Citizenship application: Will a current UK PR trigger RQ?

[canadasucks]

I agree with your views on the comparatively poor design and execution of immigration policies/laws in Canada vis-a-vis other countries.

As for the British citizenship, simply put, I was a damn fool for not getting it when I had the chance! I had some other pressing issues at the time and had just received Canada PR on my original passport (after another looooong process). I did not want to change my passport at that time (my country of birth does not recognise dual citizenship so I would have had to give up the original passport) and cause more delays to the Canadian PR.

If I knew then what I know now, of course I would have dumped the Canadian PR in a blink and taken the UK citizenship. We live and learn! But what an expensive lesson this has been!!

I had very similar experience as you. Even when I got my British citizenship, my Canada PR application had not finalized after the same 5 years. But I sent an email to the London visa office to update my citizenship, suddenly the visa office finalized my application to issue me Canada PR the next day! Actually changing the citizenship was not delaying the Canada PR but accelerate it.

But my lesson learned was to made the move from UK to Canada to realize how Canada sucks!

 

[captain74]

I had very similar experience as you. Even when I got my British citizenship, my Canada PR application had not finalized after the same 5 years. But I sent an email to the London visa office to update my citizenship, suddenly the visa office finalized my application to issue me Canada PR the next day! Actually changing the citizenship was not delaying the Canada PR but accelerate it.

But my lesson learned was to made the move from UK to Canada to realize how Canada sucks!

Although my PR came before I could apply or Citizenship, in retrospect, I should have checked with the Canadian High Commission at the time if changing passport would cause any issues.

I clearly wasn't thinking straight at the time!

I am in GTA at the moment. If you are nearby, we should meet up for a drink or something (probably some weak Canadian beer that also sucks ).

 

[canadasucks]

Although my PR came before I could apply or Citizenship, in retrospect, I should have checked with the Canadian High Commission at the time if changing passport would cause any issues.

I clearly wasn't thinking straight at the time!

I am in GTA at the moment. If you are nearby, we should meet up for a drink or something (probably some weak Canadian beer that also sucks ).

Glad to meet up and I have sent you PM.

 

[links18]

You raise good points - I address these below.

Concerns about the intentions should be equally grave with regards to other countries of citizenship so the paranoia only about residence elsewhere is absurd and a waste of time as it really adds nothing to the process but frustrations and delay.

As for residence in the UK, stating that it is currently valid should leave no doubt that I meet the requirements there (which are different to those in Canada and it is possible to meet requirements in both countries simultaneously - as I have done). Also, physical presence in Canada is declared by the applicant and affirmed by way of a signature on the residence calculator. This is then open to confirmation with CBSA (for which consent is also affirmed in the application form).

I therefore see no benefit or value added to the process by the legally irrelevant (as you put - and I agree) question and the delays it causes.

I wouldn't say that IRCC is not concerned with trips to your country of citizenship. They are. They make you declare ALL countries of citizenship on your application--in case you have more than one. In other words, not just the one country whose passport you entered Canada with as a PR. However, having PR status in another country is--in IRCC's view-- of a qualitatively different nature. You must take the initiative to obtain PR status somewhere else, which demonstrates an immigrant intent towards that country while at the same time you are claiming an immigrant intent toward Canada. While it may be possible to fulfill the requirements for Canadian PR and another country simultaneously--IRCC doesn't know that and its your burden to prove that your Pr status elsewhere did not impact your ability to meet Canadian citizenship requirements and therefore does not contradict your declarations.

 

[canadasucks]

I wouldn't say that IRCC is not concerned with trips to your country of citizenship. They are. They make you declare ALL countries of citizenship on your application--in case you have more than one. In other words, not just the one country whose passport you entered Canada with as a PR. However, having PR status in another country is--in IRCC's view-- of a qualitatively different nature. You must take the initiative to obtain PR status somewhere else, which demonstrates an immigrant intent towards that country while at the same time you are claiming an immigrant intent toward Canada. While it may be possible to fulfill the requirements for Canadian PR and another country simultaneously--IRCC doesn't know that and its your burden to prove that your Pr status elsewhere did not impact your ability to meet Canadian citizenship requirements and therefore does not contradict your declarations.

IRCC is acting outside the laws and abuse its power to demand information outside the laws. This is not how "burden of proof" is used. Canada is the ONLY country in the world which does not have any exit passport control OR exit tracking (UK, US have no exit passport control but do have exit tracking). Canada as a sovereign country should have the responsibility to if not control but at least track its border, compare to all other countries in the world, the Canada government has already failed its basic responsibility. Yet you ask people to provide the information from other countries to prove their movement from your own border and call it ""burden of proof"? This should be called "You failed your own job and ask people to cover your ass".

 

[dpenabill]

Regarding Relevancy of Status in Other Countries:

Short observation: yes, status in another country is relevant, and yes it can influence the assessment of the applicant's declared presence/residency in Canada.

In this regard:

From IRCC's point of view having PR status in another country (other than your country[ies] of citizenship) simultaneously with Canadian PR, raises questions about your intentions towards Canada. This may be more important now given the intent to reside clause in Canadian citizenship application. It also raises issues about your physical presence for the period in which you had this status. Were you in Canada or were you in the UK? Were there physical presence requirements vis a vis UK PR that you needed to meet to maintain that status? Do these requirements conflict with your declared physical presence in Canada? etc., etc. There are all kinds of reason IRCC wants to know about other PR statuses you may hold. While it may not be legally relevant to the decision to grant you Canadian citizenship, i.e. they can't deny you Canadian citizenship just because you have PR status somewhere else--it is factually relevant to assessing your physical presence declarations and your intentions.

This is good explanation and I agree except for a small clarification, regarding use of the term "legally," as in "legally relevant."

Of course residency status in another country is relevant. Much of this post by links18 articulates the relevance.

Moreover, it is materially relevant, and thus the failure to disclose this information would constitute a material misrepresentation (by omission), or as the media tends to describe it, fraud. Potential consequences should need no elaboration.

It is correct that residency status in another country does not directly affect eligibility for Canadian citizenship. There is no requisite lack-of-status elsewhere in qualifying for Canadian citizenship.

What is relevant in assessing facts is way, way broader than the precise requisites. What is factually relevant is legally relevant unless there is a legal reason for excluding consideration of such evidence. For example, in many contexts evidence is precluded if it based on discriminatory influence or tends to have a discriminatory effect, even if it would be relevant. Particular example: most will agree that evidence of having committed other crimes, particularly similar crimes, is evidence which tends to indicate a person is more likely guilty than not, thus is relevant, but is usually excluded from consideration in deciding the guilt of a criminally charged defendant, because its negative influence tends to out way its real probative weight.

In any event, the last part of the post by links18 makes the point about as well as it can be made:
" . . . they can't deny you Canadian citizenship just because you have PR status somewhere else--it is factually relevant to assessing your physical presence declarations and your intentions."

To be clear: residency status elsewhere indicates potential (perhaps even probable) residence elsewhere, which in turns suggests significant presence there. In many respects, an individual is considered to only have one place of residence at a given time, but there is no doubt that a person can only be present in one place at a time. Indications of being present elsewhere are thus evidence of not being present in Canada.

And, as links18 points out, residency status often involves rules for maintaining that status which, in order to comply with those rules, suggests physical residency or physical presence there, as in not-in-Canada. Moreover, there is a catch-22 at play. For American Green Card holders, for example, it is not possible (or at least very difficult) to fully comply with the requirements for maintaining GC status and at the same time meet the Canadian citizenship presence in Canada requirements, so it is an easy if not obvious inference that either:
-- the PR was in the U.S. more than disclosed, or
-- has been deceptive to U.S. authorities

Either way, the individual's credibility is compromised, if not outright trashed.

