I am worried that I'll be selected for non-routine processing.

[dpenabill]

Impact on citizenship application processing when applicants report periods of unemployment, self-employment, or employed as consultant:

Short version: A lot has changed over the years, and especially so since I applied for citizenship. And continues to change. Basically, the increased capacity of IRCC to verify presence without employing RQ has drastically reduced the extent of RQ-related non-routine processing.

So, @scylla and @Seym effectively answered concerns about the impact of a citizenship applicant reporting periods of unemployment, self-employment, or employed as a consultant, which comes down to there being little or no significantly greater risk of lengthy delays due to RQ-related non-routine processing as long as:

-- the applicant completely and accurately, and honestly, provides information in the application and physical presence calculation, and​

​

-- the applicant applies with a good buffer over the minimum physical presence requirement, and​

​

-- there are no credibility red flags (no discrepancies or suspicious incongruities for example; no previous suspicion of misrepresentation in the applicant's immigration history)​

Note, however, the actual risk (likelihood of significantly elevated screening causing lengthy processing time line) depends on the totality of the applicant's information and other information known to IRCC.

Note: Not All Non-Routine Processing is Created Equal:

The label "non-routine" only means that there is some additional step or action taken in regards to an application, a step or action that is not part of the standard processing. A fingerprint request, for example, means the application is then considered "non-routine," but as long as the applicant timely and appropriately responds this has little impact on the overall processing timeline. Many of the things that can happen in processing that make the application non-routine will have rather little impact on the overall processing timeline -- again, so long as the applicant timely and appropriately responds.

In particular, not all non-routine processing is created equal. Most non-routine processing only adds a few weeks to a few months to the processing time line.

As a super majority conservative is pretty much imminent, I am worried that my application can be selected for non-routine processing which takes years.

Even in regards to non-routine processing involving questioning residency or physical presence, which can include some version of RQ (Residence Questionnaire), for many years now what we mostly see is a minimal version requesting a few specific documents, NOT the full blown RQ (CIT 0171) that was so commonly seen a decade and longer ago.

For years now there has been rather little reporting indicating applicants are getting bogged down in lengthy RQ-related non-routine processing these days . . . EXCEPT the usual suspects one might say:

-- applicants applying with little or no buffer in conjunction with red flags, like discrepancies between the applicant's account of travel history and what CBSA records reflect​

-- applicants who report information in their application that raises credibility concerns, ranging from using an address or telephone number that has been flagged as suspicious in other cases, to significant discrepancies in the applicant's information (reminder: IRCC can and sometimes does compare address and employment history with the applicant's information as posted in open sources, like LinkedIn or social media)​

Risk Indicators or the Triage Criteria:

The criteria IRCC employs in screening citizenship applications is confidential; this is information the public does not have access to. It has now been over a decade since the forum has seen any leaked copies of the File Requirements Checklist which included a list of the triage criteria, nothing comparable to the 2012 leak of the FRC that the Harper-era government implemented back in 2012.

In that version of the FRC, applicants reporting periods of unemployment, self-employment, or employed as a consultant were flagged for RQ. The triage criteria in that FRC was resulting in RQ for more than one in four applicants and CIC/IRCC got buried in a massive backlog. By late 2013 it was clear that CIC (before the name change to IRCC) had backed way down with this.

The Biggest Change; the physical presence rather than residency requirement:

The biggest change that has resulted in way fewer "residency cases," and the need for RQ-related processing generally, was the 2015 change in the law that implemented a physical presence requirement rather than a residency requirement. This has greatly simplified the process of verification. It is mostly arithmetic now, counting days, which in conjunction with more reliable CBSA travel history has vastly reduced the number of questionable applications.

Improved, Enhanced Screening:

Even though periods of self-employment or being a consultant may still be factors that are considered in discerning reasons to question an applicant's residency, a lot has changed in the last decade dramatically increasing IRCC's ability to corroborate if not solidly verify the particular information an applicant provides, and just in general IRCC has greater access to information and better tools to substantiate the applicant's information on one hand while also facilitating, on the other, identifying potential reasons to question the applicant's veracity. This ranges from the much expanded capacity of CBSA to capture an immigrant's travel history, to greatly expanded comparison and cross-checking capacity. While we do not know for certain, it readily appears, for example, that IRCC now compiles data that facilitates screening for suspicious telephone numbers, addresses, or employers, including the use of machine learning and other AI components.

