RQ despite all documents submitted with citizenship application

[datascientist]

I feel let down with this RQ process and i agree with you word by word as i have been employed from day one contributing to the system and paying taxes.
I have attached all necessary documents that establishes my residency. Ridiculous why we are being profiled. Though people may argue there are other reasons for an RQ being issued, i cannot still figure out why citizenship process had to be this complicated when there is a sufficiency of evidence.

Normally i have heard across the globe permanent resident process is very stringent and not the citizenship process. only in canada the process looks irrational because of some bad apples who had misused the system and guess what we had to pay for it.

Very unfair process for straight forward qualified applicants.

Sometimes no matter how you try to take it easy and think positive, the ideas of the possibility of spending long time ( possibly years) in this process ruin all your efforts. Just depicting those cases which spent ages in the processing stage is such a nightmare. That happens when you believe that your application is an honest one and spent every single day claimed in the application. When you worked since day 1 and being a contributor to build this country. When lots of what you earn goes to tax. That is very unfair. We always hear about cases who spent the time on and off and the process of their applications is so smooth. This is unfair. .... very unfair....

 

[jmak]

Hi I got RQ February 2014, took the exam June 2014 and Oath October 2014.

This is very good news!

My mother received the RQ earlier this week. We all live in Montreal. Her file was transferred to the Guy Favreau office. Is it the same office for your application?

Can you give us any advice on how to fill out the RQ and the documents needed to get attached? Did you send any extra documents to help?

 

[Prospective Canuck]

Our experience may prove of interest to this community.

My wife and I both had received RQs when we applied for new permanent residence cards. Although it took more than a year to process, the cards were finally issued. (The fact that we were demonstrably, model, “squeaky clean” applicants goes beyond the issue, as citizenship officers do have the good faith prerogative to issue RQs)

When my wife applied for citizenship, attached to her CIT0002E application and its required documentation, SHE VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED A SEPARATE, COMPLETED AND SIGNED RQ FORM, AND GERMANE, SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTATION (vis-à-vis a “dump”). THE RQ PACKAGE WAS CONSPICUOUSLY LABELLED "VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED", HIGHLIGHTED, AND SEPARATED FROM, BUT ATTACHED TO THE CIT0002E FORM AND ITS SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE.

HER WELL-FOUNDED PESSIMISTIC PRECAUTIONS NOTWITHSTANDING, AT THE TIME OF THE AOR, A CITIZENSHIP OFFICER SENT HER AN RQ FORM, WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR DOCUMENTATION (ALL OF WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CIC!) Correspondence from the CIC's Ministerial Officer later later confirmed that CPC-S had in fact received the RQ, with required documentation, along with the initial citizenship application!


“Operational Bulletin 407-D states, in pertinent part:

It is worth noting that:
• The Residence Questionnaire (RQ) only requests documents that cover the applicant's relevant period
• The officials must only take recourse to the Residence Questionnaire (RQ) on rare occasions,
where they cannot obtain the information otherwise
• The officials can resolve most cases that have minor residence issues easily without requiring a Residence Questionnaire (RQ)

As mentioned above, the local office must only issue the Residence Questionnaire (RQ) to applicants as a measure of last resort. Therefore, the local office would only do this when they cannot obtain the information otherwise.”


Query:

Demonstrably, the officer that sent the knee-jerk RQ didn't even open my wife's case file, for if he/she had, then he/she would have realised that such documentation was already in the possession of the CIC.

The dreaded RQ is not to be issued without a good faith belief that certain information or documentation is needed, in order to process a case file.

To issue the RQ, without even so much as a cursory review of the case file, must be the very definition of malice, for once issued the case file is punitively relegated to languish in some dimly lit back room, possibly not to be reviewed until after the errant citizenship officer has been retired, or promoted!

An investigation should ensue, for the issue is reflective of major systemic problems.

I will probably file an ATIP request, in order to determine, if CPC-S had generated a CIT 0508, as well as if other required case file preparatory measures had been undertaken.

“When in doubt, follow instructions. Otherwise, when CIC officers don't follow their own instructions, follow your own instinct, or even that of a an immigration lawyer, renowned or
"unrenowned"!”

Where is Albert Camus, when we need him the most?

 

[arambi]

Our experience may prove of interest to this community.

My wife and I both had received RQs when we applied for new permanent residence cards. Although it took more than a year to process, the cards were finally issued. (The fact that we were demonstrably, model, “squeaky clean” applicants goes beyond the issue, as citizenship officers do have the good faith prerogative to issue RQs)

When my wife applied for citizenship, attached to her CIT0002E application and its required documentation, SHE VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED A SEPARATE, COMPLETED AND SIGNED RQ FORM, AND GERMANE, SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTATION (vis-à-vis a “dump”). THE RQ PACKAGE WAS CONSPICUOUSLY LABELLED "VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED", HIGHLIGHTED, AND SEPARATED FROM, BUT ATTACHED TO THE CIT0002E FORM AND ITS SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE.

HER WELL-FOUNDED PESSIMISTIC PRECAUTIONS NOTWITHSTANDING, AT THE TIME OF THE AOR, A CITIZENSHIP OFFICER SENT HER AN RQ FORM, WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR DOCUMENTATION (ALL OF WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CIC!) Correspondence from the CIC's Ministerial Officer later later confirmed that CPC-S had in fact received the RQ, with required documentation, along with the initial citizenship application!


“Operational Bulletin 407-D states, in pertinent part:

It is worth noting that:
• The Residence Questionnaire (RQ) only requests documents that cover the applicant's relevant period
• The officials must only take recourse to the Residence Questionnaire (RQ) on rare occasions,
where they cannot obtain the information otherwise
• The officials can resolve most cases that have minor residence issues easily without requiring a Residence Questionnaire (RQ)

As mentioned above, the local office must only issue the Residence Questionnaire (RQ) to applicants as a measure of last resort. Therefore, the local office would only do this when they cannot obtain the information otherwise.”


Query:

Demonstrably, the officer that sent the knee-jerk RQ didn't even open my wife's case file, for if he/she had, then he/she would have realised that such documentation was already in the possession of the CIC.

The dreaded RQ is not to be issued without a good faith belief that certain information or documentation is needed, in order to process a case file.

To issue the RQ, without even so much as a cursory review of the case file, must be the very definition of malice, for once issued the case file is punitively relegated to languish in some dimly lit back room, possibly not to be reviewed until after the errant citizenship officer has been retired, or promoted!

An investigation should ensue, for the issue is reflective of major systemic problems.

I will probably file an ATIP request, in order to determine, if CPC-S had generated a CIT 0508, as well as if other required case file preparatory measures had been undertaken.

“When in doubt, follow instructions. Otherwise, when CIC officers don't follow their own instructions, follow your own instinct, or even that of a an immigration lawyer, renowned or
"unrenowned"!”

Where is Albert Camus, when we need him the most?

This is truly the very definition of malice. It very unfortunate that CIC does not punish these vicious officers who receive the taxpayer money as salary then viciously treat the same taxpayer. I wonder if it ever crossed their mind that they are mistreating those from whom they are getting their daily bread...

The irony is that RQ was implemented to catch applicants who abuse the process; now it's being used to abuse honest applicants. Very sad indeed..

 

[dpenabill]

On the contrary, as I and others have clearly pointed out, the job of the person doing the triage criteria screening is not to assess residency, but rather to screen the application to see whether certain triage criteria are met, and if so, RQ is issued.

Just including a document dump with the application cannot compel a civil servant to do something beyond and outside the scope of his or her duties, let alone dictate how CIC processes applications.

It is worth noting, too, that it is highly unlikely that a "Citizenship Officer" issued the RQ. It is clear that the RQ was issued by CPC-Sydney, and thus undoubtedly not a Citizenship Officer working in a local CIC office who had reviewed the application . . . so far as I can figure out what goes on behind the curtains at CIC, Citizenship Officers do not assess or make decisions on applications until after the test and interview.

 

[arambi]

On the contrary, as I and others have clearly pointed out, the job of the person doing the triage criteria screening is not to assess residency, but rather to screen the application to see whether certain triage criteria are met, and if so, RQ is issued.

Just including a document dump with the application cannot compel a civil servant to do something beyond and outside the scope of his or her duties, let alone dictate how CIC processes applications.

It is worth noting, too, that it is highly unlikely that a "Citizenship Officer" issued the RQ. It is clear that the RQ was issued by CPC-Sydney, and thus undoubtedly not a Citizenship Officer working in a local CIC office who had reviewed the application . . . so far as I can figure out what goes on behind the curtains at CIC, Citizenship Officers do not assess or make decisions on applications until after the test and interview.

