virtually nothing the applicant can do to avoid being bogged down in the long-haul RQ process. The trick (which is no trick at all, but rather is simply the exercise of due prudence) is to be prepared for the possibility of RQ both in terms of actual facts and how things might appear before applying, and prepared to submit a well-crafted, focused response to the RQ if issued. Not everyone who follows this path will avoid the long-haul RQ process, but those who do will greatly reduce the risk of getting bogged down in a contested residency case quagmire.

But, the other side of this coin, again, is that once an applicant is in effect on a long-haul RQ process path, there is no way off until the process fully unfolds, meaning either that eventually (three plus years into the process) a Citizenship Officer finally concludes there is not a residency issue, and the oath is scheduled, or the Citizenship Officer makes the referral (using the File Preparation Template) for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge. This is the problem beseiging so many of the applicants issued RQ in 2012: CIC's practices appear to have diverted the whole lot, or nearly the whole lot, into the contested residency case queue, with little or no effort to separate those who could be readily assessed as meeting the residency requirement from those for whom there are actual residency issues and thus for whom the long-haul RQ process is (from CIC's perspective) warranted. Add to that the fact that the number given RQ during that period was probably double the historical average, and double what it has been subsequently. Net result: huge problems, huge workload, huge inventory of backlogged cases, with many, many thousands of qualified applicants wallowing in the quagmire of an ill-equipped, poorly working, and over-extended system.   

I offer these observations to explain what has happened, not to condone, let alone justify what has happened. And particularly not to condone, let alone justify, what has happened to the many thousands of qualified applicants issued RQ in 2012 unnecessarily and unfairly bogged down along with the processing of what are real residency issues and possible residency fraud cases.


    

Observations about going forward:
I don't think the implementation of the new provisions of law, as adopted in Bill C-24, will significantly change the mechanics of citizenship application processing.

However there are other changes going on which are likely to have a significant impact on the assessment of residency in particular. Key among these are changes which have to do with advancing technology, refined border control practices, and international information sharing agreements and practices. As many in this forum have long clamored for, CBSA is migrating toward capturing and maintaining records for nearly all (albeit not necessarily all) border crossing events for all non-citizens, as to exits as well as entries. It is unlikely that CIC will definitively, let alone exclusively, rely on such records for purposes of ascertaining exit and entry dates for all PRs (for both PR residency obligation and citizenship residency qualification purposes), for purposes of assessing residency, but the extent to which CIC will have the capacity to independently verify declarations of travel/absences is increasing, and this should help CIC better focus the identification of applicants to be issued RQ, and to more efficiently assess applicants including those issued RQ.

In other words, the range of applicants subjected to RQ should decline some (perhaps by quite a lot) going forward, and the processing of qualified applicants who are nonetheless issued RQ should become more efficient, including a significantly reduced timeline. This will not protect all qualified applicants from what we have come to know as the long-haul RQ process, the black hole some describe it as, but it should dramatically reduce the percentage of qualified applicants who are swept into the bureaucratic and investigative quagmire of the contested residency case destined, eventually, for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge.


Reminder; a major distinction that needs to be kept in mind:

Again, and even now, NOT all RQ'd applicants fall into the black hole, end up in the long-haul RQ process. Getting RQ does not necessarily result in the grossly excessive timelines approaching and surpassing three, sometimes four years.

As I discussed above, applicants issued RQ in 2012 are a separate group, even though a large percentage of even these applicants have finally progressed to taking the oath. The transition to OB 407 was no less than a disaster for perhaps one-in-five, maybe even one-in-four applicants who applied between sometime in 2011 and in most of 2012. This group of applicants does not constitute the entirety of qualified applicants bogged down in a long-haul RQ process, but it does represent a disportionate share.

Reminder: not all applicants are qualified. Among the thousands who withdraw or abandon the application annually, the odds are that a large percentage, if not most, were not qualified. Additionally, every year CIC and CJs determine that thousands are not qualified and are denied citizenship (while there are indications that CIC and CJs have grown tougher in recent years, overall it appears that nearly all denied applicants are indeed not qualified, with the usual exceptions of course). Obviously, the bulk of the unqualified applicants are among those bogged down in the long-haul process, perhaps representing a very large percentage of the cases bogged down in the long-haul process -- except for the disproportionate share of those RQ'd in 2012, among whom it appears a large percentage are qualified.   


