On "Intent to Reside"

[walmzd]

I know some families (many of them), where the wife and the kids are living in Canada and the husband is living in GCC permanently to support his family financially. These families will return back to GCC the next day they take the citizenship.
Of course the they will never disclose their intention to CIC.

Shall CIC consider this situation as an "intend" not to live Canada because the husband is living abroad and this situation is sustainable in the long run?

Most of these families are still new immigrants and will apply for the citizenship under the new rules.

 

[bambino]

I hope so. These are the very "citizens of convenience" who have caused the three-year processing times many of us have had deal with. Many of them, to add insult to injury, will probably get their applications processed in 6 or so months.

I am with most Canadians when I say that I don't want have to pay millions to save such people next time the third-world craphole they came from erupts in violence.

I don't like the way in which the intent to reside requirement is phrased in the new law and its unintended consequences. I am all for putting measures in place to prevent, to the extent it is possible, people from gaming the system. Increasing the eligibility time and some of the other new requirements actually make sense.

 

[carbo]

Thus, even if those asking questions of Minister Alexander asked better questions, I doubt the Minister's responses would have been much informative or illuminating.

In the meantime, one of the questions you pose is easy, since the answer is specifically set out in the transitional provisions of Bill C-24, section 31 of the Bill, section 31(1) to be precise, which prescribes (paraphrasing) that the amended qualifications for grant citizenship will not govern an application made before the day the amended version comes into force. That is,

While I am not sure I would describe it as "exempt," the "intent to reside" clause (like the rest of the provisions replacing the current section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act) will NOT apply to any application made by the day before the amended version comes into force.

As I said, that is the easy one to answer because the answer is specifically provided in Bill C-24 section 31(1) (see final version of Bill C-24 here, if link works).

Why would you not describe it as fully "Exempt"? I applied back in 2014 march, also submitted an RQ in September and the application has been in process since then.

Should I be ready to answer questions regarding my "intent" in my interview, or if it comes to that, the judge? Or can I dismiss them saying "look i fulfilled my days up to the application, I had to take advantage of some contract work opportunity overseas in the meantime until this day"? (which I might) (i.e. you cannot ask me about my intent since I applied before Bill C24)

Thank you!

 

[dpenabill]

Why would you not describe it as fully "Exempt"? I applied back in 2014 march, also submitted an RQ in September and the application has been in process since then.

Should I be ready to answer questions regarding my "intent" in my interview, or if it comes to that, the judge? Or can I dismiss them saying "look i fulfilled my days up to the application, I had to take advantage of some contract work opportunity overseas in the meantime until this day"? (which I might) (i.e. you cannot ask me about my intent since I applied before Bill C24)

Thank you!

The "intent to reside" clause will not apply to any citizenship application currently in process.

This is not due to an "exemption" but is due to the law that applies to currently pending applications.

 

[era1521]

The "intent to reside" clause will not apply to any citizenship application currently in process.

This is not due to an "exemption" but is due to the law that applies to currently pending applications.

well, not quite wise applying for citizenship and right after going some other country for work (and implicit residing).
CIC will put you through lengthy process bound for denial if they figure you left the country after applying. Of course they will not call it "intent to reside"

 

[CanadianCountry]

Will love to hear more on these implicit rules.

If a person has become eligible to apply as per current law then asking him to be irresponsible towards his family is not a Canadian value.

well, not quite wise applying for citizenship and right after going some other country for work (and implicit residing).
CIC will put you through lengthy process bound for denial if they figure you left the country after applying. Of course they will not call it "intent to reside"

 

[dpenabill]

well, not quite wise applying for citizenship and right after going some other country for work (and implicit residing).
CIC will put you through lengthy process bound for denial if they figure you left the country after applying. Of course they will not call it "intent to reside"

Will love to hear more on these implicit rules.

If a person has become eligible to apply as per current law then asking him to be irresponsible towards his family is not a Canadian value.

