NOTE: the OP's query is about RQ, which is a very serious non-routine process, NOT a mere post-interview CBSA Travel History check. Generally it is appreciated if the forum has a chance, at least a day or three, to provide relevant responses to the OP before the thread is taken off topic.
It matters too whether what you were issued is the full blown RQ, which is the CIT 0171 form (subject to some slight variations, such as an English only version). Or whether it was RQ-lite, which is CIT 0520. (If your form is different from these, please let us know.)
There have been more than a few anecdotal reports from applicants whose processing was NOT delayed by much when they promptly and properly responded to a CIT 0520, their response clearly satisfying some particular concern. See more below regarding CIT 0171 RQ versus CIT 0520 RQ-lite.
We do NOT know the processing timeline for RQ'd cases these days:
The processing timeline, these days, for RQ'd cases (full-blown RQ, the CIT 0171) is unknown. It is probably a lot faster than it was a few years ago, when it often dragged beyond two years (from the date the application was initially made) and in more than a few cases could drag beyond three or even four years.
It probably does add at least several months.
So sure, your worry that it could mean six months to a year longer is a valid concern.
BUT it could go more quickly than that. And it is not likely it will take much longer than that.
What can you do to accelerate the timeline?
There is little or nothing you can do to make the process go faster. There are things you can do to minimize additional delays, to minimize how much longer it could take beyond how quickly IRCC is ordinarily processing RQ'd applicants.
First, send a complete, accurate, and responsive submission to the RQ as soon as practically feasible.
Do not take short cuts to rush it, however, since the more important thing is to be complete and accurate, to be responsive, to adequately provide the information requested and the supporting documents which will make your case.
The RQ form itself is your primary guide in determining what to submit.
As always: read and follow the instructions in the form(s) you received.
In the meantime, times and circumstances have changed. Thus, for example, older discussions about RQ need some updating. A lot of my older observations and commentary about responding to RQ are not necessarily valid today, for example, and especially so those in another forum where I often addressed the residency case in great depth over the course of many years, when different laws and different qualifying conditions applied. For a more specific example, in older posts I cautioned against submitting a document-bomb and rather adamantly suggested that often less-was-more. That was during a time period when the number of applicants getting RQ sometimes soared to more than one-in-four and was predominantly pre-test RQ.
For an applicant getting a post-interview RQ (which includes being handed the RQ at the interview) these days, however, submitting more evidence rather than less is probably the safer approach.
On the other hand, however, the core of what is involved in RQ, and how it works in general, has largely remained the same for many years. So in many respects the older discussions are still relevant and in more than a few respects provide valuable information. Some of the details have changed, but the gist of it has not. RQ is still about evidence that proves --
-- travel dates
-- residency, including especially a place of residence for each and every relevant month, corroborated by other evidence of residential ties
-- activity in Canada, the more the better, including evidence of actual activity corroborated by the specific date and location (steady work history is best, and filling in gaps with other activities, as much as possible)
That is, the key to navigating the RQ'd case is still rooted in diligently providing the information requested and submitting supporting documents, focusing foremost on providing objective documents which show where you were living, when, and what activities you engaged in, in Canada, including where and when, work history looming most importantly, documenting other activity to bolster the case or fill in work history gaps.
What is the issue?
There is a lingering myth that the reason for RQ is the key issue.
Once RQ is issued, however, all the aspects of proving presence in Canada for the minimum time period are in issue, at stake.
Thus, for example, a response to an ATIP request is not likely to offer any information which will help . . . and you would not get the response in time for making your RQ submission anyway.
If the reason RQ was issued was a discrepancy in travel dates in the summer of 2014, for example, it is nonetheless crucial that the applicant provide documentation to show his or her occupant's interest in a dwelling place for each and every month, for all the time period the applicant declared living in Canada. Likewise work history (or alternative activity), for each and every month the applicant declared being in Canada. Thus, even if it was only some question about dates in 2014 that triggered the RQ, all the other years need to be as fully documented as practical.
CIT 0171 RQ versus CIT 0520 RQ-lite:
For the applicant issued RQ-lite, CIT 0520, the reason why is the key. This form is typically used when IRCC perceives a concern or issue which could be resolved by this or that particular document or documents. When the applicant submits a response which addresses and resolves that concern, that usually suffices.
