Citizenship test: Collective action required, or expect endless delays, years. Example of the effective lobbyng of people awaiting spousal sponsorship

[MrChazz]

Dear Sir,

The term "passport of convenience" is not used in any judicial ruling that I am aware of. I use it only because it made it easier for people to understand what I mean. I will later find a link the the ruling I was referring to.

To keep matters short for now, I will refer you to the IRCC's webpage that summarizes important changes in the law.

Old Citizenship Act:

Applicants were required to intend to continue to live in Canada if granted citizenship.

New Citizenship Act:

This provision is repealed. Applicants are no longer required to intend to continue to live in Canada once granted citizenship. This provides more flexibility to Canadians who may need to live outside of Canada for work or personal reasons.

That seems to be easily comprehensible plain English, and its implications also should be easy enough to grasp. If not, then you may want to do some homework on the background that led to the change and how it affected IRCC decision-making.

See here: Bill C-6 Receives Royal Assent - Canada.ca

The cases you refer to has some significant parts that you overlook, and which colour them differently, as they deal with basic requirements. From the 2021 case:

The Citizenship Judge who reviewed this application determined that she did not meet the residency test as required by the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as it then read, and rejected her application. Ms. Younis had not accumulated 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada in three of the four years immediately preceding the date of her application.

The residency test requires a PR to be in Canada for a certain duration in a certain number of years. Anyone who does not satisfy that will have problems with PR status, let alone citizenship grant. Why this lady even bothered to apply for citizenship in such a case is a mystery.

You are also way off the mark in your other, lengthy comments. However, I do not have the time to respond to them.

 

[dpenabill]

To keep matters short for now, I will refer you to the IRCC's webpage that summarizes important changes in the law.

Old Citizenship Act:

Applicants were required to intend to continue to live in Canada if granted citizenship.

New Citizenship Act:

This provision is repealed. Applicants are no longer required to intend to continue to live in Canada once granted citizenship. This provides more flexibility to Canadians who may need to live outside of Canada for work or personal reasons.

That seems to be easily comprehensible plain English, and its implications also should be easy enough to grasp.

The cases you refer to has some significant parts that you overlook, and which colour them differently, as they deal with basic requirements. From the 2021 case:

The Citizenship Judge who reviewed this application determined that she did not meet the residency test as required by the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as it then read, and rejected her application. Ms. Younis had not accumulated 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada in three of the four years immediately preceding the date of her application.

The residency test requires a PR to be in Canada for a certain duration in a certain number of years. Anyone who does not satisfy that will have problems with PR status, let alone citizenship grant.

The "old Citizenship Act" that was involved in the Younis case did NOT have any intent to reside in Canada provision.

As for the claim that I "overlooked" some part of the decisions I cite and link, which really exist, which you say was that the Younis decision involved the "residency" test, NO, you are the one overlooking (or misrepresenting) things . . . from my post about the Younis decisions:

It should be noted that case involved an earlier version of the Citizenship Act which had a residency rather than a physical presence requirement (albeit some Citizenship Judges and Federal Court decisions interpreted that law to also impose a physical presence requirement; as I mentioned, there were unresolved conflicts in what the law actually was).

The "intent to reside" requirement was NOT involved in the Younis case. The "intent to reside" requirement was only briefly part of the law, taking effect in June 2015 and repealed effective June 2017. That requirement was adopted at the same time the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to definitively adopt the actual physical presence requirement.

Note, even for applications made in the latter part of 2015, applications for which the intent to reside requirement applied at the time the application was made, by the time Justice Annis got the Younis case not only had the intent to reside provision been repealed, the repeal prescribed that it was retroactive and it was to be of no effect, to be as though there never had been any intent to reside requirement. Which means that even if the law in effect for the Younis application had involved an intent to reside in Canada requirement (again, it did not), it would not apply to the case in 2019.

Again, the takeaway from the Younis decisions is that EVEN THOUGH there was not any intent to reside requirement, and the lack of such intent CANNOT be a reason for denying a citizenship application, NONETHELESS the decision-makers, with one exception (that is two Citizenship Judges, Justice Annis, the three judges on the FCA panel, but perhaps not FC Justice Elliot) were obviously very much influenced by the move abroad and the apparent intent that implied.

That is a large part of what makes the remarks by Justice Annis stand out: the influence that Younis' intentions had on the outcome DESPITE the fact that Younis' application could not be denied based on a lack of intent to remain in Canada.

BUT WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

What is not clear to me is if you are in fact claiming there is no increased risk of elevated scrutiny and no increased risk of non-routine processing, such as RQ-related non-routine processing, and delays, for applicants who relocate abroad after applying, or who otherwise IRCC agents or officers might perceive to fit the seeking-a-passport-of-convenience or applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport characterizations.

And it is not clear what you are trying to say about what either the FC or FCA decisions in regards to Younis illuminate about this.

I am merely trying to clarify this aspect of how the system works. And to be clear, there are plenty of anecdotal reports indicating many applicants are successfully granted Canadian citizenship even though they relocated abroad after applying. Moving abroad after applying is not a ground for denying the application. BUT what any applicant considering moving abroad after applying should take into consideration is that, in ADDITION to the logistical risks that involves (discussed in depth in multiple topics), there is an increased risk of elevated scrutiny and an increased risk of non-routine processing, such as RQ-related non-routine processing, and this can result in delays, sometimes very lengthy delays (potentially long enough that applicants remaining abroad can encounter Residency Obligation compliance problems, which can render them no longer eligible for a grant of citizenship).

As for your phantom case, I have done enough research to be confident there is no high court (FCA or SCC) decision involving a denied application for a grant of naturalized citizenship that is even vaguely close to what you described.

But you need to look at significant legal rulings in such matters. One of those involved a case where a person was denied citizenship because the view was that he was spending a lot of time abroad and merely wanted a "passport of convenience". The ruling by the high court was that the immigration officer's views were totally irrelevant in such a subjective manner; that what mattered was whether or not the person had satisfied the requirements as laid down. The effect of that ruling was major, and IRCC operations manuals etc. direct officers to keep their personal, subjective view out of such matters. It may well happen, but that would be a serious breach of both the law and IRCC directives.

But I should have seen that right off since you refer to an "immigration officer" denying citizenship, and there are NO immigration officers involved in citizenship application decision-making. While the one Ministry, IRCC, oversees and manages both immigration and citizenship, the bureaucratic structure, including the hierarchy of decision-makers, in one is separate from the other.

I vaguely recall a Federal Court decision (which again does not constitute binding precedent) which vaguely, emphasis on vaguely, and only partially, resembles some of what you describe. Which again I have almost certainly cited and linked in this forum. But to the extent that case is relevant to this discussion, in conjunction with other FC decisions it reinforces the distinction between what can constitute reasons for a decision to deny the application (noting that lack of intent to remain in Canada CANNOT be a reason), versus what can influence procedural decisions, such as who, when, how, and so on, to investigate an applicant more extensively (with delays) or to subject the applicant to non-routine processing, such as RQ-related non-routine processing. And talk about overlooking things, a careful applicant would be prudent to not overlook the latter.

That is:

If your point is that an intent to leave Canada, or even actually leaving Canada after applying, are not sufficient grounds to deny a citizenship application, I have agreed with that since the repeal of the intent to reside requirement. Many years ago. No contest. On the same page.

If your point is to deny that citizenship processing agents, Citizenship Officers, or Citizenship Judges, the decision-makers who dictate how things go in processing an individual's citizenship application, are not at all likely to trigger investigatory procedures or RQ-related non-routine processing, and will not be influenced in how they interpret evidence, if they perceive the applicant was among those some characterize as applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or seeking-a-passport-of-convenience, then we disagree.

For a recent anecdotal account of going through this process, see the posts by @azi3020980 in this topic: "Urgent Help Needed: Removal Order Issued and IRCC has sent a fairness letter to ultimately reject the application" here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/urgent-help-needed-removal-order-issued-and-ircc-has-sent-a-fairness-letter-to-ultimately-reject-the-application.726620/

This individual, who received a fairness letter regarding IRCC's reasons for denying the citizenship application, reported "I was outside Canada since applying" and went on to say:

No I passed the test 20/20. It was 3 years ago. Ever since that, the RQ process has been pending. It was apparent from the very beginning that IRCC did not want to look at all the docs that I had provided. They knew it would prove I was in Canada for what claimed to be. So after submitting the RQ docs, nothing had been done on the file. Maybe intentionally. Maybe not. I do not know.

 

[MrChazz]

I did not state or suggest that "intent to reside" was involved in the Younnis case; indeed, I referred to that case only after point out the new law. And, presumably, there was no need to much consider that, given that she had even satisfied the residence requirements. The point of referring to that case was to put a context to the judge's comments that you quoted. (On the other hand, your point in bringing up the case is, unfortunately, rather fuzzy. If the point was to say that long absences overseas might delay things, then here is what you could have said: "Long absences overseas might delay processing".)

All I wanted to point out is exactly what the current law says. This is also helpful for others who have gone on and on about how, surely, the main point of granting citizenship is to have people live in Canada, and so on, and so forth. (You should try to keep in mind the overall context of the discussion here.) I will leave to others to read on the relevant law, the corresponding background, and the effects of the changes.

