Intention to live in Canada during application process

[day2day]

Hi all,

I checked the application form in the previous week (after June 20) and it did NOT have the part "intention" and now I just checked it again and it has this part (intention). They mentioned that the intention to reside in Canada will be effective immediately. Can somebody please clarify this.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi all,

I checked the application form in the previous week (after June 20) and it did NOT have the part "intention" and now I just checked it again and it has this part (intention). They mentioned that the intention to reside in Canada will be effective immediately. Can somebody please clarify this.

It is interesting that there was, apparently, a revised version of the application form briefly available online, but now the form has reverted to the October 2016 version. In conjunction with other reports, it appears IRCC revised the form but perhaps there was a problem with it, and so they have reverted to the older form until they have a proper new form.

I did not get a chance to see the revised version, and I have looked for one a couple times every day.

In any event, there is no intent requirement now. That item in the currently available form is superfluous, of no import.

One could scratch, hand write "N/A" on item 10 in the 10-2016 version of the form, or answer it yes, or perhaps leave it blank (at some risk of having the application returned as not complete, but I'd guess not much risk).

Personally I'd lean toward waiting for the new form to be available online. In the meantime, perhaps make a telephone call to the IRCC help line for clarification about how to respond to this item, in the current form, or to find out if they know when the revised version will be available.

My guess is that this may not be the only part of the form which is changed, and it is usually better to apply with the latest version. Waiting a little longer to apply should be OK, even a good thing, for almost all applicants (recognizing there may be some exceptions in peculiar circumstances).

(edited to correct reference to item 10 in the application form)

 

[_MK_]

I just checked the form. it doesnt have the intent to reside on it.
Perhaps clear your cache or use a different browser.

 

[day2day]

I just checked the form. it doesnt have the intent to reside on it.
Perhaps clear your cache or use a different browser.

Thanks. I checked it with a different browser and it does not have the "intention" part.

 

[day2day]

It is interesting that there was, apparently, a revised version of the application form briefly available online, but now the form has reverted to the October 2016 version. In conjunction with other reports, it appears IRCC revised the form but perhaps there was a problem with it, and so they have reverted to the older form until they have a proper new form.

I did not get a chance to see the revised version, and I have looked for one a couple times every day.

In any event, there is no intent requirement now. That item in the currently available form is superfluous, of no import.

One could scratch, hand write "N/A" on item 10 in the 10-2016 version of the form, or answer it yes, or perhaps leave it blank (at some risk of having the application returned as not complete, but I'd guess not much risk).

Personally I'd lean toward waiting for the new form to be available online. In the meantime, perhaps make a telephone call to the IRCC help line for clarification about how to respond to this item, in the current form, or to find out if they know when the revised version will be available.

My guess is that this may not be the only part of the form which is changed, and it is usually better to apply with the latest version. Waiting a little longer to apply should be OK, even a good thing, for almost all applicants (recognizing there may be some exceptions in peculiar circumstances).

(edited to correct reference to item 10 in the application form)

I checked it with a different browser and it does not have the "intention" part. Now, that the "intention" part is not on the application form (like pre-C24), does it mean that like pre-C24, one can submit the application and then leave Canada and only come back for the test and the oath?

 

[cooldoc80]

I checked it with a different browser and it does not have the "intention" part. Now, that the "intention" part is not on the application form (like pre-C24), does it mean that like pre-C24, one can submit the application and then leave Canada and only come back for the test and the oath?

Theoritically you can but practically you can not as this may raise suspicions from the officers when they interview you

 

[day2day]

Theoritically you can but practically you can not as this may raise suspicions from the officers when they interview you

What about if you stay in Canada until test and interview day (which are on the same day) and then leave Canada and only come back for oath?

 

[dpenabill]

I checked it with a different browser and it does not have the "intention" part. Now, that the "intention" part is not on the application form (like pre-C24), does it mean that like pre-C24, one can submit the application and then leave Canada and only come back for the test and the oath?

More than a few conversations in the forum have, of late, invited me to repeat that technicalities are one thing, practicalities are quite another.

I have been hesitant to wade too deeply into the weeds regarding this issue. The daunting nature and scope of logistical hurdles and potential pitfalls should be obvious, regardless whether IRCC looks for and negatively approaches such applicants, and that in turn regardless whether the law technically allows for it.

Perhaps another refrain of mine would help illuminate: there is no requirement that the applicant deserve citizenship, or for that matter be a credible person. But only a fool fails to recognize just how important both these factors are.



That said, there appears to be some immigrants with the means and motive to navigate the technicalities to remarkable extremes. Consider for example a participant here who reports spending an extra $40K and literally commuting by air just to be able to apply for citizenship sooner:

I might not have heard about C-24 until after it was too late for me to do anything about it to make sure I qualified for citizenship under the old rules. As it happened, my application was accepted the day before C-24 received Royal Assent with zero days to spare. (Instead of driving to work in Oregon and driving back on the weekends, I had to fly back and forth daily in order to qualify under the old rules, at a cost of over US$ 40,000.)

For those willing to go to such extremes, the limits of what CAN be done are difficult to prescribe.

 

[Natan]

That said, there appears to be some immigrants with the means and motive to navigate the technicalities to remarkable extremes. Consider for example a participant here who reports spending an extra $40K and literally commuting by air just to be able to apply for citizenship sooner:

For those willing to go to such extremes, the limits of what CAN be done are difficult to prescribe.

