dodgeviper said:
I have a question. Does the time in getting AOR also depends on city from where you have applied or it is taken care by CIC staff at Sydney and applications are reviewed on first come first serve basis?
I am confused on why some people are getting AOR earlier then others despite of there application receive date is later.
I cannot explain variations in timeline for AOR as to particular individuals, but in general almost every step of the citizenship application process is subject to some variations in the timeline relative to other applicants, even those applying on the same day from the same city with very similar circumstances.
When the applicant is issued AOR the application is then
in process. The AOR does not get issued until the initial screening determines that the application meets the
minimum processing requirements, includes all the required documents, and that the fees have been paid. If the application passes this initial screening, that is when processing starts, the application is in process, and the AOR is issued. In addition to showing issuance of AOR, eCas should show the application "in process" as of when eCas is next updated after this event (this can be a day or up to a week later).
Generally, as best we know, applications are opened in Sydney on a first come, first serve basis. But AOR is not automatic upon opening. Again, the initial screening I refer to above is done. We can only guess how or why some applications might not pass this initial screening immediately, but will nonetheless pass and proceed to being in process without being returned to the applicant, such that the timeline begins to vary even at this early stage. There are plenty reports to discern this does happen, that the timeline does indeed begin to vary from applicant to applicant, at least some, at this very early stage.
After that, the timeline can vary a great deal. We are seeing reports of applicants proceeding to test and interview, and then oath, in a very short period of months now, while we are still seeing numerous reports from those for whom the process is taking much, much longer. The how and why vary almost as much as the timelines vary themselves, and much of the time there is little or no indication about why the process is taking so much longer for some than it does for others.
Mostly there is no need to micro-manage the application process. The vast majority of applicants are now sailing through the processs remarkably problem-free, and even when there are some issues, like a FP request, or a follow-up CIT 0520 after the interview, the timeline to the oath even after delays for this non-routine processing tends to be shorter than what it was for a large number of routinely processed applicants just a few years ago.
Caution about ACCURATELY reporting dates of travel:
The caution posted by
niting80 is important. And the response by
hungvangg tends to illuminate just how often, how easily, prospective citizenship applicants can take a step down the wrong path.
The citizenship applicant has an obligation and responsibility to accurately and completely report
all dates of exit from Canada, all dates of entry into Canada. The physical presence requirement imposes an absolute minimum qualification. The calculation depends on exact dates. If IRCC perceives that the applicant failed to accurately and completely report all travel dates, there is a serious risk of problems, ranging from the delays to the profoundly intrusive and inconvenient RQ, and possibly being in a position similar to that described by
niting80, in which the applicant faces withdrawing or being denied.
A longer, more in-depth observation:
hungvangg said:
I know what you saying above, but Canada only put stamps on entrance date for me. When I filled my application based on the entrance and exit date of my country, which is Viet nam. So, is it my fault for not having the exit date when leaving Canada ?
Of course it is your fault if you reported a date of exit two days later than you actually left Canada. You were there, the day you left Canada. No need to check any other sources, that information is totally in your control. And it is the applicant's obligation and responsibility to accurately report all dates of exit.
Stamps showing date of entry into another country do not show the date a person left Canada. An entry stamp into another country might coincide with the date a person left Canada, or it can be totally unrelated to the date a person exited Canada. Among obvious examples, persons leaving Canada on a Trans-Pacific flight regularly do not arrive at their destination until the next day on the calendar and oft times it is two days later (red eye flight plus crossing international date line). Many travelers from Canada can travel via the U.S. without having a passport stamp show the date they entered the U.S., and it can be several days or longer before they continue the journey and arrive at a destination where their passport is stamped showing a date of arrival.
That said, so long as the PR otherwise accurately and completely provided all the requested information, and otherwise meets all the requirements for citizenship, including enough of a margin over and above the minimum presence requirement that IRCC is satisfied the applicant met this requirement despite errors in the presence calculation declarations, one or two mistakes due to erroneously reporting a date of exit a day or two off based on date indicated in entry stamps,
should NOT be a big deal, should not be a serious problem, and are not at all likely to be considered misrepresentation. Of course the applicant's credibility is compromised, no matter how innocent the mistake was, since credibility is based on how much IRCC can rely on the individual to accurately report facts and any failure to accurately report the facts indicates that at least to some degree the individual cannot be relied upon.
We do not know what criteria IRCC specifically applies in determining which applicants should be subject to elevated scrutiny, including being issued a CIT 0520 request for additional documents, or CIT 0171 the full blown RQ, but the more errors or the bigger the errors, the more the applicant is at risk for this sort of
non-routine processing. Several years ago we knew that three errors or being off by more than four days definitely resulted in full blown RQ, but we also know that IRCC has modified the criteria it employs since then.
In any event, however, if the official or officer assessing the applicant has concerns, a single error can invite a more probing and skeptical evaluation of the applicant, particularly if there are any other inconsistencies, discrepancies, or even mere incongruities perceived by the IRCC official or officer. Obviously, more or bigger errors significantly increase the risk of a problematic assessment.
However, if the error results in deducting days from the presence calculation and the applicant did not have a sufficient margin over the minimum, IRCC MUST deny the application.
Or, the applicant can withdraw, which brings up this post:
niting80 said:
Guys when I was filling up my application form, I had read one guys experience on this forum who was appearing for citizenship test. during the face to face discussion (when you show your papers originals to officer), the guy was told that his entry-exit dates on form were off by 2 days...... in eyes of IRCC it amounted to misrepresentation on form. The guy had 2 options : either pull his application back and get 100-200 refund that he is eligible for, or IRCC to send denial letter with 0 refund.
Pls better double check your entry-exit dates on application. Luckily I had kept all of my travel checkin cards for this day!!
The caution expressed here should be well-taken. That said, it warrants suggesting that all PRs keep a running log of all international travel. Again, as noted many times in this forum, the PR is the
one person, the only source, who for sure knows the exact dates of exit and entry, since the PR is the one person who was there for sure each and every time and thus capable of keeping an exact, accurate, and complete record.
IRCC is more liberal and forgiving than many acknowledge. Minor errors are readily anticipated, and in the absence of other reasons to be concerned about the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's declarations, minor errors will not ordinarily be a problem . . . except, obviously, since the presence requirement is a mandatory minimum, if the applicant applied based on 1465 days and it appears the applicant erred by six days, IRCC has no choice but to deny the application.
Another caution: A good margin is almost always a good idea, but it will not necessarily save an application if the applicant's accounting of days present versus absent is determined to be unreliable. That is, if IRCC identifies that the applicant was in error by a few days or even several days, but IRCC otherwise largely trusts the applicant's submissions, if there is enough of a margin to cover those days that will be OK.
BUT, but sometimes IRCC will identify some errors in the presence declaration and determine those errors show the applicant's accounting cannot be relied upon, in which case IRCC does not merely deduct days identified as questionable, but in effect can put the applicant to the task of submitting objective documentation to prove all days present, in which case even a large margin may not be sufficient to save the application.
The key is to accurately and completely report all dates of exit and entry. And the only way to be sure of the dates is for the PR to keep a complete and accurate record for himself or herself.
For those who failed to do this, it would be prudent to make a concerted effort to objectively, honestly, and diligently evaluate how confident you are in the reconstruction of travel history, and seriously take this into account
BEFORE deciding when to apply, before deciding whether to apply or to wait. IRCC does allow for some degree of
estimating dates. This is no license, however, and again any deviation from an accurate and complete accounting indicates some degree of compromised credibility.
.
