hi I missed Oath ceremony on Dec 15 because of overseas travel. As directed by CIC I wrote letter to my local CIC office (ottawa) about this with supporting itenerary showing my overseas travel. I have not heard back. Can anyone please share their experience? thanks
Missed Oath Ceremony
- Thread starter FAS
- Start date
There are two Program Delivery Instructions (PDIs) which are particularly relevant to this situation:
Oath of Citizenship, found here:
this is link to PDI regarding Oath
Procedure: Abandonment, found here:
this is a link to PDI regarding the abandonment of citizenship applications; this PDI covers a range of circumstances which may result in abandonment procedures, ranging from failure to appear for a test on second notice to failure to provide supporting documents on second notice, and including failure to appear at the citizenship ceremony upon first notice.
Note, abandonment (resulting in termination of citizenship application) for failing to appear at the oath ceremony is automatic unless the applicant notifies CIC (PDIs are not updated to reflect change in name to IRCC) "within 30 days from the date of their event." And "Applicants must provide a reasonable excuse for not being able to attend their event."
Full quotation from PDI:
Ceremony (oath) no-show
Applicants are given one opportunity to appear for their citizenship ceremony and take the oath of citizenship using notice CIT 0024. Those who do not attend their ceremony will not be rescheduled automatically into a new event.
Applicants who do not or cannot attend their event must notify CIC within 30 days from the date of their event. Applicants must provide a reasonable excuse for not being able to attend their event.
Statutory Authority for policy:
The legal authority for the policy is prescribed by Section 13.2 (1)(b) in the Citizenship Act, which prescribes:
"(b) in the case of an applicant who must take the oath of citizenship to become a citizen, if the applicant fails, without reasonable excuse, to appear and take the oath at the time and at the place — or at the time and by the means — specified in an invitation from the Minister."
What is a "Reasonable Excuse?"
Navigating this part of the policy might, currently, involve going into some uncharted territory.
There may be a PDI more particularly describing what constitutes a "reasonable excuse," but I do not have it. There are scores of references to "reasonable excuse" in the PDIs, and so far as I have seen lately, no links to what CIC or IRCC considers in evaluating whether there was a reasonable excuse for missing the ceremony.
The policy used to be more explicit, articulated in an operational bulletin, issued in August, 2013.
That was Operational Bulletin 476-B, and this is a link (assuming it works).
Operational Bulletin 476-B is expired, and indeed it is replaced by the PDIs I referenced and linked above. That said, OB 476-B more specifically described what constitutes a "reasonable excuse," and so far as I have found, the PDIs do not.
Generally I would infer that the current policy or approach is at least very similar to, if not largely the same as, the earlier described policy as stated in OB 476-B, except to the extent that the later statements of policy are specifically different. However, this is an area in which CIC, under the reign of Harper (thus specifically when, in particular, Kenney and then Alexander were the Minister of CIC), approached this issue (abandonment for no-shows) not just strictly but severely, some might say in a draconian way, and this was especially the case for citizenship applicants abroad while the application was pending. My sense is that under Liberal leadership, the approach of IRCC is not likely to be anywhere near so severe, let alone draconian.
But that is merely my sense of things. And, bureaucracies change very, very slowly, so the impact of Liberal leadership will not necessarily be reflected in particular approaches to decision-making for quite some time, perhaps years.
So, for those affected, those involved, it would be prudent to be aware of the old policy and deal with IRCC respectively.
Again, the old policy, regarding reasonable excuses, was more fully described in Operational Bulletin 476-B.
Acceptable explanations (examples):
* Applicant must be away for an extended period to care for a dying parent.
* Applicant is unable to appear as a result of health constraints following an illness/accident.
* Applicant has requested documents from a third party and is waiting for these documents (such as a Record of Movement).
* Other extenuating circumstances as deemed reasonable by CIC (e.g., applicant called out of country to sort out family/business affairs as a result of a death in the family).
Unacceptable explanation (examples):
* Applicant lives or continually travels abroad and wants to wait until next trip to Canada.
