RQ versus Physical Presence Questionnaires, including CIT 0205

[dpenabill]

I am quoting (in parts, so the link is readily accessible) a post from the Permanent Residency Obligations part of the forum, which provides a link to the February 2017 version of CIT 0171 . . . what we tend to call "full-blown RQ" (in contrast to other non-routine processing involving requests for residency/presence information, such as the CIT 0520, known as "RQ-Lite").

For those who try to offer information which can help anyone engaged in the citizenship application process in regards to RQ related issues, having access to the actual forms used by IRCC is very helpful. The more recent the better, obviously, but at least for me this now is the most recent version of the form I have eyes on. If anyone can provide a copy of a more recent version, please do (and that includes other RQ related forms as well, like the CIT 0520).

Found this in my old FOIA/ATIP requests, and figured I'd post it in case anyone is curious. This is the enhanced physical presence questionnaire that is used sometimes. It has some extra questions, including other countries you are a PR of, or applying to. It requires the addresses for foreign travel, whether your family was with you, tax assessments and property, where your close family members live, domestic and foreign property ownership, and health records.

https://pdfhost.io/v/loD~c0GUa_CIT_0171_Canada_Physical_Presence_Questionnaire_022017_ENG.pdf

Even though this version is obviously, technically, out-of-date in some very specific respects (most notably it refers to the physical presence requirement of 1460 days within a six year period which was replaced later that year, in 2017, with the 3/5 rule, the 1095 days within five years), it is nonetheless very useful information.

It warrants noting that other than changes directly related to elements which have changed, like the physical presence requirement, its core requests for information and documents are consistent with versions of RQ dating back many years. After all, what constitutes evidence showing where a person has been is not something that changes over time.

One key aspect of the changes to RQ over the years, which actually dates back to 2012 or 2013 (for sure the October 2013 version, but without digging through old folders I believe this dates back to the April 2012 version), is the request to include detailed information about where immediate family members were living during the relevant time period. One of the differences between the October 2013 version and this 2017 version is that for this section of the RQ it explicitly asks where family members have "lived/spent most of their time" during the relevant period, clarifying that just disclosing the address a person might use as their residential or "primary" residence address is NOT sufficient.

I have not done a line-by-line comparison between versions, so cannot say I have identified every respect in which this version differs from previous versions (I will do this, sooner than later, but not this morning). But in any event, anyway, it would be prudent to avoid reading too much into the precise terms used or documents specifically referenced. The purpose for which RQ, or a comparable procedure regarding PR RO compliance, is used is not complicated, and the PR's obligation in providing the requested information is likewise fairly straight-forward. There is one prudent approach: be open, be honest. That is, in addition to being truthful do not be evasive or misleading . . . remembering that some true statements can nonetheless be misleading or even outright deceptive. That is, dishonesty is not limited to prevarication, but encompasses equivocation or other methods of evading the truth OF WHAT MATTERS.

 

[kathysrazor]

I have not done a line-by-line comparison between versions, so cannot say I have identified every respect in which this version differs from previous versions (I will do this, sooner than later, but not this morning). But in any event, anyway, it would be prudent to avoid reading too much into the precise terms used or documents specifically referenced. The purpose for which RQ, or a comparable procedure regarding PR RO compliance, is used is not complicated, and the PR's obligation in providing the requested information is likewise fairly straight-forward. There is one prudent approach: be open, be honest.

Yep. I put the document out there so it would be available for reference for those who wanted it. I'm putting a citizenship application together, and was going back through old ATIP/FOIA requests to see travel history. It popped up, and I made it at the time because I didn't see a copy of the form.

 

[dpenabill]

. . . IMO, long periods of unemployment (and sometimes being self employed through out) might raise some eyebrows about residence requirements. The reason is because before June 2020, CBSA did NOT track the exits out of the country. They used to only track entries into the country. Because of this, when IRCC queries CBSA DB, they would see only entry records. They had to ascertain that you have truthfully declared the date when you left the country and this RQ might have been a result of that.

I'm asking these to get a better understanding of your circumstances as to why you might have received a RQ and will also be useful for me to refer to this in case someone else gets this god forsaken letter.

1. Did you travel internationally after becoming a PR? (how many trips outside Canada?)
2. Did you visit the same country multiple times or visited a lot of countries?
3. Were you employed (full-time or part time) or self-employed during your eligibility period?
4. Did you have any periods of unemployment during your eligibility period?
5. Did you change passports during your eligibility period (renew the passport, for example)?
6. Did you sponsor a spouse or child (or both) towards the end of your eligibility period?
7. Did you work or study outside Canada during your eligibility period?
8. How many days were you physically present in Canada before you applied for citizenship (as per your physical presence calculator)?
9. Did you file $0 tax returns (no income) in any of the years within your eligibility period?
10. Did you identify yourself as a 'non-resident' in any of the tax returns you filed during your eligibility period?
11. Do you have a PR status in any country other than Canada (like Australia?)
12. Were you questioned by CBSA as a part of secondary inspection when you entered Canada from abroad anytime?
13. As an extension of questions 1 and 2, how many days were you outside Canada in total during your eligibility period?

