Unique Situation

This situation is not unique. Indeed, my sense is that it is quite common.

These situations are difficult to predict.

If no RQ so far, that is a very good sign. I am bit surprised if no RQ so far, given that your application necessarily included a declaration of obtaining resident status in the U.S. (in response to item 6.D.) during the relevant period of time for establishing residency in Canada. (Obviously, if you did not declare obtaining the Green Card, if and when CIC discovers this, that could be very problematic as it is a material misrepresentation with predictable consequences. See final note.)

I disagree that there is any reason to think these circumstances should not be an issue per the current regulations. Nothing in the regulations or in the statutory provisions specifically prescribes what evidentiary matters should or should not raise concerns about whether or not an applicant met the residency requirement.

Naturally, evidence indicating substantial ties outside Canada will, if noticed, tend to raise some concern about whether or not the applicant was abroad more or had residence outside Canada. The location of one's spouse is a big factor in this. Its evidentiary weight varies but it does, indeed, have substantial weight . . . to be considered, as always, in context, in light of all the relevant evidentiary factors.

Obtaining status to be a resident in another country is, of course, also an evidentiary factor which is highly relevant to whether or not residency was maintained in Canada.

Additionally, there is a topic here specifically about leaving Canada after applying. As I have mentioned to you otherwise, that discussion is a little dated since there is less attention given to post-application stamps in the passport these days, given that the focus of screening to identify applicants to be given RQ was shifted to level-one screening at Sydney and the pre-interview check screening in the local office, neither of which involves a review of the passport stamps.

Bottomline: If indeed you properly disclosed obtaining the Green Card in the application (again, item 6.D.) and you have not yet received RQ, that is actually a very good sign.



A note, by the way, in case you failed to disclose obtaining the Green Card in the application: I strongly suggest you see a lawyer soon, and make it clear why, that you applied for Canadian citizenship and failed to disclose having obtained a U.S. Green Card in the application, and now want to know what to do.

john_10 wrote: which one is worse? to get green card before applying or after applying? assuming it was declared in the case its before the application...

I do not know.

To a large extent, like most things, it probably depends.

That said: if there is nothing triggering RQ up to the time of the test and interview, a Green Card obtained after the application was made does not raise nearly the same flag as a GC obtained during the relevant residency time frame.

Remember: obtaining "resident" status in another country is, at the least, prima facie evidence of changing residence, of becoming a resident in that other country. To actually obtain the GC I believe that like for Canada, the person must actually "land" in some sense, thereby, again, that is a prima facie indication of terminating residence in Canada by establishing residence elsewhere. No rocket science here.

So, the applicant who obtains permanent resident status in the U.S. during the period of time they are claiming they were "resident-in-Canada" will ordinarily (I believe) be required to affirmatively prove they re-established residence in Canada or, for some reason (despite having established resident status in the U.S.) they should be considered to have not terminated residency in Canada. I have seen some people report doing precisely this, successfully (as in, obtaining Canadian citizenship even though during their time resident-in-Canada they obtained a U.S. Green Card).

(Note: terminating in-fact residency does not require terminating residency status; and while obtaining residency status in a particular country is prima facie evidence of establishing in-fact residence, it does not necessarily entail an in-fact establishment of residence, which is why just landing as a PR in Canada is not, in itself, sufficient to start counting time resident-in-Canada, but it is, nonetheless, again, sufficent prima facie to do so.)

This is why I am a bit surprised if the OP here divulged, in the application, obtaining a GC, but has not been issued RQ.

All of the above, I should say, is my sense of things. I do not know for sure how this is looked at. Prior to OB 407 it was more obvious: we saw report after report of anyone who had obtained a GC being given RQ at or following the test. OB 407 changed the focus and the triage criteria do not indicate this to be on the checklist of risk indicators. So I do not know how this affects things in current practice at CIC.

I think CIC's main concern is that the individual will be moving to the US after obtaining the Canadian citizenship. Accept it or not. That's what it is. They dont want to grant citizenship to people who wont be living here but they dont have the guts to pass new laws. Instead they are trying to delay/make it difficult for those who are more lilely to leave the country. This is being done off the record, "Kenney" style.

going2gta wrote: Complete & Accurate disclosure was made during the application process including the question in Serial # 6D.

In which case, the biggest clue about how things are likely to go is whether or not you have been issued RQ.

If you have been given RQ, of course how things go will depend a lot on how well you prove you established and maintained your actual place of residence in Canada up to the date you applied. Other factors play a role, and post-application factors may influence how your evidence is perceived, but strong evidence documenting establishing and maintaining residence in Canada is the key.

If no RQ is issued, as I said, that is a very good sign. RQ is still possible when they see your passport, but this does not appear to be the issue it was previous to OB 407. Hard to predict at this juncture. Please keep us posted as to how it goes so others in your situation will know more in the future (as I had indicated, actually this situation is far from unique but is actually common . . . in addition to the personal experiences reported in this forum, there are several Federal Court decisions regarding cases with similar factual circumstances, regarding which it needs to be remembered that how those cases turned out was very specific to the particular facts in each of those cases).

There may be some truth to this:

vefabuyuk wrote: I think CIC's main concern is that the individual will be moving to the US after obtaining the Canadian citizenship. Accept it or not. That's what it is. They dont want to grant citizenship to people who wont be living here but they dont have the guts to pass new laws. Instead they are trying to delay/make it difficult for those who are more lilely to leave the country.

Except, this is for sure not CIC's "main" concern. It may be a significant concern. CIC's main concern is to do their job in verifying the qualifying requirements for citizenship, with identity and security and criminality being their main concern, although residency being a primary, key concern as well.

There is no need for the elevated scrutiny, given to applicants who appear to have applied on the way to the airport, to be off the record. If there is evidence a person has established residence outside Canada, the question is, naturally, when in fact did that happen. In many cases CIC is not satisfied by the applicant's self-serving claims as to when residence outside Canada began, so there are requests for additional information and documentation, and the longer process.

I am quite confident that especially pursuant to procedures implemented by OB 407, the focus of concern is residency during the relevant time period. What happens after that time period, after applying, may raise questions about what was really happening during that time period, and that is the focus of inquiry, the focus of concern.

Thus, while as I said, some of the discussion in the Leaving Canada after applying topic is dated, the core underlying issue was always the evidentiary influence, what could be inferred, from an applicant having such strong ties abroad as to be residing abroad after applying. Such circumstances warrant the exercise of due diligence by CIC to examine additional information and documentation for the purpose of confirming the applicant's residence during the relevant period of time. That will still be a factor, I believe, and may trigger RQ, but not necessarily so mechanically triggered as it was in the pre-OB 407 days (while we never knew for sure, it appeared that almost everyone who obtained an American Green Card after landing in Canada and before applying for Canadian citizenship was getting RQ . . . as I said in a previous post, pursuant to OB 407 this does not appear to be among the risk indicators for RQ screened either in the level one screening or the pre-test interview, so to what extent it remains a risk factor for RQ is unknown).