Montrealer2012 said:@Exports.
Thanks for your concern.
Here is my story:
We had the test in February 2014 and after that we didn't hear anything. In July 2014, they said may be there is a judge hearing. Then the CIC call centre agents said to call after 36 months as it was a non-routine application. I called in Sept 2015 (36 months after applying) and they said there might be a cj hearing but they don't know when. My atip report (printed sept 2015), says they have not processed the rq i sent after the test. So I am not sure what is going on. I am so tired of this opacity and ridiculous delay!
Sorry to read about your ordeal, but I have exactly the same problem
We landed in 2009 we applied dec 2012, did the test in dec 20. We were give rq on the same day of the test. In dec 2015 and after sending cic tons of other documents , they decided that we now are awaiting a CS Judge hearing.My husband live abroad to make a living for us , his pr was cancelled .
I spent hours trying to find a lawyer to represent me in this process and still cant find a good one in Montreal .
we are still not given a date for the hearing but was told the process of waiting is very long and up to 2 years if not longer[flash=200,200]http://[/flash]
Hearing with Citizenship Judge
- Thread starter egyo
- Start date
Some Observations Regarding Waiting for CJ Hearing:
Past timelines are not indicative of current timelines. We can anticipate the timeline will be much less going forward than it has been in the past. How much less is a guess.
Moreover, as always, the actual timeline varies considerably from one individual to another.
Additionally, it is difficult to know who will actually go to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge. Those with a significant shortfall, sure, they can probably anticipate they will be among those who have to wait to see a CJ. For others, however, even if the interviewer said the case will go to a CJ, that is not necessarily how it will go, and for qualified applicants who submitted a reasonably complete response to the RQ, the odds are fairly high the case will be decided by a Citizenship Officer, no CJ hearing, resulting in being scheduled for the oath. Timeline still varies considerably and is difficult to predict.
Note regarding references to actions or statements by a CO: casual references to "CO" can refer informally to a "case officer" or more formally to a "Citizenship Officer." The interviewer, for example, often is not a Citizenship Officer, but in the forums some refer to the interviewer as a "CO." The role of a Citizenship Officer is formal and more official, the officer being a delegate of the Minister and whose decisions are, in effect, the Minister's decision.
Regarding backlog and already very long timelines:
There is no guarantee, particularly not for specific individuals, but overall my impression is that almost all the backlog will get resolved this year. Thus, while the timeline is still relatively unknown, and will continue to vary considerably from one individual to the next, I believe that the vast majority of old cases will be decided this year.
Some individuals, however, may have cases which continue to linger on for a long while. This has been the case for a long time, that some individual cases get mired in extremely long delays. This occurred prior to Harper's first government, going back more than a decade ago, and thus occurred well before the huge slowdown in processing which began around 2009 and was at its worst in 2012.
The number of cases which continue to linger for inordinately long time periods should be quite small. Those affected should have a good inkling they might be among this small group and why, ranging from obvious questions about the veracity of their submissions to security concerns (protests to the contrary tending to be implausible).
Overall: most of those who have already been interviewed can probably anticipate their case reaching its conclusion this year.
As I have oft suggested, for those who anticipate they will actually go to a CJ hearing, that is a big deal, that is in effect an informal trial . . . technically it is quasi-judicial, and thus the strict formalities of trials do not apply, but it is nonetheless largely an adjudicatory process and it is almost certain that the government will have submitted an adverse argument opposing the grant of citizenship. Thus, while in style it is much like an interview, in practice applicants should go to the hearing prepared as if going to trial. Many would be prudent to obtain legal representation.
Past timelines are not indicative of current timelines. We can anticipate the timeline will be much less going forward than it has been in the past. How much less is a guess.
Moreover, as always, the actual timeline varies considerably from one individual to another.
Additionally, it is difficult to know who will actually go to a hearing with a Citizenship Judge. Those with a significant shortfall, sure, they can probably anticipate they will be among those who have to wait to see a CJ. For others, however, even if the interviewer said the case will go to a CJ, that is not necessarily how it will go, and for qualified applicants who submitted a reasonably complete response to the RQ, the odds are fairly high the case will be decided by a Citizenship Officer, no CJ hearing, resulting in being scheduled for the oath. Timeline still varies considerably and is difficult to predict.
Note regarding references to actions or statements by a CO: casual references to "CO" can refer informally to a "case officer" or more formally to a "Citizenship Officer." The interviewer, for example, often is not a Citizenship Officer, but in the forums some refer to the interviewer as a "CO." The role of a Citizenship Officer is formal and more official, the officer being a delegate of the Minister and whose decisions are, in effect, the Minister's decision.
Regarding backlog and already very long timelines:
There is no guarantee, particularly not for specific individuals, but overall my impression is that almost all the backlog will get resolved this year. Thus, while the timeline is still relatively unknown, and will continue to vary considerably from one individual to the next, I believe that the vast majority of old cases will be decided this year.
Some individuals, however, may have cases which continue to linger on for a long while. This has been the case for a long time, that some individual cases get mired in extremely long delays. This occurred prior to Harper's first government, going back more than a decade ago, and thus occurred well before the huge slowdown in processing which began around 2009 and was at its worst in 2012.
The number of cases which continue to linger for inordinately long time periods should be quite small. Those affected should have a good inkling they might be among this small group and why, ranging from obvious questions about the veracity of their submissions to security concerns (protests to the contrary tending to be implausible).
Overall: most of those who have already been interviewed can probably anticipate their case reaching its conclusion this year.
As I have oft suggested, for those who anticipate they will actually go to a CJ hearing, that is a big deal, that is in effect an informal trial . . . technically it is quasi-judicial, and thus the strict formalities of trials do not apply, but it is nonetheless largely an adjudicatory process and it is almost certain that the government will have submitted an adverse argument opposing the grant of citizenship. Thus, while in style it is much like an interview, in practice applicants should go to the hearing prepared as if going to trial. Many would be prudent to obtain legal representation.
What does that mean, exactly?dpenabill said:
I agree here. A CJ hearing is not to be taken lightly. Those who show up w/o counsel and find themselves in hot water won't get a do over, as any judicial review--if they even get one--will be on the existing record. If you are told you are going to a CJ hearing, you can bet CIC wants to deny you and legal counsel would be a good idea, even if it is just to tell you your best course of action is to withdrawal and apply again.dpenabill said:
Query posed is in reference to this:links18 said:
"The number of cases which continue to linger for inordinately long time periods should be quite small. Those affected should have a good inkling they might be among this small group and why, ranging from obvious questions about the veracity of their submissions to security concerns (protests to the contrary tending to be implausible)."
The quoted observation is rife with imprecise markers, including terms like "tending," "ranging," and "good inkling." In particular, any reference to some thing "tending" to be this or that is necessarily imprecise. Thus, there is NO exact meaning and logically there can be no exact meaning. (While lacking the English professor's command of the language, and being no lexicologist by a long shot, I nonetheless make an effort to employ words judiciously, purposively.)
The terms I used I did so deliberately.
The observation is not about particular rules or explicit principles. It is not about exact quantities or qualities. It is about general circumstances or situations, and how these tend to affect how things go, in terms rooted in estimation rather than calculation, certainly not precise calculation.
The gist of the observation, however, should be fairly clear if not obvious. Applicants bogged down well beyond the scope of what the vast majority of applicants experience are generally bogged down due to this or that factor or circumstance in their case, and no one knows the particulars of the individual's case better than the individual himself or herself. Over the years, though, this and other forums have been rife with examples of applicants in such circumstances protesting that they know of no reason at all why their case has run off the rails and is mired in difficulty if not overt suspicion.
I did not mean to suggest that all such protests lack credibility, but most tend to lack credibility and are, thus, generally implausible.
This leads to a broader discussion about contested residency cases in general.
Last internal information I saw (it has been awhile though) indicated that any RQ'd application was in the category of a residency case, and remained a residency case unless and until a responsible officer determined the applicant met the residency requirement. In the past, many, many RQ'd applicants were qualified and it was readily discernible they were qualified. Thus the reports reflected that most RQ'd applicants were on a path to take the oath, without going to a CJ hearing, despite the inconvenience and delays involved in going through the RQ process.
