RQ versus Physical Presence Questionnaires, including CIT 0205

[btbt]

With not much surprise as I have had many travels, I have received RQ Lite for extra docs. The officer has requested banking statements for specific periods plus copies of leases as she had said so during the interview. The strange thing is that the period for lesses go beyond the eligibility for 7 years rather than 5. I first thought it to be a typo but by calling cic and getting verification I am treating it as it is. Anyone has any idea why the officer might ask for 7 years (starting 2 years before the eligibility)?

Secondly, as I was kind of expecting to receive request for docs, I had requested my provincial health records and have them but the officer has not asked for them. Would including them hurt my application (they are 2 pages versus 150 plus pages of statements and leases)?

Also any other comment on how to organize and send the docs (including sending any additional docs) to avoid further delays is highly appreciated!

Thanks!

Is it maybe because you had a lease that started 7 years ago, according to the start date you gave for an address on your application form?

There have not been many people who were asked for additional information later, beyond what the RQ/RQ-Lite/... asked for, so there seems to be little benefit in sending extra documents. In the end, IRCC is trying to establish that the balance of probabilities is "50%+1" you meet all requirements; the information they asked for is what they expect to be sufficient.

So, I would not send information beyond what is asked for. In the unlikely case they want it they'll ask for it. Sending unnecessary stuff just means they have more paperwork to sort. No need to give them work (they didn't ask for).

I don't know if they specify in any way how they want those documents. If they do, I'd follow their instructions. If not, I think I'd label every page with name and UCI, bundle documents of the same type (paperclips?), and stick a post-it note identifying the type of information on each bundle. If there are a very high number of items in any of the bundles I might use bookmark style post-it notes to identify each document in the bundle.

 

[Voltron123]

I've also travelled quite a lot due to my work and jumped around countries at each travel. So, I created an additional 4-page "Absences from Canada" sheet to provide the details of my travels in a very organized way (unlike my October application) with colours etc. I also attached my flight itineraries and hotel/ Airbnb reservations (even I wasn't asked to do so) to support my application.

As btbt mentions above, it's better to identify each bundle if you have tons of documents to submit. I used 10 different plastic sheet protectors and put labels which show the content. All travel documents in one sheet protector, T4 slips in another etc. I also used several post-its to give further information. A cover letter would also help the IRCC agent to understand the content of your submission if it's a complicated one like mine.

 

[YaSaKo]

Hi,

I am also a target of PPQ - QAE:

Citizenship application sent: Jan 9th, 2018
Received: Jan 11th, 2018
AOR: March 4th, 2018
In process: March 9th, 2018
PPQ-QA Letter Dated: March 12th, 2018
PPQ - QA Letter Received: March 15th, 2018
Completed PPQ-QA Sent: In Process

 

[dpenabill]

With not much surprise as I have had many travels, I have received RQ Lite for extra docs. The officer has requested banking statements for specific periods plus copies of leases as she had said so during the interview. The strange thing is that the period for lesses go beyond the eligibility for 7 years rather than 5. I first thought it to be a typo but by calling cic and getting verification I am treating it as it is. Anyone has any idea why the officer might ask for 7 years (starting 2 years before the eligibility)?

Secondly, as I was kind of expecting to receive request for docs, I had requested my provincial health records and have them but the officer has not asked for them. Would including them hurt my application (they are 2 pages versus 150 plus pages of statements and leases)?

Also any other comment on how to organize and send the docs (including sending any additional docs) to avoid further delays is highly appreciated!

Thanks!

Others have largely answered your query. As best it can be answered (why the longer time period, for example, is something that is very difficult to know).

As for including any additional documents, I lean more in the direction @btbt suggests, as in providing what is asked for, not a lot more. Albeit it is probably OK to add a SMALL number of documents, just not sure what to include or not include.

RQ-lite appears, so far, to signal there is NOT any significant concerns or suspicions, that IRCC is more focused on doing due diligence and verifying certain specific information. So there is no reason to panic or be concerned . . . with the caveat, of course, unless you know there is a reason for IRCC to have concerns or suspicions.



In the meantime, there is yet another PPQ-QAE victim:

I was randomly selected for a especial review exercise in connection with my citizenship application. I have been asked to provide:

. . .

I am wondering if anyone has gone trough this same process (QA / RAE) because I would like to know if you were successful in your application and how long did it take you to take the citizenship test after you submitted you additional information.