Reminders:

-- second only to actually meeting the requirements, the applicant's credibility is the next most important factor

-- second only to not following the instructions (and not at all far behind), indicators tending to weaken the applicant's credibility are probably the next most common cause for problems in the application process

-- there is no requirement that the applicant deserve to become a Canadian citizen, but anyone who does not recognize how important this factor can be is, well, frankly, a fool


In the meantime, we knew the formal criteria for issuing RQ as of the summer of 2012 (due to accidentally leaked copy of the File Requirements Checklist shared in multiple forums), and those criteria are probably the core considerations. However, it is certain those criteria have been modified some and subject to a lot of refinement in how they are applied. Status in another country (other than home country) was not a definitive trigger for RQ, and probably still is not a definitive trigger. But it is likely to be a significant factor which can affect whether or not a Citizenship Officer perceives a reason-to-question-residency (presence), particularly in context with any other factors tending to invite questions or concerns.

Ultimately there is no certain way to avoid RQ. There are some fairly sure-fire ways to trigger RQ, but there is no perfect application or applicant which will guarantee no RQ. It is not the luck of the draw. It depends on the facts and circumstances. But many if not most of the facts and circumstances are largely beyond an applicant's control, at least beyond what the applicant can change as the time to apply for citizenship approaches.

Concerns about the intentions should be equally grave with regards to other countries of citizenship . . .

It is not so much about intentions (albeit, under current law, yes intent is not just relevant but there is a specific intent requisite).

But yes, last I looked, the applicant is required to divulge all citizenships in addition to residency status in other countries. One difference, however, is that relative to citizenship by descent or birth, these do not evidence overt acts on the applicant's part to establish residency elsewhere, whereas obtaining status to live or work in another country does. In this regard: when the status was obtained is one of those other factors which can significantly influence the impact such status has. For example, obtaining residency status elsewhere after becoming a Canadian PR obviously raises more of a red flag than having that status from before, and the more recently such status was obtained will tend to elevate how much attention it gets.

Also, physical presence in Canada is declared by the applicant and affirmed by way of a signature on the residence calculator. This is then open to confirmation with CBSA (for which consent is also affirmed in the application form).

For applications made after June 11, 2015, all RQs are about questioning the applicant's declared presence (before that, applicants could be eligible even if they were short of the physical presence threshold, so those shortfall applicants were usually issued RQ and subject to a full blown residency assessment). So yes, of course the applicant's declarations in the presence calculation are open to confirmation . . . with IRCC looking at multiple sources of information, including the CBSA travel history, including potential Internet research about the applicant (LinkedIn information has been cited in several cases as a source of information raising questions about the applicant's declarations in the application, the presence calculation, or in response to RQ), including possible telephone calls to employers or the applicant (I got a telephone call shortly before my interview), including cross-referencing all the information IRCC has about the applicant, members of the applicant's family, the applicant's employers, and so on.

And assessment of the applicant's declarations as to physical presence is subject to a wide range of relevant considerations, which is why residency and residency ties and work history are all not just relevant but have high probative weight. There is no work or employment requisite for citizenship but one's employment history is a huge, huge factor considered in weighing the evidence and determining the facts. After all, evidence of regular employment in Canada tends to show regular presence in Canada, and is thus good supporting evidence for an applicant; in contrast, the absence of being employed in Canada during a period of time leaves open the question, is there other evidence to corroborate the applicant's actual presence in Canada during that time. And of course, as usual, the impact of one or the other in the individual case varies, the absence of work not inviting the same degree of questioning for a mother of young children who reports being a stay-at-home mom as it would for a single computer programmer with ties to employment abroad. Which is to say, six months of not being employed can raise questions, but for one person is not likely to raise questions much or loudly, while for a different person it might overtly suggest that person could have had undisclosed employment abroad during that time. Context matters.

