suwail said:
I don't have AOR yet but just curios if I will get an RQ on my application? My situation is all my family members (wife and kids) are already citizens, we landed here in Canada all together and then I went back to Abu Dhabi to work for a couple of months(14 months to be exact) while my family stayed with my sister's house.
I have travelled 3 times going back and forth from Canada to Abu Dhabi during that time, so all in all i have a total of 385 days abscenses.
Should I get an RQ on this? Any opinion will be much appreciated.
Overall,
anyone might be issued requests for additional information or documentation, be that CIT 0520 or the full blown RQ: CIT 0171. There are many reasons why a particular applicant might be issued CIT 0520 or the full blown RQ: CIT 0171. There are more reasons than just those which appear on the face of the 2012 version of the File Requirements Checklist (FRC) in its list of "Triage Criteria," referenced and linked by
frege as "risk indicators" derived from the
wordpress site.
Many factors which might lead to RQ are beyond an applicant's control. From random quality control checks to unfortunate coincidences, even the most qualified applicants can be issued RQ. Thus, for example, any PR trying to assess when it is time for him or her to apply, just meeting the minimum presence requirement is
only one factor among many to consider, and at the least it is prudent to not apply unless one has a comfortable margin over the minimum presence requirement
and is prepared to submit, if it is requested, proof of place of abode and locale of activity (emphasis on employment) for
all the relevant time period.
That said, there are a few factors within the applicant's control, factors which are more or less likely to trigger RQ but which the applicant can avoid. For example, as oft noted, discrepancies between declared dates of exit and entry, and actual dates of exit and entry, dramatically increase the risk of RQ. But all applicants have total control over this: they were there every time they exited Canada and every time they entered Canada, so each applicant has total control over accurately reporting every trip abroad.
In any event, there is no such thing as a
RQ-proof application, which is to say there is no way to make an application which is guaranteed to avoid RQ.
There are a number of factors which will increase the risk of RQ, and some of these can be either avoided or minimized. Like avoiding mistakes in the presence calculation declarations.
Applicants who accurately report full time employment with a recognized Canadian employer, for employment at a workplace in Canada, and for a time period fully covering the minimum presence requirement, are perhaps among those with the lowest risk of RQ. For many immigrants, however, including me, this is
not how things are, not how they have gone.
Recently issued identification:
A factor which emerges in the above discussion is recently issued identification.
There is a good chance that submitting identification issued within the three months prior to the date the application is made will
not necessarily trigger RQ. Personally, however, my approach would be to wait to apply beyond this period of time (acknowledging some exceptions), since of course there are obvious reasons why recently issued identification inherently raises questions (and anyone not recognizing this is focused on innocent reasons why someone might have recently issued identification, overlooking the obvious: a recently issued drivers license or health care card might indicate someone recently relocated to Canada).
This leads to:
frege said:
There are many reasons people can get an RQ. Here are some Source:
https://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com/rq-risk-indicators/
wordpress said:
A5 – Self-identified as a consultant, self-employed or unemployed, with any travel during the relevant 4 year period.
C1 – ID (provided in support of application) has been issued within 3 months of date of application.
One of the biggest problems is if there is a discrepancy between your declared travel dates and your ICES records (showing each date you entered the country) and passport stamps inspected during an interview.
CAUTION: This FRC Triage Criteria List is Out-of-Date
Bottom-line: it is unknown, publicly, what criteria IRCC is
currently using to screen applications for what amounts to a
reason-to-question-presence (under prior law this would be a
reason-to-question-residency).
My personal assessment is that this list is
close to the criteria being used to screen applications (and I have oft referred to it as a source), but the
big unknown is how these criteria are applied to particular factual situations.
What the
wordpress site further states, not referenced by
frege, is the following:
"C1: Renewed IDs in 3 months (3,5,9) – likely not applicable anymore, confirmation that it was updated, but no update text (29)" (emphasis added)
see https://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com/atip-releases/
Back in 2013 the author of the
wordpress site and I openly disagreed about this. That discussion took place in a different forum.
My sense is that this criteria, among others in the
Triage Criteria (listed in the FRC), was initially (summer 2012, in the rollout of OB-407) strictly applied, as a more or less on-off factor, and that the later changes did not entirely eliminate this criteria but modified the way it was assessed.
I also quoted the A5 factor, above, because this too was one of those factors clearly being strictly applied in the summer of 2012, but subject to at least a change in how it was being applied by early 2013.
For example, in the summer of 2012, both stay at home homemakers and students were being issued RQ because they were, technically, "unemployed," if they had any trips outside Canada at all during the entire relevant time period. That was profoundly draconian, at the least, and a huge waste of CIC resources since scores and scores of these applicants were qualified, making it a total waste of taxpayer money to drag them into prolonged processing involving the utilization of extensive CIC resources. Similarly for anyone reporting self-employment.
In any event, my sense is that recently issued identification probably gets some attention, but is then assessed
in context, in relationship to other information in the application and other information known about the applicant. Thus, it is probably no longer a factor which absolutely triggers RQ, but it (again, my sense) is likely considered relative to other factors.
For the applicant who has changed address within Canada, and particularly one who has moved from one province to another, if this is apparent, there is no reason why the recently issued identification should trigger RQ. I cannot assure anyone that it will not. But most indicators suggest that few of the criteria are now being applied as strictly
on-off criteria, and there were internal memos at CIC which tended to confirm, at the least, that some of the criteria such as this were not being so strictly applied (as noted, the parenthetical observation by the author of the
wordpress site expressed doubt it was at all applied, and again this issue was discussed at length at another forum some three years ago).
