Residency Questionnaire Recipients Action Plan

RQ numbers may not be up so much as some think.

It is hard to discern, but there are plenty of signs that the number of applicants applying with less than 1095 days of actual presence is down considerably . . . largely due, I think, to the word getting out through legitimate consultants, lawyers of course, community groups, and forums like this, over the course of the last two-three years, that CIC has gotten strict about the actual presence test and that RQ timelines are inordinately, oppressively long and to be avoided.

An aspect of how large the surge in RQ was last year is that many of those who, under the prevsious process, would not have gotten RQ until very late in the year or into this year, until they had attended the test and interview in the routine course of things, got RQ in the late spring, summer and fall of last year. If, for example, the specific criteria upon which RQ is imposed remained precisely the same (it didn't of course), the approximate number of RQs in 2012 would have nearly doubled (gone up at least 150%)) from previous years, since the issuance of RQ 8 to 12 months sooner in the process accelerated the imposition of RQ, compressed the timeline for issuing RQs. This would not constitute an overall increase in the percentage of applicants given RQ, just a temporary increase due to the transitional period accelerating when, in the process, RQ was imposed.

But the criteria employed does appear to have expanded. So, yes, probably, we can guess the total number of RQs is increased, and will constitute a higher percentage of applicants going forward (unless the reduction in the number of applicants applying with less than 1095 days actual presence is enough to offset this). And while we cannot reasonably extrapolate definitive numbers from reports of RQ in forums like this, the number of such reports is sufficient to at least indicate confirmation of this, that the sweep of RQ has increased and that the number of RQ'd applicants has increased probably to a greater extent than just that due to acceleration in when, timewise, RQ is imposed. Still, the extent of this is mostly uncertain.

I think this is a realistic, practical view about what is really happening. I may be wrong, probably am wrong in some respects, but I think this is mostly in the ballpark.

It is worth noting that there was an apparent increase in late 2010 and well into 2011 time frame as well, when CIC started giving RQ to virtually all applicants (or so it seemed) who had worked abroad since landing as a PR in Canada, no matter how many days their residency calculation indicated they were actually present.   

Recgonizing that the likelihood of CIC imposing RQ to harass legitimate, qualified applicants for no reason other than to delay their citizenship application, is highly remote, is not idealistic. And the idea that CIC is intentionally engaged in a policy of obstructing or harassing qualified applicants is controverted by the fact that CIC continues to process, through the testing and oath, thousands of applicants on an average every week without imposing RQ, and that they are doing this despite the difficulties of implementing new and additional procedures.

That, however, is a far, far cry from an ideal place. I have no delusions about how ideal Canada is, or CIC. I have been around the block a few times in my life, seen enough horror and suffering to keep me awake nights (leading me to get up at strange hours and visit my computer and this place too often). I understand that bias and prejudice have far too great an impact on people's lives even in a country which makes a concerted effort, as I believe Canada does, to minimize such discriminatory oppression. And I understand that this infiltrates CIC, as much as it does many government bodies even in the best-intentioned systems.

No, Canada is not ideal. (Far better than the U.S. say, but not ideal.) No, the process is not ideal. CIC is a far cry from being ideal. As I have said before, part of why I make a concerted effort to counter the hyperbolic distortions here is that things are bad enough as they really are, including the timeline for the most routine citizenship case, without efforts to paint them far worse than they really are; so I make an effort to offer a more sincere, honest perception about how the process works and what applicants can anticipate.

As for whether or not there was much of an increase of interest in RQ prior to 2012 I have no idea (I was interested then and following it closely) . . . but I do not, would not, extrapolate from such vague concepts as "interest" how many people were getting RQ. I just observed, at the time, in paying as much attention to this stuff then as I do now, that there was an increasing number of reports of RQ for reasons other than falling short of 1095 days actual presence, and that a large share of those reports were indicating visas, residence, or work in countries other than Canada as the probable reason for the RQ.

I suspect the latter netted some, might one say interesting results, and probably was among things which influenced CIC to expand their criteria for imposing RQ. Unfortunately, the utilization of such expanded criteria inherently will net, so to say, more totally legitimate, qualified applicants than it will the unqualified, let alone those actually attempting to game the system. The impact of this is harsh, given the inconvenience and intrusive nature of RQ, and particularly so given the oppressive timeline it entails.

But, again, the reality is difficult enough, in many ways harsh enough, that I have made a concerted effort to counter the hyperbolic distortions, the claims that RQ applicants must submit "tons" of documents for example, the fear-mongering insinuations that nearly everyone will get RQ for another, along with the nearly constant drumbeat of gratuitous insults aimed at people who are mostly ordinary office workers trying to do a difficult job.

Wael55: Thanks for the personal attack dpenabill. Just to give you an idea, my RQ situation has been dragging for almost the past three years. It is only by accident that I found out about this forum and another one just last week. Now let me ask you a question, how many do you think are in the same situation that I am in and who do not know about these forums. I need your honest answer if you know how to master one. You based the total number of RQ recipients on how many people registered on one forum or another? are you serious? Can you, with all confidence tell me that these forums are a true reflection of the the number of RQ recipients?

If you read my post you understand that I have already said, with quite a lot of emphasis, that no, there is no way to know how many people have gotten RQ based on what is seen in reports in the forums. Especially since there is so much exaggeration, so many duplicate posters, and other distorting information in the forums.

Wael55: As for you accusing me of bullying (even though you just did the exact same thing against me), am I being a bully when I say that a Citizenship officer, who decides who gets an RQ and who doesn't, should have solid knowledge of her clients stateless status especially when there are many UN references relating to that? If anyone in Canada should be well rounded about clients' previous national status and different classes of travel documents and which one is applied to who, it is that particular officer. This officer is the front line. Because of her ill-educated decision, she just handed another RQ false positive to a client who ended up waiting for three years, and possibly more, for him to see justice. This officer goes home and dine with her family and possibly visit her extended family while I am losing the career of my life and denied visiting my mother who I haven't seen since 2001. And I am the bully? Who is the bully here? The one who protests CIC officer's stupidity which resulted in him being denied basic human rights or the one handing RQs as if it is Christmas gifts? Have some decency for god sake.

This mostly speaks for itself. Point made.

As I said, "ill-educated" and not fully informed are two entirely different things. You say it more bluntly this time, referring to the "officer's stupidity," which even if a totally accurate characterization of one CIC officer does not warrant characterizing CIC officers in general that way.

The fact that the Internet is beseiged with anonymous cowards engaged in abusive, derisive, belligerent, puerile behavior is hardly contestable. Who is among them is fairly well apparent as well.

Wael55: As for my particular case, I am starting to think that you are here just to blindly defend CIC dpenabill! I am but one person who personally knows of 2 RQs (By the, way, they are not members of this forum or any other), if you know anything about probabilities, you would know that is an indication of a gross mishandling.

Two, two cases of RQ, and you assert that is an indication of gross mishandling? The burden of proof is clearly on an applicant, as required in the very same Act that applicant is trying to get the Minister to enforce the requirements of, and even though no reason at all is necessary for CIC to request additional information and documentation, the fact that you know of two cases personally does not, not by a long shot, indicate gross mishandling.

The fact the applicants can prove they are legitimate, and qualified, is not relevant: the burden of proof is on them, if and when CIC requests, and technically they are not qualified unless and until they have made their case to the Citizenship Judge. That's the law. Not CIC policy. Actually CIC policy is to let the majority of applicants slip through more easily. They only impose what the law requires on those applicants for who CIC has questions or concerns, although they can require any applicant to provide the additional information and documentation necessary to meet the burden of proof prescribed by the Act.

No, two instances in which the law is applied as it is written does not evidence gross mishandling.

What was that word you used to describe the CIC officer? There may be an appropriate use for it here in another sense.

Wael55: But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You claim that there are few thousands, right? I will go with that assumption! Let us assume that there are 7000 RQs just for the sake of argument, and let us say that there are 200 working days a year (again for the sake of argument), and let us assume that Ontario alone has 60% of these RQs, and let us assume that Toronto St Clair office has 60% of that, and let us assume that there are 3 officers that are reviewing these files, all what the officers need to do is to review 4.2 files a day for them to go through the whole backlog. Now explain this to me, what justification does CIC has to hold us for 4 years, "assuming that it is First Come, First Served"?

I do not know what justification they have. I do not know that any justification is necessary. They are not "holding up" applications. Applicants given RQ are essentially in a quasi-adjudicatory process. Those things take time. Too long, I agree. But it is what it is and that problem is for policy makers. That's not CIC. Their job is to implement and enforce, not make policy.

Mostly, contrary to the accusations, I am not here to defend CIC. I do not make an effort to justify what CIC does. I try to explain, as best I can discern, what I perceive the process to be and discuss, within the confines of what we know, and what we can reasonably infer from what we know, somethings about the best way to navigate the process.

Individual cases are what they are. Sometimes there are obvious explanations. Sometimes the general principles clearly apply. Not always.

More than a few people are unhappy with the process. So there tends to be some discontent with honest accounts of the process. In this regard I am the messenger in some ways. Sure, I understand, shallow minds (of a sort) tend to shoot the messenger. Indeed, they tend to just want to shoot with little regard for who they target. I am a big boy (around the middle anyway) and well-weathered, I can take it. But the reality remains the reality.

By the way, I do not claim that there are "few thousands" of RQ'd applicants. I emphatically and repeatedly emphasize that I do not know. I do assert that there is no evidence to support hyperbolic claims that there are "thousands upon thousands." And I accept that there are probably thousands of applicants who have been given RQ -- I am not at all sure of this, though I tend to think it is a smaller number than many here claim it is.

I have virtually no idea how local offices in the Toronto area allocate personnel, or how many RQ files a CIC case officer would ordinarily process in a day.

I do know that most indications suggest that those who go beyond the test step and are still designated a "residency case" on a track for a full residency assessment by a Citizenship Judge will probably face a very, very long delay before there is a final decision in their case. For many in this situation that is excessive and as applied to them unfair. That, however, does not mean it was improper, or unfair, or stupid, or otherwise wrong for CIC to do due diligence and make the request for additional information and documentation, to compel the applicant to prove, as required by the Act, qualification for citizenship.

I have been following this stuff very closely for over four years now. I read Federal Court decisions regarding grant citizenship cases. Those are actual cases. Some of those cases are about people who have at various times participated here, so for some I have seen multiple sides of the argument. Sure, over the course of four years I have tended to grow more and more skeptical of those who complain loudly. Some may disagree, but frankly there is good reason for this.

As for the accusation that I blindly defend CIC, try reading back a few hundred posts in topics like the one proving residency. The accusations that I am an apologist for CIC overwhelmingly comes from those who disagree with what I report about what I know and believe about the process, and is not at all a perceptive observation. It is a lot more about not liking what I observe than it is about how accurate my observations are.

I do operate with a couple premises that more than a few here disagree with. Those premises are more than reasonable, though, very much warranted, I am quite sure. One is that among CIC's citizenship division's higher priorities is the processing of citizenship applications as timely as they can, toward getting qualified applicants to the oath. It is a bureaucracy, so they do not do so perfectly. They are beseiged by fraud and by applicants who do not follow instructions and by incomplete submissions and by conflicting information, and they are understaffed, so the way is bumpy and slow. Another premise I operate with is that CIC is currently engaged in the process of adopting, implementing, and adapting to new procedures, the objective of which is to balance maintaining the integrity of Canada's immigration system with its other priority of getting qualified applicants granted citizenship. I have no doubt, they are making an effort to improve the process. Here too, this is clearly imperfect.

Again, I really do not doubt the validity of these premises. I am certain that two cases representing the most egregious deviation from fair process is not going to indicate, let alone prove, that the approach taken toward hundreds of thousands of applicants year in and year out is one that can be characterized as gross mishandling. I have seen some of the worst cases. Some, like the woman whose passport was seized in Kenya and who was denied a return to Canada for months was, indeed, egregious. Those sorts of things happen. It should not happen. Some demand remedies so that things like that will "never happen again," but the more realistic, pragmatic approach is to do what can be done to minimize the egregious failures, to minimize deviations from fair procedure overall.

But imposing RQ is not, by definition, something that is done unfairly. It is simply implementing the Act. I suppose there are those who are so angry they have been inconvenienced by RQ that they think everyone should be. Did I mention puerile attitudes?

Reminder: there is legal recourse for those unfairly deprived of fair process in their application. The burden is still on the applicant, but recourse is available. It is only available, however, based on the merits, and sure, that can be a tough case to make. Those unable to make the case, well, like the prosecutor who fails to make a case against a defendant, the prosecutor cannot (or at least should not) thereafter go on railing about how the defendant was really guilty. That's not the way a system of justice based on the rule of law operates.

On the other hand, we are generally familiar with how rants and accusations operate among anonymous critics on the Internet.

Individuals who are subject to unfair processing can seek recourse through the Federal Court. A lawyer may, however, be able to stir a response through a formal inquiry or something like a notice of claim or intent or such (I do not know how these things are characterized in Canada). There are some indications that some applicants do get results one might say.

Of course, the merits must be strong. If the applicant has any of the identified risk indicators, for example, CIC is not only entitled to scrutinize the applicant thoroughly but is pretty well mandated to do due diligence in doing so. In this event, the timeline becomes way, way long. Unfortunately, this is more a policy matter. It is not at all uncommon for adjudicatory processes to take a long, long time. Bottom-line, if there are articulable risk factors, it is not likely that the applicant will be able to obtain any relief from how long RQ/residency cases are taking these days.

Lawsuits cannot really affect policy. Policy is the province of Parliament.

While I do not know what sort of class-based recourse might be available, I tend to doubt the efficiacy of such an effort. That said, if the timelines for large numbers of qualified applicants given RQ for largely technical reasons, not actual concerns or doubts about their qualifications arising from the particulars of their case, actually are as long as some are asserting they will be, I'd bet some community-based groups and related lawyers will be making efforts, in one way or another, to push for some reform.

I also honestly believe that CIC is making a concerted effort to improve things, including increase efficiency. Naysayers are naysayers. They will dismiss this. But the changes made last year in conjunction with what we can glean from internal CIC communications signal, to me and to any reasonable observer really, that CIC is aware of their problems and making an effort to address them, toward improving the process in many ways including an effort to better manage the timelines.

A real lot, though, depends on the merits. I have no doubt that there are many given RQ for whom there are, or should not be, any particular, substantive concerns regarding their case, but to be frank, my strong sense is that the majority of RQ'd cases do have, indeed, substantive risk factors which, unfortunately, means the longer, more thoroughly scrutinized process even though in the end they are qualified. Unfortunately, some of those risk factors are incidental to modern life, like those who continue to have extensive ties abroad, those who for this or that reason have worked abroad since becoming a PR, or those who for whatever reason have been abroad for an extended time since applying. These are just examples of things that will elevate the scrutiny, increase the timeline, and for which there is probably no recourse, no avenue available to compel CIC to process such cases more quickly. It is what it is.

I still say the following:

Edited by Wael55 - 08 Jan 2013 at 11:48am