Tell me your RQ consequences!
Printed From: Canada Immigration and Visa Discussion Forum
Category: Canada Immigration Topics
Forum Name: Canadian Citizenship
Forum Description: Commentaries outlining important issues in acquiring Canadian citizenship through naturalization
URL: https://secure.immigration.ca/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11920
Printed Date: 02 Jul 2024 at 10:01am
Topic: Tell me your RQ consequences!
Posted By: eileen
Subject: Tell me your RQ consequences!
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 2:26pm
|
My letter to the Editor of the Montréal Gazette is being picked up for their Monday Letter of the Day. It will be featured on their website and in print. http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Letter+Citizenship+applicant+caught+bureaucracy/8083645/story.html As part of this I have a live radio interview on CJAD 800 with Aaron Rand at 4:30pm on Monday. The clip will be posted on the Gazette website and on CJAD's podcasts. This is a chance for us to communicate the actual harms caused by RQ to the wider public, not just amongst ourselves. Please msg me your experiences. I want to be able to communicate about the verifiable challenges caused by the RQ. Not hearsay or rumours. Has anyone been left without a passport from their home country (de facto statelessness) because they have ongoing permanent residence in Canada? Has anyone been denied promotions because of difficulty and expense traveling to the US because of lack of CDN passport? Has anyone been unable to get government jobs because of preference for hiring citizens? Other dire consequences of RQ? Thanks! Eileen Finn http://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com/ |
Replies:
Posted By: dpenabill
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 4:29pm
For clarification: This is misleading. This conflates the issuance of RQ to verify residency with suspicion of fraud. Suspicion of fraud is not the only reason, probably not the more common reason even, for issuing RQ. In fact, there are different hearing types for "residency issues" versus "possible residence fraud" cases. In particular, RQ can be issued for fairly technical reasons. For example, the C1 risk indicator in the File Requirements Checklist will trigger RQ if the applicant submits, with the application, an ID issued within three months of applying -- as of last summer anyway this applied even if the ID was issued in a renewal. These are just clues CIC utilizes to guide CIC in deciding which applicants will be asked to submit further information and documentation regarding residency, to verify when the applicant actually established residency and the duration such residency was maintained. No suspicion of fraud necessary and not the issue for most RQ'd applicants. Among other relatively technical reasons RQ is issued: self-employment (my situation) or unemployment (affects a large number). See File Requirements Checklist triage criteria for others. ------------- Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions. BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
Eileen Finn wrote:Posted By: SK
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 4:35pm
And all these risk indicators are called " risk indicators" becuase ......they trust you and want to get more information to trust you more.....well they are called risk indicators becuase CIC assess that such cases have a higher probability of " FRAUD"..........at the end of of it all all this additional scrutinty is to validate and check the data on your application that the applicant claims to weed out fraudsters..
|
Posted By: eileen
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 4:36pm
|
For clarification:
This is misleading. This conflates the issuance of RQ to verify residency with suspicion of fraud. Suspicion of fraud is not the only reason, probably not the more common reason even, for issuing RQ. In fact, there are different hearing types for "residency issues" versus "possible residence fraud" cases. I understand what you are saying, but I the underlying reason for all these more technical triggers for RQs (ie new ID issued 3 mo. or less before) is suspicion of fraud. Self employment indicates that it would be easy to live elsewhere and thus be fraudulent in your declaration of residency. |
Posted By: RQ2012
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 5:10pm
|
Might not be able to sponsor my parents if new rule says only citizen can sponsor. ------------- St clair office--Applied June2011--test date Apr 2012-- RQ Dec2012--RQ submitted Jan2013 |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 5:58pm
|
It is not only fraud, CIC also wants to make sure that there are no genuine errors. Maybe someone doesn't know the law. Maybe someone genuinely applied for citizenship after 100 days of residence thinking they still qualify. CIC must be able to interprete this and rule accordingly.
|
Posted By: Spellbound
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 7:34pm
|
The Federal Government prefers citizens. When I arrived in Canada back in 2008, I was applying for various positions at the Federal Governemnt, and they invited me to write a test. Here is an abstract from their e-mail response to me (it was back in 2009, when I was ineligible to apply for citizenship yet): Dear candidate:
The written exam is designed to assess the following merit criteria: You will be required to bring the following to the written exam:
|
Posted By: SK
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 7:49pm
And they want to be sure about these errors with select few out of thousands of apps they receive....I am out I can only argue logic....
