RQ versus Physical Presence Questionnaires, including CIT 0205

[dpenabill]

Reference-reminder: known Questionnaire forms related to Residence or Physical Presence include the following:
-- CIT 0171 which is titled "Residence Questionnaire" and generally known as "RQ," the full-blown RQ
-- CIT 0520 titled "Request for Documentary Evidence of your Residence in Canada" and generally known as "RQ-lite," a less extensive request for additional information and documentation
-- CIT 0205 titled "Physical Presence Questionnaire - Quality Assurance Exercise"

Is @flyingscottie the only poster here is reporting receiving the CIT 0171? This was after an interview, so from my understanding would be for the old citizenship rules. Is there a chance that CIT 0205 replaces this for all applications under the new 3/5 rules?

That is a key question.

It may take some time before we can so much as infer reasonably likely answers to many of the outstanding questions, let alone actually know the answer. (Which unfortunately is not likely to abate the flow of unreliable declarations a forum like this typically endures.)

Although the title and name of the form may seem like a largely irrelevant technicality, it will be really helpful if those who receive any kind of requests related to documenting residency or physical presence let the forum know the title of the form and its formal name, including the form's date. Again, this is usually in the format: CIT #### (month-year). This will help us collectively put other information into context, help us correlate elements and identify patterns.

Even if all we learn does little more than help affected applicants understand the procedures better, that can obviate much of the worry, diminish much of the anxieties many suffer when they are the subject of these questionnaires.

There is, of course, a great deal more information which those affected can share which would also advance our collective understanding and knowledge of this process. I will attempt to draft a better focused post posing particular questions.

For example; for an example of the kind of detail requested regarding which it might be helpful for more detail:
There is a report that the CIT 0205 requests the applicant provide the name and contact information of a personal Canadian citizen reference, a person who has known the applicant for the past 2 years and can answer questions about the applicant, including as to work, school, residence, cultural or religious activities, community activities like volunteering.

Just mere confirmation that this is included or not included can help. Any further details about this, for those who have been asked to provide a personal reference, could help.

In any event, at some point in the coming days I will attempt to pose more specific questions about the content of this form. And, obviously, if anyone is willing to scan a copy of the form (personal information redacted) and share that here, that would of course help.



Clues regarding question of which forms are in use by IRCC:

I have repeatedly referenced the forms we know of, the CIT 0171 (RQ), CIT 0520 (RQ-lite), and now the CIT 0205 (PPQ - QAE).

Several of the reports do not identify which form of "RQ" they received, but call it "RQ" and reference Quality Assurance or Quality Control, thus suggesting they actually received the PPQ - QAE CIT 0205 form rather than the RQ CIT 0171 form.

On the other hand, @flyingscottie specifically references RECENTLY (relatively recently anyway) receiving the CIT 0171 form.

While reports of RQ have been sporadic in the last many months, until this quite sudden surge of PPQ, there have been enough such reports to reliably conclude that IRCC was continuing to issue RQ in some cases. I have not seen reports of the RQ-lite form (CIT 0520) for many months but I do not read every topic and many times reports are made in threads specific to the month or place application was submitted, so there may be some reports of this form still in use and there are undoubtedly a number of other posts in other threads regarding applicants getting RQ or PPQ related questionnaires. (Participants who know of any additional reports, in other topics, about any of these three questionnaires . . . going back at least three to six months, PLEASE quote such posts in this topic, or at least give a reference to the thread and date of the post. It will really help if we can consolidate information about these questionnaires.)

It is noteworthy that the form referenced by @alsaour is "CIT 0205 (05-2017) E" which shows the CIT 0205 form has been in use going back, at the least, to May this year (other posts reference CIT 0205 (11-2017), a more recent version of the PPQ).

It APPEARS that IRCC has continued to use, in at least some instances, the CIT 0171 form while during the same period it has been using CIT 0205.

Can we conclude, from this, that NO, the CIT 0205 has not replaced the standard RQ, CIT 0171?

As you suggest, @kl_king the report by @flyingscottie references an application made pursuant to the earlier rules, prior to the implementation of the 3/5 rule, and is a solitary report, and it is always risky to draw conclusions based on single sources. But it is apparent that @alsaour is also about an application under the older rules.

My GUESS, just a guess so far, is that CIT 0205 really is specific to a Quality Assurance Exercise, and thus is separate from the forms and procedures employed when there is a FOR-CAUSE RQ (RQ triggered by identification of a risk-indicator or reason-to-question-residency/presence).

Assuming my guess is correct (recognizing that as a guess the probability of it NOT being correct is fairly high), that does not preclude the current version of CIT 0171 from being very much like if not almost identical to the CIT 0205.

That also does not answer the question whether the CIT 0205 is being issued based on selection criteria (which would be comparable to a FOR-CAUSE issued RQ) despite the reference, in IRCC's communication, that the CIT 0205 is RANDOMLY used.

SPECULATION (and I do mean speculation, not even a guess): it is possible that the CIT 0205 PPQ - QAE is a replacement for what was pre-test RQ under OB 407. Those pre-test RQs were largely criteria-driven at least initially, but the selection criteria was so broad it swept huge numbers of qualified applicants into the Residency-Case-process and brought the processing of citizenship applications to a near standstill (scores and scores of applicants ended up waiting two to three years, and many suffered even longer delays). With minimal exceptions, the modified criteria were deep behind closed doors and closed curtains, so we never learned what changes were made. It is possible that this Quality Assurance Exercise is a derivative of that. It is possible that there are criteria applied which separates applicants into a pool and that there is a "RANDOM" selection of applicants from that pool. Again, this is entirely speculative.

WHY is this significant? Of interest? If what is happening is something of this sort, it is possible, perhaps even probable, that IRCC is using this QA "EXERCISE" primarily to acquire information, data, to use in composing future versions of application forms, questionnaires, and screening criteria. Obviously, IRCC will scrutinize/evaluate the information submitted by applicants to more thoroughly assess the presence calculation, to better verify the applicant's qualification for citizenship. But to approach this without elevated skepticism, without suspicion, unless there is something about the applicant's response which triggers concerns, cause for elevated skepticism or suspicion. (Such as, for example, big gaps in basic information submitted or identified discrepancies.)

That is, this could mean the QA "EXERCISE" is not likely to be problematic or result in much of a delay, at least for most of those affected.

