Interview Experience with Citizenship Officer November 2021

[justanotherguy28]

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.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's your perception. You have certain mental model of who is a Canadian citizen and how a Canadian citizen should behave and following their job or studies in another country is against those views for some reason. You are also falsely saying that's how IRCC views it as well.

You're also quoting the other post that states IRCC put on hold an applicant who took their test from outside Canada. This is not something I hadn't thought about.

This is from my post from a few days back:
"In certain cases, there are some reports of of certain IRCC officers temporarily stopping processing your citizenship while you're outside but it doesn't seem to be a trend and it is clearly contrary to the spirit of IRCC's assurances."

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/can-we-leave-the-country-during-the-entire-citizenship-process.726475/post-9826021

Still I think this is a sporadic behavior by a small number of IRCC officers, probably those who share your views about folks living outside Canada. More likely, they're confusing citizenship test process with the oath process. When you tell IRCC you're unavailable to take oath you start a six month clock. It's very likely certain offices/certain local offices incorrectly initiate the process just based on presence outside Canada during the test without checking with them if they will be within Canada for oath or directly sending a oath invite. (If I were this applicant, I'd send a webform and also email/call IRCC and let them know I will be available for oath within Canada and they can continue to process my application.)

If IRCC wanted to delay the processing of everyone living outside Canada as an official call, the most logical thing they would do is to require you to be within Canada to take the test. My assumption is they pulled folks from citizenship processing to process temporary worker applications for which they provide guaranteed SLAs. Irrespective, in that post, I still provided this information for that OP to consider even though I think this is not correct or legal.

That's the difference. You think your assumptions are IRCC's policy even though it's not legal and you're saying you should just sit there and take it. What about folks that are already outside? They should all go back to Canada after reading your post?

I'm for mentioning caveats when appropriate but your entire reasoning comes from a biased perception and a broader ideological standpoint. Someone who just listens to what you're saying won't even know this is uncommon. In an adverse event like a denial, your only friend is due process and that's squarely what your posts aim at.

Someone said IRCC has too much power. You're trying to give even more by convincing everyone they can do whatever they want.

A doodoo under whatever name is still a doodoo.

 

[dpenabill]

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.

That's your perception. You have certain mental model of who is a Canadian citizen and how a Canadian citizen should behave and following their job or studies in another country is against those views for some reason. You are also falsely saying that's how IRCC views it as well.

I understand that you disagree with the proposition that if and when IRCC officials perceive an applicant to be pursuing a passport-of-convenience (or something similar), that increases the chances of elevated scrutiny.

And yes, it is my perception, to the contrary, that if and when IRCC officials perceive an applicant to be pursuing a passport-of-convenience (or something similar), that increases the chances the applicant will encounter an elevated level of scrutiny.

But that is NOT because or related to what I think about "who is a Canadian citizen and how a Canadian citizen should behave."

In fact I really am neutral about who Canada grants citizenship.

You really are misreading me.

Of course I know many people who do have strong views, rather negative views about those more interested in a Canadian passport than a life in Canada. There is no shortage of them, among Liberals and the NDP as well as Conservatives.

And contrary to what you may be reading in official sources and the legislative history of Canadian immigration and citizenship law, I see plenty of evidence that attitude persists in the IRCC. As I have previously noted, however, the extent to which this continues to influence the process may become apparent in what we see in processing timelines for those who took the test virtually abroad versus those who took the test in Canada. I will follow where the evidence leads and report accordingly.

In any event, again, I really am neutral about who Canada grants citizenship. I came to Canada late in life. It is late in the game for me to harbor an opinion about what the rules for Canadian citizenship should be. I vote, but do so more based on social programs than other issues (albeit of course the environment is of looming importance as well, since after all it too is ultimately a social issue, considering who will suffer the most). It is fair to say I would vote against leadership that in any respect is anti-immigrant except that is more or less a given because how I lean on social issues generally eliminates my vote for such individuals anyway (never supported Conservatives anywhere I have lived).

I honestly apprehend the risks I reference and rather adamantly support giving applicants and prospective applicants fair notice of information that can help them make better decisions for themselves.

Your ad hominem attacks against me are unwarranted. And they will not dissuade me from challenging misleading information.

 

[justanotherguy28]

I understand that you disagree with the proposition that if and when IRCC officials perceive an applicant to be pursuing a passport-of-convenience (or something similar), that increases the chances of elevated scrutiny.

And yes, it is my perception, to the contrary, that if and when IRCC officials perceive an applicant to be pursuing a passport-of-convenience (or something similar), that increases the chances the applicant will encounter an elevated level of scrutiny.

But that is NOT because or related to what I think about "who is a Canadian citizen and how a Canadian citizen should behave."

In fact I really am neutral about who Canada grants citizenship.

You really are misreading me.

Of course I know many people who do have strong views, rather negative views about those more interested in a Canadian passport than a life in Canada. There is no shortage of them, among Liberals and the NDP as well as Conservatives.

And contrary to what you may be reading in official sources and the legislative history of Canadian immigration and citizenship law, I see plenty of evidence that attitude persists in the IRCC. As I have previously noted, however, the extent to which this continues to influence the process may become apparent in what we see in processing timelines for those who took the test virtually abroad versus those who took the test in Canada. I will follow where the evidence leads and report accordingly.

In any event, again, I really am neutral about who Canada grants citizenship. I came to Canada late in life. It is late in the game for me to harbor an opinion about what the rules for Canadian citizenship should be. I vote, but do so more based on social programs than other issues (albeit of course the environment is of looming importance as well, since after all it too is ultimately a social issue, considering who will suffer the most). It is fair to say I would vote against leadership that in any respect is anti-immigrant except that is more or less a given because how I lean on social issues generally eliminates my vote for such individuals anyway (never supported Conservatives anywhere I have lived).

I honestly apprehend the risks I reference and rather adamantly support giving applicants and prospective applicants fair notice of information that can help them make better decisions for themselves.

Your ad hominem attacks against me are unwarranted. And they will not dissuade me from challenging misleading information.

You're not addressing the inherent inconsistencies in your opinion. There is no standalone way to think about this. You're saying IRCC can ask whatever they want. Consequently they can base their decision on whatever they want (I'd imagine that information is typically not released probably outside a court subpoena or a discovery process).

You're also saying IRCC profiles applicants who move out of Canada during the citizenship process as well as those who they see as likely to move right after getting their passports.

Since the law is you have to be truthful to all IRCC inquiries, the only way to be on the good books of IRCC is to stay in Canada during citizenship and also remain in Canada afterwards. This is essentially a wholesale reabsorption of C6 provisions with respect to demonstrating intention to live in Canada.

I don't think folks that are moving out after applying or after citizenship grant are moving out by choice. In many cases, they don't have a job in their field of interest or they don't have the pay they feel comfortable with. But since they modified their behavior to please IRCC, they have to live a subpar life? It doesn't make any sense.

Let's say IRCC does this, you're still willing to normalize this behavior as within their legal limits even when it leads to impractical solutions? It's one thing to caution applicants to regularly monitor their applications while outside, it's another thing to say it's all going to be uncertain and you're being profiled.

Sure, some officers/offices are placing a hold for applicants living outside. As I said before, I think it's more of an exception than a rule. Instead, by portraying these exceptions as rules, you're creating confusion. I still can't fathom why they'd continue to offer tests for those living outside Canada if they want to discourage that behavior. (There was also a post about an IRCC official saying folks would be able to take oath outside Canada in future but let's set that aside as a speculation.)

From your assumption, can we derive that vast majority of those 2019/20 applicants waiting are those profiled by IRCC for this reason (other than security issues/application errors)? Aren't there folks in Canada with clean history and no past/potential work ties to a foreign country that are still waiting for years?

More likely they've pulled officers and resources from citizenship processing and using it for temporary residence and it's causing delays for a variety of citizenship applications in a random fashion. I think you're too quick to place the blame on the residency aspect. This is different from scrutinizing folks that have traveled a lot during the eligibility period, which is completely legal.

Canadians living and working outside Canada is not a new phenomenon. It's not like they're faced with a sudden new problem.

For example, if I went through the same interview the OP here did, I would've answered the question on plans to stay in Canada but I would also have gently reminded the officer this is not legal by asking if that is material factor to their decision-making.

Ultimately, you have to go by the written law and IRCC instructions. I think this is a speculation that took a life of its own.

 

[baimmeb]

thanks for sharing! i never know IRCC would call

 

[justanotherguy28]

You're in an immigration forum and calling people holders of "passports of convenience". When you say that, do you realize you are talking about your fellow Canadians?

Your term directly comes from "citizens of convenience", which was coined by anti-immigrant conservatives in politics and those working in divisive media like the Toronto Sun.

The term itself was popularized by a Conservative MP during a crisis when Canada had to evacuate all its citizens from the conflict zone possibly including some who have been living outside Canada for a long period.

