RQ discussions.

oooh! i forgot....plus $50.00

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.

mason: If they have to read all these documents (for all those whom were issued RQ) it will take years, so it will be nice if someone with RQ who has seen a C J could shed some lights in this matter.

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.

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

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.