As has been observed in the topic you posted this in, see back pages in this thread for an extensive discussion about the PPQ - QAE and some progress reports from others who have also been selected.

It would be helpful, as well, if you could let us know what stage of the process this came. As is oft noted in previous posts, there remains a lot about this process we do not yet know, so your contribution could be important to future citizenship applicants.

Edit to add:

Hi,

I am also a target of PPQ - QAE:

Citizenship application sent: Jan 9th, 2018
Received: Jan 11th, 2018
AOR: March 4th, 2018
In process: March 9th, 2018
PPQ-QA Letter Dated: March 12th, 2018
PPQ - QA Letter Received: March 15th, 2018
Completed PPQ-QA Sent: In Process

Thank you for this . . . while the PPQ correspondence is dated later than the IP, this appears to be consistent with other reports indicating this is coming out of Sydney.

 

[AliceL]

Hi,

A bit random but I see that there quite a lot of people getting this 'random' quality assurance questionnaire. It doesn't really matter, but I'm curious, does anyone know if this is a new procedure? Did it come after the implementation of Bill C6?

 

[razerblade]

Hi,

A bit random but I see that there quite a lot of people getting this 'random' quality assurance questionnaire. It doesn't really matter, but I'm curious, does anyone know if this is a new procedure? Did it come after the implementation of Bill C6?

Quality Assurance Exercise seems to be new, after C6 was implemented.

 

[AliceL]

Quality Assurance Exercise seems to be new, after C6 was implemented.

Thanks for the reply. That is interesting... Again, not that it truly matters (it won't solve our problems) but did anyone here follow the whole case of Bill C6 in the senate? It was getting filibustered by the cons and got stuck there for a long time in endless debates that went on and on and then one day all debates just stopped ( no more 'I got one more question') and the bill was passed. Now, I'm by no means an expert in politics and legislation but from what I understand it is not uncommon for backroom deals to be made between parties when one party wants to pass a law and the opposition is against it. Don't want to sound paranoid but I am wondering if this new 'random' quality assurance procedure was part of a backroom deal with the cons in exchange for letting Bill C6 pass (i.e. not block it in the senate with endless debates anymore)...

 

[razerblade]

Thanks for the reply. That is interesting... Again, not that it truly matters (it won't solve our problems) but did anyone here follow the whole case of Bill C6 in the senate? It was getting filibustered by the cons and got stuck there for a long time in endless debates that went on and on and then one day all debates just stopped ( no more 'I got one more question') and the bill was passed. Now, I'm by no means an expert in politics and legislation but from what I understand it is not uncommon for backroom deals to be made between parties when one party wants to pass a law and the opposition is against it. Don't want to sound paranoid but I am wondering if this new 'random' quality assurance procedure was part of a backroom deal with the cons in exchange for letting Bill C6 pass (i.e. not block it in the senate with endless debates anymore)...

IMO, it really is just a Quality Assurance Exercise, probably introduced due to the anticipated increase in the number of applications post C6 implementation. In any case, from the few cases reported on this forum, it does not seem to be impacting people's timelines much (if at all).

 

[dpenabill]

Don't want to sound paranoid but I am wondering if this new 'random' quality assurance procedure was part of a backroom deal with the cons in exchange for letting Bill C6 pass (i.e. not block it in the senate with endless debates anymore)...

Quality Assurance Exercise seems to be new, after C6 was implemented.

Except there are multiple reports from participants who received the PPQ - QAE BEFORE October 2017, including those receiving a CIT 0205 (05-2017) version (that is, a May 2017 version).

In earlier pages of this topic there are discussions about the probable precipitating factor, the Auditor's General report spring 2016, which largely highlighted the failure of the Harper/Kenney OB 407 triage criteria (refined through the massive pre-test RQ program implemented by OB 407 in April 2012) to reliably identify fraud risk indicators.

The difference the Bill C-6 rule changes made is that in October 11, 2017 there was a huge surge in applications, hence a surge in the net number of applicants issued the PPQ - QAE. . . . which makes sense, the larger the number of applications the larger the number selected. This would be true whether being selected is random or criteria-based or a combination (the latter is my guess).