Regarding the wordpress site generally:
There is a wealth of information regarding RQ, and processing related to RQ, still posted at the
wordpress site. However, it is
NOT current. In particular, the site is largely out-of-date, appears to not reflect any changes since early 2014, and overall does not reflect many changes since early 2013. Moreover, some of the posted information lacks important context. As I referenced, there is another forum, largely inactive these days, in which the underlying sources of information which populate much of the RQ related information at the
wordpress site was discussed in
real time, in depth, and at length, including observations made by the original sources of much of the information (such as the individual who obtained the copy of the FRC, in response to an ATIP application, which is the source of the
wordpress site's list of "risk indicators").
There is some misinformation. Above I referenced some discussion at the site regarding internal CIC information. The
wordpress site erroneously refers to the source of much of this information as obtained in response to ATIP applications. Actually most of it was obtained in response to
ATI applications. The distinction between
ATIP and
ATI applications is important. For one thing, while a lot of the responses to ATI requests were openly shared online (again, at the least at the other forum), these responses are
public information, once made and responded to, these all become accessible to anyone in Canada, and many of us (myself included) obtained these responses directly from CIC. The ATI process is the same as that employed by members of the Press to obtain information from the government.
But some of the information was indeed obtained by the
ATIP process. This is personal. Only the individual affected can obtain these.
Which leads to the so-called "risk indicators." The
wordpress list of "risk indicators" is copied from an
ATIP response the affected individual shared online in the summer of 2012.
In particular, the
wordpress list of "risk indicators" is taken from the
April 2012 version of the
File Requirements Checklist (FRC), which was part of the
April 2012 version of
OB - 407. It is likely that the form "File Requirements Checklist" is still in use and makes up part of every citizenship application file. However, a copy of this is
not shared with applicants, not disclosed to applicants when they make the ATIP request.
But there was at least one exception, which is how this particular version came into the public domain, back in the summer of 2012. It is apparent the disclosure was inadvertent. Even after this version of the FRC was shared online, many forum participants were reporting that lawyers were saying that no one knows what criteria CIC were employing. Many of us knew differently. I am confident that many of those lawyers knew differently. But because the information was considered strictly confidential, lawyers were bound to
not disclose this information (my guess is that they did divulge it, one way or another, to
clients, which is to say paying customers, but not to just anyone asking, not just in consultation for example).
In the meantime, we know an amended version of the operational bulletin was issued later in 2012,
OB - 407-B. We also know, as I referenced above, that there were changes made to the "risk indicators," or at least changes made in how the criteria were applied in the preliminary screening of applications that was implemented in the procedures prescribed by
OB - 407.
Scores of participants in various forums, myself included, made ATI requests in the wake of OB-407. Much of this was shared in another forum. All of it, however, was directly accessible from CIC (once one person made a request and it was responded to, it was listed and anyone else could simply request a copy). The results of that research is a large part of why I delayed applying nearly a year and a half beyond the date I initially met the physical presence test.
At this juncture, however, all that is just one historical stage.
Moreover, OB-407 was a monstrosity of a program implemented by Minister Kenney, probably designed by one man, Benjamin Perrin, at the behest of PM Harper. It nearly crashed the whole citizenship application process. It is obvious that many changes have been implemented since.
But CIC, now IRCC, is a huge bureaucracy and institutional change on the scale of OB-407 is uncommon. My guess is that the basic procedural forms and elements created by OB-407 continue to be utilized, albeit reformed to implement the Bill C-24 changes, including those major procedural changes implemented August 1, 2014, and the big change in grant citizenship requirements (largely the 4/6 rule and related elements) implemented June 11, 2015.
Thus, my sense is that there is still a File Requirements Checklist (FRC), still largely (but not entirely) in the form shared in 2012, and that the triage criteria (or "risk indicators") are listed, in checklist form, in the FRC. Moreover, my guess is that the current criteria is at least similar to that in the 2012 version of the FRC, which is quoted from the
wordpress site, where it is posted without proper attribution.
Leading to this query:
walidraymond said:
hi all
suppose to apply for citizenship on December 2016
i have moved to Toronto this month and applied for new health card in Toronto,
when i will get my new health card and attached it as supporting document as ID with a date just a month before the application date!!!!
is that will lead to get RQ???
i am really worry...
walidraymond said:
thanks SuWAIL for reply but my question is that when i will submit my application for citizenship in December and the health card issuwing date is November or December i will not raise a question mark or lead to RQ?
As above noted, I doubt that item C1 in the FRC is now being applied strictly. Which is to say, I doubt that the mere fact one of the forms of identification submitted was issued less than three months prior to the application alone will trigger RQ. But I also suspect this is a factor which will be considered relative to other information.
Context: the individual's address and work history is a huge contextual factor, which in this situation may well reveal why the form of identification submitted (health care card) has only been recently issued. As in, given the recent move there is little or no reason to infer that the recently issued card reflects a possibility the individual recently returned to Canada. Good chance there will be no problem.
Nonetheless, personally I would still wait. I really do not understand the mentality of rushing the date of application, at least for those settled in Canada and intending to continue to stay settled in Canada. As I have noted before, and more than once, many applicants can probably become a citizen sooner by waiting longer to apply. Thus, while there are exceptions, for many or even most, there is no good reason to rush, no good reason for not waiting a little longer to apply.
I cannot give advice. But my suggestion is that anyone with recently issued identification would be prudent to wait to apply.
I would just note, as an example, I met the physical presence test for citizenship before the author of the
wordpress site did. The author of the
wordpress site, however, applied for citizenship a long time before I did. Ultimately I became a citizen much sooner.
