True OR False: No judge involved unless application is denied?

[egyo]

Our case (please see below) has been referred to a CJ hearing, and I read this by dpenabill and I hope this won't be the case...anyone referred to Judge Hearing soon? Please share your experiences:

Regarding the new process . . . no judge involved unless application is denied . . .:

Technically CIC is not describing the decision to refer a case to a Citizenship Judge as denying the application. Frankly, my opinion is that it is in fact a decision of that nature, and thus should be subject to procedural fairness requirements, including sending a formal notice of the decision to applicants. But so far CIC appears to treat this as merely internal processing, not a formal step.

It is true, though, also technically, that it is not a formal denial, but rather simply an in fact declining to grant citizenship while the application is referred to a CJ for a hearing. The CJ is the one who formally decides whether or not the application is to be denied based on a failure to prove residency.

But, correct, the only cases which are being referred to a CJ now are those which CIC has, in effect, declined to grant citizenship . . .
technically it is a case for which CIC is "not satisfied" residency has been established, but for all intents and purposes, if a case is being referred to a CJ now, that means CIC has not only denied the grant of citizenship but is mostly likely submitting a negative referral arguing why the CJ should also deny approval.

---
My case:
August 2011 family application
RQ for wife 2012
Mandamus August 2014
Test Oct. 2014
RQ for husband Oct. 2014 Submitted Nov. 2014
Transferred to Judge December 2014
Judge Hearing soon

 

[egyo]

Here is what CIC has on its website: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/cit/admin/decision/interviews.asp

 

[egyo]

No one replied so far but I wanted to share with you the info I got from my lawyer today. If you have hearing with the judge and you applied before the new law then your case is dealt with according to the OLD law and no worries whatever with the hearing. Wish me Oath soon

 

[janoo]

we wish you all the best of luck and hope that you will over come with your
citizenship application... as soon as possible, you are trying hard and using lawyer
and using all available tools, hope you will be having hearing judge soon and
your matter will be over.

 

[WiseGuy711]

There is a difference between an interview and a hearing in the sense that a hearing leads to a final decision while an interview is before the decision. Also it's false that only failed applications lead to judge. You need to define judge as two kind of judges can be involved in citizenship cases; a citizenship judge/high ranking officer (since the reform/backlog reducing efforts) and a federal judge that can get involved if you fail getting the citizenship and want to appeal under Judicial Review ( 6 months from the time of denial).

PS: I am a professional.

 

[bambino]

There is a difference between an interview and a hearing in the sense that a hearing leads to a final decision while an interview is before the decision. Also it's false that only failed applications lead to judge. You need to define judge as two kind of judges can be involved in citizenship cases; a citizenship judge/high ranking officer (since the reform/backlog reducing efforts) and a federal judge that can get involved if you fail getting the citizenship and want to appeal under Judicial Review ( 6 months from the time of denial).

PS: I am a professional.

Would you mind specifying what kind of professional you are?

An applicant only has 30 days to appeal a decision to the Federal Court, not 6 months.

Re: OP's question, only a Citizenship Judge has the authority to non-approve an application currently.

If you are going to appear before a Citizenship Judge these days, that is generally bad news. Yes, you are still being assessed under the "old" law, but there are plenty of reasons to worry. Good luck to you though.

 

[neutral]

Of course that for those who applied during all this time will be assessed with the old law.

 

[dpenabill]

Our case (please see below) has been referred to a CJ hearing, and I read this by dpenabill and I hope this won't be the case...anyone referred to Judge Hearing soon? Please share your experiences:

Regarding the new process . . . no judge involved unless application is denied . . .:

Technically CIC is not describing the decision to refer a case to a Citizenship Judge as denying the application. Frankly, my opinion is that it is in fact a decision of that nature, and thus should be subject to procedural fairness requirements, including sending a formal notice of the decision to applicants. But so far CIC appears to treat this as merely internal processing, not a formal step.

It is true, though, also technically, that it is not a formal denial, but rather simply an in fact declining to grant citizenship while the application is referred to a CJ for a hearing. The CJ is the one who formally decides whether or not the application is to be denied based on a failure to prove residency.

But, correct, the only cases which are being referred to a CJ now are those which CIC has, in effect, declined to grant citizenship . . .
technically it is a case for which CIC is "not satisfied" residency has been established, but for all intents and purposes, if a case is being referred to a CJ now, that means CIC has not only denied the grant of citizenship but is mostly likely submitting a negative referral arguing why the CJ should also deny approval.

---
My case:
August 2011 family application
RQ for wife 2012
Mandamus August 2014
Test Oct. 2014
RQ for husband Oct. 2014 Submitted Nov. 2014
Transferred to Judge December 2014
Judge Hearing soon

What has been quoted from me sums it up, but perhaps the point about this being in practical rather than technical terms was a bit fuzzy.

To be clear: only a Citizenship Judge can deny approval for citizenship based on a failure to meet the residency qualification.

Thus when a citizenship application is referred to a CJ, the Citizenship Officer has NOT formally or technically "denied" the application.

But in practical terms, in effect, it is comparable to or amounts to a denial, subject to the decision of the CJ.

You also linked a part of the relevant Program Delivery Instructions. Those do indeed contain very helpful information for anyone trying to understand this process, but the whole group related to decision-making in cases referred to CJs should be read together, relative to one another, and also considered in the context that these are formal instructions lacking illumination of practical considerations or how variable factors will effect the decision-making.

What really matters are the facts in your specific case.

Bottom-line, however, is that if you are in fact scheduled for a CJ hearing, the odds are high that the CJ is given an in-depth referral from the Citizenship Officer highlighting, if not overtly advocating, reasons to reject the application. If you can figure out why that is happening, you may be able to gather evidence and organize arguments to take to the hearing which address those reasons and persuade the CJ otherwise, that you qualify and should be granted citizenship. Probably a tough case to make.

The applicable PDIs (not in the precise one you linked, but there in the same group) indicate that if an applicant brings a substantial amount of new documentation to the hearing, the hearing will be cancelled to be rescheduled so that both CIC and the CJ have an opportunity to review and assess the additional evidence/documentation.

The latter is new and brings up an important clarification.

Of course that for those who applied during all this time will be assessed with the old law.

This is not entirely correct. Applications now in process, and those made before the revised requirements per the SCCA come into force, are subject to the requirements prescribed by the "old law" (meaning law before the SCCA).

However, the procedure, the process, is governed by the revised Citizenship Act per the SCCA.

Thus, the new process (since last August 1, 2014, per the coming into force date for relevant portions of the SCCA) applies . . . and it now applies to all applications regardless of when they initially made. (There are some aspects governed by particular transitional provisions, but the circumstances in which these would apply are largely past tense now, thus not applicable.)