Moreover, a dozen years ago the extent to which an immigrant was actually living a life in Canada was still largely documented by a paper trail. Paper-based information is not easily searchable, not easily compared. But even then, and very much so in the following years, not only was there a huge increase in the extent to which we leave a digital trail documenting a life being lived in Canada, CIC/IRCC aggressively expanded its capacity to search and compare this information.

That is, the greatly expanded ability of IRCC, now, to check, compare, and verify the information in a citizenship application, has drastically reduced the need for RQ-related non-routine processing. It is quite likely that those engaging in fraudulent schemes have also adapted and are employing more sophisticated schemes to evade detection. But the good news is that the better screening tools means way fewer legitimate, qualified applicants are dragged into RQ.

Hey guys,

I still have around 8 months left in my eligibility period, but I am already worried. I am working as a subcontractor delivery driver and I do deliveries for a major firm in Canada but I have been binge reading a lot of these threads, and apparently self-employment or "non regular" employment invites non-routine processing very often. Do I have to worry about it and start gathering more proof of my stay in Canada? On the positives: I didn't travel outside of the country ever since I landed and filed my tax returns every year and have my T4As. I saw many on threads that self-employment invites RQ.

What can I do to make sure that this doesn't happen to me? Also, does it matter that what type of job you are doing for citizenship applications? I used to work in IT back in my country but I hated that atmosphere and find much more peace in this job. Is that something that will be used against me?

As a super majority conservative is pretty much imminent, I am worried that my application can be selected for non-routine processing which takes years. Would appreciate your responses!

 

[worriedimmigrant]

Impact on citizenship application processing when applicants report periods of unemployment, self-employment, or employed as consultant:

Short version: A lot has changed over the years, and especially so since I applied for citizenship. And continues to change. Basically, the increased capacity of IRCC to verify presence without employing RQ has drastically reduced the extent of RQ-related non-routine processing.

So, @scylla and @Seym effectively answered concerns about the impact of a citizenship applicant reporting periods of unemployment, self-employment, or employed as a consultant, which comes down to there being little or no significantly greater risk of lengthy delays due to RQ-related non-routine processing as long as:

-- the applicant completely and accurately, and honestly, provides information in the application and physical presence calculation, and​

​

-- the applicant applies with a good buffer over the minimum physical presence requirement, and​

​

-- there are no credibility red flags (no discrepancies or suspicious incongruities for example; no previous suspicion of misrepresentation in the applicant's immigration history)​

Note, however, the actual risk (likelihood of significantly elevated screening causing lengthy processing time line) depends on the totality of the applicant's information and other information known to IRCC.

Note: Not All Non-Routine Processing is Created Equal:

The label "non-routine" only means that there is some additional step or action taken in regards to an application, a step or action that is not part of the standard processing. A fingerprint request, for example, means the application is then considered "non-routine," but as long as the applicant timely and appropriately responds this has little impact on the overall processing timeline. Many of the things that can happen in processing that make the application non-routine will have rather little impact on the overall processing timeline -- again, so long as the applicant timely and appropriately responds.

In particular, not all non-routine processing is created equal. Most non-routine processing only adds a few weeks to a few months to the processing time line.



Even in regards to non-routine processing involving questioning residency or physical presence, which can include some version of RQ (Residence Questionnaire), for many years now what we mostly see is a minimal version requesting a few specific documents, NOT the full blown RQ (CIT 0171) that was so commonly seen a decade and longer ago.

For years now there has been rather little reporting indicating applicants are getting bogged down in lengthy RQ-related non-routine processing these days . . . EXCEPT the usual suspects one might say:

-- applicants applying with little or no buffer in conjunction with red flags, like discrepancies between the applicant's account of travel history and what CBSA records reflect​

-- applicants who report information in their application that raises credibility concerns, ranging from using an address or telephone number that has been flagged as suspicious in other cases, to significant discrepancies in the applicant's information (reminder: IRCC can and sometimes does compare address and employment history with the applicant's information as posted in open sources, like LinkedIn or social media)​

Risk Indicators or the Triage Criteria:

The criteria IRCC employs in screening citizenship applications is confidential; this is information the public does not have access to. It has now been over a decade since the forum has seen any leaked copies of the File Requirements Checklist which included a list of the triage criteria, nothing comparable to the 2012 leak of the FRC that the Harper-era government implemented back in 2012.