WHY do I speculate this possibility? The Harper-era pre-test RQ program was a disaster. To my view there were two major causes for this. One was that the criteria employed was so overly broad (initially all stay-at-home spouses, all self-employed persons, all "consultants," nearly all applicants with any period of unemployment, among many others were issued pre-test RQ). The other cause was that all RQ'd cases were handled as a Residency-Case unless and until an officer concluded otherwise. This forced the huge number of pre-test RQ'd applicants into a virtual quasi-litigation stream, which of course required CIC (as it was at the time) to employ vastly more resources to those cases.

It would make sense for IRCC to recognize the mistakes made in that procedure, and to thus not subject every applicant who meets the triggering-criteria, but rather to "randomly" select a percentage of such applications. And to process these cases pursuant to Quality Control procedures and guidelines, rather than plunging all these applications into a Presence-Case procedure.

Again, the latter observations are merely my speculations. Not even a guess. Hopefully we can learn more as to what this is about and hopefully what we learn will be reassuring for the majority of applicants subject to this procedure . . . hopefully a reasonable effort to respond to the questionnaire will suffice to get the application moving on a routine processing track, resulting in little delay, no significant problems.

 

[dpenabill]

There is a lot to assess and digest regarding the apparent surge in the issuance of the RQ-like PPQ-QAE CIT 0205. This is still a work-in-progress.

My guess is that the PPQ-QAE CIT 0205 is the current version of what, previously, was a pre-test RQ. This makes sense on multiple levels, which is worth discussing, but I'll need to save that discussion for later.

Otherwise there is no reason to doubt this is a Quality Control exercise. But what that means, and how it affects those subject to this procedure, is more complicated. It is readily apparent, for example, that if the applicant's response to the requests attendant this PPQ-QAE fall short or raise concerns, that will be problematic for that applicant. That is, this is not merely an information gathering exercise but imposes a substantial burden on those applicants affected, with potential delays (despite IRCC assurance otherwise) and, more significantly, posing the risk of a negative outcome for some.

So far the following forum participants (personally or on behalf of another) are reporting some version of Quality Assurance requests for additional information and documentation:

@alsaour
@omerhaha
@srionline117
@Natan
@galant
@Fiore2017
@placebo1234
@Romans8:28
@IvanP
@cherif2100
@canadapr98
@Husky9
@frotenacs

One of those reporting being subject to the Quality Assurance procedure specifically regards an application made prior to the implementation of the Bill C-6 changes, and references a May 2017 version of the CIT 0205. Thus, to reiterate, at the very least this is not a new program, as such. The surge of reports about it is new, but there has also been a huge surge in applications submitted generally (more than 30k in just the first two weeks after the 3/5 rule took effect, nearly four times the average for a similar period during the preceding six months, and perhaps six or eight times the number of applications in a similar period a year ago).

It is not clear that all these reports involve the same requests. In an effort to clarify the scope of the "Exercise," I am hoping those affected can inform the forum about some specifics. Including, especially, whether they were issued the CIT 0205 form in particular, the "physical presence questionnaire."

In addition to the CIT 0205 form itself, from various reports about this procedure it appears there may be additional requests such as:

-- a list of specified documents the applicant is requested to submit
-- a finger print request
-- a request for identifying a reference-person, a citizen reference who can provide (or verify) information about the applicant, such as about the applicant's work, study, housing, sports, culturual or religious activites, volunteering

If those who are subject to the Quality Assurance procedure can confirm which of these requrests they received, that would be helpful.

Additionally, some of those reporting getting the Quality Assurance requests, such as @canadapr98 and @frotenacs, have reported also being asked to complete and submit a consent form "for IRCC to obtain history of arrivals/departures from USA." And, a request for entry/exit records from this or that particular country.

Here too, if those affected can report whether they received similar requests, that will be helpful.

One of the more recent posts reporting receipt of the PPQ-QAE states the date of the PPQ-QAE corresponds to the date the application was given in process status. To my view, in conjunction with scores of reports of a significant gap in time between AOR and "In Process" status, this tends to confirm (as much as isolated reports can confirm) there is a screening step in Sydney, following the initiation of the application in GCMS as indicated by AOR and concluding with the application obtaining In-process status and being referred to a local office. And during that step, processing agents in Sydney identify applications to be selected for the Quality Assurance Exercise. That suggests a process more like the OB 407 process implemented by CIC under Jason Kenney (albeit my guess that was the brain-child of Benjamin Perrin, a close adviser to Harper until they went separate ways), screening applications for risk indicators referred to as the "triage criteria." This, however, would not be "random." My sense is that there is some element of randomness employed in selecting applicants to be issued PPQ-QAE CIT 0205, but I cannot so much as guess how that works, to what extent this is a criteria-driven exercise versus the extent to which it is random. At this juncture speculating about that is not likely to be productive, OTHER THAN to apprehend some probability that there are criteria which increases the likelihood of being selected, "randomly" selected.


Just to keep abreast of recent posts reporting the QAE, but in other threads, here are some recent posts about this:

Hello,
Unfortunately, I have received Quality Assurance Exercise And Request For Additional Evidence.

My wife has applied for citizenship in October, and received request for additional evidence under QA program. We are gathering all the required documentation. I appreciate your help in answering the below questions:
1) Entry/Exit records from USA: We found that IRCC included a consent form to be signed by the applicant for IRCC to obtain history of arrivals/departures from USA.We are wondering whether it is necessary for us to request official travel history from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as it seems that IRCC will obtain on behalf of us. I understand that I can request the travel history from CBP. My wife had some travels to the USA. Please share your thoughts.
2) Entry/Exit records from India: It seems that India does not provide official entry/exit records. We will be attaching the color copies of the visa stamps as part of QA documentation. I am thinking that a cove letter with an explanation should suffice here. Please let me know what you did?
3) The home title or mortgage documents do not include my wife's name. I am thinking of writing a letter explaining this, and providing a copy of home title which is on my name. Please let me know your thoughts.

It is nice to find this forum, I applied for my citizenship in October 2017, I received on the 21st if December a mail request for the QA! Dated as 12th December (delayed delivery!!?) + the Christmas and new year holiday before I can request all those documents and papers! During the last 4 years I have done several courses (missing some transcripts) , plus worked at 4 different employers and changed 3 apartments wondering if it will be possible to force all those people to give me the letters within 1 month or so!!
I already did a mistake filling up the physical presence, is it a good idea to use a corrector ?? Since I couldn’t find an online copy to download forms updated November 2017.