For those on a track destined for a CJ hearing, however, their application continues to be a residency case after the initial assessment of the response to RQ. Not all cases will actually result in a CJ hearing. These cases end up in a queue for a Citizenship Officer to assess and determine whether to refer the case to a CJ. Those applications which will be referred to a CJ involve a referral by the Citizenship Officer, prepared using the File Preparation Analysis Template (FPAT), which to date I know of no one outside CIC, or perhaps additionally a few lawyers, who have been able to see what the FPAT actually consists of.
At this stage of processing, the post-test, post-interview, post-submission-of-RQ-response stage, is when the Citizenship Officer is, in essence, making CIC's (again, now IRCC's) decision to grant citizenship or refer the case to a Citizenship Judge. This is the real fork in the road. This is when a Citizenship Officer finally decides the applicant has sufficiently established residency, or whether it really is a residency case which requires the quasi-adjudication of a CJ hearing.
Almost everyone, who finds their case in that group to be referred to a CJ at such a stage, should have been able to anticipate there was at least a significant risk of this happening. And they should be able to discern from their knowledge of the facts, of their own history, of what they submitted, at least a general, in the ballpark idea about why.
Many, however, protest that they have no idea why. Generally those protests are implausible.
I do not, and did not, mean to suggest that all such protests lack credibility, but most tend to lack credibility and are, generally, implausible.
For example, most applicants destined for a CJ hearing should have been fairly able to predict this, based on what they know about their own situation and history, and what they submitted to CIC (now Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship). Again, not necessarily each and every one, but most. Understanding what matters in the processing of citizenship applications does not require an advance degree in engineering let alone a sophisticated grasp of higher mathematics or theoretical jurisprudence. And no one, no one in the whole world, knows the applicant's case better than the applicant himself or herself. (Well, I suppose there are some who have used consultants and are not really well acquainted with what they submitted . . . but in that case they know the key factor, that they have made an application without properly verifying the contents of it before signing confirmation of the veracity of its contents.)
In contrast, how to best navigate the process, especially for those applicants with complex cases or otherwise problematic circumstances (lost passport for example, even if the loss was entirely faultless), can benefit from the advice, input, or even representation of a qualified legal professional. It is one thing to recognize what can and is likely to lead to problems and a CJ hearing (significant shortfall in actual days present, or again the lost passport, or a significant discrepancy in declared absences and other indications of travel, among others), or what can lead to extra-ordinary delays (such as any criminal record or even association with persons engaged in criminal activity, even if not a current prohibition; or security concerns, such as, for example, for an applicant who has spent a considerable amount of time, since becoming a PR, in certain troubled areas in the world), which the individual is in a position to know as well as, and probably better than anyone else, versus knowing how to best navigate the process in such a case.
To be clear about what an attorney can do or cannot do, an attorney's primary source of information about the facts, about what matters in the case, come from the client. The applicant who is clueless about the state of his or her case, who really does not know what factors or circumstances are likely to be causing concern, is more likely to discover a lawyer cannot help all that much. The lawyer cannot take an X-ray or have a MRI exam performed to find out what there is beneath the skin of the case: most of what the lawyer will have to work with must come from the applicant himself or herself.
The tendency in the forum is to suggest applicants who run into an issue to make the ATIP application for a copy of their record. While there are circumstances in which that is a prudent course of action, in the vast majority of cases the applicant can readily figure out what is going on just from doing a careful, thorough, and objective examination of his or her case, and in doing that learn far more about what problems might be lurking and discern far better how to best navigate from there. I recognize my view about this is contrary to the majority view, at least in this and a couple other forums, but no one in the world knows the facts better than the applicant himself or herself. A lawyer's help in interpreting the facts, and applying the rules and law to the facts, may be of much benefit to many, but the applicant himself or herself is the one who knows the facts best.
