Observations About the Variables:
The anecdotal reporting shows significant variability in procedures for scheduling the oath when an applicant is known to be abroad or perceived to be abroad. Reported scenarios range from --
-- applicants simply getting notice of the oath being scheduled (so the challenge then is for the applicant to travel to Canada in time for that scheduled oath, or take the risks attendant asking to reschedule the oath),
-- to applicants receiving a variety of notices or requests, most typically oriented to verifying WHEN the applicant will be available to participate in an oath ceremony IN Canada.
For applicants known to be abroad, or perceived to be abroad, it appears the practice in different local offices varies. Some require more information, and some others more extensive documentation, to verify the applicant is either IN Canada or will be returning to Canada.
HOWEVER, since the reporting about related scenarios, oriented to applicants outside Canada for extended periods of time after applying, is at best sporadic, and the particular situations so variable,
the different practices MIGHT depend more on the individual's personal situation.
For sure: the nature and scope of questions, concerns, doubts, or outright suspicions, regarding citizenship applicants,
VARY greatly FROM PERSON to PERSON. This is true for ALL applicants. (For the majority of qualified applicants, including many of those outside Canada after applying, questions beyond those routinely asked are generally minimal or none.)
While many express strong disagreement with me about this, it is apparent such variability is even more pronounced among applicants known or perceived to currently be abroad for extended periods of time. What this means shouldn't be controversial; simply a recognition there is a wide range of additional factors that can affect IRCC's approach, ranging from --
-- almost no difference related to the absence from Canada
-- to various degrees of additional scrutiny, and potentially non-routine processing.
That subject has been addressed at length and in-depth (challenged at length but without much depth) in many other discussions. The long and short of it is that such applicants may be subject to further inquiry and processing, which will be commensurate with the degree of concern or suspicion IRCC has in regards to the individual applicant.
Impact For @Xavier3000
How this affects a particular applicant, such as
@Xavier3000, is complicated and to a large extent speculative. It is one thing to recognize the range of how things can go. Quite another to forecast how it will go for any particular individual. The factors which influence how it goes are many, interactive, and typically include conditional and contingent elements.
There is a very good chance that, as the email specifically states, the local office's request is about verifying availability to participate in an oath ceremony in Canada. No need to overthink the situation.
@Xavier3000 can respond clarifying current location is outside Canada and otherwise respond as I discussed in my previous post. Obviously, it is likely that things will go better and faster if
@Xavier3000 returns to Canada and verifies that with IRCC, but
@Xavier3000 can request IRCC to proceed otherwise (as previously described).
There is some chance that reference to scheduling the oath is template-boilerplate, and there are outstanding questions to be addressed before
@Xavier3000 is scheduled for the oath. If, for example, the situation is that
@Xavier3000 has informed IRCC of a return to Canada, and this email from IRCC was triggered by a concern that is NOT accurate, there is at least an unsettling prospect that IRCC officials could be poised to probe deeper. As I have made a concerted effort to illuminate in many discussions, the nature and scope of further processing can be significantly influenced, in a negative way, if and when IRCC officials get the impression the applicant has been deceptive. Here again this is true for ALL applicants, and almost certainly more so for applicants known to currently be outside Canada for an extended period of time.
Best approach for
@Xavier3000 is still to be sure to communicate with IRCC and clarify information, making sure the information provided to IRCC is accurate and in no way misleading.
That said, this forum is permeated by questions about the extent to which IRCC can verify information or the scope of IRCC's efforts to verify information. Bringing up . . .
I know that in the past IRCC didn't really have access to individuals exit and entry data, but I remember reading somewhere that towards the end of 2019 (2020?) they managed to integrate some of the systems with CBP. I could be remembering wrong though.
Hey mate, there seems to be a typo in your post above, Do you mean CBP or CBSA ?
I will not second-guess the clarification by
@smash1984, that CBSA rather than CBP, was intended. But over the course of the last several years, IRCC access to BOTH entry and exit information for clients has been extensively enhanced through data-management systems coordinating data between CBSA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It warrants noting, nonetheless, that CBSA has been maintaining a travel history of most clients'
entry dates for at least two decades, and IRCC and before that CIC have long had various types of access to this information.
Among the more significant changes is the increased capture and storage of exit information, and the extent to which coordination with U.S. CBP facilitates CBSA, and indirectly IRCC, access to this information for most Canadian IRCC clients.
The extent of access to the information in the particular case varies and is subject to regulations and restrictions governed by the Privacy Act. Some changes have expanded IRCC's more or less direct access. But there have almost always been
for-cause procedures pursuant to which one agency (like CIC/IRCC) can obtain certain private information stored by another (like CBSA) without the client's permission.
For a long time CIC/IRCC asked applicants to give permission to access the individual's CBSA travel history; the application version CIT 0002 (06-2018), for example, included question 14.b) where the applicant's consent was requested. The privacy restrictions at that time limited BUT did not preclude access without consent, and thus even if the applicant did not give consent, IRCC could nonetheless later obtain access to the CBSA travel history, but that would need to meet
for-cause requirements. EVEN NOW not just any IRCC official handling some aspect of the citizenship application can access the applicant's CBSA travel history. There is still a "
need to see" level of
for-cause requirement. But changes to the particular regulations and rules governing privacy, generally, and CBSA and IRCC in particular, have significantly lowered the procedural limitations, effectively expanding IRCC's access.
Looping Back to @Xavier3000 Scenario:
So, regardless of the particular means in which IRCC might verify the applicant's actual arrival in Canada, there is no doubt, IRCC can readily and fairly easily corroborate and thereby verify if a citizenship applicant has in fact returned to Canada. Claiming to return when one has not actually done so would be, well, rather foolish. Fudging information about being abroad is one thing (scores of applicants have successfully masked being abroad by maintaining a Canadian residential address, typically using the address of family or friend). Making an overt and so easily found-out misrepresentation, not just a bad idea (any playing games or fudging is a bad idea), but just plain foolish.
If that is what
@Xavier3000 did, probably no need to worry let alone panic. But clarifying/correcting the information sooner rather than later would be a good idea. No need to elaborate. Just something along the lines:
to clarify, notwithstanding previous plans, I am not currently in Canada. I plan to travel to Canada XXXX (or state plans are indefinite and request scheduling oath anyway, or such). And whatever is said, be HONEST.
REMINDER Re CBSA Travel History; Distinction Between Accuracy and Completeness:
The CBSA travel history is almost always accurate (and any inaccuracies typically minimal). That does NOT mean it is necessarily COMPLETE. Even though in the last many years the CBSA travel history has been very near complete as to ENTRY dates for most PRs, remember that IRCC does NOT rely on the CBSA entry date data to be complete. This is another subject addressed at length and in-depth in other topics, and one in regards to which many forum participants are adamant IRCC policy and practice should be otherwise. Long and short of this subject for purposes of this topic, is that IRCC looks at CBSA travel history information to cross-check the completeness and accuracy of what the citizenship applicant submits; it is almost exclusively a verification check, to assess whether it indicates any reason to question the veracity of the applicant's information.