 

[captain74]

Thanks for your input Dpenabill, Canadasucks, Links18, Keesio and David

It seems, in summary:

1. A PR elsewhere does indeed create a possibility of an RQ

2. Unfortunate as it may be, the ground reality is that citizenship officers can, and often do, bring significant amounts of subjectivity to the assessment of factors which really should be assessed objectively (one was either in country for the required number of days or they were not - as proven by objective facts such as entry and exit records!)

3. The burden of proof in the entire RQ (indeed the whole citizenship) process is on the applicant which seems very uncomfortably close to an applicant being considered "guilty until proven innocent" on a mere suspicion cast by a bureaucrat - the exact opposite of what I would have expected the approach to be in a modern democracy!!.

Also, when the government, with all its resources, is not able to keep records of entries and exits, it seems a bit excessive to expect one individual to prove it all to the satisfaction of a bureaucrat (who is by that stage already unfavorably predisposed towards the application) while facing further delays of an unspecified duration and no obligation on the part of the bureaucrat to provide even an estimate for the processing time.

Notwithstanding my views on the very poor design / implementation of the process and general misgivings, it appears that my only option is to apply and hope that the case file is designated to be handled by a citizenship officer of open mind and generous spirit!

Not the position I wanted to be in, or should be in, but here I am!

 

[dpenabill]

2. Unfortunate as it may be, the ground reality is that citizenship officers can, and often do, bring significant amounts of subjectivity to the assessment of factors which really should be assessed objectively (one was either in country for the required number of days or they were not - as proven by objective facts such as entry and exit records!)

The exercise of discretion in assessing information is not the same thing as making a subjective judgment. Making reasonable inferences is a very large part of virtually all non-mechanical decision-making. Sure, the decision-maker's subjectivity can influence the decisions being made, and that is why a progressive, rule-based, rule-of-law governed modern democracy employs multiple levels of checks and balances, and provides process pursuant to which a decision-maker's determination is subject to review.

For citizenship applicants, there is essentially automatic review if a Citizenship Officer determines the applicant has not met the burden of proving sufficient presence in Canada, since all such cases automatically go to a Citizenship Judge for the CJ to decide. Unfortunately applicants have no further right to judicial review of a CJ's decision (this is something which should be changed), but applicants can seek leave from the Federal Court to have a negative CJ decision reviewed.

You refer to the fact of time in Canada as if IRCC or CBSA have a crystal ball and can know with certainty precisely the number of days a person was in Canada.

Here's one clue: Stanstead, Quebec, among scores and scores of places where a person could easily (albeit not legally) exit or enter Canada without border officers making a record of the border crossing.

Here's another clue: Scores of people are able to obtain and use alternative Travel Documents which CBSA and IRCC have not linked to the individual's Canadian immigration client number, and are thus able to exit and enter Canada without creating a record of that trip in their CBSA travel history. (And this is precisely what many have done.)

There is no total guarantee a person was in Canada between their reported or recorded last date of entry and next date of exit.

The Canadian government does not attempt to keep track of where its residents are on a daily basis. Most Canadians prefer it that way. Exit and entry records are relied on only as one part of the evidence indicating where an individual is. There is no prospect of this changing in the foreseeable future.

Which leads to the burden of proof.

3. The burden of proof in the entire RQ (indeed the whole citizenship) process is on the applicant which seems very uncomfortably close to an applicant being considered "guilty until proven innocent" on a mere suspicion cast by a bureaucrat - the exact opposite of what I would have expected the approach to be in a modern democracy!!.

On the contrary. There is no penalty imposed, no guilt insinuated let alone assessed.

Indeed, it is the applicant who is, in effect, prosecuting a case to seek a change in status. In Western and other modern democracies, the burden of proof is typically on the party seeking a decision.

This is standard rule-of-law process. The applicant bears the burden of both presenting and, in most respects, proving entitlement to what is being applied for.

Also, when the government, with all its resources, is not able to keep records of entries and exits, it seems a bit excessive to expect one individual to prove it all to the satisfaction of a bureaucrat (who is by that stage already unfavorably predisposed towards the application) while facing further delays of an unspecified duration and no obligation on the part of the bureaucrat to provide even an estimate for the processing time.

Notwithstanding my views on the very poor design / implementation of the process and general misgivings . . .

There is one individual in the whole world, and only one individual in the whole world, who has the capacity to for-sure completely know with certain accuracy, the dates a PR has entered Canada, been in Canada, and left Canada. That is the PR himself or herself.

No special resources necessary. Every PR knows when he or she leaves Canada and is the one person in the whole world in the best position to keep a record of that.

Is it not a good idea to put the burden of proof on the person or entity with the best access to the information? The applicant?

This is one reason, among many obvious ones, why the applicant's credibility is so crucially important: for the vast majority, IRCC has no reason to doubt the applicant's credibility, no reason to question the applicant's declarations of travel, so when a few cursory cross-checks are consistent with what the applicant has declared, IRCC essentially infers the applicant was indeed IN Canada all days in between last reported date of entry and next reported date of exit.

Moreover, notwithstanding the extent to which there is, indeed, a lack of transparency in Canada' bureaucracies, including IRCC, for the most part the important information about qualifying and becoming a Canadian citizen is well known, not at all obscure let alone secret.

The proof is in the pudding: every year (with some exceptions, like 2012 due to the draconian overreaching by CIC in implementing a Harper-Perrin-Kenney program to interdict fraud; like this year due to changes in requirements reducing new applications) around a couple hundred thousand immigrants become new citizens in Canada, the vast, vast majority of whom sail easily through the process . . . even me, and I had some circumstances (including not being employed by any Canadian employer) which were prone to RQ but nonetheless sailed through the process, just one phone call the week before my interview, took the oath barely eight months after applying. For the vast majority of applicants, IRCC will indeed examine the presence calculation and infer the applicant was in Canada all the days between the last reported entry and next reported exit.

The system works. It works rather well for the vast majority of qualified applicants. Many who can foresee they have circumstances which might invite questions can prepare for that eventuality, which is what I did, and which was the impetus for me to do the research I have done over the years into residency related issues. Learned a long time ago (but too late for some of my education) how important it is, how much it helps, to do the homework.

(Note regarding my own case: due to my circumstances, I recognized the importance of waiting a lot longer before applying . . . I waited well over a year beyond the date I first met the physical presence threshold . . . each individual has to assess their own situation and decide for himself or herself how to best approach applying for citizenship, and just as importantly when to apply . . . applying as soon as one passes the minimum required time can be foolish for some, perhaps downright stupid for some . . . would have been stupid for me, for example.)

 

[captain74]

The exercise of discretion in assessing information is not the same thing as making a subjective judgment. Making reasonable inferences is a very large part of virtually all non-mechanical decision-making. Sure, the decision-maker's subjectivity can influence the decisions being madeThe point is that there should not be room for subjectivity in applying laws. The time to address any possible areas where officers might need discretion is while the law is being drafted. Those areas could be identified in the law and detailed regulations drafted in the way discretion could be applied. The UK does that in immigration rules which are published on government website and can therefore be accessed by general public and used in preparing their case. The system works well for both the government and the applicants, and that is why a progressive, rule-based, rule-of-law governed modern democracy employs multiple levels of checks and balances, and provides process pursuant to which a decision-maker's determination is subject to review.

For citizenship applicants, there is essentially automatic review if a Citizenship Officer determines the applicant has not met the burden of proving sufficient presence in Canada, since all such cases automatically go to a Citizenship Judge for the CJ to decide. Unfortunately applicants have no further right to judicial review of a CJ's decision (this is something which should be changed), but applicants can seek leave from the Federal Court to have a negative CJ decision reviewed.

You refer to the fact of time in Canada as if IRCC or CBSA have a crystal ball and can know with certainty precisely the number of days a person was in Canada. I make no such claim that IRCC or CBSA have a crystal ball. I merely point out that the balance of the process is wrong. The applicant provides all information they have. It is not unreasonable to expect that the government, with all its resources, would also. on their part, make appropriate provisions to gather reliable information that it itself requires to make decisions.

