A5 and C4 triage causes RQ& delay test invitation?

[alexdive]

Hi,
My ATIP shows A5 and B4, wondering if this causes delay of test invitation.

A5- I sent in photography of my passport of first day entered to Canada.

B4- on my application I claimed unemployed as I came to Canada as a visitor. Been working as casual since became PR and file tax every year.

Any of you guys got A5 and B4 and got test invitation with RQ or non RQ at local office? Please share!!!!

Thanks guys,

 

[dpenabill]

Re: A5 and B4 triage causes RQ& delay test invitation?

Hi,
My ATIP shows A5 and B4, wondering if this causes delay of test invitation.

A5- I sent in photography of my passport of first day entered to Canada.

B4- on my application I claimed unemployed as I came to Canada as a visitor. Been working as casual since became PR and file tax every year.

Any of you guys got A5 and B4 and got test invitation with RQ or non RQ at local office? Please share!!!!

Thanks guys,

I was self-employed, but never obtained a copy of my records via ATIP (took the oath barely eight months after applying) so I am not certain that A5 (as the FRC listed the triage criteria in 2013) was or was not checked off for me. And while I had contemplated applying using my pre-landing time in Canada, I ultimately waited more than four years after landing to apply for citizenship. So I do not have personal experience with having A5 and B4 triage criteria checked off in my FRC.



But I can offer the following observations:

The most recent FRC version I have access to, the File Requirements Checklist where the triage criteria are listed, pre-dates the 2014 changes in process and known amendments or modifications to OB 407. So it is possible that the designation for particular items have changed.

My guess, however, is that you have mixed up the designations.

For example, I believe that A5 is still about applicants who self-identify as a consultant, self-employed, or unemployed.

I am not sure whether former items B1 and B2 are still included, or former items C1 through C4 have been re-designated B1 through B4. In any event, it was C4 in the older version of the FRC that was about non permanent resident time. Whatever the designation, it is clear this is the other item checked off in your FRC.


In particular, Regarding A5:

My current impression is that checklist/criteria item A5 is still about applicants who self-identify as a consultant, self-employed, or unemployed, but this does not automatically trigger RQ (even though it did when OB 407 was implemented in 2012). For example, many have reported being unemployed or self-employed but not RQ'd.

My sense is that this item is considered in conjunction with other factors in determining whether there is a reason-to-question-residency and RQ should be issued. It would make sense that if the A5 item is checked, in the initial triage screening, this is noted in the GCMS so that any CIC personnel reviewing the file are alerted to this and continue to take this into account when assessing residency-related information. Impact is almost certainly fact-specific, which is to say how this affects what happens will depend on the facts in the specific case (especially if anything otherwise raises a question or suggests there is a reason-to-question-residency).

Fact that you did not get a pre-test RQ means that CIC did not identify, in its initial triage screening, a reason-to-question-residency. That is good news. There is no guarantee you will not be scrutinized more about this in the interview, but this should not be a problem unless there is something else which elevates CIC's concern.

It in itself should not delay being scheduled for the test/interview.



In particular, Regarding C4 or, perhaps in the current version of the FRC, B4:

You refer to the NPR (non permanent resident time) item as A5. Perhaps the designations have changed and that is correct. But my guess is that the B4 (or, in the FRC version I have access to, C4) item is the one about non permanent resident time. Whatever its designation, this item gets checked if the applicant includes pre-landing (NPR) time in the residency calculation and CIC's records do not contain a record of the earlier (prior to landing) entry into Canada. Thus the request for the photocopy of your passport to show date of original entry into Canada.

This item involves more complicated issues. The specific document request rather than RQ is a good sign.

Obviously, the document request in itself renders your application non-routine, but this is not really significant. Non-routine application processing does not have a specific impact on the time line. The time line can still be almost as fast as a routine application, but depending on what happens (which is largely dependent on why the application is non-routine, especially if there are multiple things knocking it out of the routine processing queue) can range from a minimal delay up to very lengthy delays. What happens will depend on the specifics of your case.

As is, your application should, probably, still proceed to the test/interview step in due course without an inordinate delay.

Beyond that it is very difficult to guess how things will go. Many applicants who relied on credit for pre-landing time, including those who entered Canada with visitor status, have reported no problems, no issues, relative to that time counting -- so long as their date of entry is documented (thus good if a passport stamp or entry confirms date of arrival).