Some Particular Observations

Inclusion of CRA NoAs with application:
Whether or not including any additional documentation (including the CRA assessments) with an application will be "beneficial" is still an unknown. As I stated somewhat emphatically, I do not know if doing this had any influence on how my application went. Even though we can infer some elements of how the decision-making goes, overall we do not precisely know what the decision-making practices are behind the curtain at CIC. No particular individual's experience is sufficient to infer that including the CRA NoAs had any influence. The problem is rooted in the difficulty there is in inferring conclusions generally from isolated, individual experience. For example, it appeared that a majority of the other applicants who took the oath at the same ceremony as me, similarly to me, applied within the previous year. That is, that most of us at the same ceremony had timelines ranging from seven to eleven months (mine was barely eight months). I do not infer, based on my experience, that most applicants will get to the oath in barely eight months. I do not infer, based on the experience of a majority of applicants at the same oath ceremony, that most applicants will get to the oath in less than a year. In fact, CIC is still reporting a 24 month timeline for routine applications and the last we saw from CIC about its claimed objectives, it is to get the routine processing timeline down to around a year.

The main benefit that would interest prospective applicants, those who are informed beyond the information CIC offers anyway, is whether or not RQ can be avoided. But this much is certain: RQ cannot for sure be avoided.

But for purposes of whether or not to expect that including CRA NoAs will make the difference in whether or not RQ is issued, again, the influence of including additional documentation with the application is an unknown. We know for sure that some applicants still get RQ'd no matter what they include with the application (which makes sense), but because of the fallacy of the excluded middle it cannot be inferred that including RQ documentation for sure makes no difference (just because it did not for some).



More in Particular Regarding Anticpating RQ / Avoiding RQ
All applicants should anticipate the possibility of receiving additional requests for documentation related to the citizenship application process, including the possibility of being issued a Residence Questionnaire.

CIC does NOT adequately communicate this, let alone inform prospective applicants what additional information and documentation might be requested. However, the information provided online by CIC does, in a strict sense, indicate the possibility of being required to submit additional documents, including in particular a residence questionnaire (see online definition of what is a "routine case" for example). However, in the Guide the section about "what happens next" makes no reference to requests for additional documents or a residence questionnaire, and is in this respect misleading. Nonetheless, anyone much familiar with the citizenship application process should readily recognize that any and all applicants should anticipate the possibility of being given RQ.

The corollary is that there is NO guaranteed way to avoid RQ.

We do not know, for example, whether CIC issues RQ randomly. I suspect they do. We know that in other processing contexts, CIC has policies which at least in effect amount to randomly imposing additional requests or elevated scrutiny (see for example PR card mailing policies as reflected in OB 491 as just modified a few days ago, or the random checks done to monitor compliance with the conditional PR given spousal-sponsored PRs as reflected in OB 480 also recently modified). We know there are quality control practices, and it is safe to infer those quite likely include random issuance of either specific document requests or RQ.

We also know that notwithstanding the modifications to OB 407, the triage criteria for determining which applicants will be issued RQ probably continue to be both extensive and broad, just not nearly so sweeping as they were when initially rolled out in the initial version of OB 407. More than that, though, we know some of those criteria are ties to factors or circumstances we cannot reasonably predict. What constitutes a "suspect address," for example, is probably in part assessed by yet another level or layer of criteria which CIC does not publicly divulge. Merely having an address with a postal code in a specified range could trigger this risk indicator (not saying this is for sure -- but my sense is that CIC has identified address-areas associated with higher rates of residency fraud and thus has whole areas, based on postal codes, identified as suspect), which is something it would be very difficult to anticipate.

The main thing is that level one screening, indeed RQ screening (RQ screening is repeated, at least to some extent, in the pre-interview check and the interview), is a check-means-in, or a check-equals-RQ-trigger, decision-making process, not an assessment of residency overall. That is, no amount of proof in what is examined attendant the screening will overcome meeting the criteria for issuing RQ. If a factor or circumstance in the applicant's case checks off the criteria, RQ is issued. There is not an effort to assess residency as such, just a screening for reasons to question residency.