. . . I am trying to understand what might have caused IRCC to issue RQ.

As noted elsewhere, the effort to advance our understanding of RQ-related non-routine processing is appreciated.

Since this discussion was, at best, a tangent in the thread where it was posted, I have copied it here . . . I will make an effort to address this further later but in the meantime, input from others is very much requested and would be welcome.

Just to be clear, however, it demands reiterating that IRCC does NOT need a "reason" to make RQ-related requests. But, of course, we recognize that certain factors will likely increase the risk that IRCC does make RQ-related requests.

To be continued . . . in due course.

 

[dpenabill]

Clarification and question in regards to the File Requirements Checklist triage criteria:

A recent query referenced an applicant for whom "Triage of A5" is raised in the case, based on the applicant being a "consultant."

That query does not make it clear what the source is for that information, that A5 has been raised in that applicant's case. Overall context refers to multiple GCMS requests and other queries. But I suspect the A5 reference derives from a non-IRCC source.

So the QUESTION: has anyone received information from IRCC, in GCMS records or otherwise, making any reference to the "triage criteria" . . . and, especially any reference to particular criteria?

I doubt it, since even the existence of the triage criteria is supposed to be confidential, NOT public information, let alone what the triage criteria are, let alone how the criteria has been applied in any individual case. This information is not even shared with Federal Court justices for cases that are appealed.

So, if anyone has actually gotten any information from IRCC revealing any identification of any of the triage criteria, that would be news and good to know.


The Clarification:

For context . . . the only version of the File Requirements Checklist (FRC) I am familiar with is outdated, based on an accidently leaked version. It lists 7 criteria under "Applicant Characteristics," listed A1 to A7. (Other criteria include "Family Characteristics" listed a B1 and B2; and "Documents" listed as C1 to C4.)

A5 in the 2012 version of the FRC is:

A5 - Self-identified as a consultant, self-employed or unemployed, with any travel during the relevant 4 year period.​

Which is easily identified as outdated since there has not been a "relevant 4 year period" for any applications made since June 2015.

That criteria was way, way too overbroad to be workable. For much of 2012, for example, ANY period of time reported as a consultant, self-employed, or unemployed, resulted in a full blown RQ if the applicant had any travel outside Canada at all. Probably the biggest factor leading to nearly one in three applicants getting RQ'd during a number of months that year. And, for example, applicants reporting a period of time spent as a stay-at-home parent or student was considered a period of unemployment triggering RQ. (Typical Harper-era draconian overkill.)

By 2013 internal CIC/IRCC memos were subsequently revealing multiple modifications in how this criteria was applied. But since the criteria itself was confidential (as in secret), those memos tended to be heavily redacted and we only got snippets of information about the modifications. And so things have remained for the last many years, through major changes in the requirements themselves (went to 4/6 rule in 2015 and then to a 3/5 rule in October 2017, which is the current rule).

It seems likely that IRCC is still using a template derived from the 2012 version of the FRC, but with some changes along the way. The core, the essence, of the criteria probably remains largely the same (as they are largely consistent with what was in the applicable operational manual, CP 5 Residence, which also listed criteria for questioning an applicant's residence), but not applied with the same automatic trigger approach that was employed during the Harper years.

Consider A1 for example:

A1 -- Use of a suspect residential address​

Almost certainly that continues to be criteria tending to trigger RQ. And, of course, what constitutes "a suspect residential address" is very broad, a wide open factor which could be about many different things (albeit one of the main ways in which addresses are screened is a broad check to identify if other IRCC clients have used that address -- and there is the related C2 triage criteria, looking at any inconsistency between address on the applicant's ID and address in the application form).

In contrast, consider C1:

C1 - ID (provided in support of application) has been issued within 3 months of date of application.​

In 2012 this was an automatic trigger for RQ. By 2014 or so it was apparent that not every applicant who submitted a drivers license or health care card recently issued was automatically subject to RQ. But no crystal ball necessary to recognize that it is likely this is still a factor which in conjunction with other circumstances can influence the imposition of RQ. Not that it automatically triggers RQ, but is most likely, nonetheless, something considered.

IN ANY EVENT . . . ANY information that IRCC is revealing specific triage criteria to applicants would be news and appreciated.

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

I found this (by accident) on the IRCC website.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/legal-references-related.html

For review at a later time. I'm posting this here because there are some sections from the 'Citizenship Act' referenced here that might be useful when we are talking about Physical Presence / RQ.

