Bill C24 and a risk worthy to take?

[noahattic]

Hi everyone,

I have been reading many news and posts regarding to the new Bill C24 since it does make a great impact on my life. I sincerely hope to borrow the extensive knowledge and experiences of this forum to help make one of the biggest decisions of my life.

Allow me to introduce my background first. Back the days, I came to Canada on Sep, 2006 as a student, then graduated from school and have been working till now. In May, 2013, I became a PR. During the recent two years, I have traveled a lot, both work and vacation related. As result, I still fall short of approximately 80 days to meet the 1095 days of physical presence after the 2 year anniversary.

According to the new law, the Pre-PR time will not be credited, even I have spent almost 9 years in this country, and am very well intended to live here for the lifetime. This new bill will make me wait till at least late 2017 to be qualified since I will certainly need to travel abroad in the next 2 years. In addition, the processing time can be very unpredictable by that time as well, which means I may not become a true Canadian until 2019.

I was hoping the government would at least value the time that many of us have spent here before becoming the PR. This is the part of the new law that saddens me the most. Not to mention the new citizenship law de-values the citizens who carry the foreign background, in a way.

I would say the new bill will most likely take effective by the beginning of July. Given the fact that I will be eligible to apply the citizenship by this May, even I do not have the full 1095 days in the pocket, my questions is - is it worthy to take the risk and apply anyways? What are the chances to get approved by the judge? How troublesome the KOO test, the questionnaires or any other things required can be???

I am just so close to be fully eligible. It's really hard to not take the chance and wait another 2 or 3 years. I am not very familiar with how the judge and government work regarding to these shortfall cases. Any advises would certainly help and be appreciated.

Thanks,

 

[MUFC]

Hi,
I am in the same situation like you, with a lot frequent travels abroad, and basically I'm not going to try applying, because I would have enough basic residence but my physical days will be short for sure. If I apply it is clear that I will get a denial.
Especially after 1st of August last year CIC is looking only the physical presence days.

The other major problem is how much time will the non-routine applications get after the elections this year...

But definitely the risk is not worthy if somebody applies with less then 1095 days of physical presence.

It will be better to give the money for the processing fees to charity.

 

[noahattic]

Thanks to reply.

"Especially after 1st of August last year CIC is looking only the physical presence days."

Is this confirmed a way that the officials doing now?? So it's "certain" that one with less than 1095 days of physical presence will be refused, even just fall short of a few weeks?

I am looking at whether or not the KOO, RQ, Court time, processing fees or any kind of hassles can offset the 2 or 3 year of waiting. Can I say this, if applying now and later will most likely result in the same timeline of 3 years, I have nothing to lose? Perhaps, there might be a slim chance?

I read that "Failed applicants may re-apply again when their circumstances regarding physical presence are more favorable during a reference period." What would be the negative impact if an applicant gets denied?

I do not worry the election this year too much, such a bill will unlikely be overturned in a short period of time and CIC should remain the same direction for a while.

 

[MUFC]

In practice after 1st of August the agents have the authority to determine the outcome of an application, the clear signal is that they are focused on the physical days. In practice CIC has the last word which is that the Physical days have to be minimum 1095.

There is no definite deadline as of when the non-routine application has to be processed, it might take more than 3 years to be processed with a final decision.
There is also the risk after a refusal that the second application, might be directly considered non-routine again on the basis of the first refusal.

The elections might have a huge impact on the processing times in general I really don't underestimate them, because now they try to show a little bit of speeding up the process but it is very possible that this is just a pre-election game with short term results.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi everyone,

I have been reading many news and posts regarding to the new Bill C24 since it does make a great impact on my life. I sincerely hope to borrow the extensive knowledge and experiences of this forum to help make one of the biggest decisions of my life.

Allow me to introduce my background first. Back the days, I came to Canada on Sep, 2006 as a student, then graduated from school and have been working till now. In May, 2013, I became a PR. During the recent two years, I have traveled a lot, both work and vacation related. As result, I still fall short of approximately 80 days to meet the 1095 days of physical presence after the 2 year anniversary.

According to the new law, the Pre-PR time will not be credited, even I have spent almost 9 years in this country, and am very well intended to live here for the lifetime. This new bill will make me wait till at least late 2017 to be qualified since I will certainly need to travel abroad in the next 2 years. In addition, the processing time can be very unpredictable by that time as well, which means I may not become a true Canadian until 2019.

I was hoping the government would at least value the time that many of us have spent here before becoming the PR. This is the part of the new law that saddens me the most. Not to mention the new citizenship law de-values the citizens who carry the foreign background, in a way.

