bill c-24 updates

[oldfriend]

Hi folks ,
I want to start this topic to be a bench for all the questions and updates on
bill c-24. Please share any news and updates you might know about this
issue because this will be very useful to help those who are seeking any
updates on this bill.

AS a start , does any body know whether this bill is active now , or when it supposed to be activated , and which immigrants will be affected , I mean only the immigrants who will land after the date of applying this bill or it will affect all immigrants who didn't get their citizenship yet . Please if anybody can shade some light on this issue, it will be highly appreciated.


Thanks

 

[dpenabill]

Hi folks ,
I want to start this topic to be a bench for all the questions and updates on
bill c-24. Please share any news and updates you might know about this
issue because this will be very useful to help those who are seeking any
updates on this bill.

AS a start , does any body know whether this bill is active now , or when it supposed to be activated , and which immigrants will be affected , I mean only the immigrants who will land after the date of applying this bill or it will affect all immigrants who didn't get their citizenship yet . Please if anybody can shade some light on this issue, it will be highly appreciated.


Thanks

There are several other topics in which Bill C-24 is discussed, including in particular a topic about its effective date.

Many of its provisions are now in force and being applied. Some key provisions in particular took effect August 1st. These include those giving the Minister authority to grant citizenship without the involvement of a Citizenship Judge, and otherwise in effect consolidating, in the Minister (in practice meaning CIC) most decision-making about the grant of citizenship. Citizenship Judges will still have residency case hearings.

It is still unknown when the provisions implementing a four years out of six presence requirement will come into force. This is, in particular, the primary focus of ongoing discussion in the topic specifically about the effective date for this Bill.

When the new presence requirement provisions come into force, they will apply to all applications for citizenship made on or after that date. They will apply regardless of the date the applicant landed and became a PR. That is, there is no grandfathering clause for PRs who immigrated to Canada prior to the adoption of Bill C-24. (In contrast, when Australia increased the duration requirements for citizenship, it did include some transition provisions which in effect retained the older law for already landed residents.)

 

[oldfriend]

Thank you very much dpenabill ,


I hope the section of presence requirement (4 out of 6 years) kept not active until all the current immigrants who are almost finished this requirement by the old rule (3 out of 5 years).

Please keep posting any updates you may have in the future.

 

[polara69]

I don't think the government will take that into consideration, how can they? There will be a date, and that is it. If you are here four years, great, if not, well tough.

I am not worried either way, I live here and my intentions are crystal clear, I stay here.

 

[screech339]

Thank you very much dpenabill ,


I hope the section of presence requirement (4 out of 6 years) kept not active until all the current immigrants who are almost finished this requirement by the old rule (3 out of 5 years).

Please keep posting any updates you may have in the future.

Ha ha, you are dreaming. CIC is not going to wait until all 3 / 4 rule are done before issuing 4 / 6 date. That means 4 / 6 rule will never come as everyone will be applying under 3 / 4 rule.

CIC will issue a 4 / 6 date change regardless of how many applied under 3 / 4 rule. Everyone can apply under 3/4 rule if they qualify before the 4/6 rule date.

Screech339

 

[dpenabill]

The post by screech339 made me realize that I probably overlooked the main concern in the oldfriend query:

I hope the section of presence requirement (4 out of 6 years) kept not active until all the current immigrants who are almost finished this requirement by the old rule (3 out of 5 years).

To be clear:

All current applicants, and indeed all those who make an application before the date the 4-out-of-6 requirement takes effect, will indeed have their applications processed based on the "old rule," recognizing though that rule requires residence for 3 out of 4 years (not 3 out of 5).

Thus, if the concern was what will happen to those who have made an application for citizenship: just because the new provision takes effect will NOT affect what qualifications they must meet (the procedure employed, however, has already changed).

 

[dpenabill]

Update regarding application of abandonment provisions implemented in Bill C-24:

See the Karim Ayyad decision.

Technically the case does not specifically rule on the validity or implementation of the provisions in Bill C-24 which codified CIC practices regarding no-shows generally and failures to respond, and amended previous law regarding the failure to appear for the oath when scheduled. This is because it is a case in which the applicant missed an oath date and CIC deemed the application abandoned under the prior law.