The same term came up again when the right to vote was expanded to all Canadians irrespective of their residency to say Canadians living outside are electing leaders even though only a miniscule number of them ended up voting.

By using it as a go-to term, you're also using the current life circumstances of some Canadians to place a limit on their all potential future contributions to Canada.

So you're reading this forum, seeing people talking about pursuing work or studies abroad and thinking to yourself that's not right.

And then when you see threads about applications on hold, a light bulb goes off in your head and you're like "oh yeah that makes sense, these people are getting their passports and going to work or study in another country so IRCC is going after them". So you cooked up an IRCC policy and using all these terms to classify them as a subgroup, but all of this is coming from your individual bias.

You said:

ybjianada said:
Second, I also find it strange that this person asked you about your intention to live in Canada, which she shouldn't have.

It is entirely appropriate for IRCC processing agents to ask questions which might reveal a motive to engage in fraud, to make inquiries which go beyond factual details and probe for indicators of evasiveness or deception. Make no mistake, the applicant's credibility is a huge, huge factor in what can affect how things go.

Reminder: the purpose of the path to citizenship provided in the Canadian immigration system is to facilitate settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY. There is not a specific requirement that an otherwise qualified PR applying for citizenship be acting consistent with or according to the purpose of the law, or intend to do so, but of course if there are indications the applicant's actions or intentions are not consistent with the purpose of the law (as stated in many, many, many official decisions), that can and more than occasionally does trigger elevated scrutiny, and even skepticism.

You took that specific line from ybjianada and used it insinuate any intention to pursue anything outside Canada is considered by IRCC as fraud, evasion or deception. And then went on to add a "Reminder" that announces people should permanently live in Canada and that's the law.

Even when the same member gave a side-by side comparison of pre-and post-C6 law, that patently rejected your personal interpretation including the line from the official Canadian government website that states:

This provision is repealed. Applicants are no longer required to intend to continue to live in Canada once granted citizenship. This removes concerns from new Canadians who may need to live outside of Canada for work or personal reasons.

you went on use your verbal garbage to switch to what you think are other reasons saying 'there is no limit on the scope of questions' from IRCC.

even if I am wrong about the purpose (I am not, but set that aside)

And then you go on:

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.

What insight do you have about the elevated risk posed by applicants living out of Canada currently or might, in future? And what IRCC policy or data do you have tp support that?

These are all your personal opinions.

In this very thread, the OP apparently has no intentions whatsoever to move to another country:

10) Officer: asked me if your application was approved, are you going to stay in this country or you have plans to move to other country?
Me: I said I want to stay here only, and serve this county for making Canada a stronger economy... and all..

How did you tie this applicant's long wait to a blanket IRCC policy? Just because the officer asked a question? There is no indication this applicant lived or worked/have other ties outside their home country. Even if turns out to be case, that information was not available to you at the time you wrote your post.

Ever heard 'correlation does not imply causation' - which is a pillar of modern science and before that, for philosophy for over 2500 years? It essentially means you're not supposed to impose your personal biases as soon as you see a few instances that confirm that bias.

As an outsider I can't say what internal procedures IRCC does or doesn't have. But what I'm saying is if someone wants to conclude IRCC has a policy of segregating certain applications based on their life outside Canada, I don't see that causal evidence at all. I'd say the same even if an unbiased person makes that conclusion, much less you.

In general, I see your posts all the time, I've tried to read some of them but mostly I read around them. But I don't think I've ever felt the need to reply. Even with this thread, the reason I bookmarked and came back earlier was to see what happened with the OP's follow-up interview.

There is plenty of evidence you don't have even iota of understanding of basic human psychology. It's evident just from your writing style. Without any regard for the reader, you just keep meandering without any logical flow and using all kinds of approximation verbiage built with all these escape hatches so if one argument fails, you can hold on to others. Vast of majority of your posts could be said in two sentences.

It's enjoyable to read long posts from many other forum members when they build a logical path to a final point. Did you ever wonder why every one of your post is like at least 20-30 sentences long? The reason is you're not writing for the reader, you're writing for yourself, you just want to get it out. You're still making up your mind while also trying to avoid scrutiny by building enough wall around yourself. As a result, it's not criticized nearly as much as it should be.

Why do you think there are many comments just about the complexity of your posts? They want to read and respond but that's impossible to do for most. It's like trying to eat a rock. You think that's because you're smart and follow all this legal proceedings and try to condense it for the average folk. Only problem is smart people always take facts, digest them to meaningful conclusions and write a logical passage, whether long or short.

