RQ discussions.

Does anyone know, whether the program under which a citizenship applicant obtained their PR, matters at all in the citizenship process? Would provincial nominees have lower risk of getting an RQ compared to regular FSW applicants?

Edited by netghost - 20 Oct 2012 at 7:09pm

netghost: Does anyone know, whether the program under which a citizenship applicant obtained their PR, matters at all in the citizenship process? Would provincial nominees have lower risk of getting an RQ compared to regular FSW applicants?

I don't think anyone here is fully apprised of all factors taken into consideration in CIC screening for RQ, so it is not possible to say, definitively, whether or not, or how so if so, something like being a provincial nominee affects that screening.

But, it is well-apparent that even the specific risk indicators (such as those listed in the File Requirements Checklist) are assessed in context, not in the abstract. "In context" means the whole picture, and a big part of the whole picture is the individual's immigration history including, in particular, how and why and with what classification and so on, the individual became a Permanent Resident in Canada.

In other words: sure, almost absolutely, yes,

. . . the program under which a citizenship applicant obtained their PR [matters in the citizenship process].

It matters, at the minimum, contextually. And to some extent, the consistency of the details underlying the applicant's life in Canada, in consideration of what brought the applicant to Canada in the first place, are almost undoubtedly of import.

And that means it can matter positively or negatively. Like most factors.

The obvious way it will matter positively is if the rest of the applicant's information is consistent with that program, which in turn brings up the most obvious way it could matter negatively, as in, if there is something about the applicant's information that is inconsistent with the program. Someone sponsored to come to Manitoba who does not appear to actually have been living in Manitoba is almost certain to face some negative scrutiny. On the other hand, someone who had an offer of employment facilitating, in one way or another, their immigration to Canada, and whose information is consistent with actually having come to Canada and being employed by that employer, well, that is the sort of consistent, corroborating evidence that helps to positively bolster the impression made by the whole picture.

While this is largely common-sense, the question is an important one because it highlights something worth repeating and emphasizing: everything matters, all the details that make up the whole picture matter, but if any of the details are out-of-sorts (inconsistent) with the whole picture, they can matter even more, in a not-so-favourable way.

But, this also warrants some emphasis on the other side of this coin: The vast majority of applicants do not need to worry. Yes, every thing matters, and when all the parts, all the details, of what underlies everything, when all that fits well together, into one coherent story that makes sense, that almost certainly is a boost, almost certainly helps. Will this overcome checking-off one of the listed risk indicators (like unemployment or self-employment), that is very hard to say . . . wish I knew. To some extent, I think so, but beyond isolated reports indicating some individuals have applied in circumstances that check-off one or more of the enumerated risk indicators but did not get RQ, there is not much information we can safely rely on regarding this.

In turn, this leads to jogruni's remarks, including --

jogruni: I do not share your optimism.

Foremost, I realize that. And I realize you are not alone.

Since we have exchanged observations and views in similar contexts before, though, I think jogruni understands that my perception is broad-based, not so much about how it will go in individual cases but how the process will go for the majority of applicants. The distinction that warrants some emphasis is that I have no idea about how things will go for jogruni in particular, or for any other individual who participates here. I am, likewise, not at all sure how things are going to unfold for me, though I have a lot more background information about myself so I have a better understanding about what is likely and what is possible, and how things will go depending on whether or not I am in fact given RQ.

And sure, there is cause for some of us to worry in this. Again, I am pretty confident that for the vast majority of applicants, the new RQ screening, pre-interview check, and post-RQ assessment process, is not going to affect their application processing much at all . . . the pre-interview check step may result in everyone having a longer timeline, but that will be by a couple months or so. But those of us at risk for RQ, sure, there is reason to worry.

And in this regard, jogruni is (I think) right, that the inquiries and approach underlying those inquiries are going to affect more than just those applicants with questionable cases, affecting well-qualified applicants whose circumstances just happen to trigger RQ based on the risk indicators. . . . and sure, the focus is indeed likely to be as jogruni stated:

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.

So, for a significant number, yes, there is reason to worry this could drag the well-qualified applicant into the long-haul process.

I remain confident, however, that the general, routine case, will not be dragged down this way.

And as jogruni emphasizes (what I too have acknoweledged), beyond that we really do not know how things are going to go.

For otherwise well-qualified applicants given pre-test RQ, however, we can fairly well discern that either all such applicants will be cast into the long-haul process (the nightmare, most pessimistic view), or there will be some step at which some RQ'd applicants are returned to (essentially) a paper review process versus the long-haul process. The latter is, I think, the more likely scenario, but again we do not know (this is what would be in line with previous processing, whereby some RQ'd applicants were returned to regular processing, the routine paper review process), and even if the process going forward does indeed involve a distinction between full-blown residency cases versus those to be referred for a paper review, we do not know what the scope of inquiry will be or how long it will take to reach that dividing stage.

My hope, and what I think will be the case (again acknowledging we do not know, cannot know at this point), is that this will take place in the pre-interview check and interview stage, so that at least a significant percentage of those applicants given pre-test RQ who are well-qualified, who appropriately respond to the RQ, and for whom there really is no reason to question their residency declarations, will be in-effect returned to the more-or-less routine processing track, for a paper review, such that a final decision will be forthcoming within months rather than more than a year.

Here is the rub, the problem, and this goes back to the recognition that how it goes for any applicant in particular depends on that applicant's case in particular: individual considerations will play a big role in this, and there are undoubtedly going to be those who fall on the harsh side of the dividing line despite being fully qualified. Some well-qualified applicants are likely to end up in the long-haul process, even if my "optimistic" view is how things go. Most will not. Some will. And, as jogruni apprehends, that some who will end up in the longer, more problematic processing group, will probably be a larger group than those who were suffering through the long-haul process in the past, up to this last year.

In this regard, while we do not know how various risk factors are weighed, the applicant who is given pre-test RQ (and those of us self-employed are almost certainly at risk here) who happens to continue to have substantial ties to his or her home country, or some other country, there is a greater risk their path will be the longer, more difficult one. Their response to RQ will have to report on those ties (like ownership of property abroad, for example) or risk serious sanctions (including their citizenship being forever at risk if they are successful in the short term), and . . . well, again, we do not know how the various factors are weighed, but the more ties and/or stronger ties one has outside Canada, the greater the risk of having to go the long-haul and difficult route.

This does not change how it is likely go for the majority. It does not change much how it will go for many of those who got RQ but were otherwise well-qualified, assuming they have fully settled in Canada and their continuing ties abroad are essentially incidental.

netghost
Thanks a lot for answering my questions. That helped a lot.

Concerning new RQ forms. I received CIT 0171 (09-2012) form. There is a part with consent to request SBCA report.  Do not know about other differences as have nothing to compare with.



Edited by Antre - 21 Oct 2012 at 7:12pm

Andrew2012 wrote: Well, for example stamps from Egypt have word Egypt in English on them, but they also have some words which are not in English. Do I need to translate all words on the stamp?

Yes.

Also it says that it has to be translated by accredited Canadian translator. I am not in Canada right now. Can I translate it somewhere else?

It has to be done by a Canadian accredited translator as per RQ request. Find the one who will accept high-res scan of your documents for translation and will be willing to mail translation with translator affidavit to you internationally.

Thanks

Edited by freedom10 - 21 May 2013 at 6:20pm