I would say the new bill will most likely take effective by the beginning of July. Given the fact that I will be eligible to apply the citizenship by this May, even I do not have the full 1095 days in the pocket, my questions is - is it worthy to take the risk and apply anyways? What are the chances to get approved by the judge? How troublesome the KOO test, the questionnaires or any other things required can be???

I am just so close to be fully eligible. It's really hard to not take the chance and wait another 2 or 3 years. I am not very familiar with how the judge and government work regarding to these shortfall cases. Any advises would certainly help and be appreciated.

Thanks,

In general I agree with the overall conclusion expressed by MUFC, that is, at this juncture, it is probably a waste of money to make a shortfall application.

This issue has been discussed at length, sometimes in-depth, in this forum. See for example:

Shortfall applications revisited Part I:

Mostly: do not do it. That said . . .

. . .

Because technically a shortfall application can still legally succeed, there is indeed an open question about applying with a shortfall.

To be clear, however, the advice most participants here will offer, and most those who are otherwise fairly well informed will offer, is to wait, to wait until having at least, the very least, 1095 days of actual physical presence.

And that is almost certainly the best advice.

I personally tend to avoid giving advice but rather attempt to offer information which will (I hope) help individuals best make their own decisions.

So, relative to this particular issue, my observations may tend to understate the high hurdles facing a shortfall application. My comments may leave some with the impression the window is open wider than it really is.

Overall, though, the shorfall application is most likely, by a substantial margin, going to fail, to be denied.

There are likely to be exceptions. At the least, exceptions are possible.

But this is not like betting on a roulette wheel. Not like buying a lottery ticket. Who is among the exceptions is not a matter of chance or probabilities (although a fair amount of luck may be necessary). The exceptions are likely to be based on unusual circumstances of a compelling nature sufficient to persuade a Citizenship Judge to apply a qualitative test in the first place.

This is merely a partial quote and there is much more about shortfall applications in that topic.

As I indicated in what I posted in the other forum, I believe that the combination of being a shortfall application and relying on credit for days present in Canada prior to becoming a PR tends to make a particularly difficult case.

What I posted in the other forum:

Technically shortfall applications (those with less than 1095 days of actual physical presence) may still be approved resulting in the grant of citizenship.

We do not know, not by a long shot, the extent to which this continues to happen. We do know that there are many indications this is more and more, however often it happens, an exception. We know for example that many applicants who fell short of the 1095 day APP threshold by not very much have been denied.

There are many who feel there is very little hope that such applications will succeed. Some are emphatic there is virtually no chance of succeeding.

But the problem for someone in your position is even greater in that you would not only have a shortfall application, but an application relying on credit for presence in Canada prior to becoming a PR. My sense is this (the combination of a shortfall and reliance on pre-landing credit) was always a very tough case to make, even before the trend at CIC and among CJs toward applying the strict APP test.

I have seen one case in which a Citizenship Judge approved a shortfall applicant who was relying on pre-landing time in Canada for credit toward the residency requirement. But CIC appealed and the appeal was granted. I do not know what happened in that case when it was reconsidered by another CJ.

The filing fee is only a matter of hundreds of dollars, and perhaps that is of little import to you. But, frankly, that money probably could be better spent elsewhere.

Note: there are probably many thousands of PRs in a similar situation to yours. Many will elect to apply based on a shortfall. The odds are that very few will succeed.

While there are some aspects of the posts by MUFC I would quibble with, those do not much change the overall message. Just to clarify and for example, however, the changes implemented last August 1 give Citizenship Officers (as the Minister's delegates) authority to approve and grant citizenship, but not the authority to deny approval based on residency. If CIC does not approve and grant citizenship because it is not satisfied the residency requirement was met, that case will still go to a Citizenship Judge for a hearing and decision.

And it is not for sure that CIC rejects all shortfall applicants (to be referred to a CJ for hearing). I for one doubt that they do. I do not doubt, however, that they only approve a very small number and only based on compelling circumstances. In contrast, again, my sense is that relying on credit for pre-landing time pushes things the other direction, negatively.

The overall length of time a person has been in Canada does seem to be undervalued. Part of that is due to limiting the residency assessment to only the relevant four years (the only absences or time present that can be considered in the actual calculation of residency itself are those in the relevant four years), and the Federal Courts have often set aside decisions because the CJ considered residency or presence outside the relevant four years.

