RQ versus Physical Presence Questionnaires, including CIT 0205

[dpenabill]

My PPQ/QAE including FP and all required documents are received by IRCC Edmonton today. Its time to keep an eye on email for test invitation.

Please let the forum know if and when in this topic.

My close friend submitted their application in first week of November 2017 and received today a letter invitation for the test in 2 weeks...

Is this to contrast the timeline for an applicant who did NOT receive PPQ-QAE or is this an applicant who has responded to a PPQ?

.Is anyone in multi-level-marketing business here and so is self employed but more like a partnership with a bigger company and a work from home kind of business? I am and don't have any of the documents they mentioned for business owners. Any ideas on how to go about this question.

[I am NO expert; much of what I offer below derives from experiences not related to immigration or citizenship, albeit with due consideration given what I have learned about the citizenship application process.]

Anyone running a business needs to keep some business records. Even if it is just a running log of business transactions and an accounting of revenue. Whatever the sole operator does to keep track of expenses and revenues/income, which of course is the absolute minimum necessary for tax purposes. At the least, a self-employed person should be able to submit a description of the business activity supported by copies of these records.

Whether that is sufficient may be difficult to forecast but, as noted again and again, an applicant can only provide what the applicant has and explain what the applicant does not have and, if it seems necessary, to explain why not. Moreover, as is often the case, what to submit DEPENDS on the particular situation.



Some particulars:

Contracts, invoices (documents demonstrating a continuance of business activity over the relevant period)

Anyone who is operating a business needs to keep records which show, at the least, business revenues, business expenses, and documents showing transactions. At the very least, anyone running any business needs to do this for tax filing purposes, but of course this is simply standard business practice. Copies of a sufficient sample of these records to show the nature and scope of the business, and covering the period of time in which the individual engaged in the business, can be submitted as responsive to this request for "Contracts, invoices."

Note: orders and receipts are such documents.



Letters from suppliers or clients (3 letters of most significant parties demonstrating a continuance of business activity over the relevant period)

If the applicant can provide three such letters, that is what the applicant probably should do.

Otherwise: The request for three letters from suppliers or clients demonstrating continuance of business activity over the relevant period could be tricky for some (depending on what they do) who are a sole proprietor and sole operator of a business. I would have trouble providing such letters from any supplier (I am simply one more shopper among many at businesses like Staples) or client/customer (I would be find it very uncomfortable asking a client for a letter).

While only some of the requests are qualified by the parenthetical "if any," as a practical matter that applies, at least to some extent, to all the requests. An applicant cannot be required to provide what the applicant does not have and cannot reasonably obtain.

So, for this item, perhaps an applicant can refer to the business records otherwise being provided, include a summary description of the applicant's business activities with some details covering the period of time the applicant has engaged in the business, and an explanation as to why such letters are not reasonably available. Again, for a qualified applicant with a paper/digital trail of a life lived in Canada, the applicant should be OK making an honest effort to reasonably respond to the requests.


Bank statements for your business

If the individual has business accounts, provide the bank statements.

But sure, many individuals who are a sole proprietor and sole operator may mingle personal affairs with their business affairs, and thus not maintain separate business accounts. If this is your situation, again perhaps you could submit a statement explaining this, explaining how you actually handle revenues and expenses. You could submit bank statements for your personal accounts and highlight items reflecting deposit of revenue and items reflecting business expenses. As always, how much to submit is a personal judgment.


Some Overriding Observations:

The extent to which an applicant can or should document business activity is, of course, individual specific. Small, sole proprietor businesses range from a rather small thing on the side or a way to finance a hobby, to full scale career-based full time enterprise providing an individual's sole source of income, the individual's only means of support. Obviously, someone running a very small business on the side with only minimum revenue will not have extensive records to document the business activity. And this individual's failure to provide extensive documentation showing business activity should NOT raise concerns.

Obviously, if someone reports their only source of support and income is their sole proprietorship, that suggests a substantial business enterprise and there should be many records which will document carrying on that business. A failure to make a reasonably substantial submission of such records would, of course, tend to raise some flags.

The nature of the business also matters. It is more important that what the applicant submits is commensurate with the nature of the business. Both in terms of what documents are submitted and the quantity of documents submitted.

 

[cherif2100]

Did they submit original application in 1st week of Nov, or they replied to RQ CIT 0205 sent by IRCC in 1st week of November?