Thus, for example, no amount of proof of meeting residency, included with the application, will preclude the issuance of RQ if in conducting the triage criteria screening there is a risk indicator requiring RQ.

That is, the question, in the determination CIC is making about whether RQ should be issued, is whether or not there is some reason to more thoroughly examine the applicant relative to residency. If the reason to do so exists, the more thorough examination process applies, which means RQ is issued. The question is not about the ultimate conclusion, as to whether or not the applicant met the residency requirement, but again is about whether or not the elevated level of scrutiny (RQ process) should be employed.

Ultimately there are way, way too many potential ways to trigger RQ, for any given applicant to be certain they will avoid RQ, even if there is no random issuance of RQ (obviously, if there are random RQs, no one can be certain to avoid RQ).

Observation: Indeed, even a huge amount of proof, in responding to RQ, documenting actual physical presence for more than 1095 days will not necessarily lead CIC to be satisfied sufficiently for the RQ'd applicant to avoid the long-haul RQ process for a residency case, since any indication the applicant failed to declare all absences (even though the RQ response otherwise proves APP > 1095 days) tends to cause CIC to be not satisfied, so the file goes into the long-haul RQ process for a residency case.
    


Minimizing the Risks of RQ
As noted, there is no guaranteed way to avoid RQ.

But, there is nonetheless the question: can an applicant appreciably reduce his or her risk of being issued RQ?

Well, the obvious answer is yes. It is yes because an applicant can apply in circumstances which are known to make the risk of RQ very high, if not virtually certain, which means applicants can significantly reduce the risk of RQ by not making the application so long as such high risk circumstances exist.

For example: do not apply with less than 1095 days of actual physical presence, even if eligible for citizenship based on basic residency (under the currently applicable residency requirement).

But of course, for some prospective applicants, there is no way to avoid a major RQ risk factor. Anyone who has applied previously and the application was withdrawn, abandoned, or denied, is at very high risk for RQ, and waiting will not appreciably reduce that risk. Note, though, this is precisely the kind of situation which, perhaps, best illustrates a situation in which it is important to follow what might be called the better or best approach. An applicant in this situation can and mostly should be compiling records and gathering documents for when he or she does get RQ. That is, well before applying, be preparing for RQ, getting ready for the RQ.

In any event, the more meaningful questions are about what can an applicant reasonably do to reduce the risk of RQ, and to what extent can the risk of RQ be reduced.

Here too there is the obvious; just a few examples:

-- Again, make sure to not be a shortfall case, as in do not apply with less than 1095 days actual physical presence (this will cease to be relevant once the new residency requirements are in effect, as shortall applicants will be automatically not qualified).

-- Use the online residency calculator and make sure to be as accurate and complete as possible in reporting all absences, including a reasonably informative entry in the "reason" box (just putting "holiday" or "vacation" for a two month absence is asking for questions).

-- Avoid extensive absences (time abroad) after applying.

-- Have been always employed, or nearly always employed, for a readily recognized Canadian employer, and doing work exclusively in Canada.

Note, these are not conditions of qualification. While these all warrant their own discussion, at least clarification, the last of these warrants an upfront recognition: many, perhaps most PRs cannot reasonably meet this. Ranging from periods of unemployment to time working for a small-business or even self-employed, or time attending school, or having to go abroad on assignment for a Canadian employer, many if not nearly all of us cannot wait to apply until we have been fully employed entirely in Canada and by a readily recognized Canadian employer, for a full three plus years. This thus illustrates part of why the vast majority of applicants cannot make sure they will not get RQ; there is no reasonable way to manage one's life to even reduce many of the risks for RQ, let alone eliminate all risks of RQ.

Then there is the not-so-obvious and not agreed upon approaches. These are many and varied. Among one of the more salient ones is whether or not, or to what exent, to have a margin of actual presence over and above 1095 days. I think this can make a significant difference; others think it makes little difference so long as there is at least some margin, days or a few weeks.