The most obvious example is the applicant who made an error in declaring the number or dates of trips abroad, who blames this on missing passport stamps or an incomplete CBSA travel history. The applicant was there, each and every time the applicant left Canada and every time the applicant returned to Canada. No one, and certainly no government body, is guaranteed to have anywhere near that degree of access to the particular facts. More than a few argue vehemently that Canada should keep better track of when PRs exit and return to Canada. But the PR knows, for certain, when he or she is leaving Canada, and for certain when he or she returns to Canada. No government body can be certain it knows this.
While there are no data sources to confirm what underlies most cases which end up going to a residency hearing with a Citizenship Judge, in following the reports in multiple forums and following the officially published Federal Court cases, my sense is that it is fairly easy to see that the main reasons why applicants end up in a contested residency case are:
-- foremost, shortfall applications, applying with less than 1095 days actual physical presence (this will disappear, however, for applications made after June 11, 2015)
-- discrepancies between declared travel and what is discerned about the applicant's travel by CIC (now IRCC), that is, omissions or errors in the residency calculation
-- missing travel documents or something which has led CIC to suspect the applicant is not presenting all travel documents
Beyond those, other sorts of perceived discrepancies are the most likely reason an applicant gets bogged down in a contested residency case, the nature and extent of the discrepancy or apparent discrepancy being the main factor in whether or not the case goes to a CJ or whether a Citizenship Officer is satisfied with what the applicant submits in response to RQ.
There are other factors or circumstances which may push a RQ'd case into a full blown residency case.
But overall, whatever the reason, the applicant knows the facts and should be able to figure out what is problematic. The applicant who was unemployed for much of two or more years, for example, does not need a crystal ball to discern the prospect of negative inferences if is it unclear how the applicant was supporting himself during that time and there is less than convincing evidence of where he was living for all those months.
Those cases which end up at a CJ hearing these days almost always involve specific issues or concerns about residency.
This was not the case before 2014. It has only been since August 1, 2014, per Bill C-24, that CJ hearings became, almost exclusively, cases in which the applicant's residency is challenged by a Citizenship Officer who has reviewed the case including the applicant's submissions in response to RQ.
And before 2012 scores of applicants went to a CJ hearing without being interviewed first, let alone being RQ'd.
So a lot of the anecdotal stories based on going to a CJ hearing some time in the past are no longer relevant.
The experience reported by egyo, the OP in this topic, is relevant to current processing, and it is, as is typical and common, a shortfall case.
The situation for Montrealer2012 is not so clear, particularly since Montrealer2012 reports meeting all the requirements but not sure what the issue is.
I am not suggesting anything in particular about Montrealer2012's situation. In general, it should not be that difficult for Montrealer2012 to do a thorough and objective evaluation and discern what the likely issues or concerns are. At the least, Montrealer2012 is in the best position to know, far, far better than any call centre representative for example. But sure, there is the odd case here or there in which someone at CIC has misinterpreted a piece of information in a way that cannot be predicted by the applicant, so that applicant can be hung up in an unusually protracted process without understanding why. This is by far the exception.Montrealer2012 said:
An ATIP response is not likely to illuminate the underlying concern or issue.
It is probably just as likely that one of these days Montrealer2012 will get notice to attend the oath as it is likely it will be a notice for a CJ hearing. That said, Montrealer2012 is nonetheless the person in the better position to assess which way this is likely to go. And probably should make the effort to figure this out in order to better prepare for a CJ hearing in case there is a CJ hearing.
Particular concern if NOT a shortfall case:
The applicant who, like egyo, made a shortfall application but who, otherwise, made a solid application and made a responsive RQ submission, has a fairly clear task: making a case which emphasizes the extent to which the applicant's life was and continues to be centralized in Canada, and doing this in a way which persuades the CJ to apply a Koo-like qualitative test rather than the strict physical presence test.
The applicant who, however, made an application declaring actual presence for at least 1095 days but who, nonetheless, ends up with a full-blown residency case (headed for a CJ hearing), has to dig a little deeper to identify the potential, problematic issue.
At the least, however, the applicant knows that someone at CIC (again, now it is IRCC) found reason to question the applicant's declarations of travel. There is something in the case which has led CIC to doubt the applicant was actually present when the applicant declared he or she was present.
