Does Training or Internship is RQ Trigger ???

i would say it is still considered work, especially that many times one needs either to start a career or move up the ladder...

polarbear wrote: Does Training period or Internship period without pay considered unemployed ??? Is Training or Internship is a RQ Trigger ???

Most indications are that CIC has narrowed the scope of the A5 criteria, which is the risk indicator covering reported period of "unemployed."

While we have only seen hints of how the "interpretations" have refined this risk indicator, those are sufficient to indicate that reporting time as a "student," for example, is not considered to be a period of unemployment (for purposes of applying the risk indicator).

From that I think one can safely infer, similarly, that reporting time spent in a training program or internship is not likely to be considered a period of unemployment for purposes of applying the A5 triage criteria.

The A5 risk indicator is not about having a job is better than being unemployed; it is that a job tends to be a strong corroborating factor showing actual presence in Canada, whereas time unemployed does not much indicate where the applicant was during that period of time.


Clarification; analysis and in-depth explanation of reasoning:
(the long version)

john_10 wrote: i would say it is still considered work, especially that many times one needs either to start a career or move up the ladder...

Nordicgirl wrote: I do not think it is considered unemployed. You are doing something to develop your skills and to get better job prospects. That is definitely not the same as "sitting by the river and eating government cheese".

For clarification, toward grasping how CIC approaches the interpretation and application of risk indicators, it is worth remembering that the risk indicators are largely mechanical, checkbox criteria, and as best we can discern (despite the "interpretations" modifying their initial application) the question is in the nature of a yes or no, per the meaning (interpretation) of the risk indicator, little or no judgment involved.

To the extent the quoted posts suggest that there is a qualitative assessment of the activity, that is something I doubt happens. Rather, either the described activity meets CIC's definition of what is not a time "unemployed" or it doesn't. Yes, or no, no analysis of what the activity is about.

Again, we do not know just what "unemployed" means, as CIC has interpreted it for the purpose of applying the A5 triage criteria, but it appears to be along the lines of not-engaged-in-a-regular-activity for a period of time.

Obviously, the applicant who reports simply being "unemployed" will be assessed as unemployed for that period of time. (But that may no longer automatically trigger RQ even if the applicant traveled abroad during the relevant four year time frame, as there may be some quantitative or other context-based considerations used in applying this risk indicator; there have been, for example, reports that some applicants who reported some period of unemployment have not gotten pre-test RQ.)

The underlying question here, in the OP's query, is whether the applicant reporting some activity for a period of time that does not amount to being employed at a paying job is considered "unemployed" for that time period (for purposes of applying the A5 triage criteria).

In 2012, when local offices were also engaged in level one screening for applications already in the local office inventory, some local offices were broadly interpreting the "unemployed" risk indicator to mean, essentially, not engaged in a job. That swept homemakers and students into the RQ pool. The fall 2012 "interpretations" clarified that time spent as a student or homemaker did not "require" the issuance of RQ. Similarly, "retired" persons were not considered "unemployed."

We do not know the extent to which that or subsequent interpretations have otherwise narrowed the scope of what constitutes being "unemployed" for purposes of A5, but in general my sense, again, is that the underlying issue is whether or not the applicant has a period of time which is unaccounted for, no regular activity in Canada indicated for a period of time. That is, "unemployed" in the not engaged in an activity sense, and not about having a job or not.

That is still, however, more likely to be a matter of definition/interpretation than a judgment call. In other words, reporting an activity that does not amount to a job and is not otherwise on CIC's list of other recognized activities may nonetheless be considered a time "unemployed."

This leads back to what I said above:
To the extent the quoted posts suggest that there is a qualitative assessment of the activity underlying whether or not it is RQ trigger, that is something I highly doubt happens. Rather, either the described activity meets CIC's definition of what is not a time "unemployed" or it doesn't. Yes, or no, no analysis of what the activity is about.

This almost certainly has nothing to do with the value of the activity. CIC is not much engaged in weighing whether or not an activity is a productive enterprise or not. In particular, the reason reporting a period of being "unemployed" is a risk indicator has nothing to do with the significance of what might be called gainful employment. It is really about accounting for the applicant's time. While being "unemployed" does not necessarily indicate the individual is abroad during that time, it is an open window in which the applicant might be abroad (and more particularly, abroad more than has been reported), and thus it triggers CIC's criteria for issuing a request for more information and documentation in order to verify residency.

Againt: It is not about working is better than being unemployed; it is that a job tends to be a strong corroborating factor showing actual presence in Canada, whereas time unemployed does not much indicate where the applicant was during that period of time.

That is, I am quite sure that the underlying essence of A5 (including the other A5 risk indicators) is whether or not the applicant is reporting regular activity tending to objectively corroborate actual, regular presence in Canada; if there is a period of time during which the applicant's activities are not such as to be readily, objectively documented on their face (like a job for an employer in Canada, working at a location in Canada would be), that is in essence an open window of time for which CIC is more likely to make the request for additional information and documentation to verify residency (RQ).

polarbear wrote: Does Training period or Internship period without pay considered unemployed ??? Is Training or Internship is a RQ Trigger ???

Edited by bjones - 04 Dec 2013 at 8:55pm

Similarly as to the approach described by bjones: just put down what it is, as it is, whatever regular activity it is, accurately, and that is what it is asking for.

Of course, if the activity is located outside Canada, well, that speaks for itself. Whatever the prospective applicant does, it is best to not be evasive, let alone deceptive, about time or ties abroad. They may trigger RQ, and if RQ'd, scrutiny, but that is not nearly so negative a consequence as compromised credibility.

Three months away from Canada will of course be reported in the travel and address histories.

bjones wrote: This is true, but it is not possible to provide a reason / short description for absence as in the RQ form. As an example, a student intern with a J-1 visa to the US should be at a lower risk of receiving an RQ than someone who is away on a H-1B visa. The former is clearly temporary and this information cannot be provided until after receiving an RQ.

The reason box in the residence calculator allows for up to 400 characters for each trip entered. That should be plenty of space to explain the nature/purpose of one's absence.

While the alternative, "How to Calculate Residence"form (CIT 0407), does not have quite that much space, the box for "reason for absence" is big enough to similarly make it clear what the nature of the time abroad is about.

In particular, yes, the applicant can make it clear in the application that a time spent abroad is temporary in nature, if of course that is an accurate description.


As for the example given: It is not clear that there is much of a judgment call in the level one screening. While the interpretations refined how certain risk indicators are applied (time as a "student," "homemaker," or as "retired," do not constitute time "unemployed" and thus do not require RQ), and we only have vague hints of what those refinements entailed (beyond those few explicit ones discussed in the internal memos we have seen here), most of what we see suggests that the process is still largely mechanical, based on comparing the applicants circumstances, information in the file, with relatively fixed criteria. It appears that some contextual considerations have been incorporated (as suggested by report that some applicants declaring short periods of being unemployed but were not issued pre-test RQ), but the nature and scope of that contextual assessment is unknown. My guess: it is probably still largely mechanical, employing defined criteria more than judgment or discretion.

In any event, it is not as if applicants have much of a choice in this regard. Applicants are required to report all absences, to account for where they were resident in all 48 months preceding the date of aplication, and to account for all work and education history in all 48 months preceding the date of applying . . . and while the latter specifies "list your work and education history" (including inside and outside Canada), it also says "if you were unemployed, retired, homemaker, etc., please indicate" [in the work/education column]. Simply put, the applicant divulges all absences, all addresses, and all regular activity (usually work or school, but whatever it is the applicant divulges it) for all 48 months. That should be quite sufficient for CIC to get a fair grasp of what any extended time abroad was about. Good or bad.