Documenting and verifying permanent resident status
Citizenship Act

• Paragraph 2(2)(b)
• Subsection 5(1)
• Subsection 5(2)
• Subsection 11(1)
• Section 13.1
• Subsection 14(1.1)

Residence: policy for persons who have absences from Canada
Citizenship Act

• Subsections 5(1.01) to (1.03)
• Subsections 5(1.2) and (1.3)
• Subsection 5(3)
• Subsection 11(1)
• Subsection 11(1.1) and (1.2)

Here's another OB that might be of interest.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2016/536-modified-december-19-2016.html

All the forms related to the Citizenship program:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/program-related-forms.html

 

[dpenabill]

Here's another OB that might be of interest.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2016/536-modified-december-19-2016.html

While I had not entirely forgotten about this operational bulletin, a reminder of its particulars is helpful . . . noting, though, this addresses a matter that arises fairly often, and is more relevant in the PR Obligations forum here, regarding applications for a new PR card when it appears the PR is abroad.

However, it also brings up the matter of traveling abroad, living abroad, and working abroad while a citizenship application is pending. Which, in turn, demands mentioning that being abroad for extended periods of time while the citizenship application is pending very likely increases the RISK of RQ-related requests and non-routine processing . . . whether or not passport stamps, or other factors indicating the grant citizenship applicant has been abroad, are currently specified criteria constituting a reason-to-question-residency as was the case, explicitly, under previous operational manuals and bulletins.

But then there is the question, assuming being abroad triggers RQ-related processing . . . So what? the qualified grant citizenship applicant might ask. Since, after all, there is nothing about being abroad after applying that disqualifies an otherwise qualified PR.

I have seen the reports that IRCC is facilitating online tests for some applicants abroad. Frankly I am skeptical. For SOME applicants, in special circumstances, maybe, emphasis on MAYBE. But what that means, how it works, how it will affect subsequent steps in the process . . . for now remains cloudy.

For now, the safe harbour for applicants is most likely staying in Canada except for short trips abroad. Prospects otherwise are to be determined.

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

I have seen the reports that IRCC is facilitating online tests for some applicants abroad. Frankly I am skeptical. For SOME applicants, in special circumstances, maybe, emphasis on MAYBE. But what that means, how it works, how it will affect subsequent steps in the process . . . for now remains cloudy.

For now, the safe harbour for applicants is most likely staying in Canada except for short trips abroad. Prospects otherwise are to be determined.

Yes. I do have a few confirmed reports where it was EXPLICITLY mentioned in the test invitation that they 'CAN' take the test outside Canada and IRCC also explicitly mentioned in their test invitations that these applicants can answer 'YES' to the question 'Are you currently in Canada' even though they are not. Apparently, system changes are underway where there will be an option to allow people to take the test even if the check 'No' to the aforementioned question, according to IRCC.

This is what one applicant saw as the 4th bullet point on the first page.

If you are outside of Canada and you would like to take the Canadian citizenship knowledge test from outside of Canada, please contact us at IRCC.DNCitSCRScheduling-ConvocationSCRCitRN.IRCC@cic.gc.ca within 24 to 48 hours from the date of this notice and indicate ‘’Outside Canada’’ in the subject line of the email and provide your name, application number and the start and end date for your online test in the text of your email. We’ll contact you with the next steps after we receive your email.

This test invite was sent from Scarborough. I received the test email a few minutes later from Mississauga Office but I saw no such statement in my test invitation.

The applicant further contacted the email ID specified in the test invite email and received the following response:

Dear Applicant:

Thank you for contacting Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada. To proceed with the online test from your location outside Canada you can access the link in the test invitation that was previously emailed to you within the specified time period.

Important: System changes underway - When you sign in to the online test, you will need to go through a privacy notice. One of the questions will ask if you are physically present in Canada while taking the citizenship test. Though we acknowledge you may be located outside Canada, please check the box. This is necessary to complete the test until system changes can be implemented.

Good luck on your citizenship test!

I am yet to confirm why there is a discrepancy (in the form content) between two offices where the form numbers AND the version numbers are all the same.

 

[dpenabill]

Some contextual observations:

While this is a tangent, it revolves around the effort to apprehend and understand the risk of encountering RQ-related non-routine processing for applicants who are living, working, or otherwise abroad for extended periods of time while a citizenship application is in process. This should not be confused with merely *traveling* abroad, despite how common, in forum discussions, travel abroad is conflated with what is very different, with what amounts to moving abroad after applying.

Within this tangent, which is about the prospect of being allowed to take the knowledge of Canada test while abroad, there are multiple sub-tangents. Not the least of which are the who, when, and why elements. But, unless and until there is strong evidence illuminating the scope and just as importantly the IMPACT of participating in the knowledge of Canada testing while abroad, I'd suggest that applicants living abroad might want to hold off embracing let alone celebrating this.

As I often reiterate, IRCC does not engage in Gotcha-Games, but IRCC will structure procedures to facilitate information gathering. So, I am not suggesting such a procedure might be implemented as a trap for applicants (recognizing, after all, there is nothing about being abroad after applying that disqualifies the applicant), but it would of course quite easily identify and separate in-Canada applicants from outside-Canada applicants, and facilitate focusing some resources for applicants of-concern, IF and when there is some reason for concern (which would likely mean some reason for concern in addition to the applicant being abroad; that is, being abroad alone probably would NOT trigger non-routine processing, but rather be a factor in consideration with other factors).

