Randomly selected for quality assurance
- Thread starter Romans8:28
- Start date
Over the years there have been various Quality Assurance programs employed in processing grant citizenship applications. These have varied in terms of which applicants (mostly meaning what percentage of applicants) are selected for QA screening, and they have varied in terms of what additional screening is done as part of the QA.
At times, it is apparent that QA has indeed involved sending the full-blown RQ (CIT 0171) to a randomly selected percentage of applicants, and this is apart from issuing RQ to applicants based on screening criteria (sometimes referred to as "risk indicators," "triage criteria," and "reasons to question presence or residency").
Other than the minimal reference to QA in the PDI (see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/CIT0002ETOC.asp ) the last formal report about QA from an IRCC source referred to QA issued to a quite small percentage of applicants. Thus, it is unusual, but some applicants are indeed diverted into the QA stream.
While the PDI refers to an "interview" with an IRCC official, historically QA has often involved a questionnaire of one sort of another, including either the RQ itself (again, that is CIT 0171) or RQ-lite (CIT 0520), which is assessed and then may or may not be followed by an interview. A different questionnaire may be used but one containing requests for information and documentation similar to or very much the same as in the RQ (CIT 0171).
For a qualified applicant confident there is no need for concern, this is largely a formality, but one that needs to be properly dealt with; that is, the applicant needs to timely submit a response containing the requested information and documentation.
What information and documentation is required if requested per RQ or something RQ-like?
This brings up queries such as this:
Employment is not a requirement or condition for obtaining Canadian citizenship.
Proof of actual presence in Canada, however, is a requirement.
And proof of employment in Canada tends to prove presence. Indeed, proof of employment can be an important element in showing actual presence, particularly proof of regular attendance at a known job site in Canada while in the employ of a readily identified Canadian employer. T4s and CRA Assessments are good evidence.
The absence of proof of employment can lead to negative inferences about the individual's whereabouts. This does not mean that stay-at-home parents or even those unemployed cannot prove their presence, but in those cases IRCC will need to look at other corroborating or supporting evidence to verify the applicant's account of time in Canada. It is always the applicant's burden to provide this evidence, this proof.
IRCC is also concerned about the possibility a PR has failed to disclose foreign employment or business, which in turn could indicate the PR was abroad more than disclosed. Thus, for example, PRs with sketchy employment history in Canada but who appear to have the means of supporting a family, are likely to encounter increased questions and scrutiny about their finances, how they support their family, so that IRCC can better evaluate whether the PR's account makes sense and shows a person actually living in Canada or not.
In any event, while only a small number of applicants are subject to QA, it does happen, it can be random, and some may be selected based on certain criteria. The applicant who gets this needs to take responding to what is requested seriously. No need to be overly anxious or to go overboard in responding, but it is important to submit the requested information and documentation.
I believe CIC should always get CBSA record first because trying to scrutinize people's physical presence because of some unemployment history. I have seen some people get RQ having not step a foot outside Canada since they came. I guess nobody can really explain the way they reason sometimes.
What would you consider a sketchy employment history in Canada?
Thanks for your response.
IvanP
Champion Member
- Jul 24, 2012
- 31
- Visa Office......
- Montreal-citizenship
- App. Filed.......
- 25-09-2017
My wife just got "randomly selected" for the "quality assurance exercise". We have had minimal travel, have lived in the same apartment since arrival, and she's worked in the same provincial government job since about 2 months after arrival (almost exactly 4 years now). Based on that, I would say hers is a low-risk application that wouldn't normally trigger heightened scrutiny, so it may actually be random.
The questionnaire is a big pain in the butt, an unpleasant expense (cheapest fingerprinting available is more than $50 with tax, and RCMP and local police no longer do the fingerprints for citizenship - only if THEY decide to fingerprint you!), and we'll probably need to pay for some of the travel records from other countries of residence, if we can get them at all (former Soviet countries tend not to be very helpful with this sort of thing).
