Audit of the Citizenship Program (2.0 Audit Conclusions)

Glimmer wrote: Thanks so much for posting the link for this info.  It sounds like the RQ isn't looked at until just before you are scheduled for the test and the hold is lifted at that time.  As dpenabill suggests, I suppose the purpose of the "BF" function is to put your file in the queue for analysis by an officer, and this could mean RQ files enter the "queue" to be reviewed by an officer later than other files.

• CO looked at the response, posted the note and lifted the hold (which would mean that I am now in the queue for test scheduling);
• CO just acknowledged the receipt, posted the note and will look at it later  (my hope is that this is a less likely scenario - as mailroom could do this instead then /acknowledge receipt/). And even in this case I am still hoping the hold is lifted, it is just that CO would complete his/her new pre-interview checklist later.
  

May be you could try contacting the call center and ask them to see what recent events/notes are on your file? When you phrase it like that, they usually don't ask any additional questions (other than - "what type of application is that?") and just go into the system to have a look.

I’ll play the devil’s advocate and take the optimistic guy role vacated by dpenabill in the post above. What if we are overthinking this quite a bit? What if the root causes are only the ones stated in OB 407 & in Citizenship Program Audit report discussed in a different topic?

It appears that CIC had just a few problems:

·         --  Insufficient residency evidence included into the file  (audit finding)

o   Very little documentation was requested upfront, even for cases known to trigger additional scrutiny at local office level

o   Varying review/documentation practices between local offices were creating a lot of breathing space for COs

§  Where additional documentation was requested (via RQ process), COs had an easy way out of actually reviewing the response – by submitting the whole pack to CJ. As their briefing memo was not standardized, their referral (speculation) could theoretically be a one liner: “Residency issues”

§  Anecdotally, one forum member reported being RQd by a CO at test-interview when CO ran out of time prior to scheduled test start and mumbled: “I will let CJ look at this”

§  As per OB 407, some applicants were referred to CJ hearings without actually being interviewed by CO

o   With a very limited number of CJs (who have to review all files and – in their turn – put down some meaningful arguments in their decision), this CO tactic (all of the above) could have been creating serious bottle-necks at CJ level (at least in some offices) and increasing CJs stress and cholesterol levels.

§  With lenient COs, CJs could sometimes choose to play the same game (just check all checkmarks on their checklist to render a decision) and return the file back to CO -> and this goes back to the whole insufficient residency evidence issue.

New process:

• Requests evidence upfront for cases that may have problems based on whatever metrics/flags they use and ensures the evidence is on file prior to CO review and test-interview

• Forces the CO to actually review the evidence and summarize in a standardized short File Review Template and provide a recommendation to CJ

o   I would assume this includes CO assurances (checkmarks) that he/she reviewed all evidence, counted days, matched stamps, asked questions, etc. – something they could previously easily skip doing. And COs can eventually be held accountable for this.

•  Even if there is 4kg of paper on file, CJs now get a nice 1-page summary of RQ response review and won’t need to dive into the details (unless unanswered questions remain / concerns are flagged).

• I can’t imagine them having a separate track for this – this still should fall under a general review of the case by CJ. Which effectively means returning the case to regular processing track (but there is likely a separate queue for cases where unanswered questions remain and hearing is required).

Two other “Rays of Hope”:

• OB 407 states that “all assessment of these forms and tools, including usage, will take place by November 2012” – to make a meaningful assessment, CIC needs to move a considerable number of cases through all phases and get feedback from all parties, so this may actually mean expediting early RQ recipients through all stages

• OB 407 states that “the use of “On-Hold” in GCMS does not necessarily mean the processing of the file has stopped” – which may mean they are still committed to process pre-test RQs in a reasonable time fashion.

timbit_TO wrote: I can't grasp how the requester can possibly make a meaningful appeal, knowing neither what was withheld nor for what reason.

• 16(1)(c)
• 21(1)(b)