Evidence of CIC hidden agenda?

A few months ago my perfectly complete application was returned due to "missing school records for myself or my dependent children" although all records were enclosed. That pre-printed sticker on CIC letter left many people guessing, including a settlement coordinator who kindly checked my application for completeness before I sent it (and he was by no means a stranger to the drill). Eventually I had to contact an immigration law firm and the only suggestion they could come up with was to supplement the standard letters from my child's schools with his report cards. Very expensive but hopefully helpful advice (still waiting for CIC feedback to see if that did the trick). Back then I was still inclined to give CIC benefit of a doubt suspecting a human error at the screening stage that cost me precious time and money. However recently I learned that exact same story happened to a friend of mine who submitted his application in March, about a month after I did. What makes his case different is that his wife who applied separately end of 2012 submitted exact same set of documents, but her application was taken into processing. Obviously we are observing a worrying recent change in CIC behavior creating artificial excuses for returning valid applications with a possible objective of offloading their funnel (returned applications do not count) to make the numbers look better by all means. I wouldn't be surprised if some other recent applicants have similar stories to share. At this point I find it impossible to deny that CIC has a hidden agenda that will continue to affect the applicants for quite some time.

Edited by cool_alex - 30 May 2013 at 8:09pm

cool_alex wrote: A few months ago my perfectly complete application was returned due to "missing school records for myself or my dependent children" although all records were inclosed. That pre-printed sticker on CIC letter left many people guessing, including a settlement coordinator who kindly checked my application for completeness before I sent it (and he was by no means a stranger to the drill). Eventually I had to contact an immigration law firm and the only suggestion they could come up with was to supplement the standard letters from my child's schools with his report cards. Very expensive but hopefully helpful advice (still waiting for CIC feedback to see if that did the trick). Back then I was still inclined to give CIC benefit of a doubt suspecting a human error at the screening stage that cost me precious time and money. However recently I learned that exact same story happened to a friend of mine who submitted his application in March, about a month after I did. What makes his case different is that his wife who applied separately end of 2012 submitted exact same set of documents, but her application was taken into processing. Obviously we are observing a worrying recent change in CIC behavior creating artificial excuses for returning valid applications with a possible objective of offloading their funnel (returned applications do not count) to make the numbers look better by all means. I wouldn't be surprised if some other recent applicants have similar stories to share. At this point I find it impossible to deny that CIC has a hidden agenda that will continue to affect the applicants for quite some time.

I am not sure what you are implying. Are you suggesting that you are an individual who the Canadian government has reason to target for some hidden agenda? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what it is about you that you believe is cause for special concerns by the Canadian government.

There are, in contrast, a range of reports indicating that CPC-Sydney has been mechanically screening applications for completeness in a way that does not accommodate for minor variations; that is, being highly if not overly technical.

The situation for ikram is no surprise: the failure to submit proper copies of required documents is indeed likely to result in the application being returned. An image 9cm by 6cm in size for a piece of identification is not a reasonable copy if the identification itself is 3cm by 2cm. The instructions call for copies not depictions. As I state again and again: read and follow the instructions! This is not to say that the copy must be a perfectly exact copy (indeed, most consumer scanning and photo-copying equipment is actually designed to not produce a perfectly exact copy, so it cannot be readily employed in creating counterfeits), but what is submitted should be a reasonable copy of the original. (Obviously, the extent to which requests for "copies" requires more exact copies, including as to size, can vary; for many things, a request for a copy is so that the informational content of the copied document is presented; requests for copies of passports, identification, and such, are examined for more than just the informational content . . . and size alone can be an indicator of potential forgeries or counterfeits . . . the signatures are examined in comparision to signatures on other documents and records . . . and so on. All very much well within the range of common-sense.)

As for the individual whose application was returned whereas the spouse's application containing same documents was not, there is nothing nefarious suggested by deviations in how technically some applications are screened versus others: human beings are doing this and there will be variations from one to the other in how mechanical, how technical they are. Moreover, there have been ongoing changes in how the screening is done in Sydney, so it is no surprise that what slipped through before did not slip through on a later occasion.

I do not know, of course, about what underlies any of these particular instances. So I do not post the above to discuss these particular instances, per se, but more to observe for those who come to this forum and read the posts here, looking for insight into how things go when someone applies for citizenship, that it is very unlikely there is any hidden agenda at play. As I noted initially, sure, perhaps there is some reason why you would be targeted in particular, cool_alex, but you would know more about that than anyone here. So, sure, anyone who has something going on in their situation or history that is something that is likely to draw particular interest from the government, yeah, indeed, they can anticipate additional scrutiny on multiple levels. But for the ordinary PR pursuing the path to citizenship, there is no reason to worry about some nefarious hidden agenda at CIC.

