REMINDER: THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE RATHER DIFFERENT PROCEDURES INVOLVING REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION and DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO PROOF OF PHYSICAL PRESENCE.
WHO GETS THE REQUEST, WHY THEY WERE GIVEN THE REQUEST, WHEN THEY ARE ISSUED THE REQUEST and WHAT GETTING THE REQUEST MEANS FOR THE APPLICANT (including as to the timeline), WILL VARY CONSIDERABLY DEPENDING ON WHICH OF THESE THE APPLICANT RECEIVED (and also vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual applicant's case).
Posts above suggest a need to revisit and clarify the differences.
FIRST, a Specific Reminder as to the Different Procedures:
Particular procedures for requesting applicants to provide additional information and documentation related to proof of presence include:
It warrants emphasizing that there are, clearly, potentially very different experiences encountered by different applicants. As I noted, in the last couple years MOST reports of full blown RQ relate to RQ issued AT or AFTER the interview. But some applicants might be sent the full blown RQ BEFORE the test/interview event.
Additionally, the reporting has been both sporadic and sketchy. Thus, for example, the recent reports about reaching the taking-the-oath step in the process, by @Voltron123 and @canadapr98, really are appreciated. The forum can use as much detail about these procedures as participants are willing to share. (There is a lot we do not know.)
And sometimes the posted information is otherwise NOT clear. As I noted above, for example, @SunnyWays refers to having responded to "RQ" in one recent post, and in contrast reports responding to "QAE" in another. Since there are HUGE, HUGE differences between "RQ" versus "QAE," it is really important to identify which procedure it actually is.
As @Voltron123 observed, inconsistencies in an applicant's information can be what triggers ANY of these procedures (notwithstanding IRCC's assertion that the QAE is RANDOMLY issued). To be clear, this can be internal inconsistencies (such as, for example, information declared in the work history about being employed in Canada during a period of time it is clear, based on information in the presence calculator, the applicant was abroad for an extensive period inconsistent with such employment; or it could be an address in the address history which is incongruous with the declared location of employment in the work history; among scores of possible internally inconsistent information) OR inconsistencies between information in the application and information otherwise known to IRCC (an example I have oft cited is the case where CIC (before it became IRCC) had obtained a conference flyer suggesting the PR was employed abroad and representing the foreign company at a conference in Switzerland, at a time the PR claimed to be unemployed and in Canada; more generally, there are numerous reports of applicants whose LinkedIn profiles or information conflicted with work or address history in their citizenship applications). Of course, among the more common *inconsistencies* which trigger non-routine requests for proof of presence, have to do with travel dates reported in the presence calculation which are not the same as what the CBSA travel history shows or what is indicated in other sources.
For @SunnyWays, I do not recall what was indicated in older posts, as to whether the procedure involved is the QAE or RQ, or RQ-lite. Again, it makes a difference, a big difference. The timing of the request suggested in the recent posts is NOT that we have seen reported for the QAE . . . the QAE usually is sent from Sydney and thus is received by the applicant within a month or two of when the application has "In Process" status. This does not mean it is for sure NOT the QAE. And, of course, @SunnyWays knows which it was.
But it is also incongruous with reports we have seen about RQ in the last couple years, since the timing is this request was sent BEFORE the test/interview event. Again, this does not mean it is for sure NOT RQ. And, again, @SunnyWays knows and can clarify which it is.
Likewise the RQ-lite, CIT 0520. Which typically requests only a few particular documents, BUT it can be quite extensive and request almost as much as the QAE or full-blown RQ. While most reports of the CIT 0520 requests also suggest it is usually issued AT or AFTER the interview, this procedure appears to be the most likely one some are getting later than a QAE request but before the test/interview event.
IN ANY EVENT, ALL REPORTS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH ANY OF THESE PROCEDURES IS APPRECIATED. Again, there is a great deal about these procedures we do not know. Prospective timelines for RQ and RQ-lite are especially UNKNOWN. While we can still extrapolate many elements of triggering criteria, based on previous information, it has now been several years since we have obtained internal CIC/IRCC information shedding any light on what triggers presence-related requests for additional proof.
AND, whether it is in reporting a personal experience or commenting about the process, PLEASE keep the DIFFERENT PROCEDURES in mind and try to be clear which one is being addressed. Again, while all these are related to proof of presence, and thus what is requested overlaps considerably, there are huge, important differences regarding:
Hoping all goes well for those still in process, still waiting for the oath or the next step.
