I am here to tell you specifically that I was sent 0520 solely because my flagpole exit was not declared. No it was not related to any other factor/s as a matter of fact the officer ask probing questions like, where in the USA did I visit? how many days did I spend? even though it was only flagpole and I left Canada and returned the same day. An I-94 was requested from me plus other documents, which delayed my application 3.5 months. Anyhow all is resolved and I have gotten decision made since early march. Seven different officers, seven different scenario everyone's experience is different.
Flagpole day as travel outside of Canada?
- Thread starter Doda
- Start date
As I said, I have NO idea why you actually got CIT 0520.
Sometimes the main reason why an applicant encounters RQ-related non-routine processing is obvious. Easily inferred because it is something that stands out among the various known reasons-to-question-residency also known as triage criteria.
Otherwise, there is no way to know what triggered a decision to issue a CIT 0520. That decision-making is strictly confidential. Even in cases that eventually end up in the Federal Court that information is NOT included in the CTR. Not even a Federal Judge gets to see it.
I did not and do not entirely dismiss the possibility that an IRCC officer informed you the single omission, for the flagpole trip, was the reason. BUT, as I said, that would be extremely unusual. If that is what an officer told you, that sounds more like appeasement than accurate information. In the same vein as the help centre agents informing applicants they have outstanding background checks in response to questions about why it is taking so long (when that rarely has anything to do with why there has not been a decision-made yet). By the way, I dislike the IRCC's practice of responding to applicants in a way to appease rather than giving real answers, but it is what it is.
In any event, minor errors in isolation that have no prospect of affecting the presence calculation generally do NOT trigger RQ UNLESS there are other inconsistencies, incongruities, or circumstances arousing an official's concern. Indeed, single omissions from the travel history were NOT triggering RQ even at the height of the crackdown in 2012, when during some months nearly one-in-three applicants were being issued RQ (back in 2012). Even then the triage criteria (which we knew at the time due to a widely shared leaked copy of the FRC) explicitly gave a single travel history omission a PASS as long as it did not involve more than a three day discrepancy in the calculation.
In contrast, applicants have reported NO RQ-related requests even though they made mistakes as big as three week omissions. Of course they had margins over the minimum well covering that plus some. It might be easy to dismiss this as just an example of how things go differently for different individual, but the decision-making process is not random or capricious. There is a reason why one applicant's mistakes trigger RQ and a different applicant's comparable mistakes do not, and that reason is almost always rooted in one factor or another, one circumstance or another. Just what the applicant does to earn a living can have significant influence.
None of which is to say I know any better than you WHY there were enough concerns about your presence calculation to issue RQ-related requests to YOU. I do not know why you were issued a CIT 0520.
What your experience confirms is that making this mistake does not guarantee there will be no RQ. Since you made this mistake and you got RQ (the RQ-lite version). But any applicant can be issued RQ. There is no way to guarantee an applicant will NOT get RQ.
But for others here who made a similar mistake, there is NO reason to worry that this single mistake will trigger RQ-related requests or other non-routine processing. It is very unlikely this alone will trigger RQ.
My presents questions were only rooted around the trip to the border, hence I was asked for USA I-94, passport pages, travel itinerary, and an explanation letter as to why I went to the USA, for how long? I went and what address did I stay?
Even though I received CIT 0520 I was informed by the said officer that my application never fell into a non-routine and I was also informed that CIT 0520 is not an RQ by any means. My application date was March 19, 2019, my decision made date was March 3rd all of my processing was within the one year period.
Overall, the labeling and distinctions ("non-routine" and "RQ-related" or such) are mostly helpful in terms of distinguishing the various procedures. For example, when discussing what the applicant needs to do in response, it generally helps to be clear which type of request it is. The labels and distinctions have no substantive significance in themselves. But which is involved tends to illuminate (but not for certain) something about the nature and scope of the concerns or issues.
To some extent, the labeling also helps distinguish a LITTLE, just a little, about what the impact might be on how long it takes. Timelines in the routine cases vary considerably, but far more so when any non-routine processing is involved. So there is no reliable forecasting of timelines but generally, very generally, a particular non-routine procedure can be correlated to the risk of long or very long delays. As you have experienced, it appears, various types of non-routine processing can have rather little, if much at all, impact on the overall timeline. But we know, in contrast, the full-blown RQ, that is the CIT 0171 version of RQ, tends to have a higher risk of lengthy delays.
