RQ discussions.

dpenabill wrote: where these notices are apparently being received about two weeks after CIC indicates the date of mailing . . .

I received my first letter 5 days after the date on the letter, the second one was received on 30th. It's dated the 20th and postmarked the 23rd.

No mention of CIT 0521 on my ecas. On another forum someone reported that a Call Centre agent told them that 25,000 of these letters went out in December. If this is the case, I personally doubt the form means very much.

I received the same letter yesterday dated, Dec 23.

What is an ATIP?Why would you use an ATIP vs. the online status check?Is there any difference?

Thank You. :)

Observations:

While the information provided in the forum linked above by EasyRider is interesting, the individual posting that information emphatically stated that it amounted to learning nothing about his case.

And almost all reports regarding what has been obtained by ATIP requests tend to illustrate that beyond confirming some particular activity taken on the file, which can be assumed to be the case anyway for all but the extremely rare case where an application has fallen through some bureaucratic crack, little is learned that a perceptive applicant cannot mostly figure out without making the ATIP application, and virtually nothing is learned which will change anything, which will illuminate any action the applicant should take.

Moreover, to some extent it can lead to confusion for some. I am sure that many of the entries/designations are defaults pending some next action, and thus do not really reflect what is apparently indicated. That is, they indicate what might happen unless an action along the way alters that. For example, notation that a hearing is required is likely, often, to be a default and does not necessarily indicate there will be a hearing, more along the lines that a hearing will be scheduled unless a there is a decision in the meantime to refer the case for a file review. "Pending" notations do not mean there is a step or decision or such actually pending, but rather that is a step in the process not reached yet. Reference to the residence calculation being "complete" does not mean there has been a determination as to whether or not the applicant met the residency requirement (I think it merely means that the applicant's residency calculation has been examined, not assessed).

Bottom-line: there is usually little or nothing in these reports which will substantively help an applicant navigate the process.

That said: yes, the responses to ATIP applications have resulted in some applicants receiving information which is helpful to our general understanding of the process. So some of these which have been shared here are very much appreciated. Best example: our only version of the File Requirements Checklist came in a response to an individual's ATIP application, and that opened lots of windows, put lots of other fragments of information into context.

But for most individual applicants, most of the time the calls to the call centre and ATIP requests are a waste of time and an unnecessary burden on the system.

By the way: I agree with the dismissive, perhaps even derisive characterizations of the CIT 0521 letter. And talk about an unnecessary waste of CIC resources (especially the double mailing). I think, and hope, that these letters reflect that CIC is feeling, and responding to, pressure to better and more timely process its now huge inventory of pre-test RQ'd cases, but as for the letters themselves, I can only shake my head.

That said: I disagree with the view that preparing for the test should be limited to a typical exam-prep. If one's sole objective is to pass the citizenship test, sure, for those well-fluent in English or French, a week is plenty of time to prepare. A few hours of study should be plenty. It is not comlicated or deep stuff. But we are talking about becoming Citizens and the objective underlying the testing process is to encourage prospective citizens to learn more about this country, its people, its heritage, its laws, its values, its government. It is important to be engaged in learning this stuff all along, to be curious, to be interested and excited to know more about the country one has chosen to make their permanent home. I am probably among a very small minority, but I think the minimalist approach (just meeting the minimum requirements) to becoming a citizen of Canada is itself not particularly Canadian; there is a big difference between the arrogant pride Americans too loudly proclaim regarding their country, but to be Canadian is at least in part to share a broad-based, diverse, rich and multifaceted sense of national identity in which there is an element of cultured, nuanced pride (not arrogant pride).

Let me make this observation: any one who thinks that if they go to an in-person hearing with a Citizenship Judge for a residency issue, the CJ will not be influenced by the extent to which the applicant appears to be Canadianized or not Canadianized, is fooling himself. Anyone who thinks that the extent to which the applicant is Canadianized is not readily apparent to a CJ is fooling himself.

This is not about a particular requirement for citizenship qualification, not even about any particular factor; it is about the impression a person makes, and whether the CJ finds the individual to be credible or not.

Let's just say: it shows, it is a significant part of the impression the applicant makes, and it can influence things.

In other words, it is probably no coincidence that those who harbour disdain for things Canadian (including its laws and government) are often among those encountering difficulty in the process.

Note: this is not to characterize all RQ'd applicants, nor even all applicants who run into difficulties which lead to extraordinary delays and hearings and so on. It is mostly to note that it should be no surprise for those who are not particularly invested in truly becoming Canadians that they are among those who CIC and CJs might be inclined to scrutinize and doubt, to not lean favourably toward.