I appreciate the lengthy reply, but I wanted to correct some of the info:
I was not issued a removal order, nor did I stay abroad when my appeal was pending. I only left a few months ago, months after the hearing was over and right now, I am only a couple of months short of my RO. As I stated, I am not planning to stay "indefinitely". I am abroad to help my terminally-sick family member. And I have all the hospital reports to prove it if I needed to go to trial again.
I don't appreciate being portrayed as if I'm abusing the system, or talked down to, or even talked about as if I'm not here!
I moved to Canada in the mid 2000s and I've considered it my home since. I graduated from here, my kids were born here, my house is here, my life is here. Just because I needed to leave briefly to help my family does not mean I do not intend to go back.
To be clear, my post was not in response to you but was addressed to those who had questions or concerns about how it is that a citizenship application could be in process so long. I quoted your posts for reference. (This is why I included them at the end of my post, not to address them but for reference.)
My effort was to explain that there are reasons why the process has taken so long, that your situation is indeed unusual, tied to the particular facts in your case, and thus it does NOT indicate that IRCC arbitrarily or capriciously fails to process citizenship applications. I made a concerted effort to reference facts not judgmental characterizations.
Regarding the facts:
There is no appeal of a 44(1) Report for a breach of the PR RO
UNLESS the report resulted in the issuance of a Departure or Removal Order (both are the same thing just different name). While the Report is the subject of the appeal, the decision being appealed is that made by the Minister's Delegate, which is a Departure or Removal Order. (The other path to an appeal is to appeal a denied PR TD application.) Obviously the Report was valid in law (otherwise the outcome of the appeal would not have been based on H&C reasons).
If were not abroad for an extended period, between the date you were reported in 2014 and the date of your appeal hearing in June 2017, during that two and a half plus years (up to three and a half years), you would easily be in compliance with the PR RO now, rather than "couple months short" (or, "still a few months short").
Being RQ'd AND being reported and being RQ'd a second time, is what it is. At minimum it is an explanation for why a 2011 citizenship application might still be unresolved as of February 2018.
As I noted, perhaps the second RQ was arbitrary, but it is more likely it was based on legitimate criteria (just because there is a reason to impose RQ does not dictate whether the applicant is qualified or not qualified; it is a reason to examine more thoroughly). As I noted, perhaps CIC's initial delay in processing your application was deliberately intended to wait until you were absent long enough to not be in compliance with the PR RO, but obviously you were abroad after applying for an extended period of time given a valid in law 44(1) Report in 2014 (and it was widely known at the time that extended absences after applying were subject to such delays and elevated scrutiny; probably still this way even if not so much as it was in the Harper-era). Thus, overall it appears there was cause for CIC and then IRCC to engage in elevated scrutiny of your application, and in general this is not a situation tending to indict IRCC for arbitrarily or capriciously stalling.
I do NOT mean to judge. I did not say you have abused the system. As I noted, the outcome of the citizenship application will depend on its merits.
If, however, there has been any mis-characterization of abuse, that would be in the implicit suggestion that IRCC allows citizenship applications to wallow in limbo without cause for seven years. That is not the situation (not that it has not happened to others; just that it is NOT the situation here). And other members of the forum are entitled to some context.
Note: The fact that the appeal was granted based on H&C reasons is actually a positive factor for you; while it does not entirely start the PR RO clock over again, it should mean you are NOT strictly bound to a PR RO calculation based on 2/5 presence for at least awhile. Meaning a return to Canada relatively soon will have good odds of going OK (unless IRCC has you flagged otherwise). But further extended absences will of course increase the risk of being reported, subject to the strength of your H&C reasons. As you may be aware, typically there is more risk in a PR TD application than in being reported at the Port-of-Entry upon arrival.
By the way, changes to the
Citizenship Act now mean that if you are reported again and the Minister's Delegate upholds the report, that could be grounds to deny the citizenship application rather than merely suspending processing of the application. The application is not saved from being denied because of or pending an appeal of the Report.