|
Posted By: vefabuyuk
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 8:57pm
Disregard this and share with eileen your experiences
------------- From the Phillipines. In Canada since 2003. Architect. Landed in 2008 March. |
Posted By: Glimmer
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 10:34pm
|
I have another way the delay in citizenship is affecting us. My spouse's mother tongue is French but as a non-citizen he does not have French language education rights under the Constitution to enrol our child in a French public school. If he was a citizen he would have a right to do the enrollment no questions asked and we would not have to go through a special permission process. It caused us a lot of worry since we had hoped he would already be a citizen by now or at least before school begins in September. The school in our neighbourhood is very full and priority goes to those with rights to enrol. |
Posted By: rony69341
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 10:37pm
| I am about to adopt an infannt who is a Canadian citizen. This child has until now been in the foster care system. I find it interesting that they "trust" me enough to adopt a Canadian citizen (or at least I am good enough to do so), but then CIC makes it so difficult and/or more time consuming to get through the citizenship application process. I often wonder about the risks I may encounter when I travel abroad with my son to visit family and friends. Bureaucracy at it's best! Sigh... |
Posted By: Kdd77
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 11:42pm
|
Missed a wedding in the US, vacations with friends to Mexico, Spain and some other places that requires visa, every time i tell them, next time i should have no problems. They no longer invite me to venture with them, i get the "poor-little-thing" look instead. People ask me all the time, did you get your citizenship yet? i no longer get asked that question anymore, it makes me really upset + I'm sick and tired of calculating every single move i have to make... they said it will take time? Fine,,, its taking way too long, I want to rest my head and get this nightmare over with. ------------- Status: serving the RQ sentence... Time: Unknown |
Posted By: allyp
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 9:26am
| What about the mental and emotional stress this never ending timeline has caused. Why should we be victimized for no fault of ours. When the RQ was given, the letter accompanying the RQ said the reply will be in 12 to 18 months. Suddenly CIC office has started quoting 48 months. It is already 14 months from my RQ submission, but CIC has not even started reviewing it. Why ? Lack of resources, increase man power... lack of budget ..... increase the fees, but do not keep us waiting like that. Nobody like un certainties and here I have no answer when I will get my citizenship. |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 1:50pm
Moreover, PRs can travel to Mexico without a visa regardless of passport. Moreover, Spain easily issues visas to Canadian PRs unless they are on welfare. So it is only your fault that you missed these opportunities in US, Mexico and Spain. This has nothing to do with citizenship. |
Posted By: SK
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 2:09pm
Yeah and it is also your fault to expect anything from the country you call home , pay taxes and live in that is suppose to be a democracy......so stop whining and suck up.....live with what u r dealt with .... :-(( (*sarcasam in case you missed it)...
|
Posted By: Kdd77
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 4:01pm
That is true, it is partly my fault. You dont know me, you dont know where i come from and the screening THEY do to issue us visas! And the issue is, i have been waiting for the citizenship oath invitation that could happen at anytime. It could be next month and i could have the Canadian passport in my pocket in 6 weeks from today. Book a flight at any given day and go! Not having a clear timeline for RQ is a huge problem and i personally refuse to send my passport and other documents to get visas and wait etc.... I'm tired of filling documents, paying fees, wait for maybe yes, maybe no. Not to mention the treatment WE get in the US and other foreign countries. Want me to tell you what happened to me in 2003 at JFK? Just because of my country of origin? I will not go to the US without a Canadian passport PERIOD and to any other part of the world. ------------- Status: serving the RQ sentence... Time: Unknown |
Posted By: Spellbound
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 6:05pm
| Another consequence of not being a citizen because of RQ is that you would have to renew your PR card. It costs money - the application fee, and the passport has to be translated by a certified translator. It is all money and effort. |
Posted By: Mary Chad
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2013 at 10:44pm
I totally agree with @vefabuyuk we should disregard the "obvious" and help Eileen with points...Btw Eileen will be mailing you some points via email... Keep up the good work..i will be tuned  |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2013 at 3:34pm
Again, Canadian citizenship is about your rights in Canada. Not about your rights to go to USA. USA can introduce visas to Canadians any day. Will you also complain about Canada? Will you start shopping for "yet another better" passport? If you want the freedom of going to the USA, how about moving to the USA and becoming an American citizen. Looking at other To make a long story short, if you refuse to ask USA to let you in (be it in the consulate or at the border), you should not be complaining about Canada as it is you who is creating obstacles for yourself here. As someone who dealt with arranging work visas for hundreds of employees in my own organization, including nationals of countries who statistically get some of the highest levels of scrutiny worldwide, I am not in position to believe all these tales that one particular passport makes you so strongly unwanted in other countries. Been there, done that, know how much more whining it is than it is truth. I am sorry that I cannot support you in your complaints. It is for your own good in the first place to understand that your life is your and only your responsibility, and you have no entitlement to require USA to let you in or to require Canada to make USA let you in. And to avoid any misunderstanding, I wish that everything works well for you. What I discuss here is just your reasoning on this specific topic.
