Referred to a judge after test and submission of more docs...what is next?!
- Thread starter egyo
- Start date
Not necessarily. I personally know a family where husband was working in US on rotations (wife and kid were residing in Calgary all the time), paid taxes in Canada and had only 740 days of physical presence out of 1095, he seen CJ and been granted citizenship in 2014. His case took 2 year and 9 months though.egyo said:
They had all ties - house, kid born in Calgary, RRSP/RESP accounts, etc.
Remember, every case is different and must be treated individually. Good luck!
Recognizing that the probable outcome is a mere statistical observation (which, remember, is indicated by a mere fifty-percent-plus-one), it is indeed my opinion that for those now being referred to a residency hearing with a Citizenship Judge a denial is probable. This is about those referred for a residency hearing pursuant to the procedure which came into force August 1, 2014.egyo said:
My sense is that the risk of a denial, for applicants referred to a residency hearing, has been substantial if not fairly high for quite awhile now (since the implementation of the FPAT in 2012), but the change in process as of August 2014 elevates that risk.
But that is NOT what you or anyone else should understand from my comments.
The reason for this is that ultimately the statistical probability is NOT particularly significant, and in particular it is NOT all that informative, especially not informative in comparison to the facts of the individual case.
Who is approved and who is denied has virtually nothing to do with the probabilities. This is NOT a lottery. Not a game of chance. It is not about a roll of the dice.
The outcome is decided based on the particular facts and circumstances of the specific case as documented in the entire record of the case . . . including the oral and other submissions made by the applicant at the time of the hearing with a Citizenship Judge.
As I stated above, applicants with good reason to be confident they met the qualifications, who submitted sufficient proof of residency, and for whom there is no reason CIC should doubt their credibility, should have little to worry about. Even if they go to a CJ hearing.
That said, the mere fact of being referred to a residency hearing with a Citizenship Judge is a huge clue about what CIC has concluded regarding the issue of residency. And what CIC has concluded will, of course, be reflected in the referral, which in residency cases is based on the FPAT (the File Preparation Analysis Template).
What I think should be understood from my comments is that anyone now being referred to a residency hearing with a CJ should recognize the high risk that CIC has prepared a negative referral for the CJ, in essence submitting reasons to deny citizenship to the CJ.
What the ultimate decision will be will depend. Applicants who have, in effect, good answers for the doubts raised by CIC, should be approved. Applicants who fail to persuade the CJ that CIC got it wrong, or at least that CIC's doubts deserve to be resolved in the applicant's favour, are at high risk for being denied.
Thanks dpenabill
So under the old Act, independent citizenship judges exercised much of the authority in determining who would be granted citizenship. The current Act ( after Bill C24) makes the process primarily a departmental one, delegating authority to individual officers.
Section 13.1, permits the Minister to suspend citizenship applications and other proceedings while additional information or evidence is gathered. This section permits the government to delay processing citizenship applications indefinitely.
The Bill fundamentally altered the process of revocation of citizenship. Previously, the process consisted of three steps. The first is a report under s. 10 of the Act, that the Minister is satisfied that a person obtained citizenship fraudulently. Second, once notified of the report, the person can request that the matter be referred to the Federal Court for a hearing. Third, if the Federal Court makes the finding requested by the Minister, citizenship is revoked by the Governor in Council, which can and does consider equitable factors in addition to the breach itself. The current process cuts out the Federal Court hearing, except where persons have engaged in conflict against Canada or have misrepresented in relation to specific inadmissibility grounds under IRPA. In all other cases, the Minister will decide with no requirement of a formal hearing. For a matter as serious as revocation of citizenship, a formal hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker must be maintained. A fair process for revocation, including an oral hearing before an independent judge, reflects the value of Canadian citizenship and respect for the rule of law.
S. 10(2)(b) includes as one offence that would permit the Minister to revoke citizenship, “ a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code — or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section — and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment”. Also, Section 10.1(2) provides another ground for revoking citizenship: “If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a person, before or after the coming into force of this section and while the person was a citizen, served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group and that country or group was engaged in an armed conflict with Canada”.
