CIC will Google you

I also disagree that "CIC officers are smart enough" to separate bad information from valuable information. That is simply a speculation since we don't have enough information to make such a claim, and probably never will.

What I do have, though, is personal anecdotal experience consulting with government offices very similar to CIC. In my experience, an average processing clerk in government departments like this is not sophisticated with computer technology at all, including the Web. Again, I don't want to generalize or speculate, or denigrate governmental clerks, I'm just speaking from personal, anecdotal experience.

Edit: Again, I'm not talking about their intelligence overall, but making an anecdotal observation about specific computer-based skills, based on my personal experience. That is all.


Edited by coldnomad - 09 Jul 2013 at 1:15am

In general:
CIC seems to be late coming to the table in many respects relative to utilizing technology for screening purposes (how long it took CIC to pick up on the fact that hundreds of applicants were using the same address is, of course, disconcerting; while that was incompetence of a sort, it was a flaw in the practice and procedures which disreputable consultants were exploiting, not incompetence on a personnel level).

My sense is that in the last few years CIC has been playing catch-up in this regard.

My sense is that, indeed, CIC is in the process of developing additional tools to be utilized in the examination of applicants.



Noise versus valid information:
While there is no point in going back and forth regarding how easy it is to sort the noise from valid information, playing opinion ping pong, overall I know that sorting through the noise quickly mostly takes a little practice, that with a little practice it is simply not that difficult. We all know that these search engines are used to look up information about individuals by millions of people, and being used this way more so all the time, so the general consensus (as evidenced by the keyboards of millions) is clearly that using such resources works.

I will also note that my wife and I both use online search engines in a professional capacity and sure, while we have many years of professional experience (and decades of researching experience prior to using online resources), so our personal capabilities are not representative generally, getting the basics of employing efficient searching techniques is not complicated. In fact, if I was searching for similar types of information on a regular basis, with very little code-writing ability I could fairly easily write scripts to automate searches including sorting the results. I do not know that CIC has programmers working to develop generic scripts for such purposes, but if not, that would be another example of incompetence. My bet is that they have or are or will soon be developing and employing some fairly basic scripts to generate reports which can be quickly scanned.


Canada411 at the very least:
At the very least, I would expect CIC to plug phone numbers and names (applicant and applicant's employer) into Canada411, for verification purposes. Using reverse lookup, the name on the telephone account pops up and the address appears, including a map showing the location.

Of course, many telephone numbers do not return information in this, so again, it is not as if this is a definitive resource.

CIC is often employing such means to spot clues.

If, for example, the reverse telephone number lookup does give an address which is different from the applicant's declared address, that's a clue. It does not, in itself, evidence fraud, but it will likely trigger further inquiry, including, for example, into the question about why there is a difference in the address.



Outdated information:
The characterization of some information as "outdated" is a bit loaded. A great deal of information on the Internet is dated, but it is still valid information, valid as of a particular date.

In regards to myself, over time I have seen more and more of my previous life popping up in a simple google search. Old partnerships, old office addresses, and more, seem to be added to what populates a simple search each year.

Not all of that information is valid. One source for example (a professional service with a very positive reputation at that), clearly about me, includes erroneous information such as listing a degree from a university I never attended. That is more difficult to discern noise, but anyone familiar with using internet research is, again, familiar with that sort of error and does not give specific information of that sort much weight unless and until it is consistent with other credible sources of information.

But most of the old partnernships and office addresses are valid.

And that information is consistent with what was in my PR application; that is, in what I declared in my application for Permanent Residence.

If that information was not consistent with what was in my PR applications, Oh Yeah, you could bet someone at CIC is going to dig a little deeper to discern the facts, to identify why there is a discrepancy and which information is accurate.

And make no mistake: if in the course of processing an application for citizenship, CIC stumbles across inconsistencies in the applicant's PR application, that can be problematic. Reminder: any material misrepresentation in the PR application can be grounds for removal, as in loss of PR status, denial of citizenship . . . indeed, even if not discovered for many years after being granted citizenship, it can be grounds for revoking citizenship. This used to be extremely rare. This government has pursued this regarding many, many more naturalized citizens than done in all of Canada's history prior to this government.


Scope of inquiry: Who, When?
As I had said in my earlier post, we only know about the use of google in the assessing of RQ applications.

That was nearly a year ago.

As I suggest, my bet is that CIC's use of such tools is growing, expanding. How much so it is impossible to discern. As I say, my bet is that at the least Canada411 is being utilized more extensively than just for RQ'd applicants. My sense is that online searching in general is being used for more than just RQ'd applicants.

But that does not mean it is being used extensively relative to most individuals.

Again, anyone who has been interviewed in secondary at a POE should be well familiar with the typical process: if the surface level inquiries do not raise any questions, all is perfunctory, but oft times a response to a question raises another question. That is the way fact-finding screening is often done, from law enforcement to border officers, from visa officers to CIC citizenship officers, they follow the leads. No leads, nothing to follow-up on. If what is learned following-up on a lead suggests no issue, there is no issue. If, in contrast, the question is not resolved, or it leads to other questions, there is more follow-up.

Just as the citizenship applicant's interview at the test event can be two to four minutes, for some, largely perfunctory, for others it will be significantly longer, some as long as ten or even fifteen minutes. A ten minute interview is a long interview. A lot of questions can be asked in ten minutes. A lot of information can be reviewed in ten minutes. But the point is the process: for some, for most, the questions and responses are simple, perfunctory, and sufficent; for others, the response to a question raises another question, and from there how in-depth and expansive the inquiry is depends, varying from a little more to a lot more.

