RQ discussions. |
Post Reply | Page <1 534535536537538 705> |
Author | ||||
onyx
Junior Member Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
oooh! i forgot....plus $50.00
|
||||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I do not understand why there should be a tax deduction for submitting an excess of unnecessary documentation in response to RQ. Doing that puts an extra burden on CIC personnel, costs the taxpayers more, consumes CIC time and thus probably inconveniences other applicants, and it does little or nothing for the applicant, indeed, it is perhaps counter-productive. As for this:
PRs have the right to travel, and to work elsewhere in the world. It is simply NOT TRUE that Canadian PRs, including applicants for citizenship, have no right to travel or work elsewhere in the world. There is, of course, an obligation to maintain residential ties in Canada in order to retain PR status. Whether this is how it should be, or not, is not a question I wrestle with. (My worldview and philosophy has long, long been outside the realm of how the practical world works or is going to work into the future; that is, there is no sign of a borderless world on the horizon, noting that Stephen Harper's recent participation in the (relatively new) BORDERPOL talks is clearly consistent with worldwide trends these days and probably many years to come, whereas my personal philosophy is far, far in the other direction, a too idealistic direction to entertain in a pragmatic discussion.) No one is compelled to become a Canadian citizen and if, indeed, opportunities are better elsewhere in the world, and being a contributing member of Canadian society (which involves a lot more than merely investing money or paying taxes) is not a priority, Canada does not in any way restrict PRs from pursuing such opportunities abroad. Sure, Canada does not offer the perks that come from living, working, and being a contributing member of a community in Canada, to someone who elects to live and work and be a contributing member of a community outside Canada. That is just part of the social contract, consistent with how it works throughout much if not most of the world. As I noted, I do not wish to engage in discussions about whether this is how it should be or not. It is how it is, and in the general scheme of morality in this world, there is nothing immoral about it. (Recognizing, though, on the bigger scale of things, just the life we live in Canada compared, say, to the life of those condemned to refugee camps in Somalia, or on the Turkey/Syria border, for example, has profound moral implications that are, frankly, painful to acknowledge -- what to do about that, well, that is a question too big for me to handle.)
My self-appointed role has been to help, as best I can, expand our understanding of the process, and in doing that to hopefully enable qualified applicants to more easily, more successfully, navigate the process. I recognize that many applicants given RQ are indeed well-qualified applicants. I hope this site does, indeed, enable them to not only better deal with the process, but to find some comfort and support in their quest to become Canadian citizens. Part of that, too, is to help spread the word about important aspects of the process that reaches some prospective applicants, helping them better prepare to apply, better able to decide when it is the right time to apply. (Too many applicants have fallen victim to the sentiment that they should apply as soon as they technically qualify, or at least as soon as they have passed the 1095 days of physical presence threshold; there is more to the-right-time-to-apply than that.) But I also recognize that more than a few who read this site, and some who participate, are not well-qualified, and includes some who are, frankly, in fact not qualified, and some more or less gaming-the-system, probably even some who are among those getting away with fraud, or at least attempting to. I make no moral judgments about anyone. But, my motivation here is not to help them either, even if part of what we do here does help them indirectly. (I would also note, by the way, over time we have had participants here who not only were rejected, but who lost their appeal as well.) My role is not that of an activist (I have, since living in this community, for the first time in my life been engaged in some community activism, but this has been local, to protect the neighbourhood in which my wife and I live, and in which we plan to live for the remainder of our lives -- I have no intention of advocating any national issues). I realize that some applicants are indeed unfairly treated in the application process. I also recognize that the baseline for how long the process takes, even for the most well-qualified, routinely processed applicants, is inordinately long and thus inherently unfair, and that for many of those whose cases get bogged down in much longer timelines, the time it takes is so extreme as to be a denial of fair procedure and, in that, a denial of justice. How to remedy this I am not sure. I do not see the current government being responsive to complaints about how long it takes, so I see that effort as a waste of time. I also acknowledge that the current RQ form is overreaching and to some extent unfair. That said, I strongly believe that well-qualified applicants who have indeed been living and residing, and