Effective date of Bill C24

[boltz]

Of course you also will not be able to prove that I am wrong, right

Have you seen the video where mr.alexander answered the Qs? Google it please.

 

[boltz]

You seem to be the kind that despite all the evidence and words written in law and new regulations presented to you, you still think the sky is purple.

Screech339

Good one. Sky is purple... !!

 

[MUFC]

Have you seen the video where mr.alexander answered the Qs? Google it please.

Here is the clarification once again made by him... When you watch it you can also share which period he clearly means... he will repeat it couple of times...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk

Don't worry I will not ask you to say in front of everybody that my point is correct.

 

[boltz]

Here is the clarification once again made by him... When you watch it you can also share which period he clearly means... he will repeat it couple of times...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk

Don't worry I will not ask you to say in front of everybody that my point is correct.

Actually, I'll have to take my words back. You are correct - in the sense that I am incorrect. I googled for the video just as I posted my comments and watched it to come back to post this. Mr.alexander never talked about the period after application when he referred to 'intent to reside' clause. Surprisingly he is referring to only the period of eligibility.

However, I still can't see it how a cic officer can take in straight the fact that some one dropped the appln on the way flying out, just to return the day of the test to take test. Wouldn't that straight away defeat the candidate's intent to reside?

 

[screech339]

So a CIC agent is going to look up a youtube video of what Alex meant as Bible? I haven't seen the video and I don't intend to. Alex is obviously wrong when he thinks the intend to reside clause was to be applied to eligibility period when it is painfully obvious as written in law that it is applied to the period of time from submitting the application to the time of citing oath.

 

[MUFC]

The moral based section has no direct impact for rejection.

 

[screech339]

Many times has been proven that the given information from the call centre is unreliable... The problem is that many people still believe that the information from a call centre is 100% correct.

Why they still keep that service active when the information from it most of the time has nothing to do with reality.

Follow the official website people and try to avoid contacting that call centre.

If the applicant is genuine he has nothing to worry about that intend to reside clause nevertheless active already or not yet.

I completely agree with that sentiment. If the applicant is actually genuine, he/she would not pack up and leave Canada and only come back for test and oath purposes after submitting the application. I see there is some light coming through to you.

 

[MUFC]

I see that you and me are talking about same thing but with a little twist...

Let me clarify my point...

There is a requirement that the applicant has to maintain residency which with numbers means 6 months in a calendar year presence... that residency should be active till the oath.

Look at this scenario though ...

The applicant has a fast office and he will submit his application say... July. After the submission the applicant is out of Canada until the test which will be after 4-5 months range... he comes back for the test and his residency is still active because his absence was 4-5 months... after the test he will get his oath in a range of couple of weeks and he is done.

Pay attention that all the time his residency is active but at the same time the majority of time he was outside...
in this cases I was talking about that if the applicant has a fast local office he can stay outside without practical danger for him to get rejected...

This scenario is not applicable if the local office is working slow.

I hope that finally you also understand my point here.

 

[screech339]

I see that you and me are talking about same thing but with a little twist...

Let me clarify my point...

There is a requirement that the applicant has to maintain residency which with numbers means 6 months in a calendar year presence... that residency should be active till the oath.

This scenario is not applicable if the local office is working slow.

I hope that finally you also understand my point here.

Yes I see your point but you are now understanding that there is an "intend to reside" clause by maintaining residency after the application. That is the part I have been waiting to hear from you. You even admit that it affect those with a slow office.

So my point is that regardless if the office is slow or fast, the "intend to reside" does have an impact on the citizenship process.

 

[ZingyDNA]

So, you are saying, to satisfy "intention to reside", you just need to reside in Canada for >6 months a year?

I see that you and me are talking about same thing but with a little twist...

Let me clarify my point...

There is a requirement that the applicant has to maintain residency which with numbers means 6 months in a calendar year presence... that residency should be active till the oath.

Look at this scenario though ...

The applicant has a fast office and he will submit his application say... July. After the submission the applicant is out of Canada until the test which will be after 4-5 months range... he comes back for the test and his residency is still active because his absence was 4-5 months... after the test he will get his oath in a range of couple of weeks and he is done.

Pay attention that all the time his residency is active but at the same time the majority of time he was outside...
in this cases I was talking about that if the applicant has a fast local office he can stay outside without practical danger for him to get rejected...

This scenario is not applicable if the local office is working slow.

I hope that finally you also understand my point here.

 

[screech339]

So, you are saying, to satisfy "intention to reside", you just need to reside in Canada for >6 months a year?

In theory yes. Anytime you leave Canada for longer than 6 months, you are deem a non-resident of Canada especially for income tax purposes.

 

[MUFC]

Keeping residency has direct impact for rejection after the application is submitted... This is the factor for consideration for the future applicants because it has specific numbers to maintain in a range of time...

If a person gets rejection it will be based on loosing residency...

The intend to reside itself is the moral part which is connected with the requirement of keeping the residency...
But the intend to reside itself standing alone, has no penalty and rejection power.... the rejection factor is actually the failure to manage to keep residency.

This is what I was trying to say

 

[screech339]

Keeping residency has direct impact for rejection after the application is submitted... This is the factor for consideration for the future applicants because it has specific numbers to maintain in a range of time...

If a person gets rejection it will be based on loosing residency...

The intend to reside itself is the moral part which is connected with the requirement of keeping the residency...
But the intend to reside itself standing alone, has no penalty and rejection power.... the rejection factor is actually the failure to manage to keep residency.

This is what I was trying to say

Boo yaaa. Failure to keep residency in Canada. I see more light is coming in. Your purple sky is starting to turn blue.

 

[MUFC]

So, you are saying, to satisfy "intention to reside", you just need to reside in Canada for >6 months a year?

Correct

Boo yaaa. Failure to keep residency in Canada. I see more light is coming in. Your purple sky is starting to turn blue.

I have never claim the opposite.
That's why I said that we are talking about the same thing but with a little twist.

 

[screech339]

CorrectI have never claim the opposite.
That's why I said that we are talking about the same thing but with a little twist.

We wouldn't be having this conversation over and over if you stated in the beginning that "intend to reside" does and can affect citizenship process. Not some run around about "moral" clause as if it has no affect on the process none whatsoever.