Proof of Residency if Case Destined for a CJ Hearing

[ItkExpert]

Itk: If there isn't enough evidence, the evidence cannot be considered conclusive.

A few anecdotes is not statistically significant.

And picking out gender as the relevant "RQ trigger" is overlooking 100 more likely explanations in order to focus on a random one.

You're confusing correlation with causation. Yes, you are male and you got RQ. Yes your wife is female and she did not get RQ. That doesn't mean that gender was the cause of the RQ, or the salvation from the RQ.

There is ZERO documentary evidence, or documentary hint that "Male" is one of the triggers.

There is ZERO evidence that males should send extra "secret" documents not on the document checklist.

Sorry to not have mentioned it but my wife DID get an RQ however CIC was able to process her RQ in roughly four months whereas I am waiting for over 1.5 post RQ submission and still no oath. There was also a great deal of overlap between the documents we submitted in support of the RQ yet CIC deemed her evidence as sufficient and not so me for . Everyone has the right for their own interpretation of reality .

 

[eileenf]

Sorry to not have mentioned it but my wife DID get an RQ however CIC was able to process her RQ in roughly four months whereas I am waiting for over 1.5 post RQ submission and still no oath. There was also a great deal of overlap between the documents we submitted in support of the RQ yet CIC deemed her evidence as sufficient and not so me for . Everyone has the right for their own interpretation of reality .

Do you and your wife have the exact same travel dates, work situation, previous visas, etc?

CIC's process is a black box. I understand the frustration of that. It's normal for people to fill in their own guesses and fears of what is happening in that black box. But it's important to be responsible about what sort of information and suggestions one puts forward as facts. It's important to try to verify the accuracy as much as possible to avoid spreading false fears.

I'm not saying that the idea of differential impacts of RQ triggers on different groups isn't worthy of exploration and concern. But it's important to explore the subject and find evidence before making sweeping conclusions.

That said, I wish you lots of good luck. The benefit you have is that you may be able to pinpoint any issues more clearly by looking at the variations between your case and your wife's, assuming that there are many parallels and a few differences. If you can pinpoint the reason for concern, you can address the reason for concern.

If you assume that the reason for the delay of your application is gender, this is something that you really can't address.

 

[ItkExpert]

Do you and your wife have the exact same travel dates, work situation, previous visas, etc?

CIC's process is a black box. I understand the frustration of that. It's normal for people to fill in their own guesses and fears of what is happening in that black box. But it's important to be responsible about what sort of information and suggestions one puts forward as facts. It's important to try to verify the accuracy as much as possible to avoid spreading false fears.

I'm not saying that the idea of differential impacts of RQ triggers on different groups isn't worthy of exploration and concern. But it's important to explore the subject and find evidence before making sweeping conclusions.

That said, I wish you lots of good luck. The benefit you have is that you may be able to pinpoint any issues more clearly by looking at the variations between your case and your wife's, assuming that there are many parallels and a few differences. If you can pinpoint the reason for concern, you can address the reason for concern.

If you assume that the reason for the delay of your application is gender, this is something that you really can't address.

Actually I would think that the evidence for residency in Canada for me are more compelling than my wife's . I have few short absences with continued employment . My wife has the more absences ,including few than extend more than a month period . She also has extended unemployment period due to personal reasons.

I know that it is important to be accurate and not to scare people but I also know that I wish Someone had warned back in 2012 that CIC is applying extra scrutiny for 2011-2012 applicants. If that was the case I would have probably hired a lawyer for submitting my application.

I openly admit that the evidence base for what I am saying is not big and anyone reading my post is welcome to take it with a grain of salt. Again , if you take my experience and that of other users accross the forums and you add this up to the fact that a vast majority of citizenship and immigration officers and processing agent are females (this is a fact not just a guess) then this may give support to what I am saying. Let there be no doubt : I am and AVID supporter of women's rights and believe fully in equal opportunities. However I beleive that it is in human nature to favour your own kind and given that the only thing we know about the citizenship processing procedure is that it includes room for using personal judgment I think male applicants might be more easily subjected to processing delays than their female counterparts.

 

[dpenabill]

. . . I think male applicants might be more easily subjected to processing delays than their female counterparts.

The point, however, is that even if there is some statistical indication that males are subject to delays in processing more than their female counterparts, this is not because they are male but because of other factors.

And, there is no reason to mince words, if CIC was employing gender based criteria in deciding who to target for elevated scrutiny, that would be more than a reason to criticize CIC . . . it would be blatantly illegal and a reason to be royally outraged.

But the main reason to not get distracted by this is that for applicants facing a negative referral from CIC, for applicants who will have to face a Citizenship Judge, it is critical to focus on what really matters in their case. And it does not matter one whit whether they are male or female.

In particular, while I have no clue what the facts or circumstances are in your case, I am quite sure that the fact you are male is not why your case has taken longer than your wife's. Indeed, if I recall, you were issued RQ after the interview. While the criteria employed in deciding who to issue RQ at that stage also tends to be overbroad, and can unnecessarily sweep qualified applicants into the residency case net, obviously you were not issued pre-test RQ, that is you were a male who was not issued pre-test RQ (and I might add, at a time when the criteria for issuing pre-test RQ was very broad). In the general scheme of what CIC is looking for, post-test RQs tend to more often be due to this or that specific concern, this or that specific suspicion.

That is, there is probably a substantive concern CIC has about your residency. I have no clue what that might be. You know your case. You know your history. You know the circumstances. It would be prudent to figure out, as best you can, what it is that CIC is concerned about. Clue: it is not your gender.

I have no reason to doubt your confidence and I assume it is probably warranted. You will probably be scheduled for the oath in the near future. But if you think you reached this stage largely because you are male, you very easily could be overlooking an important issue, the real issue, an issue which could be a serious problem but also one which perhaps you could easily resolve if you take the time and make the effort to objectively look for the potential flaws in your case.

But these discussions are about more than one individual's application. This is not just about you and your RQ. For those who are struggling with RQ and wondering why, and trying to figure out how to best navigate the process, it is important to illuminate as much as we can about the process, about how it really works. CIC keeps the public in the dark in many respects. Through sharing experiences and information, comparing notes, analyzing the pieces of the puzzle we do know, we can indeed illuminate some critical factors. The applicant's gender is not one of those factors. Recognizing what it means to be referred for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge and preparing for it is an extremely critical factor for those whose case is headed there.

Many if not most just leave it up to CIC and the CJ to do what they will. For those who want to take at least some control, as much as an individual can, and do what they can to influence CIC and a CJ to make a favourable decision, getting informed about what matters is a big step in that direction.

 

[ItkExpert]

I think that there are some circumstantial risk indicators which CIC uses when determining if an applicant is considered higher risk applicant which will necessitate RQ , judge hearing and other investigative measures. I also think that these indicators has to do with one gender and most likely country of origin too. I don't think they are doing this to abuse applicants but only in effort to more effectively focus their efforts on the subgroup and thus be more successful in identifying the fraudulent applicants which they are after. Having said that, either being directly abused or not , the implications for the applicants are the same. Further evidence to support this is the fact that, as dpenabill stated, much of the details of the considerations factored in their applicant screening process are kept hidden from the public eye. I cant see the benefit in not letting applicants know what's stacked against them and how their residency is challenged or questioned aside from using considerations that some groups might find offensive if they came out in the open.

I'm not saying that they are doing anything wrong, moreover I think that determining high risk groups in the population and focusing the effort on them seems like the logical and efficient allocation of resources. However somethings are better kept quiet and hence the confidentiality.