Here's one clue: Stanstead, Quebec, among scores and scores of places where a person could easily (albeit not legally) exit or enter Canada without border officers making a record of the border crossing.

Here's another clue: Scores of people are able to obtain and use alternative Travel Documents which CBSA and IRCC have not linked to the individual's Canadian immigration client number, and are thus able to exit and enter Canada without creating a record of that trip in their CBSA travel history. (And this is precisely what many have done.)

There is no total guarantee a person was in Canada between their reported or recorded last date of entry and next date of exit.

Agree. So once the applicant does provide all information they have, how does casting doubt on the information, putting all onus on the applicant to provide more information (when, to paraphrase your words, the citizenship officer has views about the credibility of the applicant) change the situation from 'no guarantee' of presence. I can't see what is the benefit for asking for more and more information when you can't or wouldn't trust it, and wouldn't make provisions to gather reliable information yourself. Where is the fairness / balance in this?

The Canadian government does not attempt to keep track of where its residents are on a daily basis. Most Canadians prefer it that way As do I. And I never said the Canadian government should "track" its citizens or residents - just keep a record of entry and exit and help themselves and the applicants by using the information to fairly and objectively assess whether or not the applicant has required physical presnce in Canada. Smple really![/color]. Exit and entry records are relied on only as one part of the evidence indicating where an individual is. There is no prospect of this changing in the foreseeable future.

Which leads to the burden of proof.


On the contrary. There is no penalty imposed, no guilt insinuated let alone assessed.

Indeed, it is the applicant who is, in effect, prosecuting a case to seek a change in status. In Western and other modern democracies, the burden of proof is typically on the party seeking a decision.

I would add a bit here to make this more balanced. The applicant is seeking a status pursuant to the policies / laws in place, only after having met the requirements of such laws. The laws in place were set by Canada (as is their right) and, having met the requirements of the law, the applicant is within their rights to have a reasonable expectation that the government would assess the application fairly and objectively in line with the published law and not based on subjective views of citizenship officers (which also vary by officer). Burden of proof being on the applicant is OK, subjectivity and creating more and more requirements on the hoof by citizenship officers is not. Making, amending or enlarging the scope of laws is a job for the parliament, not for the bureaucracy.

This is standard rule-of-law process. The applicant bears the burden of both presenting and, in most respects, proving entitlement to what is being applied for.


There is one individual in the whole world, and only one individual in the whole world, who has the capacity to for-sure completely know with certain accuracy, the dates a PR has entered Canada, been in Canada, and left Canada. That is the PR himself or herself.

No special resources necessary. Every PR knows when he or she leaves Canada and is the one person in the whole world in the best position to keep a record of that.

Is it not a good idea to put the burden of proof on the person or entity with the best access to the information? The applicant?

Agree. The applicant provides all information and knows it to be correct (talking of vast majority of law abiding residents here). What is the applicant (to paraphrase your words - the persons best placed in the world to provide information) to do if the information is not trusted by the citizenship officer, and when there is no reliable information provided by an independent party (CBSA etc) that can be used to conduct a fair assessment? The current system of RQ and the related frustrations seems to be a grossly inefficient way to do things. Government, with its resources, can do something about this inefficiency, a single applicant can not.

This is one reason, among many obvious ones, why the applicant's credibility is so crucially important: for the vast majority, IRCC has no reason to doubt the applicant's credibility, no reason to question the applicant's declarations of travel, so when a few cursory cross-checks are consistent with what the applicant has declared, IRCC essentially infers the applicant was indeed IN Canada all days in between last reported date of entry and next reported date of exit.

Moreover, notwithstanding the extent to which there is, indeed, a lack of transparency in Canada' bureaucracies, including IRCC, for the most part the important information about qualifying and becoming a Canadian citizen is well known, not at all obscure let alone secret.