In that version of the FRC, applicants reporting periods of unemployment, self-employment, or employed as a consultant were flagged for RQ. The triage criteria in that FRC was resulting in RQ for more than one in four applicants and CIC/IRCC got buried in a massive backlog. By late 2013 it was clear that CIC (before the name change to IRCC) had backed way down with this.

The Biggest Change; the physical presence rather than residency requirement:

The biggest change that has resulted in way fewer "residency cases," and the need for RQ-related processing generally, was the 2015 change in the law that implemented a physical presence requirement rather than a residency requirement. This has greatly simplified the process of verification. It is mostly arithmetic now, counting days, which in conjunction with more reliable CBSA travel history has vastly reduced the number of questionable applications.

Improved, Enhanced Screening:

Even though periods of self-employment or being a consultant may still be factors that are considered in discerning reasons to question an applicant's residency, a lot has changed in the last decade dramatically increasing IRCC's ability to corroborate if not solidly verify the particular information an applicant provides, and just in general IRCC has greater access to information and better tools to substantiate the applicant's information on one hand while also facilitating, on the other, identifying potential reasons to question the applicant's veracity. This ranges from the much expanded capacity of CBSA to capture an immigrant's travel history, to greatly expanded comparison and cross-checking capacity. While we do not know for certain, it readily appears, for example, that IRCC now compiles data that facilitates screening for suspicious telephone numbers, addresses, or employers, including the use of machine learning and other AI components.

Moreover, a dozen years ago the extent to which an immigrant was actually living a life in Canada was still largely documented by a paper trail. Paper-based information is not easily searchable, not easily compared. But even then, and very much so in the following years, not only was there a huge increase in the extent to which we leave a digital trail documenting a life being lived in Canada, CIC/IRCC aggressively expanded its capacity to search and compare this information.

That is, the greatly expanded ability of IRCC, now, to check, compare, and verify the information in a citizenship application, has drastically reduced the need for RQ-related non-routine processing. It is quite likely that those engaging in fraudulent schemes have also adapted and are employing more sophisticated schemes to evade detection. But the good news is that the better screening tools means way fewer legitimate, qualified applicants are dragged into RQ.

Thank you so much! But are all self-employment considered the same? It's very common in trucking and driving industry to be employed as a subcontractor! But being an independent consultant can be much more dubious. I'm sure IRCC knows about this!

 

[dpenabill]

But are all self-employment considered the same? It's very common in trucking and driving industry to be employed as a subcontractor! But being an independent consultant can be much more dubious. I'm sure IRCC knows about this!

To be clear, I do NOT know any of the particular criteria or factors in the current internal IRCC directives (guidelines, rule, practices).

My knowledge of relevant criteria, to the extent I have such knowledge, derives from the appendix to operational manual CP 5 Residence (which outlined "reasons to question residency" but is no longer used), a leaked copy of the FRC from more than a decade ago (which specified the then applicable triage criteria), various internal memos available as copies of completed ATIP requests (rife with redactions), current IRCC PDIs and FAQ answers, and Federal Court decisions (older decisions, from the days when there were many residency cases that went before Citizenship Judges and were then taken to the FC), and of course more than a decade of anecdotal reporting in forums like this.

It is very likely, fairly near certain, that the gist of what triggers questions or concerns has remained relatively consistent over the years (such as anything that suggests the applicant might not have been IN Canada where the applicant claimed to be when the applicant claimed to be), but we really DO NOT KNOW, not precisely, the particular criteria currently used.

Nonetheless, there is little doubt that whatever the criteria used they are mostly about identifying discrepancies, inconsistencies, incongruities, or the sort of anomaly that more or less suggests some of the applicant's information is inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise not honest. And for sure anything that suggests the applicant might not have been IN Canada where the applicant claimed to be when the applicant claimed to be.

Thus, I think it is fair to say that in general (at least so it readily appears) the vast majority of legitimate, qualified, and honest applicants who properly make a citizenship application have NO cause to fear RQ-related non-routine processing. Just does not appear to be happening much these days.

