CIT-0171 RQ 2016 timeline - "Residency Questionnaire"
- Thread starter Moe975
- Start date
IRCC has specifically requested some applicants obtain and submit U.S. travel records.quasar81 said:
Generally there is NO reason to present such documents to IRCC unless IRCC requests them. There is rarely any good reason to give IRCC more than it asks for.
I applied for my records from the U.S. about three months before I applied for citizenship. I finally got them about six months after I took the oath. (That is, took a little over a year to get the U.S. records . . . from forum reports, however, I have the impression they can now be obtained more quickly than before.) I applied for them because I had circumstances which I anticipated might result in RQ and a request for U.S. travel history. And back then it was not easy to get them and it took a lot longer than CIC gave applicants to get them. Fortunately CIC (this was before CIC became the IRCC) did not ask me for such records.
Reminder: IRCC mostly looks at any such records for the purpose of identifying if there is any conflicting information, any discrepancies or inconsistencies or incongruities in what the applicant has already submitted. Which is to say, IRCC mostly engages in a search for negative information. Their focus is on verification, to verify the information the applicant has already submitted in the application, and thus when examining sources of information outside the application itself, IRCC is looking for either the absence of verification or contrary information.
Many fail to recognize the significance of this approach in assessing evidence. IRCC will not go through all the information submitted to find and put together a case that the applicant met the physical presence requirements: that is the applicant's job. When the applicant has done that, IRCC's job is to check all the sources of information to make sure the applicant's accounting is not wrong. If the applicant's accounting is wrong, in some way, that's typically a problem. Remember, applicants have been badly hurt by information tending to show the applicant was IN Canada during a time the applicant reported being outside Canada . . . one might think that should strengthen the case, since it shows more days in Canada. No, it can hurt and hurt badly if from this IRCC concludes the applicant's accounting is not reliable.
Example: applicant declared exit from Canada February 1, 2013 and return May 15, 2013, and in looking at various sources of information IRCC sees indications the applicant was IN Canada during the month of March 2013: IRCC does not add those additional days to the applicant's time in Canada, but (depending on other circumstances) might infer the applicant's declarations of travel are not accurate, thus not reliable, and thus any days the applicant has not otherwise solidly shown to be in Canada, by objective proof, are inferred to fall short of meeting the burden of proving they were in Canada.
Leading to this:
If these records are requested, IRCC is likely to hold any failure to provide such reports as highly important, which would mean they would be likely to draw negative inferences from the failure to provide the information.MW2015 said:
If IRCC finds incongruities, inconsistencies, or discrepancies between what is in these records and what the applicant has reported, that too will likely be held to be of “high value.”
If, however, the records are consistent with everything the applicant has otherwise submitted, they will be of moderate value. IRCC will then be looking at other sources of information to verify the applicant’s submissions.
Overall:
If IRCC has not requested these documents, they are little or no help.
If IRCC does request them, failure to provide them tends to lead to negative inferences.
Otherwise, if requested and provided, they will only mean much if there are inconsistencies or discrepancies, and of course that would be negative.
That is: they generally do not help; they can hurt. But if requested, it is important to try to get them and get them submitted.
How would you let CIC know that you are still waiting on the records. I have talked to FOIA muliple times and they closed the case but something about they did not close the case properly or redacted the records to make them available for download.
Luckily I did apply for them before I received my cit 0520, but still waiting, i have called them twice now since my case was closed and no records still available for download. Even though they said they should be available, like some clerical error I guess.
Luckily I did apply for them before I received my cit 0520, but still waiting, i have called them twice now since my case was closed and no records still available for download. Even though they said they should be available, like some clerical error I guess.
I finally got my US Entry Exit Report, Applied April 10, received it July 10, so took about 3 months. May sure you select expedited request. But after receiving my document it does not really show every single entry exit, seems to be missing a lot of data, ATIP report from Canada much more inclusive. Also surprised not in any order that I could figure out.