Since you have, apparently, reached the Decision Made, application approved stage, none of this should be of any import to you.
I am addressing this further, in a separate post, to help others put your reported experience into context. As best we can. Which is, indeed, rather imperfect. There is a lot which goes on behind closed curtains, particularly as to any investigatory decision-making (such as criteria for issuing RQ-related requests).
Again, the following observations are help others put your reported experience into context:
What is "non-routine"
If you were issued ANY additional request, including those in a CIT 0520, that is considered "non-routine." Which in itself does not mean much at all.
In particular, "non-routine" is merely a descriptive distinction for applications which involve ANY procedures or requests that are in addition to those that all applications go through. It is not a formal status, so there is no label on a file that says the application is "non-routine." A mere fingerprint request, which is fairly common, means the application is "non-routine," meaning it has involved a request in addition to the standard procedures applicable to all applications.
I cannot explain what the officer meant or why in your case. Your experience appears to vary from the norm some.
In particular, few applicants actually have conversations with the Citizenship Officer who evaluates and makes the final decision in their case. It is more common for applicants to be interviewed by a processing agent who gathers information, adds comments or such to the file, and submits the file to the Citizenship Officer. Sometimes at test events Citizenship Officers conduct some of the interviews, along with the processing agents, in effect sharing the interviewing workload. I cannot say how it is decided which applicants are interviewed by a Citizenship Officer versus a processing agent. But it occurs to me that perhaps the applicants have been sorted and, possibly, it is flagged applications which are handled by the Citizenship Officer.
There are Citizenship Officer interviews apart from the standard or routine test event interviews. These are essentially an informal hearing conducted like an interview. These are not at all common. Some are about residency but they can be an oral test of knowledge of Canada, or a test of language ability, or to address other issues such as prohibitions.
Labeling CIT 0520 as a type of RQ:
Here too, the "RQ" or "RQ-related" or "RQ-lite" labeling is informal. The formal RQ, that is the "Residence Questionnaire," is CIT 0171. It is specifically labeled "RESIDENCE QUESTIONNAIRE." For more than five or six years now, CIC then IRCC has been making RQ- related (as in related to residence or presence questions) requests that are much smaller in scope than the CIT 0171. The most common version of these RQ-related requests is the CIT 0520. Very early on (more than five or six years ago or so), many began referring to the CIT 0520 as RQ-lite as a shorthand reference distinguishing it from both the full-blown RQ, that is CIT 0171, but also distinguishing it from some other forms of RQ-related requests, ranging from quality assurance requests like the CIT 0205 many applicants were issued in 2017 (which actually requested more than a full-blown RQ) to specific requests in simple letter form (but nonetheless requesting residence or presence related information or supporting documentation).
These and more are discussed at length and in some depth in a topic specifically about the various forms of RQ-related requests; see
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/rq-versus-physical-presence-questionnaires-including-cit-0205.534082/
Here, for example, is a quote from a post of mine there last summer:
Mostly for reference, here is a quote from 2017:
In any event, while I have not seen the most recent version of the CIT 0520, for years these too had a heading which specifically referenced being a "Request For Documentary Evidence of Your Residence in Canada" (with some slight variations depending on the particular version). Whether the current version references "Residence" or "Presence," the CIT 0520 is for sure a non-routine request (most applicants do not get these) for RQ-related information or documentation. However one otherwise *labels* it, these are requests for residency or presence related information.
As I recall, in previous posts you similarly referred to the CIT 0520 you received as "RQ light." Nonetheless, again the label is unimportant.
What Triggered Issuing CIT 0520 in your case:
As I previously noted, your experience differs from the norm some because you had a conversation with an Officer rather than simply the typical processing agent conducting the test event interview.
But even if the interview is with a Citizenship Officer, the interviewer comments tend to be superficial and at best gloss over or skirt any real issues. They are trained to not give away much.
Apart from that, however, it is telling that in your interview you were questioned some about the unreported (in the presence calculation travel history) trip to the U.S., more thoroughly than just asking for clarification that it was a day or landing-flagpole trip. Again, isolated mistakes, including omissions, rarely trigger concerns or questions. Again, even during the period of time CIC was applying draconian triage criteria sweeping up to one-in-three applicants into RQ, a single isolated mistake in travel history was not triggering RQ.
The underlying question is why, why in your case, was this omission a focus of inquiry? Given the record of your landing date, as mistakes go, it is not as if failing to report the flagpole event was concealing the fact that you entered Canada at a PoE on that date to do the landing.
