RE: "making cic suspect that he/she is not making this country a permanent one. "
The requirement that one have an intent to live in Canada after getting citizenship was done away with a few years ago. So, why would it be an issue here?
NON-ROUTINE APPLICANTS
- Thread starter Cameron2020
- Start date
The requirement that one have an intent to live in Canada after getting citizenship was done away with a few years ago. So, why would it be an issue here?
Why would unemployment and self employment be a red flag? Immigrants face difficulties finding decent jobs in Canada, and it takes time to settle in. I have worked on and off in Canada, with great difficulties securing decent jobs adequate to my qualifications that I got from Canada! Also, there is no requirement to make Canada your home after citizenship. If they consider these long travels, unemployment, and not staying in Canada as red flags and that they could deny you the citizenship because of them, they should be transparent about it from the beginning in the requirements of the application, not only when they process the file.
People may leave Canada after they get their citizenship, even if they had jobs in Canada during their stay in Canada, not because they don't want to make Canada their home, but because it's not easy to make it home without an appropriate job. I don't think it's a strong merit to assume that those who have jobs would stay, and those who don't wouldn't. Many qualified and skilled immigrants do low skilled jobs in Canada. Yes, people sacrifice and compromise for better life quality overall, but many immigrants immigrant to Canada as skilled workers, and the expectation is to be as such in Canada. The job market in Canada is very tough for some industries especially for highly specialized immigrants with advanced degrees, although it maybe thriving for others industries.
harirajmohan
VIP Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 1,666
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Sydney, NS
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 29-May-2015
- Doc's Request.
- 30-Dec-2015 ReminderEmail(PCCs, NewPassport via cse 31-Dec-2015)
- Nomination.....
- SK 22-Apr-2015
- AOR Received.
- 11-Aug-2015
- Med's Request
- 23-Dec-2015
- Med's Done....
- 20-Jan-2016
- Passport Req..
- 26-May-2016 (BGC In Progress 25-May-2016)
- VISA ISSUED...
- PP Reached Ottawa:27-May-2016, Received:10-Jun-2016
- LANDED..........
- PR: 09-Jul-2016, PR Card: 17-Aug-2016
Self employment: Correct, there wont be red flags for self employment. But then how come one does self employment and not filing taxes.
I agree that some candidates come as refugee with enough wealth/money to do self employment or we can do self employment with little money too. But one should show that they earned decent money to spend for the living. And filing taxes are also part establishing of residency(without even considering if its part of eligibility rule).
Unemployment: 2 years of unemployment cant be explained to cic when you yourself said that people take up some low skilled job to integrate with society but how can a refugee doesnt take up a job for 2 years. if its a regular PR category then no one questions as many of our family members dont work.
Travel: Not sure about the traveled destination but surely if i am a refugee in a country, i wont travel for 4 months outside. cbsa questioned hence not sure if the destination country is one of the previous residences.
People can leave Canada for sure but its never been questioned like this(or wont affect the citizenship file) for any regular PR holder but op's PR is not in a regular category.
Yes after citizenship no one can question or there is nothing to assess as they are free to leave.
In another thread someone quoted this link. Seems like residency establishment is part of unwritten rule even though its measured on paper by number of days. if they just worry about the number of days then there shouldnt be "in-depth residence interview".
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/admininistration/decisions/decision-making-procedures.html
Seems residency is verified more for refugee PR most.
Last edited:
Readily verifiable employment history is strong evidence corroborating actual presence in Canada.
It is not so much that unemployment is itself a "red flag." It is NOT, not in itself, a reason to deny citizenship. But if evidence tending to corroborate presence is lacking, that can be a reason-to-question-residency/presence, to examine the applicant's case more closely. This is probably the primary reason for the requirement to provide work history for the full eligibility period, with NO gaps.
Similarly for lengthy absences inconsistent with settling in Canada permanently. Contrary to the uninformed more focused on sniping, this is not about any requirement that the applicant have the intent to make Canada one's permanent home. Whether it is the nature, frequency, or length of absences, or the extent of the applicant's work or residential ties abroad, or indications of a lack of intent to make Canada one's permanent home, these are merely circumstantial indicators that might elevate the level of scrutiny a fact-finder employs. A person who lacks intent to make Canada a permanent home, for example, is simply more likely to be outside Canada more, thus inviting the fact-finder decision-maker to more carefully examine the evidence, to more carefully review whether the applicant was actually IN Canada all the days the applicant reports being in Canada.
In regards to particular absences, such as one for four-months, obviously the range of reasonable inferences varies considerably depending on many other factors. It is hard to second-guess the precise thought-processes employed by IRCC officials, but my sense is that a four month absence alone is not something that signals a reason-to-question-residency/presence, in itself. But if the applicant is someone who reports working on an assembly line at a manufacturing facility, and reports taking a "four month holiday" (and even more so if the applicant is reporting multiple "holidays" for such lengthy periods) that might appear incongruous with who the applicant represents they are, more so than, say, a more common situation like a college professor taking a four month holiday between university semesters. Context matters.
And as @harirajmohan observes, context includes factors like being a PR-refugee. Here too, this is not about imposing a different standard for PR-refugees, but rather about recognizing the circumstances attendant becoming and being a protected person and taking note if the individual applicant's lifestyle is consistent with that.
KEY FACTOR to REMEMBER: Second to in fact meeting the qualifying requirements themselves, the applicant's CREDIBILITY looms very large. When processing agents are evaluating particular facts and circumstances they are often, if not always, considering whether the reported information in any way signals concern about the applicant's credibility. Obviously, for example, the whole scheme providing a path to citizenship is oriented to the purpose of facilitating immigrants settling IN Canada permanently (which is also stated repeatedly in official accounts of actual cases, for those who have trouble seeing what is obvious), so for example if the applicant's story suggests that is not the applicant's intent, that the applicant's intent is not consistent with the purpose of the scheme to grant citizenship, no stretch of imagination necessary to see how and why this can trigger elevated scrutiny and non-routine processing. Not a reason or ground to deny citizenship, but again a reason to more closely or extensively investigate the facts and evidence.
OK. I didn't take the context into consideration, and I actually don't know the specific details of the OP. Thanks for clarifying
I talked to a lawyer yesterday and she told me that I can not go for mandamus because 2.9 years (33 months) is not enough to start an mandamus.
Also she told me I do not have to call IRCC three times a week because that will upset them and make the process longer.
About the mini RQ she said that they sent me RQ because of my calls and webfourms so they are punnching me because I bothered them.
Should I believe her or should I see another Lawyer ?
Also she told me I do not have to call IRCC three times a week because that will upset them and make the process longer.
About the mini RQ she said that they sent me RQ because of my calls and webfourms so they are punnching me because I bothered them.
Should I believe her or should I see another Lawyer ?
Well, not sure. To me, these appear to be baseless accusations but I could be wrong. It would be very inappropriate and illegal to retaliate against an applicant by purposefully delaying the application or sending a RQ when there is no need for one.
Lawyer said: "I can not go for mandamus because 2.9 years (33 months) is not enough to start an mandamus."
For grant citizenship applications the passing of time is NEVER enough to establish successful grounds for mandamus. Probably been stated a hundred or three hundred times in this forum alone. Maybe more. So, for sure, it is absolutely true, 33 months in processing "is not enough to [properly sue for] mandamus."
REMINDER: A writ of mandamus is a judicial order to a government official mandating that the official do what the law clearly mandates the official has a duty to do. Since there is no timeline within which the law mandates IRCC grant citizenship, there is no amount of time which will clearly mandate IRCC grant citizenship, and thus, the passage of time alone will NEVER be sufficient grounds for a writ of mandamus.
Lawyer said: "I do not have to call IRCC three times a week . . ."
This part is another FOR-SURE truth. Not three times a month. NOT once every month.
They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. First, that's an American saying, and a lot of American "proverbs" are horse pucky. And these days it is more like the squeaky wheel gets replaced," at best . . . because it is one thing for the wheel to be squeaky because it really needs lubrication and another thing if the noise is about something else. Like something wrong with the wheel.
Like being unreasonably obnoxious. Not sure why there is much of a contingency in this forum favouring not just unreasonable but downright abusive behaviors. But it's here. Loud. Unreasonable. "Noisy" perhaps an understatement. Actually popular in some topics. Does not justify it. Generally, beyond getting attention (which can be a bad thing . . . will get to that), unreasonable noise rarely has a positive impact. Basically it just reveals who the noisemaker is, someone acting badly. Which leads to . . .
Lawyer said: ". . . that will upset them and make the process longer . . . . they are punching me because I bothered them."
It is interesting that responses immediately focused on improper retribution or discrimination.
For those who are interested in figuring out how things actually work, it usually (not always) helps to approach with the assumption that things work within a relative range of how they are supposed to work (not so efficiently, often, no where near perfectly, with some bumps in the road). Retribution would be improper. Probably a good place to start is to assume that this is not about government officials doing something improper or a lawyer cavalierly confessing that is the government's modus operandi. Contrary to the trollesque depictions, no, generally the modus operandi of government officials is not to engage in improper behavior. Oh sure, it happens, too often. But it is not the rule, not the general way things are done, not close. And those who persist in railing about IRCC officials acting with mal intent are almost always more about making disruptive noise than engaging in a discussion aimed at sorting out how things actually work or how individual applicants can best navigate their way.