That said, yeah, in regards to submitting "copies" of documents, again, CIC requires a copy of the original, not just an image depicting the original. Use common-sense and follow the instructions.

dpenabill wrote: I am not sure what you are implying. Are you suggesting that you are an individual who the Canadian government has reason to target for some hidden agenda? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what it is about you that you believe is cause for special concerns by the Canadian government.

I, just like you, belong to the group of individuals known as "citizenship applicants" and based on some evidence I am now inclined to believe that we may indeed be targets for "some hidden agenda" by CIC. If you read recent tweet by the minister, you'll find that he sees the root cause of the problem of long processing times in the increased number of applications. Now that he "knows" the problem, he can proceed to "solving" it - namely, take every action to reduce the number of applications in the queue. Timing is also interesting: CIC began to feel some pressure in that area only recently, so legitimate applications being returned now while applications with identical supporting documents were accepted last year confirms a recent change in their practices.

Operational procedures may change over time (e. g. CIC internally may decide that as of tomorrow, they are no longer treating enlargements as acceptable copies).

cool_alex wrote: I may disappoint you, but there's nothing "going on" in my situation and every immigration lawyer I spoke with called my case a "straightforward" one. The firm I ended up retaining does not even deal with any less-then-certain cases.

I am not among those who take reports or facts personally. Actually that should be well apparent in my posts. I really do try to focus on figuring out how the process works.

But, that said, you are the one alleging you are the target of some hidden agenda. Now that you have consulted with an immigration lawyer, or two, you should indeed have a better idea whether or not you have been targeted pursuant to some hidden agenda. Did the lawyers you consulted with offer some explanation for why you have been targeted in some hidden agenda?

(I suppose the first question is, do the lawyers you consulted with think you have become the subject of some hidden agenda?)

While I did use some emphasis (bold) in my previous post, perhaps I need to be more emphatic, so, I will repeat what I posted about what is the focus of my post:

. . . . more to observe for those who come to this forum and read the posts here, looking for insight into how things go when someone applies for citizenship, that it is very unlikely there is any hidden agenda at play.

While I realize I am more formal in my language here than the average poster, it is nonetheless frustrating to have to repeatedly point out that how it goes for most, what the ordinary, usual applicant can anticipate, is not how it will go for everyone.

Many here fail to grasp the difference between the timeline for a median (which is short of most by just one) versus a timeline based on how long it took 80 percent (meaning more than 3 out of four took less time than that). Some here will point to a hundred cases that took longer than three years to refute an observation that the median is probably somewhere between 14 and 18 months, as if those hundred cases which are taking so long somehow refute that the majority is taking a lot, lot less than that. No, the fact that thousands take a lot longer does not refute how long it is taking 80,000 or so in a given year.

I highlight this because, to be clear, yes, there are many indications that CIC will indeed target some applicants and raise the bar and raise the bar again and again. Legitimately? I do not offer an opinion in that regard. And, actually, that is usually a case-specific matter.

Some of the more specific cases discussed in the topic about leaving Canada after applying fall into the range of those applicants targeted by CIC. This includes those CIC has perceived to be, in effect, applying on their way to the airport. (Which, however, appears to have become a lower priority in the post OB 407 world.)

There are, though, some obvious cases in which it is well apparent, CIC has a bug of some sort about this or that individual, and they make it more difficult for such an individual.

That is, it does happen. Not usually. Not to most. But it does happen to some. (And when there are nearly a quarter million applicants applying for citizenship, "some" can mean thousands.)

A somewhat recent case illustrates this. In an appeal by Ayelete Korolove, apart from the formalities addressed in the decision by Justice Stricklan (linked here), what is missing is what really looms large. After all, there are formal reasons (found to be inadequate in this case) and there are the real reasons why a case gets to that juncture in the first place.

The case is rife with clues that this was an applicant who CIC had in its scope to oppose.

For example, CIC (the Minister) argues that the applicant's medical visits only account for 14 days in a particular year. Scattered over the calendar, to my view that is a lot. To CIC, though, they tried to make it sound as though this suggested the applicant was absent except those specific days when she was obtaining medical care.

Bottom-line: I was not asserting that CIC never has an "agenda," but rather I was asserting that most applicants have no need to worry about some hidden agenda. Sometimes CIC does have an agenda. It is usually case specific, meaning individual specific.

Thus, if you really do feel, alex_cool, that there is a "hidden agenda" at play in how your case has been processed, that would suggest there is a particular reason why YOU have been targeted. If so, that's something you will want to figure out, to identify what the issue is.

Frankly, though, I tend to doubt there is a hidden agenda in your case, that indeed it will be straightforward despite the wrinkles you have encountered.