baz said:
Hi All
So my wife entered (and won) the greencard lottery, which makes me eligible for a greencard based on a spouse relationship. We are not 100% guaranteed to get the greencard (anything can happen at the interview - if you think the Canadians are obtuse, then the Americans are MUCH worse), but lets assume we do get it (we have a very good chance). I still intend to become a Canadian citizen: All my family are Canadian citizens, and at this point in time, I have no need or want to move to USA permanently. What implications would this have on my intention to reside in Canada. More specifically, on the citizenship application form, what will the implications be by me ticking that I intend to reside in Canada?
I thought that with regards to the Canadian constitution guaranteeing mobility rights, I should be allowed to do this? Please can I get advice from anyone...
Thanks very much in advance.
I understood you already have a pre-June 11, 2015 application in process. If so, the
intent to reside requirement in the current law does
NOT apply to that application.
But, as already explored in another topic, it appears that application may be in trouble. If that application fails and you need to re-apply, yes indeed you will be subject to the
intent to reside requirement in your new application. And yes, indeed, it is very likely that a U.S. Green Card application (let alone obtaining the GC) can pose a substantial hurdle (if not outright obstruction).
The
intent-to-reside requirement has no impact on anyone who is a citizen (naturalized or otherwise, and regardless of date application was made), so there is no issue relative to the mobility rights the Charter prescribes for citizens.
Note that even though the
intent-to-reside requirement does not apply to any application made prior to June 11 this year, the U.S. Green Card appears to have been a trigger for elevated skepticism, not just elevated scrutiny, for a long time (going back as long as I have been closely following citizenship, that is, since at least 2009). Actual impact in the individual case has varied greatly, many getting Canadian citizenship even though they have a GC, many others seeing CIC and CJs make negative inferences regarding the facts and circumstances.
It is not at all certain, but my impression is that anyone who has an application pending and did not meet the 1095 day threshold for actual presence, and is thus relying on the application of the
Koo test (or other qualitative residency test), throws away whatever chance of success they had if they obtain a U.S. Green Card . . . for obvious reasons (not technical reasons, not about specific requirements, but for obvious reasons related to who deserves Canadian citizenship, and relative to assessing the extent to which the applicant's life has been centralized in Canada, which of course obtaining a Green Card is blatantly contrary to).
It is worth remembering that the U.S. approach very specifically requires an intent to reside in the U.S. . . . both to obtain the GC and to continue to be qualified to hold the GC. Just an application for a GC tends to raise questions for anyone applying for Canadian citizenship . . . and for applicants applying since June 11, 2015, in effect negates the required intent to continue to reside in Canada. (Again, the
intent-to-reside requirement applies to PRs applying for citizenship, as it is a requirement for being granted citizenship, not to anyone who is a citizen.)
By the way:
For clarity, I do not think "the Canadians are obtuse," whether this is in reference to Canadians generally, the Canadian government generally, or CIC. Sure, there has been a significant decline in transparency and many aspects of CIC's approach to communicating information leave much to be desired. But overall, relative to qualifying for and obtaining citizenship, "obtuse" does not apply.
And, actually, similarly for the U.S. immigration policies and practices. Yes, there are some uncertainties in the process, some contingencies which involve difficult to predict outcomes, but these should not be confused for obtuseness . . . indeed, if anything, there are some rather sharp and strict requirements, anything but dull or opaque, and not particularly obscure. This is true likewise for the Canadian immigration policies and practices.
Re PR: The fact that there is no simple checklist guaranteeing the grant of PR status (to either Canada or the U.S.) is more about allowing for an expanded scope of immigration rather than more restrictive.
Re Canadian citizenship: While the residency requirement to obtain Canadian citizenship was poorly defined, and subject to multiple interpretations, it was always clear (1) that applicants were required to disclose
all trips (other than day-trips for pre-June 11 applicants), contrary to some erroneous claims otherwise (for example, CIC instructions
never suggested, let alone specifically stated, that applicants could rely on passport entries), and (2) applicants meeting the physical presence test based on 1095+ days actual presence met the residency requirement (notwithstanding which interpretation of the residency requirement was used).
