Anyone referred to a CJ after August 2014?
- Thread starter egyo
- Start date
I have seen at least one forum report by an individual who attended a Citizenship Judge hearing this past October (October 2014). Do not recall if that report was in this forum or one of the others.
It is not as if any of the forums ever have had many reports from individuals actually attending a CJ hearing. These have been sporadic at most.
It is not as if any of the forums ever have had many reports from individuals actually attending a CJ hearing. These have been sporadic at most.
I actually think I recall a couple reports of individuals attending a CJ hearing this past fall, but I read so many reports and personal accounts unless it is a case that stands out in my memory or I can go back and find it to refresh my memory, it is difficult to recall particular facts or outcomes. (There are a few issues I still follow closely, so if the report illuminates or illustrates something significant regarding these issues, I log it into my memory, but otherwise the details do not get stored in my head.)
So I reported what I can clearly recall, that I have seen at least one report of an applicant attending a CJ hearing this past fall.
I generally avoid posting beyond what I can clearly recall, unless it is couched in a way that highlights my uncertainty.
For anyone interested in my my less certain recall, I vaguely recall more than one report of CJ hearings this past fall, one being scheduled for the oath, and another denied. And actually (as I imperfectly recall) the one who was more anxious, who came away from the hearing thinking the decision was going to go badly, was the one soon scheduled for the oath, again as best I can imperfectly recall.
In contrast, however, as discussed elsewhere, I have seen a report from an individual who said he is being scheduled for a hearing with a Citizenship Officer, not a CJ. While that report seems to indicate that CIC may be moving toward a residency case process which involves a hearing with a Citizenship Officer it is unclear whether there are plans to do this in lieu of or in addition to (if the Citizenship Officer decides against the applicant) a hearing with a Citizenship Judge.
It appears clear, however, that ONLY residency cases might end up at a CJ hearing. Thus, for example, failed knowledge test cases will not go to a CJ. Similarly for language-failure cases. I do not know what CIC's long-term plans are for those who fail the test. I suspect there will be two written tests and if both are failed, applicant is denied. But I am not sure of this. As for language, now new applicants have to submit proof of language in order to have a complete application, so applicants without proof of language do not even get an application in process. Not sure how CIC is dealing with applicants who applied before the proof of language in application requirement came into effect, but assessment of language is clearly a CIC function now, no CJ hearing for this.
Outcome for one or ten CJ hearings of little relevance:
I understand why those with a residency case still pending want to know whether or not applicants are being scheduled for CJ hearings these days.
But the outcome of any such hearings offers little or nothing of value, since by that stage of the process the individual facts in the specific case are really what matters, and these will vary considerably. And, in particular, for anyone who is in this stage of processing, anyone issued RQ and currently waiting for the next-step well after having attended the test/interview, what really matters is the totality of facts and circumstances reflected in the record for your specific case. How it will go will depend on your facts, your record, CIC's assessment of your credibility.
In the past there were several thousand CJ hearings a year, with several thousand resulting in approval, several thousand being denied. It is not a roll of dice, not a lottery. What matters are the facts, as indicated in the record (not in what could be seen in a crystal ball), and the applicant's credibility.
And of course it is usually worth remembering that it is not what you know, but what you can prove (to steal a line from a Denzel Washington character).
So I reported what I can clearly recall, that I have seen at least one report of an applicant attending a CJ hearing this past fall.
I generally avoid posting beyond what I can clearly recall, unless it is couched in a way that highlights my uncertainty.
For anyone interested in my my less certain recall, I vaguely recall more than one report of CJ hearings this past fall, one being scheduled for the oath, and another denied. And actually (as I imperfectly recall) the one who was more anxious, who came away from the hearing thinking the decision was going to go badly, was the one soon scheduled for the oath, again as best I can imperfectly recall.
In contrast, however, as discussed elsewhere, I have seen a report from an individual who said he is being scheduled for a hearing with a Citizenship Officer, not a CJ. While that report seems to indicate that CIC may be moving toward a residency case process which involves a hearing with a Citizenship Officer it is unclear whether there are plans to do this in lieu of or in addition to (if the Citizenship Officer decides against the applicant) a hearing with a Citizenship Judge.
It appears clear, however, that ONLY residency cases might end up at a CJ hearing. Thus, for example, failed knowledge test cases will not go to a CJ. Similarly for language-failure cases. I do not know what CIC's long-term plans are for those who fail the test. I suspect there will be two written tests and if both are failed, applicant is denied. But I am not sure of this. As for language, now new applicants have to submit proof of language in order to have a complete application, so applicants without proof of language do not even get an application in process. Not sure how CIC is dealing with applicants who applied before the proof of language in application requirement came into effect, but assessment of language is clearly a CIC function now, no CJ hearing for this.
Outcome for one or ten CJ hearings of little relevance:
I understand why those with a residency case still pending want to know whether or not applicants are being scheduled for CJ hearings these days.
But the outcome of any such hearings offers little or nothing of value, since by that stage of the process the individual facts in the specific case are really what matters, and these will vary considerably. And, in particular, for anyone who is in this stage of processing, anyone issued RQ and currently waiting for the next-step well after having attended the test/interview, what really matters is the totality of facts and circumstances reflected in the record for your specific case. How it will go will depend on your facts, your record, CIC's assessment of your credibility.
In the past there were several thousand CJ hearings a year, with several thousand resulting in approval, several thousand being denied. It is not a roll of dice, not a lottery. What matters are the facts, as indicated in the record (not in what could be seen in a crystal ball), and the applicant's credibility.
And of course it is usually worth remembering that it is not what you know, but what you can prove (to steal a line from a Denzel Washington character).