So I do not want to unnecessarily alarm you.

But, as a heads-up, so you are aware of a potential issue, there is a technical, strict rule in the calculating of residence that can be a problem for those who are relying on credit for time in Canada before they established an actual residence in Canada. And of course coming as a visitor ordinarily indicates the individual is visiting and not resident in Canada.

In practice, we have seen few reports of this strict rule being applied. This mostly pops up in Federal Court citizenship cases. But there was the following recent report by a participant in this forum:

Were you able to count the days before permanent resident status (i.e. on a visitor visa) on you citizenship application?

We had submiited an application and included 1/2 time for 75 days on a visitor visa (within the four year period) prior to becoming a permanent resident. However, CIC told us at the interview that the visitor visa time does not count and has asked for copies of passport etc...maybe they need to look at entry exit stamps. We may have to see a citizenship judge but don't think this will help - Not sure what we should do now.

Our application was submitted in March 2015 - when we went for our citizenship interview in mid-Sep 2015, the lady at the CIC counter in Edmonton counted the days in Canada, however did not give us credit for the time spent on visitor visa prior to becoming a permanent resident. She says the visitor visa time cannot be counted.

She has asked us to fill out form CIC form CIT 0171 (07-2014) E and provide copies of passports. Once they receive these documents, they will decide and and give us the option to either withdraw the application or see a citizenship judge. Not sure where this will lead to and looking on ideas for next steps.

I have responded in some depth there, in that topic, including the following observation:

. . .
. . . If and when CIC focuses on the issue about when the applicant established actual residence in Canada, beyond just being present in Canada, CIC's position, again, is to NOT count time visiting Canada prior to the date of establishing actual residence. This does not happen to all applicants who included visiting time in their calculation, but once CIC has identified the issue for a particular applicant, CIC's approach is to not count that time.

My guess is that CIC does this, that is focuses on and applies the strict rule, when there are additional doubts or questions as to the applicant's residency. That was clearly the underlying situation in the Jahanara Begum Khan case.

It is worth emphasizing that so far there is no indication that CIC applies this strict rule across the board to all or even most applicants. It warrants noting, too, as I discussed in more depth in the other topic, that visitor status is not necessarily the deciding factor, since a visitor may have dual intent or otherwise actually establish residence in Canada (did this myself, as a partner-sponsored PR visa applicant).

My best guess is that a lot of other factors come into play in these situations, not the least of which is the overall strength of the application including the total number of days APP.

 

[tiarachel85]

Re: A5 and B4 triage causes RQ& delay test invitation?

I was self-employed, but never obtained a copy of my records via ATIP (took the oath barely eight months after applying) so I am not certain that A5 (as the FRC listed the triage criteria in 2013) was or was not checked off for me. And while I had contemplated applying using my pre-landing time in Canada, I ultimately waited more than four years after landing to apply for citizenship. So I do not have personal experience with having A5 and B4 triage criteria checked off in my FRC.



But I can offer the following observations:

The most recent FRC version I have access to, the File Requirements Checklist where the triage criteria are listed, pre-dates the 2014 changes in process and known amendments or modifications to OB 407. So it is possible that the designation for particular items have changed.

My guess, however, is that you have mixed up the designations.

For example, I believe that A5 is still about applicants who self-identify as a consultant, self-employed, or unemployed.

I am not sure whether former items B1 and B2 are still included, or former items C1 through C4 have been re-designated B1 through B4. In any event, it was C4 in the older version of the FRC that was about non permanent resident time. Whatever the designation, it is clear this is the other item checked off in your FRC.


In particular, Regarding A5:

My current impression is that checklist/criteria item A5 is still about applicants who self-identify as a consultant, self-employed, or unemployed, but this does not automatically trigger RQ (even though it did when OB 407 was implemented in 2012). For example, many have reported being unemployed or self-employed but not RQ'd.

My sense is that this item is considered in conjunction with other factors in determining whether there is a reason-to-question-residency and RQ should be issued. It would make sense that if the A5 item is checked, in the initial triage screening, this is noted in the GCMS so that any CIC personnel reviewing the file are alerted to this and continue to take this into account when assessing residency-related information. Impact is almost certainly fact-specific, which is to say how this affects what happens will depend on the facts in the specific case (especially if anything otherwise raises a question or suggests there is a reason-to-question-residency).