Hello Everybody,
I received a letter today in my mail (not e-mail) with a subject line "QUALITY ASSURANCE EXERCISE AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE".
The first paragraph of the letter reads as below
Dear XXX
Your application was randomly selected for a special review exercise in connection with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's (IRCC) Quality Assurance Program. This review is part of the ongoing activities IRCC undertakes in order to maintain the Canadian public's confidence in the integrity of the citizenship grant program.
There are five enclosed forms to be filled and returned within 60 days.
Form 1. A physical presence questionnaire
Form 2. A list of required documents
Form 3. A letter requesting fingerprints*
Form 4. A form requesting a reference
Form 5. A consent form (History of arrivals and departures in USA)
I just glanced over the five page long Form 1 which needs a lot of documents (residential, employment, health, out-of-Canada travel records) from the last five years. This is causing me a lot of stress - I need to gather all my apartment lease agreements, letters from landlords, letters from previous employers, etc etc.
Has anyone received such a letter? The letter is dated the same day as In-Process on ecas. Am the only unfortunate one to be picked for this Quality Assurance Exercise??

As time permits, I will make an effort to offer more detailed observations regarding particular aspects of this, including some of the more detailed queries posed.

 

[dpenabill]

At the risk of being redundant, this post is largely a reminder intended to summarize what is probably a good approach for most applicants who are issued the PPQ-QAE CIT 0205. Most does not mean all. For a significant percentage of those subject to this process prudence might compel a more intensive and diligent effort to perhaps include additional evidence not requested. That is a bigger subject.

For now, for most . . .

Overall reminder for those responding to the PPQ-QAE CIT 0205:

Foremost: applicants should make a concerted, diligent effort to be as responsive as possible, and to submit what they can on time.

If the applicant does not have some of the documents or records requested, clearly state this on a supplemental page. Clearly identify what the applicant does not have and cannot submit. Briefly explain why.

Similarly for documents and records the applicant cannot submit timely but should be able to obtain. Identify them clearly. Explain why the applicant does not have them (health records need to be obtained from XX [government body], for example), and if true, explain that a request or application has been made to obtain them, and explain that they will be submitted when they have been obtained.

Main thing is to get and submit as much as the applicant can and do so on time.

Especially important are documents and records which directly show --
-- occupant interest in dwelling for ALL months
-- employment or other activity in Canada for as many months as possible, including ALL months during which the applicant has reported being employed

Additionally, to the extent there are any gaps or weaknesses in the proof of place of residence (occupant interest in dwelling where the applicant actually lived, like a lease agreement plus proof of rent payment, or such) or proof of employment, consider submitting alternative proof, documents which show the applicant's presence and doing this or that in Canada on particular dates, for as many dates as possible . . . especially as to dates during any months applicant does not submit objective documentation showing where the applicant was living or working.


My guess (speculative, but sufficiently rooted in an understanding of the context, background, and history, to have some confidence that it is an informed guess) is that IRCC's review or use of the applicant's submissions in response to this QAE will NOT be severe or skeptical, NOT oriented in suspicion, so long as:

-- the submission is reasonably responsive, including documents
-- -- effectively showing place of residence in Canada during the time periods the applicant reports residing and presence in Canada, and
-- -- showing a pattern of work and/or study and/or other activity consistent with reported history and presence

-- overall the information and documents give a coherent picture of a life lived in Canada which is consistent with all the other information IRCC has for the applicant

-- IRCC does not have information tending to refute information or documentation submitted by the applicant



A little more background:
As I have noted, there is little reason to doubt that the PPQ-QAE is, as it is labeled, a Quality Assurance Exercise. Quality Assurance programs can be aimed at identifying system flaws and ways to improve the integrity of a program generally, or at identifying specific errors or potential errors in the program, or BOTH.

Thus, a program designed to specifically interdict fraud can be appropriately described as a Quality Assurance Exercise, and it can be focused on identifying patterns which could be used generally to better screen for fraud and at the same time also focused on capturing actual instances of fraud.

Of course IRCC's mandate also requires sufficient screening to preclude (within a reasonable margin of tolerance) ineligible applicants from obtaining a grant of citizenship, even if the applicant is not engaged in fraud, even if the applicant is innocently mistaken about his or her eligibility.

In any event, there was a report issued in the spring of 2016 which I believe offers some background for this particular QAE. See:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_02_e_41246.html#hd2a

This grant citizenship application PPQ-QAE is very likely a product of the audit and report, an effort to implement some of the recommendations.

IRONY: Harper's CIC similarly asserted that OB 407 (which introduced Sydney screening for risk indicators resulting in pre-test RQs, back in 2012) was more about collecting data to employ in designing fraud-interdiction criteria and techniques than about detailed screening of the individuals targeted. This Auditor General report basically says that CIC made little or no effort to collect, collate, analyze, or otherwise use the information collected to refine its process, and that actually changes made to the criteria employed were virtually not supported by any empirical analysis.

In retrospect (consistent with what many apprehended at the time), it is readily apparent that OB 407 was solidly focused on escalated screening of individuals (and not used to better design the program). In many respects it also appears to have been something of a scare-tactic, sending a signal to prospective applicants that CIC was digging deep and wide to catch any misrepresentation. The efficacy of such scare measures tend to wane dramatically once the heavy-handed sweep is largely past tense.

The question is will the current government actually pursue the data-gathering and data-analysis the Auditor General's report recommends or will it likewise simply use this QAE to elevate is scrutiny of selected, targeted applicants.

For those who have been issued this PPQ-QAE, the more pressing questions are practical:
-- what does IRCC actually expect from applicants (how flexible will IRCC be when applicants are not able to submit some of the requested documents)
-- how will these applications be processed compared to routinely processed applications, especially as to the effect this has on the timeline, on how much longer these cases are going to take
-- how severely or intensely will IRCC examine and assess the documents and information submitted

 

[dpenabill]

Some observations regarding particular queries about this process (not advice, just observations, as I am NO expert; but some analysis, some researched information, some observations derived from years of discussing RQ):

My wife . . . received request for additional evidence under QA program. We are gathering all the required documentation. I appreciate your help in answering the below questions:

1) Entry/Exit records from USA: We found that IRCC included a consent form to be signed by the applicant for IRCC to obtain history of arrivals/departures from USA.We are wondering whether it is necessary for us to request official travel history from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as it seems that IRCC will obtain on behalf of us. I understand that I can request the travel history from CBP. My wife had some travels to the USA. Please share your thoughts.