actually present in Canada, and who continue to live and be present in Canada, have virtually nothing to fear from the RQ process and they can comfortably submit far less documentation than what is complained about in this forum, with little or no worries about how it will go. Applicants can choose when to apply. Those who have come to settle permanently in Canada (a prerequisite qualification for citizenship), and have in fact done so, living and working and residing and being physically present, participating in Canadian society as a citizen of the community, should evaluate when it is best for him or her to make their application. Just passing the 1095 day threshold of physical presence is only a minimum. Many of us recognize that there are other factors in play, and will wait for the opportune, right time to apply. The impact of the RQ process on a small segment of those applying for citizenship is not going be the driving force in how to best build the system that processes applications. There is no chance of convincing Ottawa otherwise, regardless of what party holds the government there. Especially not when even among that relatively small number who get RQ, many of them have a good deal of control over many of the factors at play. (We make choices, like I choose to continue my self-employment, and those choices have consequences . . . I get paid well-enough but I face the elevated risk of RQ -- but I am and will continue to be prepared to make my case, and it will not require more than a hundred pages of documents to do that.) |
||||
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 |
||||
netghost
Junior Member Joined: 23 Sep 2012 Location: Vancouver Status: Offline Points: 82 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
By the way, to several who mentioned their landing date not showing up in the reports - does it really matter? Your landing date is clearly stated in the confirmation of permanent residence (stapled to your passport), and in the stamp that they put on the same day. I don't yet have my report to confirm, but I definitely won't have a car passage record, because I parked on the Canadian side and walked to the US border to flag-pole and walk back.
|
||||
freedom10
Junior Member Joined: 19 Jul 2012 Status: Offline Points: 89 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Thanks
Edited by freedom10 - 21 May 2013 at 6:20pm |
||||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Read back a year, two years. There have been several participants here who have reported following the hearing with the Citizenship Judge. Those reports tend to suggest CJs do a superficial read at best. You can also read the Federal Court decisions which are sketchy but which offer quite a lot of insight into what is examined, considered, and how much weight it is given. I have previously discussed, sometimes at length, various indicators illuminating what matters a lot, what matters some, what matters but not by much, and what does not weigh much if anything. The CJ's obligation is to "consider" all the evidence submitted. What that means, though, is not what some people seem to think it means. But no, it does not mean that the content of all those documents needs to be forensically examined by the decision-maker. For example, the decision-maker (Citizenship Judge) does not need to read a massive volume of bank statements, or telephone records, or credit card statements, page-by-page, let alone line-by-line, in order to discern the primary fact supported by that evidence, which can be reduced to a brief statement -- -- applicant was named account holder on such and such Canadian bank account (telephone number, or credit card account) for such and such a period of time Any of these is, of course, evidence of a residential tie. It is merely indirect evidence of residence in Canada however. Not particularly strong evidence. Which is why CIC is not even asking for this documentation except to support information about the applicant's employment or business. Note, for example, in one of the years for which U.S. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax returns, it revealed he had bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. No one is suggesting this is evidence he was a resident in either of those countries. My view about these things tends to be contrary to the consensus here. But I read the Federal Court decisions, apply principles of jurisprudence with an understanding of how evidence works in litigation, and am not repeating advice given by consultants whose business has been built on how to game-the-system. A certain amount of quantitative evidence is necessary. And one's documentation should support the relevant considerations over time. So, sure, evidence tending to show where the applicant slept at night for one month does not suffice. Where the applicant worked one month, or on occasion other times, will not suffice. But, generally, overall, it is simply best to submit direct and objective evidence of the key elements in a residency assessment. Enough evidence to be convincing as to a particular element is sufficient. Cummulative evidence does little to help make one's case, and indeed, it can distract from other more direct evidence as to other elements in making one's case. The total number of days actually present, compared to days absent, is a big factor. The importance of this