Observation: When the Conservatives formed the government, virtually any extended absence abroad appeared to push CIC toward concluding the explanation did not constitute a "reasonable excuse." (This, however, is based on isolated reports, not a sufficient number to support a definitive conclusion.)
How IRCC is currently approaching applicants whose explanation is based on being abroad would be a big guess, mere speculation. Probably best to take into account past policies and approach this situation very cautiously.
In particular, for those who were traveling at the time of the notice or ceremony, in offering the explanation to IRCC probably better to emphasize the temporary nature of whatever reason there was for not being home.
As applicable to the situations reported here:
The proper approach is to simply, directly, and truthfully explain what and why, and leave it to CIC or IRCC to determine if the explanation constitutes a reasonable excuse. That is, it is not a good idea to compose an excuse based on what one thinks will work, but rather to tell the truth and live with the consequences.
Beyond that, it warrants emphasizing that I am NO expert and I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice. And I would be highly skeptical of anyone else who claims to be an expert or who offers personal advice in a forum like this.
That noted, I can offer some general observations:
For FAS, the "I was abroad" explanation would have (it appeared according to the few reports seen in the forums) triggered at least elevated scrutiny and could have easily resulted in a delay in processing . . . but should NOT have resulted in the application being abandoned.
This is based on:
As also noted, projecting how this will go now, under Liberal leadership, is difficult to guess, albeit almost certainly there is a much lower risk of a problem.
For jondon, it apears to be a different situation and a matter of not receiving the notice timely, and my guess is this should be no problem (assuming the reason for the late notice was about when it was sent or the fault of Canada Post, not because jondon was not living and present at the address it was mailed) and the oath ceremony likely rescheduled within a reasonable time.
Caution: Be sure to follow-up. Be sure to submit the formal notification to IRCC. In writing. And follow-up with telephone calls inquiring about your case specifically. Keep meticulous records of all this.
Bureaucracies in general tend to be inefficient in dealing with these sidetrack procedures in processing, and IRCC is as bad about this as one might anticipate a large and cumbersome bureaucracy is wont to be.
Oath of Citizenship, found here:
this is link to PDI regarding Oath
Procedure: Abandonment, found here:
this is a link to PDI regarding the abandonment of citizenship applications; this PDI covers a range of circumstances which may result in abandonment procedures, ranging from failure to appear for a test on second notice to failure to provide supporting documents on second notice, and including failure to appear at the citizenship ceremony upon first notice.
Note, abandonment (resulting in termination of citizenship application) for failing to appear at the oath ceremony is automatic unless the applicant notifies CIC (PDIs are not updated to reflect change in name to IRCC) "within 30 days from the date of their event." And "Applicants must provide a reasonable excuse for not being able to attend their event."
Full quotation from PDI:
Ceremony (oath) no-show
Applicants are given one opportunity to appear for their citizenship ceremony and take the oath of citizenship using notice CIT 0024. Those who do not attend their ceremony will not be rescheduled automatically into a new event.
Applicants who do not or cannot attend their event must notify CIC within 30 days from the date of their event. Applicants must provide a reasonable excuse for not being able to attend their event.
Statutory Authority for policy:
The legal authority for the policy is prescribed by Section 13.2 (1)(b) in the Citizenship Act, which prescribes:
"(b) in the case of an applicant who must take the oath of citizenship to become a citizen, if the applicant fails, without reasonable excuse, to appear and take the oath at the time and at the place — or at the time and by the means — specified in an invitation from the Minister."
What is a "Reasonable Excuse?"
Navigating this part of the policy might, currently, involve going into some uncharted territory.
There may be a PDI more particularly describing what constitutes a "reasonable excuse," but I do not have it. There are scores of references to "reasonable excuse" in the PDIs, and so far as I have seen lately, no links to what CIC or IRCC considers in evaluating whether there was a reasonable excuse for missing the ceremony.
The policy used to be more explicit, articulated in an operational bulletin, issued in August, 2013.
That was Operational Bulletin 476-B, and this is a link (assuming it works).