As for your claim about all sorts of "risks", I will take that as just your guess, as you have not offered any concrete evidence to support that. Of course, if others here wish to rely on your "expert" advice, then they are free to do so; I do not wish to disturb them in that regard. At very least, they have will have learned a basic (if somewhat obvious) lesson from something like the Younnis case: if you wish to apply for citizenship, at the very least make sure that you have satisfied the residence requirements.

And I have neither the desire nor time to argue with you---especially as you, on the other hand, have the time and inclination to write pages and pages (much of it of dubious worth). So, how about this: I surrender; you win. Case closed. OK?

 

[dpenabill]

Without regard to playing games or keeping score or otherwise engaging in who wins, who loses, (who cares), the objective I focus on is addressing the issues and figuring out the answers . . . trying to get things right . . .

As for your claim about all sorts of "risks", I will take that as just your guess, as you have not offered any concrete evidence to support that. . . .
. . . the time and inclination to write pages and pages (much of it of dubious worth).

There is no call to impugn my motives or character, and there is especially no reason to doubt the extent to which I do the homework, seek sources, compare and share sources, both official and anecdotal, and am totally open to feedback including corrections. Regarding just the risks associated with moving abroad after applying, while the application is pending, just for example, just as to one of the several risks, the risk of encountering a compliance with the PR Residency Obligation issue if the timeline goes long, which is going to happen now for many applicants in the current situation, just a sample of sources I have cited and linked regarding this one slice of one issue (part of a response to someone challenging the proposition that a grant citizenship application made by a qualified applicant can be denied if the applicant is abroad long enough to no longer be in compliance with the RO) is here:

The 730 days per five years RO, including that calculating compliance is based on the previous five years (not the date a PR card was issued or expires, for example), is stated in the governing statutory provision, which is Section 28 IRPA and can be found here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-7.html#h-274598 and its application is discussed in the PDI (Program Delivery Instruction) "Permanent resident status determination" which is here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/card/permanent-resident-determination.html and also detailed in multiple operational manuals, which can be accessed in pdf form from links here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/card.html . . . these are ENF 23 - Loss of Permanent Resident Status; ENF 27 PR Card, and OP 10 Permanent Residency Status Determination . . . among many other sources.

The statutory provision that specifies a person cannot be granted citizenship if "they no longer meet the requirements" is Section 22(6) Citizenship Act which is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-7.html#docCont . . . but to understand the nature and scope and application of that provision, it needs to be read and understood in context with other provisions and especially in conjunction with the eligibility requirements themselves (Section 5(1) Citizenship Act) as well as several other provisions, including the statutory provisions specifying prohibitions in particular.

But in regards to that single risk in that and other topics I have also further cited and linked official accounts of actual cases, in addition to the concrete example included in my previous post in this topic, based on a forum participant who was caught unaware of this risk, and instead of taking the oath of citizenship is now in a battle to save his PR status.

In regards to not only the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing, but the mechanics of that process, including plenty of examples of the "concrete evidence" (again, including citing and linking real sources) that often populates my contributions here, see "RQ versus Physical Presence Questionnaires, including CIT 0205" here https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/rq-versus-physical-presence-questionnaires-including-cit-0205.534082/

So yes, my posts often go long. Yes, I invest real time in composing what I post in this forum. Trying hard to get it right. I only address a few issues, which are some of the more complex and thorny issues, and for sure, in regards to those matters, I make a concerted effort to sort things out and get it right. And I absolutely encourage corrections because I am NOT an expert and that is what the better side of a forum like this is about, sharing information, including sources, to figure out as best we can how things really work. I was very open, for example, to considering the "high court" case you referenced, and what that would instruct us about how things really work. Alas, it is clear there is no such case.

I am also interested in justice. See, for example, the effort I put into a subject like the draconian and often unjust impact the Harper government's adoption of a provision targeting PR-refugees, there too catching many unawares that the advice they got to obtain a passport before applying for citizenship was a trap, since doing that alone would create a presumption of reavailment and grounds for cessation of protected person status, which under the Harper amendment to IRPA automatically terminates PR status, so instead of becoming a citizen in Canada, where they have settled and been living for many years, they faced loss of all status in Canada and being deported. Even those who had in the meantime started families in Canada and had Canadian born children (unlike most other immigration provisions, the cessation provisions do not allow for H&C relief). See for yourself the extent to which I did the homework, cited and linked sources, including more than a few unfortunate cases constituting "concrete evidence," in the topic "Refugee status cessation and PRs applying for citizenship" here https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/refugee-status-cessation-and-prs-applying-for-citizenship.333455/

Which brings this to the subject of advocating that IRCC make a better, real effort to improve its processing time for citizenship applications. This is also about justice and injustice. In particular, what is central to this particular topic is the compelling need to motivate the government to get citizenship application processing back on track. IRCC has a mandate to process citizenship applications, and to actually grant citizenship to those who are qualified, and thus their failure to timely process applications is a failure to do what the law requires. Even now, with the post-Covid phase on the horizon, and a general return to normalcy almost within reach, it is all too clear that IRCC is FAILING to adequately do what the law mandates. The government cannot simply shut down in these situations. If adaptation and accommodation are necessary to do the job, IRCC has a duty to diligently and effectively take measures to get it done, to adapt, to make accommodations as necessary, so that it can continue to provide the services that the law mandates the government provide.