That is, the applicant knows CIC does not believe his or her account of dates present, dates abroad.
The "why" not may not be overtly obvious, but usually there are some fairly clear clues. As noted above, missing travel documents or identified discrepancies between what the applicant declared and what CIC determines, are the usual suspects.
In this regard, it is worth emphasizing that once CIC identified reason to doubt the applicant's declarations about travel, the applicant's practical burden is much higher. Technically the burden of proof is and remains submission of evidence to prove beyond a balance of probabilities that the applicant was present in Canada for 1095 or more days. Practically, however, once CIC has reason to doubt the applicant's declarations, CIC does not make an effort to recalculate based on what it can identify as questionable days.
It is, in contrast, then the applicant's burden to submit evidence sufficient to persuade the CJ that the applicant met the residency requirement. And, depending on the particulars of the case, the applicant may need to do this with minimal inference about presence between dates of entry and next date of exit.
Some such cases are not all that complicated or difficult. Some are extremely complicated. Some applicants may be able to resolve the questions the Citizenship Officer had fairly easily, especially if the underlying concern is fairly specific and a simple answer suffices to explain. The complexity of the underlying questions varies greatly. The extent to which unwarranted negative inferences are at stake varies greatly. A lot can depend on what ultimately is merely a misunderstanding. Thus, some applicants simply appear at the CJ hearing, answer questions in a way which resolves the outstanding concerns, and the CJ will approve, and IRCC will schedule the oath (not appeal).
Or not.
Once the application is headed for a CJ hearing, the risk of a more problematic outcome is such that, to my view, the assistance of a legal professional is well advised. That said, the applicant himself or herself should, by then if not much sooner, have made a concerted effort to conduct a thorough and objective, preferably brutally objective, assessment of the case. That would be far more informative than any ATIP response.
Great feedback! But I have a question: Will old cases (from 2010, 2011, 2012) who were referred to CJ Hearing lately treated in the same way as those who were referred to the CJ Hearing based on the new rules that became effective in 2015? Thanks in advance!
While I am not sure what you are getting at, and with the caveat (again) that I am no expert, I suspect you are referring to "new rules that became effective in 2014" rather than 2015.egyo said:
The requirements for grant citizenship changed, effective June 11, 2015.
But the procedure itself, and the role of Citizenship Officers and Citizenship Judges, changed effective August 1, 2014.
As of August 1, 2014 a Citizenship Officer had the authority to grant citizenship, no approval by a Citizenship Judge necessary. As of this same date, with perhaps limited exceptions, only residency cases would be referred to a Citizenship Judge.
There are aspects of this which I only observed in late 2015 (which I have posted about in other topics), but that is in large part due to the lag in time as to when certain aspects become apparent to the public (I have no inside information whatsoever).
Substantively, yes, indeed, the date of application matters a great deal. Applications made after June 11, 2015 will be summarily denied if the applicant does not meet the minimum physical presence requirement. Applications made prior to that only needed to meet what was then the basic residency requirement to be eligible, and then were subject to a determination whether they also met the residency requirment of three years resident in Canada.
Today, and going forward, for those who applied prior to June 11, 2015, if referred to a CJ hearing, the CJ can apply either a strict physical presence test, requiring 1095 days actual presence, or apply a qualitative test.
For those who applied June 11 or later, the CJ will only decide whether the applicant has sufficiently proven presence for at least 1460 days within the relevant four years, and at least 183 days presence in each of at least four calendar years fully or partially within the six years preceding the date of application.
========================================================================================================
Hello All,
My citizenship application was approved by citizenship judge. I did not have any lawyer. However, MCI filed for the judicial review which has been granted leave.
Now my hearing is in August. I would like to know if I can present myself without any lawyer? OR Lawyer is compulsory? If I hire a lawyer to represent me, can I also attend the hearing? What will happen in hearing? Cross questions? What documents I can send to the judge office before the hearing? Citizenship judge will also be there who approved my application?
Thanks
Filed: March 2012
Test: September 2014
RQ: December 2014
Judge Hearing: Jan 2017
Judicial Revie by CIC: Feb 2017
I am no expert, but no expertise is necessary to see that a lawyer's assistance at this stage is important, more than a good idea.
