New forms available now

[janoo]

from Pakistan..

 

[MUFC]

from Pakistan..

They would accept it very easy if the country has official language English or French.

In your case the official language in your country is not English or French so you have to provide direct evidence from your University that all the education have been conducted in English or French only.

The evidence must be from the University itself.

If the diploma comes from a country with official language English or French when there is no need of evidence from the University from that country because it is a common sense that the education have been conducted in English or French.

 

[fishbone]

h3a3j6 - Completely agree with what you said further up.

The lack of guardrails around the implementation of the intent related regulation leaves SO much room for misuse. I'm not saying that this clause will be misused but this could effectively serve as a way to strip any naturalised Canadian not living in Canada of their citizenship (post Jun 11, 2015 applicants of course)

 

[MUFC]

h3a3j6 - Completely agree with what you said further up.

The lack of guardrails around the implementation of the intent related regulation leaves SO much room for misuse. I'm not saying that this clause will be misused but this could effectively serve as a way to strip any naturalised Canadian not living in Canada of their citizenship (post Jun 11, 2015 applicants of course)

Absolutely Unrealistic scenario.

 

[h3a3j6]

Absolutely Unrealistic scenario.

Do you *really* believe so? It's *absolutely* impossible for someone to call CIC and claim that someone else did *not* intend to reside during their PR time and you, MUFC will personally guarantee that this person will not be *checked*/*contacted* by CIC?

Can you please declare right here, right now that you will take care of any legal fees anyone occurs because you deem this *absolutely unrealistic*?

Congrats on your 1,000th post by the way!

 

[MUFC]

Do you *really* believe so? It's *absolutely* impossible for someone to call CIC and claim that someone else did *not* intend to reside during their PR time and you, MUFC will personally guarantee that this person will not be *checked*/*contacted* by CIC?

Can you please declare right here, right now that you will take care of any legal fees anyone occurs because you deem this *absolutely unrealistic*?

Congrats on your 1,000th post by the way!

Yes, that scenario is a total absurd to happen. Absolutely zero chance.

Thanks for you Congrats right now I want to collect more Negative ratings LOL

 

[h3a3j6]

Yes, that scenario is a total absurd to happen. Absolutely zero chance.

Thanks for you Congrats right now I want to collect more Negative ratings LOL

Let's agree to disagree then. You have too much good faith in mankind, my friend...

And here, I've +1'd you for being a good sport.

Cheers!

 

[MUFC]

Let's agree to disagree then. You have too much good faith in mankind, my friend...

And here, I've +1'd you for being a good sport.

Cheers!

The only realistic scenario someone to end up with revoked citizenship is if he/she get in big criminal activity.
No danger for the regular applicants.

 

[h3a3j6]

The only realistic scenario someone to end up with revoked citizenship is if he/she get in big criminal activity.
No danger for the regular applicants.

... Time will tell!

Meanwhile, here's CIC's fraud reporting link: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/protection/fraud/report.asp

Now people will be able to contact them Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (their local time, except for statutory holidays of course) and claim that someone hid some information about their case and intent to reside. Then CIC will be able to swiftly, impartially and effectively decline or reverse their citizenship status.

 

[MUFC]

... Time will tell!

Meanwhile, here's CIC's fraud reporting link: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/protection/fraud/report.asp

Now people will be able to contact them Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (their local time, except for statutory holidays of course) and claim that someone hid some information about their case and intent to reside. Then CIC will be able to swiftly, impartially and effectively decline or reverse their citizenship status.

If it's proven that the person is guilty I'm supporting that service 100%
Nobody likes the cheaters. I hope that CIC will revoke the citizenship to those who have cheated the system and the criminals.
this is how Canada will become a better place.

 

[screech339]

... Time will tell!

Meanwhile, here's CIC's fraud reporting link: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/protection/fraud/report.asp

Now people will be able to contact them Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (their local time, except for statutory holidays of course) and claim that someone hid some information about their case and intent to reside. Then CIC will be able to swiftly, impartially and effectively decline or reverse their citizenship status.

The only way and I think only way for CIC to revoke citizenship for "intend to reside" is if CIC had well documented proofs that you were NOT INTENDING to reside during the PR process. For example. They have proofs that you have bought one way plane ticket out of Canada before you had your oath. Concrete evidences that you were planning to leave asap after oath during your PR process.

Obtaining concrete evidence disputing your intention to reside will be difficult. Using witness's account is not concrete, that is only hearsay. Anyone with a grudge can say anything they want against another. Not strong enough to be submitted as evidence.