It was original application , funny how things go, because this person didn’t declare their taxes for 2016 but said yes on the application... #luck

 

[Marooned2]

Really , did your friend get his citizenship

Yeah unfortunately you cannot believe how common he told me this is, he knew this as a "norm", so many of his mates had done it this way. And we are the ones who have to pay the price for those idiots, its fine though, at least I'm personally in no rush.

 

[omerhaha]

Yeah unfortunately you cannot believe how common he told me this is, he knew this as a "norm", so many of his mates had done it this way. And we are the ones who have to pay the price for those idiots, its fine though, at least I'm personally in no rush.

They are really idiots

 

[Elsyulo]

Please let the forum know if and when in this topic.



Is this to contrast the timeline for an applicant who did NOT receive PPQ-QAE or is this an applicant who has responded to a PPQ?




[I am NO expert; much of what I offer below derives from experiences not related to immigration or citizenship, albeit with due consideration given what I have learned about the citizenship application process.]

Anyone running a business needs to keep some business records. Even if it is just a running log of business transactions and an accounting of revenue. Whatever the sole operator does to keep track of expenses and revenues/income, which of course is the absolute minimum necessary for tax purposes. At the least, a self-employed person should be able to submit a description of the business activity supported by copies of these records.

Whether that is sufficient may be difficult to forecast but, as noted again and again, an applicant can only provide what the applicant has and explain what the applicant does not have and, if it seems necessary, to explain why not. Moreover, as is often the case, what to submit DEPENDS on the particular situation.



Some particulars:

Contracts, invoices (documents demonstrating a continuance of business activity over the relevant period)

Anyone who is operating a business needs to keep records which show, at the least, business revenues, business expenses, and documents showing transactions. At the very least, anyone running any business needs to do this for tax filing purposes, but of course this is simply standard business practice. Copies of a sufficient sample of these records to show the nature and scope of the business, and covering the period of time in which the individual engaged in the business, can be submitted as responsive to this request for "Contracts, invoices."

Note: orders and receipts are such documents.



Letters from suppliers or clients (3 letters of most significant parties demonstrating a continuance of business activity over the relevant period)

If the applicant can provide three such letters, that is what the applicant probably should do.

Otherwise: The request for three letters from suppliers or clients demonstrating continuance of business activity over the relevant period could be tricky for some (depending on what they do) who are a sole proprietor and sole operator of a business. I would have trouble providing such letters from any supplier (I am simply one more shopper among many at businesses like Staples) or client/customer (I would be find it very uncomfortable asking a client for a letter).

While only some of the requests are qualified by the parenthetical "if any," as a practical matter that applies, at least to some extent, to all the requests. An applicant cannot be required to provide what the applicant does not have and cannot reasonably obtain.

So, for this item, perhaps an applicant can refer to the business records otherwise being provided, include a summary description of the applicant's business activities with some details covering the period of time the applicant has engaged in the business, and an explanation as to why such letters are not reasonably available. Again, for a qualified applicant with a paper/digital trail of a life lived in Canada, the applicant should be OK making an honest effort to reasonably respond to the requests.


Bank statements for your business

If the individual has business accounts, provide the bank statements.

But sure, many individuals who are a sole proprietor and sole operator may mingle personal affairs with their business affairs, and thus not maintain separate business accounts. If this is your situation, again perhaps you could submit a statement explaining this, explaining how you actually handle revenues and expenses. You could submit bank statements for your personal accounts and highlight items reflecting deposit of revenue and items reflecting business expenses. As always, how much to submit is a personal judgment.


Some Overriding Observations:

The extent to which an applicant can or should document business activity is, of course, individual specific. Small, sole proprietor businesses range from a rather small thing on the side or a way to finance a hobby, to full scale career-based full time enterprise providing an individual's sole source of income, the individual's only means of support. Obviously, someone running a very small business on the side with only minimum revenue will not have extensive records to document the business activity. And this individual's failure to provide extensive documentation showing business activity should NOT raise concerns.

Obviously, if someone reports their only source of support and income is their sole proprietorship, that suggests a substantial business enterprise and there should be many records which will document carrying on that business. A failure to make a reasonably substantial submission of such records would, of course, tend to raise some flags.

The nature of the business also matters. It is more important that what the applicant submits is commensurate with the nature of the business. Both in terms of what documents are submitted and the quantity of documents submitted.

Thanks. Please is singing in the church choir considered volunteer work.

 

[Elsyulo]

Pls does anyone know what they mean at the end of form CIT0205 IRCC Address ( Please affix Label). Do they mean postal label with IRCC Address that am sending the docs to?

