Application for Citizenship after report u/s 44

[sgaur]

Hi All Gurus

I had applied for citizenship after 3 years I was reported u/s 44 for being not fulfilling the conditions of PR. I did not receive any communication after I was reported at the border. Now I got the citizenship test. Anybody let me know I got citizenship test because this report is cleared or there can be some problem in the interview after clearing the test.

Appreciate if anybody faced problem with the interviewer after clearing the citizenship test. Thanks

 

[sgaur]

Hi All Gurus

I had applied for citizenship after 3 years I was reported u/s 44 for being not fulfilling the conditions of PR. I did not receive any communication after I was reported at the border. Now I got the citizenship test. Anybody let me know I got citizenship test because this report is cleared or there can be some problem in the interview after clearing the test.

Appreciate if anybody faced problem with the interviewer after clearing the citizenship test. Thanks

Hi anybody there

 

[dpenabill]

Hi All Gurus

I had applied for citizenship after 3 years I was reported u/s 44 for being not fulfilling the conditions of PR. I did not receive any communication after I was reported at the border. Now I got the citizenship test. Anybody let me know I got citizenship test because this report is cleared or there can be some problem in the interview after clearing the test.

Appreciate if anybody faced problem with the interviewer after clearing the citizenship test. Thanks

I am no expert. I am not a Canadian lawyer. No personal experience of the sort you ask about.

I can offer some observations:

Based on assuming you were issued a new PR card back in 2019, it is NOT likely there will be any *problem* related to the preparation of a 44(1) Report. (Back in 2017?) You might be asked questions related to that history. Be sure to answer the questions truthfully.

I cannot guess what the actual, formal disposition was in regards to that 44(1) Report, but the fact that it did not result in any negative action against you in 2019, when you applied for a new PR card, is a big sign it is NOT a problem.

If you did not receive a new PR card in 2019, or at least one following the PR card application you made back then, that would make it far more difficult to discern what your situation is. But even then, I cannot be certain but it seems very, very likely that if the 44(1) Report was a problem it would have resulted in a negative action on the citizenship application before now.

So, basically, if you finally received your new PR card, odds are near certain there is no problem and even otherwise, very good there is no problem. But you may be asked questions including questions related to the circumstances around the time you returned to Canada from the U.S., after a long absence, when you were 23. There is a fair likelihood you will be asked about "prohibitions." I am not familiar with how these questions are currently being posed; back during in-person interviews, many times the applicant was asked to sign a "prohibitions" form which entailed written questions very similar to the prohibition question in the application form. Again, you just answer the question as honestly, truthfully as you can.


Other general observations:

Re the interview (generally):

Reports of a problem with the interviewer, in regards to citizenship application procedures, are rare. If there is a problem with the applicant's eligibility, or questions about the applicant's information, at most (usually) the interviewer asks questions related to the issue but does not confront or challenge the applicant. Obviously individual experiences vary widely. After all the facts and situations vary widely. But the interview is typically straight forward, about showing certain documents and answering fact questions. If there is a problem, that will typically come up AFTER the interview, through communications after the interview. That said, some applicants have been specifically informed there was this or that issue, and for in-person interviews some receive RQ-related requests at the time of the interview; there is far less reporting of details in regards to virtual interviews, but I believe some applicants have been told they will need to submit this or that and otherwise advised a request for information or documents will be coming.


A Tangent Re 44(1) Reports:

These observations are not about what the OP is dealing with, or at least it appears the OP's 44(1) Report situation was resolved favourably.

In responding to this query I noticed that the prohibitions questions ask about being "under a removal order," but not about being issued a 44(1) Report. In the vast majority of cases this makes sense because once a 44(1) Report is prepared it usually (by a big margin) results in a formal disposition: either it results in the issuance of a Removal Order (sometimes labelled a Departure Order; same thing) or it is set aside. The 44(1) Report is resolved, one way or another, not an open issue (if a Removal Order is issued, the validity of that and whether there are H&C reasons for relief even if it is valid, will remain unresolved while an appeal is pending).

In a small percentage of cases, similar to what the OP is reporting here, the interview with a reviewing officer is not done immediately following the preparation of the Report. Typically, as the OP likewise reports, the PR is advised there will be a follow-up contact. What I learned somewhat recently (and failed to record the source unfortunately, but it was an official decision by either the IAD or a Federal Court) is that the PR is not always given a copy of the 44(1) Report, and that it is not necessary for the PR to be given a copy unless and until a Removal Order (Departure Order) is issued (and even then, if the PR's contact information is not valid, the Removal Order is still effective against the PR).

Once the 44(1) Report is prepared, even if no copy is delivered to the PR, that triggers the operation of the Regulation pursuant to which time in Canada, after that, does NOT count toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation. No expiration date.

Which means a PR who knows a Report was prepared against them at a Port-of-Entry should make sure that their contact information with IRCC is correct and current. Otherwise, if IRCC attempts to make contact and that fails, the official reviewing the Report might make a decision based on the information in the Report (and the PR's GCMS records) without getting the PR's side of the story, including H&C related factors. And without giving the PR notice of the decision. And no matter how long that PR remains in Canada, they remain "under a Removal Order," and days in Canada do not count.

What is not certain is how IRCC will handle an unresolved 44(1) Report. Again, there is no expiration date. Days in Canada after the report has been "prepared" (not "issued," not "delivered," but "prepared") do not count toward meeting the PR RO.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR THE OP. The application for a PR card back in 2019 alone almost certainly would have triggered action on the 44(1) Report if it in anyway remained operative. If there had been a negative disposition with a lack of notice due to a lack of effective contact information, that almost certainly would have triggered a negative action on the citizenship application either during the completeness screening or at least at the CPC-Sydney before the application was referred to a local office. So even if it is not absolutely certain this is not an issue for the OP, here, the odds are very high it is not a problem.

A long way around to making a REMINDER: if and when a PR is referred to Secondary at a PoE, it is really important, in the PR's best interest, to make sure the officials have accurate contact information for the PR.

 

[sgaur]

I am no expert. I am not a Canadian lawyer. No personal experience of the sort you ask about.

I can offer some observations:

Based on assuming you were issued a new PR card back in 2019, it is NOT likely there will be any *problem* related to the preparation of a 44(1) Report. (Back in 2017?) You might be asked questions related to that history. Be sure to answer the questions truthfully.

I cannot guess what the actual, formal disposition was in regards to that 44(1) Report, but the fact that it did not result in any negative action against you in 2019, when you applied for a new PR card, is a big sign it is NOT a problem.

If you did not receive a new PR card in 2019, or at least one following the PR card application you made back then, that would make it far more difficult to discern what your situation is. But even then, I cannot be certain but it seems very, very likely that if the 44(1) Report was a problem it would have resulted in a negative action on the citizenship application before now.

So, basically, if you finally received your new PR card, odds are near certain there is no problem and even otherwise, very good there is no problem. But you may be asked questions including questions related to the circumstances around the time you returned to Canada from the U.S., after a long absence, when you were 23. There is a fair likelihood you will be asked about "prohibitions." I am not familiar with how these questions are currently being posed; back during in-person interviews, many times the applicant was asked to sign a "prohibitions" form which entailed written questions very similar to the prohibition question in the application form. Again, you just answer the question as honestly, truthfully as you can.


Other general observations:

Re the interview (generally):

Reports of a problem with the interviewer, in regards to citizenship application procedures, are rare. If there is a problem with the applicant's eligibility, or questions about the applicant's information, at most (usually) the interviewer asks questions related to the issue but does not confront or challenge the applicant. Obviously individual experiences vary widely. After all the facts and situations vary widely. But the interview is typically straight forward, about showing certain documents and answering fact questions. If there is a problem, that will typically come up AFTER the interview, through communications after the interview. That said, some applicants have been specifically informed there was this or that issue, and for in-person interviews some receive RQ-related requests at the time of the interview; there is far less reporting of details in regards to virtual interviews, but I believe some applicants have been told they will need to submit this or that and otherwise advised a request for information or documents will be coming.


A Tangent Re 44(1) Reports:

These observations are not about what the OP is dealing with, or at least it appears the OP's 44(1) Report situation was resolved favourably.

In responding to this query I noticed that the prohibitions questions ask about being "under a removal order," but not about being issued a 44(1) Report. In the vast majority of cases this makes sense because once a 44(1) Report is prepared it usually (by a big margin) results in a formal disposition: either it results in the issuance of a Removal Order (sometimes labelled a Departure Order; same thing) or it is set aside. The 44(1) Report is resolved, one way or another, not an open issue (if a Removal Order is issued, the validity of that and whether there are H&C reasons for relief even if it is valid, will remain unresolved while an appeal is pending).

In a small percentage of cases, similar to what the OP is reporting here, the interview with a reviewing officer is not done immediately following the preparation of the Report. Typically, as the OP likewise reports, the PR is advised there will be a follow-up contact. What I learned somewhat recently (and failed to record the source unfortunately, but it was an official decision by either the IAD or a Federal Court) is that the PR is not always given a copy of the 44(1) Report, and that it is not necessary for the PR to be given a copy unless and until a Removal Order (Departure Order) is issued (and even then, if the PR's contact information is not valid, the Removal Order is still effective against the PR).

Once the 44(1) Report is prepared, even if no copy is delivered to the PR, that triggers the operation of the Regulation pursuant to which time in Canada, after that, does NOT count toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation. No expiration date.

Which means a PR who knows a Report was prepared against them at a Port-of-Entry should make sure that their contact information with IRCC is correct and current. Otherwise, if IRCC attempts to make contact and that fails, the official reviewing the Report might make a decision based on the information in the Report (and the PR's GCMS records) without getting the PR's side of the story, including H&C related factors. And without giving the PR notice of the decision. And no matter how long that PR remains in Canada, they remain "under a Removal Order," and days in Canada do not count.

What is not certain is how IRCC will handle an unresolved 44(1) Report. Again, there is no expiration date. Days in Canada after the report has been "prepared" (not "issued," not "delivered," but "prepared") do not count toward meeting the PR RO.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR THE OP. The application for a PR card back in 2019 alone almost certainly would have triggered action on the 44(1) Report if it in anyway remained operative. If there had been a negative disposition with a lack of notice due to a lack of effective contact information, that almost certainly would have triggered a negative action on the citizenship application either during the completeness screening or at least at the CPC-Sydney before the application was referred to a local office. So even if it is not absolutely certain this is not an issue for the OP, here, the odds are very high it is not a problem.

A long way around to making a REMINDER: if and when a PR is referred to Secondary at a PoE, it is really important, in the PR's best interest, to make sure the officials have accurate contact information for the PR.

In 2019, PR card was issued for a year not for a 5 years. So I feel the report u/s 44 is not removed yet. I have applied PR card again. Authorities may issue this card in coming weeks. If they will issue card for 5 years, then I will feel that the positive action on the report is taken otherwise the report is still hanging on the head.

 

[dpenabill]

In 2019, PR card was issued for a year not for a 5 years. So I feel the report u/s 44 is not removed yet. I have applied PR card again. Authorities may issue this card in coming weeks. If they will issue card for 5 years, then I will feel that the positive action on the report is taken otherwise the report is still hanging on the head.

Overall, odds are you will need to ride this out, wait to see what IRCC's next move is, and doing so without knowing much about how it will go, what will happen. Not a satisfying response. Sorry.

Be sure to keep IRCC updated regarding your contact information. Watch for and respond accordingly to notices or requests.

Main alternative would be to lawyer-up.


Longer Observations With Some Explanation:

Even though this is not good news, your update and clarification are much appreciated.

Unfortunately this, a one-year PR card, signals a big difference. Make that a BIG DIFFERENCE.

There is more to the story. And what that is, precisely, will probably make the difference. As I said in my previous post:

If you did not receive a new PR card in 2019, or at least one following the PR card application you made back then, that would make it far more difficult to discern what your situation is. ​

In that previous post I glossed over the possibility the new PR card issued in 2019 was a one-year card (my posts are already so long, and there are so many possible tangents). But yeah, this too makes "it far more difficult to discern what your situation is."