Take-away Conclusions:

-- We do NOT know if the inclusion of CRA assessments with an application will have any influence, either overall or relative to the level one assessment (applying triage criteria, which determines whether pre-test RQ is issued).

-- We do know that no amount of proof of meeting the residency requirement included with the application will preclude the issuance of RQ if the application checks off a risk indicator requiring RQ.

-- The main area of focus in which applicants can help improve their odds of more smoothly sailing through the process, is in recognizing the possibility of RQ before applying, and take this into consideration in deciding when to apply, and in compiling information and gathering documents.

I realize that much of this is of minimal help to those already bogged down in the long-haul RQ process. For some, understanding the terrain a little more may alleviate some of the anxiety. After all, knowing the terrain better should encourage qualified applicants, those who responded appropriately to the RQ and who do not have significant credibility issues, to be more confident that despite how unfair the overly-long process is, the ultimate outcome should be fair.

I realize that the extent of the injustice perpetrated in how long it has taken CIC to process qualified applicants, particularly so relative to the very large number of 2012 RQ'd applicants for whom there is no real residency issue at stake, undermines faith that the ultimate outcome will be fair. But I feel quite confident there should be minimal cause to worry in this regard. Of course there will be exceptions, but they should be few, very few.

That said, there is one group for whom the outlook is not encouraging, those who applied with a shortfall. CIC still fails to adequately inform prospective applicants what is likely to happen in a shortfall case. I believe there are many thousands of shortfall cases currently in process. Perhaps there are tens of thousands. In the meantime, it appears quite likely that both CIC and CJs will be more strictly imposing the actual physical presence test. This means anyone with a shortfall application cannot be confident of a successful outcome eventually. Indeed, the outlook is perhaps the opposite -- with the caveat that we do not really know to what extent CIC is pushing the imposition of the actual physical presence test, just that CIC is obviously pushing it often and a lot more than they were a few years ago, and that CJs are applying it more often.



Level-one screening; the triage criteria:
The above barely scratches the surface of what we know about the level one screening, and what we know about this is only a fraction. In particular, we do not know what changes have been made to the triage criteria in OB 407D (or potentially even more recent versions).

My view is that the version of triage criteria reflected in the copy of the File Requirements checklist shared here, dating from the summer of 2012, probably still largely reflects the current triage criteria subject to modifications which, I believe, are largely in how the criteria are applied rather than in the specific criteria itself.

For example, some people believe that the original OB 407 risk indicator based on identification, such that identification issued within three months preceding the date of application resulting in RQ, has been eliminated. I highly doubt that. CIC is not divulging much at all either way.

We know that the original rollout of OB 407 applied the triage criteria more or less mechanically, such that, for example, ID issued less than three months prior to submitting the application required RQ to be issued. Similarly for A5 risk indicators, any period of unemployment or self-employment, in conjunction with any travel abroad, required RQ to be issued. My sense is that the mandatory nature of these risk indicators has been removed. Whether CIC has gone to a scoring system (such as two risk indicators mandating RQ for example), a flexible grading system (with risk indicators weighted perhaps), or even a subjective or discretionary judgment approach, is unknown. But, for example, I think that being self-employed, or having applied with a form of ID issued recently (within three months), are still risk indicators specified in the triage criteria (these were, I think, risk indicators prior to OB 407 for example), but they do not necessarily mean RQ will be issued, but rather that the level one screener considers these in context. We just don't know much about how that might be done, what "context" is considered, what weight is given this or that factor, this or that risk indicator.
    
In any event, though, the safe thing to assume is that the triage criteria risk indicators are still fairly broad, and thus that any applicant might be given RQ.

bjones wrote: These are really helpful posts for prospective applicants. Thanks for taking the time to write them!

sagafemina wrote: being from the U.S. or the U.K. does not preclude RQ, nor even a denial of citizenship, but the degree of suspicion is probably at least a little lower. I would have to differ. So let's not give visa-exempt country applicants any assurance that they will not be targeted.

First, I will add some emphasis to what I said: ". . . the degree of suspicion is probably at least a little lower."