WHO GETS THE REQUEST, WHY THEY WERE GIVEN THE REQUEST, WHEN THEY ARE ISSUED THE REQUEST and WHAT GETTING THE REQUEST MEANS FOR THE APPLICANT (including as to the timeline), WILL VARY CONSIDERABLY DEPENDING ON WHICH OF THESE THE APPLICANT RECEIVED (and also vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances in the individual applicant's case).
Posts above suggest a need to revisit and clarify the differences.
I note, for example, in the above discussion @SunnyWays refers to having responded to "RQ" in one recent post, and in contrast reports responding to "QAE" in another. There are HUGE, HUGE differences between "RQ" versus "QAE."
FIRST, a Specific Reminder as to the Different Procedures:
Particular procedures for requesting applicants to provide additional information and documentation related to proof of presence include:
-- PPQ-QAE CIT 0205, the Quality Assurance request: IRCC states the QAE (Quality Assurance Exercise) is RANDOMLY issued, and while some criteria may factor into who actually gets the PPQ-QAE, it appears clear getting this does NOT suggest IRCC has any particularized concerns let alone suspicions; this tends to come fairly soon after AOR and "In Process," well before the test & interview; as otherwise noted, a timely responsive submission of the information and documentation appears to NOT significantly affect the overall timeline, or at least does NOT knock the timeline much out of the timeline for routinely processed applications.
-- RQ-lite CIT 0520: who gets this is criteria-driven, fact-based, and thus there is some concern, some issue, which triggers this request, but this may be a relatively minor detail and IRCC is mostly doing due diligence to more thoroughly verify the applicant's information and qualifications; NO sign this comes BEFORE the application is actually being processed by a local office, but reports (which have only been sketchy and sporadic in the last year or so) indicate this can come before the test/interview, be issued AT the interview, or be sent to the applicant AFTER the interview; impact on timeline varies depending on particular situation, ranging from very little impact (which requires the applicant to have quickly and responsively answered the request) to a few months or several months, ALLOWING for some cases to become more or less contested presence cases where the response falls short of satisfying IRCC concerns.
-- Full Blown RQ CIT 0171: while there was a period of time during which this was being sent by Sydney before the application was referred to the local office (albeit the response was to be sent to the respective local office), which many of us referred to as "Pre-test RQ," almost all reports of being issued full blown RQ (again, that is CIT 0171) in the last couple years have been about RQ issued at or after the interview, with perhaps some exceptions which, however, were issued by the local office, pre-test, NOT Sydney; who is issued a full blown RQ is almost certainly a criteria-drive, fact-based decision, and unlike the procedure back in 2012 to 2014, maybe into 2015, unlike then (when the triggering criteria might NOT have indicated any significant concern or cause for suspicion), in the last couple years the full blown RQ tends to mean IRCC has identified some very specific concerns or even particularized suspicions; this procedure tends to have a significantly negative impact on the timeline, and some RQ'd cases can take many more months to process, even a year or more longer; some of these cases will be referred to a Citizenship Judge, which means IRCC is overtly questioning/challenging the applicant's presence qualification, and these cases not only face very long timelines they are also at risk for a negative outcome.
-- RQ-lite CIT 0520: who gets this is criteria-driven, fact-based, and thus there is some concern, some issue, which triggers this request, but this may be a relatively minor detail and IRCC is mostly doing due diligence to more thoroughly verify the applicant's information and qualifications; NO sign this comes BEFORE the application is actually being processed by a local office, but reports (which have only been sketchy and sporadic in the last year or so) indicate this can come before the test/interview, be issued AT the interview, or be sent to the applicant AFTER the interview; impact on timeline varies depending on particular situation, ranging from very little impact (which requires the applicant to have quickly and responsively answered the request) to a few months or several months, ALLOWING for some cases to become more or less contested presence cases where the response falls short of satisfying IRCC concerns.