As the song goes, "don't worry, be happy." Legitimate, qualified, and honest applicants who properly make a citizenship application really have little or nothing to worry about. Sure, there are still some exceptions. Some applications will take longer to process than others. But for those who came to Canada to settle permanently, and they meet the requirements, the citizenship application processing stage should go smoothly, no serious bumps in the road, and for those who encounter this or that wrinkle along the way that is typically ironed out without much trouble, just a little wait (for some) or quite a lot of wait (for many if not most) and what sometimes seems a crazy long wait for a few.

So, patience and an honest application (save the fudge for explaining things to a mother-in-law or, if one must fudge some, save it for loan applications), with a decent buffer of days in Canada over the minimum, should sail through the process. No RQ-related non-routine processing.

In contrast, I got educated about this subject because when I applied for citizenship around one-in-five applicants during the previous year got RQ'd. And getting RQ'd then meant CIT 0171 and around a year or more additional processing time, added to what was then a year to a year and a half for more than half of the applications. So the what, why, and when was an important topic at the time. I was self-employed and only published outside Canada (the only thing Canadian about my work was that I was physically doing it here in Canada, sitting before a bank of computer screens in my home office on a quiet residential street in a modest-sized lakeside community surrounded by forests and more lakes, in a bungalow with a well-treed backyard where only the sound of pulp trucks on the highway not to far off would disturb the reverie, a long long way from the madness I left behind to come here, for which there is a woman to blame, or more to the point, to thank). So, I took a special interest in the subject. It was a bit like becoming a skilled electric typewriter mechanic in the early 1980s, just when the personal computer was exploding on the scene: acquiring skills too soon to be archaic, of little use (except to explain the history and why there is no cause to fret).

All that aside, in regards to IRCC's verification of physical presence in processing a citizenship application, the star attraction is whether CBSA travel history verifies the applicant's travel history, not necessarily perfect but damn near. Otherwise, even though we do not know for sure just what they look at, what looms large is almost certainly credibility.

And no, being self-employed itself does not invite questions about the applicant's credibility.

So, mostly just common-sense; no need for overthinking things.

When a legitimate applicant submits an honest and accurate account of their employment history, odds are it passes the smell-test and there is no reason to invite suspicions. In contrast, sure, being vague or evasive, let alone outright dodging, that is the sort of thing that can raise questions. But even then, unless something is off, something does not add up or make sense, if the gist of it is honest and accurate, odds are damn good it does not trigger any serious concerns or, in itself, trigger RQ-related processing.

In contrast, if you have a small business set up at an address arranged by a consultant with a telephone number provided by the consultant, and it turns out that the consultant has used the same address or telephone number for a dozen other clients (without cautioning any of them about the others), fifteen years ago the odds were good you got away with that, but today the odds are that is flagged and there is a follow-up investigation. If the business is nonetheless legitimate, odds are IRCC figures it out and the applicant does not know that IRCC even had questions. If the business is not so legitimate, no rocket science necessary to map the trajectory of where that goes.

IRCC is not so dumb or blind as many portray. Which for the legitimate, qualified applicant is good news. No need to waste time or resources chasing phantoms.

I might have suggested "don't worry, be happy" . . . that is unless you are among those fudging things, where there's a risk of it getting, well, sticky.

 

[steaky]

Hi everyone, next year I'll be eligible to apply for citizenship. I've been in Canada for almost six years, I have not left Canada, nor do I plan to since I became a PR. I'm of the age where I won't have to take the citizenship test, I was wondering if that will hinder, help or not affect my application.
I've read that after AOR you get the request for testing. In my case, what comes after AOR?
I also saw on the IRCC website that they invite some people to apply for a Canadian passport when they apply for citizenship, has anyone had that experience?

I think you should create your own thread.

 

[worriedimmigrant]

To be clear, I do NOT know any of the particular criteria or factors in the current internal IRCC directives (guidelines, rule, practices).

My knowledge of relevant criteria, to the extent I have such knowledge, derives from the appendix to operational manual CP 5 Residence (which outlined "reasons to question residency" but is no longer used), a leaked copy of the FRC from more than a decade ago (which specified the then applicable triage criteria), various internal memos available as copies of completed ATIP requests (rife with redactions), current IRCC PDIs and FAQ answers, and Federal Court decisions (older decisions, from the days when there were many residency cases that went before Citizenship Judges and were then taken to the FC), and of course more than a decade of anecdotal reporting in forums like this.