The questionnaire is a big pain in the butt, an unpleasant expense (cheapest fingerprinting available is more than $50 with tax, and RCMP and local police no longer do the fingerprints for citizenship - only if THEY decide to fingerprint you!), and we'll probably need to pay for some of the travel records from other countries of residence, if we can get them at all (former Soviet countries tend not to be very helpful with this sort of thing).
If the government says that the OP was randomly selected, than not, it is not "maybe" random, it is "certainly" random.
See above. Why are you questioning it is random. They say it is random. So there is no reason as to why she got that questionnaire, apart from being randomly selected.
Random could be subjective tho. I am sure IRCC don't close their eyes and just pick a file at random, they must have had some kind of insight on what application they pick as 'random'
No. Random means random. Most likely the computer picks them at random.
This is in fact a way more reliable way to work statistically than to let someone pick them who will have a strong selection bias.
Also, if they didn't do it randomly they would open themselves up to a plethora of lawsuits. So out of self-interest they wouldn't do that.
IRCC has a lot of ambiguities. We never know what they are really doing. Just how they put FIFO on their website and then people that submitted weeks after some applicants started seeing some movements on their applicxation. For these reasons, I really try to take their word with a pinch of
It doesn't say FIFO on their website anywhere. They only say that the START processing applications in the order they arrive. That is all. This does not even imply that AORs are issued in the order of arrival.
I have a long history of travel, and a gap of 1+ yrs around 2009. Taxes were filed for previous years and the year I was not tax resident I had filed as a non-resident. Later since I came back I have been filing regularly. Sometimes in 2015 when I had called CRA they mentioned they don't have records indicating that I am in Canada (I have been filing taxes continuously for previous years) as a resident.
So, my thought reading this thread is that such situations could be one of the reasons why applications gets selected for QA
So, my thought reading this thread is that such situations could be one of the reasons why applications gets selected for QA
What do you mean with "anymore"? Start of processing just means that someone took that envelope somewhere and then they deal with it. The AOR is the first thing where the applicant is made aware of some progress.
Clearly, before an AOR can be issued, they have to go through the paperwork that has been submitted. So it should be pretty clear that the processing has to start before AOR.
I get that it can be nerve-wrecking to wait and hear nothing and I am also not defending IRCC which could definitely be much more efficient in many ways. But still, please note that this forum is full of half-baked theories. Among other things, this forum is basically obsessed with AORs and AOR dates. It's a classic snowball effect.
Still, that doesn't mean that one should assume that IRCC is working against there own rules or even outright lie. If they say that someone was randomly picked, there is no reason to assume anything else. Again, as said before this is not just about assuming that IRCC doesn't lie. It also wouldn't make any sense to use any other principle than random selection. It is much more efficient at finding errors in applications than any other system, in particular selection by a human.
Random selection of applications for Quality Assurance is one way in which a qualified applicant might be subject to non-routine processing, including being issued RQ (CIT 0171 or something similar). CIC and IRCC have reported various QA programs over the years, which usually have indeed been random and which usually involve a very, very small percentage of applications.
While some of those programs employed this or that criteria, as I recall the criteria was broad, identifying a relatively large group of applicants from which a small percentage were RANDOMLY selected for the QA procedure (the QA procedure itself has varied from time to time). Mostly, however, the programs simply worked by randomly selecting a very small percentage of applications for the QA screening.
Because of this potential, random procedure, which can result in RQ for even the most clearly qualified applicant, all applicants should be aware that RQ is a possibility.
Like many aspects of internal decision-making at IRCC, most information about this has been taken behind closed doors and is now confidential; IRCC only publicizes fairly superficial, general references to their QA procedures.
Likewise, the criteria-driven screening of applicants as well, which is now strictly confidential.
Criteria-driven screening:
Random selection of some applicants for additional scrutiny is separate and apart from the use of criteria-driven screening to identify applicants who will be issued RQ. Last formal, official version of the criteria employed I have seen was that implemented pursuant to OB 407 in April 2012, which specified the "triage criteria" used to screen applications in Sydney prior to the application being transferred to the local office for processing. That whole procedure, which resulted in a pre-test RQ being sent to some applicants, went totally behind closed curtains during the 2012 to 2013 period. In particular, a leaked version of the 2012 File Requirements Checklist was widely shared among forum members. It listed the triage criteria. By early 2013, ATI request responses containing internal CIC memos revealed that CIC had significantly modified either the criteria itself or how it was used.
