RQ Timeline

torontob wrote: ski wrote: Apparently, call CIC? Waiting for wife to come home from work. But I am pretty sure they will be useless given they can't dig into the file anyhow. Would drop by in Toronto CIC office help or that it is the same as CIC? Am I missing something? below is from ATIP received files. Does this "Passed" mean something else other than PASSING the Citizenship Test? <img src="http://i60.tinypic.com/2ahv808.png" height="290" width="614" />

I would contact a lawyer ASAP.

Lawyer suggested I contact National Headquarters, MP, and CIC. Anyone has contact for headquarters in Ottawa? or know the best way to contact them? fax??? (his advise was to exhaust all options)

torontob wrote: Lawyer suggested I contact National Headquarters, MP, and CIC. Anyone has contact for headquarters in Ottawa? or know the best way to contact them? fax??? (his advise was to exhaust all options) I am not sure if this short time frame gives me much leverage. They could have sent this letter months ago but didn't. I am also worried that if I ask for re-schedule they will make us wait many months or more than year for another test. Can anyone comment about all options I may have? Wondering if anyone else has been in the same situation.

I do not know for sure what the copy of the GCMS record truly reflects.

The following is in addition to what I posted in the topic you started with a post about this:

There is no reason to panic.

Worst case scenario, she spends some time reading the current book and prepares to take the test again. Since she passed it once already, it should not be too difficult to prepare and pass it again.

If indeed she has taken and passed the test already, and is indeed scheduled to take it again, and telephone calls to CIC do not resolve it before the scheduled test, she should show up, explain, and odds are it will be resolved at that time, and again, worst case scenario is she actually takes the test . . . if she passes, no problem . . . if she fails, in the meantime she could see a lawyer or she will be scheduled to take the test again (unless the first time she did not pass, and then I think she would be scheduled to meet with a CJ).

As I said in my other post, look at the notice carefully. CIC sends form notices which include boilerplate and a lot of information not necessarily relevant to the particular individual.

Re-scheduling is probably not a good idea, in terms of potentially causing further delay.

Thanks all feedback.

torontob:

I suspect greeny has this one right.

As I posted in the other topic:

It is of course possible that CIC is scheduling long-pending RQ'd cases for an interview with CIC, so as to more efficiently deal with the huge backlog of RQ case inventory, screening applicants again in person in order to identify which ones to refer for a CJ hearing. But if this is what is happening, this appears to be something new. This would make sense, but it is always hard to predict that CIC would do something which actually makes sense in this way.

Of course, given the conflicting information you have received, what is actually happening is uncertain. So long as she does indeed show (as you say she will) things should get sorted out OK. And I hope you keep us posted as to how this does indeed unfold.

As for confusion in the notice itself, stuff happens. One of my stock phrases (like the one in my signature, "Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does") is that "once things go off the rails, they tend to stay off the rails." And these are related. Bureaucracy deals far, far better with what is routine (best with the perfectly-routine) and well within definied parameters. This is true of bureaucracies generally, and applies to CIC despite the fact that given its mandate, and the nature of its clients, there is inherently a great deal of variation in what CIC processes, who CIC processes, and that what is routine has to accommodate much diversity.

Second applications are inherently complicating. RQ is complicating. The underlying reasons for RQ (beyond the technical ones) tend to be complicating. Complicating often means off-the-rails, meaning not on an ordinary or routine track.

And, in most bureaucracies, "once things go off the rails, they tend to stay off the rails."

Which, I realize, in many respects is not comforting or reassuring. But in this context it should be taken as comforting. There is no surprise that things are odd or a bit off compared to what is reported for other applicants, compared to what you would expect.

Main thing is to show up. You said that is a given, that she will indeed show up. That, after all, may be the main thing this is about, to see whether she is in Canada and will show up on short notice.

The need to know what is really going on is powerful. The lack of control is frightening. But so long as she shows up, things should progress in the right direction.

So, again, please keep us posted. I have received private inquiries from others suggesting that CIC may be scheduling interviews with long-pending RQ'd applicants, so it could be helpful for many in the long-haul residency case process to know whether CIC is at last addressing the backlog, and in particular if CIC is doing so by scheduling RQ'd applicants for an appearance short of scheduling a hearing with the Citizenship Judge.