But, Justice Kane addressed the new law, noted that it will apply to this case now when it is reconsidered, specifically ruled (in granting the appeal) that it "must be reconsidered in accordance with the statutory provisions now in force" (which means pursuant to those provisions as adopted in Bill C-24) and in what jurists would call dicta, essentially said that sufficient reasons for the decision must be communicated to an applicant whose case is deemed abandoned, and offered some analysis of what the "guidelines" mean relative to assessing whether the applicant's explanation for missing the scheduled oath are sufficient to excuse the no-show.

While Justice Kane did not discuss the application of related Bill C-24 provisions regarding no-shows for interviews or such, or failures to respond to RQ or requests for documents (fingerprints, and so on), regarding which Bill C-24 codified previous CIC practice (as stated in various Operational Bulletins), it is clear that very similar, if not the same principles will apply.

I anticipated these practices would be the subject of litigation, but this one came sooner than I was expecting. At the least it is good to see that despite the absence of a statutory requirement for explicit reasons justifying the decision to terminate an application (by deeming it abandoned), that Justice Kane ruled that adequate reasons must be provided. This is consistent with almost any approach to administrative decision-making, where there is a significant impact on an individual because of the decision (here the decision affects the status of the individual, in effect consituting a decision to deny citizenship). On the other hand, it is disappointing and disconcerting that CIC argued to the contrary, that because there is no statutory requirement to provide reasons, the lack of reasons does not impugn the validity of the decision.

 

[sgimmy]

Update regarding application of abandonment provisions implemented in Bill C-24:



Technically the case does not specifically rule on the validity or implementation of the provisions in Bill C-24 which codified CIC practices regarding no-shows generally and failures to respond, and amended previous law regarding the failure to appear for the oath when scheduled. This is because it is a case in which the applicant missed an oath date and CIC deemed the application abandoned under the prior law.

But, Justice Kane addressed the new law, noted that it will apply to this case now when it is reconsidered, specifically ruled (in granting the appeal) that it "must be reconsidered in accordance with the statutory provisions now in force" (which means pursuant to those provisions as adopted in Bill C-24) and in what jurists would call dicta, essentially said that sufficient reasons for the decision must be communicated to an applicant whose case is deemed abandoned, and offered some analysis of what the "guidelines" mean relative to assessing whether the applicant's explanation for missing the scheduled oath are sufficient to excuse the no-show.

While Justice Kane did not discuss the application of related Bill C-24 provisions regarding no-shows for interviews or such, or failures to respond to RQ or requests for documents (fingerprints, and so on), regarding which Bill C-24 codified previous CIC practice (as stated in various Operational Bulletins), it is clear that very similar, if not the same principles will apply.

I anticipated these practices would be the subject of litigation, but this one came sooner than I was expecting. At the least it is good to see that despite the absence of a statutory requirement for explicit reasons justifying the decision to terminate an application (by deeming it abandoned), that Justice Kane ruled that adequate reasons must be provided. This is consistent with almost any approach to administrative decision-making, where there is a significant impact on an individual because of the decision (here the decision affects the status of the individual, in effect consituting a decision to deny citizenship). On the other hand, it is disappointing and disconcerting that CIC argued to the contrary, that because there is no statutory requirement to provide reasons, the lack of reasons does not impugn the validity of the decision.

as per new rule..if u dont show up for oath what happens?..citizenship judge decision is final or you can go to court if CJ refuse your grant of citizenship

 

[dpenabill]

as per new rule..if u dont show up for oath what happens?..citizenship judge decision is final or you can go to court if CJ refuse your grant of citizenship

Under the new rule, already in effect (as of August 1), the Minister (in practice a CIC Citizenship Officer) now decides whether the reason for not appearing at the oath is an acceptable excuse. No referral to a Citizenship Judge is involved. No decision by a Citizenship Judge is involved.

While I am not clear, at this point, how the new provisions governing seeking leave to appeal are to be in practice applied, I am confident that judicial review will be available, at least via and to the extent generally available in an application seeking leave to appeal.

 

[kumbu.bumbu]

The real unlucky people would those who are eligible just in time before implementation of 4/6 rule and applied with a small mistake. Their applications would be returned and they would wait for may be another year to re-apply.

Really really unlucky are the ones whose applications are lost for those who are eligible just in time before implementation of 4/6 rule and applied.