While the issues involved in the case, and the substantive law addressed, are not much relevant to this discussion, one can quote what FC Justice Simon Noël said (in Almuhaidib, 2019 FC 1543 https://canlii.ca/t/j5p97 ): "The Minister must consider citizenship applications with speed and transparency." Even though, unfortunately, this is not a ruling one can take to the bank or otherwise buy much with in an application for Mandamus based on slow processing (even if FC decisions could establish binding precedent, which again they do not, this is, as jurists would say, mere dicta), it nonetheless expresses a generally valid principle. When the law mandates an agency do something, that inherently mandates it be done within a reasonable time and otherwise be done consistent with fair procedures, including transparency.

But there has been some controversy about how to best advocate this issue.

. . . to be continued . . .

 

[dpenabill]

As I noted in the previous post, and quoting Federal Court Justice Simon Noël (albeit in a case not much relevant here), as a general principle "The Minister must consider citizenship applications with speed and transparency." (Almuhaidib, 2019 FC 1543 https://canlii.ca/t/j5p97 )

In particular, when the law mandates an agency do something, that inherently mandates it be done within a reasonable time and otherwise be done consistent with fair procedures, including transparency.

Which, again, brings this to the subject of advocating that IRCC make a better, real effort to improve its processing time for citizenship applications, and recognizing this is about justice and injustice.

In particular, what is central to this particular topic is the compelling need to motivate the government to get citizenship application processing back on track. IRCC has a mandate to process citizenship applications, and to actually grant citizenship to those who are qualified, and thus their failure to timely process applications is a failure to do what the law requires

But there has been some controversy about how to best advocate this issue, to do so with a genuine ambition toward actually encouraging a positive action in government. Much of what underlies the conflicting views about how to advance the cause has been rooted and bogged down in confusion about or misunderstanding key aspects of Canadian immigration policy and law, and the extent to which the advocacy has been dominated, and in my view derailed, by those who fail or refuse to recognize that some of their arguments are counterproductive, particularly those arguments based on a pressing need for a Canadian passport.

Which is where the impact of leaving-Canada-with-citizenship-application-pending comes into play in this topic.

Which is where it is important to recognize that the "current law" includes its purpose. You say, for example, your objective was to point out what the current law is. But a key element of the current law, one which influences how the letter of the law is interpreted and applied, and which underscores the perspective government decision-makers have in administering, applying, and enforcing the current law, is the law's purpose. Regarding which there really is NO debate or doubt about what that is: the purpose for granting naturalized citizenship is so individuals can complete the process (beginning with becoming Permanent Residents) of settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY. Justice Annis is far from the only Federal Court justice who has explicitly articulated this, in one fashion or another. In addition to other FC justices stating similarly, and various IAD panels as well in decisions regarding the PR Residency Obligation, the legislative history amply illustrates this is the purpose underlying the framework of Canadian immigration policy which provides a path to become a Permanent Resident and then a Canadian citizen.

By the way, in regards to pointing out what the current law is, and how Bill C-6 in particular changed the law, for another example of long posts based on real homework, including investing real time and effort into figuring things out in addition to extensive research into official sources, see the topic "Toward Understanding Bill C-6 to Amend Citizenship Act; new 3/5 rule plus" here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/toward-understanding-bill-c-6-to-amend-citizenship-act-new-3-5-rule-plus.400167/ Spoiler alert, yeah, I work through a ton of concrete evidence in sorting things out in that discussion. Much of that is now outdated. But it illustrates the extent to which I am here to help sort things out, not to play who wins, who loses games.

What can be frustrating is the extent to which even those who intend to be zealous advocates seem unwilling to do the homework necessary to be serious and effective activists. Sure, tweets and its variations, and sloganized proclamations, and a crowd of people showing up on the street, can make a lot of noise. Getting government to actually take real action demands a more diligent effort, a real investment of time, homework, homework, and a focus on effective advocacy. Moreover, and what has been especially frustrating in regards to this issue in particular, is how myopic narcissism rooted in personal priorities has undermined, perhaps sabotaged, the messaging.

