Mississauga RQ before citizenship test

anya: I want to know if leaving Canada(for a month or so to visit back home) after submitting RQ would have some negative effect on my citizenship application?? Added: Would it show not enough ties with Canada as I keep visiting back? Yes I am also doubtful about leaving Canada as you said we are the first batch, so do not know how they take this RQ before the test. Yes I did move a few times in the 1095 day period, but I do not know why that would trigger an RQ?

I think it is OK for applicants to travel abroad pending the processing of one's citizenship application, including those who have been given RQ and who have responded to the RQ, subject to the issue of timely receiving communications from CIC, and so long as the travel is indeed for a typical holiday or other temporary reason.

I tend to agree with much of the response by visachi, except I think brief trips abroad while things are pending are quite OK . . . recognizing, though, as visachi points out, there is the issue about not getting communications timely if one just happens to be abroad when they are sent . . . but recognizing as well that this might happen even if the applicant is on holiday at a destination still within Canada.

But, for example, this is, it seems to me, a very apt observation:

visachi: Also since we are among the 1st "batch" to receive RQs before test, we cannot be sure about whether it might take as long as other RQs over the past years to respond or whether they will follow almost normal timelines with us. So if anyone calls or if they approve the RQ & call us for test interview as per the regular timeline, we do not want the added complication of being out of country &/or having to rush back for an interview with CJ or test.

Some clarification about checking for stamps: generally, they are doing this to verify (corroborate) the residency calculation disclosure, but as visachi points out, at the time of the test/interview they have also looked at stamps subsequent to the date of application, looking in particular at indications the applicant is living abroad and only returned to Canada just in time to attend the test/interview. I doubt that indications of a routine, brief trip abroad since applying, will cause problems (unless the travel fits a problematic pattern already apparent in the applicant's record). So, just a stamp showing travel between the date of applying and the date of the test/interview, should not, alone, cause any extra concern or questions. In contrast, an extended stay abroad with a stamp indicating a return to Canada just in time to take the test, appears to be one of those things that they look for and which might trigger further inquiry, including the requiring of an in-person meeting (hearing) with a Citizenship Judge.

Here, though, is where another observation by visachi looms large:

Also since we are among the 1st "batch" to receive RQs before test, we cannot be sure about . . .

and here I would add, not be sure about how this process plays out.

That said, emphasizing we do not know, but also acknowledging some general things we do know about how CIC works, I think we can anticipate a few things:

-- Foremost, I bet that the response to the RQ given before the test simply becomes part of the file and is looked at in the same stream of processing as other applications pending the test/interview. In fact, I bet that the capacity of CIC to merge RQ into this businessline (as they tend to describe the paths of processing) is a large part of their objective. Thus, I doubt it will delay processing much at all (except to the extent this delays overall processing times in local offices . . . and several people have already reported that CIC personnel have been verbally confirming that timelines are indeed increasing dramatically, and one can infer that this new RQ process is probably a big part of that).

-- Secondly, this would mean, essentially, that in preparation for the test/interview a CIC person at the local office would go over the file, do their usual assessment and cross-checks, but for those given RQ before the test this would include going over the response to the RQ . . . and then that CIC person will conduct the interview with all this analysis/assessment already done, so that in a higher percentage of cases a relatively final decision can and will be made, so the file can be passed on to the CJ for a file review, and a much smaller percentage referred to the queue as, essentially, a residency case (that being a case in which the CJ will need to more closely examine the evidence of residency and exercise discretion in determining whether the residency requirement was met).

Relative to this, the upside for those given RQ before the test: there should be no surprises. You have submitted your information and that information will, presumably (for most anyway) be sufficient to resolve questions, and so long as the CIC person is satisfied that the person responding at the test/interview honestly and, for the most part, accurately submitted this information, the oath should be scheduled (who knows, they may be planning on doing something similar to what they did in Calgary earlier this year, when they were scheduling oaths on the same day as the test . . . little need to go over in detail what happened at the test/interview, so long as the applicant passes the test, since they will have already screened the RQ response).

-- An additional layer of RQ is probably possible, not likely, but if for example the applicant's travel documents do not corroborate the disclosures about absences, an applicant might be subjected to another round of requests for information and documentation . . . or simply scheduled for a hearing with the CJ . . . or both. Other things at the test/interview, or questions that have not been resolved by the submitted response to RQ, might similarly be cause for further requests for information or documentation, or a hearing, or both.

Overall I think that RQ before the test is, of course, unpleasant and inconvenient, and remarkably intrusive into one's private life, but I suspect process wise it might be an advantage as the process unfolds. For example, consider the question anya asks about travel abroad in the meantime: the applicant's RQ response is of record, an assessment of the applicant's residency has been done based on far more extensive information than what the mere application provides, so by the time this person appears at the test/interview the decision to approve (or not) the application is mostly made . . . and some brief travel out of the country in the meantime should have virtually no impact on this (in contrast, I suppose, if there are indications the applicant was abroad when they respond to the RQ and they remain abroad, or are mostly abroad, until just before the test, that could push things the other direction: toward the queue for a hearing in person with the CJ).

I realize I am speculating above. I do not really know how things will go. I offer this as a personal observation, for what it is worth.