 

[Tornado_75]

Regarding the provision that cancels the immigrants lived period in Canada before getting the PR (under work or student visa), is it force now?
Does anybody has information about this unfair act? The previous law was allowing to count half of that period up to one year.
I have 9 months counted under the previous law, in case Bill C-24 applies this provision, that 9 months will be deleted and another one years is added (4/6 years)i.e. approx. 2 more years will be added to my case for eligibility only!!

 

[yyzhuang]

Regarding the provision that cancels the immigrants lived period in Canada before getting the PR (under work or student visa), is it force now?
Does anybody has information about this unfair act? The previous law was allowing to count half of that period up to one year.
I have 9 months counted under the previous law, in case Bill C-24 applies this provision, that 9 months will be deleted and another one years is added (4/6 years)i.e. approx. 2 more years will be added to my case for eligibility only!!

Not in force. The online residence calculator still allows us to use pre-PR days.

 

[zardoz]

Regarding the provision that cancels the immigrants lived period in Canada before getting the PR (under work or student visa), is it force now?
Does anybody has information about this unfair act? The previous law was allowing to count half of that period up to one year.
I have 9 months counted under the previous law, in case Bill C-24 applies this provision, that 9 months will be deleted and another one years is added (4/6 years)i.e. approx. 2 more years will be added to my case for eligibility only!!

This section will almost certainly come into force about halfway through 2015. Nobody here knows what the exact date will be.

 

[dpenabill]

Regarding the provision that cancels the immigrants lived period in Canada before getting the PR (under work or student visa), is it force now?
Does anybody has information about this unfair act? The previous law was allowing to count half of that period up to one year.
I have 9 months counted under the previous law, in case Bill C-24 applies this provision, that 9 months will be deleted and another one years is added (4/6 years)i.e. approx. 2 more years will be added to my case for eligibility only!!

As has been noted above, the new presence requirement is not yet in force. It will come into force in 2015, most likely mid-2015 plus or minus a month or two either way.

If you have an application pending now, your time in Canada prior to landing (up to four years prior to date application was made) will be entitled to the half day credit. If you make an application before the new provisions come into force, your time in Canada prior to landing will be entitled to the half day credit.

If you cannot or do not apply prior to the new provision taking effect, then you are correct, PRs in that position will all at once get a double whammy, losing any credit they might have had for pre-PR time in Canada, plus having to meet a year longer minimum presence requirement. There will undoubtedly be many thousands of PRs affected this way.

 

[computergeek]

Fascinating discussion: I am one of those potentially impacted.

My work is global in nature and often involves considerable travel, which really is the complicating factor for me - the change from the residency test to the physical presence test. The latter will be more challenging for almost anyone who works in international business.

I passed the basic residence requirement in October 2014, but I certainly do not have the physical presence requirement. My original expectation had been that I'd wait until late 2016 to apply (giving me 4 years of basic residence and 3 years of physical presence). But the proposed change now moves that out by approximately 2 years (so now it's 2018). I very much have this sense that "they moved the cheese".

So now I face the situation in which I can wait (until 2018) which means prospective citizenship in 2020 or 2021 (call me cynical, but CIC's track record of "speeding up processing" is not a particularly good one). Ironically, my desire for citizenship is more that I'd like to be free to participate in the political process here. With recent changes in law that criminalize protests - for example - I stay far removed from such protests. After all, a conviction could then lead to a finding of inadmissibility and withdrawal of permanent residency. This becomes (for me at least) a classic case of "chilling" my behaviour.

Thus, I must decide if it is worth applying now (without sufficient physical presence, knowing that this will turn this into a long, difficult process) or waiting another 4 years. I believe I have solid evidence of residence (my spouse living here, my bank accounts here, my tax filings in Canada and the US, both showing Canada as my home, mortgages and leases for dwellings in Canada, etc.) But I also appreciate that CIC pushes very hard on the physical presence test - and thus this comes down to a "roll of the dice", depending very much on the mood of a CJ at some several years from now.

It's a difficult decision. Obtaining PR was a fight with CIC as well and while I'm not afraid of a fight, I also appreciate how much energy it requires to fight. Reading these discussions is helpful (as has been reading your writings in other forums as well, dpenabill). My thanks to you personally, and indeed to all who provide these insights.