omet said:
Hi dpenabill,
First of all; thank you for the reply. There is one point I might be doubted for; there is a few month period between my graduation and first work in the work/job history section. I was unemployed and didn't declare it.
My most recent ATIP was 2 weeks ago. So it's pretty recent. And apparently RQ was issued by a judge in 2014 (not sure if it makes any difference). What part in the ATIP states certainly that I am to see a judge? Any idea?
I previously noted the past practice, pursuant to which it appeared all RQs were residency cases and designated for a CJ hearing in GCMS. But most RQs did not go to a CJ hearing. Prior to August 1, 2014, many if not most RQs were ultimately referred to CJs for what was commonly called a
paper review, which effectively meant a Citizenship Officer was satisfied and did not make a referral for a CJ hearing. If per chance the ATIP request was made
after the Citizenship Officer made this decision and before the oath was scheduled, an applicant might indeed see that the "hearing required" designation was no longer in the GCMS. But usually the scheduling of the oath would come soon enough after the Citizenship Officer's decision that most applicants would get notice of the oath before they could do another ATIP request, let alone get the results.
After August 1, 2014, what changed is that there were no longer any
paper reviews referred to CJs. If the Citizenship Officer was satisfied with the RQ response, CIC (and now IRCC) could and would simply decide to grant citizenship and would thus schedule the applicant for the oath.
For RQ'd applicants in both of those scenarios, there was (or at least that is how it appeared based on a number of ATIP reports shared in the forums) a "hearing required" designation until the Citizenship Officer made the "satisfied" decision.
Thus, basically RQ'd applicants were designated for a hearing and would not learn otherwise until, in effect, they were being scheduled for the oath . . . even though the latter is how it went for the majority.
The number of forum reports about RQ'd and residency cases, in the last year or so, has gone down. In particular, one forum where there had been a very active discussion of RQ'd cases, has become virtually non-active. There is no clear picture, at the moment, as to what the GCMS reports show.
Thus, for example, I cannot say whether this statement in your GCMS is the default, what it will show even if you were not actually headed for a CJ hearing, or it is now a designation which really does indicate the probability of a referral for a CJ hearing.
You could help illuminate this some if you requested ATIP after you submitted a response to the RQ, and you could compare that ATIP result with the most recent one. If this statement about needing a CJ hearing was not in the previous ATIP response, that
might indicate this is a designation, in the more recent report, indicating that you are indeed on track for a CJ hearing.
But even that would not be conclusive. Obviously with the changes from CIC to IRCC, and other changes related to Liberal government administration compared to the previous Conservative government, any difference between what is in the ATIP responses could be due to those changes and not related to your personal case.
That is, there may be nothing in the GCMS (that part shared with an applicant in response to ATIP anyway) which will really say whether an applicant will have to go to a CJ hearing or not.
Generally ATIP is useless. It is helpful in some situations, but mostly not at all of any use for the vast majority of applicants.
At this stage, however, noting the timeline so far, the prudent course for you to take would be to be prepared to go to a Citizenship Judge hearing. You might be pleasantly surprised and get a notice to attend the oath. But it is better for you to be prepared to get, instead, a notice of a date to meet with a Citizenship Judge.
Not sure I follow your statement "apparently RQ was issued by a judge in 2014." You should know when you were issued RQ.
It is possible that the RQ was issued by a Citizenship Judge after a paper review; that was still a part of the process in 2014 (until August 1). But that seems to be something which was fairly rare. It is more likely the RQ was issued by a Citizenship Officer after reviewing your file (that is, after your interview at the test in December 2013, and thus for this early 2014 would make sense). Not sure this makes much difference. Either way, it appears to be a particularized concern that led to RQ. That is, that your RQ is due to a suspicion about your case in particular.
The reason for RQ is only partially relevant. Once RQ'd the applicant has the burden of proving all aspects of qualifications. So if there is a particular concern which triggered RQ, yes that needs to be fully addressed, but the applicant also has to affirmatively prove all the time declared to be in Canada.
Thus, you might want to be sure to have more proof of that time between graduation and starting work, to show where you were living, some evidence of activity in Canada during that time, and such, but you also need to affirmatively prove all the other dates as well.