The "need a Canadian passport" to facilitate travel abroad argument is simply counterproductive. It hurts the cause. I accept that a significant percentage of those seeking Canadian citizenship are not committed to remaining in Canada. It would be better if they would just shut up about that. Sure, the now growing long and longer, and much longer timeline for processing citizenship applications, is going to interfere in their plans. But it will also unfairly delay the grant of citizenship for the much, much larger number of PRs, the vast majority of applicants seeking to reach that final step in completing the process to become fully settled citizens in this great country.

Even though a return to normalcy in Canada is within sight, IRCC has allowed the buildup of a huge backlog of citizenship applications, and people need to keep up the pressure on IRCC to take measures to more efficiently, more timely move applications through the process, to do what the law mandates and actually grant citizenship to those who meet the qualifications . . . not next year let alone the year after, but within a reasonable time.

 

[MrChazz]

OK, buddy. We bow to you "expertise" and "deep knowledge". Perhaps someone will bother read those pages and pages and pages of irrelevant stuff and find useful in them!

 

[JHT]

As I noted in the previous post, and quoting Federal Court Justice Simon Noël (albeit in a case not much relevant here), as a general principle "The Minister must consider citizenship applications with speed and transparency." (Almuhaidib, 2019 FC 1543 https://canlii.ca/t/j5p97 )

In particular, when the law mandates an agency do something, that inherently mandates it be done within a reasonable time and otherwise be done consistent with fair procedures, including transparency.

Which, again, brings this to the subject of advocating that IRCC make a better, real effort to improve its processing time for citizenship applications, and recognizing this is about justice and injustice.

In particular, what is central to this particular topic is the compelling need to motivate the government to get citizenship application processing back on track. IRCC has a mandate to process citizenship applications, and to actually grant citizenship to those who are qualified, and thus their failure to timely process applications is a failure to do what the law requires

But there has been some controversy about how to best advocate this issue, to do so with a genuine ambition toward actually encouraging a positive action in government. Much of what underlies the conflicting views about how to advance the cause has been rooted and bogged down in confusion about or misunderstanding key aspects of Canadian immigration policy and law, and the extent to which the advocacy has been dominated, and in my view derailed, by those who fail or refuse to recognize that some of their arguments are counterproductive, particularly those arguments based on a pressing need for a Canadian passport.

Which is where the impact of leaving-Canada-with-citizenship-application-pending comes into play in this topic.

Which is where it is important to recognize that the "current law" includes its purpose. You say, for example, your objective was to point out what the current law is. But a key element of the current law, one which influences how the letter of the law is interpreted and applied, and which underscores the perspective government decision-makers have in administering, applying, and enforcing the current law, is the law's purpose. Regarding which there really is NO debate or doubt about what that is: the purpose for granting naturalized citizenship is so individuals can complete the process (beginning with becoming Permanent Residents) of settling and living IN Canada PERMANENTLY. Justice Annis is far from the only Federal Court justice who has explicitly articulated this, in one fashion or another. In addition to other FC justices stating similarly, and various IAD panels as well in decisions regarding the PR Residency Obligation, the legislative history amply illustrates this is the purpose underlying the framework of Canadian immigration policy which provides a path to become a Permanent Resident and then a Canadian citizen.

By the way, in regards to pointing out what the current law is, and how Bill C-6 in particular changed the law, for another example of long posts based on real homework, including investing real time and effort into figuring things out in addition to extensive research into official sources, see the topic "Toward Understanding Bill C-6 to Amend Citizenship Act; new 3/5 rule plus" here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/toward-understanding-bill-c-6-to-amend-citizenship-act-new-3-5-rule-plus.400167/ Spoiler alert, yeah, I work through a ton of concrete evidence in sorting things out in that discussion. Much of that is now outdated. But it illustrates the extent to which I am here to help sort things out, not to play who wins, who loses games.

What can be frustrating is the extent to which even those who intend to be zealous advocates seem unwilling to do the homework necessary to be serious and effective activists. Sure, tweets and its variations, and sloganized proclamations, and a crowd of people showing up on the street, can make a lot of noise. Getting government to actually take real action demands a more diligent effort, a real investment of time, homework, homework, and a focus on effective advocacy. Moreover, and what has been especially frustrating in regards to this issue in particular, is how myopic narcissism rooted in personal priorities has undermined, perhaps sabotaged, the messaging.

The "need a Canadian passport" to facilitate travel abroad argument is simply counterproductive. It hurts the cause. I accept that a significant percentage of those seeking Canadian citizenship are not committed to remaining in Canada. It would be better if they would just shut up about that. Sure, the now growing long and longer, and much longer timeline for processing citizenship applications, is going to interfere in their plans. But it will also unfairly delay the grant of citizenship for the much, much larger number of PRs, the vast majority of applicants seeking to reach that final step in completing the process to become fully settled citizens in this great country.