These allude to the impact of leaving Canada after applying, or as one Federal Court justice once characterized it, applicants-applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport.

While era1521 may be correct in correlating current CIC practice (which appears to elevate the scrutiny and sometimes the skepticism for applicants with extended post-app absences or other indications of stronger ties abroad than in Canada) with the impending implementation of the intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada clause, there is enough of a difference it would be confusing, if not misleading, to discuss them as if they are synonymous, which they are not.

There are other topics in which leaving Canada after applying is discussed.

This topic is about the intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada clause, which does not apply to anyone who has an application pending or who otherwise gets a complete application submitted before the revised section 5(1) comes into force.

Perhaps I should note, however, with some emphasis, that my previous post should not be read to condone let alone encourage any applicant to provoke the interviewer at the time of their test and interview. Never a good idea to provoke someone who can potentially interpret the facts in an unfavourable direction. It is, after all, one thing to know that as an applicant you have definitely met the residency requirement, and quite another to prove with documentation that every one of those days was a day spent in Canada.

For an applicant who has to take an opportunity to temporarily go abroad for a job assignment or contract, the question (under current law) is not so much about what the individual's intent is, vis-a-vis future residence in Canada, but whether the extent to which the applicant has continuing ties abroad, including employment, raises any question (in CIC's eyes) about the completeness and accuracy of the applicant's residency calculation.

A statement like "look I fulfilled my days up to the application . . . " could be, in effect, challenging CIC to say, "oh, is that so, OK prove it," and two years or three years later you get a chance to persuade the Citizenship Judge your accounting of time in Canada was complete and accurate . . . and hopefully CIC has not identified some conflicting evidence to argue the contrary.

 

[carbo]

These allude to the impact of leaving Canada after applying, or as one Federal Court justice once characterized it, applicants-applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport.

For an applicant who has to take an opportunity to temporarily go abroad for a job assignment or contract, the question (under current law) is not so much about what the individual's intent is, vis-a-vis future residence in Canada, but whether the extent to which the applicant has continuing ties abroad, including employment, raises any question (in CIC's eyes) about the completeness and accuracy of the applicant's residency calculation.

A statement like "look I fulfilled my days up to the application . . . " could be, in effect, challenging CIC to say, "oh, is that so, OK prove it," and two years or three years later you get a chance to persuade the Citizenship Judge your accounting of time in Canada was complete and accurate . . . and hopefully CIC has not identified some conflicting evidence to argue the contrary.

Thanks dpenabill, let me ask this way, if i may... I know this is off the actual topic of the new law, couldn't find the appropriate thread, hope you can answer here or in private.. thank you!

Under pre-bill C24

Would CIC have any legal basis for not recommending/annulling a citizenship application because an applicant has to take a lengthy job assignment, 10 months post-app, (not exactly on-the-way-to-the-airport ), as long as she has fulfilled AND can report with documentation all the days up to the application?

Provided she maintains her residence obligations/permanent residency requirements (2 years out of 5) until the interview of course...

thank you!

 

[dpenabill]

. . . let me ask this way, if i may... I know this is off the actual topic of the new law, couldn't find the appropriate thread, hope you can answer here or in private.. thank you!

Under pre-bill C24

Would CIC have any legal basis for not recommending/annulling a citizenship application because an applicant has to take a lengthy job assignment, 10 months post-app, (not exactly on-the-way-to-the-airport ), as long as she has fulfilled AND can report with documentation all the days up to the application?

Provided she maintains her residence obligations/permanent residency requirements (2 years out of 5) until the interview of course...

There is no easy, obvious answer for applicants in a situation like this.

First though, I need to repeat with emphasis that I am no expert. In particular I am not qualified to offer personal advise regarding a specific individual's case.

Moreover, a forum like this is not an appropriate venue for sharing the level of detail required to assess an actual case, even though it is a good venue for sharing information and insight about the process, particularly as to potential pitfalls.