Only those who are not really smart but want to be seen as one or to maintain control over others, vacuum up legal opinions and randomly regurgitate some of the words when they write.

It's the same reason why people ask for citations from you.

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.

Many smart people are also intuitively compelled to provide sources when they write to keep themselves in line and avoid biases. This is especially true whey they site a statute. You have none of that guardrails for yourself.

But I have no problem with someone wanting to just puke things out. After all, isn't that the concept behind unfettered freedom of speech? If you prevent people from talking, it just snowballs inside them and some guy from London, Ontario will drive his truck into a muslim family just going out on a walk. I consider speech as pressure release valves, including hate speech. But as soon as someone starts speaking bigotry, trying to label a subgroup of people and try to force their own thinking on their behavior, I will also respond by speaking.

Also, being an immigrant alone doesn't say anything about you. Not all immigrants are pure and not all natural born Canadians are bigoted. I've had experiences where settled immigrants start talking about how certain groups are more prone to violence than others and as soon as I point it out, they immediately switch to how they had to sail to a new place during a conflict without a change of clothes and then build a very successful life and how they respect everyone.

I'd love to go into why this antagonism towards against Canadians living outside is stupid in general but I don't think you can see that far. Folks that say subset of immigrants that can't find an opportunity still have to drudge through their life will also then come back to say all low wage jobs are going to immigrants. Just know that Canadian immigration program is not a slave-hiring program.

All I'll say is you are falling for someone with an agenda that's not at all in line with keeping Canada prosperous in a digital future. But if you keep making up stuff on your own to give comfort to your own biases and call it the law of the land, I will always reply to all such posts.

 

[im2kool]

You're in an immigration forum and calling people holders of "passports of convenience". When you say that, do you realize you are talking about your fellow Canadians?

Your term directly comes from "citizens of convenience", which was coined by anti-immigrant conservatives in politics and those working in divisive media like the Toronto Sun.

The term itself was popularized by a Conservative MP during a crisis when Canada had to evacuate all its citizens from the conflict zone possibly including some who have been living outside Canada for a long period.

The same term came up again when the right to vote was expanded to all Canadians irrespective of their residency to say Canadians living outside are electing leaders even though only a miniscule number of them ended up voting.

By using it as a go-to term, you're also using the current life circumstances of some Canadians to place a limit on their all potential future contributions to Canada.

So you're reading this forum, seeing people talking about pursuing work or studies abroad and thinking to yourself that's not right.

And then when you see threads about applications on hold, a light bulb goes off in your head and you're like "oh yeah that makes sense, these people are getting their passports and going to work or study in another country so IRCC is going after them". So you cooked up an IRCC policy and using all these terms to classify them as a subgroup, but all of this is coming from your individual bias.

You said:


You took that specific line from ybjianada and used it insinuate any intention to pursue anything outside Canada is considered by IRCC as fraud, evasion or deception. And then went on to add a "Reminder" that announces people should permanently live in Canada and that's the law.

Even when the same member gave a side-by side comparison of pre-and post-C6 law, that patently rejected your personal interpretation including the line from the official Canadian government website that states:

This provision is repealed. Applicants are no longer required to intend to continue to live in Canada once granted citizenship. This removes concerns from new Canadians who may need to live outside of Canada for work or personal reasons.

you went on use your verbal garbage to switch to what you think are other reasons saying 'there is no limit on the scope of questions' from IRCC.



And then you go on:


What insight do you have about the elevated risk posed by applicants living out of Canada currently or might, in future? And what IRCC policy or data do you have tp support that?

These are all your personal opinions.

In this very thread, the OP apparently has no intentions whatsoever to move to another country:


How did you tie this applicant's long wait to a blanket IRCC policy? Just because the officer asked a question? There is no indication this applicant lived or worked/have other ties outside their home country. Even if turns out to be case, that information was not available to you at the time you wrote your post.

Ever heard 'correlation does not imply causation' - which is a pillar of modern science and before that, for philosophy for over 2500 years? It essentially means you're not supposed to impose your personal biases as soon as you see a few instances that confirm that bias.

As an outsider I can't say what internal procedures IRCC does or doesn't have. But what I'm saying is if someone wants to conclude IRCC has a policy of segregating certain applications based on their life outside Canada, I don't see that causal evidence at all. I'd say the same even if an unbiased person makes that conclusion, much less you.