Even though a return to normalcy in Canada is within sight, IRCC has allowed the buildup of a huge backlog of citizenship applications, and people need to keep up the pressure on IRCC to take measures to more efficiently, more timely move applications through the process, to do what the law mandates and actually grant citizenship to those who meet the qualifications . . . not next year let alone the year after, but within a reasonable time.

Right only Canadians that were born in Canada via either birth tourism or to other Canadians don’t need to be obliged to live in Canada.

Also no immigrant should dare thinking of spending time to take care of their aging parents that live overseas, nor think of running any company outside of Canada.

Because it would perceived as applying on the way to the airport.

They also should be mandated to run a company in Canada Without any delay And without carefully addressing whether it would be feasible to.

Brilliant and unbiased thinking!

 

[piotrqc]

Dear friends ... I have a suggestion: Instead of getting lost in endless discussions COMPLETELY USELESS for us ...

Let's be smart, and refocus on the most important topic that concerns us right now: How to lobby IRCC most effectively to speed up the processing of the 2019 backlog of citizenship applications ...

(Speaking of which, a small (), a last minute news with a great symbolism, which I take up as from the mouth of A.H, the leader of the pressure group:

Just FYI, You may have noticed that we have done a name change of our ad-hoc advocacy group recently. From "Advocates for Resumption of Canadian Citizenship Test" its now "Canadian Citizenship Process Advocates".
This move is to emphasize the point that it is no more about tests only. The delays have moved past it and have affected other aspects of the application process as well such as Oath invites, Interviews etc.
Please note our fb and Twitter handle will still remain @AdvocatesCtest)


Also, I would like to add the following thought: So the main provinces are announcing their reopening plans one by one, now is the time for ircc agents to stop hiding behind provision 699, and get back to work FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAID WITH THE TAXES OF HONEST WORKERS LIKE MOST PEOPLE HERE.

In-person services must be resumed and accelerated at the same time as activity resumes: IRCC agents are not sacred and should not be given preferential treatment compared to all other honest workers, I also recalls that they do not have diplomatic immunity (The decision of the General Council of the Treasury of Canada which had come to remind them to order and to resume work and no longer abuse provision 699 in order to continue to affect their salary has full rate with our taxes without doing anything).

Enough of abusing public money, what a shame!

, Piotr.

 

[Parnian1988]

Dear friends ... I have a suggestion: Instead of getting lost in endless discussions COMPLETELY USELESS for us ...

Let's be smart, and refocus on the most important topic that concerns us right now: How to lobby IRCC most effectively to speed up the processing of the 2019 backlog of citizenship applications ...

(Speaking of which, a small (), a last minute news with a great symbolism, which I take up as from the mouth of A.H, the leader of the pressure group:

Just FYI, You may have noticed that we have done a name change of our ad-hoc advocacy group recently. From "Advocates for Resumption of Canadian Citizenship Test" its now "Canadian Citizenship Process Advocates".
This move is to emphasize the point that it is no more about tests only. The delays have moved past it and have affected other aspects of the application process as well such as Oath invites, Interviews etc.
Please note our fb and Twitter handle will still remain @AdvocatesCtest)


Also, I would like to add the following thought: So the main provinces are announcing their reopening plans one by one, now is the time for ircc agents to stop hiding behind provision 699, and get back to work FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAID WITH THE TAXES OF HONEST WORKERS LIKE MOST PEOPLE HERE.

In-person services must be resumed and accelerated at the same time as activity resumes: IRCC agents are not sacred and should not be given preferential treatment compared to all other honest workers, I also recalls that they do not have diplomatic immunity (The decision of the General Council of the Treasury of Canada which had come to remind them to order and to resume work and no longer abuse provision 699 in order to continue to affect their salary has full rate with our taxes without doing anything).

Enough of abusing public money, what a shame!

, Piotr.

Don’t forget the backlog of 2017 and 2018 applications. There are many of us left behind.

 

[dpenabill]

Right only Canadians that were born in Canada via either birth tourism or to other Canadians don’t need to be obliged to live in Canada.

Also no immigrant should dare thinking of spending time to take care of their aging parents that live overseas, nor think of running any company outside of Canada.

Because it would perceived as applying on the way to the airport.

They also should be mandated to run a company in Canada Without any delay And without carefully addressing whether it would be feasible to.

Brilliant and unbiased thinking!

It appears the sarcasm is aimed at me. The post you quote is mine.