Just got my ATIP requested back in July (took almost 2.5 months)... Sad , looks like there's some movements in my application, my documents (CTI 0520 and CIT 0171) were received April 29, 2016.
I noticed those changes:
knowledge: PASSED
Language: PASSED
Residency: Referred for hearing Sad
Criminality: PASSED
Prohibition: Not started
Hearing: Not started
Oath: Not started
Discretionary grant: N
and also notice that my file traveled to Montreal and back to St.Clair
The other one left are blank, not sure if Residency: Referred for hearing is referring to CJ, i wasn't short in days.
Any comment from you guys and Champions Member in this forum, much appreciated.
Thank you,
I noticed those changes:
knowledge: PASSED
Language: PASSED
Residency: Referred for hearing Sad
Criminality: PASSED
Prohibition: Not started
Hearing: Not started
Oath: Not started
Discretionary grant: N
and also notice that my file traveled to Montreal and back to St.Clair
The other one left are blank, not sure if Residency: Referred for hearing is referring to CJ, i wasn't short in days.
Any comment from you guys and Champions Member in this forum, much appreciated.
Thank you,
Jaroddz said:
As I have otherwise observed, I don't think applicants generally learn much from the copy of the GCMS report generated in response to the ATIP request. But, sure, sometimes applicants have learned significant information. One of the most informative items we've had access to was a copy of the 2012 version of the File Requirements Checklist which was sent (apparently in error) to an applicant who shared it online (while that FRC is surely outdated now, the odds are high that its structure and much of its content remains the same, just modified some, and subject to refined instructions in how it is applied; at the least it gives us a lot of insight into the key factors examined in assessing residency). But generally, usually, the response to the ATIP request does not contain any information beyond what the applicant either already knows or could figure out without doing the ATIP request.
For example, what is far, far more revealing about your situation is that you were initially issued a CIT 0520 request following the test, and then months later (April this year) you were issued the CIT 0171, the latter being a full blown Residency Questionnaire. While you report that you were not short days, it is apparent that IRCC identified a concern, that your response to the CIT 0520 did not resolve that concern or raised other concerns, and that your accounting of time present in Canada is, at the least, being questioned, perhaps challenged.
No need for ATIP to conclude that with no further action nearly five months later (meaning no oath scheduled), there is a problem and a significant prospect that you will indeed be referred for a CJ residency case hearing.
That might not happen. You could suddenly be scheduled to take the oath. Reports of indicators about hearing required in the ATIP response have been inconsistent and too sporadic to discern any definitive pattern. But at the least, obviously there is a substantial concern about your residency and a corresponding risk you will be scheduled for a Citizenship Judge hearing.
These processes have been overshadowed by many changes at IRCC, and timelines which have been greatly variable, and not much predictable, are still greatly variable and not much predictable. Timelines should be shorter than they were for, say, those who applied in 2011 and 2012 and ended up bogged down in a protracted RQ process, but that is not particularly encouraging since those timelines drifted past three and even four years. Shorter could still mean more than 24 or even 30 months. We just do not know how long it will be.
If you have the financial resources, you might want to seriously consider taking a copy of everything you have to a qualified, licensed immigration lawyer. What you take should include, at the least, a copy of your initial application, a copy of the response to the CIT 0520 and response to RQ, including a copy of all documents submitted in response to these. At least for a consultation.
Otherwise, you may want to review all these documents in depth looking for what might raise questions, what periods of time might IRCC have concerns about. Look for, and identify, what could be any gap in your proof.
That is about as much as I can offer.
As I also have otherwise noted, I believe there are other participants in the forum who are better acquainted with the details in the copy of GCMS reports applicants receive in response to ATIP applications.
Guys today i checked my ecase and it finally showed "Decision Made" after almost 40 days of the RQ submittal 
however i have a concern : do decision made means "approved" and taking the oath is the next step?
I appreciate your reply
however i have a concern : do decision made means "approved" and taking the oath is the next step?
I appreciate your reply