In general, I see your posts all the time, I've tried to read some of them but mostly I read around them. But I don't think I've ever felt the need to reply. Even with this thread, the reason I bookmarked and came back earlier was to see what happened with the OP's follow-up interview.

There is plenty of evidence you don't have even iota of understanding of basic human psychology. It's evident just from your writing style. Without any regard for the reader, you just keep meandering without any logical flow and using all kinds of approximation verbiage built with all these escape hatches so if one argument fails, you can hold on to others. Vast of majority of your posts could be said in two sentences.

It's enjoyable to read long posts from many other forum members when they build a logical path to a final point. Did you ever wonder why every one of your post is like at least 20-30 sentences long? The reason is you're not writing for the reader, you're writing for yourself, you just want to get it out. You're still making up your mind while also trying to avoid scrutiny by building enough wall around yourself. As a result, it's not criticized nearly as much as it should be.

Why do you think there are many comments just about the complexity of your posts? They want to read and respond but that's impossible to do for most. It's like trying to eat a rock. You think that's because you're smart and follow all this legal proceedings and try to condense it for the average folk. Only problem is smart people always take facts, digest them to meaningful conclusions and write a logical passage, whether long or short.

Only those who are not really smart but want to be seen as one or to maintain control over others, vacuum up legal opinions and randomly regurgitate some of the words when they write.

It's the same reason why people ask for citations from you.



Many smart people are also intuitively compelled to provide sources when they write to keep themselves in line and avoid biases. This is especially true whey they site a statute. You have none of that guardrails for yourself.

But I have no problem with someone wanting to just puke things out. After all, isn't that the concept behind unfettered freedom of speech? If you prevent people from talking, it just snowballs inside them and some guy from London, Ontario will drive his truck into a muslim family just going out on a walk. I consider speech as pressure release valves, including hate speech. But as soon as someone starts speaking bigotry, trying to label a subgroup of people and try to force their own thinking on their behavior, I will also respond by speaking.

Also, being an immigrant alone doesn't say anything about you. Not all immigrants are pure and not all natural born Canadians are bigoted. I've had experiences where settled immigrants start talking about how certain groups are more prone to violence than others and as soon as I point it out, they immediately switch to how they had to sail to a new place during a conflict without a change of clothes and then build a very successful life and how they respect everyone.

I'd love to go into why this antagonism towards against Canadians living outside is stupid in general but I don't think you can see that far. Folks that say subset of immigrants that can't find an opportunity still have to drudge through their life will also then come back to say all low wage jobs are going to immigrants. Just know that Canadian immigration program is not a slave-hiring program.

All I'll say is you are falling for someone with an agenda that's not at all in line with keeping Canada prosperous in a digital future. But if you keep making up stuff on your own to give comfort to your own biases and call it the law of the land, I will always reply to all such posts.

He/she must be a veteran however not sure why his posts instil fear. Therefore, just chill we have heard and seen alot!

 

[dpenabill]

I have no problem with someone wanting to just puke things out.

Obviously.

In contrast that is neither what I do nor what I consider useful or interesting.

You continue to attack me with unfounded accusations, misconstruing my posts, mischaracterizing me and my observations, attributing motives to me that I do not have. You suggest, for example, I do not provide sources because I referenced not documenting EVERY statement with sources. In contrast you will be very hard put to find anyone else participating in the citizenship or PR obligations discussions who more diligently and extensively references, cites, and links official primary sources, as well as government information sources, than I do.

I have made an honest, sincere effort to explain what really are some quite simple and well-established observations about how the Canadian immigration and citizenship system actually works. This is NOT about me, my attitudes, my opinions, or about me in any personal regard whatsoever. It is about what information IRCC personnel consider and how THEY use that information.

I am irrelevant. My point of view, my opinions, are beside the point.

Let's be honest and clear, this much is known:

(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, if for no other reason than to help the official assess the applicant's credibility; 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​

All the heated rhetoric about how improper it is for IRCC agents or officers to inquire into where the applicant is living after applying, or will be living, is simply unfounded, misguided, and badly misleading. The scope of IRCC's inquiries go well beyond the specific requirements. Just to make a complete application that will get processed the applicant must account for employment for the full eligibility period, all five years prior to applying, even though there is no requirement to be employed. And that accounting of employment must include even periods prior to coming to Canada (if within the five year eligibility period).