Stop whining and take responsibility for your life - that's the best advice that can be given to people who are prone to whining. No illusions - no disappointments.
|
Posted By: Kdd77
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2013 at 4:59pm
I do understand its about my rights in Canada. We're talking about personal consequences here but you choose to go off topic to show some smarts and look all patriotic and good in a cyber world that doesnt care! You can do that on Facebook! but hey, i guess some choose to do it on here for the anonymity. The major difference between PR's and citizens is the right to vote. Since you made it look like you're ONLY in it for the "right" to vote, the next federal election is in around mid 2015. thats about 30 months from today,,, lets add that to your timeline and STOP complaining about RQ. I assure you the first thing you'll do after the citizenship ceremony, is apply for your Canadian passport. Just ask yourself, would the Canadian passport make any difference in your personal life? No BS!! As we all know, an RQ'ed applicant is on the verge of being a new Canadian citizen at any given time, I refuse to send my current passport to any embassy at this point, that could be held for 2 weeks to up to 3 months to issue a VISA, I could get an invitation to either a oath ceremony or a hearing with a CJ during that time, not worth it. And you are RIGHT i created obstacles for myself, as i mentioned, from previews experiences crossing borders with the passport i currently have, it is nightmarish to even think about, its a justified phobia, you wouldn't understand unless you are from where i am from! Isn't it one of the RIGHTS as a Canadian citizen to have a Canadian passport and have the freedom to be able to go anywhere, anytime just like any other Canadian citizen? RIGHT? ------------- Status: serving the RQ sentence... Time: Unknown |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2013 at 6:32pm
|
I will try to answer your questions: I assure you the first thing you'll do after the citizenship ceremony, is apply for your Canadian passport. Just ask yourself, would the Canadian passport make any difference in your personal life? No BS!! It is unlikely that this would be the first thing that I will do, although it is of course possible. Anyway, as much as I am looking forward to becoming a citizen of Canada, I don't think that it will change my personal life much. For me, the most important practical aspect of Canadian citizenship would be the convenience to accept long-term international secondments without affecting my potential ability to return to Canada. In my line of work, it is not uncommon to send someone to set up business operations somewhere in Japan or Africa for 5 years or so. Currently I am not willing to consider such secondments because I do not want to risk any residence-related issues (but please note that unlike many on this forum, I neither complain about this nor say that it's the fault of Canada), and this generally does not affect my career progression much. My value for the business is not determined by my ability to travel somewhere. I recognize that on emotional level, Canadian citizenship will give me a feeling of ultimate connection with the country where I live, and I think this will affect my feelings about my personal life in a positive way. While this is important, I don't see how this will objectively change my personal life, as in how happy I will be, where I will shop for grocery and things like that. So to conclude my answer, I do not think that Canadian passport will change my personal life much. PS So that you don't feel that my answer is artificially biased just for the sake of argument, I will give you examples of events that did change my personal life much. 1. At one point in my life, I lived and worked in a country where I was on a work permit linked to one particular employer, while my family were all on dependent visas (no right to work). Potential termination of employment would mean "pack your stuff and get out of the country within 3 days". When restriction to one employer was lifted, that was a big change. 2. Getting PR status in Canada. Apparently this changed a lot because I moved to Canada after becoming a PR. These events had much more bearing on my personal life than Canadian citizenship will, or so I think anyway. Isn't it one of the RIGHTS as a Canadian citizen to have a Canadian passport and have the freedom to be able to go anywhere, anytime just like any other Canadian citizen? RIGHT? No and no. 1. It is the royal prerogative to issue a passport to a Canadian citizen, and at least one case is well-documented where a Canadian cannot obtain a passport for security reasons. I am pretty sure there are more cases like that one. You are fooling yourself if you think that Canadian citizenship equals the unconditional right to get a passport. 2. Also, Canadian passport is only a petition for other countries to let the Canadian in. This is no way conveys any right to enter. There are thousands of Canadians who are inadmissible to the United States. Lifetime. Even though they have passports. Every time you present your Canadian passport even to a country with a visa-free arrangement, you are in fact requesting a permission to enter, and it is the decision of border officer of that country - and only of that country - whether to let you in or not. Canada has no say on this matter. So no, Canadian passport only gives you the right to enter Canada. There is nothing in this right about going into other countries.