The key is to completely and accurately report all cross-border events. If the applicant has done this, the applicant does not need to ask for either U.S. or Canadian records.

The CIT 0205 form requests the applicant to report "all trips outside Canada (including day trips and trips to the United States) during [the applicant's] eligibility period. If there is a discrepancy between this accounting of travel, and the physical presence calculation submitted with the application, best to acknowledge there is a discrepancy and explain why (be honest, be brief). Make the submission of travel dates in the PPQ response as accurate and complete as possible.

If an applicant is uncertain about travel dates, respective U.S. and CBSA travel history records can be obtained to assist the applicant's effort to reconstruct, as completely and accurately as possible, travel dates. Of course by the time an applicant has been sent a CIT 0205 questionnaire, there may not be enough time to obtain information from government sources.

2) Entry/Exit records from India: It seems that India does not provide official entry/exit records. We will be attaching the color copies of the visa stamps as part of QA documentation. I am thinking that a cove letter with an explanation should suffice here. Please let me know what you did?

I do not know how to handle this. (Which illustrates that indeed I am no expert.)

3) The home title or mortgage documents do not include my wife's name. I am thinking of writing a letter explaining this, and providing a copy of home title which is on my name. Please let me know your thoughts.

Yes, sure, a letter covering this and additional information should help. Main thing is to be truthful, as in accurate. A letter from the title owner specifically stating the applicant's occupancy of the premises, and specifically identifying the relationship between the owner and applicant, including detailed information such as the address and dates, should be good evidence of applicant's occupant interest in the dwelling which the applicant reports as his or her residential address. As always: BE BRIEF and stick to specific hard facts.

It is nice to find this forum, I applied for my citizenship in October 2017, I received on the 21st if December a mail request for the QA! Dated as 12th December (delayed delivery!!?) + the Christmas and new year holiday before I can request all those documents and papers! During the last 4 years I have done several courses (missing some transcripts) , plus worked at 4 different employers and changed 3 apartments wondering if it will be possible to force all those people to give me the letters within 1 month or so!!

I already did a mistake filling up the physical presence, is it a good idea to use a corrector ?? Since I couldn’t find an online copy to download forms updated November 2017.

It is not clear if you are referring to an error made in the presence calculator disclosures submitted with the application or you have entered erroneous information on the CIT 0205 form (in item 6 under "Absences From Canada" if you received the 11-2017 version of the form) and are trying to figure out the best way to get this correct.

If the error is on the CIT 0205 form and you did not make a copy of the blank form first, probably best to correct it if that can be done without making a mess of the form. Alternatively, recreate a similar form with the same column headings, fill that in correctly, and submit that along with an explanation (a brief explanation), or at least submit the information as requested in the CIT 0205 item 6 and do so in a format similar to how it organized in the form.

Reminder: for forms like this always a good idea to make blank copies before starting to fill in the information. And even more importantly, make sure to keep a complete, exact copy of everything submitted to IRCC.

If the error was in the presence calculator disclosures submitted with the application: submit travel dates in the CIT 0205 form as completely and accurately as possible. If discrepancies are clearly minor (off by a very few days once or twice), just submit a note that minor errors in original presence calculation have been corrected. If there are more than two minor errors or any error of several days or more, be more specific explaining what was in error in the original presence calculation and why an error was made, and affirm that the correct information is now being submitted in the CIT 0205 form.



For applicants who made an error in the presence calculator disclosures submitted with the application, but who have not been issued any PPQ or RQ-like requests:

Perhaps no need to do anything other than be prepared to acknowledge the errors at the interview IF there is ONLY one or two minor (day or two off) errors.

If more errors, or more significant errors (several days) were made, probably a good idea to send IRCC a supplemental page acknowledging the errors specifically, giving the corrected information, and briefly explaining how the errors were made. This can only be done after the applicant has received AOR and there is a file number to include in the submission along with other identifying information.

 

[romanbel0]

Thank you for the thorough analysis. My application has been delivered on Nov 10th, and I am yet to receive an AOR. Somehow my feelings tell me that I am gonna get this QR 'Quality Assurance' thing. Your explanations are very useful. Thanks.

 

[srionline117]

There is a lot to assess and digest regarding the apparent surge in the issuance of the RQ-like PPQ-QAE CIT 0205. This is still a work-in-progress.

My guess is that the PPQ-QAE CIT 0205 is the current version of what, previously, was a pre-test RQ. This makes sense on multiple levels, which is worth discussing, but I'll need to save that discussion for later.

Otherwise there is no reason to doubt this is a Quality Control exercise. But what that means, and how it affects those subject to this procedure, is more complicated. It is readily apparent, for example, that if the applicant's response to the requests attendant this PPQ-QAE fall short or raise concerns, that will be problematic for that applicant. That is, this is not merely an information gathering exercise but imposes a substantial burden on those applicants affected, with potential delays (despite IRCC assurance otherwise) and, more significantly, posing the risk of a negative outcome for some.

So far the following forum participants (personally or on behalf of another) are reporting some version of Quality Assurance requests for additional information and documentation:

@alsaour
@omerhaha
@srionline117
@Natan
@galant
@Fiore2017
@placebo1234
@Romans8:28
@IvanP
@cherif2100
@canadapr98
@Husky9
@frotenacs

One of those reporting being subject to the Quality Assurance procedure specifically regards an application made prior to the implementation of the Bill C-6 changes, and references a May 2017 version of the CIT 0205. Thus, to reiterate, at the very least this is not a new program, as such. The surge of reports about it is new, but there has also been a huge surge in applications submitted generally (more than 30k in just the first two weeks after the 3/5 rule took effect, nearly four times the average for a similar period during the preceding six months, and perhaps six or eight times the number of applications in a similar period a year ago).

It is not clear that all these reports involve the same requests. In an effort to clarify the scope of the "Exercise," I am hoping those affected can inform the forum about some specifics. Including, especially, whether they were issued the CIT 0205 form in particular, the "physical presence questionnaire."

In addition to the CIT 0205 form itself, from various reports about this procedure it appears there may be additional requests such as:

-- a list of specified documents the applicant is requested to submit
-- a finger print request
-- a request for identifying a reference-person, a citizen reference who can provide (or verify) information about the applicant, such as about the applicant's work, study, housing, sports, culturual or religious activites, volunteering

If those who are subject to the Quality Assurance procedure can confirm which of these requrests they received, that would be helpful.