And that is, I am quite confident, a safe-to-say conclusion, in large part at the least because, as is readily obvious, as I previously said:

Applicants from visa-exempt countries, particularly the U.S., U.K., Australia, among others, have little or no incentive to pursue obtaining a Canadian passport as a passport of convenience.

I suppose one could qualify this, by saying comparatively, but the difference in terms of motive to commit fraud to obtain a Canadian passport is so obvious this hardly warrants belaboring.

While of course comparisons of this sort are difficult to verify, anyone who follows RQ'd cases should readily recognize that while the range of suspicion (which does not necessarily amount to any "targeting") varies widely relative to many factors (being a self-employed consultant, for example, being one that elevates the degree of suspicion), there is at least, again, a little difference relative to whether or not the applicant is of a nationality for which the Canadian passport itself confers substantial benefits beyond those which the applicant's current passport provides. Yes, even for an American, having a Canadian passport offers some additional convenience, but the scope of additional benefits thus obtained (for an American) pale in comparison to what is gained relative to passports from many other countries. There is, in short, a huge factual difference in the extent to which there are incentives to obtain a Canadian passport for convenience (especially relative to incentives to commit fraud in doing so). Obviously, there is at least a little more suspicion (of seeking a passport-of-convenience) likely relative to individuals who potentially have a greater incentive (more to be gained).

The main thing, though, is the idea of targeting.

I am sure that Americans are not targeted for elevated scrutiny because they are Americans. In fact, I doubt there is much targeting of suspicion based on nationality, relative to residency scrutiny (security or other background scrutiny is a separate matter).

In general, overall, I believe that most applicants, Americans included, can indeed be assured they are not targeted because of their nationality. (Note: many have postulated that there is an apparent correlation between RQ issuance and being from the Middle East, but if we were able to analyze the underlying facts and circumstances, I believe that this is rooted more in specific factors which probably tend toward a higher rate of incidence for individuals from the Middle East -- that is, CIC is not issuing RQ because the individual is from the Middle East, but CIC is applying criteria which may disproportionately affect applicants from the Middle East).

I strongly believe the process of identifying who becomes a residency case works in the opposite direction, that is that it is not about targeted groups, but rather that there are a range of key factors relative to individual history and circumstances, which will influence the degree of suspicion CIC will have regarding a particular applicant, and a certain amount of suspicion based on those factors will be the key determinant in whether the individual applicant is, as one might say, targeted . . . be that for RQ, further background checks, additional efforts to verify information, or such.

This is why Americans are not at all immune from RQ or, as I said, from being denied citizenship (a number of cases I cite and link in other topics are, specifically, cases involving American citizens who were denied).

The obvious factors are reflected in the formal triage criteria. That is what determines, in the vast, vast majority of cases, whether or not RQ is issued. Some generalized sense of suspicion, particularly if there are incongruities or anomalies which arouse the bureaucrat's suspicions about the applicant, also will result in RQ and/or elevated scrutiny.

As I emphasized above: All applicants should anticipate the possibility of receiving additional requests for documentation, including RQ. And there is no reason to exclude Americans or Brits from this. Indeed, what led me into doing all the research and analysis and probing of how CIC processes residency cases, is that I very much anticipated the likelihood I, an American citizen, would also be issued RQ. Not because as an American I might be "targeted" (I was sure this would not happen), but because my personal circumstances involved factors significantly increasing the risk RQ would be issued (indeed, if I had applied before the end of 2012, and since I had met the APP threshold as far back as 2011 I certainly could have, I almost for sure would have been issued RQ, given my self-employment).

I realize that many might shrug off, as largely unsubstantial if not semantic, distinguishing between screening practices based on specified criteria, versus targeting groups of individuals, but the difference is an important one. At various times the criteria employed by CIC has been way overbroad, and some of the criteria will have a disproportionate impact on certain groups of PRs (for example, my sense is that, as in many things, the poor tend to be disadvantaged, incidentally however, not because they are poor, but because of things like having less stability in where they live, what work they do, and so on).