One could quibble with the words, the terms the lawyer uses. But I suspect those reported here are not verbatim. Lawyers are usually better with words than these. "Upset them," for example, that is not how most jurists, lawyers, professionals, are likely to frame things. And "punching" even less so.
But regardless the actual words employed, assuming the lawyer is making an effort to EXPLAIN things, it should not be all that difficult sorting these statements out in the context of real world practical consequences.
As I noted, it was the observation about how unreasonably obnoxious it is for an applicant to repeatedly make utterly unnecessary inquiries, that leads to the consequences part of this. Make no mistake, this is acting badly. Sure, it is within a person's "rights," but it is nonetheless acting badly.
If the context was personal, sure, one person acting badly can very easily cause someone respond with retribution. But bureaucracies are notoriously NOT personal.
In contrast, what is written very large into the handling of information by immigration officials is a very critical if not suspicious or skeptical approach to weighing things. If the applicant is acting badly, the question is obvious: WHY? why is this applicant behaving so badly, so unreasonably? What is the applicant hiding? What has the applicant done? What's the real story?
Repeated inquiries for no good reason are almost bound to raise questions. Questions mean the file going from one queue, the routine queue, into another non-routine queue where a processing agent can further examine things.
I do not know, not at all, how many calls or webform inquiries or ATIP requests will trigger elevated scrutiny. Probably does not even happen for many applicants who nonetheless go well over the line in making unreasonably frequent inquiries. But it is kind of "duh" that that is the RISK. In whatever language the lawyer describes it. And I'd guess that three times a week, odds are good that is well past the tipping point.
More Re Mandamus and Time:
REMINDER(again): A writ of mandamus is a judicial order to a government official mandating that the official do what the law clearly mandates the official has a duty to do. Since there is no timeline within which the law mandates IRCC grant citizenship, there is no amount of time which will clearly mandate IRCC grant citizenship, and thus, the passage of time alone will NEVER be sufficient grounds for a writ of mandamus.
This is not to say time is irrelevant. It can be an important factor in weighing other elements of the case for asserting the Minister has failed to do something the law clearly mandates the Minister do. And there is an *argument* (tends to not carry nearly so much weight as some think it warrants) that the passage of a certain amount of time can amount to a de facto decision denying the application, which would be contrary to law for an applicant who meets the qualifications.
In the best of times, in the most normal processing milieu, this is nonetheless a very tough argument to make convincingly. THESE ARE NOT NORMAL TIMES. Timelines for processing are off the charts.
An Aside: Most lawyers are used to dealing with unreasonable clients. Goes with the territory. That said, lawyers are like donkeys. Carrots, sweets even, tend to stir some action more than sticks. And of course lawyers are going to be extra wary dealing with an obviously unreasonable client. Which leads to the other leg in the three-legged stool on which lawyers will sit a case (money being the most obvious leg of this stool), a case in which the lawyer can be successful. Lawyers tend to be an arrogant lot, pretentious, pompous even, so they do not like to lose. Sure, money can sometimes make up two of the stool's legs. Which can, for example, make up for being an unreasonable person. But losing cases tends to cost money, cost clients, hurt the lawyer's reputation.
Otherwise, overall, my guess is that to the extent the lawyer's language may have been a bit intemperate, the lawyer was simply trying to say smarten up, go about this more reasonably.
Instead of going to a lawyer why dont u try to contact minister of immigration! Shoot them an email with ur timeline also CC Trudeau’s office!! You can google the emails online! Have you contacted ur MP? I am November 2018 applicant! They said my application was non routine for no apparent reason! I contacted everyone almost every week, Marco’s assistant he emailed me back with the update on my application, honestly within a week everything was scheduled, test, interview and oath date!
Yes I contacted 2 MPS, I am gonna send an email to Minister of immigration, I hope they email me back
. Thank you.Nov-2018, Nov-2019 both are waiting while Nov-2020 are getting test invites. Happy for Nov-2020.Yes I contacted 2 MPS, I am gonna send an email to Minister of immigration, I hope they email me back
I should have waited for 4 years and apply 1 year later for better chances. IndeedNov-2018, Nov-2019 both are waiting while Nov-2020 are getting test invites. Happy for Nov-2020.
I just sent an email to the minister of immigration, after that I called his office and they told me that it takes 6-8 weeks to respond to my email