Additionally, some of those reporting getting the Quality Assurance requests, such as @canadapr98 and @frotenacs, have reported also being asked to complete and submit a consent form "for IRCC to obtain history of arrivals/departures from USA." And, a request for entry/exit records from this or that particular country.

Here too, if those affected can report whether they received similar requests, that will be helpful.

One of the more recent posts reporting receipt of the PPQ-QAE states the date of the PPQ-QAE corresponds to the date the application was given in process status. To my view, in conjunction with scores of reports of a significant gap in time between AOR and "In Process" status, this tends to confirm (as much as isolated reports can confirm) there is a screening step in Sydney, following the initiation of the application in GCMS as indicated by AOR and concluding with the application obtaining In-process status and being referred to a local office. And during that step, processing agents in Sydney identify applications to be selected for the Quality Assurance Exercise. That suggests a process more like the OB 407 process implemented by CIC under Jason Kenney (albeit my guess that was the brain-child of Benjamin Perrin, a close adviser to Harper until they went separate ways), screening applications for risk indicators referred to as the "triage criteria." This, however, would not be "random." My sense is that there is some element of randomness employed in selecting applicants to be issued PPQ-QAE CIT 0205, but I cannot so much as guess how that works, to what extent this is a criteria-driven exercise versus the extent to which it is random. At this juncture speculating about that is not likely to be productive, OTHER THAN to apprehend some probability that there are criteria which increases the likelihood of being selected, "randomly" selected.


Just to keep abreast of recent posts reporting the QAE, but in other threads, here are some recent posts about this:










As time permits, I will make an effort to offer more detailed observations regarding particular aspects of this, including some of the more detailed queries posed.

Hi dpenabill:

( response to one of your point in above reply),

I was asked FP done electronically in 30 days from their letter plus all other docs, Usa entry/exit consent, referring a Canadian citizen to mail them in 60 days from the letter dated. I heard some were given 45 days time to mail their docs.

Still not clear whether they chosen us based on some parameters or the system has triggered :-( PPQ

 

[canadapr98]

Some observations regarding particular queries about this process (not advice, just observations, as I am NO expert; but some analysis, some researched information, some observations derived from years of discussing RQ):



The key is to completely and accurately report all cross-border events. If the applicant has done this, the applicant does not need to ask for either U.S. or Canadian records.

The CIT 0205 form requests the applicant to report "all trips outside Canada (including day trips and trips to the United States) during [the applicant's] eligibility period. If there is a discrepancy between this accounting of travel, and the physical presence calculation submitted with the application, best to acknowledge there is a discrepancy and explain why (be honest, be brief). Make the submission of travel dates in the PPQ response as accurate and complete as possible.

If an applicant is uncertain about travel dates, respective U.S. and CBSA travel history records can be obtained to assist the applicant's effort to reconstruct, as completely and accurately as possible, travel dates. Of course by the time an applicant has been sent a CIT 0205 questionnaire, there may not be enough time to obtain information from government sources.




I do not know how to handle this. (Which illustrates that indeed I am no expert.)




Yes, sure, a letter covering this and additional information should help. Main thing is to be truthful, as in accurate. A letter from the title owner specifically stating the applicant's occupancy of the premises, and specifically identifying the relationship between the owner and applicant, including detailed information such as the address and dates, should be good evidence of applicant's occupant interest in the dwelling which the applicant reports as his or her residential address. As always: BE BRIEF and stick to specific hard facts.




It is not clear if you are referring to an error made in the presence calculator disclosures submitted with the application or you have entered erroneous information on the CIT 0205 form (in item 6 under "Absences From Canada" if you received the 11-2017 version of the form) and are trying to figure out the best way to get this correct.

If the error is on the CIT 0205 form and you did not make a copy of the blank form first, probably best to correct it if that can be done without making a mess of the form. Alternatively, recreate a similar form with the same column headings, fill that in correctly, and submit that along with an explanation (a brief explanation), or at least submit the information as requested in the CIT 0205 item 6 and do so in a format similar to how it organized in the form.

Reminder: for forms like this always a good idea to make blank copies before starting to fill in the information. And even more importantly, make sure to keep a complete, exact copy of everything submitted to IRCC.

If the error was in the presence calculator disclosures submitted with the application: submit travel dates in the CIT 0205 form as completely and accurately as possible. If discrepancies are clearly minor (off by a very few days once or twice), just submit a note that minor errors in original presence calculation have been corrected. If there are more than two minor errors or any error of several days or more, be more specific explaining what was in error in the original presence calculation and why an error was made, and affirm that the correct information is now being submitted in the CIT 0205 form.



For applicants who made an error in the presence calculator disclosures submitted with the application, but who have not been issued any PPQ or RQ-like requests:

Perhaps no need to do anything other than be prepared to acknowledge the errors at the interview IF there is ONLY one or two minor (day or two off) errors.

If more errors, or more significant errors (several days) were made, probably a good idea to send IRCC a supplemental page acknowledging the errors specifically, giving the corrected information, and briefly explaining how the errors were made. This can only be done after the applicant has received AOR and there is a file number to include in the submission along with other identifying information.

Thank you dpenabill for your thoughts. Appreciate your response.

 

[cherif2100]

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/fees/missions/quality-assurance.html

 

[galant]

Hi Friends: I collected most of the document as requested in PPQ QA Process. If some one interested to discuss or share thoughts, you can email me to galant786@yahoo.com. It did FP done, OHIP info in mail. I will mail the complete reply on 8th Jan. Thanks

 

[dpenabill]

[Note: This discussion runs parallel to the "Randomly selected for quality assurance" thread; rather than attempt to keep my observations current in both threads, I continue to copy and respond here to posts from the other thread in addition to posts in this thread.]

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/fees/missions/quality-assurance.html

That is all-too-representative of the information IRCC is providing these days, minimalist and generic. I've made an unsuccessful effort to dig deeper.

I had hoped the Trudeau government might walk-back some of the Harper-era changes dramatically reducing transparency, eviscerating information shared with the public. But there has been no hint the tide will turn anytime soon.

