Hi everyone, my mom is 52 years old she did her citizenship online test in January 2024 and after a week it was marked as completed, now 1 week ago she was asked to come to an interview and after she left the citizenship was changed from completed to hearing required, yet I didn'they any email, I have no idea why or what going on. Anyone else had this?
Citizenship from completed to Hearing required?
- Thread starter Ezel
- Start date
Interview happens as part of citizenship application process. It's normal. I did not understand what you meant when you said citizenship completed. That happens only after oath.
The citizenship was marked as completed which means "complete" was a final decision, and yesterday it was marked back to in progress and (hearing required)
Yup,
sorry, my auto-correcting is a problem, the citizenship test was completely completed.
Too soon to know what this information indicates, including whether it actually means a hearing is required. Wait for communication from IRCC and if there is none within a couple or three months that clarifies what is happening, make a webform query, and if still in limbo or doubt follow that up with a GCMS records request (ATIP application for copy of GCMS records).
Possibility of Hearing, Generally:
It could mean she will in fact be required to participate in a hearing. If so, that will likely be a hearing with a Citizenship Officer (the interview was likely conducted by a Processing Agent, not the Citizenship Officer responsible for approving or denying the application).
Most of the reports (noting, however, there is not a lot of reporting about this) indicate that the reason for such a hearing is usually either questions about prohibitions (criminal or security matters) or actual physical presence. However, such a hearing could be about any of the requirements for citizenship, including:
-- ability in an official language
-- knowledge of Canada
-- prohibitions
-- physical presence
-- misrepresentation
-- compliance with tax filing requirement
Prohibitions: I would expect any applicant, let alone an applicant in their 50s, to know whether there might be some criminal or security issue potentially lurking in their case. Likewise in regards to maintaining Permanent Resident status, continuing to be in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation. So she should easily know whether there is a prohibitions issue that could be a reason requiring a hearing.
Physical Presence: If the reason for the hearing has to do with questioning whether the applicant met the physical presence requirement that is usually discussed during the interview, so here too she should know if IRCC has some question about her meeting the physical presence requirement those concerns could be why there is a hearing. More regarding this below, in reference to possibility the hearing will be before a Citizenship Judge.
Language: And yes, even though the applicant has submitted proof of ability in one of the official languages, this is also screened in the interview. So, if she struggled with communicating with the Processing Agent in the interview, failing to demonstrate ability in one or the other official language, this could be grounds to deny the application. So, this could be cause for a hearing with a Citizenship Officer to verify the applicant's ability, or the applicant's failure to prove ability, in English or French.
Knowledge of Canada: Since she passed the knowledge of Canada test, it is not likely that concerns about her meeting the knowledge of Canada requirement is the reason she would be required to attend a hearing. HOWEVER, applicants can be retested. So, if she is indeed headed to a hearing she needs to be aware that can include verification of her knowledge of Canada again. Actually this applies to both knowledge of Canada and ability in an official language; applicants can be retested as to either or both (and some of what has been indicated in actual cases, although based on somewhat older cases officially reported in published Federal Court decisions, suggests that such retesting is typical when there is a hearing, regardless of and in addition to the particular reason for the hearing).
If there is a significant chance this is about questioning her physical presence . . .
Potential For Hearing With a Citizenship Judge Regarding Physical Presence:
It is possible it could be a hearing with a Citizenship Judge if the Citizenship Officer has concluded there is reason to question/challenge whether the applicant met the physical presence requirement (based in part on input from the Processing Agent who conducted the interview and did other processing of the application). As noted above, she should know whether IRCC is questioning or challenging whether she met the physical presence requirement. I mention this possibility separately because if physical presence was discussed during the interview, and the Processing Agent challenged her about physical presence, questioning whether this requirement was met, the case can go directly to a Citizenship Judge for a hearing.
If this happens, if there is a referral for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge, this appears to result in a very, very long timeline (perhaps another YEAR or even more).
If the applicant falls short of PROVING actual presence for 1095 days, even by just one day, the application MUST be denied. And, to be clear, even falling short of PROVING presence by just one day means the application must be denied -- that is, the Citizenship Judge does not need to conclude the applicant was not physically present for 1095 days in the eligibility period to deny the application, but rather must deny the application if the applicant falls short of PROVING they were actually physically present sufficient to meet the requirement. (Presence itself is not enough: applicant is required to PROVE their physical presence.)
For an applicant who has remained in Canada after applying and who has accumulated a lot more credit toward meeting the physical present requirement, if they can see they are short (even by one day) or might have difficulty proving at least 1095 days credit, the better and faster path to taking the oath could be withdrawing the current application and re-applying.