factor, however, has been overstated (and in the past I contributed to this misguided approach). The confusion was not really our fault. It was rooted in the nature of the cases that were being decided on appeal, overwhelmingly qualitative-based cases where the applicant was relying on an application of Koo-criteria (or similar qualitative criteria) to establish that he or she was resident-in-Canada for three years despite not being actually physically present for 1095 days (three years). The few, only occasional cases we were seeing where the applicant declared 1095+ days of actual presence but was denied citizenship, seemed to be anomalies, largely rooted in the applicant's lack of credibility combined with sparse, at best, evidence to support the claim they were residing and present in Canada for three years or more. It appeared that the focus of proof in these cases was indeed the question of whether or not they had proven actual presence in Canada for 1095 days. That, however, fails to recognize the pragmatic fulcrum that, it appears, is the critical issue, that being whether or not CIC perceives (and conveys that perception to the CJ) that the applicant has fully declared all absences from Canada. No counting of days in this assessment. This swings on accepting, or not accepting, the applicant's residency calculation to be accurate. And remember, the CJ is not deciding whether or not the applicant was actually residing in Canada. That is not the CJ's job relative to a residency case. The CJ is deciding whether or not the applicant has proven he or she was resident-in-Canada for three plus years. That's the burden. Just being resident in Canada three plus years does not meet the residency qualification. The applicant has to prove it. As I have oft times said, I doubt that minor discrepancies are problematic, let alone fatal, but make no mistake: the RQ form is intended to elicit a wide range of information and documentation against which CIC can evaluate whether or not the applicant's residency calculation is accurate or not. If it is perceived to not be accurate, that is a problem, that means a "residency case" in the full sense, as in requiring CIC to fully prepare the case for the CJ and the CJ fully assessing what is presented, and if not convinced that the applicant has proven residency, to hold an in-person hearing. The CJ is not going to go through the documentation line-by-line, or even page-by-page, trying to discern whether the total number of days the applicant was actually present in Canada equals 1095 or more. CIC is not going to do that either. They are looking to see whether or not the applicant's declaration is accurate and complete. More is required to actually reject the application, but a truly qualified applicant should never get any where near that degree of contest. OK, perhaps one or two here and there will. No system is perfect. Those applicants really should be following the advice of a legitimate, experienced citizenship/immigration lawyer. For everyone else, this is like playing horseshoes, being close counts . . . just look at the Federal Court decisions. These really are not close cases. I realize some will parse the cases with skepticism, but there is no legitimate logic in looking at the decisions this way. In any event, this issue about how much to submit has, indeed, been addressed at length here. My view is contrary to the consensus in this forum. I acknowledge that. If and when one is scheduled for an in-person hearing with a Citizenship Judge, for residency issues, then it is time to really sit up and take notice, and be prepared. Time to submit any and all additional documentation and evidence that is relevant. Time to get some affidavits or sworn declarations submitted on one's behalf. Time to talk to a lawyer, to actually hire a lawyer. Not a good idea to go to the hearing without a lawyer. Responding to the RQ is more or less for CIC. CIC does not necessarily agree. They would like to screen everything the applicant submits before it goes to the CJ. And the CJ probably prefers that as well. But the applicant can submit additional evidence right up to and during the hearing. And that is when the extra work needs to be done. Make your best case, clearly, succinctly, in the RQ response, and if that is not sufficient to get a notice for the oath in the mail, and instead you get a notice to appear at an in-person hearing with the CJ, then it is time to unleash the binders full of evidence. But make no mistake, for the CJ doing this will probably have little impact -- the CJ is leaning one way or the other already, and it will be how it goes in the in-person contact that determines which way the CJ goes if there is any chance the CJ can be moved one way or the other, the additional, highly detailed, stacks of evidence, are not likely to change his or her mind. But, at that point, one is padding the case for the appeal. |
||||
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 |
||||
dpenabill
