CPC-S and Local Office RQ stats: 22.1% *UPDATED*

While the data itself may be flawed, it is probably well within a rough range of representing the extent to which RQ has been issued over the course of the year, and overall it indicates RQ well within the ballpark of reasonable estimations made: as in somewhere between 10 and 25 percent. (A large contingency here was adamant for months last year that everyone was going to be getting RQ and when that was obviously not the case, that most applicants or nearly most would be getting RQ. At times I seemed to be a minority of one saying that it did not look like things were going in that direction.)

I note that the data may be flawed since the table indicates the data was compiled as of March 30, 2013 but the table contains data through April 27, 2013; the accompanying communications suggest the information pre-dates March 11, or March 20. Or, perhaps, the table is what ultimately resulted when the query had been refined and whoever compiled this deemed this table as the accurate total. It is not clear.

Still, again, it probably is at least roughly representative.

Contrary to some assertions above, the data does indicate a dramatic decline in the rate of pre-test RQs issued in the more recent numbers --

For example, for RQs issued by Sydney, compare the 12 week period during the peak period of time in which RQ was being issued (Sept through Nov) with the last 12 week period posted (Feb through April, which is more indicative of the rate RQ is currently being issued):

Between Sept 2, 2012 through Nov. 24, 2012:
7837 RQs issued; 25,040 files transferred to local office (31.2% given RQ)

Between Feb 3, 2013 through April 27, 2013:
7022 RQs issued; 47,970 files transferred to local office (14.6% given RQ)

This information in particular illuminates the sharply rising issuance of RQs through the peak occuring in early September last year, reaching a percentage of applications peak the second full week of September followed by the second highest rate the next week, and the rate of RQ remained in the higher ranges through mid-November. This too comports with what was anticipated, recognizing the plan was to assess and modify the process late in the year.

The rate of files being transferred in the last 12 week time frame would correspond to around 200,000 applications being processed in a year's time (47,970 times 4.33, minus some for holidays). This is consistent with other information indicating the pace of processing has picked up considerably this year (for at least a portion of applicants).

The above does not reflect local office RQs, which are more likely to be based on case-specific substantive grounds (such as discrepancies between residency calculation dates and other information, including travel document stamps; other inconsistencies like applicant's identification address different than address CIC has of record for the applicant; among other reasons for RQ based on specific concerns about the particular applicant, such as the failure to present all travel documents or a proper translation, and so on). Nonetheless, even the rate of RQ issuance in the local office declined dramatically in the last 12 week period covered compared to last fall:

Sept through Nov 1,456 RQs compared to 25,040 files transferred to local office same period (with caveat that precise percentage of RQs cannot be gleaned from this because the local office RQs are almost certainly from files transferred two or more months earlier).

Feb through April 1,334 RQs compared to 47,970 files transferred to local office in the same period (same caveat about trying to glean a percentage of RQs).


Basically, the flow of applications through the process in a 12 week time frame has nearly doubled (from 25,040 to 47,970), while the number of RQs issued actually declined; that is, the rate during the last 12 weeks covered is approximately half that it was for a 12 week period last fall.



But here's the catch:
Why has the rate of RQ dropped so dramatically?

Is it because CIC policy or practice has changed? Because they have modified the criteria or the way the criteria are applied?

Or, have the number of questionable applications declined dramatically given news about the crack down on fraud and news about increased scrutiny of citizenship applications?

I do not know. The answer to this cannot be discerned from these numbers. But, for example, I believe that the number of applicants applying with less than 1095 days of actual physical presence is way down compared to what it was three and four years ago. But that decline has been happening, it appears, since before OB 407 was implemented.

