Just wait now. He/she will come back with a bigger post with loads of fancy words.I will just point out a few things:
1) You repeatedly assert that the purpose of the law (regarding citizenship grant) is to "enable a former Foreign National to settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY". Please QUOTE the law where it says that.
2) Related to the 1), A Permanent Resident already has the right to settle and live in Canada permanently. Yet, you claim that the conferral of citizenship serves the same purpose. Logic dictates that it cannot be so.
3) You referred to citizenship applicants as "Foreign Nationals". This is categorically incorrect. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act specifically defines a "Foreign National" as "a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, and includes a stateless person. (étranger)": https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/page-1.html
4) You are asserting that the very fact that this OP was questioned about his/her intention to live in Canada is proof/evidence that this line of questioning is "well within the discretion of" IRCC agents. In effect, you are asserting that the very conduct of a government official/representative is proof that the said conduct is in line with official guidelines or the law. This reasoning is MAD unless we live in a world where government officials/representatives are infallible at all times. Otherwise, an easy alternative is that the conduct (questioning about intent to live in Canada) is not in line with official guidelines/the law.
5) The changes to the Citizenship Act as a Result of Bill C-6 (June 2017) explicitly repealed the requirement to intent to reside in Canada if granted citizenship (which, hopefully you are aware of). https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2018/02/changes_to_the_citizenshipactasaresultofbillc-6.html . How does it follow then that the current citizenship law gives the IRCC agent the right to question the applicant's intent to reside in Canada. If not strictly illegal, this is at least highly questionable practice on the part of the interviewing officer, far from being "well within their discretion" as you are claiming.
Interview Experience with Citizenship Officer November 2021
- Thread starter Dr kbknaidu
- Start date
I do not mean or intend to argue the observations I have made, offered to illuminate and inform, to provide information that might help applicants and prospective applicants make decisions in navigating their own path toward citizenship, and to better understand what is happening along the way.
I acknowledge my manner of writing struggles some, fancy words or otherwise, so I will try to better explain.
I also recognize there is a contingency of forum participants who more or less insist that that living abroad after applying, or otherwise appearing to have been applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, poses no more risk of elevated scrutiny or credibility concerns than applicants generally have. And some are rather militant in challenging any suggestions otherwise.
Frankly, that appears to be mostly about how they believe things should work and not so much based on evidence about how things actually work.
Prior to Covid the evidence leaned in the other direction. Going forward, post-Covid . . . as I previously observed, it will be interesting to see if there is any difference in post-test timelines for those who took the knowledge of Canada test virtually while in Canada compared to those who did the virtual test while outside Canada. I am not at all certain how this will go, but based on following the grant citizenship process in Canada for more than a decade now, my guess (which is not an expert's guess but is a fairly informed one) is that a greater percentage of those who took the test while abroad will be encountering further delays and non-routine processing. How much so, if so, is hard to forecast.
In terms of "logic," I make no effort to claim my logic is any better than yours, but neither your logic nor mine is much relevant. The reasoning employed by IRCC officials, and the Federal Court justices who review their decisions, that is the logic that matters. At least that is what matters for those who want to know how the system actually works, so they can not only better understand what is happening with their applications but also so they can make better decisions along the way.
Which brings this to those few things you "point" out. You are arguing with me. But my view is worth little more than a shrug. Who cares what I think? My reasoning, my logic, is not worth much. What matters is how IRCC processing agents and officers approach things. And in that regard, I made an effort to illuminate and explain, as best I have been able to discern, and as best I can do, how IRCC processing agents and officers approach these things. You challenge (but also mischaracterize) my description of the purpose underlying the system providing a path for FORMER Foreign Nationals to come to Canada, settle and live in Canada PERMANENTLY, and become citizens (the grant of citizenship merely the last, culminating event along that path). OK. You do not buy that is a relevant factor, one among others, underlying why @Dr kbknaidu was asked about where he intends to live. But that appears to be based on your logic, whereas again it is the reasoning, the logic employed by IRCC officials, and the Federal Court justices who review their decisions, that matters.
So, in regards to those few things you "point" out, you misquote and misconstrue what I have attempted to illuminate. Since the focus of my observations was about the propriety of the processing agent inquiring about whether @Dr kbknaidu was "going to stay in this country," I will address that part in particular. You stated:
"You are asserting that the very fact that this OP was questioned about his/her intention to live in Canada is proof/evidence that this line of questioning is "well within the discretion of" IRCC agents."
That is NOT what I asserted. I stated "a big clue that IRCC might indeed make such inquiries is the fact that, as @Dr kbknaidu reports, an applicant for citizenship was recently asked just such questions."
