Foremost, I cannot assess the overall strength or weakness of your case. I suggest being wary of anyone else who claims they can . . . except, perhaps, a lawyer to whom you have divulged a great deal of personal information, confidentially of course.
RQ, even at this stage, does not necessarily indicate that IRCC (formerly CIC) has serious concerns or focused suspicions. The risk is elevated, but the nature and extent of questions or concerns IRCC has is likely to be directly proportional to the actual strengths and weaknesses in your case. You know these, or you are at least the one person in the best position to know these.
Some problematic elements can be identified. The absence of proof of regular day-to-day activity in Canada looms, as I have said, as a weakness, a potential issue and perhaps your most serious challenge. This is the impact long-term unemployment has, which is about the extent to which being unemployed leaves a gap in your proof. This, however, mostly means you need to get-your-game-on some in responding to the RQ, digging a little deeper, going a little farther, perhaps being a bit creative in identifying documentation which will better show a life lived in Canada, your life as lived in Canada. This is a large part of what my response was about in the responding to RQ topic.
Some of what I was trying to illuminate in my other posts is that RQ at this stage can be serious, but it is not necessarily serious, rather there is a significant likelihood it might be, so it would be prudent, again, to get-your-game-on and make a concerted effort to submit a thorough, persuasive response to the RQ.
FWIW, my posts are intended to focus on how-to-navigate the process, not about what the process should be.
An overall observation: If you have fully declared all travel/time abroad, know of no reason for CIC/IRCC to be suspicious (no other Travel Documents or such, not employed abroad still, and so on), and you can submit a reasonable amount of documentation effectively amounting to an audit trail of a life lived in Canada, do the latter, fully respond to the RQ, show a life lived in Canada, and then wait, do NOT worry, all should go well.
If there is some nagging feeling, a feeling that is not how things are going to go, particularly if the feeling is rooted in what you know about your case, about yourself, best to see a lawyer. But in the meantime perhaps read the rest of this post . . . and then go on to read posts in other RQ and Residency Case related topics.
My reference to numerous other topics regarding RQ related questions was for your benefit, not a criticism: there is a lot of information in this and other forums about the RQ process. For the applicant confronted by RQ, and who wants to best navigate the process, there is a lot of information which can help. Of course one needs to be cautious and critical in approaching and using this information, to be aware of misinformation, and to be aware that the terrain is always changing (today's RQ process is not the same as it has been in the past).
In any event, back to the how-it-is, the closest IRCC comes to using another department's data to identify dates of travel outside Canada is the ICES report, derived from data maintained by CBSA. This enumerates known dates of entry. Even then, historically it is clear that CIC, and now it will be IRCC, looks at the ICES report to verify dates the applicant declared and otherwise focuses on or looks for discrepancies or omissions. Again, IRCC does NOT attempt to construct an independent calculation. They do not attempt to either construct or reconstruct the residency calculation.
IRCC focuses on verifying the completeness and accuracy of the applicant's declarations, and if there are discrepancies, that's a problem. To be clear, it is the applicant's problem.
It is the applicant's burden to prove residency. It is the applicant's burden to declare dates of exit and next entry, for all dates of exit and all dates of entry. If all the information IRCC digs into is consistent with the applicant's declaration, no discrepancies, no omissions, no indications of any other unreported travel, that tends to bode very well for the applicant.
If IRCC spots a discrepancy or an omission, they do NOT make an effort to recalculate taking into account the discrepancy or omission. They infer the applicant's declarations are unreliable.
If the applicant's submissions satisfy the Citizenship Officer, all is well. If the applicant's submissions do not satisfy the Citizenship Officer the case goes to a Citizenship Judge, which is quasi-adjudication, and it is the applicant's burden to prove to the CJ the dates of exit and entry adding up to a calculation which shows residency.
To be clear, in order to deny citizenship no one needs to prove an applicant was not present, not resident, in Canada. Citizenship can, and often has been denied, based on a finding that the applicant failed to prove he was physically present 1095+ days. This can arise because there is doubt about whether the applicant was abroad other than as declared.
The Minister, the CJ, and ultimately a Federal Court justice, could all think it is quite possible that the applicant met the residency requirement, but DENY citizenship if the applicant fails to prove it.
Leading to . . .
You declared 1095+ days APP. So the only question is whether or not you declared ALL absences.
Or, more to the point, the only question is whether IRCC apprehends you declared ALL absences.
RQ in the post-test phase means that IRCC has some reason to question whether or not you declared all absences. That is, they have identified a reason-to-question-residency.
If IRCC determines that you did indeed submit sufficient proof to show you declared all absences, you will be scheduled to take the oath and granted citizenship.