The proof is in the pudding: every year (with some exceptions, like 2012 due to the draconian overreaching by CIC in implementing a Harper-Perrin-Kenney program to interdict fraud; like this year due to changes in requirements reducing new applications) around a couple hundred thousand immigrants become new citizens in Canada, the vast, vast majority of whom sail easily through the process . . . even me, and I had some circumstances (including not being employed by any Canadian employer) which were prone to RQ but nonetheless sailed through the process, just one phone call the week before my interview, took the oath barely eight months after applying. For the vast majority of applicants, IRCC will indeed examine the presence calculation and infer the applicant was in Canada all the days between the last reported entry and next reported exit.

The system works. It works rather well for the vast majority of qualified applicants. Many who can foresee they have circumstances which might invite questions can prepare for that eventuality, which is what I did, and which was the impetus for me to do the research I have done over the years into residency related issues. Learned a long time ago (but too late for some of my education) how important it is, how much it helps, to do the homework.

I hope the system works well for me. I have done my homework and do qualify. And I have no doubt about my credibility. The credibility of IRCC and the process, I believe, is being poorly impacted by how some elements of the process itself are run!

 

[dpenabill]

The time to address any possible areas where officers might need discretion is while the law is being drafted. Those areas could be identified in the law and detailed regulations drafted in the way discretion could be applied.

The Federal Courts have issued many, many official decisions, which make up part of the law regarding the interpretation and application of the law governing not just the current citizenship requirements, which are straight-forward enough, but the process of decision-making in interpreting and applying these kinds of laws.

The insinuation that there is unfettered or unfair or arbitrary subjectivity involved in the assessment of evidence and determination of facts in citizenship application processing is, quite simply, at the very least hyperbolic if not outright unfounded.

Again, as I noted, the proof is in the pudding: the vast majority of qualified applicants sail smoothly through the process.

I merely point out that the balance of the process is wrong. The applicant provides all information they have. It is not unreasonable to expect that the government, with all its resources, would also. on their part, make appropriate provisions to gather reliable information that it itself requires to make decisions.

Again: There is one individual in the whole world, and only one individual in the whole world, who has the capacity to for-sure completely know with certain accuracy, the dates a PR has entered Canada, been in Canada, and left Canada. That is the PR himself or herself.

No special resources necessary. Every PR knows when he or she leaves Canada and is the one person in the whole world in the best position to keep a record of that.

In the meantime, the government is doing a far, far better job these days of interdicting immigration and citizenship fraud, and anyone who approaches the process without taking that into consideration does so at their peril.

In other words: IRCC is doing a much better job at verifying the information applicants submit.

So once the applicant does provide all information they have, how does casting doubt on the information, putting all onus on the applicant to provide more information (when, to paraphrase your words, the citizenship officer has views about the credibility of the applicant) change the situation from 'no guarantee' of presence. I can't see what is the benefit for asking for more and more information when you can't or wouldn't trust it, and wouldn't make provisions to gather reliable information yourself. Where is the fairness / balance in this?

Except for the draconian implementation of OB 407 in 2012, probably designed by Harper adviser Benjamin Perrin (later these two had a falling out of sorts) and implemented by Jason Kenney as Minister of CIC, during which the criteria for issuing RQ was so broad it nearly crashed the entire citizenship application process, there is very little evidence that the criteria being employed in deciding who to question further about residency or presence is overly burdensome or unfair.

As noted before, for example, evidence of residency ties abroad are indeed indications of residency and presence outside Canada and IRCC would be remiss if it failed to exercise due diligence in more closely examining the facts relevant to those individuals for whom there are indications of such ties, residency, or employment abroad.

And IRCC does not really ask for all that much, the vast majority of what is requested most people should be keeping as routine records. Proof of where one works, lives, and has residential and community ties is hardly an unfair burden for an applicant whose circumstances justify elevated scrutiny and further inquiry.

I never said the Canadian government should "track" its citizens or residents - just keep a record of entry and exit and help themselves and the applicants by using the information to fairly and objectively assess whether or not the applicant has required physical presnce in Canada. Smple really!