In this regard it warrants remembering, and perhaps emphasizing, that while being invited to take the test, and successfully completing the test, is a big and necessary step in the process, so getting to this step means real progress, these days it appears that a decision to implement RQ-related non-routine processing typically happens in the course of a processing agent's review of the application and applicant attendant or subsequent to the test event. For most applicants (by a big margin), getting to the test indicates approaching the end of the process. But for some, those subject to RQ-related non-routine processing after the test, and especially those who encounter the full-blown RQ, the CIT 0171 version, the road ahead could still be a very long haul.

So getting to take the test soon may be little consolation for those then hit with RQ-related non-routine processing.

CAUTION: this is a very complex, multi-faceted subject. Even at the peak of the Harper-era draconian triage criteria, during which there was a concerted effort to make it difficult for applicants to succeed in getting citizenship if they were perceived to be applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, even then some applicants living abroad after applying did NOT get RQ'd. The only period of time in which living abroad after applying imposed a fixed roadblock was the very short period of time there was a provision requiring applicants to have the intent-to-CONTINUE-residing-in-Canada (which meant that residing outside Canada was a stand-alone ground for denying the application), which was so short (second half of 2015) few applicants were affected by it. Which is to say and emphasize that apprehending the impact of being abroad has never been reducible to a simple cause-and-effect equation, which has contributed to a lot of confusion about just how it can impact an individual applicant; moreover, these days it appears the risk of RQ-related non-routine processing is not nearly so elevated for such applicants as it was in the past.

Yes. I do have a few confirmed reports where it was EXPLICITLY mentioned in the test invitation that they 'CAN' take the test outside Canada and IRCC also explicitly mentioned in their test invitations that these applicants can answer 'YES' to the question 'Are you currently in Canada' even though they are not. Apparently, system changes are underway where there will be an option to allow people to take the test even if the check 'No' to the aforementioned question, according to IRCC.

. . .

I am yet to confirm why there is a discrepancy (in the form content) between two offices where the form numbers AND the version numbers are all the same.

Unless and until there is some clarity about who, when, and why, I remain skeptical that this will be become generally available. Which is not to dismiss that prospect. And it is not to dismiss reliable accounts of this being done in SOME cases, for SOME applicants.

I tend to weigh or categorize information relative to how it can affect or be used in actual decision making and action-taking. Which is why I largely disagree with the nature and scope of this forum's in-effect encouraging applicants to make ATIP requests for copies of their GCMS records, since the vast majority of that results in ZERO information that affects or can be used in making decisions or taking action.

As for IRCC modifying procedures to allow knowledge of Canada testing via the Internet by applicants outside Canada, the particular instances you reference are couched in language suggesting those reports are reliable. So far, however, the number is very small. Which is typical for pilot programs, so it is not as if the small number itself supports a conclusion that this is not intended to be rolled out more broadly. But a small number is also typical of procedures applicable to particular cases meeting certain criteria.

Unless and until there are indications this is in fact being rolled out more broadly, which will take some time to discern, it is probably not a good idea for an applicant to make decisions or change things relying on it becoming available (except for those who are specifically given the opportunity to take the test while abroad). Even then, even if this is adopted consistently for all applicants, applicants considering whether to move abroad might want to exercise caution before relying on this procedure becoming available.

In the meantime, there are many, many details which could shed more light on who or when applicants are being offered this, if indeed this is being implemented for applicants in certain circumstances. Too many to try enumerating them here. But, just as an example, a detail which might help illuminate things is whether the applicants who have gotten this opportunity were already known to be outside Canada (such as through notification of change of residential address or notice to IRCC about going abroad otherwise). That's just one detail. There are many others.

One more aspect of this warrants noting with some emphasis: There is a strong prospect this is merely a temporary, passing matter. IRCC will most likely be migrating back to an in-person procedure for knowledge of Canada test and quality assurance interview in the not-too-distant future (by as soon as early 2022 perhaps). Maybe not. But the odds lean that way.

 

[rajkamalmohanram]

Adding one more document here. This contains details about security and immigration screening. Might be worth a look. For later.

https://www.getgcms.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Release-Package-A-2018-11867-1.pdf

 

[dpenabill]

Contextual Note:

Background screening related to security and criminality, and to inadmissibility generally, is not really a RQ-related matter.

RQ-related procedures are about verifying the applicant's actual physical presence, relative to the specific eligibility requirement (current law) that the applicant was physically present in Canada at least 1095 days during the eligibility period (more if relying on credit for pre-PR days).

Background screening related to security and criminality, and to inadmissibility generally, is about whether the citizenship applicant is subject to any of the prescribed prohibitions.

