sushi1988 said:
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.