But as already noted, the applicant issued the full-blown RQ is, in effect, made to affirmatively prove physical presence for the full period of time (currently for the full 1460 days). A submission which resolves the concern or reason for which RQ was issued will not suffice unless the submission otherwise proves the applicant's presence.
Caution: while proof of travel dates is important, it is no where near sufficient. After all, a big part of the RQ'd case is documenting presence in-between last entry and next exit.
Processing after the applicant submits a response to the RQ:
To some extent the reason why RQ was issued may have some influence in how this goes.
What matters, to a significant extent, is the level of concern or doubt the IRCC citizenship official has. If, for example, a processing agent perceives a discrepancy in the application was deliberate, ouch, big time OUCH. And in general, if what triggered RQ involved serious questions about the applicant's credibility, that means IRCC is likely to screen what the applicant submits closely, extensively, and perhaps conduct inquiries, perhaps even make referrals for investigations, in processing the RQ'd application.
If, in contrast, what triggered RQ does not necessarily suggest reason to consider the applicant's credibility as severely compromised, and the applicant submits a thorough, complete, and apparently accurate response which tends to verify the applicant's case but for a mistake or three, there is a good chance the Citizenship Officer will review the RQ and grant citizenship within a relatively prompt timeline.
Next step in particular:
The RQ and application is reviewed, and if the Citizenship Officer is satisfied, the oath is scheduled. Only notice to applicant will be the notice of when the oath is scheduled, except that Decision Made may show up in eCas.
If after review the Citizenship Officer is NOT satisfied, there are various possible next steps, including another interview (a residence interview), or a hearing with the Citizenship Officer, or a referral of the case to a Citizenship Judge. While IRCC information discusses the possible residence interview or a hearing, with a Citizenship Officer, there have been minimal reports about this process, suggesting this is not common. Reports suggest that most times a Citizenship Officer is not satisfied, after reviewing the RQ, the case is then referred to a Citizenship Judge.
Obviously, the applicant's best approach is to fully make his or her case in responding to the RQ, and then hope that satisfies IRCC so that the next event is being scheduled for the oath.
If many months go by after submitting the RQ response, then it may be time to make a carefully and craftily composed customized ATIP request. That's a big topic in itself.
While the observations by parisien are probably well-intended, they do not appear to be relevant. There is a big difference between a post-interview check of CBSA travel history and being issued RQ. (It should be noted, however, that if for any reason the the CBSA travel history check does not verify dates to IRCC's satisfaction, the applicant may still be issued CIT 0171, which is the full blown RQ, or CIT 0520, oft referred to as RQ-lite.)
It matters too whether what you were issued is the full blown RQ, which is the CIT 0171 form (subject to some slight variations, such as an English only version). Or whether it was RQ-lite, which is CIT 0520. (If your form is different from these, please let us know.)
There have been more than a few anecdotal reports from applicants whose processing was NOT delayed by much when they promptly and properly responded to a CIT 0520, their response clearly satisfying some particular concern. See more below regarding CIT 0171 RQ versus CIT 0520 RQ-lite.
We do NOT know the processing timeline for RQ'd cases these days:
The processing timeline, these days, for RQ'd cases (full-blown RQ, the CIT 0171) is unknown. It is probably a lot faster than it was a few years ago, when it often dragged beyond two years (from the date the application was initially made) and in more than a few cases could drag beyond three or even four years.
It probably does add at least several months.
So sure, your worry that it could mean six months to a year longer is a valid concern.
BUT it could go more quickly than that. And it is not likely it will take much longer than that.
What can you do to accelerate the timeline?
There is little or nothing you can do to make the process go faster. There are things you can do to minimize additional delays, to minimize how much longer it could take beyond how quickly IRCC is ordinarily processing RQ'd applicants.
First, send a complete, accurate, and responsive submission to the RQ as soon as practically feasible.
Do not take short cuts to rush it, however, since the more important thing is to be complete and accurate, to be responsive, to adequately provide the information requested and the supporting documents which will make your case.
The RQ form itself is your primary guide in determining what to submit.
As always: read and follow the instructions in the form(s) you received.
In the meantime, times and circumstances have changed. Thus, for example, older discussions about RQ need some updating. A lot of my older observations and commentary about responding to RQ are not necessarily valid today, for example, and especially so those in another forum where I often addressed the residency case in great depth over the course of many years, when different laws and different qualifying conditions applied. For a more specific example, in older posts I cautioned against submitting a document-bomb and rather adamantly suggested that often less-was-more. That was during a time period when the number of applicants getting RQ sometimes soared to more than one-in-four and was predominantly pre-test RQ.