Since then, how that procedure works has been in a black hole. It is strictly confidential and very little internal information has leaked.
It is a relatively safe bet, however, that some version of that procedure still exists, that once the application is entered into the GCMS system, the application is screened for RISK INDICATORS or what was previously referred to (in older operational guidelines) as reasons-to-question-residency, employing specified criteria. Whether this results in issuing a pre-test RQ or a flag on the file to be addressed by the responsible processing agent in the local office, we do not know. There have been no more than isolated reports of pre-test RQ in the last couple years, but that is no surprise and might be totally explained by the impact of Bill C-24 and a strict presence requirement, which until somewhat recently dramatically reduced the number of applications being made.
In any event, it is highly likely that there is still some RISK INDICATOR screening done in Sydney (part of what is referred to obliquely in PDIs as "initial processing"), and that some of the factors are considered in context with other factors, and if that screening identifies an overt reason-to-question-residency/presence that will trigger further requests for information or documentation, including RQ-lite or RQ for some applicants, whether that is sent out from Sydney or issued by the local office. Circumstances you describe may or may not be part of what is examined and considered in that screening.
Receipt, AOR, and In-Process:
In the generic sense, just opening the application package is a type of processing.
When IRCC refers to a citizenship application as being "in process," however, that has a more specific meaning. It means a citizenship application file has been created in GCMS.
AOR means what it appears to mean: It is an Acknowledgement of Receipt. However, IRCC current practice is NOT to acknowledge receipt of an application unless and until the application has passed initial screening for completeness, which includes screening the content of the application sufficiently to confirm it states information establishing eligibility (thus, for example, the presence calculation is examined to be sure the applicant has declared at least 1095 days actual presence).
If the application does not pass this "upfront," in effect a type of preliminary screening, it is NOT put in process. No entry is made in the GCMS for the application. Obviously this upfront or preliminary screening is itself a kind of processing. But that is not embraced in what IRCC means when it refers to the application being "in process."
Once the application passes the completeness check, the preliminary screening, a processing agent in Sydney in effect opens a citizenship application file in the GCMS. This puts the application "in process" as IRCC uses this term. An application file number is assigned. The AOR is sent to the applicant. This processing agent makes the referrals for background clearances, one to the RCMP, another to CSIS (these clearances, when issued by the respective body, go to the local office). And, assuming some semblance of the procedures employed in the not-too-distant past are still employed, the application is subject to some further initial screening in the Sydney office. As noted, the scope and particulars of that are confidential, not shared with the public. It is likely the application and applicant are screened based on specified criteria, based on specific risk indicators, for reasons-to-question-residency/presence, and somewhere in these procedures there is a thorough GCMS check of the applicant and then the application is referred to a local office for processing.
Even if a pre-test RQ is issued by the Sydney office (again, I do not know for sure that is still being done; I suspect it is but apparently not often), the application would be referred to the local office and the instructions in the RQ will tell the applicant to submit the response to the local office.
Overall:
As spyfy and others periodically note, AOR is relatively insignificant. The application is complete. It has been received. IRCC will process it.
AOR signifies very little about how good the case is. It merely means the application meets what lawyers call prima facie requirements, meaning enough is presented to require the decision-making body to examine and process the application, and ultimately make a decision about it. As spyfy aptly observed, there is way, way too much attention given this in this forum. Sure, it feels comforting to know the-cake-is-in-the-oven; yes, I was watching anxiously for news of when my application got AOR, back in the day, and felt better when it had. But it is no milestone.
if i was you i would withdraw my application and apply again..can't be bothered with this huge shit...if you are unhappy too, just withdraw your application and apply again...only you have to pay fees again..thats it really