|
Posted By: dpenabill
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2013 at 6:47pm
|
Clarification: This may be implicit in the discussion, but there are at least some insinuations that Canada is limiting or restricting international travel by PRs, so some clarification is due. Canada imposes NO restrictions, NO limitations at all on the rights of PRs to travel abroad. For purposes of what Canadian law and policy prescribe, there is no difference in the rights to travel abroad between a Canadian citizen and a Canadian PR, except that PRs must, of course, comply with the PR residency obligation, which even PRs who spend most of their time abroad can still meet, the standard being very liberal (40 percent of time in Canada). Any and all restrictions on a Canadian PR's rights to travel abroad are based on the laws and policies in countries other than Canada: the laws and policies of the country issuing the passport the PR carries, and the country to which travel is sought. That the right to travel internationally is governed not by Canada so much as it is by countries other than Canada remains true after one becomes a Canadian citizen as well. The U.S., for example, has (in the past anyway, not sure about current U.S. policy), treated some naturalized Canadian citizens differently, in terms of restrictions and requirements for entering the U.S., based on the individual's country of birth. On the other hand, U.S. law and policy still make it criminal for a U.S. citizen to travel to Cuba, without authorization from the U.S., even if the U.S. citizen is also a Canadian citizen and carrying a Canadian passport. It should go without saying: of course no one has a right to a Canadian passport unless and until they become a citizen, until they have properly taken the oath of citizenship. This clarification is not intended to be a comment about the nature or extent of any incidental effect due to a delay in citizenship processing; the point of the clarification is simply a reminder that the cause for restricted travel rights is not due to Canadian law or policy, but is controlled by the laws and policies in other countries. ------------- Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions. BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
Posted By: eileen
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2013 at 9:29am
|
Thanks to all who contributed to this conversation. I have my interview today at 4:30pm on CJAD800 in Montreal. I really appreciate knowing more about people's specific situations (on this thread and through private messages). It is a very short interview, so I will not be able to do everything justice, but I will do my best to voice our concerns while keeping a clear and accurate message for those who know little of CIC and RQs. I really want to encourage more people to write letters to the editor and letters to their MPs. Qualified residents deserve a fair and timely path to citizenship, and we deserve to have our voices heard. I am free to edit or proofread anyone's letters. Just send me a message. Eileen |
Posted By: freedom10
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2013 at 1:25pm
| Agreed |
Posted By: Rqcadet
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2013 at 2:09pm
I share freedom10's comments!!!!! Very good concise response. Best of Luck Eileen!!! I know we all can make it!!!!! 
|
Posted By: Mary Chad
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2013 at 2:21pm
|
Agree freedom 10... Good luck Eileen Listen live online http://www.cjad.com/player.aspx I will be posting podcast link later today on twitter |
Posted By: Engo
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2013 at 2:39pm
|
Well said freedom10 and good luck Eileen. |
Posted By: eileen
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 10:30am
|
Here is the link to my 18 March interview on CJAD with Aaron Rand. I wish we could have continued for another 30 minutes! There was so much more I wanted to say, mostly about the emotional toll of the Residence Questionnaire. And the implications of the CIC's "broad brush" approach of withholding the rights of qualified longtime residents indefinitely in their efforts to root out the approx. 1-4% of us who may actually be fraudulent. The frustration of having no legitimate, timely, foreseeable recourse to clear our names from essentially secret accusations. http://snd.sc/Yotzen - http://snd.sc/Yotzen He told me that I should keep in touch, so depending on how our cases and the overall citizenship backlog progresses, there may be opportunity for a follow-up. Again, I encourage all who are affected by this to write to their MPs and write letters to the editor. If anyone would like me to proofread or edit (if English isn't your first language), I am happy to do so. |
Posted By: Glimmer
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 11:01am
I just listened to it. Excellent interview and thank you for your efforts to bring attention to this issue! |
Posted By: Dolce Vita
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 11:03am
| Great interview! Thank you. |
Posted By: Mary Chad
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 12:11pm
|
Thank you Eileen for your efforts I am working on letter to editor For TS will mail you a copy first |
Posted By: The King
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 3:46pm
|