Pre-application address changes:

I too wonder if changes in address trigger some degree of further scrutiny. I doubt that some moving around, by itself, triggers RQ, but I do wonder if moving around in conjunction with other circumstances is something that incites a closer look, more questions, perhaps adding to other circumstances that might in total substantially increase the risk of RQ.

Since people do move, and since in particular people newly settling into a different country are, I suspect, among those who are likely to move more than the average person, I doubt that just moving will trigger RQ. What I wonder about though is to what extent moving around is compared to other circumstances in a way that elevates the intensity of scrutiny, and thus indirectly leading to a higher incidence of RQ.

But, to be sure, you can bet that residential addresses are compared to other information, like locations for employment, and anomalies or incongruities will be looked for and are likely to trigger questions, perhaps RQ. (Example: residential address changes that are inconsistent with locations for employment.)


Reasons for pre-test RQ generally:

We are really in the dark on this one. Obviously this is a major change in practices at CIC. What are the criteria? Are they simply the same as before? Probably not. Probably more expansive. But we do not know.

My impression, and it is just an impression, is that this change has been implemented to increase the scope of applicant screening generally. I suspect the threshold for imposing pre-test RQ is fairly low. I suspect some of it might even be random.

We do not yet have much of an idea about how many people are getting pre-test RQ. Ten percent? Twenty percent? A third? A half? More even? We do not know. We do know that several people are reporting that the general timeline for applicants is increasing by around five more months, according to what they have been told by CIC personnel. The imposition of pre-test RQ on a broad, broad scale would explain such an abrupt increase in processing times.

I wonder if anyone is getting their application transferred to the local office this month without getting a pre-test RQ. I hope we see some comprehensive and extensive reporting by applicants this month so that we can at least get a glimpse regarding this.

In any event, I strongly suspect that the threshold for RQ before the test is significantly lower than the RQs imposed a year and three years ago . . . so just getting RQ, my opinion, should not be a cause for alarm or even all that much concern (unless, of course, you are aware of significant shortcomings in your application or qualifications). No need to worry. Just respond reasonably and all should go well . . . and relative to the timeline for most applicants, going forward from now, I bet these pre-test RQs will be largely done in pretty much the same time frame.




By the way: the reports of the timeline increasing to two years for a normal citizenship application is crazy: if it takes two years to process an application, that will necessarily result in a growing backlog of cases, twice as many applications filed every two years as are decided. It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds. But I see some grounds for a Charter based lawsuit, grounded in the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of people in the next Federal election, if this does indeed go in this direction.

Dpenabill,
Your replies are a treat to read!! You take into consideration, not only small factors, but also tie-in the experiences & knowledge of the working of CIC over so many years.
From me & many others like me, I would like to thank you for what you are doing.

So many new applicants, un-informed & unnerved by the RQ, just scramble like scared ants to gather tons of documents & then push it down on the already burdened CIC officer to decode & decipher what the pieces of paper really claim. In effect it ruins their chance at a quick judgement with less delay & also clogs the entire system for the rest.

As to the current scenario, where me, Anya, etc are the 1st 'victims' it is extremely difficult to know how & what in the system will change for the better or worse, but I am sure it would be something similar to what you have predicted.

Thanks yet again. Your points and observations are helping me in preparing my summary & creating concise tie-ups for the CO, so it should not take him more than 10 mins to decide my fate 

Yes Qilu, it does seem like that or the Mississauga office just routinely sent the RQ as soon as they got the file...
In fact I am not even sure its transferred yet as the ecas doesnt say that, but the RQ was received from the Mississauga office. So either they have neglected to update the system or it may have been transferred a few weeks before we received the RQ....dont know.
I have simply put together the ecas status updates & came with the conclusion that the Mississauga office took 2-3 days, but its quite possible an update is missing & our files were transferred earlier.
There are quite a few holes in the whole thing, but fact is, routine or not, we have received the RQ & now we have to deal with it as best as we can.

On a grim note, we have spoken with our accountant & also a lawyer friend & both of them have acknowledged that they have seen a drastic upward swing in the number of people receiving RQs in the past few months. Both are based in Mississauga, so not sure abt other areas.
Since we were discussing the possible reasons, both repeatedly assured us not to feel we were being specifically or even randomly chosen & that its just a routine requirement & to answer it as such.
Both were quite casual & told us to send whatever documents CIC has requested. CA also mentioned that these documents are meant to reinforce the original application & there may or may not be any actual reason for the RQ. There have been many many cases in the past 2-3 yrs of lots of frauds & this is just a way to ensure that only the rightful candidates are let thru..

Whatever it is, it just translates into delay for all applicants, whether its 5 months over & above as we all are hearing or more months has to be seen.

I will make sure i post my status updates till the end, as the system changes seem to be taking effect during our timeline.

dpenabill wrote: Regarding timeline: while this almost certainly has to involve a longer timeline, I have the sense that these pre-test RQ cases will be processed pretty much in the same timeline as any non-RQ cases through the same office . . . if indeed CIC continues to process cases without RQ (I am not sure that they are . . . really do not know . . . I really do wonder about the numbers).

Pre-test RQ cases could be a pilot/beta testing with the next step making "fast-paced" RQ a mandatory step for all applicants to go through. Usually systems move away from inconsistencies.

Sirs,

I got my RQ before the test
I just received the RQ yesterday.

I'll submit the application and all supporting documents this week except the travel history..
I'll send a letter with the application saying that once I receive the travel history, I'll submit it.