These two very different, and typically not much related aspects of citizenship application processing, do tend to be at the center of reasons why this or that application gets bogged down in more complex non-routine processing, one OR the other tending to be involved when there are inordinately long delays, delays much longer than most applicants encounter, even applicants encountering less substantial forms of non-routine processing (like most finger print requests; noting, however, applicants encountering background screening delays are almost always required to submit fingerprints, but not all applicants, nowhere near all applicants required to submit fingerprints, have a significant background clearance issue). But beyond the fact that these are the more complicated issues, they really are not much related.

That said, the method, manner, and means of screening citizenship applicants, INCLUDING screening focused on verifying (or controverting) the applicant's reported actual physical presence, is undoubtedly similar to the method, manner, and means of background screening for prohibitions related to criminality, security, and other admissibility issues. With some notable differences. For example, much of the screening for prohibitions relies primarily on name record databases UNLESS there is a reason to expand the screening.

So, even though the CBSA information here is itself well off-topic, for those interested in what goes on under-the-hood, as best we can get a view under-the-hood, it offers some interesting and illustrative information.

Adding one more document here. This contains details about security and immigration screening.

Note, FWIW: part of these materials, essentially Chapter 2, beginning around page 70 of the pdf (not the pagination in the documents themselves), are explicitly labelled secret . . . but that part is also extensively redacted. It appears this may be a publicly disclosed version . . . given that one page appears to be stamped, only partially legible, which indicates this version has been released pursuant to Access to Information rules, and given the redactions and the lack of much if any substantive information in this part. Nonetheless, it warrants taking note of this and using one's own judgment about further sharing.


Some Observations regarding this CBSA Immigration Control Security Screening manual:

This is not directly related to security screening involved in processing Citizenship applications, routine border control examination of Canadians (citizens or permanent residents), or the examination of PRs regarding Residency Obligation compliance (there are references to the respective IRPA provisions, but this is in the list of statutes and regulations officers need to be familiar with, a relatively exhaustive list covering many provisions whose application is not addressed in the manual; this manual explicitly directs officers to the applicable Enforcement manuals where PoE examinations are directly addressed).

Even though it does not directly deal with screening grant citizenship applicants or the examination of individuals who are landed PRs, there are indeed many aspects of the manual which illustrate the nature and scope of this type of screening generally . . . with the caveat that much is nonetheless confidential . . . and even though there are likely some differences in what IRCC processing agents and Citizenship officers do in conducting screening, the nature and scope of the screening, and especially the availability and utilization of "screening partners," is almost certainly comparable.

One particular aspect of this manual I found useful is its illumination of certain nomenclature, such as its references to "lookouts" and "alerts," which add some context to related practices which, for example, can trigger an elevated examination of a returning PR upon arrival at a Port-of-Entry (alluding to what many of us sometimes describe as a "flag" in the client's record).

Noting and emphasizing some Key Elements -- Largely Reminders:

See references to strict confidentiality policies restricting information sharing; see section 6 beginning page 11 . . . and it warrants noting that numerous portions of this document itself are redacted.

Reference to "tools" . . . this is vague but clearly conveys CBSA has access to and utilizes a broad range of investigatory sources; note that the reference to "open sources" encompasses just about anything that has been published generally, is available to the public generally, and any information accessible using the Internet. An example I have often referred to, although it may have been CIC not CBSA (but utilizing the same "tools") is the case where a PR's account of his time in Canada and his employment was controverted by a Trade Conference brochure which referred to him as a participant in the conference in Switzerland during a time he reported being in Canada, and there in a capacity based on employment which he did not disclose in his employment history. There was no explanation in the case how it was that CIC obtained the brochure. His largely superficial denial of the accuracy of the brochure was found insufficient. He not only failed to become a citizen, he lost PR status.

Appendix B in these materials goes into detail regarding SOME of the screening tools, including in particular references to numerous "reliable" open sources, many of which are government resources (including U.S. government resources), government supported resources, and various other organizations. It warrants emphasizing, however, that BROAD internet searching is encouraged, and that goes well beyond the list of reliable sources. And well beyond formal "screening partners." As I have addressed often elsewhere, Canadian judicial and IRB IAD decisions amply illustrate that the scope of open source searching actually used goes well beyond the listed sources in Appendix B . . . as I have specifically referenced, one of the most common sources cited in actual cases is LinkedIn. More than a few individuals have been handed negative decisions because their information was controverted by information found in sources like LinkedIn . . . noting, for example, in at least one case the government was relying on information in a LinkedIn account for a user with a similar name, not the PR's name (actual case, which I have cited and linked in the past, but do not have a cite or link currently at hand, explained in detail the basis for concluding the account reflected information about the PR . . . the point here is not that anyone need worry that someone else's Internet information, someone with a similar user name, could sabotage them, but that in conducting the screening, agents and officers can and sometimes will probe more broadly, and creatively, than some might anticipate . . . basically, in that particular case, it was well apparent the LinkedIn account with a slightly different name was indeed one used by the PR, and it was fairly obvious she was surprised to be, more or less, found out . . . and here again the issue was she had employment outside Canada she did not disclose which showed she was outside Canada during a period of time she claimed to be in Canada and unemployed).