Again, the applicant is the one with for-sure access to all this information, and again, the vast majority of the time that counts in meeting the presence requirement are those hundreds of days between an entry and next exit. All the entry date proves is that the person legally entered Canada that day. It does not prove where the person was the next day. Or the next.

If you want to reduce the extent to which the government officers make inferences, that would really make the process difficult. In the vast majority of the cases, applicants rely on the government making the inference they were in Canada more days than the number of days there is direct proof of being in Canada.

Indeed, the officers' ability to make reasonable inferences is not just what the law allows, but it is what the law mandates . . . and this works in the applicants' favour as much if not more than it would against . . . so it is not necessary for applicants to prove every single day in Canada. Thus, for example, the applicant with a regular job in Canada, a job which involves 20 or so days per month at a regular job site in Canada, does not need to prove he was in Canada the other ten days of the month, since the officer has an obligation to reasonably infer the applicant's presence if the evidence otherwise supports, beyond a balance of probabilities, the person was indeed in Canada.

But for the applicant with long gaps in proof of being at a job or in school, particularly if the evidence to show where that individual was actually living is weak, the officer needs to look for other evidence before making an inference that days not directly shown to be in Canada have been proven, by the applicant, to have been days actually in Canada.

AND few qualified applicants are even put to submitting such additional proof or information.

I would add a bit here to make this more balanced. The applicant is seeking a status pursuant to the policies / laws in place, only after having met the requirements of such laws. The laws in place were set by Canada (as is their right) and, having met the requirements of the law, the applicant is within their rights to have a reasonable expectation that the government would assess the application fairly and objectively in line with the published law and not based on subjective views of citizenship officers (which also vary by officer). Burden of proof being on the applicant is OK, subjectivity and creating more and more requirements on the hoof by citizenship officers is not. Making, amending or enlarging the scope of laws is a job for the parliament, not for the bureaucracy.

There is no credible information that the process is unfair generally or systematically. The evidence one sees in the Federal Court decisions tends to show that IRCC does assess applicants fairly and objectively. Sure there are exceptions, but there is no indication these are widespread or even common, let alone systematic.

Indications of arbitrariness or capriciousness by either Citizenship Officers or CJs is rare. It happens, but there is no indication that it happens more frequently than rarely.

And, by the way, at least in the U.S. and Canada, bureaucracies are actually charged with broad powers in interpreting and applying the statutory law, and in Canada in particular, Regulations drafted and implemented by bureaucracies, including IRCC, are part of the formal, official law. It is a rather orderly, fair, judicious system.

The current system of RQ and the related frustrations seems to be a grossly inefficient way to do things.

There is still some backlog from the 2011 to early 2013 time period during which CIC, with Kenney at the reins, implemented policies and practices which, again, nearly crashed the whole system.

Other than that, there is little or no credible evidence of widespread inefficiency in how the citizenship grant process is currently working. On the contrary, it appears to be working more efficiently now than it has in over a decade, and appears to be improving.

The credibility of IRCC and the process, I believe, is being poorly impacted by how some elements of the process itself are run!

This is an opinion I disagree with. There are problems, and I see a lot of issues (many of which, however, derive from changes implemented during the Harper years and which are the sort of changes not easily rectified). But that is the way things go. That is why law in a progressive country is dynamic, always changing, always being adapted. As is Canada's citizenship law.

How it goes for this or that particular individual is some indication, and of course a process is only as just and fair as it is to the individual as much as to the many, but in researching how the process works and following these issues closely (part of my weekly routine, for many years now, has been to read virtually every new decision by the Federal Court handed down in a grant citizenship case), a reasonable person cannot help but be impressed by how fair and just, even lenient and generous, the grant citizenship application process is in Canada. It deserves high marks.

 

[captain74]

Thank you for your detailed input dpenabill!

I disagree with your views on some aspects of the law and its application by IRCC officers - but I value them nonetheless!

Have a good weekend!