Freedom, Let me say ,a big "THANK YOU" from me and my family to you for your post. Those are the exact words I always think of when it comes to this whole Can Citizenship fiasco. I cannot comprehend how a government agency can be so incompetent and with no oversight and gets away with this type of treatment towrds immigrants more precisely future citizens. Personally I am so saddened and frustrated at this point that me and my wife are thinking of moving to somewhere else like AUS if nothing happnens by the end of this year. And I know some will argue that cic dont care if one family like me leaves forever, but let me remind those, this would be loss for Canada not me, we are very educated young couple with one child, I am an aspiring entreprenuer..my spouse holds a MS, My daughter is Canadian born 2.5 year old, she could have been a great asset for the society.so Canada will lose a lot, a lot of tax money at the least..and I am sure I am not alone thinking this way. We expected better treatment. All we asked for is a timely process. Dont mind opening up our lives to them by sending 1000s pages RQ docs but process it already..And I dont have to justify why we want Canadian citizenship. We have fulfilled all the requirements according to the law so why we need/want citizenship/passport argument is nonsense. Lastly I would like to thank you Eileen for your efforts and it was an excellent interview. But like I said I have no condifence in this adminsitration anymore and I think nothing will happen under Kennys direction. Thank you..GOd bless Canada!
|
Posted By: Dan_The_Man
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 4:11pm
Moving to another country means that you have to start the immigration process all over again. At the minimum, it will take you five to six years to become a citizen of the new country! Do you have enough patience and perseverance to go through that experience once again? |
Posted By: SARABC
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 6:44pm
|
I have just listened to the interview… thanks so much for doing this on our behalf. Let's hope somebody listens! Sarah ------------- Applied Feb7th,2012 (Family of 4) In Process Oct4th,2012 Husband RQ & finger print November 2012 File separated from husband August 2013 Hubby test Oct. 2013 MY test Dec. 2013 Joint oath March 2014 |
Posted By: Raoul
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 7:21pm
|
I just listened to your interview. Great stuff. I haven't been RQ'd (yet), but since I only applied for citizenship two and a half years ago, I guess it's still early in the process for me and anything could happen. Good luck in your efforts. ------------- Application rec'd Aug 3 2010; started processing March 21 2011; transferred to Victoria office April 19 2011; interview Oct 15, 2012; oath April 26, 2013. |
Posted By: vefabuyuk
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 7:28pm
|
Sent the link to CIC. Insanity must come to end. ------------- From the Phillipines. In Canada since 2003. Architect. Landed in 2008 March. |
Posted By: The King
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 8:15pm
|
do you have enough patience and perseverance to go through this emotionally damaging RQ process for 4-6 years? |
Posted By: Raoul
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 9:31pm
If someone applies with only 100 days, CIC doesn't need an RQ to determine that they are not eligible for citizenship. It seems to me that the bottom line is that if you are getting an RQ, it is because CIC suspects you are trying to get away with something dishonest. You can call that whatever you like, but "fraud" seems like a pretty good word to me. ------------- Application rec'd Aug 3 2010; started processing March 21 2011; transferred to Victoria office April 19 2011; interview Oct 15, 2012; oath April 26, 2013. |
Posted By: akella
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 9:46pm
So you are OK with labeling 30% of Vancouver applicants as frauds, along with an unspecified (much higher) number of Montreal applicants? (all based on published memos - stats as of last year) |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 9:49pm
|
Raoul, okay, but how about the following: if you read this forum, many applicants have found out that they applied with less than 1095 days only months or years after the fact. Only after their applications were scrutinized. Or they deliberately applied with less than 1095 days. I guess that many of them will still get their citizenship, after CJ, using their responses to RQ, determines that they met the residence criteria etc. Would you say that all these forum participants tried to commit fraud, or there are cases of genuine mistakes? Would you say that RQ in this case is about the fraud or about (a) determining actual number of days assuming that applicant might have made a mistake and (b) determining if citizenship still can be given if this number is under 1095? |
Posted By: Raoul
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 10:35pm
I'm not saying that any of them committed fraud. What Eileen said was that she is "one of the approximately 28,000 citizenship applicants per year whom Citizenship and Immigration Canada suspects of fraud." And I think that's a fair statement: that the reason people are getting RQs is because the CIC apparently suspects them of fraud. ------------- Application rec'd Aug 3 2010; started processing March 21 2011; transferred to Victoria office April 19 2011; interview Oct 15, 2012; oath April 26, 2013. |
