Reasons you may get a RQ........
- Thread starter KRP
- Start date
The particular information, at the linked site, the enumerated "reasons-you-may-get-residence-questionnaire," is a good outline of numerous POTENTIAL risk factors, sometimes referred to by CIC/IRCC documentation as "risk indicators," or "reasons-to-question-residency," which is more expansive and detailed than the formal triage criteria.
This is very general information. Prospective applicants may find it useful to peruse the list as part of their decision-making about WHEN is the right time to apply (way, way too many base the When-to-Apply decision on just the calculation of physical presence, on when they meet the physical presence requirement; it would be prudent for a lot of prospective applicants to consider many other things before determining it is the right time to apply). Applicants who have received RQ, who are not sure why they got RQ'd, can review the list to help them better understand why (but it is important to remember that once RQ'd, the applicant needs to fully prove physical presence for the full time, not just provide information and documents responding to the reason why RQ was issued).
Beyond that this information, and that website, warrant a severe caution.
It is an immigration consultant website soliciting clients to pay rather substantial fees for what most immigrants should be able to do for themselves, or if not, if professional help is needed, for what would more likely be better provided by a lawyer's office. (Lawyer would likely be more expensive, by a bit, but if professional input is needed the extra cost for a lawyer is probably a good investment.)
Online reviews for this particular consultant's office appear to be more negative than positive.
As for the listed Reasons-for-RQ in particular:
As noted, the listed reasons for RQ constitutes a good outline of factors which can, potentially, elevate the risk of RQ. However, some factors much more so than others.
In particular, the list of "reasons" offers little perspective as to their relative significance. Some are well-known and oft addressed in this forum, and are among the more problematic factors. For example, under the category of "Passport Evidence," it lists "Including a new passport in your application, but being unable to provide a copy of the previous one." This is actually one of the potentially most problematic factors (depending on particular aspects in the individual case, which is always a factor), which is something discussed in some depth in multiple threads here, but which immigroup lists following "Having a stamp in your passport that shows you have recently entered Canada when you take your citizenship test or verify your documents with a IRCC officer (indicating that you have spent time outside Canada while your application is in process)." The latter can invite some IRCC concern, that's true (and this too, that is indications of living outside Canada while the application is in process, is discussed in-depth in many threads in this forum), BUT a recent entry stamp in one's passport is, ordinarily, NO WHERE NEAR as PROBLEMATIC as the missing passport issue. No comparison.
And to be frank, this particular "reason" (recent-entry stamp) is actually a paraphrase of a risk indicator in the enumerated "reasons-to-question-residency" in much older and outdated CIC information, derived from a 2005 Operational Bulletin which was incorporated as an appendix in the Operational Manual CP-5 Residence, which in turn was rendered out-of-date by Operational Bulletin 407 in 2012. The latter listed formal triage criteria that did NOT include this factor. CP-5 was entirely replaced by PDIs several years ago. Nonetheless, many of us suggest this is likely STILL a potential factor (along with other indicators of living abroad after applying) which could trigger elevated scrutiny, potentially RQ, but again just the recent-entry-stamp is NO WHERE NEAR as significant, no where near as likely to trigger RQ, as numerous other factors, such as the missing passport. (Indeed, indications of living abroad is the operative factor, which might be, but not necessarily, suggested by a recent-entry stamp.)
I highlight those particular items as an example, as illustrative.
There are many items listed, at the consultant's website, which are indeed serious risk indicators likely to trigger concerns and potentially RQ. Some rather obvious: "Your identification or supporting documents appear to be fake or fraudulent." Duh. There are others which, frankly, are dubious: "Your provincial health-card or driver’s license is . . . close to expiring at the time you submit your citizenship application." I doubt this triggers questions let alone concerns let alone RQ. (Obviously, however, any and all such factors can be considered in context, and if in context with other factors there is an apparent incongruity, yes, the incongruity can elevate the risk of RQ.)
Frequent travel outside Canada: The list makes multiple references to frequent travel outside Canada as a reason for RQ. This item is especially misleading since frequent travel can show a pattern which actually strengthens the case. It is a common misconception that frequent travel triggers RQ. Travel history is perhaps one of the most context-relative factors in a citizenship application. Context includes: reasons for the travel; pattern of travel; comparison of Canadian employment and travel history (an immigrant working in a manufacturing plant who takes three month holidays abroad is obviously going to invite questions, since plant workers do not ordinarily get "holidays" of that duration); and of course the nature and duration of respective trips, including comparing travel history with other factors, such as whether there are indications the applicant's family lives abroad (which can inherently raise questions about where the applicant is actually living) or if the pattern of travel suggests employment abroad (which can be further highlighted if IRCC has questions about the applicant's income in Canada, including in comparison to what is needed to support the applicant's lifestyle). Consider the manufacturing plant worker again, or someone working in traditional retail, and taking long "holidays" abroad: not only can the duration raise questions, but how is it the applicant can afford such travel can be a question leading to other questions, in turn leading to other questions . . . .
Overall: frequent travel alone is NOT the issue. It depends on context.
Some of what is listed is clearly outdated. "You declared on your citizenship application that you were outside Canada for more than 365 days in the past four years." This appears to be about applications made under the law PRIOR to June 11, 2015, and is NOT applicable to applications made since then.
All that said, there are many things in the immigroup list worth some attention. Many of these are not that significant by themselves, but if they occur in conjunction with others factors tending to invite questions, they are indeed factors which can lead to elevated scrutiny, RQ, and perhaps even severe skepticism in assessing the applicant's account of time present in Canada.
For example: They refer to submitting fingerprints taken outside Canada, photos were taken outside Canada, presenting a new passport issued outside Canada, and indications that the applicant's employer is family. Separately, in isolation and depending on context, these factors may have little or NO negative influence . . . BUT in conjunction with other reasons to question the applicant's account, whether as to travel history itself, or as to address or work history, these can draw some negative attention and factor into IRCC having concerns.
Finally: the immigroup information asserts that they are seeing a lot of RQs being issued these days, and do so with a reference to a historical surge in RQ. While we do not know for sure, and it is true that there has been an increase in reported RQ recently, there is NO indication that IRCC is issuing RQ anywhere near so frequently as RQ has been issued in the past . . . most signs suggest the recent increase is proportionate relative to the increased number of applications being submitted. This could change. It appears, for example, more than a few have decided to apply and live abroad in the meantime, some even attempting to apply while they are living abroad. This group is very likely to encounter more RQ. The reliance on credit for pre-PR time may be a factor in more applicants getting RQ (especially those who rely on time in Canada as a visitor if they do not have a formal visa or visitor's record).
This is very general information. Prospective applicants may find it useful to peruse the list as part of their decision-making about WHEN is the right time to apply (way, way too many base the When-to-Apply decision on just the calculation of physical presence, on when they meet the physical presence requirement; it would be prudent for a lot of prospective applicants to consider many other things before determining it is the right time to apply). Applicants who have received RQ, who are not sure why they got RQ'd, can review the list to help them better understand why (but it is important to remember that once RQ'd, the applicant needs to fully prove physical presence for the full time, not just provide information and documents responding to the reason why RQ was issued).
Beyond that this information, and that website, warrant a severe caution.
It is an immigration consultant website soliciting clients to pay rather substantial fees for what most immigrants should be able to do for themselves, or if not, if professional help is needed, for what would more likely be better provided by a lawyer's office. (Lawyer would likely be more expensive, by a bit, but if professional input is needed the extra cost for a lawyer is probably a good investment.)
Online reviews for this particular consultant's office appear to be more negative than positive.
As for the listed Reasons-for-RQ in particular:
As noted, the listed reasons for RQ constitutes a good outline of factors which can, potentially, elevate the risk of RQ. However, some factors much more so than others.
In particular, the list of "reasons" offers little perspective as to their relative significance. Some are well-known and oft addressed in this forum, and are among the more problematic factors. For example, under the category of "Passport Evidence," it lists "Including a new passport in your application, but being unable to provide a copy of the previous one." This is actually one of the potentially most problematic factors (depending on particular aspects in the individual case, which is always a factor), which is something discussed in some depth in multiple threads here, but which immigroup lists following "Having a stamp in your passport that shows you have recently entered Canada when you take your citizenship test or verify your documents with a IRCC officer (indicating that you have spent time outside Canada while your application is in process)." The latter can invite some IRCC concern, that's true (and this too, that is indications of living outside Canada while the application is in process, is discussed in-depth in many threads in this forum), BUT a recent entry stamp in one's passport is, ordinarily, NO WHERE NEAR as PROBLEMATIC as the missing passport issue. No comparison.
And to be frank, this particular "reason" (recent-entry stamp) is actually a paraphrase of a risk indicator in the enumerated "reasons-to-question-residency" in much older and outdated CIC information, derived from a 2005 Operational Bulletin which was incorporated as an appendix in the Operational Manual CP-5 Residence, which in turn was rendered out-of-date by Operational Bulletin 407 in 2012. The latter listed formal triage criteria that did NOT include this factor. CP-5 was entirely replaced by PDIs several years ago. Nonetheless, many of us suggest this is likely STILL a potential factor (along with other indicators of living abroad after applying) which could trigger elevated scrutiny, potentially RQ, but again just the recent-entry-stamp is NO WHERE NEAR as significant, no where near as likely to trigger RQ, as numerous other factors, such as the missing passport. (Indeed, indications of living abroad is the operative factor, which might be, but not necessarily, suggested by a recent-entry stamp.)
I highlight those particular items as an example, as illustrative.
There are many items listed, at the consultant's website, which are indeed serious risk indicators likely to trigger concerns and potentially RQ. Some rather obvious: "Your identification or supporting documents appear to be fake or fraudulent." Duh. There are others which, frankly, are dubious: "Your provincial health-card or driver’s license is . . . close to expiring at the time you submit your citizenship application." I doubt this triggers questions let alone concerns let alone RQ. (Obviously, however, any and all such factors can be considered in context, and if in context with other factors there is an apparent incongruity, yes, the incongruity can elevate the risk of RQ.)
Frequent travel outside Canada: The list makes multiple references to frequent travel outside Canada as a reason for RQ. This item is especially misleading since frequent travel can show a pattern which actually strengthens the case. It is a common misconception that frequent travel triggers RQ. Travel history is perhaps one of the most context-relative factors in a citizenship application. Context includes: reasons for the travel; pattern of travel; comparison of Canadian employment and travel history (an immigrant working in a manufacturing plant who takes three month holidays abroad is obviously going to invite questions, since plant workers do not ordinarily get "holidays" of that duration); and of course the nature and duration of respective trips, including comparing travel history with other factors, such as whether there are indications the applicant's family lives abroad (which can inherently raise questions about where the applicant is actually living) or if the pattern of travel suggests employment abroad (which can be further highlighted if IRCC has questions about the applicant's income in Canada, including in comparison to what is needed to support the applicant's lifestyle). Consider the manufacturing plant worker again, or someone working in traditional retail, and taking long "holidays" abroad: not only can the duration raise questions, but how is it the applicant can afford such travel can be a question leading to other questions, in turn leading to other questions . . . .
Overall: frequent travel alone is NOT the issue. It depends on context.
Some of what is listed is clearly outdated. "You declared on your citizenship application that you were outside Canada for more than 365 days in the past four years." This appears to be about applications made under the law PRIOR to June 11, 2015, and is NOT applicable to applications made since then.
All that said, there are many things in the immigroup list worth some attention. Many of these are not that significant by themselves, but if they occur in conjunction with others factors tending to invite questions, they are indeed factors which can lead to elevated scrutiny, RQ, and perhaps even severe skepticism in assessing the applicant's account of time present in Canada.
For example: They refer to submitting fingerprints taken outside Canada, photos were taken outside Canada, presenting a new passport issued outside Canada, and indications that the applicant's employer is family. Separately, in isolation and depending on context, these factors may have little or NO negative influence . . . BUT in conjunction with other reasons to question the applicant's account, whether as to travel history itself, or as to address or work history, these can draw some negative attention and factor into IRCC having concerns.
Finally: the immigroup information asserts that they are seeing a lot of RQs being issued these days, and do so with a reference to a historical surge in RQ. While we do not know for sure, and it is true that there has been an increase in reported RQ recently, there is NO indication that IRCC is issuing RQ anywhere near so frequently as RQ has been issued in the past . . . most signs suggest the recent increase is proportionate relative to the increased number of applications being submitted. This could change. It appears, for example, more than a few have decided to apply and live abroad in the meantime, some even attempting to apply while they are living abroad. This group is very likely to encounter more RQ. The reliance on credit for pre-PR time may be a factor in more applicants getting RQ (especially those who rely on time in Canada as a visitor if they do not have a formal visa or visitor's record).
It is also important to remember that if you receive a residence questionnaire for your Canadian citizenship application, and you do not think that you will be able to answer the questions or provide adequate evidence, you may withdraw your application and still remain a permanent resident in Canada.
However, if you receive the RQ in conjunction with your application for a PR renewal card, returning the questionnaire is mandatory. If you do not return it, your file will eventually go under investigation and you may lose your PR status.
However, if you receive the RQ in conjunction with your application for a PR renewal card, returning the questionnaire is mandatory. If you do not return it, your file will eventually go under investigation and you may lose your PR status.
Again, as I noted in my previous post, the information presented by immigroup should be approached with SEVERE CAUTION.
This particularly superficial, and potentially misleading advice, is another example. There are too many misleading or erroneous propositions in the immigroup information to warrant a detailed analysis of every proposition there. So, again, approach what is suggested at that site with SEVERE CAUTION.
Again, for personal advice about what to do in an individual case involving potentially serious issues, it is better to obtain the assistance of a real lawyer.
Again, the information provided there can be useful as GENERAL information, and its outline of factors provides some insight, albeit very general insight, into many of the factors which can influence how IRCC might assess an applicant's account of physical presence. In terms of the specific advice provided, such as this quoted advice about withdrawing a citizenship application, it is superficial and illustrates why their advice is perhaps no better than advice offered in a forum like this (reminder: in general, any personal advice in a forum like this should be considered suspect), and perhaps more harmful if it is considered to come from a source with authority, which would be a mistake.
Superficially the first paragraph is generally true, but relative to a particular individual in a specific situation, it can be a lot more complicated than that. For example, withdrawing an application does NOT cure any misrepresentations made in the application. Which, to be clear, means it does not cure any perceived or suspected misrepresentations. So if an applicant has made significant errors in the factual information submitted, it could be a serious mistake to simply withdraw the application and potentially leave a processing agent with the impression misrepresentations were made.
If would be foolish to act as if withdrawing an application will preclude IRCC from proceeding with an investigation potentially resulting in severe consequences, if something in the application has triggered suspicion.
Moreover, how having withdrawn the application might affect a later application can vary considerably.
As almost always, there are many IT DEPENDS elements in these matters. Superficial advice which glosses over the many ways in which individual cases can vary tends to be dangerous.
Very interesting point, just a question KRP:
In the next few months I want to apply both citizenship and PR renewal, as my PR expire in Nov. Which application is good to send first, any strategy?
Is it fine to send both applications at the same time, let say in one month period?
Last edited:
Yes I agree that a lot of travels do not trigger RQ automatically, it depends on the context.
My case for example: had more that 20 months total of travels but mostly for work in different countries (and was staying in that country if I could to escape winter as well), working for a large Canadian company since the beginning with a comfortable salary, I think that fact alone was showing strong ties to Canada and I didn't get RQ.
My case for example: had more that 20 months total of travels but mostly for work in different countries (and was staying in that country if I could to escape winter as well), working for a large Canadian company since the beginning with a comfortable salary, I think that fact alone was showing strong ties to Canada and I didn't get RQ.
Big thanks to depenabill for the inputs.
Can you please also give your opinion on the likelihood of RQ in my case?
I received a Request for Additional Documents after the interview. Form 0520, if I'm not mistaken.
It requests 6 different types of documents (basically, every check box was checked - what's "light" about this request, huh?)
One of the documents is record of exits/entries from my home country. My home country doesn't keep such records for its citizens. They even gave me a letter, stating as much.
Still, my lawyer claims that a full RQ will follow almost automatically, since failure to produce ANY document requested in RQ-lite, according to my lawyer, always causes a full RQ...
Unpleasant....
Wish to hear it ain't so....
I'm already a good 2-3 months behind other applicants from my region!
Thanks
Can you please also give your opinion on the likelihood of RQ in my case?
I received a Request for Additional Documents after the interview. Form 0520, if I'm not mistaken.
It requests 6 different types of documents (basically, every check box was checked - what's "light" about this request, huh?)
One of the documents is record of exits/entries from my home country. My home country doesn't keep such records for its citizens. They even gave me a letter, stating as much.
Still, my lawyer claims that a full RQ will follow almost automatically, since failure to produce ANY document requested in RQ-lite, according to my lawyer, always causes a full RQ...
Unpleasant....
Wish to hear it ain't so....
I'm already a good 2-3 months behind other applicants from my region!
Thanks
Well that’s exactly my situation :-(
Been here 11years.. all I did was move from 1 province to another and applied :-, very frustrating..
I have submitted my documents 3weeks now and haven’t heard a thing back..
A lawyer is a far better resource than I or anyone else in a forum like this.
That is not to say lawyers are omniscient. Or perfect sources. Indeed, most are probably flawed in some regard and need to rely on their informed opinion as much as what they know for sure. And it is likely there is much they too do not know.
But a lawyer has three very important things which make the lawyer's input far more valuable:
(1) an education plus training plus experience which can not be replicated outside the path to becoming a practicing lawyer;
(2) an ongoing experience dealing with the personnel who make actual decisions in immigration and citizenship cases; and
(3) an opportunity to learn and be acquainted with the facts in your particular case which cannot be duplicated outside the attorney-client confidential relationship.
While there may be some individuals participating in a forum like this who have one or more of these, only a licensed, practicing lawyer can fully have all three, and even then only if there is an actual, in-person attorney-client relationship. These are also reasons why I'd put a lot more trust in a lawyer than a consultant (apart from the history of so many consultants grossly overcharging for what sometimes is little more than a clerical service).
I personally might disagree with this or that opinion expressed by a lawyer, IN THE ABSTRACT. But I would only rarely disagree or contest a lawyer's opinion in a particular individual's case because I am NOT qualified to offer a personal opinion, not qualified to offer personal advice, in an individual case. Sure, lawyers make mistakes, and sometimes this is obvious. And I'd point out such errors. But that third thing the lawyer has, the opportunity to know the individual case in a way that cannot be anywhere near approximated let alone duplicated in a forum like this, is critical. The facts in a case matter and they matter a lot, and just knowing some of the facts (even if they seem to be the most important facts) is NOT enough. Not usually. (With obvious exceptions; example: if the applicant acknowledges his actual physical presence totals less than 1095 days, that is enough to know the application will NOT succeed, cannot succeed, and it would be easy to contradict a lawyer who claimed otherwise.)
For example, I disagree with the lawyer's opinion that a "failure to produce ANY document requested in RQ-lite . . . always causes a full RQ." But that is in the abstract, not about a specific instance, not about your case. In particular, that does not illuminate what will happen in your individual case.
