Referred to a judge after test and submission of more docs...what is next?!

[egyo]

Hi all, I did the test in Kitchener in October 2014 then was asked to submit more docs which I did early Nov. This week I called CIC to know that my file has been referred to a judge in December...how long you think it will take to get invite to Oath or interview with a Judge? Thanks

 

[era1521]

Hi all, I did the test in Kitchener in October 2014 then was asked to submit more docs which I did early Nov. This week I called CIC to know that my file has been referred to a judge in December...how long you think it will take to get invite to Oath or interview with a Judge? Thanks

please provide more details if want people enlight you. you are the person with Mandamus after 36mts waiting?

 

[egyo]

Yes, the lawer recommended withdrawing the mandamus since the CIC took a step forward in my file and invited me to the test/interview. But during the interview the officer said we would need more docs...which I already submitted in full

 

[era1521]

Yes, the lawer recommended withdrawing the mandamus since the CIC took a step forward in my file and invited me to the test/interview. But during the interview the officer said we would need more docs...which I already submitted in full

your case sounds pretty complicated anyway and I dont think you'll find an answer here. you'll get a bunch of people guessing and most likely confuse you. forget about the oath at this point, you'll have to see the judge first and that should happen within 3mts since referred.

 

[eileenf]

you'll get a bunch of people guessing...
...you'll have to see the judge first and that should happen within 3mts since referred.

There's a lot of variation in timelines to see judges, but I have never heard of 3 months as any sort of standard or typical timeline. If Era has any source for this I would be interested to see it.

I recommend calling your MP's office and having them enquire about whether you are in line to see the judge (Call Centre agents often get this wrong) and also ask what the typical wait for a judge's hearing is in your area. This is one of the things your MP can do for you. There will be no negative repercussions.

Good luck.

 

[era1521]

There's a lot of variation in timelines to see judges, but I have never heard of 3 months as any sort of standard or typical timeline. If Era has any source for this I would be interested to see it.

I recommend calling your MP's office and having them enquire about whether you are in line to see the judge (Call Centre agents often get this wrong) and also ask what the typical wait for a judge's hearing is in your area. This is one of the things your MP can do for you. There will be no negative repercussions.

Good luck.

Sorry I was wrong; the judge should happen within 6 mts after test (judge or oath) and after hearing the judge should make a decision in 3 mts. Those were the timelines when I had my application in 2007 and were respected in my case. I know some people claim that they called CIC and were told the waiting time for hearing schedule is 18-24-36mts or other odd numbers. I seriously doubt that.

 

[egyo]

It should differ from one office to another? I have heard that Kitchener is not as bad in timing as others...even if I have been waiting for almost 40 months

 

[era1521]

It should differ from one office to another? I have heard that Kitchener is not as bad in timing as others...even if I have been waiting for almost 40 months

I was talking about the waiting time for hearing with a Judge.
Anyway, I personally know two guys with applications since more than 36mts, with second RQ received and so on. The common thing for both of them is they had working visa/permit in counties in Middle East.
In my opinion you should have pursued the Mandamus.

Good luck!

 

[egyo]

Thanks era1521
I am curious to know what happened with your friends after receiving a second RQ? I don't have a work permit outside Canada but it seems that I should have used a lawyer when I filled out my application as I did mistakes there...anyway, I sent all that prove my straightforward situation

 

[dpenabill]

Strongly concur in the observation by eileenf that there is a lot of variation in timelines to see judges:

There's a lot of variation in timelines to see judges . . .

That has been true historically, reflected in scores of anecdotal reports in multiple forums such as this.

But more than that, there have been many changes with more changes to come, so timelines reported in the past are of little import now. There is no prescribed timeline within which CIC must complete its processing and refer a matter to a Citizenship Judge.

Which brings up one of the more significant changes within the past year: as of last August 1st (August 1, 2014), the Minister has authority to grant citizenship without making a referral to a Citizenship Judge. The new process limits CJ hearings to residency cases, and given CIC's current scope of authority, it appears that only applicants CIC is, in effect, opposed to granting citizenship will actually be referred to a CJ.

But the filing of Mandamus may have affected the dynamic in your particular situation.

Yes, the lawer recommended withdrawing the mandamus since the CIC took a step forward in my file and invited me to the test/interview. But during the interview the officer said we would need more docs...which I already submitted in full

Foremost, you have a lawyer, probably a competent, reliable lawyer, and his or her recommendations are worth more than anything I can offer, worth more than anyone here can offer.

I believe that the underlying reason the lawyer recommended withdrawing the mandamus is that the mandamus was most likely asking the Federal Court to order CIC to process the application. Since CIC took a step forward in the case, showing it was processing the application, the remedy sought was in effect obtained . . . nothing more the mandamus could accomplish, so it would have been denied anyway, the relief being sought having already been obtained.

In the meantime you probably should not rely on what a call centre representative says. I have seen a few reports which lead me to think that some references to "judges" are imprecise and are not necessarily about cases being scheduled for a Citizenship Judge hearing. But, of course there is a risk you are being scheduled for a CJ hearing. That would not be good news.

Good news would be that your case is in the hands of a Citizenship Officer (or at least in a queue to be given a Citizenship Officer) who will review the file including all documents submitted and decide whether citizenship should be granted.

A CJ hearing would not be good news because given the changes in processing, that would mean CIC is most likely advocating against approval in the referral. Otherwise CIC would grant citizenship, as it now has authority to do.

If the attorney was only representing you for the purpose of pursuing mandamus, it might be worth your while to go back to the attorney and (1) obtain representation for a CJ hearing if there is one, and (2) in the meantime perhaps the attorney could do a customized ATIP request on your behalf seeking copies of everything CIC is sending to the CJ, including the referral prepared using the File Preparation Analysis Template.

There is a lot all of us here are in the dark about regarding this stage of processing, particularly now since the changes implemented last August.

The key risk is that you are on track for a CJ hearing, that CIC has prepared a negative referral in effect arguing to the CJ why you should not be granted approval. That is a significant enough risk (but not at all a certainty) with serious enough implications, continued assistance from a competent lawyer is probably what you most need to do . . . hopefully you can afford this.

 

[look4d]

Hi dpenabill,

I would like please to ask about FPAT, as you mentioned it, I have that note in my ATIP : Applicant passed first test however residence issues/concerns not resolved at time of interview. File is being returned to RQ queue to be assigned to an Officer for review/analysis. FPAT required. WT

The above note was on 2nd July 2014, when I contacted CIC lately, they told me that my application is assigned to an officer on 6th January 2015.

Is FPAT is a sign for CJ hearing ?

Cheers

 

[egyo]

Thanks dpenabill
This is hilarious reply. I am going to wait and just wait. I think my MP is fed up and last time he said he won't be able to do anything more. With regard to a CJ hearing, I have a friend who went through it in Kitchener, and it went so well and he got the citizenship...this was in 2011. I am not sure if is is still the case or not. Anyway, i am not sure why I am optimistic about it

 

[era1521]

Thanks dpenabill
This is hilarious reply. I am going to wait and just wait. I think my MP is fed up and last time he said he won't be able to do anything more. With regard to a CJ hearing, I have a friend who went through it in Kitchener, and it went so well and he got the citizenship...this was in 2011. I am not sure if is is still the case or not. Anyway, i am not sure why I am optimistic about it

My friend, your case is definitely out of ordinary to say the least. As I stated at the beginning you will not be able to find answers here (at least not the answer you want to hear), but only confusing you.

 

[egyo]

Thanks my friend! Would you be able to let me know what happened with your friends after receiving a second RQ?

 

[dpenabill]

With regard to a CJ hearing, I have a friend who went through it in Kitchener, and it went so well and he got the citizenship...this was in 2011. I am not sure if is is still the case or not. Anyway, i am not sure why I am optimistic about it

As I said, the key risk is you are on track for a CJ hearing, that CIC has prepared a negative referral in effect arguing to the CJ why you should not be granted approval. That is a significant enough risk (but not at all a certainty) with serious enough implications, continued assistance from a competent lawyer is probably what you most need to do . . . hopefully you can afford this.

That is the risk, not necessarily what is going to happen. But if you are in fact scheduled for a CJ hearing, it is very, very likely CIC will be arguing (in the referral) why your application should be denied. That is not how it was a year ago, let alone in 2011. The process has changed.


In particular:

A great deal has changed since 2011. In 2011 ALL grant citizenship applications had to be approved by a Citizenship Judge.