The idea that just because applicants are not required to live in Canada after applying or to intend to live in Canada in the future somehow makes it improper or questionable for IRCC to inquire about such information, or consider it in deciding what level of scrutiny to give an applicant, simply lacks any basis in the law.

We also know that where the applicant lives after applying, or where the applicant plans to live, is NOT grounds to deny a citizenship application.

That still leaves the question about how such information might otherwise influence the processing of a citizenship application.

In regards to that, I am absolutely open to following the evidence. It appears that a significant number of applicants, including numerous forum participants, have this year taken the knowledge of Canada test virtually while abroad, in a manner that IRCC knows they are abroad. In the coming months it should become apparent whether there is any pattern indicating a difference in the post-test processing timeline for those applicants versus those who took the test in Canada.

I have rather emphatically disavowed knowing how this will go, not generally, and absolutely not in regards to any particular applicants. I am aware, nonetheless, and have shared this, that historically the RISK of problems for applicants who appear to fit certain characteristics related to more or less not being on a trajectory to settle in Canada permanently, is greater than for those applicants readily perceived (by IRCC personnel, not me, my perception is irrelevant) to be fully settled in Canada. No advanced degrees in political science necessary to forecast this or to discern why. Will that continue? It is apparent your guess is no where near as good as mine, as yours is clouded by what you think should be more than the evidence of what is. But at this stage, as to how this will go, going forward, my guess is still just a guess. So, again, it will be interesting to see if any pattern emerges from the post-test processing timelines for those who took the virtual test while abroad compared to those who were in Canada.

Time to let the facts speak.

 

[justanotherguy28]

Again you just evaded all the questions and trying to take me to your lala land where you're living in your own reality.

Let me put it this way.

Anyone that has read this

Applicants are no longer required to intend to continue to live in Canada once granted citizenship. This removes concerns from new Canadians who may need to live outside of Canada for work or personal reasons.

is not going to write this:

Reminder: the purpose of the path to citizenship provided in the Canadian immigration system is to facilitate settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY. There is not a specific requirement that an otherwise qualified PR applying for citizenship be acting consistent with or according to the purpose of the law, or intend to do so, but of course if there are indications the applicant's actions or intentions are not consistent with the purpose of the law (as stated in many, many, many official decisions), that can and more than occasionally does trigger elevated scrutiny, and even skepticism.

So far you haven't even admitted you didn't know what the law itself was when you wrote this and what you said was completely wrong.

Admit you were wrong and you were spreading fake news and then I'll ask my next question, we'll go one by one.

 

[ybjianada]

Again you just evaded all the questions and trying to take me to your lala land where you're living in your own reality.

Let me put it this way.

Anyone that has read this

Applicants are no longer required to intend to continue to live in Canada once granted citizenship. This removes concerns from new Canadians who may need to live outside of Canada for work or personal reasons.

is not going to write this:

Reminder: the purpose of the path to citizenship provided in the Canadian immigration system is to facilitate settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY. There is not a specific requirement that an otherwise qualified PR applying for citizenship be acting consistent with or according to the purpose of the law, or intend to do so, but of course if there are indications the applicant's actions or intentions are not consistent with the purpose of the law (as stated in many, many, many official decisions), that can and more than occasionally does trigger elevated scrutiny, and even skepticism.

So far you haven't even admitted you didn't know what the law itself was when you wrote this and what you said was completely wrong.

Admit you were wrong and you were spreading fake news and then I'll ask my next question, we'll go one by one.

Exactly. He repeatedly claimed that there is a law which says the purpose of citizenship is to facilitate permanent settlement in Canada. I asked him to show me which law he was referring to, and he has not been able to do so. But apparently that did not stop him from making further arguments on the assumption that such a law exists. This is ridiculous.

 

[justanotherguy28]

Exactly. He repeatedly claimed that there is a law which says the purpose of citizenship is to facilitate permanent settlement in Canada. I asked him to show me which law he was referring to, and he has not been able to do so. But apparently that did not stop him from making further arguments on the assumption that such a law exists. This is ridiculous.

I realize people listening some of these stuff and making their decisions without any rational analysis are just as much at fault.

They have to realize anytime they blindly rely on others for interpretation, eventually the person playing that role is going to get too comfortable and start inserting their own biases - whether consciously or otherwise. The same thing even plays out in the broader society at a much bigger level.

Everything is available for free on the internet in plain English including all laws and regulations. In this case, I was surprised to see such specific assurances such as "This removes concerns from new Canadians who may need to live outside of Canada for work or personal reasons. " but obviously they wanted to emphasize they're trying to create a dynamic community, not a jail cell.