It is very likely, fairly near certain, that the gist of what triggers questions or concerns has remained relatively consistent over the years (such as anything that suggests the applicant might not have been IN Canada where the applicant claimed to be when the applicant claimed to be), but we really DO NOT KNOW, not precisely, the particular criteria currently used.

Nonetheless, there is little doubt that whatever the criteria used they are mostly about identifying discrepancies, inconsistencies, incongruities, or the sort of anomaly that more or less suggests some of the applicant's information is inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise not honest. And for sure anything that suggests the applicant might not have been IN Canada where the applicant claimed to be when the applicant claimed to be.

Thus, I think it is fair to say that in general (at least so it readily appears) the vast majority of legitimate, qualified, and honest applicants who properly make a citizenship application have NO cause to fear RQ-related non-routine processing. Just does not appear to be happening much these days.

As the song goes, "don't worry, be happy." Legitimate, qualified, and honest applicants who properly make a citizenship application really have little or nothing to worry about. Sure, there are still some exceptions. Some applications will take longer to process than others. But for those who came to Canada to settle permanently, and they meet the requirements, the citizenship application processing stage should go smoothly, no serious bumps in the road, and for those who encounter this or that wrinkle along the way that is typically ironed out without much trouble, just a little wait (for some) or quite a lot of wait (for many if not most) and what sometimes seems a crazy long wait for a few.

So, patience and an honest application (save the fudge for explaining things to a mother-in-law or, if one must fudge some, save it for loan applications), with a decent buffer of days in Canada over the minimum, should sail through the process. No RQ-related non-routine processing.

In contrast, I got educated about this subject because when I applied for citizenship around one-in-five applicants during the previous year got RQ'd. And getting RQ'd then meant CIT 0171 and around a year or more additional processing time, added to what was then a year to a year and a half for more than half of the applications. So the what, why, and when was an important topic at the time. I was self-employed and only published outside Canada (the only thing Canadian about my work was that I was physically doing it here in Canada, sitting before a bank of computer screens in my home office on a quiet residential street in a modest-sized lakeside community surrounded by forests and more lakes, in a bungalow with a well-treed backyard where only the sound of pulp trucks on the highway not to far off would disturb the reverie, a long long way from the madness I left behind to come here, for which there is a woman to blame, or more to the point, to thank). So, I took a special interest in the subject. It was a bit like becoming a skilled electric typewriter mechanic in the early 1980s, just when the personal computer was exploding on the scene: acquiring skills too soon to be archaic, of little use (except to explain the history and why there is no cause to fret).

All that aside, in regards to IRCC's verification of physical presence in processing a citizenship application, the star attraction is whether CBSA travel history verifies the applicant's travel history, not necessarily perfect but damn near. Otherwise, even though we do not know for sure just what they look at, what looms large is almost certainly credibility.

And no, being self-employed itself does not invite questions about the applicant's credibility.

So, mostly just common-sense; no need for overthinking things.

When a legitimate applicant submits an honest and accurate account of their employment history, odds are it passes the smell-test and there is no reason to invite suspicions. In contrast, sure, being vague or evasive, let alone outright dodging, that is the sort of thing that can raise questions. But even then, unless something is off, something does not add up or make sense, if the gist of it is honest and accurate, odds are damn good it does not trigger any serious concerns or, in itself, trigger RQ-related processing.

In contrast, if you have a small business set up at an address arranged by a consultant with a telephone number provided by the consultant, and it turns out that the consultant has used the same address or telephone number for a dozen other clients (without cautioning any of them about the others), fifteen years ago the odds were good you got away with that, but today the odds are that is flagged and there is a follow-up investigation. If the business is nonetheless legitimate, odds are IRCC figures it out and the applicant does not know that IRCC even had questions. If the business is not so legitimate, no rocket science necessary to map the trajectory of where that goes.

IRCC is not so dumb or blind as many portray. Which for the legitimate, qualified applicant is good news. No need to waste time or resources chasing phantoms.

I might have suggested "don't worry, be happy" . . . that is unless you are among those fudging things, where there's a risk of it getting, well, sticky.

Thank you for your detailed post!!

 

[dreamingmigrant]

To be clear, I do NOT know any of the particular criteria or factors in the current internal IRCC directives (guidelines, rule, practices).