 

[anon123]

I tried to do a best-case calculation in the other thread. To the best of my knowledge, if everything else remains equal, a shortfall application this year with pre-PR time has a very slim chance to result citizenship earlier than a C24 application. And I am not talking about the outcome of a CJ hearing, but merely looking at the processing times for all stages of a non-routine application based on historical reports.
It would be nice if somebody more experienced can verify my assumptions and explain what is the chance that a shortfall application gets processed faster than a routine application + 2 years. Looking only at processing time, and ignoring the low chance of success at the CJ hearing / appeal.

There are also a lot of unknowns going forward. How will the 1 year gap affect processing times? How will the elections affect processing times? My speculation is that if the conservatives lose nothing will change, if they win it may change for the worst. How will the new application forms affect processing times for routine applications? May be they will make it longer if officers have more information to verify, which is intended to reduce the number of RQs and speed-up non-routine applications. We can make a better guess when we see the new forms.

In my opinion things are not looking good for an application this year. Not only based on low chance of successful outcome, but also based on processing times alone. Bill C24 is a very unjust law. It is unfair to all people with pre-PR time. But we are not citizens and there is nothing we can do. The best we can do is get citizenship, then go out and vote, to show how we feel about the way we were treated.

 

[noahattic]

Appreciate very much all the inputs that participated and hello dpenabill, good to see you here, too.

I am leaning towards not to make the call as many suggested. I just feel sad my trips and a bit delay of applying my PR conduct such a big impact on my life. Purely my fault and guess i will have to swallow it myself.

As Anon123 brought up, if any can share a bit of experience on:

what is the chance that a shortfall application gets processed faster than a routine application + 2 years. Looking only at processing time, and ignoring the low chance of success at the CJ hearing / appeal.

that will greatly help me make the final call. I will certainly hate a waste of time and a fail result, rather stay put and take whatever comes to my life.

Also, what can be the negative impact of a failed applicant to re-apply after meeting the requirements?

Now, just pray the new bill remains the same till I pocket the full 1095 days.

Thanks again for all of your inputs.

 

[dav3000]

Why are people afraid of Bill C-24 effect? In my opinion I think those who apply after it comes into effect will enjoy it.

 

[Canuckguytorontotdot]

I think the bill will not be in effect before November 2015 my friend works in cic

 

[eileenf]

that will greatly help me make the final call. I will certainly hate a waste of time and a fail result, rather stay put and take whatever comes to my life.

Also, what can be the negative impact of a failed applicant to re-apply after meeting the requirements?

Previous denials may (or may not...hard to know) trigger RQ, which would slow down future applications for a grant of citizenship.

I want to say as well that prospective applicants often overlook the emotional stress of asking a system to judge how deserving they are of rights. As an RQ recipient, it can feel like your value as a member of society is being judged (because, if you're applying with a shortfall, you are asking the CIC to judge the quality of your connection to Canada, not just the quantity.) And even when the quality is very good, scrutiny never feels good. And waiting to be judged like that feels even worse. I can only imagine that these feelings are far more acute with citizenship hearings.

Applying with a shortfall application is opening yourself, your travel history, your entire life in Canada up to official scrutiny. You will receive an RQ. You will be asked to submit almost every piece of official documentation that you have accumulated in the last 4 years to the CIC. Medical, Rental, Financial, Educational, Travel, etc. It's not nothing. It's worth including the stress of finding and producing those documents and having them judged in your "is this worth it?" calculus.

You should also look over a Residency Questionnaire in detail before signing yourself up for one. Also, consider consulting a citizenship lawyer: Ask about rates were they to represent you at a hearing or in an eventual appeal. Ask what they would advise.

If you're going to do this, you should do it with your eyes open.

Why are people afraid of Bill C-24 effect? In my opinion I think those who apply after it comes into effect will enjoy it.

There has been a lot written about C-24 both on the forum and in the wider media. If you're actually interested in knowing what people are worried about, there are more than ample resources with which to educate yourself.

http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2014/06/27/immigration_experts_say_bill_c24_discriminatory_and_weakens_citizenship.html

 

[Canuckguytorontotdot]

Previous denials may (or may not...hard to know) trigger RQ, which would slow things down.

I want to say as well that prospective applicants often overlook the emotional stress of asking a system to judge how deserving they are of rights. As an RQ recipient, it can feel like your value as a member of society is being judged (because, if you're applying with a shortfall, you are asking the CIC to judge the quality of your connection to Canada, not just the quantity.) And even when the quality is very good, scrutiny never feels good. And waiting to be judged like that feels even worse.

Applying with a shortfall application is opening yourself, your travel history, your entire life in Canada up to official scrutiny. You will receive an RQ. You will be asked to submit almost every piece of official documentation that you have accumulated in the last 4 years to the CIC. Medical, Rental, Financial, Educational, Travel, etc. It's not nothing and it's worth weighing the stress of finding and producing those documents and having them judged should go into your calculus. .