 

[h3a3j6]

The only way and I think only way for CIC to revoke citizenship for "intend to reside" is if CIC had well documented proofs that you were NOT INTENDING to reside during the PR process. For example. They have proofs that you have bought one way plane ticket out of Canada before you had your oath. Concrete evidences that you were planning to leave asap after oath during your PR process.

Obtaining concrete evidence disputing your intention to reside will be difficult. Using witness's account is not concrete, that is only hearsay. Anyone with a grudge can say anything they want against another. Not strong enough to be submitted as evidence.

So, for all practical purposes, if at a certain point you find a finally "advantageous" one-way ticket and a return ticket to fly back to Canada so that you can use the next year for vacation, you should NOT do it because it may "appear" that you didn't have the intent to reside....

To my crazy scenario again: Person A applied on June 10 and Person B on June 11. Both wanted to fly out for a vacation in Beijing. They found it cheaper to buy a 1 way ticket this year then for the return bought a round trip since they are planning to come back for another vacation next year to Beijing... They loved the place for Pete's sake!

A is untouchable... But B however, needs to sweat at night hoping that no one will report him for a suspected "no intention to reside"... Or it may appear so anyway... How about if CIC starts collecting airline data and crosschecking one way tickets with applicants???

Come on folks, you have to admit that the wording is at least very shady!!!

 

[screech339]

So, for all practical purposes, if at a certain point you find a finally "advantageous" one-way ticket and a return ticket to fly back to Canada so that you can use the next year for vacation, you should NOT do it because it may "appear" that you didn't have the intent to reside....

To my crazy scenario again: Person A applied on June 10 and Person B on June 11. Both wanted to fly out for a vacation in Beijing. They found it cheaper to buy a 1 way ticket this year then for the return bought a round trip since they are planning to come back for another vacation next year to Beijing... They loved the place for Pete's sake!

A is untouchable... But B however, needs to sweat at night hoping that no one will report him for a suspected "no intention to reside"... Or it may appear so anyway... How about if CIC starts collecting airline data and crosschecking one way tickets with applicants???

Come on folks, you have to admit that the wording is at least very shady!!!

The scenario you provided won't work if that was done after they became citizen. Buying a one way ticket after they became citizen won't work as the "intend to reside" does not apply once they become Canadian.

The example I gave is in the case bought during the citizenship process. Completely difference as the applicant violated the "intend to reside" by buying a one way ticket to BEFORE citizenship was granted. The applicant proved to CIC that she/he has no intentions of residing during the citizenship process.

 

[h3a3j6]

The scenario you provided won't work if that was done after they became citizen. Buying a one way ticket after they became citizen won't work as the "intend to reside" does not apply once they become Canadian.

The example I gave is in the case bought during the citizenship process. Completely difference as the applicant violated the "intend to reside" by buying a one way ticket to BEFORE citizenship was granted. The applicant proved to CIC that she/he has no intentions of residing during the citizenship process.

Even if they did it during the citizenship process, Screetch... But their intent was always to reside here. It was just more convenient financially!!!

I chose to come to Canada because I BELIEVE in this place, in its values, in the amazing goodness of the Canadian people who have proven and continue to prove their greatness. My children are born here and they live here, happily!

But why do we need to make it sound like a prison to people? Can you name one other country in the world with an "intent" to reside clause? Even Australians repelled such a "silly" clause in 1958!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_nationality_law

Come on folks, let's not defend the undefendable!

 

[rayman_m]

Even if they did it during the citizenship process, Screetch... But their intent was always to reside here. It was just more convenient financially!!!

I chose to come to Canada because I BELIEVE in this place, in its values, in the amazing goodness of the Canadian people who have proven and continue to prove their greatness. My children are born here and they live here, happily!

But why do we need to make it sound like a prison to people? Can you name one other country in the world with an "intent" to reside clause? Even Australians repelled such a "silly" clause in 1958!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_nationality_law

Come on folks, let's not defend the undefendable!

I agree with you. Intend clause clearly means: AFTER GRANTING or BECOME A CITIZEN not DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS. Here is big big difference in terms of wording interpretation. In my view, CIC may look at those future citizens who will in fact live in other countries mostly and will visit once a while to Canada.

Now in all airports there is immigration done by machine for PR and Citizens. Once a person writes its absence date the system can read that from declaration form and put a clearance no. such as 84, 46 etc. 84 means cleared no issues and 46 means a person has to go further immigration process and interview with an officer.. So there is many options CIC can implement in future based on their so called INTEND clause..

One thing for sure, people who will be planning to live linger outside Canada has to be careful in future unless this CLAUSE is over turns by a Federal Court.. So people who has intention in living Canada rest of their lives should not be worried..