Posted By: Raoul
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 10:39pm
Where would you ever get the idea that I'm OK with that? Of course I'm not OK with it. That's not what I said at all! ------------- Application rec'd Aug 3 2010; started processing March 21 2011; transferred to Victoria office April 19 2011; interview Oct 15, 2012; oath April 26, 2013. |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 10:53pm
But you are denying the following possibility (which is in fact written black on white, I guess, in the RQ letters): CIC is unable to determine whether applicant meets citizenship criteria based on information that the person has provided and the information that CIC has. Unable to determine does not equal suspecting of fraud. If you come and say, I graduated from Harvard, someone might ask: please show me your diploma. Asking for diploma does not necessarily mean that they think you are trying to defraud. Asking for diploma only means that they would like you to prove what you are saying. When highway patrol asks you to produce insurance, they are not automatically suspecting you of fraud. They need to determine that you have insurance. |
Posted By: Raoul
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 10:57pm
|
OK, you win. I'm not on this board to get into flaming contests with other participants. I hope we can with Eileen the best and get on with it. ------------- Application rec'd Aug 3 2010; started processing March 21 2011; transferred to Victoria office April 19 2011; interview Oct 15, 2012; oath April 26, 2013. |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2013 at 11:00pm
| It is okay if we have different opinions. I do not require anyone to agree with me. I am only trying to present my line of thinking. Because I'm not always able to choose the best presentation from the first attempt, I sometimes resort to multiple attempts :) |
Posted By: dpenabill
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2013 at 12:44am
|
Note: there is no fraud if an applicant does not make any material misrepresentations (including by omission) in the application, whether the applicant is eligible for citizenship or not, whether the applicant is qualified to be granted citizenship or not. And remember, there is a distinction between being eligible and being qualified, and many eligible applicants may be determined, by a Citizenship Judge, to not be qualified, no fraud necessary. To be clear: a person who has been a PR for three plus years but who has only been actually present in Canada 100 days is eligible to be granted citizenship and so can apply without commiting fraud. CIC cannot summarily reject such an applicant. Only a Citizenship Judge can determine if such an applicant is qualified or not qualified, whether such an applicant has met the residency requirement or not. (Even prohibitions cases, cases in which Canadian records clearly show that the applicant has been on probation, parole, or incarcerated for more than 365 days during the previous four years, even those cases cannot be summarily denied by CIC but must go to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge.) While 100 days of actual presence is largely unheard of, there are numerous cases of applicants who had been present in Canada a few hundred days. Some of these individuals have been granted citizenship. It is true, in the last several years this government has pushed hard to more strictly apply the physical presence test, and that generally applicants with substantial shortfalls will be denied unless there are exceptional circumstances. But, again, CIC cannot make this call. All they can do is prepare the file for a hearing with the Citizenship Judge and it is up to the CJ to make the decision. Many people confuse being eligible for citizenship with being qualified; anyone eligible can apply and is entitled to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge, no matter how ludicrously futile that may be due to lack of actually establishing a real residence in Canada. It is not fraud to apply if you are eligible and you are truthful in all the facts. Note, for example, that CIC's own rules do not mandate that a case be referred to the Citizenship Judge for a hearing (that is, cannot be referred to the CJ for a file or paper review) unless the shortfall is 195 days -- an applicant who was present 901 days in the four year time frame may, if CIC determines residency is established, be referred to a CJ for a paper review, which means, effectively, to be approved for citizenship (the CJ still has to make that decision). It is also worth noting that there is a difference in the type of hearing that is scheduled for what are possible residence fraud cases versus those designated as residency issue cases. The vast majority of RQ'd applicant are probably not considered to be fraud cases. Even if the case is a credibility concern case, that does not necessarily (and probably usually does not) constitute a suspected fraud case. ------------- Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions. BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
Posted By: dpenabill
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2013 at 12:55am
|