The point I want to emphasize is that generally PRs applying for citizenship do not need to fear being targeted because of their nationality, ethnicity, religion, or such, even though yes, some of the criteria employed by CIC in identifying who to give RQ, and who is subject to an elevated degree of skepticism or suspicion, is overly broad and will thus result in a detrimental impact on the processing for many qualified applicants (albeit rarely should it result in an unwarranted denial of citizenship -- as much as the processing itself can be egregiously intrusive to the point of being abusive, and excessively long, the ultimate outcome most often, by a big margin, is fair).

I started this topic, in large part, to collect and share what I have learned about the citizenship application process, mostly focused on residency related concerns which arise in the RQ process but also toward minimizing the risk of getting RQ in the first place.

While Bill C-24 obtained Royal Assent prior to my beginning this topic, many aspects of the provisions in that Bill were not overtly recognized and have since become more apparent, with many other aspects to become more apparent in the future.

Part of what came into force this August 1st has a large impact on the significance of submitting an application which is not "complete," and in particular, what was before largely a matter of CIC policy and practice has now been incorporated into the statutory provisions themselves, thus having the force and effect of formal law. Thus, the importance of fully completing the application form, as well as fully responding to subsequent requests from CIC, has been much elevated now.

Following the instructions has always been of much import, essential. But the need to do so going forward now warrants even more emphasis. Applicants will not have their application proceed if there is a failure to fully provide requested information, either in the application itself, or in any subsequent request from CIC. The failure to complete an item is no longer a matter of elevating the risk of delay or being issued RQ. Processing itself is at stake.

Leading to this:



Some editorial observations about following instructions

canuck25 wrote: Follow specific instructions in the application.

I am quoting this because it completely answers a question raised in the topic Urgent: Addresses in the past 4 years, and while "follow the instructions" is among only a few absolute rules for filling out CIC forms, one which I repeat often (and is included in my signature: "when in doubt follow the instructions, otherwise follow the instructions . . ."), the failure to follow the instructions is probably the most prevalent cause of problems for applicants . . . be that applicants for citizenship, Permanent Residence, or sponsorships, among others.

There are many reasons why different individuals fail to follow the instructions. Perhaps the most common one is the one I am often guilty of, and that is a failure to carefully read the instruction in the first place. Like many, I often assume I understand what is being asked and I answer on that basis, having skimmed over what I assume is (and usually the instructions are indeed) largely boilerplate (standard clauses or standard instructions). But the instructions are not always only boilerplate. Sometimes there are particular aspects of the question which are specified in the detailed instructions. Like many others, I have too often overlooked the more detailed instruction and made an error in responding. In closely following reports of problems encountered by PR and citizenship applicants, now for well over a half-decade, I am acutely aware of just how wide-spread this is, how common it is for applicants to make this kind of error. It appears to me to be, by far, the most common cause of problems. Thus my repeated emphasis about how important it is to follow the instructions.

That said, this sort of error is so common because it is inherently a part of how we deal with the volume of bureaucratic demands imposed on us, given the extensive amount of boilerplate we encounter in our everyday dealings. So, despite the reminders, the repeated cautions, this sort of error will continue to be common, and I too (despite my efforts otherwise) will again make such mistakes. All we can do is to do our best to remind ourselves to read and follow the instructions, and to follow-through as best we can.



There is, however, another common cause for not following instructions:

Second-guessing questions
Another very common reason why so many fail to follow the instructions is a persistent tendency to second-guess questions/items in immigration and citizenship application forms, an almost pervasive sense that applicants should respond based on what CIC is looking for, based on what is relevant and material, rather than based on a literal understanding of what is being asked in the particular question or item, as it is stated in the forms understood in context given the instructions (both those on the form itself and those in any applicable "instruction guide" provided).

One major flaw in this thinking is that it overlooks the basic fact that CIC not only wants, but essentially demands, a complete and accurate answer to the question it asks, NOT a response to the question the applicant thinks CIC should be asking.

CIC determines the relevancy of what is reported in the application form.

This cause for failing to follow the instructions should be fairly easy to avoid. But, over and over again forums like this are populated by discussions and observations and overt suggestions if not specific advice based on interpretations of what CIC is looking for rather than what CIC specifically asks.