So under the old Act, independent citizenship judges exercised much of the authority in determining who would be granted citizenship. The current Act ( after Bill C24) makes the process primarily a departmental one, delegating authority to individual officers.
Section 13.1, permits the Minister to suspend citizenship applications and other proceedings while additional information or evidence is gathered. This section permits the government to delay processing citizenship applications indefinitely.
The Bill fundamentally altered the process of revocation of citizenship. Previously, the process consisted of three steps. The first is a report under s. 10 of the Act, that the Minister is satisfied that a person obtained citizenship fraudulently. Second, once notified of the report, the person can request that the matter be referred to the Federal Court for a hearing. Third, if the Federal Court makes the finding requested by the Minister, citizenship is revoked by the Governor in Council, which can and does consider equitable factors in addition to the breach itself. The current process cuts out the Federal Court hearing, except where persons have engaged in conflict against Canada or have misrepresented in relation to specific inadmissibility grounds under IRPA. In all other cases, the Minister will decide with no requirement of a formal hearing. For a matter as serious as revocation of citizenship, a formal hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker must be maintained. A fair process for revocation, including an oral hearing before an independent judge, reflects the value of Canadian citizenship and respect for the rule of law.
S. 10(2)(b) includes as one offence that would permit the Minister to revoke citizenship, “ a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code — or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section — and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment”. Also, Section 10.1(2) provides another ground for revoking citizenship: “If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a person, before or after the coming into force of this section and while the person was a citizen, served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group and that country or group was engaged in an armed conflict with Canada”.
For purposes of this thread, that is for purposes of referrals to a Citizenship Judge in grant citizenship cases, the operative section of the Citizenship Act is section 14(1) which came into force August 1, 2014, replacing the previous version of section 14(1).
It was the previous version of 14(1) which prescribed that an application for grant citizenship must ("shall") be considered by a Citizenship Judge, who was to determine whether or not the applicant met the requirements.
Current version of 14(1) (per Bill C-24, provisions taking effect on August 1, 2014) provides for a referral to a Citizenship Judge "because the Minister is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements . . . . of [the provisions prescribing residency]."
As noted before, this is in connection with the "one-step" process promised, such that for grant citizenship applications only residency cases are now referred to and decided by a Citizenship Judge, and otherwise CIC (in practice the Minister's delegates) assesses applicants and grants citizenship to those who are qualified.
Citizenship Judge hearing . . . or hearing with a Citizenship Officer
I have seen one report of an applicant who reported that a recent response to an ATIP application indicated that the FPAT was complete and that the case will be scheduled for a hearing with a "Citizenship Officer." I do not know how credible this report is: I suspected and suggested that the individual might be referring to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge . . . but further references continue to be to an "officer" not a CJ.
BUT, I must say that it is quite possible that CIC will actually be holding hearings before referring residency cases to a Citizenship Judge, as redundant as that would be.
On one hand, I am aware of fair procedure arguments that might be at play in this, given that now the Minister has authority to grant citizenship, which inherently involves, otherwise, the decision to not grant citizenship, which is a decision which affects the substantive rights of a Canadian (PRs being Canadians) and therefore, ordinarily, the applicant is entitled to the process which assures a fair procedure, including for example a right to examine and respond to all information the decision-maker considers in making the decision, and often a right to a hearing.
Additionally, a recent Federal Court decision has affirmatively applied the August 1, 2014 changes to a case in which a Citizenship Judge denied approval in 2013.
In the HAIFFA A A ALI ABDEL HUSSEIN case the Citizenship Judge's denial was set aside and the matter has been sent back for a redetermination to CIC, to the "decision-maker," rather than to another Citizenship Judge.
While this case also has implications for proof of residency in terms of strict physical presence, warranting some attention and analysis, for purposes of Bill C-24 taking effect, and in particular those provisions which came into force as of last August (August 1, 2014) (which I discuss in previous posts above), this is the first Federal Court decision I have seen actually applying the new law (I have seen other references to the changes, but no previous instance where the new law actually controlled what happened in the case).
What is interesting, a bit confusing, a bit of an open question:
What is interesting, a bit confusing, a bit of an open question, however, is that as I also discuss just above, it is section 14(1) which provides for a referral to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge in residency cases.
