A Common Mistake:
Perhaps the most common mistake expressed in this and other similar forums is to confuse what happens in an individual case with what will happen in other cases.
Specific instances do
NOT necessarily reflect what the rule is.
The rule itself does
NOT necessarily reflect how it will be applied in a specific case.
What usually happens does
NOT necessarily indicate what will happen in the specific case.
What has not happened to one applicant does
NOT necessarily indicate that will not happen to another.
And so on.
How things go in the processing of a citizenship application varies a great deal depending on
individual factors. Even when two individuals going through the process have what appears to be very similar facts and circumstances, there are almost always some differences which can result in a different outcome, sometimes a very different outcome.
Informed observers almost always couch comments in terms of risk and likelihood, referencing known rules and oft observed patterns, but cognizant of the vagaries. There are some certainties. For
old-rule-applicants (applications governed by the 3/4 rule), for example, they must have been a PR for a minimum of two years before applying for citizenship, and must have been resident-in-Canada for a minimum of three years. But how this plays out for the particular applicant can vary a great deal.
Anthony_nyc said:
I got off the phone with CIC agent yesterday after asking the big question in regards to keeping our Citizenship process continuing within where we live now, and moving to another province for employment opportunity.
The answer is YES, we can move to another province for employment opportunity AND keep our case processed within the province we started it, without it "auto transferring" to the new province we move to, without delaying everything any further. We CAN have a living address that's different from our mailing address without any negative impacts whatsoever. She told me we only need to write/type a letter to the CIC building address that's handling our respective case, and also call them just to be extra sure. Just explaining to them why we are moving (employment opportunity), and that we have no issues travelling back to the province where we started everything once an oath is scheduled. It's confirmed that it's not unusual, or reason for a "red flag" of suspicion, or "instant RQ" causing, or any of those myths or crazy paranoia fears people talk nonsense about. It's completely normal to leave your current province where your case is processing for employment opportunities in another province.
Again, all you need do is simply explain to the CIC in a letter and call them as well to confirm they received your letter and read it, understanding your situation. They will proceed to process your case.
So, nobody needs to worry about this "living address vs mailing address" myth of fears.
Case closed.
Case closed? Really? I doubt that. You have not even submitted a response to the CIT 0520 request for documents yet. You have yet to see how things unfold.
"living address vs mailing address" myth of fears
You appear to be confusing misrepresentations about the address where a person is
living with using a mailing address
as a mailing address.
It is one thing to use a mailing address that is different from the address where one is actually living. The application form itself specifically accommodates doing this.
It is another thing to declare a residential address that is
not where the individual actually lives. This would be misrepresentation.
For applicants who move while the application is in process, they are
obligated to report the change in residential address to
Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship (formerly known as CIC, that is
Citizenship and Immigration Canada). This does not preclude the applicant from giving
Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship a different mailing address, which could be the former residential address or an entirely different address, any Canadian address at which the applicant will receive mail. This, it appears, is what the call centre representative explained you can indeed do, which is to give a
mailing address and include an explanation which identifies your current
residential address.
What impact that might have on where the subsequent processing of the application takes place is a separate issue. This is likely to vary from one individual to the next, depending in part on a range of particular factors . . . including, for example, the stage of processing the application is currently at. Typically (the
"rule" so to say), the applicant's
residential address dictates the local office where processing takes place. But as I noted above, the rule does not necessarily indicate what happens in every case. It makes sense (and the forums have seen many reports consistent with this happening) that for applications in the latter stages of processing, and particularly where the applicant affirms they do not want processing transferred to a different office, the processing is completed in the place where it had been being processed.
That this can happen is not at all news.
Reliability of call centre representatives:
The comments here, about not relying on what a call centre representative says, are well-founded. It is not about call centre representatives lying. Not at all. I am certain that (in all but perhaps the anomaly, the isolated case of malfeasance) call centre representatives do not lie to applicants.
They do, however, make mistakes. In fact, reports suggest they often make mistakes for any questions which do not fall within the scope of a typical
FAQ, and especially so if the response involves the application of a complicated rule to a situation involving complex facts.
It is not easy to discern or identify which responses are more reliable than others. This has led many to be highly skeptical of what a call centre representative says, and for any complex issue the conventional wisdom is to call at least a second time and make the exact same inquiry (as best one can) to compare responses . . . and if there is a substantive difference in the responses, to make a third call.
