Explaning Why I Applied to Citizenship Alone?

[Quasi]

I got my RQ back a year later because I've made some tiny mistakes on it but there are two things that I just cannot comprehend:

1. On my first RQ the relevant period was from 2009 to 2011 but now they're saying I did not cover 4 years of relevant period so I should do it again from 2007 to 2011
2. They want to know why I applied to citizenship without the rest of my family

First, I don't understand why they decided to change their mind about the relevant period.
Is this a penalty for not filling out my RQ correctly?
It's not like I wrote down the relevant period.
At first I was a bit confused why my relevant period was from 2009 but I just thought maybe because that's when I got my PR.
Why didn't they just make me fill out from 2007 in the first place?
Now I have to play the memory game from 2007?
Canada, please.
I barely even remember what I had for dinner last night.
But this I'm OK with, it's no big deal.

However, I am a bit iffy about the second point.
I don't know why (I can't pinpoint to how this makes me upset) but this is ridiculously offensive.
Why should I explain to them why I applied to the citizenship alone without them telling me the reason for asking me this?
I don't see how this has anything to do with the application.
Why do they assume that there must be a grand reason behind this?
I know some people might think "why are you getting so emotional? Just write the reason why" but...
I don't know.
It's complex.

And really, I'm trying not to judge but it's extremely hard not to when I see a grammar mistake and a weird random capitalization on a word which first letter of it is not supposed to be capitalized.
It clearly shows how much time this officer took on my RQ.
My stay in Canada can be proven by my high school attendance so I don't know why they have to make me go through this.

OK, putting everything aside...
Anyone have any idea about why I need to write a letter explaining why I applied to the citizenship solo?

 

[BLT]

One of the negative reasons about solo applicant is that you are trying to save your overseas incomes and assets from being taxed. So later, since you are a citizen, you can sponsor all your families, but your income and your assets are being put under your wife's name, and since she is not a citizen nor a PR, it's tax free.
Don't get offended, this is just my opinion.

 

[dpenabill]

Once an applicant has been issued RQ and has what generally is thought of as a residency case, the range of what is relevant information is expansive, and in effect reaches any issue or factor which may directly or indirectly be considered in weighing evidence (including especially weighing the applicant's own declarations) about residency or physical location. Thus, any information at all relevant to typical residential ties becomes relevant.

There are many reasons why CIC is interested in where immediate family members live or work in particular. In general terms, the location of family is a major residential tie. The presence or absence, as well as the strength, of residential ties is a major factor in weighing the overall evidence of residency.

At the risk of over-simplifying: a bureaucratic decision-maker is likely to conclude that a person actually lived and was more often present in the location where that individual has the most and strongest residential ties. While this can be overcome by direct, credible evidence otherwise, information regarding the nature, duration, and extent of this or that particular connection, this or that residential tie, is highly relevant to the assessment of residency and geographical presence.

Note, for example, that spouses ordinarily cohabitate or at least spend a lot of time together, and that dependent children ordinarily live with at least one of the parents. Thus, this information is relevant in weighing the credibility of an individual's declarations about where he or she has been living, residing, and actually physically present.

If one spouse applies for citizenship and the other does not, that raises the question why, since the most likely answer to that is that only the one qualifies, that the other spouse does not qualify. The usual reason the other spouse does not qualify is that the other spouse has been outside Canada too much to qualify. If the other spouse has been outside Canada so much as to not qualify, there is at least a suggestion the applying spouse was also outside Canada more than it is being declared.

So CIC can ask a lot of peripheral questions, request a lot of tangential information, in order to fully examine and evaluate what evidence there is, either in favour of supporting the applicant's claims about residency and presence, or potentially to the contrary.

The applicant does not necessarily have to provide all information or documentation requested by CIC. The applicant merely has to meet the burden of proof sufficient to show, beyond a balance of probabilities, that the residency requirement was met.

That said, CIC can make negative inferences based on a failure to provide certain documentation or information. One of the potential negative inferences that could really hurt is that the applicant lacks credibility.

Moreover, if an applicant deliberately omits certain information or documentation to in effect conceal material information, or otherwise deceive CIC, that can constitute a material misrepresentation, subject to predictable consequences.

As you apprehended, the conventional wisdom is to answer all requests directly, succinctly but responsively, and of course as accurately as possible. Any other approach elevates the risk of a negative assessment by CIC. For someone who has submitted direct, objective and credible documentation solidly showing actual place of abode, employment, and physical location sufficient to fully corroborate all dates the individual declared (in original residency calculation as well as any subsequent residency/travel declarations) he was present in Canada, the failure to provide this or that answer to peripheral questions should not be fatal to the application. The risk, however, rests with the applicant, since the burden of proof is entirely on the applicant.

There is no doubt, just the basic RQ itself is profoundly invasive, a major intrusion into a person's privacy. That is the price of being in a contest case.

 

[thecoolguysam]

Hello Quasi,

can you share your timeline? I suppose you came to canada on temporary permit in 2007 and got PR in 2009 correct?

 

[Quasi]

Hello Quasi,

can you share your timeline? I suppose you came to canada on temporary permit in 2007 and got PR in 2009 correct?

2003 - in Canada
2009 - landed
2011 - applied for the citizenship
2013 - wrote the test, RQ, handed in RQ
2014 - got RQ back

The reason for the RQ is that they believe some days are not valid so I'm short a few days.
I had to prove why the days are valid.