In any event, I have posted quite a lot about this issue going back over four or five years ago, but the majority of my observations are posted in a particular topic at a different website forum. If this link works, or in the alternative if you can find the discussion forums at the http://www.immigration.ca/en/ site, there is a specific topic titled "Leaving Canada after applying for citizenship." (My posts in that topic go from January 2012 until my most recent post January 5th this year.)

It is complicated because CIC cannot directly consider post-application absences in doing the calculation of days present for purposes of the residency calculation. But as discussed at length in that topic (and in this forum as well, I just do not recall the topic titles in particular), extended absences from Canada while the application is pending can dramatically affect how things go.

And of course the adoption of the intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada clause well illustrates the preferred policy of this government as well as Parliament in particular: to discourage and even preclude obtaining citizenship by those who are not committed to a life in Canada.

For those who will be subject to the intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada clause, residing outside Canada while the application is pending is likely to be, at the least, highly problematic if not a specific ground upon which the application can be rejected.

That is definitely not so for anyone who makes a complete application prior to the date the intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada clause comes into force.

But it is a clue as to the degree to which CIC might impose hurdles on applicants with extended absences after applying.

That said, anecdotal reports reflect smooth sailing for many applicants who have gone abroad for an extended time after applying. For example, applicants abroad for a specified temporary purpose, such as a particular post-graduate program, an assignment abroad by a Canadian employer, a clearly temporary contract to work abroad, are among those who have not run into RQ, delays, elevated scrutiny and skepticism.

While intent is not in issue, CIC's perception of the applicant's intentions may colour how CIC handles a particular case.

Overall, if CIC does not apprehend the applicant is one of those applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, or otherwise perceive that the applicant is, as Jason Kenney and more recently Chris Alexander have tended to characterize it, among those seeking a passport of convenience, it appears that things go smoothly, no problems related to residency.

What triggers CIC to perceive otherwise, that is to apprehend the applicant is among those seeking a passport of convenience, is not easily articulated, the factors many and varied and not readily enumerated. That said, some factors are more obvious: leaving very soon after applying and staying abroad, particularly if it is for employment without a strong Canadian component, particularly if there are other ties abroad, and so on.

 

[asaif]

I hope so. These are the very "citizens of convenience" who have caused the three-year processing times many of us have had deal with. Many of them, to add insult to injury, will probably get their applications processed in 6 or so months.

I am with most Canadians when I say that I don't want have to pay millions to save such people next time the third-world craphole they came from erupts in violence.

I don't like the way in which the intent to reside requirement is phrased in the new law and its unintended consequences. I am all for putting measures in place to prevent, to the extent it is possible, people from gaming the system. Increasing the eligibility time and some of the other new requirements actually make sense.

Can't agree more !

 

[ama912]

That is definitely not so for anyone who makes a complete application prior to the date the intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada clause comes into force.

Think about it though: in about 1.5 to 2 years from now, this law will have come fully into force and the majority of applicants who will be interviewed by citizenship officers then are ones who have applied after the cutoff date and have to show proof of their previous and future Intent to Reside. Lets say 3 out of 10 of those applicants being interviewed have applied before the cutoff date and do not need to prove their intent to reside. If the officer looks in their passport and finds that they've been absent for most of the time while their application is being processed, even if Intent to Reside does not apply to them, will the officer really just discard the fact that their application looks very much like a case of a passport of convenience? most probably not.. It's pretty safe to assume that the officer isnt going to think 'Oh, your case looks eerily similar to someone who's after a passport of convenience, but that's ok, I wont doubt your intent because you applied before the cutoff date of C-24. I would only doubt the intent of someone who has applied after the cutoff date.'

Most likely these applicants will be facing a RQ or a request for more documents, even if Intent to Reside does not apply to them. And in that case, the question becomes: will the point of that RQ be to prove the validity of your 4 years of physical presence? Or is it to look into whether you've been mostly absent post your application date and whether you intend to reside in the future?. And the second question becomes: what may become of those applicants who, in CIC's eyes, clearly havent and do not intent to reside even if the Intent clause does not apply to them?.