Per 407-D , WHOEVER issues RQ HAS THE DUTY to first ensure that information being requested cannot be obtained in a more efficient way, including a thorough review of applicant file to ensure information needed is clearly not on file.
Officers who requests info that's already on file are either vicious or grossly negligent (not performing required due diligence first)

Either way they are violating 407-D... Which is coming from the who should examplify the respect of the rule of law

 

[Juney]

Does this tell that sending extras does not really help, as what others here are strongly suggesting? Imagine the level of frustration after 'the dump' but still you get the questionnaire.

 

[arambi]

Does this tell that sending extras does not really help, as what others here are strongly suggesting? Imagine the level of frustration after 'the dump' but still you get the questionnaire.

I ran a statistical study that showed that those who send extra docs where less likely to receive RQ than those who did not send extra docs. Numbers don't lie. This subject was put to rest
By the way, extra docs can be few pages whereas RQ is typically several hundreds pages... Do not mix both...
The recommendation from my study was to send KEY OR CRITICAL extra docs not full RQ docs.

 

[dpenabill]

Per 407-D , WHOEVER issues RQ HAS THE DUTY to first ensure that information being requested cannot be obtained in a more efficient way, including a thorough review of applicant file to ensure information needed is clearly not on file.
Officers who requests info that's already on file are either vicious or grossly negligent (not performing required due diligence first)

Either way they are violating 407-D... Which is coming from the who should examplify the respect of the rule of law

I do not know the precise context for this purported quote from OB 407-D. It is, on its face, inconsistent with the known obligations of those doing the triage criteria screening at CPC-Sydney. If it is an accurate quote (OB 407-D is not publicly available and if someone has access to a copy of it, even if it is, as it undoubtedly is, redacted heavily, a copy or link to a copy would be appreciated), it is most likely regarding down-the-pipe decision making, such as whether or not RQ should be issued at or following an interview and test. The emphasis at that stage, it appears (CIC is very secretive in how it approaches these things), is to focus on particular issues and issue a CIT 0520 requesting specific documents.

But that is separate and apart from the screening stage at CPC-Sydney.

 

[Juney]

I ran a statistical study that showed that those who send extra docs where less likely to receive RQ than those who did not send extra docs. Numbers don't lie. This subject was put to rest
By the way, extra docs can be few pages whereas RQ is typically several hundreds pages... Do not mix both...
The recommendation from my study was to send KEY OR CRITICAL extra docs not full RQ docs.

Yeah, i was into that thread. Aren't those extra docs also play key to the RQ if you'll get one?

 

[era1521]

I ran a statistical study that showed that those who send extra docs where less likely to receive RQ than those who did not send extra docs. Numbers don't lie. This subject was put to rest
By the way, extra docs can be few pages whereas RQ is typically several hundreds pages... Do not mix both...
The recommendation from my study was to send KEY OR CRITICAL extra docs not full RQ docs.

You're talking about "that" study?

 

[dpenabill]

To be clear, my previous post was responding to this:

This is truly the very definition of malice. It very unfortunate that CIC does not punish these vicious officers who receive the taxpayer money as salary then viciously treat the same taxpayer. I wonder if it ever crossed their mind that they are mistreating those from whom they are getting their daily bread...

The irony is that RQ was implemented to catch applicants who abuse the process; now it's being used to abuse honest applicants. Very sad indeed..

This accusation of malice against the individual who issued a pre-test RQ, describing that individual working at CIC as a vicious officer engaged in the mistreating of taxpayers, is based on the post by Prospective Canuck which says that a pre-test RQ (RQ contemporaneous with the AOR) was issued despite the inclusion, with the application, of a RQ response (on a copy of the RQ form no less, which is not available directly from CIC except via ATI requests and as sent to individuals actually issued RQ).

This is in the same vein as previous insults aimed at CIC personnel for being "lazy" if RQ was issued by someone at Sydney despite there being (purportedly) full proof of residency included with the PR application.

OK, I confess, whenever there are personal insults flung at individuals, named or unnamed, that tends to offend my sensibilities. Insults are not information, they are just insults.

In contrast, I am sure that most of those working for CIC are trying to do their job as they are instructed to do it. To accuse those individuals of malice or malfeasance or laziness is, to me, offensive.

And that is particularly so in regards to an element of the processing such as this, where it is almost certainly the criteria the CIC personnel are instructed to apply which results in the issuance of RQ at Sydney, and not any malice, malfeasance, or laziness.


