RQ discussions.

timbit_TO wrote: Oh yeah, Jeizan, that's the one.  On this one, in regards to the CO request for additional documentation après the decision, with a view to supply ammunition for the Minister's appeal, I think the applicant  should have responded (to paraphrase Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men ): You want to appeal?  Well, roll the dice and take your chances. Since the appeals are not de novo trials, and thus are limited to the record that was before the judge when the decision was made I wonder if the Minister could even subpoena additional records - I haven't seen any mention of this.  I think this is a stunning example of bad faith on the part of the CO to mislead the applicant into providing additional information without disclosing that the decision has already been made.

Perhaps the officer was requesting additional information that had not been requested by the judge, in order to make a better informed decision to grant the application. Based on the information that was handed, perhaps the officer decided to request for an appeal because the information may have confirmed the applicant had more serious residency issues than expected....

Don't you think the applicant supplied the information because s/he thought it would help rather than make it worse? Why would the applicant provide more proof which goes against the positive decision in the first place?

It's pretty clear to me.  As canvis2006 pointed out it is very hard to believe that the applicant would have continued to supply information had she been informed that the judge approved her application.  That fact appears to have been concealed from her.

To reiterate, it's not the officer's (and by extension, the Minister's) decision to approve or not approve the application, it's the judge's.  The Minister's decision is either to grant citizenship or to appeal.

On second thought, I kind of see the flip side argument, that the CO could have been looking for information that would have weighed in favor of not appealing, even though on the face the facts may have warranted an appeal.  I tend to think that was probably not the case, with the determinative issue being disclosing or not disclosing the judge's approval.

If the applicant provided the information after being advised that their application was approved by the judge, but the Minister was contemplating an appeal, that would be a whole different matter.



Edited by timbit_TO - 12 Dec 2010 at 12:53pm

If there's a judge hearing it is better to order the "Naturalization notes" using form IMM5563B in order to get a good grasp of the real reason, unless it's because of 2 failed test attempts.
The main thing though is, that it takes 4-6 weeks to get the file notes.
Most applicants do not even know this, and sometimes by the time they receive them its normally too late.
Did the applicant(s) in these cases know about their file notes?

To reiterate, it's not the officer's (and by extension, the Minister's) decision to approve or not approve the application, it's the judge's.  The Minister's decision is either to grant citizenship or to appeal.

not sure why you wish to reiterate this point...