Top Member Joined: 29 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 6407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Regardless of how true this report is, the content is not true if it is taken to mean that all applicants are getting RQ, or will be getting RQ. No, not everyone applying for citizenship will be given RQ or something much comparable to RQ. That said, RQ has indeed become part of the regular application process: all applications are screened in Sydney for the RQ criteria . . . at the least those mcm shared as having been listed in the Files Requirement Checklist. Moreover, my perception (though we need to see more about how all this unfolds) is that even for those given RQ out of Sydney, their applications continue to be a "a part of the regular application process." The RQ response is (I think) simply incorporated into the pre-interview check done at the local office. This is not for sure, but . . . this report from a call representative seems to confirm the likelihood of this. What happens then, well it is all too apparent, different applications go in different dirctions, some to CBSA for an investigation, some to RCMP for an investigation, some to a shelf waiting for a case officer to fully assess residency, but for most, for the well-qualified who were complete and accurate in their travel declarations, who accurately declared 1095+ days of actual presence, and who otherwise appropriately submitted a response to the RQ, yeah, I believe the call representative: they are likely to continue to be part of the regular application process. I think a big part of the motivation behind OB 407 was to improve the process. Catch more fraud, but also improve the flow of applications through the system. This tends to reinforce that. |
||||
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 |
||||
jogruni
Senior Member Joined: 14 Aug 2011 Location: BC Status: Offline Points: 393 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I am quite sure, that the current RQ form will be part of the future application form. This is the only thing that makes sense, from what we were seeing in recent months.
But that means CIC and CJ will now get in each and every case information that they so far did not get in a normal process, as they didi not think it was relevant mostly. Now they will get more detailed information on property and business abroad, unemployment times or self employment. They will get more detailed information on travels and border crossing records, even when everyone knows these records are anything but complete. The problem is, that now CIC and CJ will get information in each and every case, that so far only was requested in questionable cases. It will take CIC and CJ quite some time to interpret this additional information in a reasonable way. I might be pessimistic, but these additional information is only intended to raise questions and not confirm physical presence or residency. The result might be more cases will be scrutinized and more cases will be going through a longer process. I was afraid this is going to happen and it will for quite some time make our lives more difficult. There is a hope though , that after some time CIC and CJ will be able to evaluate these things better, but for the beginning, it will result in a larger amount of denials and/or appeals from the Minister, due to the fact, that the Minister will also get more ammunition to question residencies. Well we have to prepare for more difficult times! my2c |
||||
SK
Senior Member Joined: 03 Feb 2012 Status: Offline Points: 385 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
For me if the rq becomes part of normal application..i think will be best and most fair approach...
Also they may spend more on one application but can actually make a decision by the end of it...which means less iterations for information gathering......less backlog and shelved files , shorter queue for judge hearing....more predictability in processing times.....and above all....taking anxiety out for genuine applicants.....about getting stuck in an rq.......just do it CIC.......but once again if they decide to take this intrusive route.......they should at least ensure optimal processing time .....(read significantly reduced).... Also they can make rq optional with the app submission......let each one take their chances they feel best..
|
||||
polarbear
Average Member Joined: 17 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 254 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Honestly, this is a very good news, If CIC includes RQ along with Citizenship application in the regular processing, thats the best thing they can do. It is simply not fair that one applicant getting RQ and his processing time going well beyond 3 years, another guy not getting RQ and his application is approved in 15 months. It is simply not fair. " Processing times will be more predictable " if that really happens. Then CIC officers will be left with no choice but to process RQ along with the Citizenship application in 15 to 18 months. If CIC implements it will be good. |
||||
kfq
Junior Member Joined: 07 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
some of the questions of oct, test st, claire
1. first lady MP 2.which are 2 official languages 3.vote requirements 4.which are prairie provinces 5.how does a bill become a law 6. which people lived in canada before europeans came 7.which city has more financial buildings 8.which canadians moved to BC after war of 1812 without compensation 9.why are laws made in canada 10.terry fox 11.who do u pledge while taking oath 12.which oceans surround canada 13.which organization canada is not a member |
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 534535536537538 705> |
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 |