ALL THAT SAID . . . for the vast majority of citizenship applicants this is way more weedy than they need bother with, especially since it does not come close to fully revealing the nature and scope of investigatory research IF and WHEN a processing agent or citizenship officer discerns cause to probe the applicant beyond the ordinary, routine screening. The main reason to be aware of this stuff is to recognize an applicant does NOT need to chase down what is going on in background screening, and to further recognize that it is futile to go chasing after background screening information, since the effort will not result in learning much at all, let alone anything useful in making decisions. Basically, the applicant already knows more about what is involved (it is his or her life that is being researched), relevant to the applicant, than what the applicant will learn through the ATIP process . . . and the applicant can be fairly confident that IRCC knows a lot more than what will be revealed in response to the ATIP request.

IN PARTICULAR, qualified applicants with no reason for there to be a criminality, security, or other inadmissibility issue, with no prohibitions, have no reason to worry about the formal background clearances . . . these do NOT delay processing (even though call centre agents sometimes say the application is waiting on a clearance -- in a practical sense that is simply not what is needed for the next step in processing to happen).

 

[johnbro]

Hi All,

I received an email with an attachment titled - Request for Supplementary Evidence (see screenshot below). I asked this in Sep2020 thread but haven't received many replies so found this thread from Google so posting here as well. Hope its still active. Thanks

http://imgur.com/GV3paKW

http://imgur.com/hKoakvD

My questions are:
1) Only the 'Other' option is checked (highlighted yellow) which states I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days, do I only provide PCC or do I need to provide rental agreements, paystubs, health records etc and check (tick) them if I provide it ?
2) I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days in a row, but as I recall I stayed very close to 183 days in USA but not longer between the dates they have mentioned '2020-09-21' to '2015-09-21'. But recently I stayed in India for longer than 6 months from 2020-12-28 to 21-07-04 but these are outside. So I am not sure if I should provide PCC from USA or India .. or is it better to provide PCC from both countries ?
3) Any knows how to obtain USA Police Clearance Certificate from Canada. Also, if I can obtain PCC from Indian Consulate in Canada or my family has to get it from India from local police station ?
4) I had rental agreement for only one residence I stayed at, at most other places I paid cash as rent .. will this create a problem ?
5) For line item 'For Entry-Exit Records / Record of Movement from [COUNTRY] during the above time period.' - do I provide color photocopy of my passport ? I already submitted color photocopy of all pages including the certified translations ?
6) Is this request for evidence now going to make my application non-routine ?

Thanks in advance

 

[wink]

Hi All,

I received an email with an attachment titled - Request for Supplementary Evidence (see screenshot below). I asked this in Sep2020 thread but haven't received many replies so found this thread from Google so posting here as well. Hope its still active. Thanks

http://imgur.com/GV3paKW

http://imgur.com/hKoakvD

My questions are:
1) Only the 'Other' option is checked (highlighted yellow) which states I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days, do I only provide PCC or do I need to provide rental agreements, paystubs, health records etc and check (tick) them if I provide it ?
2) I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days in a row, but as I recall I stayed very close to 183 days in USA but not longer between the dates they have mentioned '2020-09-21' to '2015-09-21'. But recently I stayed in India for longer than 6 months from 2020-12-28 to 21-07-04 but these are outside. So I am not sure if I should provide PCC from USA or India .. or is it better to provide PCC from both countries ?
3) Any knows how to obtain USA Police Clearance Certificate from Canada. Also, if I can obtain PCC from Indian Consulate in Canada or my family has to get it from India from local police station ?
4) I had rental agreement for only one residence I stayed at, at most other places I paid cash as rent .. will this create a problem ?
5) For line item 'For Entry-Exit Records / Record of Movement from [COUNTRY] during the above time period.' - do I provide color photocopy of my passport ? I already submitted color photocopy of all pages including the certified translations ?
6) Is this request for evidence now going to make my application non-routine ?

Thanks in advance

I think they are asking for only PCC. Did you submit any PCC at all along with the application? If you don't mind, can I ask what is your nationality and whether you lived in US or India before landing in Canada as PR? Asking to understand whether you may have to submit PCC only from US/India or from both the countries. Thanks.

 

[dpenabill]

I received an email with an attachment titled - Request for Supplementary Evidence (see screenshot below). I asked this in Sep2020 thread but haven't received many replies so found this thread from Google so posting here as well. Hope its still active.

**** **** **** **** **** ****

My questions are:
1) Only the 'Other' option is checked (highlighted yellow) which states I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days, do I only provide PCC or do I need to provide rental agreements, paystubs, health records etc and check (tick) them if I provide it ?
2) I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days in a row, but as I recall I stayed very close to 183 days in USA but not longer between the dates they have mentioned '2020-09-21' to '2015-09-21'. But recently I stayed in India for longer than 6 months from 2020-12-28 to 21-07-04 but these are outside. So I am not sure if I should provide PCC from USA or India .. or is it better to provide PCC from both countries ?
3) Any knows how to obtain USA Police Clearance Certificate from Canada. Also, if I can obtain PCC from Indian Consulate in Canada or my family has to get it from India from local police station ?
4) I had rental agreement for only one residence I stayed at, at most other places I paid cash as rent .. will this create a problem ?
5) For line item 'For Entry-Exit Records / Record of Movement from [COUNTRY] during the above time period.' - do I provide color photocopy of my passport ? I already submitted color photocopy of all pages including the certified translations ?
6) Is this request for evidence now going to make my application non-routine ?