If the Citizenship Officer reviewing your case is not satisfied, however, the case will go to a Citizenship Judge. The Citizenship Officer will prepare a referral to the CJ, using what is called the File Preparation and Analysis Template (FPAT). If things go that far, the referral is likely to be, at least in part, an adversarial memorandum highlighting reasons to deny citizenship. That means, if things go to that stage, the CJ is informed of reasons why you should be denied before you sit down and have your interview or meeting or hearing with the CJ (technically it is a hearing; in practice it appears to be in the manner of an interview).
Whether or not things go that far can depend a great deal on how well you respond to the RQ. The RQ is your opportunity to prove your case. Best to take advantage of this opportunity. You get another opportunity if the case goes to a CJ, but it gets more difficult at that stage if you have not already submitted strong proof.
This leads to . . . .
-- overall absence of direct evidence as to day-to-day activity in Canada (such as a job in Canada) and, perhaps, combined with some question as to source of funds to support yourself, leading to . . .
-- still working abroad? and/or
-- is there some other Travel Document you could have used to travel internationally?
Credibility -- is the applicant "telling the truth?"
The role of credibility is both crucial and complex. For example, even if the applicant is believed, in a general sense, if the documentation leaves gaps in the proof that can still amount to a failure to prove residency and result in being denied. If the applicant is not believed, that makes it incredibly difficult.
As I previously noted, the Citizenship Officer, the CJ, and if it goes to an appeal, even a Federal Court justice, can all think it is quite possible the applicant met the residency requirement and is otherwise credible, but nonetheless conclude that the applicant has failed to affirmatively prove meeting the residency requirement and deny citizenship. This is, perhaps, unlikely. Few cases are that close. The more common case, by far, is that the Citizenship Officer believes the applicant, and approves a grant of citizenship. Or there are salient concerns as to the applicant's credibility, the applicant is not believed, and the Citizenship Officer, CJ, and ultimately the Federal Court decide against the applicant.
In other words, the applicant needs to remain credible. And then, on top of that, in a Residency Case, the applicant needs to submit credible, objective documentation sufficient to support the applicant's declarations. If the applicant does both, the path leads to citizenship. A slip as to either, tends to go the other way.
Observations regarding whether or not unemployment is a concern:
This may be a bit redundant. But I sense there is some misunderstanding as to how your unemployment factors into your situation.
For example:
Sometimes "red flag" has been used to refer to the triage criteria specifically used by CIC/IRCC in deciding which applicants should be issued RQ. In 2012, for example, a declaration of unemployment for any period of time combined with travel outside Canada any time during the relevant four years, triggered the issuance of a pre-test RQ.
We know that the original triage criteria, per OB 407 (April 2012), listed unemployment plus any absence. We know this was modified later, and that by some time in 2013 unemployment alone was not necessarily triggering pre-test RQ.
But that is largely not relevant to your situation.
In particular, the significance of a long period of unemployment after RQ has been issued should not be confused with whether or not, or to what extent, unemployment may or may not still figure in identifying which applicants should be issued pre-test RQ. I suspect it is still a factor, but one considered in context with other factors. But again that is about what triggers the issuance of RQ.
In contrast, you have been issued RQ.
The significance of long term unemployment in your situation, after RQ has been issued, I tried to illuminate in my post about responding to RQ, although I have further alluded to this above. It is not about whether it is a "red flag" or not. And, as I said in the topic about responding to RQ, employment is not a qualifying factor.
The thing is that employment at a job in Canada tends to show day-to-day activity in Canada, and thus employment in Canada is strong evidence tending to show residency and presence in Canada. Lacking proof of employment, thus, amounts to lacking proof of day-to-day activity in Canada unless the applicant can submit alternative evidence to show activity or at least presence. Students attending live classes in Canada, for example, have at least some evidence of activity (attending class sufficient to pass course) if they complete the course.
Thus, to the extent that you can, you probably want to submit documentation, evidence, to make up for not having documentation of a job in Canada or attending classes in Canada. At the least, you want to submit more evidence as to activity and presence over the course of the time you were in Canada. The better you do this, the better your odds that the Citizenship Officer will be satisfied. You want to improve those odds as much as you can.
As I noted before, I do not mean to be alarming. Indeed, there is probably no need to even be worried. The applicant who has lived a life in Canada can usually find sufficient evidence to show this, a life lived in Canada. Do that in response to the RQ and, assuming all declarations of information in the application and residency calculation were complete and accurate, all should go well, no need to worry.
RQ, even at this stage, does not necessarily indicate that IRCC (formerly CIC) has serious concerns or focused suspicions. The risk is elevated, but the nature and extent of questions or concerns IRCC has is likely to be directly proportional to the actual strengths and weaknesses in your case. You know these, or you are at least the one person in the best position to know these.