Fact that you did not get a pre-test RQ means that CIC did not identify, in its initial triage screening, a reason-to-question-residency. That is good news. There is no guarantee you will not be scrutinized more about this in the interview, but this should not be a problem unless there is something else which elevates CIC's concern.

It in itself should not delay being scheduled for the test/interview.



In particular, Regarding C4 or, perhaps in the current version of the FRC, B4:

You refer to the NPR (non permanent resident time) item as A5. Perhaps the designations have changed and that is correct. But my guess is that the B4 (or, in the FRC version I have access to, C4) item is the one about non permanent resident time. Whatever its designation, this item gets checked if the applicant includes pre-landing (NPR) time in the residency calculation and CIC's records do not contain a record of the earlier (prior to landing) entry into Canada. Thus the request for the photocopy of your passport to show date of original entry into Canada.

This item involves more complicated issues. The specific document request rather than RQ is a good sign.

Obviously, the document request in itself renders your application non-routine, but this is not really significant. Non-routine application processing does not have a specific impact on the time line. The time line can still be almost as fast as a routine application, but depending on what happens (which is largely dependent on why the application is non-routine, especially if there are multiple things knocking it out of the routine processing queue) can range from a minimal delay up to very lengthy delays. What happens will depend on the specifics of your case.

As is, your application should, probably, still proceed to the test/interview step in due course without an inordinate delay.

Beyond that it is very difficult to guess how things will go. Many applicants who relied on credit for pre-landing time, including those who entered Canada with visitor status, have reported no problems, no issues, relative to that time counting -- so long as their date of entry is documented (thus good if a passport stamp or entry confirms date of arrival).

So I do not want to unnecessarily alarm you.

But, as a heads-up, so you are aware of a potential issue, there is a technical, strict rule in the calculating of residence that can be a problem for those who are relying on credit for time in Canada before they established an actual residence in Canada. And of course coming as a visitor ordinarily indicates the individual is visiting and not resident in Canada.

In practice, we have seen few reports of this strict rule being applied. This mostly pops up in Federal Court citizenship cases. But there was the following recent report by a participant in this forum:



I have responded in some depth there, in that topic, including the following observation:

It is worth emphasizing that so far there is no indication that CIC applies this strict rule across the board to all or even most applicants. It warrants noting, too, as I discussed in more depth in the other topic, that visitor status is not necessarily the deciding factor, since a visitor may have dual intent or otherwise actually establish residence in Canada (did this myself, as a partner-sponsored PR visa applicant).

My best guess is that a lot of other factors come into play in these situations, not the least of which is the overall strength of the application including the total number of days APP.

In my report its written triage:0

What can this mean?

 

[alexdive]

Re: A5 and B4 triage causes RQ& delay test invitation?

Thanks for sharing
the 13 months lived with my spouse as visitor could lead to RQ' will see

 

[dpenabill]

Re: A5 and B4 triage causes RQ& delay test invitation?

the 13 months lived with my spouse as visitor could lead to RQ' will see

Not really. If you are RQ'd, it will likely be for a combination of reasons.

Since you have not received a pre-test RQ, the odds are good you will not be RQ'd.

Moreover, if you read the other discussion (linked in previous quotes), you would note that so far it appears that those who came to live in Canada with a sponsoring partner are not targeted, or at least may not be targeted.

Thus, for example, at the interview you may want to be prepared to say when you began residing with your partner. And if questioned about doing this without status to live in Canada, while you only had visitor status, respond that you had dual intent at the time, that is intent to remain in Canada as a visitor but also with the intent to live permanently with your sponsor so long as you obtained status to do so.


More than RQ is at stake:

That noted, however, the difference, the potential impact, is bigger than just RQ if your 1095 days of actual presence are dependent on credit for time in Canada based on visitor status. Remember, it is not the status that matters so much, but the nature of your presence. Thus, if you were living in Canada during that time, which is to say you had a residence in Canada, you should be OK (at least relative to this aspect of your application).

The strict rule, a rather technical rule, is that time in Canada before establishing residence in Canada does not count in the residency calculation . . . and this is not about the immigrant's status at the time, but about whether and when actual residence was established. Thus, this rule may be applied even to those who had PR status at the time.

Thus, for example, if CIC decides to apply the strict rule, determining that the time you were in Canada with visitor status was time visiting Canada, NOT resident in Canada, CIC will not count that time and if not counting that time leaves you short, will submit a referral to a CJ essentially arguing your application should be denied. Thus, it is important you were living with your partner, not merely visiting. (Of course, the truth of it is what matters. Be certain to be fully truthful in how you respond to any inquiries, written or at an interview.)

 

[alexdive]

Re: A5 and B4 triage causes RQ& delay test invitation?

Thanks dpenabill!!!

Correction: I got A5 and C4 not B4 ;D

My spouse is a Canadian since 1990, I applied a visitor from my home country to visit her. Once I arrived in Canada we decided to live together and married. I got PR within 3 months from Singapore office. When applied PR we wrote to CIC about our relationship that I lived with her right away after arrived in Canada.

Thanks

 

[tiarachel85]

Re: A5 and B4 triage causes RQ& delay test invitation?

In my report its written triage:0

What can this mean?

In my report its written triage:0

What can this mean?

 

[dpenabill]

Correction: I got A5 and C4 not B4 ;D

My spouse is a Canadian since 1990, I applied a visitor from my home country to visit her. Once I arrived in Canada we decided to live together and married. I got PR within 3 months from Singapore office. When applied PR we wrote to CIC about our relationship that I lived with her right away after arrived in Canada.

Thanks

Thank you for clarifying that it was indeed C4 rather than B4 (I figured as much, but it is good to see it confirmed). CIC deliberately attempts to keep much of this information confidential, so the bits and pieces we can put together help keep forums like this better informed about what is happening behind the curtain. (There has been a dramatic restraint of government transparency in the last decade, which has been far more dramatic than the trend in Western governments generally; not a coincidence.)

I suspect you need to be careful about when you formed the intent to stay in Canada, depending on what reasons or purpose you gave to CIC regarding your application for a visitor visa initially. Beyond that, I do not know how the interview will go, what will be asked regarding any pre-landing period of time.

Foremost, the truth. Always the truth. That is simply what works best.

Secondly it is important that any information you give is consistent with any information you have previously given to CIC (including, in particular, in applying for visitor status and in applying to be a sponsored partner PR, as well as already in the citizenship application of course). If for some reason the truth is not consistent with any information already submitted, see a lawyer (unless it is something of little import and it was something like a minor error or oversight, which you can correct and explain).

Beyond that, you are now aware that when you began living in Canada might (hard to guess what CIC staff will actually focus on, if anything) be an important date.

So far the report by maxm is the only one I have seen where CIC has intimated the application of the strict rule (that is the rule excluding time visiting Canada prior to establishing a residence) in what should be, otherwise, a relatively routine case, but the worry is that given the elimination of credit for pre-landing time going forward (for all applications made after June 1, 2015) perhaps CIC has (or some local offices have) implemented a policy to more strictly screen older applications relying on pre-landing credit.

My guess is that, as to this particular issue, you should be OK. But that really is just a guess.

Good luck and it would be appreciated if you let the forum know how this goes, and especially if this comes up at the interview. (Reminder: no need to bring up anything at the interview unless the interviewer asks a question bringing it up.)

In my report its written triage:0

What can this mean?

I did not respond to this previously because the OP's query was still an open discussion, and it did not seem right to divert or hijack the thread. There are other topics more specifically addressing interpretation of the ATIP reports generally.

Moreover, I am not at all an expert, and I am in particular not that well acquainted with the specific details in individual ATIP reports. I have been following residency related issues, however, for many years now, including in particular the application of the File Requirements Checklist (the FRC, which contains the triage criteria and which is very difficult to obtain, as CIC attempts to keep its contents confidential, thus my only complete copy dates clear back to 2012, supplemented subsequently by sporadic reports and in occasional completed ATI requests which have included some memos regarding changes to OB 407, albeit this is typically incomplete and fragmented information, rife with redactions). Thus, I am fairly well familiar with the A5 triage item (related to self-identifying as a consultant, self-employed, or unemployed) and the C4 item (regarding NPR, that is non-permanent resident time), but I am not that well acquainted with interpreting ATIP reports generally.

My guess is that "triage:0" means no items were checked in doing the triage screening. That's good. That means no reason to issue pre-test RQ. But how it goes at the local office still depends on the particular facts and circumstances of your individual case.

It is curious you made the ATIP request in the first place. There is ordinarily so little to be learned from these that they are generally a waste of time. There are exceptions, in particular circumstances, but for the vast majority of applicants it is an utter waste of time and an unnecessary drag on CIC's resources.