OVERALL:

​

-- This appears to be requesting ONLY a police certificate since no other item is checked.​

-- -- Based on what you say about your time outside Canada, this might be requesting a PCC only from the U.S., BUT that is not certain and it could be asking for one from India as well, or, it might be a request for one from India only; it should be possible to ask IRCC for clarification; in the meantime, however, you probably want to proceed to obtain BOTH PCCs so that you can provide them as soon as possible​

-- -- No indication that any other documents or evidence is being requested (at this time)​

​

-- Yes, this makes your application non-routine (but that does not mean much, not much at all; and yours was already non-routine anyway).​

​

--BUT there are some aspects of this request that are, well, at the least curious; be certain that the source of this is legitimate (it appears to be, but with wrinkles) and that where you submit your response is legitimate.​

There are other threads here where obtaining PCCs is discussed. I have not kept up with this aspect of the process. Generally this information is relatively easy to find searching on the internet.

For a U.S. PCC among potential sources of more information (I am not at all certain these are the ones you need; again, there are other threads here where this is discussed), see

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks​

https://www.edo.cjis.gov/#/​

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/medical-police/police-certificates/how/united-states.html​

https://ca.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/local-resources-for-u-s-citizens/police-certificates/​

Note regarding timely response: it may be difficult to obtain and submit the U.S. PCC within 30 days, considering that to obtain the U.S. PCC you probably need to obtain and submit fingerprints with the request for the PCC. Be sure to respond to this request from IRCC within 30 days; so, if you cannot obtain and submit the PCC within that time frame, at the least respond with an explanation that you do not have a PCC to submit but you have made a request for one from U.S. authorities and will provide it as soon as possible.

Again, I do not know much at all about obtaining a PCC from India.


FURTHER OBSERVATIONS (the long read):

Routine versus non-routine:

Any request for anything will "make [the] application non-routine," but that in itself means nothing. See discussion beginning here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/non-routine-applicants.581761/
A sample:

The difference between *routine* and *non-routine* is not as significant as IRCC and some others make it seem. There are far bigger differences depending on what makes the process *non-routine,* ranging from requests which typically have a minimal impact on the processing timeline, to big deal things like full-blown RQ which can lead to very lengthy delays or even, depending on the facts, mean the application is in jeopardy.

So yes, your application is non-routine. Unless you have a police record in the U.S., or some other issue that could cause problems, this is NOT likely to affect how things go from here forward. There is an increased likelihood of a longer processing time, compared to others who applied when you did, but not by a lot . . . again, unless there is a police record in the U.S. . . . or some other concern or issue in your case . . . and so long as you provide the U.S. clearance (this appears to be about providing a U.S. clearance).

That noted, your application was already non-routine, since you had received a request for copies of your passport.


The Request For PCC In Particular:

There are some aspects of this request that are, well, at the least curious. It is, at best, a poorly composed request. Disappointing but not entirely a surprise. As noted elsewhere "bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does."

Before getting tangled much in that, the simple approach (well relatively simple, subject to getting the PCCs) is to obtain and submit PCCs from both the U.S. and India. At the least, begin the procedure for obtaining both to avoid this causing any longer delays in processing than necessary.

I am assuming you have NO police or criminal records in either the U.S. or India. Obviously, any arrests, charges, prosecutions, or such, in those countries, could cause concerns . . . and of course, any arrests, charges, prosecutions, or such, in those countries (or any country for that matter), after 2016-09-21 (assuming the date of your application was 2020-09-21) will raise a prohibition issue.

I suspect that the request is intended to request one or the other, that is either a U.S. or India PCC. And my first guess was that it is requesting a U.S. PCC BUT that is not clear. The vagueness of the request itself is perplexing.

You may be able to obtain clarification from IRCC, clearly indicating what is being requested. And if so, respond accordingly.

But in the meantime, again, so as to avoid further delay, you probably want to begin the process to obtain PCCs from BOTH the U.S. and India. This is based, in large part, on the fact that you have clearly spent extended periods of time in both those countries since 2016-09-21, which begins the relevant time period for criminal history related prohibitions (prohibitions arise from charges, convictions, or such, in any country during the four years prior to the date the application was made or since applying).

If you proceed to get and submit both, or you get clarification from IRCC and proceed accordingly, NO need to wrestle with the next post. I cannot offer advice, or even an opinion, but if I did, that's what I would suggest: proceed to get and submit both, or get clarification from IRCC and proceed accordingly.

to be continued . . .

