Hello community,
Thank you for remaining active and providing insight into the citizenship process. It's great to feel no one is alone in this process.
My brother is going through the citizenship process and filed his application in October of 2017. He was then issued a letter (similar in format to a CIT 0520) requesting for some documentations fro the country of his residence prior to Canada in August 2018. After rapidly providing the documentation he was issued another CIT 0520 (in the CIT format) on December 2018 requesting for education transcripts, bank statements and lease agreements.
My question is whether this is normal to be issued 2 CIT 0520s in succession ?
Furthermore, the CIT 0520 indicates that documents are to be from the 5 year application period - not the 3 years he indicated he resided in Canada. Does he need to provide lease agreements that he had in the country of his residence prior to moving to Canada in those 5 years ? What if access to such lease documents is not feasible ? What is the procedure here ?
I know there are plenty of threads about the CIT process but I would appreciate some information as to what timeline in those 5 years the CIC is interested in.
Also the 30 day deadline provided seems hard meet. Will send a letter to clarify
Thank you !
I am guessing that the first request was for a Record of Movement from a particular country or countries. While that request is often included in the requests accompanying the CIT 0520, it is NOT itself CIT 0520. Even if the request was more extensive than that, if it did not include the CIT 0520 form, it was NOT CIT 0520. But that is of little import.
Additionally, even when the CIT 0520 itself is included, the request for documents might only ask for one or a few particular items, and of course if a request only asks for one or two documents, then a subsequent request asking for additional documents can be made if the response to the first request does not resolve whatever questions or concerns IRCC has.
In particular, while it is NOT common to see reports of multiple RQ related requests for a particular individual applicant, it happens. And, indeed, after submitting the response to this CIT 0520 he could still be issued the full-blown RQ (CIT 0171). Again, this is not common, but basically IRCC will oft times make a lesser intrusive request if it appears the requested information and documents are likely to resolve whatever questions trigger the request, but if the response does not suffice to settle those questions, then IRCC can and sometimes does make the more extensive and intrusive request.
Here is a KEY: these requests are triggered because IRCC has questions or concerns. The burden of proof is on the applicant, so unless and until any questions and concerns are satisfactorily resolved, IRCC does NOT even have authority to grant citizenship. So an applicant should recognize these requests to be what they are, what they in very large part are, and that is AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLEMENT THE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
Thus, the applicant should make a concerted, diligent effort to submit a TIMELY response, and include in that response as much of what is asked for as possible. If it is not possible to submit all that is asked for within the time given, the applicant can ask for an extension.
However, I am not certain, but my sense is that it is better to submit all the applicant can, on time (or close to on time), and if that response does not have all that was asked for, the applicant should also, in the response, (1) acknowledge (name) what is not being submitted, (2) with an explanation why it is not being submitted, and (3) if the documents are not in possession but can be obtained from a third party (including government bodies), state that a request for the documents has been made (but only if that is true), and that they will be submitted in a supplemental response when they are available (and of course the applicant should follow through doing this).
Scope of Requests:
Follow the instructions. Looking for reasons to not follow the instructions is a perilous path.
The full five year eligibility period is considered. Where the applicant was working and living, even though abroad, helps complete a full picture of the applicant's life during the eligibility period, and thus helps IRCC evaluate ALL evidence relevant to the presence calculation.
That said, my guess is similar to yours, that lease agreements covering periods of time the applicant was NOT living in Canada and has accurately reported this, such as in the work and address history parts of the application, are NOT important. Probably will not be considered.
BUT where IRCC has asked for all such documentation for the "eligibility period," by definition this information is relevant. And, frankly, it could be material as well. A lease agreement abroad, after all, is evidence tending to show when the applicant was living abroad. And that is material to the presence calculation, since that is what the calculation is about, total of days present versus days absent in the 1825 days prior to applying.
That said, if an older lease agreement is NOT available, it is NOT available. A truthful explanation should be a sufficient submission. Failing to prove where one was living abroad should have minimal or no impact on assessing the applicant's actual presence in Canada.
That said, for periods of time the applicant was living in Canada, if the applicant does not have a copy of the respective lease agreements it is a good idea to make a more concerted effort to submit alternative evidence to document where the applicant was living in Canada. As I noted, this really is the applicant's OPPORTUNITY to persuade IRCC there is no reason to question or doubt he met the requirements.
