orodeshah said:
As I have mentioned I got RQ after test, I am sure about dates and number of days because I had only 3 journeys
=> I have prepared following documents but I am in shock and doubt, are these enough ?
I was unemployed ( I have studied something that needs long time and exams for license to work in Canada) so I do not have any employment record, these documents can prove I was in Canada but can they also satisfy officer ?
I am sorry for a question that may seem stupid, but I am in shock , I was sure about dates and did not expect RQ
I gathered complete record and history of:
1- four active bank accounts
2- active phone account
3- active internet account
4- home lease in my own name + I paid by card and got official receipt from building management so I have prove for it
5- active medical history (last 2 years I had to visit doctor actively almost every month, or I had to buy pills)
6- tax forms
7- tickets
8- passport color copy + stamp translation
9- my brother is Canadian citizen
10- I can get letter from my friends but they are not special people in this society, mostly are immigrants like me, I am not sure it helps
11- I have documents for some small courses for my license but are mostly online courses
- To tell the truth I do not have any problem with RQ, it is not a bad concept to check details, but I do not like to wait 4 years (like some people from 2011) for something I am sure I did completely correctly and faithfully to truth
The RQ itself identifies the important information and documentation to submit. What to submit in response to RQ beyond directly responding to the instructions is a very individual decision depending on a wide range of particular facts, circumstances, and available evidence specific to the individual applicant, including (which should be obvious) how completely the applicant can submit the specifically requested documentation.
In particular, gaps in the primary types of documentation elevate the need to provide additional, alternative evidence. The obvious application of this to what you are reporting is the absence of proof of employment. Employment is not required. Being unemployed does not disqualify an applicant. Nonetheless, however, proof of employment goes a long, long way toward proving presence and residency. In contrast, the absence of such proof is glaring and generally needs to be made up for in other kinds of proof.
Thus, in your situation, more additional documentation is probably better.
That said, however, there is no need to triple document any time already well documented (adding more documentation to substantial documentation already proving presence for two and a half years does not help much if the documentation for the other half year is at all thin). And at some point, additional documentation which is essentially irrelevant (documentation proving something already proven is essentially irrelevant) can be a distraction.
In other words, more is better, so long as the more is relevant.
A bit of review, at the risk of being repetitive:
What is relevant is documentation or evidence which --
(1) shows specific dates of travel, especially as to date of entering or exiting Canada
(2) shows general activity
in Canada over periods of time (best is employment working at a location in Canada for a readily identifiable Canadian employer; school attendance, actual physical attendance at a facility/institution in Canada; recognized volunteer work at specific location in Canada; and so on); this needs to cover
all dates reported to have been in Canada and any gaps in this needs to be made up by other evidence (this is perhaps one of your main challenges)
(3) shows tenancy interest in place of residence (proof of payment in addition to lease is good); also needs to cover
all dates reported to have been in Canada and any gaps in this needs to be made up by other evidence
(4) specifically shows presence on certain dates (doctor visits, other events which can be documented)
(5) tends to support the proposition of a life being lived in Canada; this includes typical residence indicators (residency ties) and passive indicators as well, the former (beyond what is provided per (2) and (3)) being such things as CRA Notices of Assessment, the latter ranging from insurance (auto or home) to financial transactions in Canada
Some further context regarding more is better and pre-test RQ distinguished:
Many urge that more is better. I have challenged that approach
in the context of pre-test RQ, which is often triggered by more or less technical criteria not necessarily related to any overt questions, issues, or concerns. Responding to a post-test RQ (or RQ issued at test event) is different because such an RQ often indicates that
Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship (formerly CIC now
IRCC) has at least an overt question if not particular concern, possibly an overt suspicion.
This seems particularly likely now that many
questions/concerns result in the issuance of a CIT 0520 request, requesting specific documents related to the question or concern, rather than RQ.
That is, RQ these days suggests, it appears, there is a more significant or focused concern if not outright suspicion.