I do NOT KNOW why. It is very, very difficult to figure these things out. Other circumstances likely factored into why there were enough concerns to question you more extensively about this. The "other circumstances" that factor into these sorts of decisions can be entirely innocent. Ranging from details in the address and employment history, to your travel history other than this trip, as well as what other indications of ties to the U.S., or not, among many others.
Of course details like the margin over the minimum requirement often factor into this (noting, however, that even applicants with many months of presence over the minimum have gotten RQ, including full blown RQ).
Moreover, it appears that the decision to issue the request for additional documents was made attendant or after the interview. Which means how you responded to questions was a factor in the decision-making. Lots of room for variability in outcomes when a total stranger bureaucrat is assessing the credibility of an applicant's oral responses to questions.
OVERVIEW:
Again, I have gone into the weeds some regarding this to better illuminate the process, recognizing there is more than a little we do not know, so that @Klamm and others can have some context.
A key aspect of this is to remember that ANY applicant can be issued RQ-related requests, and even the full-blown CIT 0171 RQ. Mere coincidences can trigger RQ (like having a postal code in the address history that is in an area where addresses have been previously used in cases of suspected fraud).
Thus, for example, in reference to the query posed by @Klamm in particular, my observation that the failure to include the flagpole trip in the calculator travel history should not, not in itself, trigger much if any concern or any RQ-related non-routine processing, that does not mean I am assuring @Klamm there will not be any questions or RQ-related non-routine processing. But of course this isolated factor will be among the full range of things considered by those officials (processing agents and Citizenship Officers) who make the decisions which determine how it goes.
I agree every case is different, however your entire assumption about my case is wrong: No I was not questioned extensively, and yes the officer did speak to me and explained that Canada had no records of me leaving the country, only a record of my entrance on the date of my flagpole, ( I don't know who fell down on the job) therefore she had to verify my presence in Canada. When it comes to IRCC, we can only assume, every case is different, every officer is different and everyone's processing time is different, we can only assume regarding there processes, and assumptions are not always correct.
The key to the discussion, and my observations, is that your experience, as YOU describe it, does NOT mean that the failure to report a single day trip to the U.S. will, alone, trigger RQ-related requests (CIT 0520 or otherwise). The fact that the omission was the flagpole event attendant landing and becoming a PR does NOT change this.
Indeed, absent any other reasons for an IRCC decision-maker to have concerns, omitting a flagpole trip from the presence calculation should be even less likely to arouse concerns than omitting some other day trip, since the applicant reports the flagpole event in other parts of the application (reporting the date of becoming a PR, and also the end date of the temporary resident status which terminated as of the date of landing), so is clearly not trying to conceal the event.
As you repeatedly acknowledge, every case is different, but that does NOT mean there are random or arbitrarily different outcomes based on the same event or circumstance (such as the omission of a day-trip to the U.S. in the presence calculator travel history). It sometimes happens that different IRCC officials will treat what are almost the very same circumstances differently, but when an IRCC official treats one applicant differently than another applicant is treated, there is almost always SOME SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in the FACTS. Those differences are almost always what underlie the different treatment.
Which leads to your case, your experience. I have emphasized that I do NOT know any more about your experience than what you have here reported. I have avoided making any assumptions at all about your case but, rather, relied on your account. Frankly, for example, I doubt you spoke with the Citizenship Officer. So if I was making any assumptions, one would be that it was a processing agent not an officer. My observations here, nonetheless, have been predicated on what you reported, not any such assumption.
You described the questions you were asked, including questions about how long you were in the U.S. I did not assume this. In your description of the questioning you state: "as a matter of fact the officer ask probing questions . . . " The questions you describe are indeed more thorough, as I described, or "probing" as you described, than a casual inquiry for clarification. Which in itself does not signal a lot, only that, as I have addressed, this indicated the likelihood there was some concern you had omitted more than just a flagpole trip.
But again, my observations about that were NOT about analyzing what happened, or why, in YOUR case. I emphatically do NOT know just what, let alone why, your case went the way it did. My observation were to illustrate the simple probability that other aspects of your facts and circumstances likely contributed to the "probing" questions, thus in turn illustrating, FOR OTHERS, that the mere fact of omitting a flagpole trip from the presence calculation travel history is NOT, not alone, likely to be a problem or trigger RQ-related requests (CIT 0520 or otherwise).