Great advice as always!
Question: I have been self employed with a relatively low income. Does this mean RQ is guaranteed?
Also, I applied for urgent processing a few weeks ago and got the usual boilerplate confirmation (“forwarded to the responsible unit for review”) but Scarborough separately also noted that my "file is in queue for review by an officer". Is this standard text or does it mean secondary review?
I'm waiting on LPP months after a delayed background check. As per notes, my LPP are "not started" and my location is still "e-grant test ready" (rather than “review ready” which I expect for LPP in progress). No other relevant info from notes that could give an idea as to why my file is stuck.
Small but important quibble: I make a concerted effort to avoid giving "
advice." Allowing for a few exceptions in addition to some which should be obvious but sometimes needs to be restated out loud, like "
be honest," and "
if in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions." Rather, I try to focus on information that can help those trying to navigate their way, but unsure of this or that, to make decisions for themselves or at least better understand things.
Of course there are some significant gaps in what we know and understand. While much of this is due to inherent bureaucratic fog, some of it is deliberate, given the extent to which certain elements of the process are behind the confidential/secret curtain.
Leading to your queries.
Does self-employment trigger RQ?
Short and current answer: While reporting self-employment PROBABLY elevates the level of physical presence scrutiny, these days it alone is not likely to trigger RQ. So its impact almost certainly depends on a wide range of additional factors. Note, after all, not all self-employment is created equal. (Similarly for "
unemployment," for example.) It readily appears that, currently, processing agents are assessing whether to question presence (that is, impose some degree of RQ-related non-routine requests) based on multiple factors considered in conjunction, comparing and contrasting facts and circumstances, with the applicant's travel history and margin of presence over the minimum perhaps looming large. The relatively low incidence of RQ these days suggests IRCC has raised the bar, in terms of what triggers RQ, considerably; for some time now it has appeared that the most at risk for RQ-related non-routine processing are applicants who, after applying, have relocated abroad or otherwise have extended absences.
Caveat: for more than a decade now the criteria employed in screening applicants has been confidential/secret. Over the years we have had access to some internal documents revealing clues about the criteria, and of course the underlying rationale for this or that criteria remains largely the same as when there was an appendix to an operational manual (CP - 5 Residence) that specified "
reasons-to-question-residency," so those who pay attention and do the homework still have some insight into what risks RQ, even though we do not know the precise criteria for certain (at one point, for example, submitting recently issued identification with the application automatically triggered RQ; this is almost certainly not the case now and we don't know to what extent this is even a factor at all anymore).
Some history: There was a period of time when it was certain that self-employment was an automatic trigger for RQ. That was a decade and a year ago. 2012 to be precise, pursuant to revised procedures that were adopted in May that year. That was when we had access to a leaked copy of the File Requirements Checklist listing the so-called "
triage" criteria, previously and otherwise known as "
reasons-to-question-residency." And things like being unemployed, self-employed, or employed as a "
consultant," were indeed automatic triggers for RQ. That had a big impact. For a time that was triggering RQ for more than one in four applicants, and the burden that imposed just about shut down processing applications. Routine processing timelines went from 8 to 12 months, to nearly two years, and non-routine processing timelines approached 3 to 4 years, sometimes more.
Many of us suspected that when Harper's government increased the minimum physical presence requirement to four years, with no credit for any time in Canada before becoming a PR, part of their motivation was to in effect get a year of almost no new applications, giving CIC (as it was then titled) an opportunity to catch-up on the massive backlog that had been created. Well, that and the Conservatives generally tend to implement more severe hurdles for immigrants than other political parties in Canada.
In the meantime, though, ATI requests (not to be confused with ATIP requests) were generating responses revealing internal communications indicating revisions to the triage criteria, recognizing that those adopted in May, 2012, were excessive. But since then it has been difficult to dig this information out from behind the confidential/secret curtain.
Is there a relationship between income and RQ-related processing?
This is a more difficult to answer question, in part because obviously it can be a significant factor, but in larger part Canada seems to do a good job
NOT discriminating on the basis of income or wealth. That is, there is no indication that things go more smoothly for higher income applicants than low income applicants, at least not systematically. On the other hand, if and when IRCC is taking a closer look at an applicant's history, circumstances, and physical presence, there are many factors which can be related to the applicant's financial circumstances which can influence how things go. The paper and digital trail of activity left by those with higher paid employment and financial standing tends to be more substantial than, for example, students living on shoe-string budgets or individuals getting by with a patchwork of low-paid employment. Just the continuity and definiteness of place of residence, for example, can be a significant factor.
BUT . . . this is when IRCC is taking a closer look at an applicant's history, circumstances, and physical presence, which seems it does NOT do for most qualified applicants. So for most applicants there should be minimal if any influence due to the applicant's financial standing.
Leading to what underlies many of the questions similar to those you ask . . . how does an applicant know (short of actually getting RQ-related non-routine requests) if and when IRCC is taking a closer look at their physical presence? This will not show up in what IRCC gives the applicant in response to ATIP requests. This is very much in that range of things which we do not know but which, at least often if not usually, is not too difficult to guess, roughly guess anyway. Applicants who are living abroad and who take the knowledge test online from abroad should not be surprised, for example, when their application does not proceed on the same timeline as most others.
Main thing re factors like income: Context. IRCC processing agents are not nearly so dense as oft times portrayed in this forum. They've seen a few immigrants applying for citizenship. They are familiar with patterns and trends. And just a few details about our lives, with travel, address, and employment history looming large, reveal a lot more about who we are, the lives we live, than many seem to recognize. Far from perfectly, but more than many apprehend, IRCC can spot incongruities. It should be no surprise that IRCC will sometimes spot and probe a PR maintaining a large family in an affluent neighbourhood, whose employment history raises an obvious question about how does he do it? Way too many potential scenarios indicating some incongruity in the applicant's whole picture to try enumerating examples.
The take-away should be comforting, reassuring: those who are qualified, honest, not gaming-the-system, have almost nothing to worry about. And even if they get some level of RQ-related questioning, it should be easily resolved, NO PROBLEM. The vast, vast majority of qualified applicants will encounter minimal non-routine processing.
Urgent Processing -- Well, that's a different beast:
A request for urgent processing could be why the file is in queue for review. Or . . . don't know.
There is not anywhere near enough credible reporting about who actually gets urgent processing, who does not, to discern reliable parameters regarding who gets it, when, or why. What we do know is that meeting the criteria for which IRCC might expedite an application nowhere near guarantees it will.
Meanwhile, I am no fan of micro-monitoring the progress of routinely processed applications, or even those subject to the less-disruptive types of non-routine processing. I'll leave discussion about potentially "
being stuck" for another topic, another time.