Thus I applaud a simple, straight-forward response like that canuck25 gave:

canuck25 wrote: Follow specific instructions in the application. If it asks for 4 years only then provide addresses for the last 4 years only.

Granted, CIC's forms and instructions are not always a model of clarity, and thus it is not always so easy as to simply answer the question. This forum and other similar forums provide a good venue for discussing such things and sorting out what might be called best practices, although it should always be remembered that ultimately the applicant needs to answer the question based on the applicant's own best and genuine understanding of what is being asked, giving a complete and accurate response to that question based on the applicant's personal circumstances. Calls to the CIC call centre can be quite helpful, but the more ambiguous or complicated the question is, the more an individual applicant needs to be cautious if not critical, and still remember that, again, ultimately the applicant needs to answer the question based on the applicant's best, genuine understanding of what is being asked, giving a complete and accurate response to that question based on the applicant's personal circumstances.

But most questions in CIC forms are straight-forward, not at all ambiguous, the instructions clear and unequivocal. The address history item in the citizenship application form is such an item, very clear and not at all ambiguous or equivocal in what information it is asking the applicant to provide.



Example: Address history in Citizenship Application
This item, the address history part of the citizenship application form, is straight-forward, very clear, and not at all ambiguous or equivocal as to what information it is asking the applicant to provide.

In contrast, as I initially noted, the observations in this post were triggered by a question raised in the topic Urgent: Addresses in the past 4 years:

gulata wrote: In the section where they ask Adresses in the past 4 years: Do we need to put the adresses where we lived the 4 years immediate after landing as a PR, or do we have to list adresses before taht as well. Let say landing date is February 2011, then we have to list all adresses since that date. Right? I also contacted CIC and the call center agent told me that if the landing date is febrauary 2011, then need to provide information even from 2010. But she was not sure.

The simple responses given in that topic are to the point, sufficient, and warrant being applauded: follow the instructions; four years means four years.

gulata is not the first person to ask this question in this forum. And similar questions related to similar items in other forms, including the RQ form, have been often asked, in this and in other forums.

While the precise language in the application form has changed some over the years, and varies some from one form to another, the current version of the citizenship application form represents how this and similar questions are asked:

E. Addresses in the past four (4) years List all your Canadian and overseas addresses, including the postal codes. If you were residing, employed or attending school outside Canada in the past four (4) years, you must also indicate all your foreign addresses. Do not exclude any period of time during the past four (4) years.

This item repeats the relevant time period for reporting address history, the "past four years," three times, and it makes reference to including foreign addresses twice, and it adds a specific instruction, an admonition actually, bolded:

Do not exclude any period of time during the past four (4) years.

There really is no room whatsoever for a qualified response, for providing less than four years of address history.

Yet, again, the question posed by gulata has been a common one.

And, I would go so far as to suggest that at some time in the history of citizenship application versions, the concluding instruction or admonition (to NOT exclude any period of time during the past four years) was added precisely because not only was this question being so commonly asked, but rather because so many applicants were failing to provide a full four years of address history despite clear language in the item specifically requesting such history for the past four years.

This item is a prime example of the extent to which there is indeed a persistent tendency to second-guess questions/items in immigration and citizenship application forms, an almost pervasive sense that applicants should respond based on what applicants perceive CIC is looking for, based on what is relevant and material, rather than based on a literal understanding of what is being asked in the particular question or item, as it is stated in the forms understood in context given the instructions. This item illustrates the lengths CIC goes to emphasize that questions should be answered based on what the question particularly asks . . . and it suggests the extent to which applicants fail to do so.



Best practices
There is almost no doubt, following the instructions and responding to items as they are literally stated is almost always the best approach. If an applicant's response is a complete and accurate answer to the literal question asked, it cannot be a misrepresentation.

CIC often asks for more information than what is necessary.

Again, as I say repeatedly: if in doubt, follow the instructions, otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.

CIC will determine the relevancy of what is provided in response. Many times this means CIC will essentially ignore that information which is outside the scope of what is material or directly relevant. That does not mean the applicant did not need to provide that information. Indeed, given the changes to the Citizenship Act which came into force on August 1st, the failure to fully complete the application form precludes any application having been "made," and the failure to do so for any subsequent requests by CIC is a statutory ground for terminating the application.