You are shooting the messenger. In particular, what you otherwise refer to is NOT my thinking. I mean, your hostility seems akin to complaining about the weather reporter for having forecast rain and cold the day of a planned picnic. It is not my thinking, after all, that underlies Section 6 in the Charter of Rights (distinguishing the mobility rights of citizens versus PRs). Not my thinking, after all, that underlies enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation on those who have applied for Canadian citizenship (up to when they actually become a citizen). I am just a reporter.

Likewise, it is not my thinking that underlies what the purpose is for the law which provides immigrants a path to citizenship, and also not my thinking that underlies how the law's purpose influences the interpretation and application of the rules. I am, again, just reporting, trying to illuminate the factors citizenship applicants and prospective applicants probably want to be aware of and take into consideration when making decisions that could affect how it goes for them. And when engaging in advocacy toward persuading the government to do a better job processing applications.

Besides that, you get some of how things actually work simply wrong. This for example is way off:

"Right only Canadians that were born in Canada via either birth tourism or to other Canadians don’t need to be obliged to live in Canada."​

Apart from the fact that no one is obliged to live in Canada (and many billions of people in the world do not even consider the prospect of living in Canada), I am guessing you meant something about keeping status as a Canadian, and the obligation some Canadians (Permanent Residents) have to spend 2 years in 5 in Canada . . . or, are you referring to PRs being obliged to live in Canada in order to become a Canadian citizen?

The PR Residency Obligation is fixed law. Not at all about what I think. But yes, those Canadians who are PRs, not citizens, are obliged to live in Canada a certain amount of time IF they want to retain status to live and work in Canada. That is the 2/5 rule. To become eligible for a grant of citizenship, they are also obliged to be physically present in Canada. That is the 3/5 rule.

Once a PR makes the application for citizenship, assuming they did indeed meet the 3/5 rule requirement, that part of what they are obliged to do is done. Requirement met. Check that one off.

But they are still only a PR unless and until they meet all the requirements to become a Canadian citizen. Taking the oath of citizenship is one of those requirements. So until they take the oath of citizenship, as a PR yes they remain obliged to spend enough time in Canada to comply with the Residency Obligation. There is no checking off this requirement until the day the oath is actually taken. Up to then, up to that day, a PR applying for citizenship is obliged to comply with the RO.

And the latter does indeed pose a risk for current applicants living outside Canada. The processing timeline is well off track for a large, large number of applicants. And since applicants living abroad after applying have an increased risk of non-routine processing which can delay processing even more, depending on how long it takes, there are likely to be many more stories similar to that told by @azi3020980 (see previous post for link). You may applaud the assertion by @MrChazz that this is irrelevant, but for those citizenship applicants living abroad and watching their processing time slide toward two years and more, it is relevant, big time relevant. @azi3020980 is engaged in an appeal just to save PR status, no chance to save the citizenship application. That is not an anomaly.

Again, none of that is about what I think. Again, there is no call to shoot the messenger.

But even interpreting your statement as generously as possible, assuming you are referring to individuals who have status to live and work in Canada for life without being obliged to live in Canada to keep that status, it is still way off. It is NOT true that "only Canadians that were born in Canada via either birth tourism or to other Canadians" have no obligation to spend a certain amount of time in Canada to keep their status. ALL Canadian citizens, including naturalized citizens, are protected by Section 6(1) in the Charter of Rights, pursuant to which they have the "right to enter, remain in and leave Canada," which means they can live outside Canada for as long as they want, and they will remain a Canadian citizen and have the right to return to Canada to live whenever they want. And this includes those who are a citizen by virtue of being born in Canada regardless of the parent's status in Canada (except those born to parents in Canada pursuant to diplomatic status), which again is in addition to naturalized citizens.

The hyperbole otherwise reeking in the other comments is also well of the mark, recognizing that there is a huge difference between traveling abroad to spend time with aging parents while a citizenship application is pending, versus relocating to live and work abroad indefinitely. Many immigrants apply for citizenship and travel abroad, even for extended periods of time, and successfully proceed through the process to take the oath and become a Canadian citizen. As I have emphasized, there is no law, no rule, no policy that we know of, that prohibits living abroad while the application is pending. But there are risks. And prudent applicants will appreciate information about the risks so they can take those into consideration in making decisions, in balancing priorities in their lives, including in making preparations and accommodations as well as they can in anticipation of the contingencies.

But for purposes of the subject here, in this thread, what looms large is recognizing that the excessive delays in processing citizenship applications is not an unfair denial for only those with needs or plans to go abroad. In fact, the delay is unjust for many tens of thousands more with no plans to go abroad for any extended period of time. The backlog is growing, and it is already a lot bigger than is reasonable.

