Citizenship applicaiton and travelling overseas?

EasyRider wrote: Somebody's application seemingly became "non-routine" in CIC's eyes because applicant diligently updated CIC of 2 3-week absences. Which advises he/she should lower timeline expectations now. Post from another forum: jaycrew wrote: Still waiting on my Citizenship Application in Edmonton, have submitted my application in May 2011. The last I spoke to an agent, they advised me that my application is considered non-routine because I twice advised CIC that I was going to be away from Canada for a period of 3 weeks each, in anticipation that I may be called on for testing during that period. I do not agree. In reviewing what constitutes a non-routine application, CIC advises the following: What is a non-routine application? An application is considered non-routine if any one of the following has occurred: you are asked to provide a residence questionnaire, documents proving residence in Canada, fingerprints, or any other additional documents; we have not received all the necessary documents or the correct fees; it is unclear whether you meet the residence requirements; it is unclear whether you are subject to any immigration, security or criminal prohibitions; you do not meet the language requirements for citizenship; you fail or are unable to write the knowledge-of-Canada test (citizenship test); and you require a hearing with a citizenship judge. Any input on this and what I should say the next time I call CIC?

Foremost: No one should be at all surprised that advising CIC of extended absences can lead to non-routine processing. Any indications of strong ties abroad can trigger non-routine processing. For obvious reasons.

What constitutes an extended absence? What frequency suggests a strong tie (particularly a residence-related tie) abroad? I doubt there is any definitive, quantitative trigger; proably has more to do with context including consideration of other factors.

Frankly, I doubt that jaycrew's post is a fully accurate accounting of the representations made by the call centre; it may be accurate insofar as it goes, but I doubt it includes some additionally pertinent information.

In any event, context matters.

And, of course, if in saying "I do not agree" jaycrew is saying that he or she disputes that his or her application is considered "non-routine," obviously jaycrew is in error. The call centre rep says the case is non-routine, so it almost certainly is.

I suppose what jaycrew meant is to disagree that the case should be considered non-routine. That, of course, is CIC's judgment call. If in the context of that individual's application, CIC perceives the applicant's report of two trips for three weeks abroad during the pendency of the application as to be sufficient to make it unclear that the applicant met the residency requirement, well, then it is a non-routine case.

Note: I am not commenting here regarding how CIC should perceive these situations. Frankly, I suspect there is significant, relevant backstory or other contextual factors involved. That is, I doubt that an applicant for whom CIC has no concerns, no questions at all, is going to be tipped into a non-routine process just because the applicant advises CIC regarding two trips abroad for three weeks.


However, this leads to the question about the wisdom of advising CIC regarding travel abroad while the application is pending.
That, I think, is a largely personal decision. Anyone who is going to be abroad for a period of time during which there is a significant prospect of getting notice to attend the test and not being able to make that test date, really does not have much choice. It is better to notify CIC ahead of time than it is to notify them once the test is scheduled, and much, much better than failing to show up for the test.

Otherwise, it is more or less a matter of timing, someone covering the receipt of mail, and ability to promptly return to Canada on time to attend the test.

By the way, however: For any applicant who is abroad more than a month, or at least for the entirety of a given calendar month, the obligation is to advise CIC of their change in address. Even if one's residence abroad is temporary, anyone who completed a PR application is well familiar with the way CIC approaches address disclosures, which is consistent with how the address history item in the application is set up, and that is CIC looks for declarations as to residency particular to each calendar month.

I am sure that many, many, many fudge this some or by even quite a bit. In many particular situations it probably does not rise to the level of a material misrepresentation (particularly for someone in transit during the time abroad, not actually residing, even temporarily, for a significant time period in any given location). And many if not most do not encounter an issue.

So, one might ask, if the applicant has someone collecting and checking mail back in Canada, why bother to advise CIC of something that elevates the risk of RQ or other non-routine processing?

Why? Because that is what is required. Many may not face negative consequences for not complying, but for anyone who is residing abroad while the application is pending and who does not advise CIC of this, and in the meantime CIC discovers this, such an applicant has no one to blame but himself or herself if CIC approaches the applicant with disbelief and heightened scrutiny if not skepticism. Hint: going forward, enhanced technology and increased monitoring means CIC will recognize this for more and more who do it.



In reference to earlier posts:

EasyRider wrote: So, sure you read my post? It doesn't mean that if you do not update home address/phone number after you apply (forgot or for whatever reasons), it can possibly be a reason to refuse application. It can't. As I said, there's no law, and there's no law. The part about updated address/phone information is primarily for CIC liability protection-- you can't have claims to CIC if you fail to receive communication from them because you've failed to update your contacts. In other words, it's applicant's responsibility to make sure CIC can communicate necessary info timely. If applicant doesn't objectively interfere with CIC operation and judgement, it's not CIC's right to keep applicant liable for more. It doesn't mean that in certain cases CIC may not chose to punish applicant with RQ, for example. The other reference to notifying CIC of leaving (for 3 weeks or more, I think) is on it's website, and it's merely a precaution from getting notices during absence (and it sometimes fails to work too, so you can't 100% rely on it). I you disagree, you can consult a real lawyer to get this understanding from, but you'll have to pay from your own pocket in this case.

