Taken my Oath on July 24 and received my passport on Aug 3.
Thanks everyone in this group for your support and I bid you farewell.
Thanks everyone in this group for your support and I bid you farewell.
October 11th 2017 - Citizenship Applicants under 3/5 rule
- Thread starter HamiltonApplicant
- Start date
BIG TANGENT and LONG POSTS:
(Most will want to skip/scroll past this and the next post.)
Before responding directly to the queries (for my direct response to the queries, see next post), at the risk of being redundant, but to avoid the risks looming large otherwise, some contextual reminders seem warranted. More and more these days many are emphasizing how things have gone in their EXPERIENCE.
I apprehend there is way, way too much reliance on anecdotal reports. How it goes for one person ONLY illustrates ONE example about how it CAN GO. That does NOT necessarily illuminate how it SHOULD go. That does NOT necessarily illuminate how it WILL go. Absolutely does not illustrate how it will always go. It just illustrates ONE EXAMPLE of how it has gone for one person.
When there are numerous anecdotal reports about how things have gone which appear to be consistent, particularly in the absence of contrary reports, yes that is evidence indicating a greater likelihood that is how it will go for another person . . . but (1) NOT necessarily so, and most importantly (2) the inference is DEPENDENT on just how much the SAME the facts and circumstances are.
The facts and circumstances are NEVER absolutely the same for two different people. The problem is identifying if and when the differences are relevant and recognizing if and when the differences in facts and circumstances might result in a difference in how things go.
This forum is rife with excessive attention to and focus on a FEW specific similar facts and circumstances, leading to grossly unrealistic expectations and reliance on anecdotal experience.
To some extent there is good reason for this FOR MANY applicants. That is because the vast majority of applicants apply ONLY when they are in fact qualified, have at least a reasonable buffer of presence over the minimum, followed the instructions and submitted a complete and accurate application. So, for the vast majority of applicants, there is NO PROBLEM, no issues, no reason for concerns, no non-routine processing. NO PROBLEMO.
Other than reminding those individuals there is NO reason to worry, NO reason to micro-manage the progress of their application through the process, I rarely post in response to what are, in effect, essentially FAQ type queries. There are numerous other conscientious and well-informed participants here who usually provide competent and timely commentary for those queries.
BUT WHEN THERE ARE REAL ISSUES, DIFFICULT SITUATIONS, the conventional wisdom, the standard answers, the FAQ responses, tend to not only fall short or go a bit wide, they can be way off, even outright erroneous.
EXAMPLE: For many years the conventional wisdom and oft given advice to PRs planning to apply for citizenship was that they needed to have and submit a copy of a valid passport with their citizenship application. Thus, if they had allowed their home country passport to expire, or lost it, or for some other reason did not have one, the standard advice given in this and other forums (and by the call centre as well) was to apply for and obtain a valid passport before applying for citizenship. THIS TURNED OUT TO BE VERY BAD ADVICE FOR SOME PRs. For PR-refugees in particular. For them, obtaining a home country passport automatically establishes a presumption that they have reavailed themselves of home country protection, which is grounds for cessation of protected person status. As of December 2012, cessation of protected person status automatically terminates PR status and thus renders these individuals both INELIGIBLE for citizenship and potentially subject to deportation. (And, this applied even if the act deemed reavailment occurred PRIOR to the change in law in December 2012; prior to December 2012, once the refugee became a PR they were a PR like any other PR, only subject to the same obligations as other PRs, and cessation of protected person status had no impact on their PR status.)
Which is to say, many came to a forum like this and asked a simple question: "should I have a valid passport when I apply for citizenship?" And, the simple answer almost universally given was: "yes, you need a valid passport when you apply."
And for some who followed this advice, for those who became a PR through the refugee-class, that was a totally, absolutely WRONG answer.
And a thousand forum posts in the form "I renewed my home country passport before applying and all went well" were probably true, BUT when it was further opined, in those posts, that this is thus the right way to go about it, they were giving very BAD advice to some prospective citizenship applicants. Advice which could not only make someone ineligible for citizenship, but potentially exposing them to deportation.
This may seem like an unusual or unique example. IT IS NOT. While this is one example applicable to a particular, less than majority percentage of citizenship applicants, there are scores of situations in which the conventional wisdom and, especially, individual anecdotal experience, fails to identify a potentially serious pitfall or outright mistake.
All that is to highlight and emphasize how important it is to understand NOT only that I personally am NOT an expert, but that even someone who is an expert SHOULD NOT be giving personal advice in a forum like this.
Leading to this:
REMINDER: I am NOT qualified to offer personal advice. For multiple reasons, including practical reasons, not just technical or formal reasons.
In particular, I am NOT an expert. Not by a long shot. Sure, I make a concerted effort to do the homework, be informed, and make observations based on careful reasoning, which is obviously going to stand in stark contrast to streams of myopic, narcissistic, and anecdotal-rooted commentary which tends to be rife in forums such as this (along with the usual troll and bot tripe). But this does NOT make me an expert and there should be no confusion about that. It warrants remembering, too, that I get some things wrong, and in the past I have gotten some things very wrong (back in 2012, for example, I way underestimated how much chaos OB 407 was going to cause, and in turn underestimated the impact on processing timelines, by about a YEAR).
One of the main reasons why no one, including me, and including any experts, should be offering personal advice in a forum like this, has to do with how complex the individual case can be. Many cases are simple. No expertise necessary. But even being able to distinguish which cases are complex from those which merely appear to be simple is a complicated and oft times difficult task dependent on a large array of variable factors.
To put this in perspective, the expertise of an immigration and citizenship lawyer is NOT the most important reason for going to a lawyer for advice. The most important reason for going to a lawyer is that in a confidential-communication setting the lawyer can examine and consider the facts and circumstances in-depth, and apply his or her expertise to not just opine on the issues or concerns the client raises, but to fully consider many facets of the case and to in particular do what all good lawyers do almost instinctively: engage in issue-identification. Recognizing and identifying potential pitfalls is crucial.
Ultimately: if an applicant needs personal advice about their application, they should consult with an appropriately qualified, competent LAWYER.
Most applicants, most by a big margin, Do Not need such advice. But for those who do, they should NOT rely on what I post or what anyone posts in a forum like this.
The point of all the above is twofold:
First, it should be reassuring for the vast majority of applicants. They really have no need to worry. No need to micro-manage the progress of their application. RELAX. WAIT. WATCH FOR NOTICE from IRCC. And RESPOND accordingly.
Second, if there is reason to worry, or there is some complicating developments in processing the application, this forum can provide a lot of information, some heads-up and beware observations, some illuminating commentary or even insightful analysis BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOT RELY ON WHAT IS POSTED HERE, not on what I post, not on what anyone else posts . . . use what is here to help do the homework but always verify information and ultimately the individual must depend on his or her own reasoning and judgment UNLESS a licensed LAWYER is consulted.
(continued post)
More direct response:
Again, I am no expert. I cannot offer personal advice.
I can offer some observations.
The transfer of files among GTA offices seems to be somewhat common. Some anecdotal reporting has illuminated occasions in which it was fairly easy to discern why. BUT this is a typical example of selective information which does not help illuminate much about what is happening or why for other applicants.
Most of the time, digging through what information the applicant can learn about the internal procedures in his or her case does NOT really help much, does not illuminate anything the applicant can do to change how things will go, and does not illuminate much about how long it will take for IRCC to take the next step, or even what that step will be.
EXCEPT, we know that for the qualified applicant without any issues, the next step after IP and referral to the local office, is usually, by a big majority, being scheduled for the test and interview . . . the timeline for this is very difficult to forecast this year, largely due to the surge of applications submitted in the last quarter of 2017. It appears it could range from three months to ten months.
EXCEPT, we know that for the qualified applicant without any issues, the next step after the test and interview is usually, by a big majority, getting scheduled for the OATH, and this usually happens within days or months, up to four or six months, sometimes a bit longer.
In the meantime, the transfer of files in the GTA could simply be about distributing cases due to workload variances. Or . . . again, we do not really know much let alone all of what goes on behind the curtains internally. There are many possibilities.
BUT, usually, there is nothing an individual applicant can do about what is happening behind the curtains. And, ultimately, the vast majority of routine, qualified applicants, will proceed through the process in due course, even if behind the curtains there is a wrinkle or two that needs to be ironed out . . . and eventually the application proceeds to the next step and so on. So for the individual applicant, even a transfer between local offices is often, usually, nothing the applicant needs to worry about or follow closely.
I recognize there are numerous forum participants anxiously digging into the weeds and trying to discern the details about minute behind-the-curtain procedures, and draw conclusions about what this means and how it will affect the timeline. That is mostly a waste of time.
There is one big difference which really matters: is it a routine case or not.
For the vast majority it is routine. Again, even if there is a wrinkle or two that needs to be ironed out behind the curtains. And these cases, the vast majority of all applications made, proceed through the process in due course. NO need for the individual to be concerned about which local office is actually processing it. Just watch for notices and respond accordingly, such as responding to the notice for the test by showing up well on time at the location the notice specifies.
DO you have a NON-routine case?
Unless and until you receive some actual non-routine request, odds are good the case is indeed routine.
The combination of self-employment and frequent travel is, more or less obviously, a scenario which almost demands IRCC more thoroughly, more stringently assess and verify the facts, especially regarding meeting the presence requirement. BUT this does not suggest the case will likely be non-routine. Maybe, more likely not.
UNLESS.
For you, what suggests a greater possibility there might be non-routine processing is the PoE history. Obviously, CBSA/IRCC had some significant concerns about your compliance with the PR RO, or there was some other issue, some other concern. Of course the PR RO depends on a lot less time physically present in Canada than is necessary to meet the citizenship presence requirements. So a PR RO compliance concern would likely raise concerns for a citizenship application.
As you note, you were FLAGGED. And, for some reason, still flagged even after a few more PoE examinations. That seems a bit unusual to me. That seems to suggest a more salient, nagging concern. BUT that is so vague as to not offer you any helpful insight.
I cannot begin to unravel or discern what that was actually about (even if triggered by the self-employment and frequent travel, that does not necessarily illuminate what issue was of concern).
I cannot even discern if this was actually about calculating presence itself . . . or could be about some other issue (ranging from security concerns to suspicions of past misrepresentation, among many possibilities).
Thus, I cannot discern how much this increases the risk of non-routine processing, let alone identify what particular non-routine issue it would involve.
Note, again, unless and until there is some actual request, there is no reason to apprehend you will be subject to non-routine processing.
But sure, it could have been about the presence calculation. And this could be a concern in your citizenship application. The self-employment and travel element suggests this is perhaps a significant risk. In which event you could receive RQ-lite or full blown RQ, which are discussed in depth in other topics. This would be about submitting documentation/evidence to show your actual presence in Canada. Thus, evidence/documentation related to where you have lived in Canada, what activities you have had in Canada, including location and dates and such, and some financial related information to corroborate your activities in Canada, along with history of using health care in Canada, involvement in community activities, and so on.
Every applicant should be prepared for RQ. It can happen to anyone. And, for most the documentation is basically the same that most of us keep in our records anyway, such as records proving payment for where we live, business or employment records, tax related records, and so on. We tend to leave a rather extensive paper or digital trail of our lives these days. (Thus, the absence of such a trail showing a life being lived in Canada can be a problem.)
REMINDER: proof of travel dates is important but it does not necessarily prove where the applicant was in-between border crossing dates. The routine applicant benefits from a very broad inference that he or she was present in-between a known date of entry into Canada and the next reported date of exit. If the applicant has a presence-case, such as a full-blown RQ case, the applicant may need to provide a good deal more proof of actually being in Canada between known dates of entry and next reported date of exit. This is something which is discussed at length in other topics, and which I in particular have commented about in-depth in other topics.
More direct response:
Again, I am no expert. I cannot offer personal advice.
I can offer some observations.
The transfer of files among GTA offices seems to be somewhat common. Some anecdotal reporting has illuminated occasions in which it was fairly easy to discern why. BUT this is a typical example of selective information which does not help illuminate much about what is happening or why for other applicants.
Most of the time, digging through what information the applicant can learn about the internal procedures in his or her case does NOT really help much, does not illuminate anything the applicant can do to change how things will go, and does not illuminate much about how long it will take for IRCC to take the next step, or even what that step will be.
EXCEPT, we know that for the qualified applicant without any issues, the next step after IP and referral to the local office, is usually, by a big majority, being scheduled for the test and interview . . . the timeline for this is very difficult to forecast this year, largely due to the surge of applications submitted in the last quarter of 2017. It appears it could range from three months to ten months.
EXCEPT, we know that for the qualified applicant without any issues, the next step after the test and interview is usually, by a big majority, getting scheduled for the OATH, and this usually happens within days or months, up to four or six months, sometimes a bit longer.
In the meantime, the transfer of files in the GTA could simply be about distributing cases due to workload variances. Or . . . again, we do not really know much let alone all of what goes on behind the curtains internally. There are many possibilities.
BUT, usually, there is nothing an individual applicant can do about what is happening behind the curtains. And, ultimately, the vast majority of routine, qualified applicants, will proceed through the process in due course, even if behind the curtains there is a wrinkle or two that needs to be ironed out . . . and eventually the application proceeds to the next step and so on. So for the individual applicant, even a transfer between local offices is often, usually, nothing the applicant needs to worry about or follow closely.
I recognize there are numerous forum participants anxiously digging into the weeds and trying to discern the details about minute behind-the-curtain procedures, and draw conclusions about what this means and how it will affect the timeline. That is mostly a waste of time.
There is one big difference which really matters: is it a routine case or not.
For the vast majority it is routine. Again, even if there is a wrinkle or two that needs to be ironed out behind the curtains. And these cases, the vast majority of all applications made, proceed through the process in due course. NO need for the individual to be concerned about which local office is actually processing it. Just watch for notices and respond accordingly, such as responding to the notice for the test by showing up well on time at the location the notice specifies.
DO you have a NON-routine case?
Unless and until you receive some actual non-routine request, odds are good the case is indeed routine.
The combination of self-employment and frequent travel is, more or less obviously, a scenario which almost demands IRCC more thoroughly, more stringently assess and verify the facts, especially regarding meeting the presence requirement. BUT this does not suggest the case will likely be non-routine. Maybe, more likely not.
UNLESS.
For you, what suggests a greater possibility there might be non-routine processing is the PoE history. Obviously, CBSA/IRCC had some significant concerns about your compliance with the PR RO, or there was some other issue, some other concern. Of course the PR RO depends on a lot less time physically present in Canada than is necessary to meet the citizenship presence requirements. So a PR RO compliance concern would likely raise concerns for a citizenship application.
As you note, you were FLAGGED. And, for some reason, still flagged even after a few more PoE examinations. That seems a bit unusual to me. That seems to suggest a more salient, nagging concern. BUT that is so vague as to not offer you any helpful insight.
I cannot begin to unravel or discern what that was actually about (even if triggered by the self-employment and frequent travel, that does not necessarily illuminate what issue was of concern).
I cannot even discern if this was actually about calculating presence itself . . . or could be about some other issue (ranging from security concerns to suspicions of past misrepresentation, among many possibilities).
Thus, I cannot discern how much this increases the risk of non-routine processing, let alone identify what particular non-routine issue it would involve.
Note, again, unless and until there is some actual request, there is no reason to apprehend you will be subject to non-routine processing.
But sure, it could have been about the presence calculation. And this could be a concern in your citizenship application. The self-employment and travel element suggests this is perhaps a significant risk. In which event you could receive RQ-lite or full blown RQ, which are discussed in depth in other topics. This would be about submitting documentation/evidence to show your actual presence in Canada. Thus, evidence/documentation related to where you have lived in Canada, what activities you have had in Canada, including location and dates and such, and some financial related information to corroborate your activities in Canada, along with history of using health care in Canada, involvement in community activities, and so on.
Every applicant should be prepared for RQ. It can happen to anyone. And, for most the documentation is basically the same that most of us keep in our records anyway, such as records proving payment for where we live, business or employment records, tax related records, and so on. We tend to leave a rather extensive paper or digital trail of our lives these days. (Thus, the absence of such a trail showing a life being lived in Canada can be a problem.)
REMINDER: proof of travel dates is important but it does not necessarily prove where the applicant was in-between border crossing dates. The routine applicant benefits from a very broad inference that he or she was present in-between a known date of entry into Canada and the next reported date of exit. If the applicant has a presence-case, such as a full-blown RQ case, the applicant may need to provide a good deal more proof of actually being in Canada between known dates of entry and next reported date of exit. This is something which is discussed at length in other topics, and which I in particular have commented about in-depth in other topics.
Thanks dpenabill, appreciate your time to explain, I just need to patiently wait...
phlove
Star Member
hi Everyone,
Good morning ,
i want to knw tht aft citizensip test how many days take time to change from IP to DM??
Good morning ,
i want to knw tht aft citizensip test how many days take time to change from IP to DM??
SpiceIsland
Hero Member
- Oct 2, 2017
- 869
- 356
- Category........
- CEC
- App. Filed.......
- 24 August 2017
- AOR Received.
- 02 October 2017
- Interview........
- 29 November 2017
It could happen the same day or months it’s depends and all the background and security check being done.
Updated the sheet. Do you recall when your application started processing ?
My tip would be to read Discover Canada multiple times including all the captions under pictures on every page.
Paid parking outside IRCC test center (2 hour validation should be enough, unless you get there early). There is a huge mall parking lot (STC) which is free, right across the IRCC building. Although I did not park there.
Good luck
BQM
Received oath invitation today via email for August 23rd @ Mississauga Office
Decision Made: June 01,2018
Please update the tracker.
Good Luck Everyone!!!!!!!!
Thanks
Received oath invitation today via email for August 23rd @ Mississauga Office
Decision Made: June 01,2018
Please update the tracker.
Good Luck Everyone!!!!!!!!
Thanks