in what conditions can judge interview if i already passed test
- Thread starter tigerskk
- Start date
You can be asked to appear in front of the judge if there is a concern you haven't met the residency requirement for citizenship.
Yes - their decision is final.
Yes - their decision is final.
When the officer not satisfied with residency requirement he forward the matter
to judge to decide and take the matter with the applicant further, if judge reject
you have the right to contact federal court where judge of federal court can decide
but you have to be one hundred percent sure that you meet the requirements and
you have all documented proof.
to judge to decide and take the matter with the applicant further, if judge reject
you have the right to contact federal court where judge of federal court can decide
but you have to be one hundred percent sure that you meet the requirements and
you have all documented proof.
Citizenship Judge decisions are not final in the sense that either the applicant, or the Minister, can seek leave to appeal.
Thus, if the CJ denies the application, the applicant can file an application for leave to appeal. If this is granted, the case will go back to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship to be redetermined. If this is not granted, there is now the possibility of further appeal if the Federal Court is persuaded there is a proper question to be certified for further review.
If the CJ grants approval, then the applicant will either be scheduled for the oath, or Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship can make the application for leave to appeal. If Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship seeks leave to appeal and that is granted (there actually have been several such cases recently), the case goes back to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship to be redetermined. If the application for leave to appeal by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship is denied, the Minister must schedule and administer the oath, and grant citizenship.
A Citizenship Judge only has authority, under the current law, to determine residency and approve or disapprove the application. All other questions, ranging from whether the applicant has failed to meet qualifications like knowledge of Canada or language ability, or is subject to a prohibition, are decided by the Minister's delegate.
If misrepresentation or fraud is an issue, but it is a residency case, the CJ's role is to assess the evidence and determine whether or not the applicant met the residency requirement (will be physical presence requirement for post-June-2015 applicants). The CJ's consideration of whether or not there is a misrepresentation is about assessing what the facts are, a big part of which is dependent on an assessment of the applicant's credibility. If the CJ believes the applicant has made a material misrepresentation, that is a reason to discount or even largely not give much weight to the evidence submitted by the applicant.
In the meantime, if someone working on the application, most notably this would be the Citizenship Officer assessing the application before any referral to a Citizenship Judge, identifies what is believed to be a material misrepresentation, that can trigger an investigation. Or, if the case is referred to a CJ and the CJ believes the applicant has made a material misrepresentation, the CJ can (1) deny approval on that basis alone, and (2) refer the matter back to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship for further processing regarding the misrepresentation.
Not all discrepancies in facts trigger a misrepresentation investigation. Minor discrepancies are often of little import, considered minor mistakes. More significant discrepancies will affect how the government views the applicant's credibility, and potentially affect the outcome of the application but have little or no significance beyond that. If, however, it is perceived that there has been a deliberate misrepresentation of fact, including by omission, that can lead to more serious consequences.
There have been changes to both IRPA and the Citizenship Act regarding the consequences for misrepresentation or fraud. I have not kept totally current as to what they are. Prior to the effective date of the SCCA (most refer to it as Bill C-24), misrepresentation in the citizenship application could be a stand alone ground for denying the application and could also, in more serious cases, be prosecuted as a criminal offence (possible penalty of imprisonment). But it did not have a direct impact on PR status.
I think this has changed under the current law, but am not certain. That is, I am sure that a material misrepresentation is a stand alone ground for denying the application (and indeed it continues to be a stand alone ground for revoking citizenship at anytime essentially forever), and in more serious instances it can still lead to prosecution, and thus potentially jail time. But it may also be grounds for inadmissibility and thus grounds to terminate PR status.
A lot depends on the seriousness of the misrepresentation. Again, minor discrepancies should be no big deal. At the other end of the spectrum, the applicant who has, for example, created false documentation to support his or her application, or given blatantly false information (bogus residential address or employment) is at significant risk for the more severe consequences, potentially jail time possibly followed by deportation. In between there are the more common cases in which applicants overlooked some travel abroad in the residency calculation declaration, which depend in significant part on the extent to which they failed to accurately report absences and the extent to which this is perceived to have been deliberate.
In any event, if the government perceives a misrepresentation serious enough to warrant prosecution as a criminal offence, this would be referred to the RCMP and the decision to proceed with criminal charges would be made by a Crown attorney not someone at Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship.
Thus, if the CJ denies the application, the applicant can file an application for leave to appeal. If this is granted, the case will go back to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship to be redetermined. If this is not granted, there is now the possibility of further appeal if the Federal Court is persuaded there is a proper question to be certified for further review.
If the CJ grants approval, then the applicant will either be scheduled for the oath, or Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship can make the application for leave to appeal. If Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship seeks leave to appeal and that is granted (there actually have been several such cases recently), the case goes back to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship to be redetermined. If the application for leave to appeal by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship is denied, the Minister must schedule and administer the oath, and grant citizenship.
A Citizenship Judge only has authority, under the current law, to determine residency and approve or disapprove the application. All other questions, ranging from whether the applicant has failed to meet qualifications like knowledge of Canada or language ability, or is subject to a prohibition, are decided by the Minister's delegate.
If misrepresentation or fraud is an issue, but it is a residency case, the CJ's role is to assess the evidence and determine whether or not the applicant met the residency requirement (will be physical presence requirement for post-June-2015 applicants). The CJ's consideration of whether or not there is a misrepresentation is about assessing what the facts are, a big part of which is dependent on an assessment of the applicant's credibility. If the CJ believes the applicant has made a material misrepresentation, that is a reason to discount or even largely not give much weight to the evidence submitted by the applicant.
In the meantime, if someone working on the application, most notably this would be the Citizenship Officer assessing the application before any referral to a Citizenship Judge, identifies what is believed to be a material misrepresentation, that can trigger an investigation. Or, if the case is referred to a CJ and the CJ believes the applicant has made a material misrepresentation, the CJ can (1) deny approval on that basis alone, and (2) refer the matter back to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship for further processing regarding the misrepresentation.
Not all discrepancies in facts trigger a misrepresentation investigation. Minor discrepancies are often of little import, considered minor mistakes. More significant discrepancies will affect how the government views the applicant's credibility, and potentially affect the outcome of the application but have little or no significance beyond that. If, however, it is perceived that there has been a deliberate misrepresentation of fact, including by omission, that can lead to more serious consequences.
There have been changes to both IRPA and the Citizenship Act regarding the consequences for misrepresentation or fraud. I have not kept totally current as to what they are. Prior to the effective date of the SCCA (most refer to it as Bill C-24), misrepresentation in the citizenship application could be a stand alone ground for denying the application and could also, in more serious cases, be prosecuted as a criminal offence (possible penalty of imprisonment). But it did not have a direct impact on PR status.
I think this has changed under the current law, but am not certain. That is, I am sure that a material misrepresentation is a stand alone ground for denying the application (and indeed it continues to be a stand alone ground for revoking citizenship at anytime essentially forever), and in more serious instances it can still lead to prosecution, and thus potentially jail time. But it may also be grounds for inadmissibility and thus grounds to terminate PR status.
A lot depends on the seriousness of the misrepresentation. Again, minor discrepancies should be no big deal. At the other end of the spectrum, the applicant who has, for example, created false documentation to support his or her application, or given blatantly false information (bogus residential address or employment) is at significant risk for the more severe consequences, potentially jail time possibly followed by deportation. In between there are the more common cases in which applicants overlooked some travel abroad in the residency calculation declaration, which depend in significant part on the extent to which they failed to accurately report absences and the extent to which this is perceived to have been deliberate.
In any event, if the government perceives a misrepresentation serious enough to warrant prosecution as a criminal offence, this would be referred to the RCMP and the decision to proceed with criminal charges would be made by a Crown attorney not someone at Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship.