US vs. Canada.... Green Card vs. Citizenship, a weird request from judge!

[Dreamlandvisa]

Dear All,

A friend has US green card and is PR of Canada as well. She applied for Canadian citizenship, on the test day, judge did not grant her the citizenship until she provides a letter from US immigration saying that " the government of US does not have any problem with her getting Canadian citizenship AND indicating that she does not have any intention to live in US".

FYI last year she got her US green card, however she was in US just for one day and aha hasn't even started her residency in US.

Applicant contacted US consulate, she has been told that US gov. don't have issue with your application, but they can't issue any letter in this regard.

Any real experience or piece of advise would be highly appreciated.

 

[zardoz]

Dear All,

A friend has US green card and is PR of Canada as well. She applied for Canadian citizenship, on the test day, judge did not grant her the citizenship until she provides a letter from US immigration saying that " the government of US does not have any problem with her getting Canadian citizenship AND indicating that she does not have any intention to live in US".

FYI last year she got her US green card, however she was in US just for one day and aha hasn't even started her residency in US.

Applicant contacted US consulate, she has been told that US gov. don't have issue with your application, but they can't issue any letter in this regard.

Any real experience or piece of advise would be highly appreciated.

Interesting... It seems that the CJ is applying the "spirit of the law" from C-24 before the legislation has actually come into force. She can either comply or go to court over it.

 

[screech339]

Interesting... It seems that the CJ is applying the "spirit of the law" from C-24 before the legislation has actually come into force. She can either comply or go to court over it.

Actually the law is in effect now. So in theory, the CJ can use the "spirit of the law". The only thing not in effect of the law is the residency rule change and the ability to revoke citizenship from dual citizens. It seems the CJ is not using the "spirit of the law", it is enforcing the "intention to reside" clause for those who are applying for citizenship. Past arguments/disagreements have been made over how the clause is applied. This support the "intent to reside" really apply to the time they apply for citizenship to the day they become Canadians after the oath. Not after they become Canadians.

 

[zardoz]

Actually the law is in effect now. So in theory, the CJ can use the "spirit of the law". The only thing not in effect of the law is the residency rule change and the ability to revoke citizenship from dual citizens. It seems the CJ is not using the "spirit of the law", it is enforcing the "intention to reside" clause for those who are applying for citizenship. The argument that "the intent to reside" really apply to the time they apply for citizenship to the day they become Canadians after the oath.

This staggered "coming into force" is a real pain.. Wish they'd just gone for broke and done it all immediately on passing the Bill into Law. It would save having to remember individual sections.

 

[screech339]

This staggered "coming into force" is a real pain.. Wish they'd just gone for broke and done it all immediately on passing the Bill into Law. It would save having to remember individual sections.

Totally agree 100%.

 

[pedros]

The intent to reside clause is not in force. There was a specific exclusion in the "coming into force" section of the bill c-24 for that. This is backed up by the following version of the Citizenship Act on the Justice Laws website, which shows that the 2014 amendment to add the intent to reside clause is one of the "Amendments Not In Force" (this is current as of 25th November, last amended 1st Aug 14). The other bill c-24 provisions that did come into force on 1st August are shown in the act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/nifnev.html

 

[zardoz]

Thanks for the confirmation. I thought that this was the case, but I can't keep track of everything ;D

 

[pedros]

Thanks for the confirmation. I thought that this was the case, but I can't keep track of everything ;D

No problem, but the questions now is how could the judge make a request for this intent ??

 

[zardoz]

No problem, but the questions now is how could the judge make a request for this intent ??

Hence my earlier response...

Interesting... It seems that the CJ is applying the "spirit of the law" from C-24 before the legislation has actually come into force. She can either comply or go to court over it.

 

[screech339]

Hence my earlier response...

It is a tough call. Do you want to delay your citizenship application because you want to go to court over it or comply and get citizenship in reasonable time.

Screech339

 

[CanadianCountry]

The intent to reside clause asks for an applicant to reside till the oath. There is no mention of what happens after the oath. This is quite clear from minister's presentation to the Senate hearings (video posted sometime back) and also as inferred from the law.

So if the applicant has fulfilled the residency and has the full intent to be here till the oath (as the the post Bill C-24 law), then CJ should be ok as the applicant has met all the requirements.

Dear All,

A friend has US green card and is PR of Canada as well. She applied for Canadian citizenship, on the test day, judge did not grant her the citizenship until she provides a letter from US immigration saying that " the government of US does not have any problem with her getting Canadian citizenship AND indicating that she does not have any intention to live in US".

FYI last year she got her US green card, however she was in US just for one day and aha hasn't even started her residency in US.

Applicant contacted US consulate, she has been told that US gov. don't have issue with your application, but they can't issue any letter in this regard.

Any real experience or piece of advise would be highly appreciated.

 

[screech339]

The intent to reside clause asks for an applicant to reside till the oath. There is no mention of what happens after the oath. This is quite clear from minister's presentation to the Senate hearings (video posted sometime back) and also as inferred from the law.

So if the applicant has fulfilled the residency and has the full intent to be here till the oath (as the the post Bill C-24 law), then CJ should be ok as the applicant has met all the requirements.

As mentioned above with the link provided, the "intent to reside" is not in effect yet. So the CJ's action could be viewed as enforcing the "intent to reside" before it is not in effect as of yet.

 

[screech339]

However there has been cases of applicants getting RQ asking for proof of residing 3-4 months in the future, not only the past up to the present time of receiving the request. This RQ request can also be considered to be enforcing the "intend to reside" clause as well.

 

[zardoz]

The intent to reside clause asks for an applicant to reside till the oath. There is no mention of what happens after the oath. This is quite clear from minister's presentation to the Senate hearings (video posted sometime back) and also as inferred from the law.

So if the applicant has fulfilled the residency and has the full intent to be here till the oath (as the the post Bill C-24 law), then CJ should be ok as the applicant has met all the requirements.

I respectfully have to disagree on this interpretation of the wording. I appreciate that this is contentious.
My understanding, based on the equivalent UK legislation is as follows.

Intend (from the date of application through to taking the oath) to reside (after citizenship has been granted). This does NOT mean that citizenship will be revoked if you leave Canada, unless CIC can prove that you lied with respect to the "intent".

 

[CanadianCountry]

This RQ request post application doesn't seem to mean much. It is like enforcement of intent to reside without any law backing the action on the part of CIC. Since as per current law there is nothing in law stating where the residency of an applicant must be post application.

But as per C -24, the residency upto the oath is in question.

However there has been cases of applicants getting RQ asking for proof of residing 3-4 months in the future, not only the past up to the present time of receiving the request. This RQ request can also be considered to be enforcing the "intend to reside" clause as well.