For an applicant getting a post-interview RQ (which includes being handed the RQ at the interview) these days, however, submitting more evidence rather than less is probably the safer approach.
On the other hand, however, the core of what is involved in RQ, and how it works in general, has largely remained the same for many years. So in many respects the older discussions are still relevant and in more than a few respects provide valuable information. Some of the details have changed, but the gist of it has not. RQ is still about evidence that proves --
-- travel dates
-- residency, including especially a place of residence for each and every relevant month, corroborated by other evidence of residential ties
-- activity in Canada, the more the better, including evidence of actual activity corroborated by the specific date and location (steady work history is best, and filling in gaps with other activities, as much as possible)
That is, the key to navigating the RQ'd case is still rooted in diligently providing the information requested and submitting supporting documents, focusing foremost on providing objective documents which show where you were living, when, and what activities you engaged in, in Canada, including where and when, work history looming most importantly, documenting other activity to bolster the case or fill in work history gaps.
What is the issue?
There is a lingering myth that the reason for RQ is the key issue.
Once RQ is issued, however, all the aspects of proving presence in Canada for the minimum time period are in issue, at stake.
Thus, for example, a response to an ATIP request is not likely to offer any information which will help . . . and you would not get the response in time for making your RQ submission anyway.
If the reason RQ was issued was a discrepancy in travel dates in the summer of 2014, for example, it is nonetheless crucial that the applicant provide documentation to show his or her occupant's interest in a dwelling place for each and every month, for all the time period the applicant declared living in Canada. Likewise work history (or alternative activity), for each and every month the applicant declared being in Canada. Thus, even if it was only some question about dates in 2014 that triggered the RQ, all the other years need to be as fully documented as practical.
CIT 0171 RQ versus CIT 0520 RQ-lite:
For the applicant issued RQ-lite, CIT 0520, the reason why is the key. This form is typically used when IRCC perceives a concern or issue which could be resolved by this or that particular document or documents. When the applicant submits a response which addresses and resolves that concern, that usually suffices.
But as already noted, the applicant issued the full-blown RQ is, in effect, made to affirmatively prove physical presence for the full period of time (currently for the full 1460 days). A submission which resolves the concern or reason for which RQ was issued will not suffice unless the submission otherwise proves the applicant's presence.
Caution: while proof of travel dates is important, it is no where near sufficient. After all, a big part of the RQ'd case is documenting presence in-between last entry and next exit.
Processing after the applicant submits a response to the RQ:
To some extent the reason why RQ was issued may have some influence in how this goes.
What matters, to a significant extent, is the level of concern or doubt the IRCC citizenship official has. If, for example, a processing agent perceives a discrepancy in the application was deliberate, ouch, big time OUCH. And in general, if what triggered RQ involved serious questions about the applicant's credibility, that means IRCC is likely to screen what the applicant submits closely, extensively, and perhaps conduct inquiries, perhaps even make referrals for investigations, in processing the RQ'd application.
If, in contrast, what triggered RQ does not necessarily suggest reason to consider the applicant's credibility as severely compromised, and the applicant submits a thorough, complete, and apparently accurate response which tends to verify the applicant's case but for a mistake or three, there is a good chance the Citizenship Officer will review the RQ and grant citizenship within a relatively prompt timeline.
Next step in particular:
The RQ and application is reviewed, and if the Citizenship Officer is satisfied, the oath is scheduled. Only notice to applicant will be the notice of when the oath is scheduled, except that Decision Made may show up in eCas.
If after review the Citizenship Officer is NOT satisfied, there are various possible next steps, including another interview (a residence interview), or a hearing with the Citizenship Officer, or a referral of the case to a Citizenship Judge. While IRCC information discusses the possible residence interview or a hearing, with a Citizenship Officer, there have been minimal reports about this process, suggesting this is not common. Reports suggest that most times a Citizenship Officer is not satisfied, after reviewing the RQ, the case is then referred to a Citizenship Judge.
Obviously, the applicant's best approach is to fully make his or her case in responding to the RQ, and then hope that satisfies IRCC so that the next event is being scheduled for the oath.
If many months go by after submitting the RQ response, then it may be time to make a carefully and craftily composed customized ATIP request. That's a big topic in itself.