 

[dpenabill]

Further Observations . . .

I received an email with an attachment titled - Request for Supplementary Evidence (see screenshot below). I asked this in Sep2020 thread but haven't received many replies so found this thread from Google so posting here as well. Hope its still active.

**** **** **** **** **** ****

My questions are:
1) Only the 'Other' option is checked (highlighted yellow) which states I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days, do I only provide PCC or do I need to provide rental agreements, paystubs, health records etc and check (tick) them if I provide it ?
2) I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days in a row, but as I recall I stayed very close to 183 days in USA but not longer between the dates they have mentioned '2020-09-21' to '2015-09-21'. But recently I stayed in India for longer than 6 months from 2020-12-28 to 21-07-04 but these are outside. So I am not sure if I should provide PCC from USA or India .. or is it better to provide PCC from both countries ?
3) Any knows how to obtain USA Police Clearance Certificate from Canada. Also, if I can obtain PCC from Indian Consulate in Canada or my family has to get it from India from local police station ?
4) I had rental agreement for only one residence I stayed at, at most other places I paid cash as rent .. will this create a problem ?
5) For line item 'For Entry-Exit Records / Record of Movement from [COUNTRY] during the above time period.' - do I provide color photocopy of my passport ? I already submitted color photocopy of all pages including the certified translations ?
6) Is this request for evidence now going to make my application non-routine ?

Considering the Vagaries of the Request . . . Into the Weeds:

Again, no need to go wandering into these weeds if you proceed to get and submit PCCs from both the U.S. and India, or you get clarification from IRCC and proceed accordingly.

On its face, without reference to the five year time period 2020-09-21 to 2015-09-21, which I gather is your "eligibility period," the request is asking for a police certificate from ALL countries in which you have spent 183 or more days in a row in your life. I am very confident that is NOT what is actually requested.

Quoting the request:

Please be advised you spent over 183 days or more in a row outside Canada. As a result you are being requested to provide a police certificate for each country or territory where you have been present for 183 days or more in a row. If you cannot get a police certificate, tell us why and provide any supporting documents where applicable.​

Assuming, which I am confident is reasonable, that it is indeed NOT requesting a PCC from any and all countries you might have spent 183 or more days in a row in the course of your whole life, the problem is parsing just what time period it is about. The five year eligibility period is NOT the same as the criminal history prohibitions time period, which is the four years preceding the date of the application plus the period of time after applying right up to the day the oath is taken.

Moreover, according to what you report, the only country in which you have in fact spent 183 days or more in a row going back to 2015-09-21 is India, but that is after applying . . . and so far I have not seen other applicants, who have been abroad after applying for at least six months, similarly getting PCC requests for the country where they have been after applying . . . so it seems less likely it is really asking for a PCC from India.

Thing is that there is nothing particularly significant about "183 days or more" except for the administrative practice of requiring applicants to submit a PCC with the application if the applicant was in another country for 183 days or more in a row during the FOUR years preceding the date the application is made. That is merely about what is required to make a complete application.

Otherwise, in particular, IRCC can request a PCC be provided for ANY country the applicant may have been in for any period of time, however short.

My GUESS is that this is only asking for a U.S. PCC. Probably a good idea to get and submit that as soon as possible. Remember to send explanation within 30 days if it is taking longer than that to get the U.S. PCC.

Safe approach will be to also obtain and submit a PCC from India (if that is possible).

 

[indigonation5]

Hi All,

I received an email with an attachment titled - Request for Supplementary Evidence (see screenshot below). I asked this in Sep2020 thread but haven't received many replies so found this thread from Google so posting here as well. Hope its still active. Thanks

http://imgur.com/GV3paKW

http://imgur.com/hKoakvD

My questions are:
1) Only the 'Other' option is checked (highlighted yellow) which states I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days, do I only provide PCC or do I need to provide rental agreements, paystubs, health records etc and check (tick) them if I provide it ?
2) I stayed outside Canada for longer than 183 days in a row, but as I recall I stayed very close to 183 days in USA but not longer between the dates they have mentioned '2020-09-21' to '2015-09-21'. But recently I stayed in India for longer than 6 months from 2020-12-28 to 21-07-04 but these are outside. So I am not sure if I should provide PCC from USA or India .. or is it better to provide PCC from both countries ?
3) Any knows how to obtain USA Police Clearance Certificate from Canada. Also, if I can obtain PCC from Indian Consulate in Canada or my family has to get it from India from local police station ?
4) I had rental agreement for only one residence I stayed at, at most other places I paid cash as rent .. will this create a problem ?
5) For line item 'For Entry-Exit Records / Record of Movement from [COUNTRY] during the above time period.' - do I provide color photocopy of my passport ? I already submitted color photocopy of all pages including the certified translations ?
6) Is this request for evidence now going to make my application non-routine ?

Thanks in advance

Wait by how many days were you over or under the 183 days? Since the stay was continous BEFORE and DURING the eligibility period, did you have exact 183 days you were in the US?