Operational Bulletin 476-B is expired, and indeed it is replaced by the PDIs I referenced and linked above. That said, OB 476-B more specifically described what constitutes a "reasonable excuse," and so far as I have found, the PDIs do not.
Generally I would infer that the current policy or approach is at least very similar to, if not largely the same as, the earlier described policy as stated in OB 476-B, except to the extent that the later statements of policy are specifically different. However, this is an area in which CIC, under the reign of Harper (thus specifically when, in particular, Kenney and then Alexander were the Minister of CIC), approached this issue (abandonment for no-shows) not just strictly but severely, some might say in a draconian way, and this was especially the case for citizenship applicants abroad while the application was pending. My sense is that under Liberal leadership, the approach of IRCC is not likely to be anywhere near so severe, let alone draconian.
But that is merely my sense of things. And, bureaucracies change very, very slowly, so the impact of Liberal leadership will not necessarily be reflected in particular approaches to decision-making for quite some time, perhaps years.
So, for those affected, those involved, it would be prudent to be aware of the old policy and deal with IRCC respectively.
Again, the old policy, regarding reasonable excuses, was more fully described in Operational Bulletin 476-B.
Acceptable explanations (examples):
* Applicant must be away for an extended period to care for a dying parent.
* Applicant is unable to appear as a result of health constraints following an illness/accident.
* Applicant has requested documents from a third party and is waiting for these documents (such as a Record of Movement).
* Other extenuating circumstances as deemed reasonable by CIC (e.g., applicant called out of country to sort out family/business affairs as a result of a death in the family).
Unacceptable explanation (examples):
* Applicant lives or continually travels abroad and wants to wait until next trip to Canada.
Observation: When the Conservatives formed the government, virtually any extended absence abroad appeared to push CIC toward concluding the explanation did not constitute a "reasonable excuse." (This, however, is based on isolated reports, not a sufficient number to support a definitive conclusion.)
How IRCC is currently approaching applicants whose explanation is based on being abroad would be a big guess, mere speculation. Probably best to take into account past policies and approach this situation very cautiously.
In particular, for those who were traveling at the time of the notice or ceremony, in offering the explanation to IRCC probably better to emphasize the temporary nature of whatever reason there was for not being home.
As applicable to the situations reported here:
The proper approach is to simply, directly, and truthfully explain what and why, and leave it to CIC or IRCC to determine if the explanation constitutes a reasonable excuse. That is, it is not a good idea to compose an excuse based on what one thinks will work, but rather to tell the truth and live with the consequences.
Beyond that, it warrants emphasizing that I am NO expert and I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice. And I would be highly skeptical of anyone else who claims to be an expert or who offers personal advice in a forum like this.
That noted, I can offer some general observations:
For FAS, the "I was abroad" explanation would have (it appeared according to the few reports seen in the forums) triggered at least elevated scrutiny and could have easily resulted in a delay in processing . . . but should NOT have resulted in the application being abandoned.
This is based on:
This would fit the profile of a temporary, infrequent trip abroad. As noted, however, under Kenney's watch, or Alexander's, this scenario seems at risk for follow-up inquiries rather than promptly being rescheduled for the oath, probably to verify that the trip was an infrequent one.FAS said:
As also noted, projecting how this will go now, under Liberal leadership, is difficult to guess, albeit almost certainly there is a much lower risk of a problem.
For jondon, it apears to be a different situation and a matter of not receiving the notice timely, and my guess is this should be no problem (assuming the reason for the late notice was about when it was sent or the fault of Canada Post, not because jondon was not living and present at the address it was mailed) and the oath ceremony likely rescheduled within a reasonable time.
Caution: Be sure to follow-up. Be sure to submit the formal notification to IRCC. In writing. And follow-up with telephone calls inquiring about your case specifically. Keep meticulous records of all this.
Bureaucracies in general tend to be inefficient in dealing with these sidetrack procedures in processing, and IRCC is as bad about this as one might anticipate a large and cumbersome bureaucracy is wont to be.