I do not know why the rate of RQ dropped so dramatically (though some of us have been predicting this was so for awhile, roughly gleaning this from the declining number of new RQ reports in forums). I suspect that the publicity about investigations into fraud, and news about increased scrutiny, has had an impact on the number of questionable applications being submitted. But I doubt that would account for the dramatic difference between a rate over thirty percent last fall and the more recent rate of less then 15 percent. So, my guess is that indeed CIC has made some adjustments to the criteria or how it is applied (my guess: A5 is not being applied so mechancially, so automatically, but of course I do not know this.)


Here is something I am quite confident about: It is not as if CIC (or Minister Kenney) pick a number, pick a percentage, and decide to issue RQ to a specified percentage of applicants. I believe they define the criteria pursuant to which they identify applicants to be issued RQ, and however many of the applications submitted meet that criteria, that is how many applicants get RQ.

They probably have been monitoring the rate of RQ, and probably recognize that no where near one in three applicants who apply have cases involving real concerns about whether or not the applicant met the residency requirement, so that if their criteria is resulting in one out three being issued RQ, for example, they probably reconsidered either the criteria itself or how it is being applied in order to be more selective.

In particular, I suspect the quoted percentages from the Minister are about targets, not quotas. And that they will continue to adjust the way they apply triage criteria aiming toward (but not dictating) a percentage of RQ'd applications which they believe will suffice in terms of screening cases, appropriately tracking those cases for further review where that is warranted, and tracking those cases for investigation of fraud where that is warranted, but otherwise facilitating progress down the path to citizenship for qualified applicants. (See discussion about specific versus non-specific risk indicators below.)

In any event, these numbers indicate things are moving in that direction, toward a rate less than 15 percent, and not at all in the direction so many here so loudly asserted for much of last year (toward everyone getting RQ).




Specific versus non-specific risk indicators:

Reminder: not all RQs are created equal.

RQ is a necessary part of the process for some applicants. Not all eligible applicants who apply actually qualify, so more information and documentation is necessary for a CJ to make a determination of qualification. Not all qualified applicants are readily identified as such, so RQ is necessary for the CJ to make a determination.

Many of those who get RQ applied with less than 1095 days of actual physical presence. That's a choice with predictable consequences. Many of these applicants are qualified, and will be approved by the Citizenship Judge, but the additional information and documentation are definitely required in order for CIC and the CJ to assess residency, to determine factors like whether or not the applicant had in fact centralized his or her life in Canada.

Many, many applicants submit sketchy information or have salient red flags in either their history (NCB in FOSS suggesting questions about compliance with the PR residency obligation for exampe), their clearances (arrest indicating questions about whether there was a period of time spent on probation for example), or in their documents (type, nature, and content of identification documents will often raise questions -- some here may scoff, but applicants do things like submit a copy of a drivers license which does not bear the same address as the address the applicants gives for where he or she is living, just for example). These too are cases in which the applicant may be qualified, but the circumstances are such that there are case-specific reasons why additional information and documentation are necessary for the CJ to make a determination as to the applicant's qualifications for citizenship.

Among those who submit sketchy information, there are those who will put a minimal amount of explanation for a trip abroad in the residency calculation, some as crptic as "for holiday" even though the trip was for many weeks, longer than a typical "holiday." Others will have a block of time abroad longer than a month but will not reflect the change in place where they were living in the address history, failing to declare where they were living abroad. Such applicants have no one to blame but themselves if they get RQ. Their numbers are not few. Again, many if not most of these applicants are not committing fraud, and are often qualified, but because of the lack of specificity or the lack of candor or the lack of accuracy in their information, CIC is required to request additional information and documentation.

Then, of course, there are those who are pushing the envelope deliberately, not committing fraud per se but stretching this or that, some of whom are not qualified yet (yes, many are so anxious they do indeed apply before they should . . . several such applicants have reported here more or less candidly that they are among this group . . . with some reporting later in time about their second, successful application).

And, then there are the frauds. And those who are associated with someone else involved in immigration or citizenship fraud (bad luck when a legitimate applicant has used the services of a consultant who has been involved in fraud with other not-so-legitimate clients).

How many of all the RQs issued are the sort listed above? That is, how many are among cases in which there is a case-specific residency concern? I do not know.

As of several months into the OB 407 process, previously obtained internal CIC information indicated that the majority of RQs pursuant to OB 407 were not the sort I outlined above (note there are many more fact patterns similarly giving rise to specific concerns; I just listed some of the more obvious ones). Rather, the indications were that the "majority" of RQs were being issued due to A5 and C1 (the unemployed or self-employed risk indicator, and the recently issued identification risk indicator). These I would describe as non-specific risk indicators. Unlike the applicant whose identification bears a different address than the one the applicant reports to be living at when applying, for example, or there is other indication the applicant has given a suspect address, where the question about where does the applicant actually live cannot be avoided, there is no direct question about residency indicated by an applicant being unemployed for a period of time, or being self-employed.

Even though it appears that a majority of those issued pre-test RQ were selected based on one of the non-specific risk indicators, there is, nonetheless, a very substantial percentage of RQ cases based on specific factors giving rise to real questions.

Thus, trying to glean specific policy from the numbers is not likely to accomplish much. We can safely deduce that thousands of RQ'd applicants applied in circumstances mandating the RQ process, and that many thousands of RQ'd applicants were merely swept into the RQ net due to the scope of non-specific risk indicators. But there are no reliable indicators reflecting more about the numbers than this.

We know what the triage criteria were as of last summer. We know what risk indicators were employed prior to OB 407. We know something about risk indicators employed in screening PRs applying to renew the PR card. We know what sorts of cases reach the Federal Courts. We can see how the topography of RQ has changed over the last few years, including changes to the RQ form last year. In the meantime, despite its profound flaws, the actual residency requirement as prescribed by statute has not changed at all.

Thus, we know:

The flow of information continues to affirm that RQ is not being issued indiscriminately or arbitrarily, but rather based on prescribed criteria.

Indications are that the criteria has been and perhaps is continuing to be adjusted.

The trend this year is to increase processing rates generally, and to reduce the percentage of applicants being issued RQ.

What we do not know:

How well, or not so well, or how slow things will go for those given RQ.


Ontario and GTA
The numbers do not indicate RQs issued by Sydney relative to the local office where the application will be processed. But, if the numbers about RQ issued by local offices is indicative, Ontario in general, and the GTA in particular, is ground zero for the issuance of RQ.

Out of the total 5,552 RQs issued by local offices in this reporting period, nearly half (2,627) were issued in the GTA. And around three out of four were issued in Ontario (4109 out of the total 5,552).

This is probably due, in most part, to the respective numbers of applicants in the GTA and Ontario. Still, it seems quite high even for that.

Nonetheless, if the ratio corresponds to RQs generally, even if roughly, that suggests that in one year perhaps more than 15,000 applicants in the GTA were issued RQ. Not good to be one among that large a number of applicants to go through the more rigid (thus time consuming) RQ review process. While I would say this appears to be bad news for those in the GTA going through RQ, this is no surprise, this having been apparent for quite a long while now.

Thank you very much, akella. Your efforts are truly appreciated. Just wondering if you got (or will try to get) information regarding the number of RQs issued directly by CPC-S for each province or city. I mean, in the data that you provided, there is information about the number of RQs that the local office issued (e.g., Mississauga, 1,277; Montreal, 7, etc. etc.) but the data does not say how many RQs were issued directly by CPC-S per province or city.


Edited by Dan_The_Man - 31 May 2013 at 10:20am

EasyRider wrote: Interesting that Mississauga issued 1277 RQ's for the whole period while Montreal just 7.

It would be interesting to know the total number of RQ issued by Sydney and the local office together. If Montreal issued only 7 RQ, for example, what's the number of RQ issued by Sydney for the applicants from Montreal or the province of Quebec? Compared to other local offices such as Mississauga, St. Clair, or Vancouver, it does not seem plausible that the Sydney-issued RQ for Montreal's (or Quebec's) applicants would be in the thousands. If my speculation is correct, the question would be: why the delay from Montreal's CIC in processing the RQ cases (specifically, pre-test RQ cases)?

It seems like Montreal RQ's are very under-reported-- we have at least 2 people on this forum who got RQ directly from Montreal during reported period and I hardly believe that entire 2 out of 7 people came here to report.

And, as akella pointed out, they did a search for notes query to find out who had got RQ, and likely a query for Montreal had largely failed due to language differences or custom office standards.

Rappo wrote: I am not sure why your analysis seems tilting more towards optimism. I disagree with such an outlook. Simply put, things have not improved an iota. Pre-test RQed cases are standstill.

Well, first, as can be seen from these numbers, pre-test RQ affects less than one in four applicants overall. So the fact that things are not going well for those given RQ does not detract from the numbers showing, as I illustrated above, that the rate at which files are being transferred to the local office has nearly doubled recently, comparing a 12 time period last fall with the most recent 12 week period covered by this data. And the indication that the rate of RQ recently is trending toward half what it was during the fall of 2012 is what it is, an indication that fewer new applicants are going to suffer pre-test RQ going forward.

That said, I would not characterize my analysis as leanding toward optimism. Best case scenario is that the Minister is pushing toward processing routine applications slower, in a longer timeline, than it was when I landed and became a PR. Even then, this forum (predecessor rendition) and another at which I participated, was dominated by complaints about how long it was taking. I recall when the timeline approached a full year for many and a vociferous outcry of protest and disdain echoed through these forums. Now, the Minister has indicated just a desire to get routine processing down to a year, and thus the ambition, the goal, is to reach a timeline most find unacceptable. Just because a year is better than two years (last year's low tide rate) does not make it acceptable or an optimistic view. Moreover, as a practical matter, while many applicants are apparently progressing from date of application to oath in around a year now, a realistic estimate of what the current median timeline is, is probably at least 14 or 15 months, perhaps as much as 18 or more months. Again, this is hardly an optimistic view.

Additionally, based on the most recent 12 week period covered, while that indicated 47,970 files were transferred to local office in that time frame, which in turn would correspond to around 200,000 annually, that is still around 40,000 or so less than the number of applications many anticipate will be filed this year, and thus would indicate that in addition to the problematic backlog of cases now, the backlog is likely to continue to increase. That is hardly an optimistic view of things.

One of the problems with a great many observations posted in this forum is entrenched narcissism, views based on how the system, the process, is affecting the individual reporting. Many of those who feel they received RQ unfairly post the view that RQ is unfair generally. That is not a realistic or objective view. Many RQ cases are so because there are real concerns indicated in the application, real questions about the applicant's qualifications. I outline a number of the situations that fall into this group above. Not all RQs are created equal. Not by a long shot. Just because thirty or seventy applicants reporting their experience here were given RQ even though they accurately declared actual physical presence 1095+ while maintaining residence in Canada, does not really illuminate what the typical circumstances are for the majority of the 15,000 or so applicants in the GTA given RQ this last year. What percentage of the 15,000 have cases involving specific issues of concern, versus those for whom there is little or no reason to question their residency, is impossible to discern. It is safe to say, though, I am confident, that the numbers on both sides of that equation are high.



Bottom-line numbers:
All that said, relative to RQ issued by Sydney (pre-test RQ), the numbers indicated for the last 12 weeks represented in this data bear repeating, particularly in comparison to the data for last fall --

In the 12 weeks between Sept 2, 2012 through Nov. 24, 2012:
7,837 RQs issued; 25,040 files transferred to local office (31.2% given RQ)

In the 12 weeks between Feb 3, 2013 through April 27, 2013:
7,022 RQs issued; 47,970 files transferred to local office (14.6% given RQ)

The numbers speak for themselves, fairly clearly.