For example, for alexdive, I suspect it was the specific document request (copy of passport pages) that triggered the request. Even then it was probably unnecessary, since alexdive was already aware that being unemployed is relevant to CIC's assessment of residency and should have easily inferred that the passport request was related to relying on NPR time in calculating residency. That said, very few people seem to be aware of the strict rule regarding not counting time visiting Canada (prior to date a residence in Canada is established), so perhaps that request has led to being better informed.

Mostly, though, the ATIP is usually unnecessary, rather NOT informative, a waste.

 

[alexdive]

Thank you for clarifying that it was indeed C4 rather than B4 (I figured as much, but it is good to see it confirmed). CIC deliberately attempts to keep much of this information confidential, so the bits and pieces we can put together help keep forums like this better informed about what is happening behind the curtain. (There has been a dramatic restraint of government transparency in the last decade, which has been far more dramatic than the trend in Western governments generally; not a coincidence.)

I suspect you need to be careful about when you formed the intent to stay in Canada, depending on what reasons or purpose you gave to CIC regarding your application for a visitor visa initially. Beyond that, I do not know how the interview will go, what will be asked regarding any pre-landing period of time.

Foremost, the truth. Always the truth. That is simply what works best.

Secondly it is important that any information you give is consistent with any information you have previously given to CIC (including, in particular, in applying for visitor status and in applying to be a sponsored partner PR, as well as already in the citizenship application of course). If for some reason the truth is not consistent with any information already submitted, see a lawyer (unless it is something of little import and it was something like a minor error or oversight, which you can correct and explain).

Beyond that, you are now aware that when you began living in Canada might (hard to guess what CIC staff will actually focus on, if anything) be an important date.

So far the report by maxm is the only one I have seen where CIC has intimated the application of the strict rule (that is the rule excluding time visiting Canada prior to establishing a residence) in what should be, otherwise, a relatively routine case, but the worry is that given the elimination of credit for pre-landing time going forward (for all applications made after June 1, 2015) perhaps CIC has (or some local offices have) implemented a policy to more strictly screen older applications relying on pre-landing credit.

My guess is that, as to this particular issue, you should be OK. But that really is just a guess.

Good luck and it would be appreciated if you let the forum know how this goes, and especially if this comes up at the interview. (Reminder: no need to bring up anything at the interview unless the interviewer asks a question bringing it up.)





I did not respond to this previously because the OP's query was still an open discussion, and it did not seem right to divert or hijack the thread. There are other topics more specifically addressing interpretation of the ATIP reports generally.

Moreover, I am not at all an expert, and I am in particular not that well acquainted with the specific details in individual ATIP reports. I have been following residency related issues, however, for many years now, including in particular the application of the File Requirements Checklist (the FRC, which contains the triage criteria and which is very difficult to obtain, as CIC attempts to keep its contents confidential, thus my only complete copy dates clear back to 2012, supplemented subsequently by sporadic reports and in occasional completed ATI requests which have included some memos regarding changes to OB 407, albeit this is typically incomplete and fragmented information, rife with redactions). Thus, I am fairly well familiar with the A5 triage item (related to self-identifying as a consultant, self-employed, or unemployed) and the C4 item (regarding NPR, that is non-permanent resident time), but I am not that well acquainted with interpreting ATIP reports generally.

My guess is that "triage:0" means no items were checked in doing the triage screening. That's good. That means no reason to issue pre-test RQ. But how it goes at the local office still depends on the particular facts and circumstances of your individual case.

It is curious you made the ATIP request in the first place. There is ordinarily so little to be learned from these that they are generally a waste of time. There are exceptions, in particular circumstances, but for the vast majority of applicants it is an utter waste of time and an unnecessary drag on CIC's resources.

For example, for alexdive, I suspect it was the specific document request (copy of passport pages) that triggered the request. Even then it was probably unnecessary, since alexdive was already aware that being unemployed is relevant to CIC's assessment of residency and should have easily inferred that the passport request was related to relying on NPR time in calculating residency. That said, very few people seem to be aware of the strict rule regarding not counting time visiting Canada (prior to date a residence in Canada is established), so perhaps that request has led to being better informed.

Mostly, though, the ATIP is usually unnecessary, rather NOT informative, a waste.

Thanks you again I'll keep the forum posted.
Have a good day.