For some applicants, there is a fear that the additional information may itself have a negative effect and could cause problems, and it would be better to not include that information -- and if it is not really material, then not including it should be OK. Does not work that way. The failure to include all that is asked will often, if not usually, cause more problems than probablems caused by what might be negative information.

Mostly, though, there appears to be a general idea that regardless of the literal language used in a question or item, what matters is what is material or at least directly relevant, and it is at least OK if not better to answer the item that way. Does NOT work that way. Again, follow the instructions. Answer the question that is asked, not the question you think should be asked.




Cultural or social norms
Part of why this is a persistent problem may be rooted in cultural or social norms pursuant to which people often interact based on convention rather than literal language. While it may be something of an over-generalization, my sense is that the German culture tends to be more literal than the Italian, for example. In my experience, Canadian culture is way less literal than norms for the American Northeast.

In particular, from an early age I had a literal approach to life (which more than a few sometimes found to be obnoxiously so), so it is sometimes difficult for me to empathize with or understand the nature of interpreting ordinary language, and instructions, other than literally, such as interpreting CIC instructions based on second-guessing what it is CIC is really interested in. In fact, this is probably the biggest cultural hurdle I have had in adapting to Canadian culture and social norms, the manner of speaking employed in Canada incorporating far more by way convention than what is literally said. For example, the question "would you like to . . . " is taken to mean "I would like to . . . and is it OK we do that?" In contrast, I might (and often will) ask this question, "would you like . . . " even though personally I would not like to do that, genuinely asking if it is something the other person would like even though I wouldn't. Even after having spent well over a decade in Canada, I still tend to ask my wife if she would like to go to a certain movie, or out to eat at a certain restaurant, just to find out if that is what she wants, even though my preference is to not go to that movie or restaurant. Even after having been in a relationship for a decade and a half, she still interprets my asking such questions to mean that is what I would like to do. She insists that "would you like" is the Canadian polite way of saying "I would like." Now that I am a Canadian citizen she is even more insistent I speak Canadian rather than what a person might say is New-York-lawyer-speak. Oh well, a leopard cannot wash away his spots.

The less than literal style of communicating is not exclusively Canadian, and it is not excluded from formal communications with authorities, including American authorities. American and Canadian border officers both often ask "what do you do?" which does not mean they are asking for a thorough enumeration of the acts a person engages in during the course of a day or year, but rather they are specifically asking about one's employment, what work do you do? In the old days, before passports had to be routinely presented at the U.S./Canada border, officers would sometimes (rarely before 2001) ask "Do you have ID?" They were not asking a yes-or-no question. (After having crossed the U.S./Canada border around a hundred times without being asked for identification, I did indeed respond to the question, "do you have ID?" by saying "yes, I do" and smiling, making no effort toward presenting my identification. The officer was not amused. Given the gruffness in her tone when she then asked "can I see it?" I did not persist in being literal in response, let alone make a quip like "yes if you are not blind," or offer, as my English teachers, and now my wife, would admonish, "do you mean may you see it?" -- recognizing that despite my wife's insistence on informal conventions in understanding language, and being Canadian-polite in particular, she can be rather authoritarian when it comes to the literal use of proper grammar.)

In any event, given that I am personally literally-speaking bent, but recognizing that cultural and social norms embrace many non-literal conventions, it is difficult for me to fully grasp how difficult it is for most people to more or less strictly follow instructions literally. I just know that for purposes of CIC applications and forms, what works best is to avoid second-guessing the meaning of questions and do one's best to formally, completely, and accurately respond based on the literal meaning of the question and instructions.

Thus, it does not matter if that which is asked seems to be beyond what CIC is looking for, what CIC is really interested in, or that indeed it seems beyond the scope of what CIC should be allowed to ask for. Answer the question asked.

Technically, if one has a genuine objection to answering a particular question, there are avenues for challenging CIC. For someone interested in getting through the process as quickly as possible, with the least amount of hassle, avoiding additional expense, that is not the way to go. Some battles are not worth fighting.