Only time will tell how just this law is.

 

[dpenabill]

Think about it though: in about 1.5 to 2 years from now, this law will have come fully into force and the majority of applicants who will be interviewed by citizenship officers then are ones who have applied after the cutoff date and have to show proof of their previous and future Intent to Reside. Lets say 3 out of 10 of those applicants being interviewed have applied before the cutoff date and do not need to prove their intent to reside. If the officer looks in their passport and finds that they've been absent for most of the time while their application is being processed, even if Intent to Reside does not apply to them, will the officer really just discard the fact that their application looks very much like a case of a passport of convenience? most probably not.. It's pretty safe to assume that the officer isnt going to think 'Oh, your case looks eerily similar to someone who's after a passport of convenience, but that's ok, I wont doubt your intent because you applied before the cutoff date of C-24. I would only doubt the intent of someone who has applied after the cutoff date.'

Most likely these applicants will be facing a RQ or a request for more documents, even if Intent to Reside does not apply to them. And in that case, the question becomes: will the point of that RQ be to prove the validity of your 4 years of physical presence? Or is it to look into whether you've been mostly absent post your application date and whether you intend to reside in the future?. And the second question becomes: what may become of those applicants who, in CIC's eyes, clearly havent and do not intent to reside even if the Intent clause does not apply to them?.

Only time will tell how just this law is.

CIC has been employing elevated scrutiny in similar scenarios, not merely imposing RQ but subjecting the aplicant to the full brunt of a challenged residency case, for several years now.

Passport stamps indicating a return to Canada just in time to take the test has been a factor in issuing RQ since at least 2005, when an appendix to CP 5 Residence was added specifying that such stamps were a reason to question residency.

As I said in my previsous post, referring to applications in process before the intent-to-reside clause comes into force, while intent is not in issue, CIC's perception of the applicant's intentions may colour how CIC handles a particular case.

No reason to underestimate the impact of this.

I don't think there is much doubt, CIC is culling, as best it can, applicants CIC perceives to be pursuing a passport of convenience.

And it is probably a safe bet that for those who apply this year, getting in their application in time to beat the new law, and who apply with just above the minimum amount of actual physical presence, sure, leaving Canada after applying is quite likely to trigger the hard road.

I do not have the time, at the moment, to revisit it, but somewhere in my other posts here I recently cited and linked a case in which it was quite clear that CIC and the CJ were hard on an applicant because she had been living abroad after applying . . . she passed the written test, her documentation showing she met the 1095 day threshold of physical presence was above refute, but she was compelled to go through the RQ process and required to attend a CJ hearing to determine her residency, at which the CJ gave her a second test, an oral test as to her knowledge of Canada, no multiple choice, no particular warning she would be retested, and her request for more time to prepare was denied, she failed the test, and on that basis her application for citizenship was rejected. The Federal Court upheld the reasonableness of giving the applicant the second test despite her having passed the written test, the reasonableness of the test despite no particular notice a second test would be given, and the reasonable of the denial of citizenship for failing it.

No one should be confused about what this government's approach is (and has been for quite awhile now, since at least 2011, and which I also said in my previous post): CIC will do what it can to at least discourage, if not preclude, the grant of citizenship to applicants perceived to be pursuing a passport of convenience.

Under the current law, the current residency requirement, who is targeted as such, and who is not, is not so easily illuminated.

Once the intent-to-continue-residing-in-Canada clause is in effect, for those applicants governed by it, it will be a lot, lot easier for CIC to find grounds to deny applicants CIC perceives to be pursuing a passport of convenience . . so easy it could quite conceivably be applied in a way that goes well overboard, precluding many otherwise qualified applicants genuinely pursuing a life in Canada (in a way similar to how the 2012 triage criteria for issuing RQ was overly broad and swept thousands and thousands of qualified applicants into the prolonged RQ process unnecessarily).