2. As a mailing address only
Since IRCC does not send PR cards to a mailing address, only to residential address, something here does not fit.
But what does not fit more so is that just the use of the consultant's address during the landing, and no more (thus not used in the citizenship application itself) would trigger the suspect address triage hit in processing a citizenship application. Even if the consultant's address was used as a residential address (not just as a mailing address) to facilitate getting the PR card by mail.
It is possible that is all there is to it, and the investigation will be short-lived, causing no serious issues or problems.
More likely, however, there are other concerns involved. The question is whether those concerns are merely matters of verification, resolved by cross-checking information and not likely to cause any serious issues, or whether there there is a serious substantive issue. But if it is the latter, how serious?
I am not suggesting trying to sort this out here in the forum. Far too much of the process in such cases is done behind closed curtains for the forum to anywhere near adequately address what is involved, what drives the decision-making let alone what dictates the outcome. Unless you have a good idea, yourself, what the actual concern might be, it is not likely we can figure out what that is here.
The main question you probably want to deal with, for now, is whether to lawyer-up or ride this out.
Which leads to . . .
I ordered notes from 3 Canadian agencies:
1) GCMS notes: here IRCC decided not to share "A1 suspected address" with me, so they removed that part form the notes as well as their decision about referring the case to CMB
2) CBSA notes: this one revealed "A1 suspected address " and "CMB reference" notes
3) CSIS notes - still waiting for that one.
feel free to ask more questions if needed. thank you
Clarification of how you got this is appreciated. Just the fact that "
suspect address" is part of the triage criteria is supposed to be confidential, not divulged to the public, let alone the reference to it as "
A1." So it is interesting that CBSA has let this slip.
Even the fact that your case is in this process involving a CBSA investigation is ordinarily redacted, not divulged.
Of course many forum participants were already well aware that a suspect address is a key triage factor, confirmed by a leaked copy of the File Requirements Checklist way back in 2012, shortly after it was implemented. And no great insight necessary to be confident this has continued to be a key triage factor -- it is, after all, an entirely obvious factor -- even though we know there have been significant changes made to the triage criteria and how they are applied since getting a copy of the 2012 FRC.
But if the consultant's address was NOT used at all in the citizenship application itself, how and why would that flag a suspect-address leading to a referral to CBSA for an investigation?
That is a serious question but I am not suggesting trying to figure out the answer, not here anyway. (Something to be discussed with a lawyer, if you elect to obtain the assistance of a lawyer.)
There is a temptation, for example, to ask about other aspects of your situation, including whether there were any questions in the interview related to the consultant or the consultant's address, or going into the details of your address history. But as already noted, I am not suggesting trying to sort this out here in the forum because there is far too much of the process done behind closed curtains, in such cases, for the forum to anywhere near adequately address what is involved, what drives the decision-making let alone what dictates the outcome.
Although, if we were trying to sort this out here, it would be helpful to clarify that the August 2023 interview was in fact with a Citizenship Officer, rather than a routine Program Integrity Interview (PII) conducted by an IRCC processing agent (the typical post-test interview); and if it was with a Citizenship Officer, what did the notice for the interview say? But again, not suggesting digging into this here. Just pointing in the direction of potential clues to help YOU decide whether to ride this out or see a lawyer.
If, for example, the interview was with a Citizenship Officer (not just a PII with a processing agent) and was in significant part oriented to either your address history, or matters involving you and the consultant, that would be a big clue it was time to lawyer-up.
The problem is knowing if there is a serious issue at stake, with potentially severe consequences. The question being whether to lawyer-up or ride it out.
Unknown Tipping Point:
One of the aspects of this that makes it particularly difficult to discern what is at stake, in addition to the fact that most of this part of processing is done behind closed curtains pursuant to policies and practices that are confidential (secret), is that we have no statistical information about CBSA investigatory referrals. Few applicants suffering lengthy processing timelines go to the lengths it appears you have to uncover what is going on, and even for those who make ATIP requests to CBSA in addition to IRCC, the fact of the referral, reason for the referral, or that CBSA is investigating, is not usually divulged in the response. The agencies sometimes slip. Big time back in 2012 when they sent an applicant a complete copy of the FRC (the FRC is so closely guarded it does even get included in the official tribunal record if the case goes to the Federal Court; even Federal Court justices do not get to see a copy of the FRC).
It is very likely that scores of citizenship applicants have suffered a delay in processing due, at the least, to a referral to CBSA for investigation (usually by its NSSD branch). Many, probably most, probably most by a lot, never know of this, other than inferring it may have happened based on delays in processing their application. How many of these are to the CMB we likewise do not know.
So, there is a huge gap in what we know about the risks. We really have very little insight into whether these referrals signal a serious issue involving a real, substantive problem. Some do, of course. But we do not know whether just having your case referred to the CMB means it is likely there is a serious issue involving a real, substantive problem.
There might be. Usually, as long as those involved are being open and honest and objective with themselves, the affected person will have a good idea what the underlying problem is . . . no one knows the case better than the applicant, after all.
All this has been taking the long road around to cautioning this could be about your status as a PR, not just the citizenship application. Maybe not. But if there is no reason to suspect any of the addresses you reported in the citizenship application, this might very well be about your admissibility as a Permanent Resident, potentially about grounds to revoke your PR status.
Again, YOU know your case as well as anyone. Your history. Your relationship to the consultant. (Questions for YOU to ask yourself, for example, is this an authorized consultant? If so, still in good standing?) What information was provided in your PR visa case. What information you have reported in the citizenship case. What sort of questions were asked in the interview. And so on . . . way too much to try to unravel in the forum and we cannot make much of it anyway, given how much behind the curtain the relevant inquiry/investigation is conducted . . . but things to consider in trying to assess, as best you can, whether it is time to lawyer-up.
That's the question:
Is it time for you to lawyer-up? Obviously, the sense that would be a good idea is underlying my observations. I do not know, not close, but given what could be at stake (again, this could be about your PR status itself), my sense leans in the direction of taking precautions. Of course what you can afford matters. And, to be redundant, this question is framed by what you know about yourself and your case . . . if you are very confident there is no reason to apprehend CBSA will find misrepresentation or other cause to deny the citizenship application or revoke your PR status, that would lean toward riding this out.
HOW LONG?
Unpredictable. Depends on what is at stake. If there is nothing to see, no real substantive issue, this could be resolved quite soon. But it could take a long time, or even a very, very long time, if the underlying cause for this is a serious issue. Known cases range from resolved in short order to taking a year or two, and some taking many years (some even going longer than a decade, but of course those are extremely unusual cases).