This was, apparently, in response to my previous post

Originally posted by dpenabill The very first sentence in the declaration the applicant signs, at the bottom of the citizenship application forms, states: I agree to advise Citizenship and immigration Canada if any information on this form changes before I take the Oath of Citizenship. Home address is required information (item 5.A.).

I think my post was clear enough on its face and should not require more elaboration.

What constitutes a material misrepresentation is amply illuminated in operational manuals and case law.

Relevancy is not sufficient to make a representation "material." The fact that CIC requests information, however, has been firmly deemed to be sufficient to establish the relevancy of the information.

The issue then is whether the misrepresentation (including by omission) is one which might influence CIC's handling of the case; any information which might potentially lead CIC to conduct further inquiry has been ruled to be material.

But, frankly, that is largely besides the point: The rest of my post (from which the quote is taken) highlights a critical aspect of this (emphasis added):

One thing to be aware of is that if CIC discovers the applicant has not been living at the address the applicant claims to be living, that could be problematic. It will not always be problematic. CIC is not out to penalize people, people making practical decisions, based on mere technicalities. But it can and seems to often open the door to additional questions and inquiry, and if CIC perceives that the applicant was willfully misleading CIC about where they were living, have been living, that is indeed quite likely to lead to problems.

The real risk in not providing CIC the information it requests, and make no mistake CIC requests applicants to keep their address updated, and considers this request important enough to include a reference to this in the declaration made attendant signing the application, is not so much that CIC will initiate a criminal prosecution for the material misrepresentation, or that it will deem it a material misrepresentation warranting an outright denial of citizenship, but that if CIC discovers the applicant is not being truthful, including failing to keep CIC updated as to current residential address, that may trigger heightened scrutiny, even formal investigation. Where that leads will depend on all the facts and circumstances in the case. At the least, however, it can lead to further inquiry which delays the process.

As to "requirement" to notify CIC of any absence of any particular length, canuck25 posted the url to the part of the instruction guide (this a link to same page of the guide) where it states:

While we process your application, you should only contact CIC if: you change your address, you plan to leave Canada for more than two weeks in a row, you are charged with a crime or we do not contact you about your file within the posted processing times

I put "requirement" in quotations because from what I have seen of CIC's arguments in the reported Federal Court cases, CIC interprets its instructions to be requirements. The Federal Court does not always agree. Requirements must be based on the statute or the regulations. (Most salient example I can recall off the top of my head is the case where CIC argued that a person failed to meet the burden of proof for establishing residency because the person failed to provide particular documents that CIC specifically requested, meaning had instructed the applicant to submit; the Federal Court rightfully disagreed, ruling the Citizenship Judge had to make a reasonable determination based on the evidence in the record and on the balance of probabilities standard, that CIC could not in effect impose requirements in addition to those prescribed by statute -- of course the CJ can draw negative inferences from the failure to submit certain documentation, particularly when the applicant has been instructed to submit such documents, but it still has to be a reasonable determination overall based on all the evidence in the case.)

Others have correctly highlighted the importance of the particular requirement to give CIC notice of an absence from Canada for more than two weeks: this in effect shifts the burden of responsibility to the applicant if the applicant does not receive notice in fact, in sufficient time to attend a particular event, due to being abroad. This particularly looms larger now that CIC has implemented a rather draconian policy for those who fail to appear at a test or interview: application will be closed unless the applicant petitions CIC, has "good reason" for failing to appear, and submits proof of that reason's validity.

Thus, beginning next week, applicants who miss an event because they did not get notice because they were traveling are out of luck unless they had, indeed, given prior notice to CIC of the dates of absence (it would be "unreasonable" in the legal sense for CIC to close a file based on a person's failure to appear for an event on a date that CIC had been given advance notice the applicant was unavailable), or they can prove good reason, such as the trip was an emergency (for example: a parent abroad is suddenly severely ill, or dies, in which case the applicant will need to submit information from proper medical personnel or authorities to document the illness or death, relationship, and so on).