-- Full Blown RQ CIT 0171: while there was a period of time during which this was being sent by Sydney before the application was referred to the local office (albeit the response was to be sent to the respective local office), which many of us referred to as "Pre-test RQ," almost all reports of being issued full blown RQ (again, that is CIT 0171) in the last couple years have been about RQ issued at or after the interview, with perhaps some exceptions which, however, were issued by the local office, pre-test, NOT Sydney; who is issued a full blown RQ is almost certainly a criteria-drive, fact-based decision, and unlike the procedure back in 2012 to 2014, maybe into 2015, unlike then (when the triggering criteria might NOT have indicated any significant concern or cause for suspicion), in the last couple years the full blown RQ tends to mean IRCC has identified some very specific concerns or even particularized suspicions; this procedure tends to have a significantly negative impact on the timeline, and some RQ'd cases can take many more months to process, even a year or more longer; some of these cases will be referred to a Citizenship Judge, which means IRCC is overtly questioning/challenging the applicant's presence qualification, and these cases not only face very long timelines they are also at risk for a negative outcome.
It warrants emphasizing that there are, clearly, potentially very different experiences encountered by different applicants. As I noted, in the last couple years MOST reports of full blown RQ relate to RQ issued AT or AFTER the interview. But some applicants might be sent the full blown RQ BEFORE the test/interview event.
Additionally, the reporting has been both sporadic and sketchy. Thus, for example, the recent reports about reaching the taking-the-oath step in the process, by @Voltron123 and @canadapr98, really are appreciated. The forum can use as much detail about these procedures as participants are willing to share. (There is a lot we do not know.)
And sometimes the posted information is otherwise NOT clear. As I noted above, for example, @SunnyWays refers to having responded to "RQ" in one recent post, and in contrast reports responding to "QAE" in another. Since there are HUGE, HUGE differences between "RQ" versus "QAE," it is really important to identify which procedure it actually is.
As @Voltron123 observed, inconsistencies in an applicant's information can be what triggers ANY of these procedures (notwithstanding IRCC's assertion that the QAE is RANDOMLY issued). To be clear, this can be internal inconsistencies (such as, for example, information declared in the work history about being employed in Canada during a period of time it is clear, based on information in the presence calculator, the applicant was abroad for an extensive period inconsistent with such employment; or it could be an address in the address history which is incongruous with the declared location of employment in the work history; among scores of possible internally inconsistent information) OR inconsistencies between information in the application and information otherwise known to IRCC (an example I have oft cited is the case where CIC (before it became IRCC) had obtained a conference flyer suggesting the PR was employed abroad and representing the foreign company at a conference in Switzerland, at a time the PR claimed to be unemployed and in Canada; more generally, there are numerous reports of applicants whose LinkedIn profiles or information conflicted with work or address history in their citizenship applications). Of course, among the more common *inconsistencies* which trigger non-routine requests for proof of presence, have to do with travel dates reported in the presence calculation which are not the same as what the CBSA travel history shows or what is indicated in other sources.
For @SunnyWays, I do not recall what was indicated in older posts, as to whether the procedure involved is the QAE or RQ, or RQ-lite. Again, it makes a difference, a big difference. The timing of the request suggested in the recent posts is NOT that we have seen reported for the QAE . . . the QAE usually is sent from Sydney and thus is received by the applicant within a month or two of when the application has "In Process" status. This does not mean it is for sure NOT the QAE. And, of course, @SunnyWays knows which it was.
But it is also incongruous with reports we have seen about RQ in the last couple years, since the timing is this request was sent BEFORE the test/interview event. Again, this does not mean it is for sure NOT RQ. And, again, @SunnyWays knows and can clarify which it is.
Likewise the RQ-lite, CIT 0520. Which typically requests only a few particular documents, BUT it can be quite extensive and request almost as much as the QAE or full-blown RQ. While most reports of the CIT 0520 requests also suggest it is usually issued AT or AFTER the interview, this procedure appears to be the most likely one some are getting later than a QAE request but before the test/interview event.
IN ANY EVENT, ALL REPORTS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH ANY OF THESE PROCEDURES IS APPRECIATED. Again, there is a great deal about these procedures we do not know. Prospective timelines for RQ and RQ-lite are especially UNKNOWN. While we can still extrapolate many elements of triggering criteria, based on previous information, it has now been several years since we have obtained internal CIC/IRCC information shedding any light on what triggers presence-related requests for additional proof.
AND, whether it is in reporting a personal experience or commenting about the process, PLEASE keep the DIFFERENT PROCEDURES in mind and try to be clear which one is being addressed. Again, while all these are related to proof of presence, and thus what is requested overlaps considerably, there are huge, important differences regarding:
-- who
-- when
-- why, and
-- what the impact is
-- including how long it will take
-- when
-- why, and
-- what the impact is
-- including how long it will take
Hoping all goes well for those still in process, still waiting for the oath or the next step.