That said, common-sense is still worth its weight in gold. The response which makes total sense and is generally consistent with what can be expected, can often be relied upon. In turn, that said, as others have indicated,
written submissions to
Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship are a very, very good idea. And in this particular situation, the call centre representative specifically instructed you to submit
written correspondence, as to declaring
both new residential address and your ongoing mailing address, along with an
explanation . . . and to follow-up to confirm. That is the sort of response which on its face appears quite reliable.
Which leads to this part of your post:
"It's confirmed that it's not unusual, or reason for a "red flag" of suspicion, or "instant RQ" causing, or any of those myths or crazy paranoia fears people talk nonsense about. It's completely normal to leave your current province where your case is processing for employment opportunities in another province."
While what the call centre representative said makes sense and is consistent with what many others have reported doing, and in particular the instructions given are quite likely the right thing to do, that does
not guarantee this will not have any impact on how a Citizenship Officer assesses your case.
It is indeed very common for citizenship applicants to move while the application is pending. And this typically will not cause problems or delays, or even any elevated concern, even if the file is transferred from one local office to another. But
sometimes it does trigger elevated concerns.
Sometimes this does lead to delays.
It depends! As I oft emphasize,
actual results vary from case to case, depending on a wide, wide range of individual factors.
This, in turn, leads to some observations about your characterization of the call centre representative's observations about red flags or RQ triggers.
Regarding red flags and RQ triggers:
As to your characterization of the call centre representative's observations about red flags or RQ triggers, of course I do not know what was actually said. Given the history of your account of things in your posts, including this post (in which you confuse distinctions between residential and mailing addresses and what many have accurately reported in this and other forums in this regard), my
suspicion is your account of this is at least somewhat confused.
I say this because generally a call centre representative will
NOT confirm or deny what constitutes a factor for issuing RQ. This information is
confidential, strictly confidential. We know a significant amount about what triggers RQ, but that is due to a lot of detective work, numerous ATI requests, triangulating information in actual cases and anecdotal reports, and especially due to one applicant who was (almost certainly in error or an oversight) sent a copy of the FRC (File Requirements Checklist), which that applicant shared online, containing the itemization of triage criteria (which have undoubtedly been modified since, but probably are still largely the same with most changes dealing with how the criteria are interpreted and applied).
The extent to which such information will continue to be confidential is likely to change given the Liberal government's approach to increased transparency, but there is little chance the window to RQ triggers is now being opened (it may in the future, but for now is not).
All of which is to say, I doubt that the call centre representative openly disclosed what is or is not a trigger or red flag for RQ. It is possible the call centre representative did do so, but if so that does not really reflect what a Citizenship Officer will perceive or infer or conclude regarding a particular applicant.
In this regard, it warrants noting that your application is
beyond triage assessment. The more or less formal triggers for RQ are not much relevant to your case. Your application has passed that stage of processing. Your application is at the stage of specific assessment by a Citizenship Officer who will decide whether your response to the CIT 0520 fully satisfies the concerns which led to the issuance of the CIT 0520 in the first place.
Everything will be considered in making this assessment. That includes your change of address, your use of a mailing address, in addition to the particular content of your response to the CIT 0520.
If the Citizenship Officer is satisfied, you will be approved and scheduled to take the oath.
If the Citizenship Officer is not satisfied, you are likely to receive RQ leading to further review, although it is possible there could be a referral to a Citizenship Judge and you will be scheduled for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge without being issued RQ.
I believe, based on other information you have provided, as I think I have indicated before, you probably have good odds of this going well, depending of course on the substantive weight of what you submit in response to the CIT 0520. I am
NO expert, so my opinion is not worth much, but FWIW, that is the impression I have had . . . again, however,
depending on all the particulars in your case, including the specifics in your response to the CIT 0520.
No one can reliably predict how a Citizenship Officer will interpret or assess the particular details in your case. This is absolutely well beyond what a call centre representative can reliably state. This includes whether or not the Citizenship Officer perceives the circumstances attendant your change in address to be a red flag or something that tips things toward issuing RQ or rejecting the application.
Overall: the admonition by
Canadianesi2006 is well advised:
"take extra precautions when dealing with the CIC."
The scenario described by
Canadianesi2006, regarding an applicant missing the oath due to failing to timely get mail, is also one of the more salient risks to take into consideration in your situation.
Good luck. Get that response to the CIT 0520 submitted as soon as you can.