Some problematic elements can be identified. The absence of proof of regular day-to-day activity in Canada looms, as I have said, as a weakness, a potential issue and perhaps your most serious challenge. This is the impact long-term unemployment has, which is about the extent to which being unemployed leaves a gap in your proof. This, however, mostly means you need to get-your-game-on some in responding to the RQ, digging a little deeper, going a little farther, perhaps being a bit creative in identifying documentation which will better show a life lived in Canada, your life as lived in Canada. This is a large part of what my response was about in the responding to RQ topic.
Some of what I was trying to illuminate in my other posts is that RQ at this stage can be serious, but it is not necessarily serious, rather there is a significant likelihood it might be, so it would be prudent, again, to get-your-game-on and make a concerted effort to submit a thorough, persuasive response to the RQ.
FWIW, my posts are intended to focus on how-to-navigate the process, not about what the process should be.
An overall observation: If you have fully declared all travel/time abroad, know of no reason for CIC/IRCC to be suspicious (no other Travel Documents or such, not employed abroad still, and so on), and you can submit a reasonable amount of documentation effectively amounting to an audit trail of a life lived in Canada, do the latter, fully respond to the RQ, show a life lived in Canada, and then wait, do NOT worry, all should go well.
If there is some nagging feeling, a feeling that is not how things are going to go, particularly if the feeling is rooted in what you know about your case, about yourself, best to see a lawyer. But in the meantime perhaps read the rest of this post . . . and then go on to read posts in other RQ and Residency Case related topics.
The thing about posting related questions in multiple topics is not about it being offensive. It is about context, consistency, and coherency, both in terms of enabling those who respond to better understand the nature and scope of the query, but very much so in terms of obtaining informative and useful responses relevant to the underlying circumstances. That is, if you want consistent and useful information, it is better to stay focused in fewer topics.orodeshah said:
My reference to numerous other topics regarding RQ related questions was for your benefit, not a criticism: there is a lot of information in this and other forums about the RQ process. For the applicant confronted by RQ, and who wants to best navigate the process, there is a lot of information which can help. Of course one needs to be cautious and critical in approaching and using this information, to be aware of misinformation, and to be aware that the terrain is always changing (today's RQ process is not the same as it has been in the past).
Occasionally I wander into discussions about what policies or practices should be. But in my posts responding to questions about Residency Cases I try to steer well clear of this. Figuring out how to best navigate the process is a priority and to do this, a big step is better understanding just what the process is. What it should-be is a totally separate discussion, and for the applicant confronted by a post-test RQ and the prospect of being a Residency Case, an unnecessary distraction.orodeshah said:
In any event, back to the how-it-is, the closest IRCC comes to using another department's data to identify dates of travel outside Canada is the ICES report, derived from data maintained by CBSA. This enumerates known dates of entry. Even then, historically it is clear that CIC, and now it will be IRCC, looks at the ICES report to verify dates the applicant declared and otherwise focuses on or looks for discrepancies or omissions. Again, IRCC does NOT attempt to construct an independent calculation. They do not attempt to either construct or reconstruct the residency calculation.
IRCC focuses on verifying the completeness and accuracy of the applicant's declarations, and if there are discrepancies, that's a problem. To be clear, it is the applicant's problem.
It is the applicant's burden to prove residency. It is the applicant's burden to declare dates of exit and next entry, for all dates of exit and all dates of entry. If all the information IRCC digs into is consistent with the applicant's declaration, no discrepancies, no omissions, no indications of any other unreported travel, that tends to bode very well for the applicant.
If IRCC spots a discrepancy or an omission, they do NOT make an effort to recalculate taking into account the discrepancy or omission. They infer the applicant's declarations are unreliable.
If the applicant's submissions satisfy the Citizenship Officer, all is well. If the applicant's submissions do not satisfy the Citizenship Officer the case goes to a Citizenship Judge, which is quasi-adjudication, and it is the applicant's burden to prove to the CJ the dates of exit and entry adding up to a calculation which shows residency.
To be clear, in order to deny citizenship no one needs to prove an applicant was not present, not resident, in Canada. Citizenship can, and often has been denied, based on a finding that the applicant failed to prove he was physically present 1095+ days. This can arise because there is doubt about whether the applicant was abroad other than as declared.
The Minister, the CJ, and ultimately a Federal Court justice, could all think it is quite possible that the applicant met the residency requirement, but DENY citizenship if the applicant fails to prove it.
Leading to . . .
I made an effort to distinguish the shortfall case. That is not your case.orodeshah said:
You declared 1095+ days APP. So the only question is whether or not you declared ALL absences.
Or, more to the point, the only question is whether IRCC apprehends you declared ALL absences.
RQ in the post-test phase means that IRCC has some reason to question whether or not you declared all absences. That is, they have identified a reason-to-question-residency.
If IRCC determines that you did indeed submit sufficient proof to show you declared all absences, you will be scheduled to take the oath and granted citizenship.