That was in addition (set off by a new sentence beginning with "And" to emphasize it was in addition) to my other observation that asking such questions is well within the discretion of IRCC officials.
BOTH are relevant and for some applicants potentially important. Both being:
(1) It is well within the discretion of IRCC officials to ask questions related to where the applicant is currently living, working, and will be living, and
(2) The likelihood of questioning along these lines is evidenced by the fact that there is a recent credible report of an applicant being asked such questions.
My sense is that was clear enough in my previous post. But yeah, I realize I struggle with words, so hopefully this better illuminates what I was saying.
As for the challenge that it is (or should not be) within the discretion of IRCC officials to ask questions related to where the applicant is currently living and will be living, you appear to base that largely on the fact that there is no intent to reside in Canada requirement. There is no requirement to be employed either, but IRCC officials clearly have discretion to ask, and often do ask about a citizenship applicant's employment, and not only employment history but current employment (as I was asked during my interview). No hint whatsoever in a hundred plus Federal Court decisions (and yes I have read at least that many regarding grant citizenship) that questions about the applicant's employment are improper.
Or, to quote me back in 2017, in this forum, in a discussion (here https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/intention-to-live-in-canada-during-application-process.502841/#post-6141766 ) about the repeal of the SCCA provision, repealed section 5(1)(c.1) in the Citizenship Act, often referred to as the "intent to reside" provision (so yeah, I was, as you reference, "aware" of that):
Not all questions need relate directly to a qualifying requirement. Many questions can be, and sometimes are asked, aimed at evaluating the applicant's credibility.
Moreover, to further quote me back in 2017, in regards to the repeal of the intent to reside provision, I then noted:
I offered the purpose underlying the path to citizenship to explain why the questions posed to @Dr kbknaidu might have been asked, how that related to credibility. But even if I am wrong about the purpose (I am not, but set that aside), not only do IRCC officials have the discretion to ask a wide, wide range of questions, they have a wide, wide range of discretion in deciding which applicants will be subject to elevated scrutiny, non-routine processing, including RQ-related processing.
There is virtually NO review of the scope of questions they can ask or the reasons why they subject an applicant to non-routine processing or RQ-related procedures.
Moreover, much of how they approach these things falls under the ambit of investigatory methods and means, and is confidential, meaning secret.
There is no hint in any Federal Court decision that the scope of questions asked citizenship applicants is limited.
BOTTOM-LINE: There is nothing "illegal" about the interviewer asking questions relating to the applicant's current living or working situation or future plans, and there is nothing in any decision by a Federal Court to so much as suggest that such inquires constitutes a "questionable practice."
THUS:
-- they can ask, and
-- as the report by @Dr kbknaidu illustrates, they sometimes do ask
Last edited:
Till i finish reading this im gonna get my oath ceremony.
Shorter Version:
The scope of questions potentially asked during an interview of citizenship applicants is very broad.
Procedural fairness standards do not apply to or limit the scope of questions asked or govern the reasons for which IRCC subjects an application to non-routine processing, be that a referral to CBSA (and its NSSD) to investigate the applicant, such as to verify the applicant's reported presence in Canada, or to issue the applicant RQ. (Applicants are not even entitled to know what the reasons are.)
While there is nothing prohibiting individuals from going through the process of becoming a Canadian citizen for the purpose of obtaining a passport-of-convenience, no special insight or inside information necessary to recognize those applicants perceived to be seeking a passport-of-convenience are more likely to be approached with some suspicion. Related questions may not be common but they can be asked and are indeed sometimes asked. Not every applicant abroad for an extended period of time during processing will be perceived to be among such applicants, but depending on the individual circumstances, those living abroad while their citizenship application is pending should not be surprised if IRCC approaches their application with some suspicion, some questions.
Summary: Assurances that there is no additional risk for applicants living abroad or otherwise on their way abroad are misleading. Nonetheless, if they meet the requirements, and can PROVE they do, no problem (other than potential delays due to non-routine processing).
Give me any topic, I can package my own biases and write nonsensical ramblings like your posts here.
The only thing I gather from this is you have personal frustrations with certain kind of immigrants coming into this country and don't like them pursuing their life interests. So, you're trying to portray the system you want to see as the system that's currently in place.
Just because your posts are long and you use bold and italics all over the place doesn't mean you know what's going on. In fact, in almost all cases, indiscriminate use of visual elements means the person has no clue what he's talking about.
This is just doody packaged in seemingly official-sounding words. Only dumb people will read your posts and assume this is some kind of scholarly work.
Instead of trying to create fear, please go back to yelling at kids to get off your lawn.
