ATIP: RQ Triage criteria interpretations

Hi,

Got my hands on a copy of someone else's request.  And it had a number of documents with RQ triage criteria interpretations.

(numbers in brackets - page references)

• A2: FOSS concerns - no RQ if FOSS/GCMS criminality noted (5,7)
• A3: previous applications not approved/withdrawn/etc. - no RQ if refusal/withdrawal due to language, knowledge or both (10)
• A4: discrepancies in absences - you get a pass if discrepancies are 3 occasions or less and/or less than 5 days (29)
• A5:
• Homemakers, retirees, students are not considered unemployed (4,9, 18). You better write "homemaker" in the app if you are a homemaker (14).
• Explanation of consultant/self-employed with travel situation (5,8-9) - they went with a "strict" scenario - any period of unemployment within 4 years + any travel, even if it does not coincide with unemployment
• A6: absences to sell property/take care of ill family member - you get a pass if it is within 6 mo from landing, or 2 or fewer such absences in total (29)
• C1: Renewed IDs in 3 months (3,5,9) - likely not applicable anymore, confirmation that it was updated, but no update text (29)
• C2: Inconsistency between addresses interpretation - if address on ID does not matches current address per app, but matches one of the previous ones in the same app (i.e. you have not updated your ID after move) - no RQ, but you may be questioned (16)
• General: You are expected to provide documents outside of 4 year range in RQ where requested - dating back to your arrival as CJs use this to assess ties (23)

Download the document here: (CIC_RQ_Triage_Interpretations_2012)
https://rapidshare.com/share/8FEF74902E21E7BA15D063024F38F31E





Edited by akella - 26 Sep 2013 at 10:16pm

Thank you Akella, a very interesting reading. I also found interesting the follwoing:
- "Right now about 75% of the files we “triage” are requiring a residence questionnaire. If this continues, no one in the Atlantic will be able to hold a citizenship test for months, as we will need to send out the RQ’s, then wait 45 days for them to return before the client can be scheduled. "
- We have an MP’s office contacting us about the length of time it is now taking to review RQ’s. The MINO is asking about it. It supposedly has gone from 18 – 48 months in a couple of weeks.

After reading all of these, I can't help asking myself "Do they at CIC even understand what they are doing?". Totally mismanaged, it's more like a disaster...

And of course, thank you Akella for sharing this valuable ATI.

Very interesting read. As usual, many thanks to Akella for sharing this.

Edited by Vancan2012 - 28 Sep 2013 at 4:32pm

Note: I moved some posts from here to a new topic because they were off-topic; should be obvious in list of topic titles.

Also note: I have been working on some observations regarding this CIC internal information.

In terms of highlights, I largely agree with observations initially noted by akella (and as always, thank you akella for this information) except in reference to

akella wrote: C1: Renewed IDs in 3 months (3,5,9) - likely not applicable anymore, confirmation that it was updated, but no update text (29)

In particular, I think the contrary, that these memos tend to affirm that this criteria is still applicable, still rather strictly applied. If anything, the interpretation given C1 appears to be that RQ is required even though only one of the forms of ID submitted was issued within three months preceding the date of applying.

But, as to this and other observations, I am not ready to post the more complete observations and explanation as yet.

Discussion regarding Halifax concern that the A5 criteria would result in 75% rate of RQ is not much relevant, except in terms of understanding why A5 has been interpreted to not require that RQ be issued for periods of unemployment due to being a homemaker or student, or retiree. Regarding this, remember, that was about the local office screening Part I criteria for already transferred files, a transitory process that occurred between May and . . . perhaps until September or so . . . last year. All part I triage criteria screening is now done in Sydney, and as these memos indicate A5 does not require RQ to be issued to homemakers, students, or retirees (which largely simply affirms what was indicated in previous batches of internal CIC communications regarding A5 in particular).

Regarding going back to date of arrival for applicants who have been living in Canada (or at least PRs) for much longer than four years, this in particular calls for a fairly lengthy explanation of why this is not particularly problematic for qualified applicants who, in particular, were actually, physically present in Canada for > 1095 days during the relevant four years. Bottom-line: it is clear that the applicant has discretion regarding what to include, what not to include, and if the applicant's information and documentation prove APP >1095 days after date of establishing in-fact residence, that will be sufficient to meet the residency requirement even if little documentation and limited information is provided for periods previous to the relevant four years. The since arrival request is primarily aimed at such applicants applying with less than 1095 days APP. Again, though, this warrants a more thorough analysis and explanation.