Hello team,
I was away from canada :
dec 20th 2019 to october 17th 2020. ( parenr unwell) i was taking care my parent.
And left once again in 7 days, ( parent passed away)
october 14th 2020 to april 2021 i have been unemployed and Staying in my home country.
I returned to canda may 1st 2021 and will be applying august 31 2021for cirizenship.
I will be working during this period to create some record.
Now , should i write a letter explaining my long absence?
I was unemployed outside the country , outside of physical presence days.
I will attach my pcc because of the absence days and unemployment.
What are the chance for rq?
And what happens during an rq.
I dont want any attention or get an rq.
Any advices would be great.
I cannot offer advice but will make some observations.
Overall I concur in most of the observations above by
@RJ2020 with one exception regarding criteria for getting RQ. More re this below.
Otherwise,
the main thing is to follow the instructions and provide complete and accurate information. As is best with bureaucratic processing generally, give the information requested. Extra information, including "explanations," rarely helps and risks triggering more questions than it answers. With some exceptions of course. Sometimes certain information requires clarification. But generally, extra explanations, for example, will not satisfy a processing agent who has concerns or questions, at the risk of triggering questions or concerns.
For trips abroad the applicant provides a brief statement of the reason for the trip in the presence calculation. There is little or nothing relevant any further "explanation" can offer, since those days outside Canada do not count toward meeting a citizenship requirement and reporting the travel dates, destination, and the reason generally, should fully suffice to show what is relevant.
REGARDING RISK of RQ:
There is NO guaranteed way to avoid RQ-related requests. And in any event, these days it looks like rather few applicants get any version of RQ-related requests, and very few are getting the full-blown version (CIT 0171). So the risk of RQ appears, currently, to be quite low.
Attempts to RQ-proof the application, in a manner of speaking, tend to be less than productive.
Even attempts to reduce the risks of RQ tend to be, at best, ineffective . . . other than what should be the obvious: complete and accurate answers following the instructions, and applying with a decent margin over the minimum physical presence.
That said, there are of course some circumstances which likely elevate the risk of RQ. BUT other than overtly increasing the risk of RQ by failing to be precisely accurate in the travel history, for example, or otherwise answering questions in a way that looks evasive or deceptive, most of the circumstances which can increase the risk of RQ are more or less hardwired into the applicant's life . . . which leads to your particular circumstances, and back to the one part of the observations above by
@RJ2020 with which I do not agree, which is this:
There is no predetermined circumstances defined as reasons for getting RQ.
The fact that we in the public do not know what, currently, are the factors or circumstances, the criteria employed for deciding who gets RQ, does not mean there is no such defined criteria. We do know previous versions of the criteria used, including earlier versions intended to be confidential and not publicly known, and can surmise that while the criteria is secret IRCC continues to employ a list of factors. Last we knew the factors were explicitly listed in the File Requirements Checklist used for processing citizenship applications.
I nonetheless otherwise agree with
@RJ2020 that no one can realistically predict an applicant's chances for getting RQ . . . EXCEPT for some more obvious RISK factors, most of which relate to the applicant's credibility, regarding which the best we can say is how they generally affect the risk-level. For example, discrepancies in entry dates into Canada, in the travel history compared to CBSA records, will increase the risk, and obviously more and bigger discrepancies will cause a bigger increase in the risk of RQ. While the correlation between how big a margin the applicant has over the minimum presence requirement and risk of RQ is at best vague, it is very likely that the smaller the margin the bigger the risk.
It warrants emphasizing that there is little or NO NEED to get distracted or bogged down trying to forecast how to avoid triggering RQ, since most of the criteria (other than the obvious stuff I have already mentioned, like discrepancies or inconsistencies in the applicant's information) is related to or derives from the applicant's situation and history, what is already done, "
baked-in" one might say, and which cannot be, so to say, "
fixed."
But in any event, IRCC almost certainly does have defined criteria . . . in particular, it is far more likely that IRCC continues to have and employ certain criteria, for determining when applicants will be issued RQ, at least relatively similar to and consistent with the criteria it has historically used.
However, what CIC/IRCC has previously referenced as "
reasons-to-question-residency" and "
triage criteria" have been confidential, meaning secret, since 2012 . . . noting that a copy of the triage criteria adopted in OB 407 in 2012 was leaked and subsequent ATI application responses kept those of us following these things somewhat informed as to changes for a period of time. Prior to 2012 the circumstances triggering RQ were openly listed in an appendix to the Operational Manual CP 5 "Residence" and which were specifically referred to as "
reasons-to-question-residency," and that was public information.
So we do not know for sure what the precise criteria is for deciding who gets RQ, but that is not the same as saying that IRCC does not utilize a list of factors. It is almost certain that IRCC continues to use a list of factors in deciding who gets RQ'd.
The triage criteria adopted in 2012, and modified over the next couple years, was substantially similar to the previously used "
reasons-to-question-residency" (originally adopted in an Operational Bulletin issued in 2005), the differences more in the details. And both were largely what one would anticipate. For example, significant discrepancies between the applicant's information and what IRCC/CIC determined, particularly as to travel, address, or work history, were prescribed reasons for issuing RQ. In the 2012 version, for example, two discrepancies in travel history, or any discrepancy for more than three days, comparing the applicant's travel history with CBSA information, triggered RQ; we know that very strict criteria was modified to be less strict, but so far as I know, those of us in the public do not have access to the current criteria . . . we do not know, for example, whether these days there is a set standard or a more discretionary judgment guideline. It may be worth noting that the older "
reasons-to-question-residency" version, for example, was more a guideline than precise criteria, and it seems likely the strict criteria initially adopted in OB 407 has subsequently been rolled back in the direction of the earlier more subjective, discretionary judgment approach.
Getting back to your situation . . . for a period of time ANY period of unemployment overlapping travel abroad was an automatic trigger for RQ. And of course that had the impact of causing RQ for a lot of applicants, and way, way more work for CIC (this was prior to the change to IRCC) than was necessary. So that very strict criteria did not last long (barely a year if not less). By the time that change took place, CIC had migrated the criteria well behind the curtain behind closed windows and barred doors.
It is quite likely, nonetheless, that periods of unemployment overlapping travel abroad, especially extended periods of travel, is still a factor considered . . . only now, probably, considered in conjunction with other information, with again the credibility of the applicant looming center stage, and evaluated more subjectively.
Consider in contrast, for example, the applicant who reports being employed by Bombardier, working on an assembly line in a manufacturing facility, punching a clock twenty or more days month in and month out for more than three years.
In terms of which scenario (period of unemployment versus working at a Bombardier plant) more persuasively supports an applicant's reported presence in Canada during those times, and thus which has a lower risk of RQ, which has a higher risk of RQ, no advanced degrees in the social sciences necessary to figure that out.
So sure, a lengthy period of unemployment probably increases your risk of RQ. BUT you cannot change this now. That is your history. And, moreover, the risk is probably still LOW.
But given this, perhaps you can improve your chances of avoiding RQ by, for example, being sure to have a bigger margin over the minimum presence requirement.