If the Citizenship Officer reviewing your case is not satisfied, however, the case will go to a Citizenship Judge. The Citizenship Officer will prepare a referral to the CJ, using what is called the File Preparation and Analysis Template (FPAT). If things go that far, the referral is likely to be, at least in part, an adversarial memorandum highlighting reasons to deny citizenship. That means, if things go to that stage, the CJ is informed of reasons why you should be denied before you sit down and have your interview or meeting or hearing with the CJ (technically it is a hearing; in practice it appears to be in the manner of an interview).
Whether or not things go that far can depend a great deal on how well you respond to the RQ. The RQ is your opportunity to prove your case. Best to take advantage of this opportunity. You get another opportunity if the case goes to a CJ, but it gets more difficult at that stage if you have not already submitted strong proof.
This leads to . . . .
Again, I cannot offer an overall assessment of your case. I think you have identified some of the more likely concerns:orodeshah said:
-- overall absence of direct evidence as to day-to-day activity in Canada (such as a job in Canada) and, perhaps, combined with some question as to source of funds to support yourself, leading to . . .
-- still working abroad? and/or
-- is there some other Travel Document you could have used to travel internationally?
Credibility -- is the applicant "telling the truth?"
The role of credibility is both crucial and complex. For example, even if the applicant is believed, in a general sense, if the documentation leaves gaps in the proof that can still amount to a failure to prove residency and result in being denied. If the applicant is not believed, that makes it incredibly difficult.
As I previously noted, the Citizenship Officer, the CJ, and if it goes to an appeal, even a Federal Court justice, can all think it is quite possible the applicant met the residency requirement and is otherwise credible, but nonetheless conclude that the applicant has failed to affirmatively prove meeting the residency requirement and deny citizenship. This is, perhaps, unlikely. Few cases are that close. The more common case, by far, is that the Citizenship Officer believes the applicant, and approves a grant of citizenship. Or there are salient concerns as to the applicant's credibility, the applicant is not believed, and the Citizenship Officer, CJ, and ultimately the Federal Court decide against the applicant.
In other words, the applicant needs to remain credible. And then, on top of that, in a Residency Case, the applicant needs to submit credible, objective documentation sufficient to support the applicant's declarations. If the applicant does both, the path leads to citizenship. A slip as to either, tends to go the other way.
Observations regarding whether or not unemployment is a concern:
This may be a bit redundant. But I sense there is some misunderstanding as to how your unemployment factors into your situation.
For example:
For context, many participants in forums like this refer to "red flags" as factors or circumstances which draw negative attention or even negative inferences. You are past that. You have already been issued RQ. Whatever "red flag" there was, they saw it already, and already issued RQ.Politren said:
Sometimes "red flag" has been used to refer to the triage criteria specifically used by CIC/IRCC in deciding which applicants should be issued RQ. In 2012, for example, a declaration of unemployment for any period of time combined with travel outside Canada any time during the relevant four years, triggered the issuance of a pre-test RQ.
We know that the original triage criteria, per OB 407 (April 2012), listed unemployment plus any absence. We know this was modified later, and that by some time in 2013 unemployment alone was not necessarily triggering pre-test RQ.
But that is largely not relevant to your situation.
In particular, the significance of a long period of unemployment after RQ has been issued should not be confused with whether or not, or to what extent, unemployment may or may not still figure in identifying which applicants should be issued pre-test RQ. I suspect it is still a factor, but one considered in context with other factors. But again that is about what triggers the issuance of RQ.
In contrast, you have been issued RQ.
The significance of long term unemployment in your situation, after RQ has been issued, I tried to illuminate in my post about responding to RQ, although I have further alluded to this above. It is not about whether it is a "red flag" or not. And, as I said in the topic about responding to RQ, employment is not a qualifying factor.
The thing is that employment at a job in Canada tends to show day-to-day activity in Canada, and thus employment in Canada is strong evidence tending to show residency and presence in Canada. Lacking proof of employment, thus, amounts to lacking proof of day-to-day activity in Canada unless the applicant can submit alternative evidence to show activity or at least presence. Students attending live classes in Canada, for example, have at least some evidence of activity (attending class sufficient to pass course) if they complete the course.
Thus, to the extent that you can, you probably want to submit documentation, evidence, to make up for not having documentation of a job in Canada or attending classes in Canada. At the least, you want to submit more evidence as to activity and presence over the course of the time you were in Canada. The better you do this, the better your odds that the Citizenship Officer will be satisfied. You want to improve those odds as much as you can.
As I noted before, I do not mean to be alarming. Indeed, there is probably no need to even be worried. The applicant who has lived a life in Canada can usually find sufficient evidence to show this, a life lived in Canada. Do that in response to the RQ and, assuming all declarations of information in the application and residency calculation were complete and accurate, all should go well, no need to worry.