So yes, yes indeed, the key is to focus on effective advocacy. Which means avoiding counter-productive activism. Forget arguments emphasizing the need for a passport to travel abroad, since agree or disagree, like it or not, that argument triggers a negative reaction far more than it will encourage influential members of the government to put pressure on IRCC to get going. Avoid personal attacks on IRCC personnel, which again like it or not, agree or disagree, are far more likely to alienate those who could help get things going.

This is NOT a fix it overnight issue. For some causes a lot of noise can compel change. This is not one of those causes which will generate enough noise to accomplish that. I realize that the number of letters to MPs a person can write, should write, is limited, and effecting change that way is slow. Media contacts likewise. Effective advocacy is not easy. In the meantime a big backlog of applications is getting much bigger. So those who are genuinely concerned and sincerely interested in pushing the needle in a positive direction will focus on carefully crafted, POSITIVE messaging aimed at addressing how important the grant of citizenship is for bringing immigrants on board to become an integral part of life in Canada, and emphasizing that IRCC has a mandate to process applications timely toward accomplishing the purposes of the law.

 

[piotrqc]

Hello friends.

Please, once again, I invite everyone to focus on the subject that interests us: Ignore our ideological opponents.

Here is an interesting article which has just been published on the Radio-Canada site (The French section of CBC, the public television of Canada), and which denounces the unacceptable delays of IRCC, which can no longer be justified by the pandemic.
Here is the title of the article in French: ''Dossiers d’immigration en attente : « la pandémie n’est plus une excuse »''
Translation : '' Immigration files pending: "The pandemic is no longer an excuse ''
... At the end of the article, there is also a reference to the last report of the Information Commissioner of Canada.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1797145/immigration-residence-permanente-delais-ircc-canada-candidats-quebec

 

[piotrqc]

The article I shared also shows all the efforts made by the candidates to alert their deputies, the Minister of Immigration ...

It is obvious that some long discussions, off subjects, and childish here will lead nowhere, and we will be useless ...
We must continue to apply maximum pressure, by all the legal and legitimate means available.

That everyone should contact their local federal deputy is the least of things.

 

[novascotia27]

Hello friends.

Please, once again, I invite everyone to focus on the subject that interests us: Ignore our ideological opponents.

Here is an interesting article which has just been published on the Radio-Canada site (The French section of CBC, the public television of Canada), and which denounces the unacceptable delays of IRCC, which can no longer be justified by the pandemic.
Here is the title of the article in French: ''Dossiers d’immigration en attente : « la pandémie n’est plus une excuse »''
Translation : '' Immigration files pending: "The pandemic is no longer an excuse ''
... At the end of the article, there is also a reference to the last report of the Information Commissioner of Canada.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1797145/immigration-residence-permanente-delais-ircc-canada-candidats-quebec

Who can I read this in English?

 

[hotshot45890]

A few polls have come out which indicate that the Liberals are doing well and whenever the election is called they have a good chance of gaining majority.

If we really want to have an impact we need to engage the media and the MPs indicating that COVID excuse cannot be used and right now this is closer to incompetence and negligence. I am sure the politicians want to win the election and any negative sustained press demonstrating this incompetence will move things. They don't really care about us, but they do care about winning the election.

Let me also put this in a different context. Last I read on multiple places the backlog is anywhere from 350+ and increasing daily. This is a mid size city in Canada. Does the Liberal party really want to alienate all these potential new voters. This should also be part of the messaging. If the Liberals win a majority government for next 4 years; then its game over. They won't really care and we will have to just wait at their mercy.

Our Window to impact change is really short maybe 2-3 months, not sure when Trudeau will call an election which he will very soon to capitalize on the "pandemic support goodwill".

Also the media articles that come out are so vague and I notice that they show deference to the government and don't really call out this full incompetence. We also need to get sharp with our media messaging, we are 350K strong, with majority skilled workers. We should work as a team to really show them what advocacy means and this incompetence and negligence cannot be hidden behind the pandemic. The articles should indicate our frustration and how as a potential new voters we will remember this!

 

[fr72]

What can be frustrating is the extent to which even those who intend to be zealous advocates seem unwilling to do the homework necessary to be serious and effective activists. Sure, tweets and its variations, and sloganized proclamations, and a crowd of people showing up on the street, can make a lot of noise. Getting government to actually take real action demands a more diligent effort, a real investment of time, homework, homework, and a focus on effective advocacy. Moreover, and what has been especially frustrating in regards to this issue in particular, is how myopic narcissism rooted in personal priorities has undermined, perhaps sabotaged, the messaging.

What is more productive? The people tweeting (a 1 line effort) at IRCC or people writing 1000 word essays criticizing people tweeting at IRCC in a random forum?