skhan123 said:
On a different note, sending ATIP too frequently impacts the case nnegatively? I read on the forums that some people are doing very frequent ATIPs and others are saying don't do it etc. what you suggest. I did only one in March 2015. I applied in July 2014. RQ in Oct. 2014, FP in Dec. 2014.
I do not know that frequent ATIP requests have a negative impact.
However, while there are occasions when it is a good idea to do the ATIP request, it is done far too often unnecessarily.
If and when is a very personal decision. But I see a large, large number of reported ATIP requests which, again, are unnecessary and which accomplish no more than to confirm what the applicant should have already inferred anyway.
ItkExpert said:
I agree with you totally but it seems CIC officers disagree with you. Or how else would you explain many cases (including mine) where the wife receives citizenship whereas husband stays in limbo for many months and years? My wife became a citizen a year and a half ago whereas it appears that my file was only recently approved. I did send few letters to the CIC reminding them that my wife was already granted citizenship but it did not seem to help my case.
This was in reference to my observation:
. . . . remember that where one's immediate family is located, resides, has resided, is strong evidence of where the individual has resided. That is, the residency facts for one spouse are a strong indicator of residency facts for the other spouse.
Actually I am very confident that, in their practical approach anyway (even if not literally) CIC officers do not disagree with my statement.
That certain facts are an
indicator, however, does not make them conclusive. Far from it.
Evidence does not equal proof.
Evidence is always subject to assessment and comparison, weighed relative to other evidence, considered in conjunction with other evidence and information.
In terms of the weight of indicators, remember that negative indicators tend to carry a lot more weight . . . for obvious reasons. They are
inconsistencies and inconsistencies almost always bear more weight. In particular, evidence which tends to controvert presence or residence is likely to have a greater impact than evidence which is merely consistent with presence and residence. (For example, a single banking record showing what appears to be an
in-person transaction abroad is sufficient to cast doubt on the applicant's whereabouts relative to the time period around that transaction's date, even if the bank records otherwise show a hundred transactions in Canada over the course of several months before and after.)
Thus, for the applicant whose family is living in Canada, including those in the family who have already proceeded through the citizenship application smoothly, that is merely
consistent with the proposition that the applicant likewise has been resident and present in Canada . . . but if RQ has been issued (for whatever reason) the residency question still requires a full assessment and, in particular, still requires positive proof of presence, place of abode, and activity in Canada. If any of these things is weak, that weakness tends to more than offset merely consistent indicators.
In contrast, for the applicant whose immediate family has been living outside Canada, that is overtly inconsistent with the applicant having a centralized life in Canada, leading CIC to at least question residency, and thus CIC tends to elevate the degree of scrutiny applied to the evidence of residency and presence.
There are many, many other indicators which, similarly, if they lean toward residency they are more or less merely consistent with residency and presence, not exactly evidence of residence and presence. If they lean toward being inconsistent with residency or presence, they tend to loom larger, tending to invite greater scrutiny if not skepticism. Of course these things do not occur in a vacuum, but are interconnected. Thus, unemployment by itself is not necessarily a big negative factor, but depending on other circumstances it can loom as both a negative factor itself and also invite elevated scrutiny if not skepticism generally.
This is actually fairly standard fact-finding 101. Thus, for example, the absence of evidence of something can have a bigger negative influence than its presence has positive influence. The biggest example of this is the presentation of all relevant Travel Documents. If the applicant fails to present a Travel Document covering any portion of the relevant time period, that looms as a huge negative factor even if the failure to present it is not the applicant's fault (passport lost in a fire for example). Presenting all Travel Documents, in contrast, is merely positive to the extent they do not constitute cause for negative inferences. Much more proof than presentation of Travel Documents is required to tip the scales toward a favourable outcome.