I assume (a safe assumption I think) that in this particular case CIC asked the Federal Court justice, in the alternative (asking first for the court to uphold the CJ's decision, but in the alternative . . . ), that the case be sent back to the "decision-maker," not to another Citizenship Judge. What perks my attention is the Federal Court's statement that the provisions which came into force on August 1, 2014 placed "the adjudication of such applications within the ambit of [the Minister] . . . "
I recall seeing, but at the moment do not recall exactly where, a CIC statement alluding to Citizenship Judge hearings in a manner as though they might be phased out altogether. It was a vague intimation at most, so I took it to be a potential, further modification of the procedure in the future, not necessarily something to derive from Bill C-24.
But the language in section 14(1) invites questions:
"If an application is accepted for processing and later referred to a citizenship judge because the Minister is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements . . ."
IF
I understood section 14(1) to require a CJ hearing in any case in which CIC would otherwise decline to grant citizenship because it was not satisfied the applicant met the residency requirement. That is, that CIC has a choice to either grant citizenship or refer the case to a CJ for a hearing.
I am quite confident it was drafted in a way to convey that meaning.
I am not so certain there was not a hidden agenda to subsequently, once in force, to push a different interpretation, the interpretation that CIC has discretion to refer the matter for a CJ hearing.
There is now nothing in the Citizenship Act which states in declarative language that a residency case must be decided by a Citizenship Judge, but rather conditions a CJ's decision-making on the conditional if the matter is referred to a CJ.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
In the meantime, though, the decision of a Citizenship Judge in the HAIFFA A A ALI ABDEL HUSSEIN case was not sent back to another Citizenship Judge, but rather back to CIC . . . which, again, I assume was at CIC's request (in the alternative).
My observation, a guess:
My sense, my guess, is that the more difficult residency cases still pending after a full assessment of the RQ and other documents submitted are going to be scheduled for a Citizenship Officer hearing. Not at all sure of this. No definitive information coming from CIC stating this. But, I now give the report of an individual claiming to have a case to be scheduled for a Citizenship Officer hearing in conjunction with this re-determination sent back to CIC, not another CJ, to suggest this is at least a significant indication of how CIC is going to proceed. Again, this is far, far from a conclusive observation, really just a guess, but it seems clear this government wants to consolidate as much of the decision-making authority in its hierarchy of command as possible and this would be consistent with that.
It was the previous version of 14(1) which prescribed that an application for grant citizenship must ("shall") be considered by a Citizenship Judge, who was to determine whether or not the applicant met the requirements.
Current version of 14(1) (per Bill C-24, provisions taking effect on August 1, 2014) provides for a referral to a Citizenship Judge "because the Minister is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements . . . . of [the provisions prescribing residency]."
As noted before, this is in connection with the "one-step" process promised, such that for grant citizenship applications only residency cases are now referred to and decided by a Citizenship Judge, and otherwise CIC (in practice the Minister's delegates) assesses applicants and grants citizenship to those who are qualified.
Citizenship Judge hearing . . . or hearing with a Citizenship Officer
I have seen one report of an applicant who reported that a recent response to an ATIP application indicated that the FPAT was complete and that the case will be scheduled for a hearing with a "Citizenship Officer." I do not know how credible this report is: I suspected and suggested that the individual might be referring to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge . . . but further references continue to be to an "officer" not a CJ.
BUT, I must say that it is quite possible that CIC will actually be holding hearings before referring residency cases to a Citizenship Judge, as redundant as that would be.
On one hand, I am aware of fair procedure arguments that might be at play in this, given that now the Minister has authority to grant citizenship, which inherently involves, otherwise, the decision to not grant citizenship, which is a decision which affects the substantive rights of a Canadian (PRs being Canadians) and therefore, ordinarily, the applicant is entitled to the process which assures a fair procedure, including for example a right to examine and respond to all information the decision-maker considers in making the decision, and often a right to a hearing.
Additionally, a recent Federal Court decision has affirmatively applied the August 1, 2014 changes to a case in which a Citizenship Judge denied approval in 2013.