It's worth it to look over a Residency Questionnaire in detail before signing yourself up for one by applying with a shortfall. It also would be worth it to talk to a citizenship lawyer, ask about rates were they to represent you at a hearing or in an eventual appeal and ask what they would advise.

If you're going to do this, you should do it with your eyes open.
There has been a lot written about C-24 both on the forum and in the wider media. If you're actually interested in knowing what people are worried about, there are more than ample resources to inform yourself with.

http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2014/06/27/immigration_experts_say_bill_c24_discriminatory_and_weakens_citizenship.html

Eleenf they R also stripping the mobility rights right ?

 

[eileenf]

Eleenf they R also stripping the mobility rights right ?

Not exactly.

Your statement implies an across-the-board policy against Canadians living overseas. That is not the case and will never be the case, especially with so many Canadians in the US (3% of the Canadian population lives in the US). But the new "intent to reside" clause, along with the minister's increased powers of revocations could be applied in specific cases where the Minister or Canada feels it's warranted. So, if someone is politically unpalatable, takes the oath, swears that they intend to live in Canada and then moves or returns overseas, they could have their citizenship revoked. My sense is that it's unlikely unless there's another trigger or another reason for Canada/the minister to dislike you. For instance: Someone becomes a Canadian and then moves to the Islamic State as a war bride. Or the minister's mistress decides to cut off the affair and move to the US after becoming a Cdn citizen. Or something like that.

It's not likely to affect a lot of people, but personally I don't think that makes it right.

 

[Canuckguytorontotdot]

But it is said everywhere that after getting canadian passport after this law everyone has to stay 6 months in every year or the cra wil have a problem

 

[scylla]

But it is said everywhere that after getting canadian passport after this law everyone has to stay 6 months in every year or the cra wil have a problem

No - that's not what the law says.

 

[dpenabill]

I emphatically agree with the observations above by eileenf regarding the toll a residency case can have on an individual. It is worth considering that such a case as this will, at best, go to a hearing. That's litigation. Technically a quasi-judicial proceeding, but it has the nature and character of litigation. Those who enjoy litigation become trial lawyers or professional plaintiffs, and tend to live short lives steeped in stress. Everyone else who has the unfortunate need to engage in litigation suffers through the process and pays a price on many levels. Many only think they would enjoy wading into the fray.

In any event, even though the intent-to-reside clause will have no bearing in the processing of an application made before the date the revised residency provisions come into force, in part due to the changes the RQ process will probably be modified to be even more intrusive into an individual's privacy than it currently is. And, as eileenf noted, as it currently is, the RQ process is indeed profoundly intrusive.

Personally I deliberately waited nearly two years beyond when I initially met the APP test to apply, in large part hoping to avoid RQ, but also in part to limit the scope of what I would need to produce in response if I did get RQ. There is almost no doubt that if I had applied in 2011, when I first met the APP test, I would not have become a citizen as soon as I did (one year ago this month, March 2014, application rec'd at Sydney July 2013). That particular time period (2011 to 2013) involves, in many ways, anomalies, and thus does not necessarily reflect what is likely to happen for more recent applicants, but there is nonetheless the underlying implication that avoiding wading into troubled waters, if possible, and waiting, can be the more prudent course of action.




In any event, as to the particular issue, that is about applying with a shortfall when the applicant is also relying on credit for pre-landing presence, what I have already posted in another forum:

I could post a detailed description about why I think there is so little hope for a shortfall application relying on pre-landing credits (even before this government pushed to dramatically limit approvals for shortfall cases), but ultimately I do not really know how every CJ will decide such a case. I think my opinion about this is fairly well-informed and derives from a thoughtful analysis, but there is no case history I know of which addresses this situation . . . beyond the one case last year, in a published Federal Court decision, where a CJ actually did approve such an applicant, but the Federal Court granted CIC's appeal. As I recall, the Federal Court hung its reasoning for granting the appeal on technical grounds having to do with the CJ's purported failure to adequately explain his or her reasoning for granting approval, so that decision did not explicitly state that no such applicant should be granted citizenship. But it was easy enough to read between the lines and recognize that either it was the shortfall itself (which was not very large as I recall) or the combination, that fueled the outcome.

I do think, to be clear, that the absence of any history regarding such applications suggests that even back when shortfall applications in general had far, far better odds than they have now, few if any prospective applicants thought it would be worth making an application in this situation, a shortfall application relying on credit for pre-landing days spent in Canada.