Please I need your advise for those who went for a hearing from a Citizenship judge. I was sent a letter to come see a judge and I would like to know what to prepare for and expect.
I did receive an RQ and sent the documents....I have all documents ready original and photocopy..I just need to know what to expect and type of questions. Your input is much appreciated.
Visa office is Winnipeg
App sent in Dec 2014
RQ in April 2015
Written Exam Nov 2015
RQ - April 2017
Finger Print - August 27 2017
Citizenship Judge - Sept 25th
My hearing is Spet 25th.
Preparation for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge is a huge, huge topic.
There are many, many variables. Not the least of which, since your application was made prior to June 2015, is whether you declared and provided supporting evidence to show actual presence in Canada for 1095+ days during the relevant four years,
OR if you have what is typically referred to as a
shortfall application, meaning an application based on
residency for three years during the relevant four years, notwithstanding absences from Canada resulting in having less than 1095 days actual physical presence.
Overall: It would be prudent to obtain professional assistance in preparing for the Citizenship Judge hearing. Preferrably the assistance of a lawyer.
But finding a lawyer who can and will assist you at this late date is likely to be challenging, to say the least. Particularly (I suspect) in Winnipeg. Perhaps not much easier, if even possible, to find a competent, reputable consultant.
And professional assistance can range from somewhat expensive to very expensive. (And, admittedly, not all lawyers are created equal, so there is a risk of not getting competent let alone the best help.)
Perhaps there is a community centre which has some volunteers who will provide some assistance in immigration and citizenship matters.
At the least, the RQ is a guide to what is relevant. And your response to the RQ is probably the core of the case.
The reason you were issued RQ is largely irrelevant at this stage. What is more relevant is why a Citizenship Officer declined to grant citizenship, why the Citizenship Officer concluded you failed to prove you met the
residency requirements for the grant of citizenship, and in particular what arguments against your case the Citizenship Officer made in the FPAT (File Preparation and Analysis Template), that is the referral to the CJ.
Unfortunately, IRCC will not disclose the contents of the FPAT to applicants. (IRCC will not even disclose the contents of the FRC, the File Requirements Checklist.) Personally I would make the effort to do a customized ATIP request and seek this information, but composing a customized application which would have some chance of working, either upfront or pursuant to potential administrative and judicial remedies, would be difficult. And there is no prospect of getting any such information in time for your scheduled CJ hearing.
At the least, review the facts of your case and be prepared to answer questions about (1) dates of travel abroad; (2) where you actually lived in Canada; and (3) what you did in Canada, especially where you worked, when, and such.
Hopefully you have a copy of your application, your residency calculation, and your RQ submission. You can use the information in these to affirmatively present your case.
It is critical to firmly document the date you first established a residence, a household in Canada.
This is a critical date. Technically, no time in Canada counts toward the residency requirement (this is for pre-June 2015 applications) until the applicant established an actual residence in Canada. Practically this specific fact, the date the applicant first established residence in Canada, looms largest in the
shortfall case, but since the case is going to a CJ, be sure to make a point of emphasizing (to the CJ) the first date you can affirmatively assert is the day you became an in-fact resident.
Beyond that, there are three legs to a residency case:
-- dates of travel
-- evidence of where the applicant lived
-- evidence of what the applicant was doing in Canada (consistent work history is best)
The bulk of your case, regarding these, should have been submitted in the response to RQ. If you made a responsive submission in response to the RQ, that should include most of the evidence and information you will want to be document and affirm in the interview with the CJ.
You can try to bring new evidence, new documentation, which will go to show these things, that is as to
-- dates of travel
-- evidence of where you lived
-- evidence of what you were doing in Canada
Technically you should be allowed to go beond what has so far been submitted, to present new evidence.
Anecdotal reports suggest some CJs are resistant, reluctant, or outright opposed to considering new evidence. If you have additional information and evidence, politely, emphasis on politely, insist the CJ take it and consider it.
There is a lot, lot more to consider. Again, this is a huge, huge topic. Again, there are many variables involved. Again, this is where it is best to at least consult with a competent and reputable lawyer.
At this stage there are no shortcuts. No easy or definitive answers. The bad news is that a Citizenship Officer has already determined you do not qualify for citizenship and has made a referral to a Citizenship Judge which sets out why you should not be approved for citizenship.
You have an opportunity to persuade the CJ otherwise.
In the meantime . . . If you offer more details about your case, perhaps participants here can offer some further commentary about how to bolster your case.
But most of what will determine the outcome is already in the record, including especially your response to the RQ.
I hope you return and report your experience here. While there are only a few pre-June 2015 applicants still in process, any report about how it goes at a CJ hearing contributes to our collective understanding about how these things go.