Hey let's not be mean to @dpenabill . He/She's a veteran on this forum and has often provided valuable insight. He/she may not be on point all the time but we are free to pick and choose a la carte.
E.g. I do think that the point that IRCC operates in its own orbit has merit. If it were challenged in court, for sure the intent to reside would not hold after bill C-6. However it'll waste the applicant's time by many many years. Plus is it a surprise that some officials may be acting outside prescribed guidelines given that there are reports of inappropriate behavior within the IRCC's ranks - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-refugees-citizenship-racism-1.6217886
I'm not trying to be mean. I actually wanted to respond yesterday but I held back but constantly trying to rekindle fear is not at all helpful.
There are lot of folks here that are new and haven't dealt with immigration agencies before. Many come from countries where due process is not a well-settled concept. Posts like these will only create fear.
What he's basically saying is anything that's not tested in federal courts is legal. That's not a concept even in common law settings. Then he's using catchphrases some right wing guy used to sell his books like a legal term.
It's not much different from a common problem in the society today: writing opinion and selling it as news. Even if it's an opinion, it's not a well-thought one. He has no nuanced understanding of how open the world has become or the convoluted factors that drive immigration profiles a country would seek.
He's saying 'Assurances that there is no additional risk for applicants living abroad or otherwise on their way abroad are misleading'. What is that supposed to mean? He wants people to live in fear that departing would be detrimental to their application?
When IRCC itself provides that assurance?
https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=911&top=5
It's not some theoretical concern. There are many threads asking if it will be a problem if they leave Canada to pursue a job or studies. While he's sitting there and fanning the same fear. That's why I felt it's important to respond.
Saying natural born citizens are free to pursue their interests while naturalized citizens have to be worried all the time is a stale thinking at best. It's something Canadians explicitly rejected. Trying to keep that concept alive and implying that's how the system works is a despicable way of pushing your own ideology.
The CBC article is interesting, infact if you compare the performance of offices, where 1st generation of immigrants are working, vs others you will see the difference.
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/can-a-citizenship-judge-or-immigration-officer-postpone-or-deny-my-application-if-i-need-tn-status-to-work-in-the-us.750748/
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/travels-outside-canada-after-submitting-citizenship-application.748920/post-9798938
These are just a sample set.
There are also many posts like this that attempt to clarify IRCC position (in addition to IRCC's own website):
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/left-canada-after-applying-for-citizenship-received-employment-insurance-before-applying-for-citizenship-entering-canada-with-an-expired-pr-card.750577/
These factual posts are balanced by speculative opinions masquerading as official IRCC positions keeping the fear alive.
I have no problem with someone stating their opinions as such. If someone thinks Canada should bar all immigration, I will stand for their right to say that out loud. Then I will provide my opinion on why they're wrong.
But if you try to create an aura around you by saying you closely follow all citizenship matters and be this wrong, be prepared to face someone pointing that out.
Fair point. Phrases like "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport", "passport-of-convenience". "And some are rather militant" are not helpful. The law is the law and citizenship applicants have the right to leave canada after applying for citizenship.
That said I do agree with @dpenabill 's point that IRCC agents have wide latitude in questioning the eligibility of a candidate. Merely making an application non-routine by doubting the candidate's physical presence requirements by sending it to secondary processing or RQ, is a tremendous setback to the applicant. The forum is filled with people who've been waiting several years in purgatory. Unfortunately, due process takes time and time and opportunity are precious.
Furthermore due process is somewhat broken right now due to the pandemic. The court system is completely clogged to the extent that criminal cases e.g. DUIs are hitting the "Jordan rule" time limit and literally being thrown out - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/covid-19-delays-justice-system-jordan-rule-fertuck-canada-1.6087923#:~:text=The right to go to,fight their charges in court.
To put it another way. Times are tough, IRCC has too much power and we have limited time and energy. What's the reasonable thing to do in this case? Not live in fear certainly, but also maybe not do something that might drastically delay one's application.
To put it another way. Times are tough, IRCC has too much power and we have limited time and energy. What's the reasonable thing to do in this case? Not live in fear certainly, but also maybe not do something that might drastically delay one's application.
That's another thing. RQ inquires about the past and he's conflating it with questions on future intentions to add legitimacy to his own speculations. These are two separate things.
The adjudicating officer has every right to delve into the past physical presence. I think everyone should be prepared to prove their personal presence as much as possible to make the job easier for the officer. Especially when some number of applicants in the past illegally received citizenships without satisfying their residency obligations, it's a very complex job for the adjudicator to make sure she's not granting citizenship by error.
I'm not for placing impractical burden on the processing officer or the IRCC. I've before in a different thread, the officer is looking at all these discrete data in the application and trying to create a full profile in her mind and there can be gaps and the applicant should try to provide context either proactively or upon request - whether it's a break between employments or gap in passports such as a lost passport (so they don't think you're trying to hide something).
But questions about future intentions are entirely different. There are very few reasons to ask about future intentions especially when it came up once already and then legislators decided it's moot going forward. This person in his post itself is insinuating a narrow, fealty reasoning for such questions while also trying to justify it and making it look customary.
This is akin to what all fake gurus do. They first emphasize the obvious and gain attention and then start blending their opinions with facts trying to give it life.
In one of the links I posted above, it's clear the poster has tried hard to not lose the job offer. For whatever reason it's important for them. It's their life. I cannot be pushing my personal opinions and muddy their decision making process by writing stuff like this.
Forget about job offers, if a relative is sick and the applicant has to go care for them, why would I, in a million years, create this additional angst for that person?
If there's clear bias against something and you don't have the intellect to separate them from facts or have the will to state that explicitly, probably you should stay away from those threads. Otherwise, you'll be called out.
That and more . . . including characterizing me as a "fake guru."
Generally ad hominem is not worth addressing. The substance of the content is what is important.
But you really misread me and my efforts to contribute here.
I make a concerted effort to focus on what can be discerned about the way things actually work. How IRCC actually approaches and handles citizenship applications. Very little in my posts above is opinion, but rather is description. And I really do the homework.
My objective is focused, virtually laser focused, on information that will help applicants and prospective applicants better understand certain aspects of the process (my contributions here are limited to just a few issues, those which I have been following closely for many years) and to provide information which will allow them to judge for themselves how to best navigate their own way through the system.
While I make an effort to not let it influence my posts, I do have some frustration with misinformation and especially that which is misleading, including misleading assurances. So sure, I can be more dogged when dealing with misleading and erroneous information.
I may lack self-insight in some respects, but I doubt this description of my participation here is far off. I am not an impeccably honest individual, in a pinch perhaps as honest as a gambling man can be, but this description of my motives and objectives and efforts is an honest one.
I rarely tout my personal qualifications to discuss these issues; I emphasize I am NO expert and am not a Canadian lawyer. I have no professional experience, in Canada or otherwise, in immigration law (albeit some occasional, peripheral involvement in related issues). I intend the content of my posts to stand (or fall) on its own. But you appear to be accusing me of offering unsubstantiated opinion not based on substantive research, so to help you put what I offer in context, as I noted I do the homework, I read the law, the official judicial and quasi-judicial decisions, and follow both the unofficial information posted by IRCC as well as anecdotal reporting in forums like this. I am a jurist. I filed my first brief to an appellate court (not in Canada) nearly a half century ago, and since leaving an active practice before courts (not in Canada) I have spent more than the last quarter century reading, researching, analyzing, and writing about legal issues professionally (not Canadian law), providing content published in highly reputable and very expensive compilations of legal information for lawyers and judges. And for more than the last decade, for personal interests, non-professionally but carefully and diligently, I have studied and written about a narrow slice of Canadian law related to maintaining PR status and obtaining grant citizenship. I nonetheless expect the content of what I post here to stand on its own. I am not recounting these qualifications to establish myself as an authority. But it should be clear, the accusations about the integrity of my contribution here, and insinuations it lacks scholarly effort, are wrong.
Which brings this to the content of my posts in this thread. And an apology to the OP, @Dr kbknaidu, for having become a distraction. I hope the OP returns to follow-up with reporting the OP's further experience.
The OP credibly reports being asked about future plans, about living in Canada. I posted in this thread in response to the erroneous assertion that was "strange" and that the interviewer should not have asked such questions. My initial response, as I have admitted, was clumsily worded. But as I have tried to clarify since, it really comes down to this:
-- Yes, IRCC can ask a grant citizenship applicant questions about where they currently live, where they currently work, and about their plans, and
-- Yes, applicants are indeed sometimes asked such questions (and @Dr kbknaidu reports just that, happening recently, and I was similarly asked questions about where I was living, at the time of the interview, and about my ongoing employment)
And in response to the false assertion that such inquiries are "questionable practices" (in reading more than a hundred Federal Court citizenship decisions, I have not seen the slightest hint to support that assertion), I made an effort to honestly explain why.
Which brings this to my use of italics and fonts to set apart certain phrases. To my view what is actually said matters. So I make an effort to quote and to make it clear (with italics) what is quoted. You say, about what I said:
"What he's basically saying is anything that's not tested in federal courts is legal."
