my thought reading this thread is that such situations could be one of the reasons why applications gets selected for QA
Random selection of applications for Quality Assurance is one way in which a qualified applicant might be subject to non-routine processing, including being issued RQ (CIT 0171 or something similar). CIC and IRCC have reported various QA programs over the years, which usually have indeed been random and which usually involve a very, very small percentage of applications.
While some of those programs employed this or that criteria, as I recall the criteria was broad, identifying a relatively large group of applicants from which a small percentage were RANDOMLY selected for the QA procedure (the QA procedure itself has varied from time to time). Mostly, however, the programs simply worked by randomly selecting a very small percentage of applications for the QA screening.
Because of this potential, random procedure, which can result in RQ for even the most clearly qualified applicant, all applicants should be aware that RQ is a possibility.
Like many aspects of internal decision-making at IRCC, most information about this has been taken behind closed doors and is now confidential; IRCC only publicizes fairly superficial, general references to their QA procedures.
Likewise, the criteria-driven screening of applicants as well, which is now strictly confidential.
Criteria-driven screening:
Random selection of some applicants for additional scrutiny is separate and apart from the use of
criteria-driven screening to identify applicants who will be issued RQ. Last formal, official version of the criteria employed I have seen was that implemented pursuant to OB 407 in April 2012, which specified the "triage criteria" used to screen applications in Sydney prior to the application being transferred to the local office for processing. That whole procedure, which resulted in a pre-test RQ being sent to some applicants, went totally behind closed curtains during the 2012 to 2013 period. In particular, a leaked version of the 2012 File Requirements Checklist was widely shared among forum members. It listed the triage criteria. By early 2013, ATI request responses containing internal CIC memos revealed that CIC had significantly modified either the criteria itself or how it was used.
Since then, how that procedure works has been in a black hole. It is strictly confidential and very little internal information has leaked.
It is a relatively safe bet, however, that some version of that procedure still exists, that once the application is entered into the GCMS system, the application is screened for
RISK INDICATORS or what was previously referred to (in older operational guidelines) as
reasons-to-question-residency, employing specified criteria. Whether this results in issuing a pre-test RQ or a flag on the file to be addressed by the responsible processing agent in the local office, we do not know. There have been no more than isolated reports of pre-test RQ in the last couple years, but that is no surprise and might be totally explained by the impact of Bill C-24 and a strict presence requirement, which until somewhat recently dramatically reduced the number of applications being made.
In any event, it is highly likely that there is still some
RISK INDICATOR screening done in Sydney (part of what is referred to obliquely in PDIs as "initial processing"), and that some of the factors are considered in context with other factors, and if that screening identifies an overt
reason-to-question-residency/presence that will trigger further requests for information or documentation, including RQ-lite or RQ for some applicants, whether that is sent out from Sydney or issued by the local office. Circumstances you describe may or may not be part of what is examined and considered in that screening.
Receipt, AOR, and In-Process:
In the generic sense, just opening the application package is a type of processing.
When IRCC refers to a citizenship application as being "
in process," however, that has a more specific meaning. It means a citizenship application file has been created in GCMS.
AOR means what it appears to mean: It is an
Acknowledgement of Receipt. However, IRCC current practice is NOT to acknowledge receipt of an application unless and until the application has passed initial screening for completeness, which includes screening the content of the application sufficiently to confirm it states information establishing eligibility (thus, for example, the presence calculation is examined to be sure the applicant has declared at least 1095 days actual presence).
If the application does not pass this "upfront," in effect a type of
preliminary screening, it is NOT put in process. No entry is made in the GCMS for the application. Obviously this upfront or preliminary screening is itself a kind of processing. But that is not embraced in what IRCC means when it refers to the application being "in process."
Once the application passes the completeness check, the preliminary screening, a processing agent in Sydney in effect opens a citizenship application file in the GCMS. This puts the application "in process" as IRCC uses this term. An application file number is assigned. The AOR is sent to the applicant. This processing agent makes the referrals for background clearances, one to the RCMP, another to CSIS (these clearances, when issued by the respective body, go to the local office). And, assuming some semblance of the procedures employed in the not-too-distant past are still employed, the application is subject to some further initial screening in the Sydney office. As noted, the scope and particulars of that are confidential, not shared with the public. It is likely the application and applicant are screened based on specified criteria, based on specific
risk indicators, for
reasons-to-question-residency/presence, and somewhere in these procedures there is a thorough GCMS check of the applicant and then the application is referred to a local office for processing.
Even if a pre-test RQ is issued by the Sydney office (again, I do not know for sure that is still being done; I suspect it is but apparently not often), the application would be referred to the local office and the instructions in the RQ will tell the applicant to submit the response to the local office.
Overall:
As
spyfy and others periodically note, AOR is relatively insignificant. The application is complete. It has been received. IRCC will process it.
AOR signifies very little about how good the case is. It merely means the application meets what lawyers call
prima facie requirements, meaning enough is presented to require the decision-making body to examine and process the application, and ultimately make a decision about it. As
spyfy aptly observed, there is way, way too much attention given this in this forum. Sure, it feels comforting to know
the-cake-is-in-the-oven; yes, I was watching anxiously for news of when my application got AOR, back in the day, and felt better when it had. But it is no milestone.