Understanding ATIP reports |
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 49> |
Author | |
greeen
Average Member Joined: 28 Mar 2013 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hi Rqcadet: You can't tell the RQ reason from the GCMS. Your physical file and not the GCMS file may answer your question.
|
|
canuck25
Moderator Group Forum Moderator Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 831 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
There have been reports of people stating that their GCMS report mentioned the reason for their RQ in the Notes section, I believe, or in Activities under "RQ issued". Those reports contrast with an equal number of those that say that the GCMS does not mention reasons for issuance of RQ. My own report falls into the latter category, which is the reason I submitted a privacy act inquiry, specifically asking to receive the criteria used in assessing my file and the exact reason the RQ was issued. You may want to do the same.
"I would like to receive the electronic and physical files for my citizenship application (specify your client ID# and file #, as well as responsible CIC office). In addition, I would like to receive exact and specific information on the criteria used in deciding to impose Residence Questionnaire on my application. I would like to also receive a copy of the file requirements checklist for my application. My birthday date is ##/##/####. I wouldl ike to receive these files:
- if by email (enter your email address) - if by mail (enter your mailing address) I used the form TBC 350-58 to submit the request. You can download it here. |
|
Rqcadet
Average Member Joined: 05 Nov 2012 Location: Mississauga Status: Offline Points: 227 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks Green & canuck25.
I saw the word reasons only under 1 section i.e Activities wherein the Judge's decision shows- Pending and much below a few other deatils it says Reason- 0 I do not understand what that 0 stands for , whether it is the number zero or alphabet - O Any clues if 0 stands for any risk /Triage indicators??? for RQ |
|
greeen
Average Member Joined: 28 Mar 2013 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The same REASONS: 0 I have in my ATIP????
|
|
Rqcadet
Average Member Joined: 05 Nov 2012 Location: Mississauga Status: Offline Points: 227 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hey Canuck25,
Regarding your query on whether the GCMS report should show the reason for RQ & Possible hearing required then , Look under the Location field in the Profiles section of your GCMS report for the following info- If it says Type A then - Client did not pass the exam, or was a no show for the 2 nd exam or indicated they have special need Type B- Criminality, fingerprints or court documents not provided after several requests Type C- Residency Issues Type D- Removal order is on file Type F- Possible residence fraud I observed this info in akella'a ATIP report which he had put on the forum in FEB 2013 under the topic - Cic delays what call centre agents see, look on pg 32 & 33 of this report http://www.immigration.ca/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11754&title=current-cic-delays-what-call-centre-agents-see |
|
canuck25
Moderator Group Forum Moderator Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 831 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
@Rqcadet,
Thanks for the tip - I did see that, but my Location field in the Profiles section doesn't mention any of these codes. It simply says "residence assessment>1094 days august 2012", which is 2 months after I got the RQ and if anything, but confirms that I meet the residency requirement. I am waiting on my privacy act request, which will hopefully provide the criteria they used and an insight into the reason they issued the RQ. What's also interesting, most people here who have RQs and have requested GCMS reports say that their notes section has an action for RQ requested, and RQ received. Mine only has the latter - again no mention of RQ in the GCMS at all, other than to say that my response was received.
|
|
akella
Senior Member Joined: 30 May 2012 Status: Offline Points: 714 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Interesting! Does "residence assessment>1094 days august 2012" explicitly say "days" in it? I also had similar note in my file: "Residence assessment shelf > 1094 July 2012", but for some reason did not make a mental connection to the number of days, thought it is just a code. I think I can answer the second part of your question (why no note on RQ request). RQ issued by CPC-S all have this note ("RQ requested") as this is part of CPC-S standard procedure, but your RQ was issued at test time - so likely it is marked somewhere in the physical file / checklist, but officer did not bother entering a GCMS note. |
|
canuck25
Moderator Group Forum Moderator Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 831 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It doesn't say "days", but what else could "res assessment>1,094 august 2012" refer to :)? It has to be days given the comma after 1
Thanks for the help on the second part of the question - perhaps you are right. Edited by canuck25 - 01 May 2013 at 3:38pm |
|
akella
Senior Member Joined: 30 May 2012 Status: Offline Points: 714 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
No coma in my notes and I did not treat ">" as a "more" sign (thought of it as a divider). Anyway, I like your version better. |
|
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If this is what it appears to be, a reference to residency assessment greater than 1094 (as in at least 1095), my impression is that this would reflect the declared residency calculation, not an independent calculation, not a conclusive determination of residency. In other words, I doubt it confirms that the residency requirement is satisfied.
Indicators as to whether a hearing is required, and if so, what type (such as type C for residency issues or type F for possible residence fraud) will be a better indicator as to whether a determination has been made about whether or not the residency requirement has been met. |
|
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.
BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
|
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 49> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |