RQ discussions.

mc_seem wrote: A friend of mine (early 2012 applicant, then pre-test RQ early 2013) - only had her interview with the Citizenship Official once after test. She initially submitted the documents based on the old process / forms (certain forms, like the proof of language, - were not submitted). Her RQ response was deemed satisfactory by the CO. And she got scheduled for the oath within less than 5 weeks after her test / interview date. She already got her passport not long ago. Thus, there was no CJ review... Even if there was one (without her being called to attend), it took very little time to progress from interview to oath. I assume that the CJ review was not necessary, and the interview with CO was sufficient, eventhough she submitted the docs based on an old process.

This is a good report of a prime example where CIC is "satisfied" at the interview/test phase, based on the whole file including response to pre-test RQ submission. There was, of course, a "review" by the Citizenship Judge, but that would have been the "paper review" or "file review," and it is largely perfunctory (CIC having, in effect, already approved the applicant for the grant of citizenship).

This has been a common report this year among a large percentage of pre-test RQ'd applicants, particularly those issued RQ during the time period prior to "interpretations" and amendments to OB 407, that is, when CIC was issuing RQ to a far larger share of all applicants based on very broadly applied technical criteria.

As outlined in my other posts, the path for those whose file and RQ response does not garner a "satisfied" conclusion as of the test/interview phase, those applicants will go to a queue to wait for a Citizenship Officer to be assigned to do what amounts to a full work-up of the file, a thorough assessment and preparation of the referral to the CJ using the File Preparation Template.

One thing that call center agents all agree each time I call them to inquire about my case (pre-test RQ) is that something should happen within 6 months of the exam: either they will ask for more documents or they will approve the case. 

So, I don't think the test and the review of the RQ are independent. In fact the officer that interviewed me had studied the RQ in detail before the interview.

mini_k wrote: I came across a post on this forum indicating that an application including RQ response is reviewed by a case worker prior to the interview. The interview is also conducted by a case worker. The file is then referred to CJ for paper review if a case worker is satisfied. Alternatively, if a case worker is not satisfied the file is queued to a Citizenship Officer for a full assessment and subsequent referral to CJ. How many file review stages are there exactly? Is an application only queued to a Citizenship Officer if a case worker is not satisfied? And how long does it take for a Citizenship Officer to complete an assessment? How much is known about the nature of “preliminary reviews” (pre-test checks conducted by case workers) and case workers being “satisfied” with RQ submissions? For example, did preliminary reviews conducted throughout 2013 for pre-test RQ candidates include an actual assessment of RQ submission contents as to the quality and sufficiency? Or was the primary objective of preliminary reviews to re-triage applications using updated criteria to see if any RQs can be lifted and rendered N/A and making sure that background checks are up-to date, file completeness checks? It appears that RQ assessment status does not affect the scheduling and timing of tests. As such test events and RQ assessments appear to be independent processes. As such a “case worker satisfied ” and a quick referral to CJ after the test scenario may indicate RQ rendered N/A due to updated criteria and not that RQ has been assessed and no concerns noted.

I included quote from other topic since they are related.

If you look at previous posts above you should see some posts in which I go into depth about the various screening stages and checks done, to the extent we know and recognizing there is a lot we do not know about what goes on behind the curtains at CIC.

The pre-interview check specifically includes the review of any RQ submission. (We know this from a copy of the File Requirements Checklist shared here in 2012 -- it has probably been amended some, but in the most part probably remains largely intact.) The nature and extent of this examination appears to vary, which is what would make sense: CIC, like CBSA, tends to look for what is oft called red flags and then pursue further inquiry following up any concern or issue thus identified. If in a cursory review there are no concerns, no apparent issues, there is no incentive to waste time digging deeper. If, in contrast, a concern is identified, a closer look follows, and depending on what that reveals, the person conducting the review is either satisfied, and moves on, or sees cause to dig more deeply, and so on . . .

There is no indication that RQ submissions are examined, reviewed, or assessed independently or separately, except as part of the standard review/assessment process. Thus, for example, the pre-interview check (which is done for all applicants) entails going over the file as a whole, following the checklist, parts of which refer to reviewing the RQ. Similarly, an interview is comprehensive, focused to the extent the interviewer follows a script or checklist, which may be (probably is) customized some for the particular applicant. Hence the wide variations we see reported about the scope and depth of the interview, some interviewers appearing to ignore the RQ submission entirely other times the interview going into depth about details in the applicant's life, be that travel or employment or other details.

Title or position of individuals doing the pre-interview check, interview, and so on, is not clear (reports and even references in CIC internal memos are not consistent). Probably not usually a "Citizenship Officer," but beyond that references to these individuals varies. Personally I doubt the title is important, except that we know Citizenship Officers have more authority and that in particular the formal referral to the Citizenship Judge is prepared by a Citizenship Officer (or, perhaps in routine cases, at least perfunctorily passed on by a Citizenship Officer).

As best I can figure out about practices behind the curtain, the real distinction is in identifying a case as a residency issue case or, more severely, a possible residency fraud case (I tend to discuss these as a group, generally referring to "residency cases").

Generally, it is my strong impression, once RQ is issued, the application becomes a residency case. If CIC is "satisfied" following the pre-interview and interview stage, my sense is that a pre-test RQ'd applicant will be (in effect even if not by some formal designation) returned to a file or paper review processing track, as in not a residency case, no longer a residency case.

Additionally, a number of applicants issued RQ in 2012 and perhaps early 2013, appear to have had their file revisited relative to changes in the triage criteria, which were initially very, very broad and were narrowed by subsequent amendments to OB 407, which apparently similarly resulted in those no longer being in a track for residency case processing. (We do not know precisely what this meant in terms of actual practices or actions with the file; my sense is that the RQ response was still part of the file, still examined to some extent, but that the requirement for a referral done using the File Preparation Template was removed.)

I doubt that a RQ submission ever becomes not-applicable, but rather either a re-assessment that RQ was not required (pursuant to modified triage criteria) or that CIC is satisfied based on what is of record, in the file (including RQ submission,) in conclusions following the interview, such files are then on track for a referral to the CJ for a paper or file review, which in practical terms almost always (but not always) means the applicant is scheduled for the oath.

Otherwise, the application continues in a residency case processing track, which means it goes into a queue for a Citizenship Officer to be assigned, who will do the full work-up, thorough assessment of the file (again, this would be of the entire file, RQ submission included, no separate RQ submission assessment in particular), and preparation of the referral for the CJ using the File Preparation Template.

But, as I outlined in previous posts, there are many screenings or checks along the way. And for every action-step along the way, CIC is mandated to conduct a GCMS check in particular, which incorporates queries into FOSS, which in turn incorporates queries into other integrated databases beyond just entries into FOSS made by CIC (including, for example, applicant activity like application for new PR card or family sponsorships) and CBSA (such as POE NCBs), like criminal record databases maintained by the RCMP and the U.S. NCIC system (maintained by the FBI I think, but populated with data from all sorts of federal, state, and local law enforcement bodies, as well as federal and state judicial systems).

Caveat regarding pre-test RQs sent to-be-processed in St. Clair office in 2012, early 2013: For a long while this was a black hole. What was actually happening there has never been clearly revealed. Some of what we know hints that these pre-test RQs were queued to be reviewed by a Citizenship Officer in the same manner as RQ'd applicants, residency cases were being prepped for the referral to a CJ using the File Preparation Template. If this is what was happening, that would explain why there was virtually no progress in processing those applicants for over a year. OB 407 itself did not prescribe this, but rather indeed the pre-interview check including an examination of any response to pre-test RQ was set up pursuant to the orginal version of OB 407. The St. Clair office, in which many if not most if not nearly all GTA RQ'd cases ended up, obviously went its own way in some regard, a way which did not work, which created a huge, huge backlog which was bogging down many thousands of qualified applicants, qualified applicants whose applications and files had little or no reason to be subjected to the far more thorough scrutiny that, apparently, St. Clair was imposing on RQ'd applicants across-the-board.

It is possible, quite feasible, this was deliberate and directed from the top down, perhaps originating in the PMO (where it is quite certain OB 407 came from to begin with). Harper's close staff may have been more interested in an intensive screening process, to see what dirt could be dug up, than it was in timely implementing the provisions of Canadian law. This is what I suspect. Not at all sure of course. But I do indeed suspect that much of what happened in St. Clair was due to a pervasive data-mining exercise, a broad-based sweep far beyond the scope of the problems being addressed.

In any event, part of why it remains so difficult to map certain aspects of the usual course of processing for RQ'd applicants, is that over the last couple years there have been so many tangents and diversions and changes in the processing, and continued variations from one local office to another. Personal reports have tended to reflect what was (not what is) happening to just some individuals, with no discernible patterns from which general or usual practices could be discerned.

Bottom-line, though, is that the RQ submission is just part of the file, and as one would expect, any time a decision is to be made based on the file, the decision-maker can and usually will examine most of the file. The depth of that examination will vary from person to person, issue to issue. The main distinction of import to most applicants given RQ is whether CIC is satisfied, or not, such that the application is then (in a decision following the interview) on a track for a paper review by the CJ (in which case the oath is ordinarily scheduled in the near future, from very soon after the test to a few months) or is directed into a queue to be assigned to a Citizenship Officer for what I tend to refer to as the long-haul, residency case process. There is, usually (or so it appears) no way to get a definitive indication from CIC which way things are headed, until there is indeed an oath ceremony scheduled or . . . a long time passes. While ATIP requests might happen to capture a note in the GCMS, reflecting decision being made, in time that an applicant will learn of a next event sooner that way, this appears to not happen often and in any event the extent to which such information is obtained sooner is minimal.

Thank you dpenabill. Can you please offer more insights into the following:

Are all RQs need to be reviewed at least to some extent by a Citizenship Officer (CO) following a review conducted by a case worker, if these are in fact two distinct levels of review?  

Can we conclude that all RQ’ed cases are referred to CJ by a CO (who seems to have more authority)? And that case workers do not have the necessary authority to complete an assessment and referral on their own?

Is it really “bad news” if your file is in queue to be reviewed by a CO? Or is it a necessary step in the process which by itself does not necessarily indicate any more scrutiny or unresolved concerns? Does it even indicate that an additional level of review by someone else is necessary?

Or is CO a generic term used to describe all reviewers whether it be a CO or a case worker or a citizenship official? The update form is obviously generic................Is it possible that RQ status only changes to  “assessed” after a review by CJ, whether paper review or in person hearing?

greeny wrote: montrealia wrote: greeny wrote: montrealia wrote: I've just been to the Salon de l'immigration et de l'integration au Quebec and visited all the lawyer's stands and inquired about Mandamus. I was independently told by two lawyers that I should wait until 8 months after my exam (note: I'm an pretest RQ, see my signature).  I don't understand why you are even thinking about WOM ?  1 week to 4 months from Test date to next step is NORMAL I agree that my current timeline after test is normal. My timeline before test was quite a record: 34 months just to be called for the test? I've only seen a couple of people who waited longer than me (one month longer at most) just to be called for the test! What if I'm also a record for after test timeline as well? Who knows? My goal was to get informed about possibilities and get opinions on timing. The "salon de l'immigration" doesn't happen all the time, I don't know if there will be another this year. I thought this was a good chance to get to meet several lawyers, talk to them face to face, all by going to just one place. My goal is to be prepared if I don't get call for the oath within 6 to 8 months. that's normal for 2011 applicant actually  don't worry you'll be posting happy news here soon