Timeline - Montreal office

m_r_mtl wrote: . . . so I brought up the CJ hearing and she she said oh yes you are required to see a judge. But she refused to give me more detail like when this decision was made on my file.

I concur with much of what eileen and canuck25 posted.

This is worth emphasizing:

eileen wrote: . . . but, umm, to repeat, this is something that the CIC Call Centre is not always accurate about. There have been a number of anecdotal reports on the forums of applicants receiving Oath invitations short weeks or months after being told by Call Centre agents that they are in line for a hearing with a citizenship judge.

To what extent the call centre representatives are stating something which is not true (the usual sense in which we say something is not accurate), I do not know. At the least, though, as suggested by eileen, there have been quite a number of anecdotal reports of applicants being advised they "must" see a Citizenship Judge, or are "in queue for a judge hearing," or such, who nonetheless subsequently were scheduled to attend the oath without having to attend a hearing.

My belief is that this is rooted more in miscommunication than in overt misstatements of fact. I say this recognizing, however, that call centre representatives do sometimes state things which are outright not true, which are mostly things not accurately reflected in the file (like the date the Discover Canada booklet was mailed, which almost always off by months) or are among some stock generalizations. In any event, though, the call centre reps appear to often be understood to say that a hearing with a CJ is required even though eventually a hearing is not required.

Additionally, my sense is that for many applicants, depending on various factors and stage of application processing, the GCMS record will reflect (in one form or another) that a hearing with a Citizenship Judge is required as a more or less default status. Or, that call centre representatives have been instructed to state that a hearing with a CJ is required unless certain indicators as to status are in the file (or, possibly, the converse, so long as certain indicators are in the file, they are instructed to state that a hearing is required). The net result is the same: many applicants may be technically still on a hearing required path even though CIC has not yet actually made a decision as to whether a hearing will be, in fact, required.

m_r_mtl wrote: I had 1095 days present, basic residence 1208 days and a total of 113 absence days. I came to Canada as a student, so yes I have days counted as non PR as well.

Preparation for CJ Hearing
I also concur in the observations made by canuck25 about preparing for a CJ hearing. In particular, I concur in the suggestion to at least consult with a lawyer if you confirm you are actually destined to attend a hearing.

Given how close you cut it to the minimum physical presence threshold, particularly given that is based in part on non-PR time presence in Canada, it appears you are indeed at risk for a Citizenship Judge hearing.

Many, perhaps most, perhaps nearly all go to the CJ hearing without the assistance of a lawyer. And, to be frank, for most the presence of a lawyer is not likely to make the difference. The facts in the file will make the biggest difference. A lawyer cannot alter the basic facts, and the basic facts are what are most controlling.

But for many applicants the facts may not be all that clear or certain. A lawyer can make a big difference in such a case.

For an example of a case where having a lawyer at the hearing was of no avail, see the recent Ayaz decision. The operative fact was that the applicant fell well short of the actual physical presence test threshold, 1095 days (in the residency calculation submitted with the application, and in response to RQ, the applicant claimed more than 1095 days actual presence, but gave the CJ an "updated" declaration acknowleging far less time physically in Canada), and the Citizenship Judge elected to apply the strict physical presence test despite the argument made to the CJ that Koo criteria and a centralized mode of existence test should be applied.

I do not cite that case to discourage you, or anyone, from obtaining the assistance of a licensed lawyer, but rather to illustrate there are limits to what a lawyer can do for an applicant. Changing the facts is not something the lawyer can do.

In contrast, however, a lawyer can help to correct or clarify or expand what facts are reflected in the record.

This warrants further explanation, beyond the scope of this particular topic. But, going back to having submitted an application based on the absolute minimum amount of time present (relative to the actual physical presence test), including credit for time in Canada prior to landing as a PR, it seems that a consultation with a lawyer, to go over your application and submission in response to RQ, would be the prudent thing to do at this stage.

Thanks dpenabill for your comments and advice. I am still positive that what CIC told me is based on "hearing required" as I saw in ATIP. Otherwise I don't see any reason.
I was present for 1095 days, claimed it right with no doubt. Always been full time student in Canada, still am, with other ties in Canada  for which I have provided proofs in my RQ. So it is really unlikely for me to be asked for a CJ. I think I'd better contact my MP an ask for their help.



Edited by m_r_mtl - 17 Jul 2014 at 11:23pm

Hello everyone,

Hello Abdellah,

Thanks Abdallah,