My sense is that whatever tools CIC is using to cross-check applicant information against other sources, in an effort to verify real world information, the process is similar: if a few, simple queries is sufficient to verify, pass; if a few, simple queries triggers questions, from there how in-depth and expansive the inquiry is depends, varying from a little more to a lot more.



Conclusion:
This really is not obscure stuff. The core processing techniques are probably very much the same as they have been for a long while, focus on comparing details, cross-checking sources. The use of some new tools, some additional cross-checking queries utilizing access to electronic/digital information sources, is what we are talking about, and not complicated tools at that.

Prior to the discovery that many applicants were using the same few addresses in Mississauga, a few years ago, resulting in CIC finally pulling back the curtain and exposing a widespread scheme involving numerous consultants facilitating fraudulent applications, CIC appears to have been manually comparing addresses at best (thus, primarily looking at addresses for related clients applying at different times). You can bet they now have database functionality to electronically compare all applicants using the same postal code for residential addresses. (I have seen one federal court decision in which one of the concerns focused on arose because the applicant had submitted bank statements showing an address that was among the "suspect" addresses, even though that was not an address the applicant reported as where she was residing). If CIC is not expanding the electronic scope of research relative to this in particular, that would be incompetence. It is, in contrast, more likely that CIC is, indeed, expanding the scope of its electronic tools to compare and cross-check details.

It is what it is. Again, I doubt that any legitimate applicants have much if anything to worry about in this regard.

Other Sources of Information Investigated By CIC
I do not recall who or where, but some have wondered whether (in addtion to google and Canada411) CIC accesses online services liked LinkedIn to find information about individual applicants.

While it was in connection with an investigation culminating in the bringing of revocation proceedings, in this connection the following statement by the Federal Court indicates that at least in that context, CIC (or the RCMP working in conjunction with CIC or CBSA) was accessing an individual's LinkedIn account to gather information regarding the individual:

[63] Lynn’s citizenship application indicates that she began attending McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario in September of 2006. However, information obtained from the University by the Minister reveals that she did not start at McMaster until September of 2008, a fact that is confirmed by Lynn’s own online “LinkedIn” profile.

Probably not enough here to infer that LinkedIn accounts are routinely or usually examined attendant a routine application for citizenship, perhaps not even most RQ'd cases, but it does suggest such sources are examined in some cases.

And of course, the implication is that, indeed, there are other sources of information which CIC may be examining and considering, and also note that in this revocation case, not only has CIC made Internet inquiries but also, clearly, direct inquiries to the university the applicant reported attending, suggesting that at least sometimes CIC may directly contact organizations or institutions with which the applicant is associated.

No one should be surprised by this. It is CIC's job to investigate, particularly if CIC has identified concerns or issues.



Collateral parties; i.e. employers
In a similar vein, albeit not a citizenship case, rather a case involving an application for PR, it is noteworthy that CIC also cross-checks its internal information regarding . . . well, at least employers. In this PR app case the applicant's case was hampered more by CIC's assessment of the credibility of the employer than its assessment of the individual. While CIC's assessment of the credibility of the information submitted on behalf of the applicant included concerns directly related to that content, the content of the letters the employer submitted (application was in Canadian experience class for which employment in Canada must be shown), the real reason for CIC's negative assessment of the employer's credibility (and in turn, leading to its reasons to conclude the applicant did not have the work experience in Canada being claimed) was that the employer's address "had been flagged as a 'problem address'."

While the practical manner in which the case worker arrived at deciding there was an issue related to the applicant's employment claim, it strongly appears that the Employer was flagged in GCMS apart from this applicant's case, as it was apparently the subject of a CBSA investigation.

The implication is clear enough: the scope of the GCMS background check probably well exceeds information about the applicant in particular, but appears to also include inquiries as to GCMS notes regarding related information in the application. At the least, this appears to possibly include declared employers and any declared address.



Conclusions:
While we do not know much at all regarding the scope of collateral inquiries made in the routine citizenship application, the various sources of information we do have, including in particular published Federal Court decisions like those I cite and link above, it is clear that in some cases, for some applicants the scope of collateral inquires can be quite broad, including any publicly accessible Internet information for example. But, it also appears that the scope of screening done attendant the GCMS background screening may also be structured to identify, in addition to notes directly related to the applicant, independent GCMS notes regarding particular addresses or employers.

In other words, everything in an application may appear to be in perfect order, the applicant himself or herself having no flags or negative notes in GCMS, but if the applicant happens to list a "problem address," or a "problem employer," and I would add to this problem consultants, that can not only be something which triggers RQ but something which undermines CIC's assessment of the applicant's credibility, undermining CIC's evaluation of the case.

I wonder if CIC is astute enough to realize that quite a few of these sites (specifically I am referring to health review sites, but I expect other professions may also be affected) are put in place by for profit firms, without the permission of the person being profiled.  Only if that person finds the site can they take the opportunity to try to correct misinformation, such as long defunct practice addresses. 

Probably not.  CIC "researchers" would be so excited to find some piece of evidence to "disprove" residency/physical presence it would then fall to the applicant to try to prove that the site inaccurately appropriated misinformation and sold it. 

I discovered this had been done to me the first time this discussion aired, and found it impossible to get the false information removed.