After 36 months: I go for Mandamus! Who else here has hired a lawyer?
- Thread starter walitys
- Start date
Some RQ Triggers are known via an ATIP request that revealed this e.g. self employment/unemployment with travel. Sometimes GCMS notes will reveal why. Also CIC can at test tell you they are not satisfied with your residence for reasons a,b,c etc and issue an RQ on the spot or post test. Most applicants despite the rhetoric tend to have an idea if they will be RQd or not.links18 said:
CIC have referred to CJ likely with recommendation for refusal...self employment residence is difficult to prove and all the CJ has to do is support CIC in/or cast doubt on a period that for example you traveled. If CJ goes with the strict 1095 days residence test expect a tough interview. Do your passport stamps match declared travel dates? Are the US trips captured? Do you have CBP entry/ exit data.walitys said:
In your shoes I'd compile more physical presence evidence to have at interview - as you did not respond on this from my earlier post not sure if what you issued for your RQ is mostly 'passive' evidence that someone can have even if they are not living in Canada. You've had time to get your Provincial Health billing records..did you apply? Any other proof of your physical presence like medical tests MRIs, dentists, opticians? Any speeding tickets where the police have stopped you and proven you are the driver? Court attendance?
Did you land and live in Canada immediately or did you land then leave say within 60 days then return later on? If so how long after departure did you return? Trying to see the CJs approach if he/she goes with the Centralized mode residence test.
CIC have effectively de-facto quashed your Mandamus application as there is no longer any inaction. They will likely send your lawyer correspondence indicating the mandamus application be resolved by mutual consent - they will wait till post CJ interview. Presumably you are in the GTA given the speed you got the interview?
I think Msafiri was simply stating, that if you should receive an RQ you should have ACTIVE evidence to support your claims that you have been living in the country for the entire period claimed. The burden of proof is on you, the applicant to prove what you say is true. It is us up to CIC, by virtue of the office alone to assume you are lying and to use the proof you send them to prove themselves wrong. The more evidence you have to prove yourself the less likely you will have to worry about these things.links18 said:Should we all become reckless drivers and hope we rack up a major traffic record in order to bolster our citizenship case? Sad that is has come to this.
If this goes well for the OP, congratulations. If it does not turn out so well and they have indeed 'quashed' his mandamus by getting is appointment with the CJ, he is going to be out a large sum of money for nothing. I am going to assume the lawyer is going to get his money regardless if he has to go to the final stretch. Since the CJ hearing is not part of the mandamus case, would his lawyer be able to attend this meeting, and what assistance could he/she provide in this case if it's not related to mandamus?
I get it, but is it not a tad ironic that we are talking about lawbreaking as being "active" evidence that helps you win your citizenship case? Moreover, the burden of proof is supposed to be on you, but the standard of evidence is "balance of the probabilities." If you present some evidence you were in the country and CIC presents no evidence that you weren't, but merely casts suspicion--it would seem that the odds should be in your favour. I doubt it works that way in reality, of course.Alurra71 said:
Wow, Msafiri, so many assumptions based on so many unanswered questions!Msafiri said:
And such a pessimistic outlook!
"likely with recommendation for refusal" !
Scary!!!
How do you arrive аt your drastic conclusions without even knowing much about my case???
Cheer up!
Well, its pretty clear that whatever you sent them with the RQ didn't satisfy them as they are making you go to a CJ hearing, unless of course your petition for mandamus moved them to simply pass the buck to a CJ without even looking at your RQ documents.walitys said:
This is closer.links18 said:
I received my GCMS physical files 3 days ago (ordered them in November 2013). I saw just ... 120 pages of my original docs!
After almost 3 years of waiting - they just ticked the residency coalculator page and added my test results (19 of 20). That's it.
5 pages are blocked from viewing though.
And oh, there was also a handwritten note - as a reply to the fax I sent them after 33 months urging them to make a decision - "we were not able to reach you. Your RQ is is a queue to be assessed".
:
Well, you got what you wanted. They took action on your file. Now however, you are going to have to make a case to the CJ. Remember that if the decision is not favourable and you appeal to federal court--it will only be reviewed on the record--so it would behoove you to confer with legal counsel prior to the hearing. Of course, it seems hard to prepare for a hearing when it is not clear exactly what their issues are with your application.walitys said:This is closer.
I received my GCMS physical files 3 days ago (ordered them in November 2013). I saw just ... 120 pages of my original docs!
After almost 3 years of waiting - they just ticked the residency coalculator page and added my test results (19 of 20). That's it.
5 pages are blocked from viewing though.
And oh, there was also a handwritten note - as a reply to the fax I sent them after 33 months urging them to make a decision - "we were not able to reach you. Your RQ is is a queue to be assessed".
: