Intention to live in Canada & Old Rule

[sushi1988]

Hi,

Intention to live in Canada is not applicable to the applicants under the old rule. If someone's application is in process as per the old rule and meantime if NEW rule
come into the force (Which is likely in next few months) then can CIC refuse his application (even if its under old rule) if its become obvious from his application that he/she has no intention of living
in Canada (Like he/she is working in USA or something like that)? And can CIC take any legal action on him/her for applying without having intention to do so.

Or CIC has to approve it (of course they can delay it with RQ etc.) after procrastinating it for long enough?

 

[dpenabill]

Hi,

Intention to live in Canada is not applicable to the applicants under the old rule. If someone's application is in process as per the old rule and meantime if NEW rule
come into the force (Which is likely in next few months) then can CIC refuse his application (even if its under old rule) if its become obvious from his application that he/she has no intention of living
in Canada (Like he/she is working in USA or something like that)? And can CIC take any legal action on him/her for applying without having intention to do so.

Or CIC has to approve it (of course they can delay it with RQ etc.) after procrastinating it for long enough?

While variations of this query have been asked often, in multiple topics, and wildly variable answers given in response, it is undoubtedly a question which will arise again and again.

Some aspects of the answer will not be addressed for years, since an intent clause inherently invokes decision-making based on inference, and decision-making based on inference will vary as much as the facts vary, and vary they will.

The focus of this particular inquiry is about applications made prior to the effective date for the new subsection 5(1)(c.1)(i) of the Citizenship Act (as it will be once these revisions come in force), which technically will NOT be governed by new subsection 5(1)(c.1)(i) (the so-called intent clause).

The simple answer, a technically correct answer, is that under the current law CIC cannot deny citizenship to an otherwise qualified applicant based on a conclusion the applicant does not intend to reside in Canada. And, indeed, such a question is not asked.

Thus, the applicant who submits a perfect application, solidly documents residency, and all other qualifications, and shows up for events as scheduled, cannot be denied citizenship even if at the interview the applicant admits he intends to move to the U.S. or the ME for a job right after the oath ceremony, with no intent to return to Canada to live. Indeed, even if such an individual admits to having already moved abroad, before getting citizenship, that is currently not a ground or reason for CIC to deny citizenship.

But as a practical matter, if CIC perceives an applicant has, as one Federal Court justice once put it, applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport, it is likely to get tough and rough. CIC is likely to go digging and digging. And if CIC can find any discrepancies or inconsistencies, there is a big chance CIC will grab those details as an excuse to doubt the applicant's proof of residency. The range of details which have tripped up applicants is far too great to attempt enumeration, but suffice it to say that in all the documentation one has to produce in response to RQ there are bound to be a number of incongruities or anomalies, at the least a few due to errors in data-entry at the source . . . so a doctor's visit on March 6th is erroneously noted as having been on March 16th in the health insurance records, but the applicant declared being abroad the week of March 16th, so there is an apparent inconsistency. Never mind this particular inconsistency in no way suggests the applicant was abroad at a time when the applicant declared he was in Canada (if taken as credible, the health record would suggest the opposite, the applicant was in Canada more than declared), it is nonetheless an inconsistency. By itself, such an inconsistency would be insignificant. If inclined, however, CIC might dig and dig until they find a half dozen inconsistencies, and based on that infer the applicant has failed to prove precisely when the applicant was in Canada, and therefore has not met the burden of proving residency. Referral goes to the CJ with an argument why approval should be denied. CJ's decision is predictable.

The extent to which a qualified applicant is vulnerable to a particularly aggressive and negative-leaning CIC varies. For those who are absolutely confident about the proof they have, there is no need to worry if CIC gets an impression they are among those who are applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport . . . well except for the burden and inconvenience and profound intrusion into one's privacy that characterizes the RQ process, not to mention the potential for years of delay.

Few applicants have such a bullet-proof case, and will find their application in trouble if CIC gets aggressively negative. And if CIC perceives the applicant has already moved abroad or is otherwise, as multiple Ministers have put it, seeking a citizenship of convenience, the risk of CIC going aggressively negative goes up considerably.

 

[sushi1988]

While variations of this query have been asked often, in multiple topics, and wildly variable answers given in response, it is undoubtedly a question which will arise again and again.

Some aspects of the answer will not be addressed for years, since an intent clause inherently invokes decision-making based on inference, and decision-making based on inference will vary as much as the facts vary, and vary they will.

The focus of this particular inquiry is about applications made prior to the effective date for the new subsection 5(1)(c.1)(i) of the Citizenship Act (as it will be once these revisions come in force), which technically will NOT be governed by new subsection 5(1)(c.1)(i) (the so-called intent clause).

The simple answer, a technically correct answer, is that under the current law CIC cannot deny citizenship to an otherwise qualified applicant based on a conclusion the applicant does not intend to reside in Canada. And, indeed, such a question is not asked.

Thus, the applicant who submits a perfect application, solidly documents residency, and all other qualifications, and shows up for events as scheduled, cannot be denied citizenship even if at the interview the applicant admits he intends to move to the U.S. or the ME for a job right after the oath ceremony, with no intent to return to Canada to live. Indeed, even if such an individual admits to having already moved abroad, before getting citizenship, that is currently not a ground or reason for CIC to deny citizenship.

But as a practical matter, if CIC perceives an applicant has, as one Federal Court justice once put it, applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport, it is likely to get tough and rough. CIC is likely to go digging and digging. And if CIC can find any discrepancies or inconsistencies, there is a big chance CIC will grab those details as an excuse to doubt the applicant's proof of residency. The range of details which have tripped up applicants is far too great to attempt enumeration, but suffice it to say that in all the documentation one has to produce in response to RQ there are bound to be a number of incongruities or anomalies, at the least a few due to errors in data-entry at the source . . . so a doctor's visit on March 6th is erroneously noted as having been on March 16th in the health insurance records, but the applicant declared being abroad the week of March 16th, so there is an apparent inconsistency. Never mind this particular inconsistency in no way suggests the applicant was abroad at a time when the applicant declared he was in Canada (if taken as credible, the health record would suggest the opposite, the applicant was in Canada more than declared), it is nonetheless an inconsistency. By itself, such an inconsistency would be insignificant. If inclined, however, CIC might dig and dig until they find a half dozen inconsistencies, and based on that infer the applicant has failed to prove precisely when the applicant was in Canada, and therefore has not met the burden of proving residency. Referral goes to the CJ with an argument why approval should be denied. CJ's decision is predictable.

The extent to which a qualified applicant is vulnerable to a particularly aggressive and negative-leaning CIC varies. For those who are absolutely confident about the proof they have, there is no need to worry if CIC gets an impression they are among those who are applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport . . . well except for the burden and inconvenience and profound intrusion into one's privacy that characterizes the RQ process, not to mention the potential for years of delay.

Few applicants have such a bullet-proof case, and will find their application in trouble if CIC gets aggressively negative. And if CIC perceives the applicant has already moved abroad or is otherwise, as multiple Ministers have put it, seeking a citizenship of convenience, the risk of CIC going aggressively negative goes up considerably.

Excellent explanation dpenabill. But this triggers couple of questions in my mind:

1. Its difficult to have a bullet proof application. And considering that CJ denies the application based on the fact that "applicant has failed to prove precisely when the applicant was in Canada, and therefore has not met the burden of proving residency"
can this be a ground for a "Removal Order" of an individual from Canada. Even if we agree that applicant is NOT able to prove the residency to the satisfaction of CIC (who is willing to unbent) but still it doesnt mean that CIC has proved that applicant
has applied with insufficient number of days OR application is fraudulent. In that case do applicant has right to live in Canada as PR or even his PR gets affected?

2. If CIC gets overly negative and applicant decide to withdraw his application (I think thats waht CIC wants), could that be ground for "Removal Order"? My question is if CIC cannot grant citizenship atleast they should NOT take back PR (Assuming applicant has met all the PR residency requirements).

3. What if applicant abandons application because of the extreme scrutinity of the CIC?

 

[MUFC]

I would prefer my citizenship application to be denied rather to wait on the intentionally slow line of non-routine RQed applications for couple of years without any clue of what is going on.

If an applicant end up in the RQed pile he is at great risk meanwhile to lose his PR status if he stays abroad while the application waits for years and collecting dust on the slow line.

So be careful what and how long you are abroad while the application is pending at CIC.

 

[sushi1988]

I would prefer my citizenship application to be denied rather to wait on the intentionally slow line of non-routine RQed applications for couple of years without any clue of what is going on.

If an applicant end up in the RQed pile he is at great risk meanwhile to lose his PR status if he stays abroad while the application waits for years and collecting dust on the slow line.

So be careful what and how long you are abroad while the application is pending at CIC.

I will NOT be abroad (unless I get good opportunity in USA who knows)?, but reason I am asking this question is, I have NOT included my child (who is PR) in the application (I have strong personal reason to do so which I cannot reveal here). I believe this is good enough for CIC to conclude "No Intention of Living in Canada". So though I will easily meet requirements for PR, even if CIC rejects my application for citizenship can they issue me a "Removal Order"?

My ONLY worry is even if they deny my Citizenship application (Which I believe should NOT happen), I should be allowed to live as a PR in Canada. Or if they virtually force me to withdraw my application (due to extreme scrutiny and profound intrusion), or I abandon my application, my right to live in Canada as a PR should remain intact.

 

[MUFC]

You will not get a Removal Order if your intention is not to live in Canada or if they refuse you citizenship.

Removal Order can be expected in case of a serious crime.

Your situation is not like this, so don't worry about the Removal Order, meanwhile try to keep your residency according to 2/5 rule.

 

[dpenabill]

. . . this triggers couple of questions in my mind:

1. Its difficult to have a bullet proof application. And considering that CJ denies the application based on the fact that "applicant has failed to prove precisely when the applicant was in Canada, and therefore has not met the burden of proving residency"
can this be a ground for a "Removal Order" of an individual from Canada. Even if we agree that applicant is NOT able to prove the residency to the satisfaction of CIC (who is willing to unbent) but still it doesnt mean that CIC has proved that applicant
has applied with insufficient number of days OR application is fraudulent. In that case do applicant has right to live in Canada as PR or even his PR gets affected?

2. If CIC gets overly negative and applicant decide to withdraw his application (I think thats waht CIC wants), could that be ground for "Removal Order"? My question is if CIC cannot grant citizenship atleast they should NOT take back PR (Assuming applicant has met all the PR residency requirements).

3. What if applicant abandons application because of the extreme scrutinity of the CIC?

Citizenship application processing and decision-making is about determining whether or not the PR-applicant is qualified to be granted citizenship.

The majority of RQ'd cases, residency cases, are specifically about whether or not the applicant met the citizenship residency requirement.

If it is determined the applicant is not qualified, such as a determination the applicant did not satisfy the residency requirement, the application for citizenship is denied.

Citizenship cases are not about PR status.

Valid PR status is, of course, a necessary and continuing requisite to be qualified for the grant of citizenship, but a decision to not grant citizenship has no impact on a applicant's status as a PR.

In other words, no "Removal Order" will be issued as a decision regarding a citizenship application.

More specifically, a failure to meet the citizenship residency requirement does not mean the applicant has not met the PR Residency Obligation. The latter is a far more lenient requirement, requiring just 730 days in Canada within the previous five years.


That said, sure, of course, if in the course of processing a citizenship application CIC ascertains information indicating the applicant is inadmissible, for this or that reason including serious criminality or a failure to comply with the PR residency obligation, then proceedings to remove the individual may be undertaken. That would be a separate process, a procedure apart from the processing of the citizenship application. It would be based specifically on the particular ground of inadmissibility.

There is no intent-requirement for maintaining status as a PR in Canada.

And, if you currently have a citizenship application in process, there is no intent requirement for being qualified for the grant of citizenship either.

The skepticism (at CIC) I discussed in my previous post predominantly arises in more or less blatantly obvious cases, mostly those where the applicant has moved abroad while the application is pending, or where the applicant's life is clearly centered abroad (including, especially, source of income).