 

[cherif2100]

I submitted my reply to QAE - PPQ today, my due date is end of next week, I am still missing the health claim, entry exit records from Dubai and turkey as tourist, and one letter from a landlord ( I sent copy of the lease, rental pay receipts covering all the period, gas receipts plus usage and emails that I sent to the landlord ), otherwise my mail is more than 100 page excluding the passports photocopies. It seems to me it will take forever to go through all the documents and verifications, hoping they don’t ask me again for the entry exit records!

 

[dpenabill]

Why CIC doing Quality Assurance
Is there any particular reason


So in citizenship application they want to verify .

Primary reason, as discussed in the 2016 Auditor General report (should link), appears to be for "identifying and analyzing fraud risks and trends, and checking the effectiveness of fraud controls and making adjustment."

The Auditor General report and IRCC response goes well beyond the scope of this, including other quality control elements such as enhancing IRCC and RCMP screening for criminality, but the structure of the PPQ-QAE is clearly oriented to identify indicators of residence-fraud, and this is primary focus of the report as well.

any one has cic link where says why they do: Quality Assurance

Again, the spring 2016 Auditor General's report can be seen here:

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_02_e_41246.html#hd2a

That report does not explain why this or that particular applicant is issued the CIT 0205 PPQ-QAE, but it explains the Auditor General's findings and concerns and why IRCC needed to implement a program to further evaluate the reliability and integrity of the grant citizenship process, and specifically target refining risk indicators for presence-fraud.

The curious part of this is that this research and analysis was supposed to be a big part of the OB 407 procedure which the Harper government implemented in April 2012. The AG's report essentially concludes that the efficacy of "risk indicators" employed pursuant to OB 407 (which was not published for the public and only a severely redacted version was available through the ATI process) was not adequately assessed, despite the mandate to review the risk indicators employed (they were reviewed and revised, but this report states that there was more assumption and little analysis underlying that process).

In any event, IRCC responded to the Auditor General's report agreeing with the recommendation to "document its rationale for selecting risk indicators for residency fraud and ensure that these indicators are checked consistently and are effective at detecting and preventing fraud."

IRCC thus initiated "an analysis of the triage criteria by conducting program integrity activities as part of the Citizenship Program Integrity Framework. As part of the framework, the risk indicators will be evaluated to verify they are consistently applied."

While there is no formal declaration, that I have seen, which states the PPQ-QAE is the referenced "program integrity" activity, it is more or less obviously so.

Reminder: The PPQ-QAE, including in particular CIT 0205, was at the least implemented in early 2017, if not before (see posts above re a May 2017 version of the CIT 0205). So this is NOT a result of the changes implemented in October 2017 (implementation of Bill C-6 3/5 rule), and indeed at the least pre-dates the adoption of Bill C-6 altogether.

I read in one of RICC guides, which I cannon recall its number, that quality check should be done on 1 out of 5 applications in random. By statistics, the probability is about 20% that an applicant will be caught in the process..

Historically, information about CIC or IRCC Quality Assurance programs which referenced percentages typically referred to much, much small percentages. I do not recall details in particular, but at the very, very largest they might have been .5%, as in reviewing one in two hundred for quality control purposes.

Prior to 2012, most indicators about RQ suggested that it was issued to around one-in-eight or one-in-ten, but of course RQ was issued based on reasons-to-question-residency/presence, not randomly. In 2012 internal CIC memos indicated that in some months more than one-in-four applicants were issued pre-test RQ. By mid to late 2013, reports of RQ dropped off considerably and in the last two years they have been quite rare.

Prior to the recent surge in the number of applicants getting the PPQ-QAE, reports about this were very sporadic, so uncommon they were given very little attention in the forum and I too tended to not pay them much attention.

Including those earlier reports, so far I count 21 applicants being reported, in the forum, as having gotten the PPQ-QAE, in contrast to more than 40,000 new applications made in October, and probably over a 100,000 applications made since the October 11 changes.

Thus, while the number reporting PPQ-QAE suddenly surged, so far there is little indication of a massive, broad sweep of applicants anywhere near comparable to the 2012 Harper/Kenney OB 407 debacle.



Is the PPQ-QAE really RANDOM?

Is there any particular reason

it is random process

they are random, hence the letter saying you have been randomly selected to participate in our quality assurance program.

As discussed in a number of posts above, the correspondence from IRCC states that the applicant was "randomly selected for a special review exercise . . ."

BUT there are more than a few indications it is NOT entirely random. Some wonder if it is at all random.

Personally, from my perspective, the fact that IRCC explicitly states the applicant was randomly selected means that in at least some respect there is a random element employed in deciding who gets the PPQ-QAE. In other words, I do not think that IRCC would state this if it was entirely not true.

But, that does not preclude the employment of some selection criteria, some degree of screening, in determining who is selected.

To a large extent there is little or no reason to pursue this question. Even a well-crafted ATI request is not likely to obtain information about current screening methods or criteria. This is carefully protected confidential information. Even if we could learn something about how applicants are selected for the PPQ, if indeed there is something more than an entirely random process, that process obviously sweeps qualified applicants into the QAE.

Thus, there is little or no prospect of learning how applicants can avoid the PPQ-QAE which would be any different than what we now understand about the risks of being issued RQ. Prudent applicants will take minimizing the risks of RQ into consideration when deciding what is the right time to apply, including taking into consideration factors like margin over the minimum, work and address history documentation, travel history, and such. And prudent applicants are well aware that there is NO sure-way to avoid RQ, that any applicant can be issued RQ no matter how strong their case is. Which, in turn, means the prudent applicant has gathered and is maintaining records sufficient to respond to RQ, which same records will suffice in a response to the PPQ-QAE (with some exceptions, since most accounts indicate the PPQ-QAE also requires Finger Prints, two citizen references, a consent to obtain direct access to U.S. travel history, and record of movement or travel history from at least the applicant's home country).

In other words, there is nothing to be learned about the PPQ-QAE which significantly changes the prudent applicant's approach to deciding when to apply or what records to have and keep.

 

[dpenabill]

Assuming the PPQ-QAE is NOT entirely random, assuming some selection criteria triggers who gets PPQ-QAE: how might that affect those selected or how they should respond?

This is an important issue for those who receive the PPQ-QAE. And, perhaps the is-it-random? question is really about are-we-suspected-of-fraud?

It would not be a very useful research exercise if it only targeted those suspected of fraud. Its object, after all, is to ascertain factors which will help IRCC identify fraud.

Despite being based on "risk indicators," even the criteria employed in the roll out of OB 407, in 2012, did not mean affected applicants were suspected of fraud. That criteria was so overly broad it swept a huge percentage of applicants into the quagmire of residency case processing and nearly crashed the entire system. (Every applicant reporting any self-employment, any period of unemployment, or any employment as a "consultant," was issued pre-test RQ until the criteria were revised; likewise any applicant whose driver's license or health care card had been issued or renewed within three months of their application.)

It is safe to conclude, I am confident, that being selected for the PPQ-QAE does NOT mean the applicant is suspected of fraud.

We do not yet know anything at all about how IRCC is assessing the PPQ-QAE applicants and their response to the PPQ. Thus, we do not know how strict or severe, or in contrast perhaps how liberal, IRCC is in the way it evaluates the applicant's response.

I have suggested, in previous posts, that the equivalent of "substantial performance" probably suffices. I doubt qualified applicants who submitted a complete and accurate application, and whose response to the PPQ constitutes substantial performance, will encounter any significant problems. I would note, for example, there is no statutory authority which would authorize IRCC to deny citizenship because the applicant fails to provide this or that specific document in response to a request for additional documents. Once the applicant has made an application, the applicant is entitled to having it decided on its merits, and no additional requirements can be imposed. This does not mean applicants can disregard or otherwise fail to comply with the requests, but a request for specific documents cannot be elevated to a qualifying requirement. In other words, IRCC can consider the failure to provide this or that, but its decision must nonetheless constitute a reasonable conclusion based on a balance of probabilities standard.

Please is singing in the church choir considered volunteer work.

. . . does anyone know what they mean at the end of form CIT0205 IRCC Address ( Please affix Label). Do they mean postal label with IRCC Address that am sending the docs to?

What activities an applicant decides to report as volunteer work or service is of course a very personal decision, but also depends, of course, on what the particular activity is and the context in which it is done.

Hopefully others who have had the actual papers in hand can provide an answer about the label.

 

[JamesBond007]

Please let the forum know if and when in this topic.

Sure. Will update for any changes. thanks

 

[JamesBond007]

I submitted my reply to QAE - PPQ today, my due date is end of next week, I am still missing the health claim, entry exit records from Dubai and turkey as tourist, and one letter from a landlord ( I sent copy of the lease, rental pay receipts covering all the period, gas receipts plus usage and emails that I sent to the landlord ), otherwise my mail is more than 100 page excluding the passports photocopies. It seems to me it will take forever to go through all the documents and verifications, hoping they don’t ask me again for the entry exit records!

The same thing with me too. I missed employment letter, instead i submitted offer and reliving letter. Missed landlord letter, explained in detail why i do not have that and nothing i included either bills, etc... Also missed entry/exit record from UK. i submitted, but i did not heard anything from them yet.
Its always better to give an explanation why the document is missing and unable to submit.

 

[yogiedmonton]

This is my timeline,
EDMONTON OFFICE,
Application received OCT 17,
AOR Nov 21,
IP Dec 8,
QA date Jan 5,
FP done Jan 9,
document submitted with FP on Feb 5.

 

[rajmalhotra7]

This is my timeline,
EDMONTON OFFICE,
Application received OCT 17,
AOR Nov 21,
IP Dec 8,
QA date Jan 5,
FP done Jan 9,
document submitted with FP on Feb 5.

Added you to global spreadsheet

 

[dpenabill]

Another reported (in other threads) QAE recipient, bringing the total I am aware of in the forum to 22:

Hi,

I am also a victim selected in December for this review exercise as well as you guys.

I have a little problem. When I sent my application in October, in the part of writing the addresses where I have lived, I put some dates wrong and I skipped an address. When I arrived in Canada I stayed at a friend's house for 5 days (as a guest), and instead of placing this, I stated that those 5 days I was where I subsequently rented. But now that I am asked for the CIT 0205 and landlords letters, where it says that those 5 days I was not there. Will there be a problem if the two forms do not match exactly? What should I do?

Are there any who have already received an invitation to the test after sending the CIT 0205 and all the documents requested??

Thank you in advance

Ceci

I already responded in large part in one of the two other threads where this was posted.

While it is difficult to conclude these little incongruities or potential discrepancies may have triggered the PPQ-QAE, this is one more example (several others fall into a similar pattern) of an application which appears to have some wrinkles AND got the PPQ-QAE. Still no where near enough evidence to conclude a cause-and-effect relationship, but the extent to which there appears to be a pattern in who is getting the PPQ-QAE keeps the question open: is who gets this really random, totally random, partially random, at all random.

As observed previously, for prospective applicants preparing their applications, all the prospective-applicant can reasonably do to minimize the risk of RQ will probably reduce the risk of the PPQ EVEN IF there are risk-indicator criteria employed in determining who gets the PPQ-QAE. As previously discussed, we do not know that any such criteria is used, the correspondence itself says those affect are selected "randomly," but if IRCC is screening based on criteria perceived to relate to an increase risk of fraud, the best applicants can do is take the same precautions the prudent applicant will take generally:
-- apply with a comfortable margin over the minimum
-- be as complete and accurate as practically possible
-- consider waiting longer to apply if there are significant periods of instability within the time period the applicant relies on to meet the presence requirement
-- gather and maintain relevant records to document occupant-interest in addresses, employment history, travel history, and such

. . . When I sent my application in October, in the part of writing the addresses where I have lived, I put some dates wrong and I skipped an address. When I arrived in Canada I stayed at a friend's house for 5 days (as a guest), and instead of placing this, I stated that those 5 days I was where I subsequently rented. But now that I am asked for the CIT 0205 and landlords letters, where it says that those 5 days I was not there. Will there be a problem if the two forms do not match exactly? What should I do?

I am no expert. I am not qualified to offer personal advice. I offered some general observations about this in the other thread. I am not qualified, in particular, to make an assessment of specific circumstances in an individual case . . . there are always many, many other factors which can loom large and have an important impact.

But, I should have noted in my other response that address history is generally about periods of at least a month. A five day stay somewhere other than the reported address for a period of time should not be significant. While I try to avoid suggesting particular responses, this does not appear to be something worth focusing attention on.

If address dates are off by weeks or months, be sure to correct those and if for a full month or more be sure to specifically acknowledge the corrections. But for periods of time like five days, just provide the information and documentation you can gather and submit a complete and accurate response as best you can, and within the time instructed. Almost all of us made some small mistakes in our applications and IRCC is very well acquainted with working through the process despite small mistakes . . . IRCC is NOT in a GOTCHA game (even though some seem to think otherwise).

 

[kl_king]

I recieved my test invite for 8th of march. Almost 3 weeks after I sent them my quality assurance docs.

Just an update that I noticed on the global tracking sheet. I would appear that @KireKhar received this CIT0205 on the 22nd December, and was invited to an interview for the 8th March. While this is only the first such data point, that seems to be quite a promising indication that there may not be a significant delay in processing resulting from this process.

@galant also appears to have received an invite quite quickly