ERJOPA said:
So...what's your answer to this, Depenabill:
Why is the IRCC still checking for passport stamps when the majority of countries (including Canada and the US) don't use stamps any longer? Don't you find this procedure antiquated?? In this day of computers and cross jurisdictional co-operation between Canada's agencies (IRCC and CBSA in particular) would it be more prudent to check before the interview?
Even though I have my citizenship now, I still seethe at the fact that the IRCC officer accused me of being "suspicious" simply because of a missing stamp. (and being rude as well). As a Christian, I felt insulted and crestfallen.
While the new bill will change some external items, it should also change some internal items as well.
The assessment is multifaceted and not dependent or otherwise definitively driven by particular elements, and in the process IRCC scrutinizes a broad range of information looking for anomalies, incongruities, inconsistencies, discrepancies, or omissions -- looking for any sign or indication the applicant's information is not reliable, and any sign the applicant
may have been (not necessarily for sure was) abroad during any time period the applicant declared he or she was in Canada. IRCC also looks for any indication the applicant might have or used any Travel Document which has not been presented. As I noted, IRCC and CBSA commonly ask questions they already know the answer to, but they want to see how the applicant responds to the question.
Why a particular interviewer, on this or that specific occasion, relative to this or that particular applicant, is more vigorous in the interview, perhaps aggressive or even tenacious, undoubtedly varies greatly. Sometimes (perhaps many times) there are, in essence, marching orders for interviewers to be more zealous in probing particular issues or circumstances. It is also easily anticipated that
bad chemistry between the particular interviewer and particular applicant can lead to a more unfriendly perhaps even antagonistic interaction.
In other words, not too much should be read into any particular exchange during the interview. Indeed, much like in a POE interview, the interviewer may be provoking a response for the purpose of better probing the applicant, perhaps looking for signs of evasiveness, or signs the applicant does not have the level of familiarity with his or her own situation that is expected. And yes, the problem with this is that indeed many individuals will naturally be defensive, and being defensive can too easily be perceived to be a front for evasiveness or even deceptiveness.
In that regard, of course the process falls way short of perfection. Human beings are conducting the interview and making judgments based on just little more than skin deep facts about the person. Any time there are
inferences made, there is a range of error involved.
Thus, as to passport stamps in particular, they are but a small source of utterly incomplete information. But they are information. In the past, the more experienced CIC personnel typically would have a fairly good familiarity with when there should be a stamp, when it was anticipated there would or would not be a stamp reflecting a particular border event. The oft-described
missing stamp cause for elevated scrutiny and perhaps RQ really is more or less relative to older travel
OR travel in or out of certain countries. In particular, CIC knew that if a person traveled into or out of this or that particular country, it was almost certain their Travel Document would be stamped. The absence of such a stamp would, then, be at least an anomaly, and it
might indicate that individual had some other Travel Document they used when going through border control for that country. If CIC apprehended the mere possibility an applicant possessed or had been able to use any Travel Document not presented, that tended to raise not just questions but severe suspicions.
But again, the interviewer might not have had any real concerns about a so-called
missing-stamp, but for some other reason had some concern and was using questions about an allegedly missing stamp to test how you would respond to being challenged about the accuracy of the trips you declared. This is a pervasive, not just common, approach to conducting interviews by a wide, wide range of authorities in many differing circumstances (albeit for many of us, the POE interview is probably the more common one, since most of us probably otherwise are rarely interviewed by authorities).
Again, no rocket science necessary. No sophisticated algorithms required. Just basic information cross-checking looking for anomalies, incongruities, inconsistencies, discrepancies, or omissions.
This is why I say again and again and again,
when in doubt, follow the instructions; otherwise, yep, follow the instructions. This means the best approach is to answer questions straight-forwardly, honestly, avoiding falling into the trap of looking for an agenda or trying to anticipate what the best answer would be (the best answer is a simple, honest answer), being conscientious in terms of
completely providing the information requested while not succumbing to the temptation to give more than what is requested or to explain when no explanation is requested.
Applying for citizenship involves dealing with one of Canada's largest, most complicated, underfunded and over-extended bureaucracies, one burdened with some of the most difficult questions any bureaucracy encounters. The individuals one deals with at IRCC are total stranger bureaucrats. It is not a machine. There are human flaws inherent in the process.
So it does not always go so smoothly as some applicants deserve. As I noted, though, the good news is that the extent of IRCC's background and information cross-checking capabilities has dramatically improved how easily and efficiently they can screen and approve
the vast majority of applicants. Yes, unfortunately that is
NOT all applicants. Yes, unfortunately
some qualified, deserving applicants are dragged into more unpleasant aspects of the bureaucratic process. There is a huge difference (and this is true across most bureaucracies, and throughout most of the world) between the process that stays on track, is
routine, versus what happens when something goes off the rails and becomes non-routine.
My suggestion is that
before applying PRs make sure they will be able to deal with the process if it goes off the routine rails, including in particular if RQ is encountered, even though the applicant is fully qualified and there should be no reason for IRCC to have concerns let alone suspicions. Task one is to make sure and accurately report all dates of travel, all residential addresses, and account for employment or school or such. The qualified applicant who does this has a very low risk of non-routine processing. No guarantee, so it is prudent to be prepared for additional document requests and delays in processing. But the vast majority of such applicants will have relatively smooth sailing through the process.
Thus, in particular, while some individual applicants encounter resistance which is disproportionate to what they deserve, they should not take it personally. This applies for
orodeshah as much as any other applicant. Qualified applicants who have kept records of their life in Canada and who completely and accurately provide the information requested (including, perhaps especially, complete and accurate declaration of
all dates of travel), should have no reason to worry about the ultimate outcome. Worst case scenario is the intrusiveness of RQ (and yes, it is indeed profoundly intrusive) and delays in processing time.
But sure, applicants who make significant mistakes or who are inconsistent in the application, the residency or presence calculator, or in responding to questions or requests for further information or documentation, can anticipate problems. Major omissions or discrepancies elevate the problem proportionately. The burden of proof is on the applicant. That is real even if in practice it is only imposed on that small percentage who are dragged into the RQ'd case.
robw said:
I've heard anecdotally that people from our region (ME/North Africa) get RQ'd a lot. No surprises there...there's so much fraud and corruption in our countries. I had a very, very hard time opening a bank account when I was visiting last month because of the preposterous number of fraud attempts the bank gets.
Anyway, you mention you've only been out of Canada 3 times since you became a PR. During that time, did you hold any jobs? If so, in what line of work and were your jobs with well-known companies?
Are you also applying alone or with your family?
Did you get the full RQ or CIT0520?
I'm trying to think why you may have been RQ'd...perhaps trying to figure it out might help you narrow your efforts...perhaps!
Reminder: the reason RQ is issued typically is of little import once RQ has been issued. The applicant is put to the task of proving presence, as I have outlined in some detail above and in other topics.
There are some reasons for issuing RQ that are more important, but these are the obvious ones: any overt reason to suspect the applicant of making misrepresentations (including due to negligence, not just dishonesty); any reason to suspect the applicant is not presenting all relevant Travel Documents; particular reason to infer the applicant was abroad at a time the applicant declared he or she was in Canada. Among others. These reasons need to be answered in the response to RQ (and these reasons should be apparent enough to the applicant that the applicant recognizes the need to respond to the particular issue), but the response to RQ still needs to also fully meet the burden of proving presence/residency (again as outlined above). At the other end of the spectrum, even if the trigger for RQ is non-specific to the individual, not due to any particular concern about the individual but the RQ was, rather, triggered by a more or less technicality, this individual also
still needs to fully respond and prove presence/residency.