It should be noted that I live in Canada and, while I commute to work in the USA most business days, I still spend every day in Canada. I have a house, several cars, and live with my family in Canada, and have no home/apartment in the USA. Due to statelessness issues, and having had several governments nearly split our family apart, it is perhaps understandable that I would commute daily to work by air, if that's what it took, to secure my ability to gain citizenship in the only country where we have been able to keep our family intact.

For the record, my citizenship application and RQ fully disclosed all my travel (including plane tickets) and the reasons for that travel. CIC granted citizenship because I established that I satisfied the residence requirements, live a life centred in Canada and am well integrated into Canadian society.

 

[zeeshee]

just downloaded the form and intention part is not there

 

[robertonnj]

Hi all,

I checked the application form in the previous week (after June 20) and it did NOT have the part "intention" and now I just checked it again and it has this part (intention). They mentioned that the intention to reside in Canada will be effective immediately. Can somebody please clarify this.

I really don't understand people's concerns with this intention to reside. And who says it's about intention to reside in Canada while your application is in process???
The form states: "I intend, IF GRANTED CITIZENSHIP, to continue to reside in Canada". That means that you intend to continue residing in Canada ONCE YOU BECOME CANADIAN.
And anyway who cares?!, "intend" means to "plan", "hope to", "aim", "have in mind", it's no promise!!! you intend something one day and that intention changes the next...I don't see this as any binding obligation. And it definitely has nothing to do with you living in Canada while application is in process. Is it better to be in Canada? - yes! because you will have a test, interview, oath etc. But this is not what the paragraph in the form is suggesting.

 

[dpenabill]

I really don't understand people's concerns with this intention to reside. And who says it's about intention to reside in Canada while your application is in process???
The form states: "I intend, IF GRANTED CITIZENSHIP, to continue to reside in Canada". That means that you intend to continue residing in Canada ONCE YOU BECOME CANADIAN.

There is no intent to reside requirement. The current application form does NOT have an item requiring applicant to declare any such intent.

The former law, since repealed, specifically required applicants for citizenship to have this intent, not citizens. So, when there was such a requirement the answer to the question "who says it's about intention to reside in Canada while your application is in process" is the Citizenship Act (former Act) says so.

Anyway, that's all history. The repeal of the provision further prescribed that it is as if no such requirement ever existed. End of discussion really.

 

[links18]

[QUOTE="dpenabill, post: 6132298, member: 43134]

Perhaps another refrain of mine would help illuminate: there is no requirement that the applicant deserve citizenship, or for that matter be a credible person. But only a fool fails to recognize just how important both these factors are.

.[/QUOTE]

Who deserves citizenship is determined by the law. Those who meet the legal requirements for citizenship deserve it. To say anything else is to wade into the field of politics, which is quite unlike you Dpenabill.

 

[dpenabill]

Who deserves citizenship is determined by the law. Those who meet the legal requirements for citizenship deserve it. To say anything else is to wade into the field of politics, which is quite unlike you Dpenabill.

The law prescribes who is qualified. The law says nothing about who deserves citizenship.

Politics imbued with views about who deserves citizenship probably play a big role in what the law prescribes, what a legislative body decides the law to be; for example, Harper saw those applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport as especially undeserving, so Bill C-24 included an intent to reside provision that would make it more difficult for many or most such applicants to qualify for citizenship.

In any event, while who deserves citizenship generally can be a political issue, that goes to what law the government adopts and implements, what specific requirements are imposed.

In contrast I was using "deserves" here relative to whether a particular individual deserves citizenship apart from being technically qualified for citizenship. This is using "deserves" in an equitable or moral worthiness sense. A very vague concept, admittedly, but frankly I am confident most people know very well what I referring to. And it should be obvious that I am not talking about how decisions should be made. I am talking about the fact that if the bureaucrat making the decision gets a negative impression about the applicant, gets the feeling the applicant does not deserve to be a Canadian citizen, that will likely be a huge factor in how things go.

As I said, anyone who does not recognize this, that the impression they make can have a big influence in how a total stranger bureaucrat assesses the case, is a fool. A real fool.

This is true in virtually any venue. From how class room teachers grade students to how judges in official judicial proceedings make decisions, from how the arbiter in a worker's disability claim assesses the claimant to how a Citizenship Officer sees the evidence of physical presence in a grant citizenship application.

For example: It is one thing to be playing the technicalities to one's advantage. It is another to overtly appear as if manipulating the technicalities in order to take advantage. The latter invites the decision-maker to perceive the applicant as less deserving. If the case is solid, no damage done. If there is room for making a judgment call, to appear less deserving is one of those factors which can tip the scales hard.

 

[links18]

The law prescribes who is qualified. The law says nothing about who deserves citizenship.

The law prescribes who deserves citizenship under the law, which is all a bureaucrat is supposed to take into consideration. One who does anything other than this is not doing their job, acting outside their authority and threatening the rule of law. That said, to the extent to which the rule of law is under threat generally these days: your practical advice is generally well taken. One may be "technically" qualified for citizenship, but if some bureaucrat thinks that offends their moral sense of who deserves citizenship then you may be headed for trouble anyway. A teacher once told me there is no "technical under the law," either it is legal or its not; either one is qualified or one is not, but in cases where there are factual issues to overcome, I agree that giving the impression of not having any residential intentions towards Canada is a dangerous thing for a citizenship applicant to do-even today after the repeal of the intent to reside clause. Of course, some people are in stronger factual situations than others. Even a person who has never resided in Canada--who has resided in a US border city for their entire qualifying period, but who has a record of having made an entry into Canada every single day--might be in a stronger factual position than someone who has resided in Canada the entire time, but who has lived off the grid and in the shadows.