I am extrapolating a bit regarding this, but my sense is that, indeed, if RQ is issued these days at or following the test there is at least an elevated risk that
IRCC (again formerly CIC) has a more or less focused concern approaching suspicion. This, one might say,
ups-the-ante. Such applicants probably do better to include significantly more documentation.
The nagging issue:
Positive proof typically wins the point, and almost conclusively wins the point if there is no evidence to the contrary, nothing specifically controverting the positive proof.
What the applicant declares, essentially under penalty of perjury like consequences, is positive proof. And, indeed, the vast majority of applications sail through
routine processing largely based on what the applicant reported.
If there is a
reason-to-question-residency that changes the dynamic considerably, requiring the applicant to submit additional information and documentation to support the applicant's declarations, which practically means documentation sufficient to, essentially, verify enough of the key elements to dissipate or resolve any questions or concerns. This is where the absence of any key element in documentation can loom ominously. Among the most common and difficult is the absence of a Travel Document, a missing passport looming as the most serious (even if its loss or absence is not at all the fault of the applicant), but even a period of time for which the applicant does not have any valid passport can loom problematically.
This is also where the absence of employment documentation comes in as problematic. It is not as if being unemployed is itself the problem. It is not. The problem is that without proof of employment, there is a huge gap in proof of residency and presence. That is, once an applicant is issued RQ, among the best forms of positive proof to submit is proof of employment in Canada. If that is lacking for a period of time, that leaves a gap in proof for that period of time. To the extent there is such a gap, the applicant needs to submit alternative forms of evidence to show presence and residency covering the gap, the full gap. This is not so easy. Alternative evidence tends to be more or less passive, and more or less sporadic.
For someone working in IT at a Bell Canada facility, or at a Rogers office, in Southern Ontario, or for RIM in Waterloo, working 40 hour weeks, at least 44 or so weeks of the year, it is easy for a fact-finder to conclude that does indeed prove that person was present and resident in Canada for most of any such year. For the unemployed applicant, in contrast, the question is what else will come anywhere near close to proving residency and presence on that level?
Lease payments and utility bills? Perhaps these payments have been arranged to be done by someone else using the applicant's banking or credit, or done using automated payments. Active phone or internet accounts are very much passive indicators, and these do not carry a lot of positive weight. They help. The problem is in finding enough such evidence to make up for the lack of showing regular activity from week-to-week, like having a job at a facility in Canada would.
Credit card transactions generally: same issue, question is who was actually engaging in the transaction and where (older CIC cases reflect more than a few instances where this is a lose-lose scenario: CIC concluding that in-Canada transactions are passive indicators and do not conclusively show the applicant was in Canada, while out-of-Canada transactions are taken to indicate high possibility the applicant was outside Canada).
A brother citizen of Canada? Not much relevant at all.
I do NOT mean to paint a wholly negative picture, or that there is an impossible burden of proof. It is difficult to identify and describe the problem without making it seem more daunting than it really is. Again, a lot depends on the individual applicant's particular circumstances. The same evidence does not necessarily carry the same amount of weight in different cases, because context and relationship to other evidence and information matters. All the evidence will be examined and considered in context, relative to the particular concerns or questions IRCC has, the various elements of proof considered relative to one another, and so on.
For example, for applicants in similar circumstances, one applicant's bank records and credit card transactions plus other proof, like regular doctor visits, may have a far more positive impact than the other's bank records and credit card transactions. It is hard to identify quantifiable terms for this, but the concept of what is more persuasive is not really mysterious.
Stepping back: a lot depends on why IRCC is questioning your residency. Beyond that, more is probably better. Whether there is a real problem is hard to guess. All you can do is put your best evidence into the hopper. Some applicants can more readily recognize if they have a serious issue or not. For those who recognize a substantial risk of a serious issue, they probably should see a lawyer. For many, those who have no reason to think IRCC has identified a flaw in the case, they just need to follow the instructions and, perhaps in situations like yours, add more to the submission than others might, and wait to see what happens next.