Another aspect people need to consider is the data presented here is not well-defined by design. If say, 5 applicants report their application is on hold, does it mean all applicants from outside Canada are on hold or only a few. Also, does it mean no one from outside is getting oaths? It is impossible to make definite conclusions just from these data - unless you're in the senior management in IRCC with access to the entire universe of applications.

I'd also think people whose application process goes smoothly - such as those who live outside getting oath - are far less likely to report on the forum than someone who has a problem - such as an application going on hold.

This is one such rare thread:

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/

Although it's an extremely informative post, it only has 175 views and it didn't generate any discussion at all. Unlike say someone posting their application went on hold.

I think folks need to think about these differences before jumping to extreme conclusions.

After all this, it's up to each individual to read official sources, others experiences, opinions and decide what they want to do.

It's understandable why these things are sometimes appealing. Like if I have filed my application with a criminal record and I'm worried, I'll read anything anyone writes on that topic, irrespective of how long it is, or whether it makes sense or not. It can be even be therapeutic in some sense. All that's great until someone crosses the line with overt bias and call it a fact and people end up using bad information for decision making.

There are some great folks here that consistently provide very valuable information but if people can't tell who's who, it's on them.

I'll still go after someone using labels but enough warning has been provided about the accuracy of some of the information presented in this thread.

 

[dpenabill]

. . . but enough warning has been provided about the accuracy of some of the information presented in this thread.

Agreed.

Apart from the distractions and polemics from a perspective that either does not understand or is deliberately dissembling what "immigration" means, failing to recognize that the grant of Canadian citizenship to immigrants, individuals who were formerly Foreign Nationals, is an integral part of the Canadian immigration system and its scheme to provide a path for non-Canadians to come to Canada to settle and live permanently (as in "immigrate" to Canada), which specifically involves going through the process of obtaining Permanent Resident status, which numerous IAD and Federal Court decisions clearly state has as its purpose facilitating their permanent settlement in Canada (status is the means, not the purpose or objective) . . . apart from those distractions . . . I have offered in-depth explanations for what really is not a complex or obscure subject, which I have summarized as follows:

(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, if for no other reason than to help the official assess the applicant's credibility; and​

(2) The likelihood of questioning along these lines is evidenced by the fact that there are continuing credible reports of applicants being asked such questions.​

Yes, I keep repeating the above. That is the subject raised in this thread which I addressed when there was an erroneous claim that such questions are strange and prohibited. They are not strange. They are not prohibited.

I recognize, and so acknowledged, there are some forum participants who emphatically assert that such questions should be prohibited. Or, at least not asked. Or, at least not considered.

I have steered clear of addressing what the process "should" be. Not my bailiwick.

My activity here is oriented to identifying what we can about how things are, how they actually work. My observations in regards to this issue have been to note that yes, such questions are asked, and yes, such questions are within the allowed scope of inquiry IRCC officials may ask of citizenship applicants. There really is no doubt that such questions are asked. There has been ZERO citation of authority for the proposition that such inquires are not appropriate. (They are not, for example, like asking applicants questions about their sex life or what political party they support.)

There has been plenty of argument about why they should not be appropriate. Again, how it "should" be is not my bailiwick.

The REAL DIFFERENCE, the REAL POINT of CONTENTION is in regards to why IRCC officials might make such inquiries, and how IRCC officials might consider such information. It is what I have proffered about this that provokes contention, opposition. I have been criticized for using the word "militant" to describe the manner in which some challenge the proposition that the perception an applicant is using the Canadian immigration system to obtain a Canadian passport, rather than to settle and live in Canada, can increase the risk that IRCC will have credibility concerns. But is that not precisely the sort of ad hominem diatribe that followed? (Not unexpectedly.)

No need to revisit that side of the equation. The irony is that much of what has been asserted in opposition, and much of the animosity this subject tends to generate, rather obviously derives from the apprehension about how it can influence the process. And that's the real point of contention: apprehending that such information can influence how it goes. That appears to be why there was an assault (calling the questions reported "strange" and inappropriate) on the question itself before I posted here. No magical powers of prophesy or deep scholarly understanding of the Canadian immigration system necessary to recognize that just the mention of such questions will evoke an understanding of what underlies them, what they implicate. Again, that reaction was before I posted anything in this topic. It tells plenty about that side of the equation.