To a large extent, describing this as a "Quality Assurance" exercise may NOT be particularly informative. Any screening process could be defined to be quality assurance or quality control, a process to assure appropriate outcomes. For example, all applicants are required to provide work history, even though there are NO qualifying requirements at all related to work history; this information is, basically, entirely for quality control, information which helps IRCC assure the applicant's information about actual presence is accurate and the actual presence requirement is met.

And whether those issued PPQ - QAE are truly randomly selected remains an open question for some of us, despite the cover-correspondence from IRCC which asserts the subject has been "randomly selected." (My best guess, as I have suggested, is that there is some truly random selection and some are selected based on triage criteria or risk indicators, even if all those selected get the same cover letter stating they have been "randomly selected.")

 

[razerblade]

Except there are multiple reports from participants who received the PPQ - QAE BEFORE October 2017, including those receiving a CIT 0205 (05-2017) version (that is, a May 2017 version).

In earlier pages of this topic there are discussions about the probable precipitating factor, the Auditor's General report spring 2016, which largely highlighted the failure of the Harper/Kenney OB 407 triage criteria (refined through the massive pre-test RQ program implemented by OB 407 in April 2012) to reliably identify fraud risk indicators.

The difference the Bill C-6 rule changes made is that in October 11, 2017 there was a huge surge in applications, hence a surge in the net number of applicants issued the PPQ - QAE. . . . which makes sense, the larger the number of applications the larger the number selected. This would be true whether being selected is random or criteria-based or a combination (the latter is my guess).

To a large extent, describing this as a "Quality Assurance" exercise may NOT be particularly informative. Any screening process could be defined to be quality assurance or quality control, a process to assure appropriate outcomes. For example, all applicants are required to provide work history, even though there are NO qualifying requirements at all related to work history; this information is, basically, entirely for quality control, information which helps IRCC assure the applicant's information about actual presence is accurate and the actual presence requirement is met.

And whether those issued PPQ - QAE are truly randomly selected remains an open question for some of us, despite the cover-correspondence from IRCC which asserts the subject has been "randomly selected." (My best guess, as I have suggested, is that there is some truly random selection and some are selected based on triage criteria or risk indicators, even if all those selected get the same cover letter stating they have been "randomly selected.")

Interesting, didn't know there is a May 2017 version of QAE.

 

[Voltron123]

Same Montreal office, almost 5 weeks still no news!

Hi, did you get any response from Montreal office?

I've been also waiting for 6 weeks and no news!

 

[cherif2100]

Hi, did you get any response from Montreal office?

I've been also waiting for 6 weeks and no news!

No news from them, I received a couple of days ago my GCMS, it seems only criminality is cleared so far, otherwise everything else is still not started!! And around 6-8 pages out of 38 pages report are flagged as secure I don’t have access to them, I am giving up on receiving any news soon, and I don’t believe anymore that I was randomly selected! I only wonder why they say this process won’t delay our files when evidently all my friends who applied after me that received no RQ have been invited to do their tests and some of them have done their ceremonies!

 

[Seen12]

I thought I’d add my notice here.. i recieved (Request for Supplementary Evidence) on March 29 after my test.. the officer told me I’ll be getting it since few stamps on my passport weren’t in English. It only asked me for translations.

 

[Voltron123]

No news from them, I received a couple of days ago my GCMS, it seems only criminality is cleared so far, otherwise everything else is still not started!! And around 6-8 pages out of 38 pages report are flagged as secure I don’t have access to them, I am giving up on receiving any news soon, and I don’t believe anymore that I was randomly selected! I only wonder why they say this process won’t delay our files when evidently all my friends who applied after me that received no RQ have been invited to do their tests and some of them have done their ceremonies!

Sorry to hear that! At least, the criminality part has been cleared. I think it's normal that they don't share all their research with you. So your GCMS report is 38 pages? What other information did you obtain about your application? I'm planning to wait month or two, then I'll apply for GCMS if it is worthed.

Thank you

 

[cherif2100]

Sorry to hear that! At least, the criminality part has been cleared. I think it's normal that they don't share all their research with you. So your GCMS report is 38 pages? What other information did you obtain about your application? I'm planning to wait month or two, then I'll apply for GCMS if it is worthed.

Thank you

You will receive your GCMS one month later dated as of the request submission date, well mine it’s 38 pages, criminality passed, income tax: ready to be assessed, knowledge : not started , residence : not started, language: not started, prohibition: not started, oath: not started. I sent my PPQ documents first week of February but the report says they receive it on January 5th 2018! Mistake ?