Operational Bulletin 407 - Residence Questionnaire

I thought the redacted portion of the response to overview item 14. loomed larger, somewhat ominously.

14. In the future, will we be requesting more information up-front?

This is echoed in what appears to be a number of redacted items in response to File Requirements Checklist item 1.

Redacted items in response to item 7 "process for 'no shows' at local office also looms large. (In this regard, it should be noted that more than a few of the published Federal Court decisions where CIC is the party making the appeal involve applicants who went directly to in-person hearings with CJs due to various circumstances, including no-shows . . . I had wondered, before OB 407 was implemented, without saying anything, whether applicants anticipating RQ, could shortcut the long long queue involved in RQ by triggering a oral hearing hearing with the CJ by missing the test . . . bring substantial documentation to establish residency to the hearing . . . but of course that was no longer a feasible strategy once pre-test RQ procedures took effect).

Note too the redacted item as to Residence Questionnaire item 2. Which offices issue the RQ and when?

File Preparation Templates section is interesting . . . tending to affirm most of our speculations about that stage of the process (note distinction made between "clear-cut" and "hearing" files, which is pretty much in line with an enhanced version of the previous process and along the lines I have been suggesting for awhile now) but with some added detail that illuminates the decision-making process a little more. Distinction is also referred to as "straightforward files" or "those going to a hearing."

As I have indicated what I thought in other topics, this also confirms that it is the citizenship officer who reviews the file after the CJ has approved the grant of citizenship, so the decision about whether or not to appeal a CJ's approval is largely, substantively, in the hands of the citizenship officer . . . I would expect, of course, this is mostly a recommendation that goes up the ladder at least another rung before a decision is made to actually appeal or not.

Regarding time to do this or that task:

We knew that there would be

(1) a learning and implementation curve in adapting to the new process that would increase processing times at least temporarily

(2) that some additional steps were introduced so that overall processing times would increase -- question was by how much. What net effect will result from an additional 10-15 minutes in filling out the new checklist, for each applicant? Probably significant . . . months? Probably. No way of reliably predicting total impact unless we knew how many applicants each citizenship officer previously processed, say in a given month.

(3) The level one screening is probably selecting a greater number of applicants to be given RQ than were being given RQ previously, so that too will slow the overall process down some -- here too we cannot reliably predict the net impact. I have speculated about the likely impact previously, and overall this Q&A does not change my expectations/opinions in this regard by much . . . I think that distinction between "clear-cut" and "hearing" cases, or "straightforward" and "hearing" cases, will help those well-qualified applicants who nonetheless received RQ and responded appropriately to the RQ, but I had incorporated a process akin to this in my previous speculations. (So I still anticipate that some post OB 407 / pre-test RQ'd applicants should be getting notice of being scheduled for the test by the year's end or in the first quarter of next year . . . not all, probably not most, but at least some and perhaps many.)

It's amazing how basic rights of thousands of people getting violated without real measures to address this serious issue in our society. Very few discussed this RQ issue based on equality and fair opportunity grounds. Allow me explain it further in bullet point below

 

1-     CIC received applications from X1 and X2 for citizenship on the same day of for example January 1st of 2010

 

2-     CIC of e.g. Toronto send both X1 and X2 invitation to take citizenship test on e.g. Sep 2011

 

3-      CIC officer based on some criteria that is not transparent to the public and not proven to be accurate nor correct, will have the freedom to classify applicant X2 to be suspicious of not completing the residency requirements for citizenship.  And hand out applicant X2 a residency questionnaire that has nothing wrong except it comes along with at least 2 years freeze in citizenship process. CIC is currently stating its actually 4 years of punishment, I mean waiting due to backlog.

 

The backgrounds of applicant X2 doesn’t matter if he or she is a business man or a high tech professional...that needs to travel the abroad to pay her or his earning and pay the relevant tax into the system. It doesn’t matter if he or she has included into the residence calculation only the combined physical presence in Canada to come up => 1095 days. I have even heard about people that didn’t even travel abroad and received the RQ. It’s based on the discretion of the CIC officer to hand out RQ to any applicants the he or she wishes to make their lives more complicated. For example, restraining them from the Mobility rights that are mentioned in "Discover Canada" book. OR taking up jobs in government departments where Canadian citizenship is required. Or even vote to choose how their paid tax will be spent in their society.

 

 

4-     CIC officer send X1 to take up the oath on e.g January of 2012

5-     X3 applicant comes up in the picture and submit application in January of 2012

6-     X3 applicant take up the citizenship test in Janary of 2013

7-     X3 applicant take up the oath on March of 2013

8-     X2 applicant who applied in January of 2010 is still waiting without seeing any light at the end of tunnel.

9-     Justice is served in the eyes of the CIC officer, equality and fair opportunity for all applicants is just a statement but when it comes to practice, then applicants such as X2 is out of the equation.

If we can’t do our jobs properly, then we need help, why not look at the British System as an example or get consultations of how we can improve the citizenship process for X2. Which are thousands of humans believed in our Canadian system and came here to start a new prosperous life looking for equality and fair opportunity… Government let them in on the immigration basis then we get them stuck on citizenship basis.    

If there is an intention to clear backlogs then they will be cleared in no time. If the intention is to screen applicants all the way to the core to filter out fraud cases then its also doable in reasonable time. There are tens of thousands of Canadians without jobs and thousands of them are highly qualified to join CIC, why not we do something about it, why don’t we increase citizenship fees so that the processing fees are covered.

Edited by HuronBird - 27 Mar 2013 at 11:55am

There's no doubt that CIC is a very respected and professional civil service agency. Unfortunately, however, the unusual lengthy processing of citizenship applications, especially for RQ recipients, is totally incomprehensible. As a FSW- PR for more than five years, I never imagined that processing a citizenship application might take longer than processing an immigration application.

They want PR's to come and start spending money in Canada and/or generating tax revenue above all. That's why PR program hasn't suffered from cuts at all-- by that I mean number of new PR's admitted to Canada break records each year.

Speaking of entitlement,I have posted this question before without any replies. So I will try again here. "Do PR's have any rights? if any what are they? I know there are lots of responsibilities right? please someone shed some lights with reference to the Law. Thanks.