My knowledge of relevant criteria, to the extent I have such knowledge, derives from the appendix to operational manual CP 5 Residence (which outlined "reasons to question residency" but is no longer used), a leaked copy of the FRC from more than a decade ago (which specified the then applicable triage criteria), various internal memos available as copies of completed ATIP requests (rife with redactions), current IRCC PDIs and FAQ answers, and Federal Court decisions (older decisions, from the days when there were many residency cases that went before Citizenship Judges and were then taken to the FC), and of course more than a decade of anecdotal reporting in forums like this.

It is very likely, fairly near certain, that the gist of what triggers questions or concerns has remained relatively consistent over the years (such as anything that suggests the applicant might not have been IN Canada where the applicant claimed to be when the applicant claimed to be), but we really DO NOT KNOW, not precisely, the particular criteria currently used.

Nonetheless, there is little doubt that whatever the criteria used they are mostly about identifying discrepancies, inconsistencies, incongruities, or the sort of anomaly that more or less suggests some of the applicant's information is inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise not honest. And for sure anything that suggests the applicant might not have been IN Canada where the applicant claimed to be when the applicant claimed to be.

Thus, I think it is fair to say that in general (at least so it readily appears) the vast majority of legitimate, qualified, and honest applicants who properly make a citizenship application have NO cause to fear RQ-related non-routine processing. Just does not appear to be happening much these days.

As the song goes, "don't worry, be happy." Legitimate, qualified, and honest applicants who properly make a citizenship application really have little or nothing to worry about. Sure, there are still some exceptions. Some applications will take longer to process than others. But for those who came to Canada to settle permanently, and they meet the requirements, the citizenship application processing stage should go smoothly, no serious bumps in the road, and for those who encounter this or that wrinkle along the way that is typically ironed out without much trouble, just a little wait (for some) or quite a lot of wait (for many if not most) and what sometimes seems a crazy long wait for a few.

So, patience and an honest application (save the fudge for explaining things to a mother-in-law or, if one must fudge some, save it for loan applications), with a decent buffer of days in Canada over the minimum, should sail through the process. No RQ-related non-routine processing.

In contrast, I got educated about this subject because when I applied for citizenship around one-in-five applicants during the previous year got RQ'd. And getting RQ'd then meant CIT 0171 and around a year or more additional processing time, added to what was then a year to a year and a half for more than half of the applications. So the what, why, and when was an important topic at the time. I was self-employed and only published outside Canada (the only thing Canadian about my work was that I was physically doing it here in Canada, sitting before a bank of computer screens in my home office on a quiet residential street in a modest-sized lakeside community surrounded by forests and more lakes, in a bungalow with a well-treed backyard where only the sound of pulp trucks on the highway not to far off would disturb the reverie, a long long way from the madness I left behind to come here, for which there is a woman to blame, or more to the point, to thank). So, I took a special interest in the subject. It was a bit like becoming a skilled electric typewriter mechanic in the early 1980s, just when the personal computer was exploding on the scene: acquiring skills too soon to be archaic, of little use (except to explain the history and why there is no cause to fret).

All that aside, in regards to IRCC's verification of physical presence in processing a citizenship application, the star attraction is whether CBSA travel history verifies the applicant's travel history, not necessarily perfect but damn near. Otherwise, even though we do not know for sure just what they look at, what looms large is almost certainly credibility.

And no, being self-employed itself does not invite questions about the applicant's credibility.

So, mostly just common-sense; no need for overthinking things.

When a legitimate applicant submits an honest and accurate account of their employment history, odds are it passes the smell-test and there is no reason to invite suspicions. In contrast, sure, being vague or evasive, let alone outright dodging, that is the sort of thing that can raise questions. But even then, unless something is off, something does not add up or make sense, if the gist of it is honest and accurate, odds are damn good it does not trigger any serious concerns or, in itself, trigger RQ-related processing.

In contrast, if you have a small business set up at an address arranged by a consultant with a telephone number provided by the consultant, and it turns out that the consultant has used the same address or telephone number for a dozen other clients (without cautioning any of them about the others), fifteen years ago the odds were good you got away with that, but today the odds are that is flagged and there is a follow-up investigation. If the business is nonetheless legitimate, odds are IRCC figures it out and the applicant does not know that IRCC even had questions. If the business is not so legitimate, no rocket science necessary to map the trajectory of where that goes.