Regarding the purported quotes from OB 407-D:

Perhaps the language quoted is indeed taken from OB 407-D. I cannot say for sure, and that is because OB 407-D is not a public document. But I have seen the original OB 407 (with substantial redactions of course), numerous internal CIC memos discussing it and its subsequent "clarifications" and amendments, and the quoted language is inconsistent if it is in the context of applying the triage criteria at the Sydney screening stage. Moreover, language like "it is worth noting that" (purportedly quoted from OB 407-D by Prospective Canuck) does not comport with the language typically used in these Operational Bulletins.

“Operational Bulletin 407-D states, in pertinent part:

It is worth noting that:
• The Residence Questionnaire (RQ) only requests documents that cover the applicant's relevant period
• The officials must only take recourse to the Residence Questionnaire (RQ) on rare occasions, where they cannot obtain the information otherwise
• The officials can resolve most cases that have minor residence issues easily without requiring a Residence Questionnaire (RQ)

As mentioned above, the local office must only issue the Residence Questionnaire (RQ) to applicants as a measure of last resort. Therefore, the local office would only do this when they cannot obtain the information otherwise.”

To be frank, this quote bears the characteristics of a secondary description rather than a direct quote from the OB. Moreover, while the first and third of the three bulleted items appears to be consistent with what I know about OB 407 and its subsequent versions, the second is not (in the context of Sydney screening).

But in any event, it is clear that the quoted material is in reference to what is done at a local office.

Whereas, the RQ referenced here was issued concurrently with the AOR, thus clearly issued by CPC-Sydney, not a local office.


Why This Matters:

This topic is about being issued RQ despite including, essentially, proof of residency in the application. This example, like many others, illustrates that RQ may indeed be issued despite submitting proof of residency with the application.

This is not due to laziness on the part of the individual at CPC-Sydney who issues the RQ.

This is not due to malice on the part of the individual at CPC-Sydney who issues the RQ. (The accusation of "malice" is particularly over-the-top.)

The issuance of RQ by CPC-Sydney ordinarily is because there were factors or circumstances in the application, or the application considered against information of record at CIC, that constitues a risk indicator, as defined by CIC internal practices, by the "triage criteria," for which the individual doing the screening at Sydney is required, as part of his or her job, to issue RQ.

If the RQ trigger exists, RQ is issued.

Submitting proof of residency with the application is not going to change that.



The ongoing debate about the efficacy of including additional documents with the application:

I ran a statistical study that showed that those who send extra docs where less likely to receive RQ than those who did not send extra docs. Numbers don't lie. This subject was put to rest
By the way, extra docs can be few pages whereas RQ is typically several hundreds pages... Do not mix both...
The recommendation from my study was to send KEY OR CRITICAL extra docs not full RQ docs.

Hardly a "statistical study," and not an examination of evidence from which one could rationally draw conclusions sufficient to make "recommendations."

Numbers may not lie. But . . . no, there was no where near sufficient data to support a recommendation that applicants should submit any additional documents. Which is not to say that the inclusion of a few critical or key extra documents will necessarily have a negative impact either.

And in any case, that is not at all relevant to instances in which applicants submit a large number of documents or otherwise provide the equivalent of a response to RQ.

Regarding which, it is probably worth noting, in so far as the anecdotal reports I have seen in conjunction with the instance reflected in CIC internal memos and in at least one Federal Court case, it appears that submitting a lot of documentation with the application tends to more often correspond to the issuance of RQ than not . . . but of course it is impossible to draw any cause-and-effect conclusions from those few instances, particularly since it appears likely that those who have done this have done so where there are circumstances otherwise likely to result in RQ anyway.

 

[arambi]

To be clear, my previous post was responding to this:

This accusation of malice against the individual who issued a pre-test RQ, describing that individual working at CIC as a vicious officer engaged in the mistreating of taxpayers, is based on the post by Prospective Canuck which says that a pre-test RQ (RQ contemporaneous with the AOR) was issued despite the inclusion, with the application, of a RQ response (on a copy of the RQ form no less, which is not available directly from CIC except via ATI requests and as sent to individuals actually issued RQ).

This is in the same vein as previous insults aimed at CIC personnel for being "lazy" if RQ was issued by someone at Sydney despite there being (purportedly) full proof of residency included with the PR application.

OK, I confess, whenever there are personal insults flung at individuals, named or unnamed, that tends to offend my sensibilities. Insults are not information, they are just insults.

In contrast, I am sure that most of those working for CIC are trying to do their job as they are instructed to do it. To accuse those individuals of malice or malfeasance or laziness is, to me, offensive.

And that is particularly so in regards to an element of the processing such as this, where it is almost certainly the criteria the CIC personnel are instructed to apply which results in the issuance of RQ at Sydney, and not any malice, malfeasance, or laziness.


Regarding the purported quotes from OB 407-D:

Perhaps the language quoted is indeed taken from OB 407-D. I cannot say for sure, and that is because OB 407-D is not a public document. But I have seen the original OB 407 (with substantial redactions of course), numerous internal CIC memos discussing it and its subsequent "clarifications" and amendments, and the quoted language is inconsistent if it is in the context of applying the triage criteria at the Sydney screening stage. Moreover, language like "it is worth noting that" (purportedly quoted from OB 407-D by Prospective Canuck) does not comport with the language typically used in these Operational Bulletins.

To be frank, this quote bears the characteristics of a secondary description rather than a direct quote from the OB. Moreover, while the first and third of the three bulleted items appears to be consistent with what I know about OB 407 and its subsequent versions, the second is not (in the context of Sydney screening).

But in any event, it is clear that the quoted material is in reference to what is done at a local office.

Whereas, the RQ referenced here was issued concurrently with the AOR, thus clearly issued by CPC-Sydney, not a local office.


Why This Matters:

This topic is about being issued RQ despite including, essentially, proof of residency in the application. This example, like many others, illustrates that RQ may indeed be issued despite submitting proof of residency with the application.

This is not due to laziness on the part of the individual at CPC-Sydney who issues the RQ.

This is not due to malice on the part of the individual at CPC-Sydney who issues the RQ. (The accusation of "malice" is particularly over-the-top.)

The issuance of RQ by CPC-Sydney ordinarily is because there were factors or circumstances in the application, or the application considered against information of record at CIC, that constitues a risk indicator, as defined by CIC internal practices, by the "triage criteria," for which the individual doing the screening at Sydney is required, as part of his or her job, to issue RQ.

If the RQ trigger exists, RQ is issued.

Submitting proof of residency with the application is not going to change that.



The ongoing debate about the efficacy of including additional documents with the application:

Hardly a "statistical study," and not an examination of evidence from which one could rationally draw conclusions sufficient to make "recommendations."

Numbers may not lie. But . . . no, there was no where near sufficient data to support a recommendation that applicants should submit any additional documents. Which is not to say that the inclusion of a few critical or key extra documents will necessarily have a negative impact either.

And in any case, that is not at all relevant to instances in which applicants submit a large number of documents or otherwise provide the equivalent of a response to RQ.

Regarding which, it is probably worth noting, in so far as the anecdotal reports I have seen in conjunction with the instance reflected in CIC internal memos and in at least one Federal Court case, it appears that submitting a lot of documentation with the application tends to more often correspond to the issuance of RQ than not . . . but of course it is impossible to draw any cause-and-effect conclusions from those few instances, particularly since it appears likely that those who have done this have done so where there are circumstances otherwise likely to result in RQ anyway.

Whoever issues RQ had a due diligence obligation with the goal of using taxpayer dollars wisely.... This applies to triage and non triage officers. So I disagree with the attempt to justify unecessary RQ by some triage role
Furthermore, just like we have vicious or lazy people in the general population, we have the same in CIC.... And we should praise the officers who goes the extra mile and call out the lazy or vicious ones... That's being fair to all. Having been part of immigration proceedings, I've dealt with both...

The bottom line is that honest taxpayers and applicants are victim of RQ abuse... Taxpayers dollars are being wasted with unnecessary RQs... And this is economically unjustified, morally unacceptable, and should be stopped

 

[arambi]

Denapill

By the way, statistical studies are the number one sources of well-informed recommendations and policies. Just reviewing some evidence is part of anecdotal approach, the worse way to approach a problem. Statistical studies do have their limitations... But they provide the best SCIENTIFIC support for a given recommendation or policy.

 

[alphazip]

In contrast, I am sure that most of those working for CIC are trying to do their job as they are instructed to do it. To accuse those individuals of malice or malfeasance or laziness is, to me, offensive.

And, yet, we read stories in this forum on a daily basis of applicants who have their applications returned (or receive a letter), due to items supposedly missing that were not missing (e.g., http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/-t182757.0.html). Of course, mistakes happen, but to say that there are not lazy or incompetent workers in the public service is a bit unrealistic.