The applicant for citizenship (who is the respondent in a case appealed by the Minister) can appear and represent himself or herself before the Federal Court. A lawyer is not legally or technically required.
However, using the services of a lawyer at this stage could really make a difference.
The process in the Federal Court is far more formal, and more strict, than in the quasi-judicial hearing before a Citizenship Judge. It would be a shame to come this far and then lose due to a technicality which a lawyer could avoid.
I have a very limited understanding about how these hearings are conducted in practice. There is NO evidence submitted. The decision must be based on the record, on the evidence which was before the Citizenship Judge. Indeed, reviewing the record, and assuring a proper record of the proceedings to that point, is one of the critical functions a lawyer can do much better than most or nearly all pro se parties (persons representing themselves).
Since no new evidence can be considered, there are no documents to submit like there were to CIC/IRCC or to the Citizenship Judge. However, if the record has problems, or is incomplete, I think a party can make submissions regarding this, to correct the record for example. A lawyer's assistance in determining what might need to be submitted at this stage would be helpful.
I am not sure whether written submissions or arguments, such as memorandums or briefs, are submitted. That is, I am not sure to what extent there are formal, written arguments made in these cases, whether by way of memorandum or briefs. Lawyers are typically way, way better at preparing and submitting written arguments. They know what the issues are. Non-lawyers tend to get bogged down in aspects of the case which do not matter. Non-lawyers can hurt their case more than help.
The Citizenship Judge will not be there. The Federal Court will have the CJ's written decision to review.
The parties are the Minister, who is represented by counsel and is not present, and the applicant for citizenship. I believe parties can be present in the hearing even when represented by a lawyer, so you should be able to attend. Probably make a better impression to attend.
Personally, I would make an effort to obtain the assistance of a lawyer. Again, it would be a shame to come this far and fail due to a technicality or because your side of the case is not persuasively made to the Federal Court.
=========================================================================================================
Thank you. You have answered all my questions with concise detail. Appreciate it. Now, I am in the process of looking for an experienced lawyer
and if you or if anyone else has a recommendation, do let me know.
What would be the cost of hiring a lawyer roughly? How much they charge in these type of cases? How long is the hearing? Decision will be made right there? If not, how long it usually takes after the hearing? What are my chances if I was actually here in Canada during my citizenship time frame?
Thanks & Regards
===========================================================================================================
Dear Dpenabill,
I am hiring a lawyer. Does someone know if judges can deny the cic officer/minister application and advise to proceed with the oath after judical review hearing? what decisions can they give? is proceeding with oath is one of them?
A lawyer could explain how this can go a lot better than I can.
A lot depends on the CJ's decision and what the CJ stated in support of that decision.
The Federal Court can conclude the appeal is without merit, and thus dismiss it. In that case IRCC should (and most likely would) proceed to schedule the applicant for the oath.
The Federal Court can conclude that the CJ's reasons, for the decision, are not adequate to support the decision, or that the decision is otherwise, for this or that reason, not reasonable or valid. If the Federal Court does this, then the case will usually be sent back to be reconsidered. This can mean it goes back to a different CJ to reconsider the case, or it goes all the way back for a Citizenship Officer to reconsider the case. If the Minister wins the appeal, this appears to be the most common outcome.
However, in some cases it appears the Federal Court can directly overrule the CJ, and in effect give IRCC authority to deny the application. I am not sure this is how it would actually work in a given case. Avoiding this outcome is one of the reasons having the assistance of a lawyer is a good idea.
Another possible route things could go is an agreement between the parties that the CJ's decision is flawed and the case should go back to a different decision-maker, usually a different CJ (possibly, depending on the facts and circumstances, back to a Citizenship Officer). This may indeed be a very reasonable outcome if the CJ did make mistakes. But navigating this without a lawyer is precarious. A lawyer can better judge whether this is a prudent outcome, and if it is, better make sure this is done properly, in a way that protects your rights and interests.
Good luck. Please keep us advised as to how this goes.