The actual status of the 44(1) Report is key. Reminder: once a 44(1) Report is "prepared" that triggers the Regulation pursuant to which days IN Canada do NOT count toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation. Unless and until there is a resolution of the 44(1) Report, for purposes of calculating your compliance with the RO you are NOT getting credit for the time you have been in Canada for the last . . . four years?

So a 44(1) Report having been prepared against you, and even though it was not resolved, that meant when you applied for a PR card in 2019 you were still in breach of the PR RO. I suspect you thought the two years you had remained in Canada meant you were in compliance. But because of the 44(1) Report, NO, those two years did NOT count toward meeting the RO.

Which leads to what we would EXPECT. I would have expected that PR card application to trigger resolution of your status, one way or the other. (There are some tangents here, but I will skip those for now.)

But the way the rules are designed to work is NOT always how things actually go. Stuff happens. (Which is a big part of why I so often emphasize what is *likely* and wince when I see posts asserting how things will for sure go.) And even in regards to how the rules are designed to work, and the vast array of particular circumstances that can affect their application in real cases, there are more than a few *wrinkles* and quite a few anomalies. And that's not counting when things go awry, off-the-rails, which happens, part of what is possible knowing that stuff-happens.

On the other hand, it is not uncommon for PRs to be confused about what happened during a Port-of-Entry examination, or at least not fully understand the technicalities.

In Any Event: the Details Matter. The actual status of the 44(1) Report is key. Without knowing those details it is, again, very difficult to discern what your situation is, including in regards to the status of your citizenship application. Even knowing more details it might still be difficult to get a good grasp of the situation.

Many here might suggest using the ATIP procedure to obtain a copy of your GCMS records. But you need more than the generic application, since you really need information about more than just a copy of the GCMS records in the citizenship application file. You could attempt to make a customized application yourself, but frankly that would probably require, to be useful, more homework than you are likely prepared to do.

The safest approach is to lawyer-up, not with just any lawyer, or even just any immigration lawyer, but a lawyer with substantial expertise and experience in these matters. Even doing that will demand doing some significant homework and will be costly.

Question is whether or not to gamble some, to take the risk of waiting to see what IRCC does next. It can be emotionally and psychologically taxing to wait without knowing much about how things will go, without knowing much about what might happen let alone what will happen. But you have been riding this in limbo now for years, so far not great but getting by . . . and leading to . . .

Thing is, you have been here all these years. IRCC knows where you are. You have engaged in multiple transactions (PR card application; citizenship application). It does not look like there is any affirmative action being actively pursued to terminate your PR status let alone remove you from Canada. You appear to have a citizenship application in process without any serious questions, at least not yet, regarding your eligibility. And as I also noted in my previous post:

I cannot be certain but it seems very, very likely that if the 44(1) Report was a problem it would have resulted in a negative action on the citizenship application before now.​

But, yeah, the one-year PR card signals that at least as of when that was issued there was still an outstanding 44(1) Report against you. A problem. Question is whether it is still a problem. Even if I had a crystal ball it would likely be cloudy for this question.

I rarely suggest gambling, but you have been gambling, including that fairly big gamble of coming here to stay. Probably a significant risk of some additional hurdles to overcome. Perhaps there is some risk you could lose status in Canada, but this seems low, maybe in a range between rather unlikely and very unlikely. Again, the safest approach would be to lawyer-up, but most in this situation will likely grit their teeth, watch for news, and carry on hopefully.

Main things: be sure IRCC has your current contact information, watch for notices and requests, be honest in any and all responses to IRCC or CBSA. And hang in there.

Edit to add a clarification regarding my earlier post:

Once the 44(1) Report is prepared, even if no copy is delivered to the PR, that triggers the operation of the Regulation pursuant to which time in Canada, after that, does NOT count toward meeting the PR Residency Obligation. No expiration date.
. . . .
What is not certain is how IRCC will handle an unresolved 44(1) Report. Again, there is no expiration date. Days in Canada after the report has been "prepared" (not "issued," not "delivered," but "prepared") do not count toward meeting the PR RO.

In that post I said this should not be a problem for the OP. Wrong. This does appear to at least have been a problem. Again, the question is whether it is still a problem.