Citizenship rejection possibilities?

[dpenabill]

Hello everyone, I’m just in a fix and kind of stressed. Replies would be highly appreciated.

So I had my test day before, the test went well but not my interview and the CO said she would review my application again and let you know about our decision.

Now, I have completed my days before my application. I mostly stay here but travel often to the US since my husband works and lives there (I have not applied for his sponsorship too because he travels extensively) that was one of the questions in the interview too as why I haven’t applied for his sponsorship.
And I travel a lot to our home country to meet family and spend time with husbands family. But I travel back to Canada.

I got a decision made today but no correspondence email from them.

I’m just very stressed and curious. Is there a possibility of denial of application on this basis (husband not living in Canada)

Helpful replies would be appreciated.

And what exactly was the intent to reside claus? I think I’m confusing it with something else.
And does it apply to me?

I was on and off the country in between the process of my application. I was out of the country for about 6 months and then got back.

Odds are very good there is NO cause to worry.

Foremost, references to former law requiring an intent to continue living in Canada are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to you and totally irrelevant to everyone else. Pay that NO MIND at all. When the intent to reside provision was repealed, effective as of JUNE 19, 2017 (the October 2017 changes were about other provisions), the new law explicitly declared that the intent provision was to have NO effect on ANYONE, even those who applied when there was an intent requirement and had their application decided when that was still in effect.

The degree of questioning you encountered was most likely rooted in concerns about your ties abroad, which are clearly extensive and important ties (especially a spouse living and working abroad, and with no status to live in Canada), and which tend to raise questions about the accuracy of the applicant's presence calculation. So of course IRCC was OBLIGATED (it has a mandate to enforce the law and rules) to more closely scrutinize your qualifications for citizenship and, in particular, more closely review your presence calculation to verify, to make sure, that you did in fact meet the presence requirement.

The Decision Made indicates the odds are very, very GOOD you passed that scrutiny . . . assuming that your presence calculation does in fact show you were present in Canada for at least the minimum number of days during your eligibility period.

Note: An applicant who claims to have met the requirements will NOT be denied citizenship based on not meeting the presence requirement without first being issued RQ-related requests. Then, IRCC cannot unilaterally deny the application for falling short of the presence requirement if the applicant still claims to have met the requirement. In such a case, where IRCC concludes the applicant did not meet the requirement, but the applicant still claims he or she did, IRCC must refer the application to a Citizenship Judge who would ordinarily hold a hearing before a decision is made.



TO BE CLEAR REGARDING THE INTENT TO RESIDE CLAUSE (it is simply NOT relevant):

To see the published version of Bill C-6 that received Royal Assent and was thus duly adopted into law as of June 19, 2017, see http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-6/royal-assent

It is also easy to read the versions of the Citizenship Act in effect at various times

-- for current version, effective since October 11, 2017, see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont
-- for version in effect between June 19, 2017 and October 10, 2017, see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/section-5-20170619.html
-- for version in effect between June 11, 2015 and June 18, 2017, see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/section-5-20150611.html#wb-cont​

While I can readily offer the following observations from memory, they are all confirmed in the above linked sources.

Applications under the new rules (Intent to reside clause removed) kicked in from October 11, 2017.

REPEAL WAS EFFECTIVE JUNE 19, 2017

Bill C-6 repealed subsection 5(1)(c.1) in the Citizenship Act, the so-called "intent to reside" provision, EFFECTIVE JUNE 19, 2017.

This is prescribed in Section 1(5) in Bill C-6. This became effective upon Royal Assent (June 19, 2017). Numerous provisions in Bill C-6 took effect immediately upon Royal Assent, including this one. (Another big one which took effect immediately: repeal of provisions authorizing revocation of citizenship for persons convicted of certain criminal offenses.)

Yes, there were numerous other provisions in Bill C-6 which did not have a coming into force date until fixed by an order of the Governor in Council. The provision most are acquainted with is that prescribing the presence requirement. In particular Section 1(2) in Bill C-6 replaced the Bill C-24 presence requirements, as prescribed in subsection 5(1)(c)(i) in the Citizenship Act, with the 1095 days in five years rule, which pursuant to Section 27(2) in Bill C-6 would come into force on a day fixed by order of the Governor in Council. And the order fixed October 11, 2017 as the date this provision would take effect. Several other provisions, such as those governing who is required to meet language and knowledge of Canada requirements, also took effect, per Governor in Council order, on October 11, 2017.

If she signed her application prior to October 11, the old rule with the intent to reside requirement would have applied.

INTENT REQUIREMENT DEEMED TO NEVER HAVE APPLIED

As I noted above, subsection 5(1)(c.1) in the Citizenship Act (see version of Act in force from June 11, 2015 to June 19, 2017) was not only repealed by Bill C-6, pursuant to Section 1(5) in Bill C-6, the transitional provisions in Bill C-6, specifically Sections 16 and 17 in particular (again, link to Bill C-6 is above), prescribe that the intent requirement "is deemed never to have applied" and to "not apply" to then still pending applications.

So there is NO ONE, NO ONE for whom the intent requirement has any applicability whatsoever.

 

[Drfay]

Thank you so much for this helpful reply.

It’s just been on my mind and sleep since i has my interview because I have put in a lot of money into being in Canada and travelling to maintain my days and requirement.

 

[wolfpack27616]

REPEAL WAS EFFECTIVE JUNE 19, 2017

Thanks for that correction,

I am hoping that the OP would post back here soon saying she got her oath invite.

 

[scorph]

Hello everyone, I’m just in a fix and kind of stressed. Replies would be highly appreciated.

So I had my test day before, the test went well but not my interview and the CO said she would review my application again and let you know about our decision.

Now, I have completed my days before my application. I mostly stay here but travel often to the US since my husband works and lives there (I have not applied for his sponsorship too because he travels extensively) that was one of the questions in the interview too as why I haven’t applied for his sponsorship.
And I travel a lot to our home country to meet family and spend time with husbands family. But I travel back to Canada.

I got a decision made today but no correspondence email from them.

I’m just very stressed and curious. Is there a possibility of denial of application on this basis (husband not living in Canada)

Helpful replies would be appreciated.

Decision Made on Ecas is 99% good news !
Congratulations!

 

[sns204]

If she signed her application prior to October 11, the old rule with the intent to reside requirement would have applied. My guess is that she applied after 11 because she seems to have used the application that doesn't contain the intent to reside check.

I'm not sure about others, but I signed mine before October 11th (albeit just days before) and it was stated in the AOR that the application would be reviewed under the guidelines of the new law.

 

[dpenabill]

If your application was under the previous law that had the intent to reside requirement, it would definitely have been rejected.

I'm not sure about others, but I signed mine before October 11th (albeit just days before) and it was stated in the AOR that the application would be reviewed under the guidelines of the new law.

As I thoroughly documented above, by reference to the official sources, the effective date for the repeal of the intent requirement was June 19, 2017 . . . so whether the application was signed some days prior to or after October 11, 2017, or otherwise (for other reasons) deemed MADE as of some days prior to or after October 11, the application would be reviewed with NO regard to the so-called intent to reside requirement.

MOREOVER, as of June 19, 2017, the so-called intent to reside requirement HAD NO RELEVANCE, none whatsoever, for any citizenship application NO MATTER WHEN it was signed, deemed made, or decided.

That is, for purposes of the former intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada requirement, IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT when the application was signed or when the application was delivered to IRCC.

In the meantime, I cannot second-guess what information was "stated" in your AOR, but I am quite certain that it made NO reference to review under the "new law" as such, since this is a vague, relative term, and not at all the sort of information included in such communications, and not all new law would apply to the application if it was deemed made before October 11. Which is not to say the AOR did not make reference to particular laws, or laws effective as of a certain date, or particular new rules, which would inform the applicant which provisions and rules would be applied to the application. That is, it may have referred to provisions in what was new law at the time, and that they would be applied to the application, but NOT to "the new law" in those terms.

The difference might seem semantic but there is a significant difference; to be clear the transitional provisions in Bill C-6 specify which changes apply to a citizenship application, and some changes apply to all applications no matter what the date is that the application was deemed made, while in contrast some changes ONLY apply to applications deemed made after the effective date of the change. And, in particular, some provisions in the new law would apply to an application deemed made before October 11 BUT SOME would not. That is, FOR SURE, if the application is deemed made before October 11, 2017, NOT ALL the then new law would apply.

Thus, for example, no matter which date the application is deemed to have been made, the changes to who must meet language and knowledge of Canada requirements applied to ALL pending and future applications as of October 11, 2017. That is, the application would be reviewed (processed) according to the language requirement provisions in effect as of October 11 even if the application was made before or after October 11, including an application made in August 2017 or even August 2016 (for still pending applications of course).

In contrast, for example, the 3/5 rule changes, replacing the 4/6 rule, ONLY apply to applications deemed made as of October 11, 2017. Thus, if the application was deemed made as of October 10, 2017, or before, the 4/6 presence rules would still be applied to the application. NOT the new 3/5 rule.

Generally an application is deemed made as of the date it is signed rather than the date it is delivered to or received by IRCC. There are exceptions to this. Perhaps applications (such as yours) signed shortly before October 11, 2017 but not actually received until after October 10 are deemed (by IRCC) to have been made AFTER October 10, to be reviewed (for purposes of the presence requirements for example) pursuant to the 3/5 rule (the "new" law some may refer to it as). I do not recall how IRCC approached this as a general rule. BUT, for example, CIC (while Harper was PM and thus before the change to IRCC) EXPLICITLY adopted and implemented a strict policy to deem all applications received after June 10, 2015 as made on or after June 11, 2015, and thus applied the then "new" law, the 4/6 presence rules, to such applications even if they were signed on June 10 or before, even if they had been couriered days before June 10, 2015.

 

[sns204]

In the meantime, I cannot second-guess what information was "stated" in your AOR, but I am quite certain that it made NO reference to review under the "new law" as such, since this is a vague, relative term, and not at all the sort of information included in such communications, and not all new law would apply to the application if it was deemed made before October 11. Which is not to say the AOR did not make reference to particular laws, or laws effective as of a certain date, or particular new rules, which would inform the applicant which provisions and rules would be applied to the application. That is, it may have referred to provisions in what was new law at the time, and that they would be applied to the application, but NOT to "the new law" in those terms.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was paraphrasing.

"Some of the requirements for Canadian citizenship changed. These new changes provide more flexibility for applicants in
meeting citizenship requirements and as your application was received at the Case Processing Centre in Sydney, NS on or after
that date, it will be assessed based on the new requirements of the Citizenship Act. To learn more about the new citizenship
eligibility requirements, please visit our website at www.cic.gc.ca."

 

[Drfay]

Hello everyone. Thank you for your positive replies for my situation.
I got an email today for the citizenship ceremony. Thank goodness. Good luck to everyone.
My time line.
Applied: October 14th
Letter for test date: August 29th
Letter for oath ceremony : 29th October