Bottom-line: for RQ'd applicants in a post-interview stage of processing, we have been seeing ATIP reports indicating, for some applicants:
-- FPAT required, or
-- FPAT prepared

We are in the dark in many respects so it is not certain, but "FPAT required" appears to signal that CIC was not satisfied at least to the degree that CIC has queued the application for the more thorough review of residency conducted attendant the preparation of the File Preparation Analysis Template. (The query posed by look4d reflects an obvious example, "residence issues/concerns not resolved . . . [queued for Officer review]".)

A Citizenship Officer, probably the same as the one completing the referral using the FPAT, will ultimately decide if the applicant has established residency (and otherwise is qualified), such applicant to be scheduled for the oath, or whether the applicant has failed to established residency, which applicant will be referred for a CJ residency hearing.

This is different than what was done prior to August 1, 2014. Prior to August 1, 2014 all citizenship applications had to be decided by a Citizenship Judge. After August 1, 2014, the only cases being decided by a Citizenship Judge are those in which CIC has determined that the applicant failed to establish residency.

This is a huge difference. It will take a long while for anecdotal reports of actual CJ hearings to more fully indicate the nature and character of the hearings after August 1, 2014. It will be much longer before we begin to see Federal Court decisions reviewing such cases.

This difference should not be underestimated. Prior to August 2014 if there was any question/concern about residency, it went to a CJ hearing. The CJ decided if the applicant's submissions resolved the question or concern. Obviously this encompassed a high percentage of qualified applicants, so obviously there was correspondingly a relatively high percentage of applicants going to a CJ hearing who were ultimately approved and granted citizenship.

For the post August 2014 process, we do not know CIC's criteria let alone to what extent it might be more strict than that employed by Citizenship Judges, so we do not fully know to what extent the odds are against applicants going to a CJ hearing after August 2014. But it is obvious that the odds are far more daunting now, for those who are actually scheduled for a CJ hearing, than they were prior to August 2014.

In other words, how it went for applicants who went to a CJ hearing in 2011 is not informative about how it is likely to go now.

This leads to when "FPAT prepared" is indicated in the ATIP report.


FPAT prepared

We do not know whether "FPAT prepared" indicates the case is yet on track to be scheduled for a CJ hearing or not. It is possible that the FPAT prepared notation still precedes a decision by the Citizenship Officer.

The Citizenship Officer determines whether citizenship is to be granted, or if a CJ hearing will be scheduled.

This is why in my previous post I said it would be good news if the case is yet to be assessed and decided by the Citizenship Officer. A fair if not high percentage of such cases still have good odds of being approved and granted citizenship. But that it would be bad news if the case is past that stage and being referred to a Citizenship Judge, which would be for a hearing.

Of course cases are not decided by chance, not by a roll of dice, but are decided based on the particular facts and circumstances of the specific case as documented in the entire record of the case.

Applicants with good reason to be confident they met the qualifications, submitted sufficient proof, 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, however, again given the new process, it will be unusual for a case to be referred for a CJ hearing if there is indeed good reason for such confidence.

Odds are that a case referred to a CJ for a hearing now is a case which CIC has prepared a negative referral, in essence a referral arguing why approval should be denied. And again, this is different than it was a year ago and before.

Your lawyer should be able to assess your case and indicate whether or not you should be confident, even if scheduled for a CJ hearing, or what you can do to improve your submissions, to sufficiently address the outstanding concerns CIC still has. Your lawyer is your best resource in this regard.

I would like please to ask about FPAT, as you mentioned it, I have that note in my ATIP : Applicant passed first test however residence issues/concerns not resolved at time of interview. File is being returned to RQ queue to be assigned to an Officer for review/analysis. FPAT required. WT

The above note was on 2nd July 2014, when I contacted CIC lately, they told me that my application is assigned to an officer on 6th January 2015.

Is FPAT is a sign for CJ hearing ?

This fits the "FPAT required" category. As outlined above, this means the application will go to a Citizenship Officer who will do the more thorough review of residency attendant completion of the FPAT referral. While we are not certain about the particular practices at this stage, most indications are that there is still a significant chance the Citizenship Officer will, upon completing the more thorough assessment, conclude that you have established residency, approve the application, and schedule you for the oath. There is, however, still a chance that the Citizenship Officer will not be favourably impressed and will complete the referral for submission to a CJ, for a hearing, in which case what I outlined above applies.

Thus, at this stage, you do not know. It could go either way.

It may be worth repeating, however, that what happens is not a matter of chance, but will be based on what is in the file. Thus again: Applicants with good reason to be confident they met the qualifications, submitted sufficient proof, 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.