I was asked FP done electronically in 30 days from their letter plus all other docs, Usa entry/exit consent, referring a Canadian citizen to mail them in 60 days from the letter dated. I heard some were given 45 days time to mail their docs.
Still not clear whether they chosen us based on some parameters or the system has triggered :-( PPQ

So far as I have seen reported, it appears that the Finger Print request is the same as the FP request that is sent to applicants generally, for other reasons. Thus it has a different requirement, in contrast to the rest of what is requested as part of the PPQ-QAE procedure, for how long the applicant has to submit FPs.

Hi All,
I have received a random PPE request and IRCC has asked me for zillion documents.
its going to be a lot of work for me.

I have travelled to Cuba & India during my relevant period. I tried to reach out to Indian High Commission & they have told me that they dont keep such entry/exit records. Cuban Embassy haven't even bothered to respond to me. I don't think they will. I was just a mere tourist in that country for 2 times for 1 week each. (like other hundreds of thousands of Canadians that go for the all inclusive trips to Cuba.

What should I do ? IRCC should know that its almost impossible to provide such ridiculous documents.
Also, I have fallen out with one of my landlords with whom I stayed for about 3 years. I don't any rental contract or lease. What should I do to prove my residency ? I was employed for the entire duration of my relevant period.

These queries highlight two important elements of a procedure such as this, both of which I have previously and somewhat repeatedly addressed.

Foremost, the applicant should do his or her best to respond as best the applicant can, providing what is requested AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT CAN, being reasonably diligent. It is self-evident that an applicant cannot provide documents or information which the applicant does not possess or cannot obtain. The applicant needs to make a concerted effort, however, to obtain and gather as much documentation as feasible. Timely submit what can be submitted. Explain what is not submitted and WHY. (Explain without elaboration, being as simple and straight-forward as possible; for example: "I do not have XXYYZZ documents and do not know how to obtain such documents." That's enough.) If it is possible to obtain such documents, but in time, explain that. For documents like this, an effort to obtain them should be made, so that the explanation may be along the lines: "I do not have ZXYZXY documents but have made an application to such-n-such-government-body to obtain them, and I will submit those when such-n-such-government-body provides them to me."

Secondly, what an applicant can and should submit varies from one person to the next; what to send is variable. The applicant must exercise his or her own best personal judgment about what to send. There is no one-generic rule fits all.

A sub-part to this latter principle is whether or not to send additional or alternative documents, including for example whether to send documents which have not been requested. And this is especially specific to the individual and the individual's own particular circumstances. And it is very much a personal judgment call.
This can involve making some difficult choices. Attempt to mend fences with a previous landlord regarding a landlord-tenant relationship that ended in disagreement or perhaps even animosity? Versus explaining to IRCC that certain documents cannot be provided because of a disagreeable and antagonistic with a former landlord? And, if the latter, what might the applicant send to IRCC to otherwise objectively show an occupant's interest in the address for the respective period of time?

Again, there is no one answer which will work for everyone. It depends. The absence of documentation from the landlord might be offset by submitting proof of payment (copies of cancelled checks for example), or other documents showing payment of utilities for that address. But what to send depends very much on what records the individual has, and how much to send can depend on how well the applicant's residency and presence is otherwise demonstrated in what is being submitted.

Since there is some chance for people to be selected for this QA thing, I'm going to briefly list what docs are needed so you may want to consider having an eye on them just in case (all during eligibility period):
Rental leases
A letter from landlord
Letter of employment
T4 forms
Official transcripts
Full color copy of all pages of passport
Exit/Entry confirmation from the countries you visited
A letter of confirmation that you had provincial health care

This list sounds right. I have been gathering docs for the past few days. In my list I have also included air tickets/boarding passes of international travels and hotel stays (wherever I found them hiding in my emails). I am yet to contact all of my previous lanldords for letters. I have also included the last drawn pay stubs of some of my employers (where ever I found). I am planning to include a few utility bills wherever I lived in the past (at least the last bill).

well non of these items [reference to list of additional documents posted by @frotenacs] were requested in my form, I didn't send any of these stuff

This discussion further illustrates that what an applicant elects to submit, in addition to what is specifically requested, varies. Most should not need to submit anything other than what is requested, even if there are some things requested the applicant does not have and cannot submit. Again, what is BEST to submit VARIES, IT DEPENDS.

 

[dpenabill]

As to Entry/Exit Record requests:

I have travelled to Cuba & India during my relevant period. I tried to reach out to Indian High Commission & they have told me that they dont keep such entry/exit records. Cuban Embassy haven't even bothered to respond to me. I don't think they will. I was just a mere tourist in that country for 2 times for 1 week each. (like other hundreds of thousands of Canadians that go for the all inclusive trips to Cuba.

What should I do ? IRCC should know that its almost impossible to provide such ridiculous documents.

Will go into more detail about this below. My take, my NON-expert take, is that the applicant does not need to provide Entry/Exit records from every country visited. But should for all countries the applicant listed in response to item 13 in the application (which requires the applicant to identify all countries in which the applicant had immigration status, such as to study, to work, to live permanently, citizenship, and such -- I quote the application form below).

Moreover, obviously the applicant does not need to provide documents which do not exist or which the applicant cannot reasonably obtain. But of course the applicant should make a concerted, diligent effort to obtain documents before deciding to not provide them. And, any documents not provided should be acknowledged and an explanation for why not submitted.

That’s what I thought at first that visit visas would be excluded, but according to cic website a visit visa to Canada is classified as temporary resident

I am a little more confident my non-expert take about this is better than a guess, but it warrants emphasizing I do not specifically know what IRCC expects for this request:

I think it will be OK to approach this comparable to how the applicant completes item 13 in the application form itself, which asks whether the applicant has ever had "immigration or citizenship status in any country other than Canada, including [the applicant's] country of birth?"

The column heading for status lists: "e.g. student, employment/worker, refugee, permanent resident or citizen."

Those are the countries I think the applicant should attempt to provide an Entry/Exit Record for. That is, any country in which the applicant stayed long enough to be considered residing there, including any country in which the applicant was a student or worker. This is plenty onerous enough for many. It should amply meet a reasonable standard.

This would not entail providing such records for every country an individual merely visited. With some exception: the applicant might also consider including such records for any country in which the applicant was only a visitor but spent a month or more during the eligibility period. A month or more period of time, and especially longer, can indicate or be considered residing in a place, that is, as a temporary residence. And if this was during the eligibility period, this information has substantive relevance.


Some Explanation for my take on Entry/Exit Records:

It warrants noting that despite the broad language of Section 23.1 in the Citizenship Act, which gives the Minister the authority to "require an applicant to provide any additional information or evidence relevant to his or her application, specifying the date by which it is required," that despite how open-ended this provision is, procedural fairness still mandates that any such request be reasonable, and the statute itself prescribes that what is requested must "relevant."

Generally it is NOT a good idea to be the one who tests these things. But, factoring in what is relevant and reasonable when figuring out what the request actually requires makes sense (so long as the submission is substantially responsive in regards to the literal meaning of the request).

And this is particularly so for something like this, which is a very broad request. Thus, it seems to me that assessing the scope of what IRCC is asking based on a question with comparable scope, like item 13 in the application, for which IRCC specifies the nature of what it is requesting, makes good sense AND should be (and I think will be) considered amply responsive.

Especially since the terms used are imprecise. In particular, Canada immigration has long used references to resident and residence status not only ambiguously but confusingly, particularly recognizing the terms "resident" and "residence" and "residency" are widely used in reference to the place where an individual lives, with some degree of permanency (albeit typically indefinitely so), and CIC and IRCC often use these terms in this sense. BUT Canada immigration has also used these terms in reference to what is essentially "presence" (prior to Bill C-24, for example, and for decades, for citizenship application purposes, the reference to "resident in Canada" was interpreted by many to essentially mean "present in Canada," so that persons who were actually residents of Canada did not get credit for being "resident in Canada" during time periods they were visiting other countries, and persons merely visiting Canada while maintaining their residence outside Canada got credit for being "resident in Canada" during their visits).

Add to this confusion the use of such terms in conjunction with a reference to "status," which as noted, yes, Canada considers those FNs in Canada as visitors to have temporary resident status while they are in Canada. BUT in the meantime, "status" itself has multiple meanings including when used in conjunction with references to residence . . . and for this particular item one can wonder whether "residence status" is a reference to the status of residency in general usage, or a reference to "immigration" status especially.

Take into consideration the meaning of these terms used in other legal contexts, such as taxes or entitlements (to health care benefits for example), makes it even more confusing.

And, ultimately, if the request is interpreted to require an applicant to provide Entry/Exit Records for every country the applicant has visited no matter how transitory or brief, that should be readily recognized to be unreasonable (as in over-broad and excessively burdensome).

I'd also note that historically, in responding to RQ, and this includes applicants issued RQ based on substantive suspicion, scores of applicants were notoriously non-responsive to requests for Entry/Exit records from other countries . . . this is NOT to suggest ignoring this request altogether, particularly if the applicant is hoping that this procedure will not divert the application from a routine processing track.

Thus, if the procedure for obtaining the Entry/Exit record is available from within Canada, and not inordinately expensive, the applicant probably should get and submit those records from at least the applicant's home country, any other country the applicant has had Permanent Resident status or citizenship in, and any country in which the applicant has lived, studied, or worked within the preceding five years, and probably any country in which the applicant has otherwise spent a month or more.

How much beyond that the applicant goes to respond to this particular request is a personal judgment call.


No need to obtain either Canadian or U.S. records since the applicant gives consent for IRCC to obtain those directly.

 

[dpenabill]

I have got this request couple of weeks back, lots of information they have asked, not sure whether on suspect or really to improve "their" quality service. i am not happy, because it involves CAD 60+ to do the finger print and color copies of fully passport. I will not spend for that unless they pay it. Will submit b/w copies and all the information without const involved. if CIC is not integrated with other government systems, I am not here to spend money, I have already paid 630 as citizenship fees.

How to respond, what to submit, is of course an applicant's decision to make. A failure to make a reasonably responsive submission, however, has obvious risks, including termination of the application with no grant of citizenship, either as deemed abandoned or denied.

A partial submission should preclude having the application deemed abandoned.

While it is difficult to guess just how minimal a submission will nonetheless work to preclude deemed abandonment, it is easy to forecast that a minimal submission will otherwise seriously risk non-routine processing, and possibly a negative decision by the responsible citizenship officer, and thus a referral to a Citizenship Judge as a presence-case with a substantially elevated risk of being rejected. The scope of the risk varies, but ranges from a rather (perhaps very) high risk of non-routine processing involving lengthy delays (perhaps years) to, again, being denied citizenship.

As the cover letter from IRCC should, and probably does state, the legal authority requiring an applicant to provide additional information, upon request, is Section 23.1 Citizenship Act. See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-7.html#h-8

Reminder: Section 23.1 Citizenship Act states "The Minister may require an applicant to provide any additional information or evidence relevant to his or her application, specifying the date by which it is required."


Obviously, the applicant who wants to see his or her application processed as smoothly and timely as practical, resulting in a grant of citizenship, will make a concerted effort to be as fully responsive to the PPQ requests as practically possible.

And that may indeed incur some costs in addition to the inconvenience. Costs could be significantly more for an applicant whose documents require qualified translations.


How much less than completely responsive will work?

As I have repeatedly observed, based in significant part on how CIC historically handled RQ'd applicants (in context with other information and background experience, with consideration given to applicable "reasonableness" standards), I believe that the odds are good all will go well so long as the the submission is reasonably responsive, including documents effectively showing place of residence in Canada during the time periods the applicant reports residing and presence in Canada, and showing a pattern of work and/or study and/or other activity consistent with reported history and presence. This is particularly so if overall the information and documents give a coherent picture of a life lived in Canada which is consistent with all the other information IRCC has for the applicant and IRCC does not have information tending to refute information or documentation submitted by the applicant.

What about submitting less than that?

What is the minimum an applicant can submit and still have good odds of being granted citizenship? Good odds of relatively routine processing?

I am quite confident that the gap between the two latter questions is a very large gap. Applicants willing to suffer lengthy delays and a Citizenship Judge hearing can probably succeed by submitting a lot less than what will most likely facilitate relatively routine processing. My sense is that the majority of participants in this forum differ from what is likely a large percentage of citizenship applicants generally, in that those in this forum tend (so far as I can perceive, with some exceptions of course) to be focused on pursuing the process in a way that minimizes not just the risks of a rejected application but which maximizes the odds of successfully navigating the process with minimal delay. In contrast, past history suggests scores and scores of all applicants issued the PPQ will submit less than thorough responses and many will submit rather minimal responses.

Of course few would recommend a low-ball (in effect) response. In contrast, however, it is very likely that more than a few will indeed low-ball it.