IRCC is not so dumb or blind as many portray. Which for the legitimate, qualified applicant is good news. No need to waste time or resources chasing phantoms.

I might have suggested "don't worry, be happy" . . . that is unless you are among those fudging things, where there's a risk of it getting, well, sticky.

I think it's a great analysis as usual but you didn't weigh in the fact that cons are coming and they love to make life miserable of citizenship applicants.

 

[dpenabill]

I think it's a great analysis as usual but you didn't weigh in the fact that cons are coming and they love to make life miserable of citizenship applicants.

Apart from the fact I am not among those with the gift of prophesy (and that I do not invest much in the forecasts of those who do claim to have such gifts), as I tried to outline in two long posts, there is little cause, little room even these days, for there to be concerns in so far as verification of physical presence goes. As noted by others as well as me, this of course depends on:

-- the applicant completely and accurately, and honestly, provides information in the application and physical presence calculation, and​

-- the applicant applies with a good buffer over the minimum physical presence requirement, and​

-- there are no credibility red flags (no discrepancies or suspicious incongruities for example; no previous suspicion of misrepresentation in the applicant's immigration history)​

It is still very possible for PRs and Foreign Nationals to slip in or out of Canada without CBSA capturing a record of the exit, or entry, so there is some opportunity for someone to travel in or out without that creating a record tied to their client identity in the system. So the CBSA travel history is not guaranteed to be complete. So sure, there remains a very significant possibility of fraud. And it is likely there continues to be a significant amount of fraud.

But as I repeated, the good news is that for legitimate, qualified applicants who completely, accurately, and honestly submit a proper application, IRCC now has and uses plenty of tools to more or less readily verify physical presence. NO NEED, not much anyway, for RQ-related questionnaires or RQ-related non-routine processing.

I am no fan of the Canadian Conservatives (a rather huge understatement). And I recognize that as a political party they tend to have a substantially if not greatly more strict approach to most aspects of immigration. And even though the more likely outcome of the next election will be another minority government, not a majority, it is well within the range of probable outcomes that the Conservatives will be able to form a majority government after the next election. Nonetheless, again in so far as processing citizenship applications to verify physical presence, this is simply no longer the foggy issue it once was.

So, as much as I apprehend a majority Conservative government returning to some draconian immigration policies and practices (make no mistake, however, the Conservatives favour certain economic class immigration because it benefits big business, providing less expensive labour), it is hyperbolic rhetoric to say that Conservatives "love to make life miserable [for] citizenship applicants." Most of the measures regarding the path to citizenship that they implemented in the Harper-era were aimed at combatting fraud and at resolving the massive problems a "residency" requirement caused. This included moving much of the processing guidelines, rules, practices, even policies, behind the confidentiality curtain, eliminating public access to this information. The Trudeau government has continued most of this.

Some of the more draconian measures implemented in the Harper-era have been reversed when the Liberals had a majority government.

Some of what the Liberals reversed were Harper-era changes aimed at making the path to citizenship more difficult, aimed in particular at discouraging those who were seen as applying-on-the-way-the-airport or otherwise seeking a passport of convenience. The intent to reside in Canada requirement, for example. The four year physical presence requirement for another, and no credit for days in Canada prior to becoming a PR. I cannot forecast whether a new Conservative majority government will adopt such or similar policies aimed at those seen as applying-on-the-way-the-airport or otherwise seeking a passport of convenience, but sure, a Conservative government would likely implement more strict practices in this regard. But it does not seem likely that the Conservatives will spend much political capital toward changing the requirements themselves (remember that outrage over the intent-to-reside requirement was a significant part of what caused Harper to crash and burn in 2015).

BUT there is no reason to apprehend that verifying physical presence will become problematic again, no matter who forms the next government. Again, all that I learned about navigating the so-called "residency case" is of little use now, other than in recounting the history and reassuring legitimate, qualified applicants this is NOT likely to be a problem . . . well, again, unless there is indeed more or less clear cause to question the applicant's physical presence.

 

[Fordlings5]

I think you should create your own thread.

I apologize, I thought I could ask citizenship questions here.

 

[steaky]

I apologize, I thought I could ask citizenship questions here.

As you can see, no other replied. You'd better off create a separate thread for asking your questions.