whiz said:
I applied for citizenship in accordance with the below timeline. Along with my citizenship application, I enclosed every single paper a questionnaire may request. I was extremely surprised they are asking me to fill a RQ although all the documents are submitted. I'm not even sure if I should resubmit the documents I submitted with my application. My question: Have anybody encounter this issue before? should I resubmit all the documents or just fill the questionnaire and refer the officer to the file sent with the citizenship application? My second question, is it possible the officer didn't even bother to open my file? The RQ letter date is February 10th, which is the same date they started processing my application. The letter says they require the RQ to "assist the judge assess my application"!
Thanks for all your replies.
----
We received your application for Canadian citizenship (grant of citizenship) on November 18, 2014.
We sent you a letter acknowledging receipt of your application(s) on January 29, 2015. Please consider delays in mail delivery before contacting us.
We started processing your application on February 10, 2015.
The first response by
era1521 actually said all that needed to be said, and it has been amply reinforced by others.
But I have to say that it is very, very difficult to believe that "renowned" (in a positive way anyway) lawyers would advise this. Your report of this succeeding for two applicants is the first such reports I have seen, all others going the opposite direction.
The advice to do this, however, to do a document-dump with the application itself, reminds me more of some oft-given advice by not-so-reputable
consultants (some of whom became
renowned in the negative sense) some years ago. Long discredited advice it warrants noting.
Priority approach to most bureaucratic applications, CIC included, citizenship applications included:
As it usually does, the old standard response applies:
If in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
The old standard does not absolutely, universally apply. Sometimes an exception is warranted. Deciding to go with an exception should be based only on well-informed, careful consideration of what is to be gained and how that will be accomplished, at what risk.
You made a choice to not follow the instructions for submitting the application. That did not work out so well it appears. Probably time to step back from second-guessing what you should do and follow the instructions.
That is, timely send a complete, accurate, and responsive RQ with requested supporting documentation to CIC, as instructed.
Observations based on reports of this by others:
(Excepting the two reports you cite.)
In general, the consensus is that including additional documentation, beyond that requested, in the citizenship application has no known positive effect. I did, just a small number of documents (CRA NoAs), and it did not hurt my case. Cannot say it helped either. While my timeline to oath was barely eight months, many others at the Oath Ceremony with me (in 2014) had similar, some even shorter timelines, and did not submit anything extra.
The consensus is almost universal (with some inexplicable exceptions, like the "renowned lawyers" you refer to) that submitting a lot of extra documentation with the application is
NOT a good idea. Frankly that seems obvious to me, but . . . well you are not the first to have taken the approach of submitting what is, in effect, a RQ-like collection of documents with the application. And not the first to get RQ after having done so.
Indeed, there have been multiple reports, of varying sorts, echoing your approach and a similar result. Most of those are a bit dated now, going back to 2012, early 2013, but they include anecdotal forum reports, at least one Federal Court citizenship case decision (do not recall the name off the top of my head), and references to one case very much like yours in particular discussed internally at CIC as revealed in some internal memos obtained through Access to Information requests.
The latter (the internal CIC memos) involved a query from the applicant's lawyer, asking CIC (1) whether the applicant needed to formally reply since the equivalent of a response to RQ was submitted with the application, and (2) if so, whether the response needed to include additional copies of documents already submitted. The response to number one was clear: yes. The applicant is required to respond to the RQ even though all relevant information and documentation has already been submitted. The answer to the second part was typically CIC-muddled, saying that it was essentially the applicant's burden to produce the documentation which supports a showing of residency but that it might be OK to do so by reference to documents already submitted.
My take on what I gleaned from the internal memos, various anecdotal reports, and my vague recall of the Federal Court decision, is that the
best practice is the standard practice, the old standard:
If in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
That is, as others above already suggested:
In other words, timely send a complete, accurate, and responsive RQ with requested supporting documentation to CIC, as instructed.
Surprised by RQ Part I:
To be frank, this does not make much sense. Why include a whole lot of extra documentation in the original application? As I noted, the consensus is rather clear: there is little or nothing to be gained by including a lot of extra documents. There is much doubt that even a few key documents could help.
And, most people are well familiar enough with bureaucracies to understand this. Applying for a drivers' license, provincial health card, unemployment benefits, whatever, virtually everyone knows that what the respective bureaucracy wants is what it asks for. More is distracting, not helpful.
If the bureaucracy wants to see more, they will ask for more.
Virtually everyone (including renowned lawyers) knows that the thing to do is follow the instructions.
You did not follow the instructions. So there should be little surprise that got CIC's attention and triggered further inquiry.
Surprised by RQ Part II:
I do not know and will not guess what really underlies the advice (or decision) to throw in a stack of material beyond the scope of what was requested.
But, going back to the other cases of this I am familiar with, the usual reason was simple: this was done by individuals trying to avoid RQ.
Reason for trying to avoid RQ varied. Some thought it would somehow improve the processing timeline, that they would get citizenship sooner. Others outright anticipated that this or that circumstance in their case was likely to trigger RQ, so they thought they could avoid RQ by doing an upfront document dump.
That reasoning is so flawed it makes one cringe. The document dump bascially telegraphs that the applicant apprehends there is reason for CIC to question his or her residency. It is, in a way, an invitation to CIC to go digging to find out why the applicant is afraid of RQ.
And at best, it is a pile of information in which CIC could find incongruities if not inconsistencies. (Example: for some odd reason, a local ATM machine I used once recorded some transactions, as they appeared in my bank statement, as taking place in a completely different province, a long, long way away . . . which at a glance seems to be inconsistent with claiming I resided and was present here during that time . . . raising questions like was I actually living or working in the other province? or was someone other than me using my bank card so that the banking transactions generally do not reflect my activities?)
And, I was among applicants apprehending the probability of RQ, due to the nature of what I was reporting for employment. So I did indeed include, with the application, copies of CRA NoAs. Ten pages total. Did not hurt. Not sure, but probably did not help either.
Maneuvers to accelerate the timeline generally:
There are none that really work. Lawyers know this. Renowned lawyers know this.
In contrast, probably attendant the sales pitch for selling their services, in the past there were scores of so-called
immigration consultants (many if not most not really even authorized to be consultants for dealing with CIC) who were pitching a range of ways they could help individuals get citizenship (as in get a Canadian passport) more quickly. Local office shopping was one of the maneuvers (so several years ago the consultant would offer Montreal PRs, where citizenship applications were then taking twice as long, or so the story went, as in Mississauga, an address they could use in Mississauga, so the application would be processed in the local office for Mississauga, faster and with less risk of RQ). Around 2008 and 2009 CIC finally caught on to several of these
consultants.
Back in the 2010 to 2012 time period multiple forums like this were rife with consultant-derived "advice," much of it not just of little or no use, but much of it actually counter-productive.
Including a document-dump with the application I would include among the counter-productive "advice" sometimes seen. Counter-productive because it seems to usually have a significantly negative impact; that is, it tends to hurt not help.
CIC's decision-making in issuing RQ:
Overall, however, if there is reason for CIC to question residency, CIC will issue RQ. No additional information or documentation is going to change that. The decision to issue RQ is based on triage criteria. It is not based on an overall assessment of whether the applicant actually met the residency requirement. If the facts or circumstances in the applicant's case trigger RQ based on the applicable triage criteria, RQ is sent. It is not as if CIC conducts a full residency assessment in the screening phases of application processing.
I do not know for sure, but as already suggested my guess is that including a huge stack of documentation with the application might in itself trigger RQ even if otherwise RQ might not have been issued.
In any event, in case repetition and emphasis failed to make the more important point clear enough: If in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, yep, follow the instructions.
alphazip said:
The truth is that it is unknown whether sending additional documents is of any help. . . . It is only speculation to state that additional documents harm an application, so there is no use denouncing someone for sending them.
Actually, other than the OP's report, past reports have been quite consistent: no evidence of additional documentation helping in contrast to a number of reports where at the least it did not avoid RQ.
"Denouncing" is indeed more than a bit too strong. Not sure anyone has "denounced" the OP for submitting a document-dump with the application.
Strongly opposing advice to approach the application this way is another thing, and is worth doing. While many will dismiss it as trite, others say it is condescending, but there is no doubt that the best approach is the obvious one:
follow the instructions. Amost all of us (myself included) fail to do this all too often. It warrants a reminder again and again.
And to be clear, sending in a huge stack of additional, unrequested material with an application to a bureaucracy, is
not following the instructions.
Beyond that, sure perhaps many or even most citizenship applicants are not aware that there is
screening of applications upfront, and the final assessment of residency is done much later, after all the information-gathering and fact-finding steps are completed, so many might not realize that additional information and documentation upfront will be of little or no benefit (to what extent it might hurt is a separate question).
It would be interesting to know which Canadian lawyers recommend this approach.