But I will revisit one further aspect of the discussion which should be clear. There is a real difference, an important difference, in the way questions and answers can be used by decision-makers processing a citizenship application.

Questions and answers directly related to the requirements can be considered and used by decision-makers processing a citizenship application in determining whether citizenship will be granted. Such determinations must be based on articulated grounds, meaning they must be based on reasons which are made a matter of record in the file. Those reasons must be based on the law, on what the law prescribes. Those determinations, and the reasons for those determinations, are subject to review by the Federal Court.

Questions and answers, that is information, beyond the scope of what is directly related to the requirements can be considered and used by decision-makers processing a citizenship application in making procedural decisions. Such as whether to issue RQ. Such as whether to refer the applicant to CBSA (NSSD) for investigation. Such as whether to follow-up an interview by a processing agent with an interview by the Citizenship Officer who will be determining if citizenship is to be granted.

A lot of the opposition to questions about the applicant's residence after applying refers to the fact there is no REQUIREMENT the applicant stay in Canada or intend to reside in Canada. That goes to the first kind of questions, and how that information can be used. It is absolutely correct that questions about where the applicant intends to live CANNOT be a basis for denying citizenship. It is absolutely correct that where the applicant lives AFTER applying cannot be a reason to deny citizenship.

But the kinds of questions this discussion has been about are the other kind. Again, if for no purpose other than assessing the applicant's credibility. And the applicant's answers to such questions can be considered by IRCC decision-makers in deciding whether or not to screen the applicant further, whether to engage in non-routine processing, issue RQ, or refer the case for investigation.

Much like suggesting that the prudent applicant will wait to apply with a margin over the minimum presence requirement, even though only 1095 days is what is required (conventional wisdom suggesting at least 7 to 10 days; more cautious sorts like me suggest longer, and I also suggest that some might want to consider quite a lot longer depending on their personal circumstances and history), my observations in this matter are in the nature of a heads-up for the prudent applicant, for a cautious applicant, for those applicants interested in doing what they can to have the best chance of routine processing and smooth sailing. OR, at least a heads-up to be prepared to deal with non-routine processing if it happens.

Make no mistake: Impressions matter. Perceptions matter. And no rocket science necessary to map the trajectory of the impressions made by certain circumstances. No, the earth is not flat.

Perhaps it will help to offer an analogy for the nature and scope of my cautious counsel: when driving we are often given advanced warning of road conditions ahead, like signs warning of sharp curves or steep grades, slippery when wet. Those do not mean the road is closed. They offer the driver an opportunity to adapt their own personal operation of the vehicle to more safely navigate the road ahead. Personal details matter, from the kind of vehicle to the condition of the tires. Proceed accordingly.

The dogged, vociferous, and sometimes rather vicious effort to otherwise mischaracterize and defame me, and the cautious directions I offer, is unfounded, unwarranted.

 

[A_S]

Please forgive me @ustanotherguy28 & @dpenabill on my ignorance and this post.
I have been reading dpenabill's post for almost a decade and can feel the pain in his words when he address, as his tone often discourages people for actions otherwise. Both of you are right and every immigration law is available on the internet and should be left to the reader on their ultimate course of action. I am an immigrant from a developing country who immigrated to US and went through F1-CPT-OPT-H1B-PERM-I-140GC(including tons of interviews for US consular stamping and Nexus) over a decade and now when someone wants an opinion to get around the system, I can resonate with some of the tone. There are thousand of tricks to get around the immigration system be it in US or Canada and this is a great forum to harvest ideas. The current US visa scrutiny and bureaucracy is because of how people have manipulated the entire system to their favor over decades.

Both of you are amazing and my two cents would be to continue to put your energy on helping others with your amazing knowledge and let it go as it may. Please dont get me wrong and I am not taking sides on who is right and who is wrong, just that you guys are bigger than this.

Just a note based on my experiences with immigration officers on both sides of the border, they have asked me questions which sometimes doesn't even make sense, forget the rule book. As far as I know US immigration officers can question you on anything they want even if it is not legal as per rules laid down by congress(be it consulate or at the border) and not surprised if the Canadian officer follows suit. Well the person (author of the post) who was asked about his intention to live, had more than 500++ visits to US with a minor import/export tax evasion issue on his file. I-94 records each and every minor details and who knows if it raised any red flags based on the details filled up in application form(educations, work experience). Canadian Immigration officer might have just asked certain set of questions to get a better understanding on how he reacts to specific situations. These are one off scenario's and we all know how much people truthfully divulge in these sort of open forums.