In the HAIFFA A A ALI ABDEL HUSSEIN case the Citizenship Judge's denial was set aside and the matter has been sent back for a redetermination to CIC, to the "decision-maker," rather than to another Citizenship Judge.
While this case also has implications for proof of residency in terms of strict physical presence, warranting some attention and analysis, for purposes of Bill C-24 taking effect, and in particular those provisions which came into force as of last August (August 1, 2014) (which I discuss in previous posts above), this is the first Federal Court decision I have seen actually applying the new law (I have seen other references to the changes, but no previous instance where the new law actually controlled what happened in the case).
What is interesting, a bit confusing, a bit of an open question:
What is interesting, a bit confusing, a bit of an open question, however, is that as I also discuss just above, it is section 14(1) which provides for a referral to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge in residency cases.
I assume (a safe assumption I think) that in this particular case CIC asked the Federal Court justice, in the alternative (asking first for the court to uphold the CJ's decision, but in the alternative . . . ), that the case be sent back to the "decision-maker," not to another Citizenship Judge. What perks my attention is the Federal Court's statement that the provisions which came into force on August 1, 2014 placed "the adjudication of such applications within the ambit of [the Minister] . . . "
I recall seeing, but at the moment do not recall exactly where, a CIC statement alluding to Citizenship Judge hearings in a manner as though they might be phased out altogether. It was a vague intimation at most, so I took it to be a potential, further modification of the procedure in the future, not necessarily something to derive from Bill C-24.
But the language in section 14(1) invites questions:
"If an application is accepted for processing and later referred to a citizenship judge because the Minister is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements . . ."
IF
I understood section 14(1) to require a CJ hearing in any case in which CIC would otherwise decline to grant citizenship because it was not satisfied the applicant met the residency requirement. That is, that CIC has a choice to either grant citizenship or refer the case to a CJ for a hearing.
I am quite confident it was drafted in a way to convey that meaning.
I am not so certain there was not a hidden agenda to subsequently, once in force, to push a different interpretation, the interpretation that CIC has discretion to refer the matter for a CJ hearing.
There is now nothing in the Citizenship Act which states in declarative language that a residency case must be decided by a Citizenship Judge, but rather conditions a CJ's decision-making on the conditional if the matter is referred to a CJ.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
In the meantime, though, the decision of a Citizenship Judge in the HAIFFA A A ALI ABDEL HUSSEIN case was not sent back to another Citizenship Judge, but rather back to CIC . . . which, again, I assume was at CIC's request (in the alternative).
My observation, a guess:
My sense, my guess, is that the more difficult residency cases still pending after a full assessment of the RQ and other documents submitted are going to be scheduled for a Citizenship Officer hearing. Not at all sure of this. No definitive information coming from CIC stating this. But, I now give the report of an individual claiming to have a case to be scheduled for a Citizenship Officer hearing in conjunction with this re-determination sent back to CIC, not another CJ, to suggest this is at least a significant indication of how CIC is going to proceed. Again, this is far, far from a conclusive observation, really just a guess, but it seems clear this government wants to consolidate as much of the decision-making authority in its hierarchy of command as possible and this would be consistent with that.
Hi all, I called again and got confirmation that my file is being reviewed by a judge. My question: do you know of anyone referred to a CJ after August 2014? Any idea how long will take the review process by the CJ? Also, my lawyer said he can't do anything until I am called for hearing or so...this is really frustrating...I have no worries at all as I submitted all that would clear my case and make things very straightforward but I am frustrated to see 2014 applicants taking the oath while others have to wait since 2011. This is not fair at all 
I double that. Would be interesting to know if anyone referred to a CJ after August 2014?egyo said:Hi all, I called again and got confirmation that my file is being reviewed by a judge. My question: do you know of anyone referred to a CJ after August 2014? Any idea how long will take the review process by the CJ? Also, my lawyer said he can't do anything until I am called for hearing or so...this is really frustrating...I have no worries at all as I submitted all that would clear my case and make things very straightforward but I am frustrated to see 2014 applicants taking the oath while others have to wait since 2011. This is not fair at all