Generally, most who report getting the CIT 0520 do NOT appear to have problematic cases. With the caveat that overall the number of reported RQ-lite experiences is too small to draw firm conclusions, it seems most who send documents which are substantially responsive to the requests do not run into further problems, no RQ, and tend to incur only minimal delays. This probably varies considerably, however, depending on what the underlying concerns are which triggered the issuance of the CIT 0520.
The lawyer is undoubtedly correct that a "FAILURE" to provide some documents can easily trigger the full-blown RQ, but there is no failure to provide a document if it does not, cannot exist. IRCC personnel generally know what countries can and will provide. So, if as you say, the country does NOT provide such records, and you submit the explanation with supporting documentation, and you otherwise submit substantially responsive documents, I would not characterize that as a failure to provide a requested document. That, however, does not illuminate how this will go for you in particular. (For whatever reasons, the forum will see some participants emphatically assert it is impossible to get this or that from a particular country, but others report they have gotten those things from that country; IRCC mostly knows what can be obtained, and when, and will usually approach these matters with due consideration for the reality.)
You are probably right to characterize the RQ-lite as not-so-light when the full list of documents is requested. BUT the full-blown RQ demands significantly more, including information as well as documents, and including information and documents which can hurt the case AND which MUST be submitted (at the risk of committing a misrepresentation by omission if not submitted). For example, the full-blown RQ (last version I have seen) requires applicants to declare and provide documents relative to ALL business and property interests ABROAD . . . so if the applicant owns a residence abroad, for example, the applicant MUST declare this (and it would be misrepresentation to omit this). And of course that is evidence which can hurt as it tends to support an inference of continuing ties abroad and potentially more time spent abroad than reported in the presence calculation.
Additionally (with the caveat this is based on somewhat older information), my understanding is that being issued full blown RQ (CIT 0171) means the application has the status of a presence-case unless and until a decision is made otherwise. In practical terms this probably means IRCC contests the applicant's qualifications and there is more pressure on the applicant to positively, affirmatively, prove his or her actual presence in Canada.
Which leads to an important difference between RQ-lite (CIT 0520) and the full-blown RQ (CIT 0171):
-- For RQ-lite, the applicant can and probably should focus on providing what is specifically requested, as best the applicant can (I think "close" does count in this regard), no pressure to supplement the submission with any additional proof.
-- For the full-blown RQ, that is essentially notice to the applicant that IRCC has real concerns, overt suspicions about the applicant's presence in Canada, and thus effectively gives the applicant notice that this is an opportunity to prove the case . . . which means proving actual presence for ALL periods of time claimed to be present in Canada . . . with minimal if any gaps. So in responding to CIT 0171 an applicant should, probably, be sure to add additional proof for any MONTH which is not otherwise well-documented as a month spent in Canada. Thus, for example, the applicant will want to consider submitting documents well beyond those specifically requested.
For someone who has a lawyer, however, generally best to follow the lawyer's advice and instructions.
Bottom-line: some applicants simply have more difficult cases than others. The burden of proof is on the applicant.
As I have oft urged, there is a lot more to deciding when is the right time to apply for citizenship than just the calculation of days present in Canada. I do not often practice what I preach (as I am a creature born and raised in the religion of hypocrisy, in the sick-culture in that S . . . hole country to our south) but in this particular respect I did practice what I preach: I waited to apply nearly two full years past when I first met the qualifications for citizenship, precisely because my case involved circumstances elevating the risk of RQ and which would have made proving my case difficult. It was a good move.
Hi dpenabill,
I just loved the wordings of your last para.
I do not often practice what I preach (as I am a creature born and raised in the religion of hypocrisy, in the sick-culture in that S . . . hole country to our south) but in this particular respect I did practice what I preach: I waited to apply nearly two full years past when I first met the qualifications for citizenship,
I just loved the wordings of your last para.
I do not often practice what I preach (as I am a creature born and raised in the religion of hypocrisy, in the sick-culture in that S . . . hole country to our south) but in this particular respect I did practice what I preach: I waited to apply nearly two full years past when I first met the qualifications for citizenship,