In the previous post I mixed residency shortfall due to being on probation, parole, or incarcerated cases with prohibitions cases. Actually the applicant who was, but is no longer on probation, parole, or incarcerated, is not prohbited, so the issue for such an applicant is whether or not they met the residency requirement. My understanding is that unlike time abroad, which can count toward time being resident in Canada (even though it does not count toward time actually, physically present in Canada), so long as qualitative standards are met (which a CJ has discretion to apply or not), time on probation, parole, or while incarcerated cannot count as time resident in Canada, so the applicant who had such status for more than 365 days in the relevant four years cannot, as a matter of law, meet the residency requirement (cannot be overcome by qualitative residence). Nonetheless, even though Canadian records clearly show an applicant to not be qualified because of time on probation, parole, or incarcerated, CIC cannot summarily reject, deny, or dismiss that applicant's application. It has to go to the Citizenship Judge. Prohbitions cases, as I said in the previous post, also have to go to the Citizenship Judge for a hearing. I gave the wrong example for what a prohibitions case is. Someone who is currently on parole, for example, is prohibited, as is someone who has been issued a Removal Order. CIC cannot summarily deny these applications either. They must go to a hearing with the citizenship judge. (A lot of cases like this, however, result in no-shows anyway.) Bottom-line: there are many, many cases in which an applicant can be or essentially must be denied citizenship, but there is not necessarily any fraud involved. ------------- Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions. BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration |
Posted By: SARABC
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2013 at 1:54am
|
Raoul, I have been following your long journey for a while and I hope that you hear some good news soon. As for being RQ'd all what we are asking for is transparency.CIC needs to give us reasons on why we are being questioned and of course we truly need an approximate time on how long will are cases take to be processed. Is that to much to ask for? Sarah
------------- Applied Feb7th,2012 (Family of 4) In Process Oct4th,2012 Husband RQ & finger print November 2012 File separated from husband August 2013 Hubby test Oct. 2013 MY test Dec. 2013 Joint oath March 2014 |
Posted By: peter95
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2013 at 8:12am
But you are denying the following possibility (which is in fact written black on white, I guess, in the RQ letters): CIC is unable to determine whether applicant meets citizenship criteria based on information that the person has provided and the information that CIC has. Unable to determine does not equal suspecting of fraud. If you come and say, I graduated from Harvard, someone might ask: please show me your diploma. Asking for diploma does not necessarily mean that they think you are trying to defraud. Asking for diploma only means that they would like you to prove what you are saying. When highway patrol asks you to produce insurance, they are not automatically suspecting you of fraud. They need to determine that you have insurance. 1) When Highway patrol ask you to produce any document .............How long he takes to decide that you are innocent 48 MONTHS TO JUST SEE THE DOCUMENTS OR 72 months Problem is not RQ was given problem is 48 months . It happened Because CIC just INVENTED SOME RISK INDICATOR that made us suspected applicants. Some GENIUS PEOPLE SAT TOGETHER & INVENTED THIS FORMULA IF SOME ONE IS SELF-EMPLOYED WITH VACATION GIVE HIM/HER RQ, IF SOME ONE IS THIS OR THAT GIVE HIM/HER RQ THOUGH THAT PERSON HAS BEEN LIVING FOR OVER 1095 DAYS. THIS INVENTORS NAMES MUST BE SEND FOR NOBLE PRIZE.
|
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2013 at 9:44am
|
I think this "formula" is the result of analysis of mistakes and fraud cases, among other. If people did not try to screw the system by leaving Canada on foot to the US and then pretending they were unemployed for four years while living in the same flat with 400 other people, perhaps these risk indicators would not exist. In my opinion the best option would still be to introduce exit controls and mandatory passport stamping for all non-citizens. In the long term this is unavoidable, as global practice suggests, so why delay the inevitable. This would also help with preventing escape of criminals and overstays. Overall it might generate net surplus for the budget.
|
Posted By: RQ2012
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2013 at 11:17am
|
Let's see if SKI plays a different tune once he/she is stuck in RQ for years. ------------- St clair office--Applied June2011--test date Apr 2012-- RQ Dec2012--RQ submitted Jan2013 |
Posted By: vefabuyuk
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2013 at 12:20pm
|
I think the most significant impact of RQ on prospective citizens is the understanding as to how much value we have for Canada. This sums it up. ------------- From the Phillipines. In Canada since 2003. Architect. Landed in 2008 March. |
Posted By: ski
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2013 at 3:26pm
|
Posted By: Rappo
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2013 at 4:14pm
|
The most significant consequence from my point of view is the act of waiting itself. It's like waiting for godot!
------------- Application sent in April, 2011 ... Pre-test RQ received in May, 2012 ... Waiting. |