That is not what I said. You appear to have conflated two distinct observations:
-- there is nothing illegal about the interviewer asking questions relating to the applicant's current living or working situation or future plans, and
-- there is nothing in any decision by a Federal Court to so much as suggest that such inquires constitutes a questionable practice
To be clear, Federal Court decisions have addressed the nature and scope of procedural fairness, including in particular what actions and decisions by administrative decision-makers are subject to procedural fairness standards and which are not. That is, the nature and scope of questions an administrative official can ask, and the nature of actions they can take based on that, has been tested in Federal Court. A recurring complaint about my posts is how long they are, so it is impractical to document every statement with a full explanation of its basis with citation to sources. Summarizing the actual law: generally administrative decision-makers have very broad, virtually unfettered discretion to ask questions, and very broad discretion to take actions like implementing non-routine processing procedures.
This is another of your descriptions about what I have said that very much misses the point:
RQ inquires about the past and he's conflating it with questions on future intentions to add legitimacy to his own speculations. These are two separate things.
No, I do not conflate post-application information with what is properly within the scope of verifying the applicant's actual physical presence. The latter is indeed a factual inquiry into facts as they existed on the date the application was made. And true enough, if IRCC was discounting days in that calculation based on days outside Canada after applying, or based on the applicant's future intent, that would indeed be improper. And this is actually something the Federal Court has affirmed, albeit that was many years prior to Bill C-6.
But an IRCC officials perceptions about the applicant's intentions, and motives, can indeed influence whether the applicant faces elevated scrutiny, non-routine investigation, or other non-routine processing, including RQ-related processing. As I tried to emphasize from the beginning of the discussion in this thread, to a large extent this is about IRCC assessing the applicant's credibility. And whether or not the applicant is to be scrutinized more extensively than the routine applicant.
I state, and repeat, and repeat: for applicants living abroad or otherwise on their way abroad who "meet the requirements, and can PROVE they do, no problem (other than potential delays due to non-routine processing)." And, I should have added, no problem other the potential inconvenience of non-routine processing.
I also make a concerted effort to be clear that just being abroad pending processing, or appearing to otherwise be headed abroad, does NOT necessarily trigger elevated scrutiny, let alone directly result in overt suspicions or non-routine processing. I have tried to make it clear that individual circumstances can and do influence how it goes. Make no mistake, however, CREDIBILITY looms very large in this. And while many gnash their teeth over characterizations of "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport," or otherwise pursuing a "passport-of-convenience," these aptly illustrate the kind of perceptions, about applicants, which are more likely to trigger elevated scrutiny with an increased risk of non-routine processing with attendant delays.
To put this in further context, even during the Harper years many applicants who were living abroad after applying for citizenship did not encounter difficulty or delays in processing their application. But many did. The risk then was probably much higher than it is now, but even then, even within Harper's bureaucratic regime, there was (which you erroneously claim I lack) a "nuanced understanding of how open the world has become." But it is readily apparent that if and when IRCC officials perceive an applicant is pursuing a Canadian passport rather than to be a part of Canadian society, in Canada, there is still a significant risk of suspicion, and the negative impact that can have on the process . . . noting, nonetheless, once again, as long as they meet the requirements, and can PROVE they do, no problem (again, other than potential delays and inconvenience due to non-routine processing).
That risk continues to be real. How it compares going forward to how it has been in the past is something to monitor. Assurances there is no such risk, or that it is so slight there is no cause to consider it, are misleading. And no, the information posted by IRCC here: https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=911&top=5 does not assure applicants there is no such risk, not at all. Moreover, that information identifies the key logistical risks.
Overall the available information and the current flow of anecdotal reporting is entirely consistent with all of this. From the credible report by @Dr kbknaidu about actually being asked questions related to settling in Canada, to the smooth sailing, no problem report by @Orgcom and, it appears (given report of a Decision Made) almost smooth sailing reported by @hayden314, to reports like this:
There is some irony in the accusation that my discussion of this is oriented in animosity toward certain immigrants, since the astute observer who is among those seeking a passport-of-convenience, for example, can easily recognize ways to reduce their risks and better navigate the process based on the information I have posted. That is, what I post can easily be appropriated and used by someone overtly attempting to manipulate the system. That is an inherent aspect of providing actual information. I make no judgment about how the information is used or will be used. My focus is getting the information right, as best we can.
Ultimately my objective is to provide information, balanced but reliable information, applicants and prospective applicants can use to make better decisions for themselves. It is not about fear. It is about reading the waters ahead and navigating them.
Last edited:
Awesome to read so insightful point of view. I will call my journey as "almost smooth sailing" once I become a Canadian. At this moment, I observe that IRCC is not moving my application after DM. Maybe, it's a backlog, maybe something else.