Ordinarily my focus is on best or at least better practices in navigating potential pitfalls in the citizenship application process. There is hardly enough time to do that justice, let alone delve deeply into parsing the process so as to facilitate those interested in skirting-by-with-less. It is fair to assume, I generally feel, that those not willing to make a concerted effort to fully cooperate with IRCC are making a deliberate choice which encompasses taking the obvious risks. I prefer to spend my time helping those for whom Canadian citizenship is important, a priority worth making a special effort, those who are interested in determining how to best navigate the process, not how to just skim-by.

BUT I recognize that the PPQ is extremely broad, profoundly intrusive into an individual's privacy, for some brutally burdensome, and depending on how IRCC is actually handling this procedure, for some potentially it could be excessively and unreasonably onerous, unfairly demanding.

Thus I recognize that many applicants issued PPQ will likely elect to submit less than what IRCC requests, to lean on the lesser side of substantial-performance. Historically it was clear that scores and scores of RQ'd applicants approached that process this way, more than a few submitting remarkably little in response to RQ.

So to the extent I can offer helpful insights or analysis, some background, a measure of illumination, for this particular procedure I believe it is worth discussing what should or is likely or at least could work short of a full-blown effort to thoroughly respond to all IRCC's requests.

That said, that is a big subject with lots of elements and lots of tangents, lots of nuance, scores of complicated caveats. So to begin I can barely scratch the surface.

So for now I will identify what I perceive to be the more important things that should be included:

• compliance with the Finger Print request (if requested)
• consent to obtain U.S. travel history (if requested)
• citizen-reference (if requested) or at least some reference with explanation why a citizen-reference was not provided
• a fully completed CIT 0205 form, including an accounting of travel dates which is as complete and accurate as possible
  • with acknowledgements and explanations for any discrepancies with the original presence calculation submitted with the application
• complete copy of all relevant passports and travel documents
  • preferably in color as specified, with accompanying translations if applicable
• at least a significant sampling of documents showing occupant interest in a dwelling place covering as much of the period of time spent in Canada as possible
• at least a significant sampling of documents supporting declared employment and study history covering as much of the period of time spent in Canada as possible

Will this suffice? No guarantees for sure. Probably varies considerably depending on a lot of individual factors, including the nature and scope of what documents are provided, and related information.

Might less suffice? I think so FOR SOME. Less almost certainly means more risk.

Note for example, in the list above I did not include the Entry/Exit Records. This should not be construed to mean I do not think it is important to provide these. To the contrary, my sense is that these could make the difference between staying in a routine processing track versus a non-routine processing track. I am quite sure that applicants should make a concerted effort to provide Entry/Exit Records from every country the applicant has lived in during the eligibility period, IF such records are reasonably available. If there is a credible explanation for why such records are not included, that should suffice (for example, if such records cannot be obtained through the country's embassy in Canada, they are not reasonably available . . . it would be unreasonable to require an applicant travel to a country to obtain records or to even hire someone to make a local, let alone in-person application in another country).

Again, this is barely scratching the surface.



REMINDER: most applicants who are given the PPQ should be able to readily respond more than adequately to satisfy the IRCC screening process for these requests. Well more than a few, however, are likely to have some difficulty timely and fully responding. Thus, most PPQ recipients do not need to get bogged down in this stuff.

Thus, most PPQ recipients only need to send in a reasonably responsive submission, following the instructions, and relax, with some patience. Little or no need to worry.

This discussion is more for those who apprehend either:

• problems submitting what is requested, or
• potential risk that IRCC might doubt that the presence requirement has been met

 

[dbss]

What do you guys surmise of the following?

One of my friends applied for Citizenship in Oct, 2017 under 3/5 rule--> Got AOR in November --> IP on Dec 07 --> Received a letter yesterday from Sydney dated Dec 18 saying preliminary review on his file is complete & that his file has been sent to Program Support Unit for final review.
He travels to the US once or twice a year for a week at most and also submitted a name change request.

Does anybody know what all this is about and how his application might/would be delayed as a result? Any use applying for GCMS notes?

 

[razerblade]

What do you guys surmise of the following?

One of my friends applied for Citizenship in Oct, 2017 under 3/5 rule--> Got AOR in November --> IP on Dec 07 --> Received a letter yesterday from Sydney dated Dec 18 saying preliminary review on his file is complete & that his file has been sent to Program Support Unit for final review.
He travels to the US once or twice a year for a week at most and also submitted a name change request.

Does anybody know what all this is about and how his application might/would be delayed as a result? Any use applying for GCMS notes?

IMO, the name change request triggered his file to be handed off to the PSU. Read more here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/admininistration/identity/handling-changes-date-birth-information-on-clients-documentation-gcms.html

and

https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/my-case-has-been-referred-to-the-program-support-unit.205006/

 

[kl_king]

Good morning, a welcome home present after my holiday has arrived, in the form of a letter titled Quality Assurance exercise and request for additional evidence. As has been specified by other posters in this forum, this letter specifically states that "Your application was randomly selected for a special review exercise in connection with the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's (IRCC) Quality Assurance programme." The package that i have received includes:

- A covering letter
- Form CIT 0205 (05-2017) E - Physical Presence Questionnaire - Quality Assurance Exercise
- Appendix - Required Documents
- Request for fingerprints
- Request for a non-family member Canadian citizen as a reference who has known me for at least 2 years
- A consent form for a disclosure of the history of arrivals and departures in the Unites States

Speculatively, I am from a Visa except country and have travelled to the US through the land border several times during the eligible period (for single day meetings). In the list of required documents this consent for disclosure form is specifically refereed to as "Consent to I-94". This could, potentially, be one of the reasons for this process in the case of my application.

There is nothing particularly surprising in the list of requested documents:
- Colour photocopies of all pages of passports from the relevant period
- Entry/ Exit records issued be the countries of your citizenship and/or all countries of current or past (permanent or temporary) resident status other than Canada.
- Provincial / Territorial Personal Health Claims summary
The a longer list of other if scenarios and required paperwork for rentals, home ownership, studying, employment / benefits claims, business ownership / self employment, and professional association memberships.

I'll be happy to answer specific questions relating to these forms if it is of use, and I suspect shall shortly be asking some of my own!

Oh, and the letter was dated 14th December, but not received by me until after the new year, so very helpful for the 60 days to respond (30 is stated in the FP letter separately.)