Bottom-line: I doubt very much there is any effort at all to enforce this "instruction" or "requirement" in the abstract; enforcement is merely the imposition of consequences for a failure to appear at a scheduled event. That is, if down the road CIC discovers an applicant left Canada for more than two weeks while the application was pending, but the applicant did not report this to CIC at the time, I doubt there is any direct consequences for this. That said, who knows to what extent CIC is cross-referencing the details for RQ'd applicants, the response to RQ requiring applicants to report all travel abroad to-date, which for some will then entail reporting absences between the date of applying and the date they respond to RQ, some of which may indeed exceed two weeks. Is CIC cross-referencing information at this level of detail and considering it in its assessment of RQ? I do not know.

sagafemina wrote: My response: if you are traveling abroad, say on a medical mission or an extended cruise, there is no way to provide any alternate address, and furthermore, in such circumstances I would certainly argue that your HOME address would not change.

The particular circumstances do matter, of course. Some have more obvious implications than others. Some negatively. Some positive or at least understandable. Except for the problems attendant how short CIC's notice has been for some, and the consequences for failing to appear at a scheduled event, sure, it is not as if a musician on tour for six weeks in Europe will need to report a "change of address" to CIC. Common-sense does matter. But appearances also matter and that works in both directions.

Thus, first a warning of sorts: when dealing with governmental agencies, with bureaucracies in government in particular, it is almost never good to be in a position based on what is arguable. In fact, it is usually not good to be in any position where an explanation will make a difference.

Bureaucracies tend to interpret things pursuant to their policies, practices, and operational instructions, and the fact that a person can explain, let alone argue, why there should be a different interpretation, has little impact. Often there is no practical opportunity to communicate the explanation or argument in a way that it will actually be considered. Moreover, the law of inertia applies big time to bureaucratic processes: once something is decided it has powerful momentum, and changing anyone's mind, changing the direction things are headed, is a seriously uphill battle.

This is not peculiar to CIC. Nor Canadian bureaucracies. This is virtually universal. It is part of what gives the term "bureaucracy" bad connotations. This is rooted in the policy, practice, and rule dominated decision-making architecture of bureaucratic processes, which is deemed necessary to avoid a range of things abhorred by bureaucratic administrations: inconsistent results and increased workloads -- the more attention there is to individual, personal judgment-based assessment, the more time and effort there is involved and the more need there is for resource-draining supervision/review.

This is a big part of what many decry as "incompetency" at CIC. But, in reality, it is inherent in this sort of processing, particularly in relation to something given a great deal of weight, as Canadian citizenship is.

So appearance counts. And context matters in the appearance of things. I doubt that a person who was abroad for just six weeks, leaving just before the end of June, returning early in August, will find CIC all tense and focused on that applicant not having reported residence in that other place for the month of July.

Moreover, we have seen many reports from the test/interview in the last several months that CIC officers are barely interested in post-application stamps in the passport (you cite CP 5 Residence, and pursuant to that this was an area of focus prior to the procedures implemented in the wake of OB 407). This, however, does not indicate this is totally off CIC's radar now.

Which brings the discussion back to context: for many applicants CIC has few if any concerns, and the interview is perfunctory, if the person is who the person has purported to be, all is well. In contrast, if CIC has some questions, some hint of concern, there is likely to be a closer examination of any or all aspects of things, including stamps in the passport indicating travel after the date of applying.

Many here want hard and fast rules applied in the same exact way to everyone. That is not the way it works. In just about any process. The . . . if this . . . then this, but if that, then this other . . . variations are many, many, many.

Some here, for example, will cite the report of an individual who had already been given notice for the oath, but who upon advising CIC (at the test event) that he had travel plans and needed to reschedule the oath, was given RQ, the oath cancelled. I am quite certain that how this goes for someone in a similar situation is not necessarily how it went for that applicant. It will almost certainly be affected by context and other circumstances. The risk is certainly there. (And so far as I am aware, whenever CIC gives notice of the oath, it is in their typical conditional format, and particularly if the notice is given before the actual test or interview, it is in a format along the lines of IF then you are scheduled to attend the oath ceremony . . . ) But how big a risk that is I am confident varies from one applicant to another, from one set of circumstances to another.

Taking this back to the question about absences for more than a calendar month and whether or not the applicant has to report to CIC the change of address for such a brief period: again, I doubt that CIC is policing this in a severe or draconian fashion, and particularly so for what are in fact temporary stays abroad and the applicant does not miss any scheduled event (test or interview in particular). In such instances I don't think a month or even three abroad, no report to CIC about a change in address, is likely to be problematic. But, if CIC takes notice, how it goes then will depend on context, other circumstances, and appearance.

Being able to explain or argue a legitimate reason after the fact is not likely to be of much help once someone at CIC has already made a negative inference, such as that the applicant is concealing information or the applicant has continuing residential or employment ties indicating the applicant's life has actually been centralized abroad.

Therein lies the danger. This is not an on/off switch issue. This is not the realm of definitive cause-and-effect. This has a lot more to do with the assessment of credibility and whether there are reasons to question the applicant's declared residency.