Searching for the new RQ!

[eileenf]

Hi all,
I'm still looking for a copy of the new RQ (CIT 0171 10-2013) to put up on residencequestionniare.wordpress.com
I've had a few promising leads, but none have come through.

Please get in touch with me if you have a copy of the new RQ that you can scan. The RQs are the most heavily search-for item on the RQ website. They are very helpful references to people!

All personal info would be removed before posting (of course). I can do it if you can't.

 

[eileenf]

There are thousands of these out there. If someone can scan one before filling it out, it would help out many people and be a good example of how we can work together to better inform and help one another.

 

[EasyRider]

adame, is it possible to upload it somewhere, if its really CIT 0171 (10-2013)?

That form is slightly different from previous iteration in wordings and requests and it'll help to know what the difference is.

 

[eileenf]

Found the new RQ!

Got a copy (thanks to R.V.!)
http://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com/cic-documents/cit-0171-10-2013

However, it looks like this was only in use between November 2013 and early January 2014. FYI. *Correction: It may still be in use, simultaneously with the other RQ.

I do not see any difference beyond limiting the period for information and documentation to the legally relevant 4 years.

 

[Msafiri]

My interpretation is that the 09-2013 version is back because it enables a review of the case based on the 3 residency 'tests' 2 of which are where the applicant does not have 1095 days of actual physical presence. This is in keeping with the current Citizenship Act which does not refer to residence as physical presence. It would be quite right for example for an applicant denied Citizenship based on the 10-2013 version to appeal and win at the Federal Court on the basis that CIC did not cover documentation pertaining to residence pre the 4 year qualifying period because that period must be considered in determining when residence was first established - this would be primarily for decisions on the KOO aka centralized mode residence test.

I expect the 10-2013 version or revised future date to return to circulation once the new Citizenship bill requiring 1095 days of APP is made into law...given the importance the Feds have on this expect a Canada Day type target royal assent date!

The RQd applicant is best to go with the days listed in their RQ version to cover themselves...one can always ask for more time to submit additional data subject to CIC getting a response by the stated timeline. No response they will just close your file.

 

[links18]

My interpretation is that the 09-2013 version is back because it enables a review of the case based on the 3 residency 'tests' 2 of which are where the applicant does not have 1095 days of actual physical presence. This is in keeping with the current Citizenship Act which does not refer to residence as physical presence. It would be quite right for example for an applicant denied Citizenship based on the 10-2013 version to appeal and win at the Federal Court on the basis that CIC did not cover documentation pertaining to residence pre the 4 year qualifying period because that period must be considered in determining when residence was first established - this would be primarily for decisions on the KOO aka centralized mode residence test.

I expect the 10-2013 version or revised future date to return to circulation once the new Citizenship bill requiring 1095 days of APP is made into law...given the importance the Feds have on this expect a Canada Day type target royal assent date!

The RQd applicant is best to go with the days listed in their RQ version to cover themselves...one can always ask for more time to submit additional data subject to CIC getting a response by the stated timeline. No response they will just close your file.

What if one was given a Cit-0520 and they did not request any documents outside the four year period? What does that mean?

 

[Msafiri]

Sorry I don't quite understand your query. Did you get the 09-2013 version of the RQ?

My take is that Cit 0520 is a Mandamus pre-emptive form by CIC...its hard to say they haven't done anything when they can tell the FC Judge hey we sent the applicant a test schedule notice...despite this being meaningless as it doesn't give you a date!! As night surely follows day each applicant will get to test (age exception excluded) so CIC should be saving a few hundred trees and instead hire more staff!

I haven't followed the trend of late but I recall a spate of applicants getting the test within a month of the Cit - 0520...once your application is non-routine then all bets are off and it depends on your situation and who at CIC is reviewing your file.

 

[eileenf]

Msafiri, you are thinking of CIT 521. CIT 520 is the request for documentary evidence of residence in Canada. http://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com/cic-documents/cit_520-e/
Links18, I'm not sure if I understand your question either, but in general, I think it's better to get CIT 520 than to get a full RQ because it suggests that the CIC has very specific concerns rather than general concerns. The CIC is specifically telling you what to provide rather than playing coy about what they're looking for (as they do with RQ).

 

[links18]

Msafiri, you are thinking of CIT 521. CIT 520 is the request for documentary evidence of residence in Canada. http://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com/cic-documents/cit_520-e/
Links18, I'm not sure if I understand your question either, but in general, I think it's better to get CIT 520 than to get a full RQ because it suggests that the CIC has very specific concerns rather than general concerns. The CIC is specifically telling you what to provide rather than playing coy about what they're looking for (as they do with RQ).

Here is my query: On the Cit 520 form I am familiar with documents were requested ONLY for the four year period. However, according to Msafiri's logic, the RQ requests documents/evidence since landing in order to prepare the file for the CJ to make a decision on one of the common law residency tests. Given that logic, if one is given a form CIT 520 and the only requested documents are from the four year period, this would seem to indicate that the CO is not inclined--at that point--to recommend a full hearing. Of course, this is pure speculation. There is also a place on the form that indicates a CJ him/herself could issue a CIT 520.

On stalling Mandamus: I don't think simply telling someone to be prepared for the test would be enough to avoid a mandamus order. CIC must be making meaningful progress processing the application. I am not sure that would count. Moreover, if the processing time has already been unreasonably long, CIC can't get a free pass on doing nothing with the file for years simply because they picked it up and started moving it two weeks ago. I would think one could still get a mandamus order compelling them to finalize the matter in a given period of time.

 

[Msafiri]

Msafiri, you are thinking of CIT 521. CIT 520 is the request for documentary evidence of residence in Canada. http://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com/cic-documents/cit_520-e/
Links18, I'm not sure if I understand your question either, but in general, I think it's better to get CIT 520 than to get a full RQ because it suggests that the CIC has very specific concerns rather than general concerns. The CIC is specifically telling you what to provide rather than playing coy about what they're looking for (as they do with RQ).

My bad...yeah CIT 520 aka RQ lite. The from date a to date b will indicate if this mirrors my logic for the 10-2013 or 09-2013 versions of the full RQ.

Here is my query: On the Cit 520 form I am familiar with documents were requested ONLY for the four year period. However, according to Msafiri's logic, the RQ requests documents/evidence since landing in order to prepare the file for the CJ to make a decision on one of the common law residency tests. Given that logic, if one is given a form CIT 520 and the only requested documents are from the four year period, this would seem to indicate that the CO is not inclined--at that point--to recommend a full hearing. Of course, this is pure speculation. There is also a place on the form that indicates a CJ him/herself could issue a CIT 520.

On stalling Mandamus: I don't think simply telling someone to be prepared for the test would be enough to avoid a mandamus order. CIC must be making meaningful progress processing the application. I am not sure that would count. Moreover, if the processing time has already been unreasonably long, CIC can't get a free pass on doing nothing with the file for years simply because they picked it up and started moving it two weeks ago. I would think one could still get a mandamus order compelling them to finalize the matter in a given period of time.

On balance:

1. since this CIT 520 appears to be issued to mostly post OB407 applicants
2. we are now mostly under a pre-test RQ regime
3. most applicants are aware of the futility of applying without 1095 days of physical presence
4. CBSA captures most entries

Its in my opinion indicative that the CO is generally ok with your application but there was an RQ trigger flag that has to be dealt with. Knowing your exact profile would add value to a response primarily if you were employed on a full time basis with a non mom and pops/relatively unknown set up for which remuneration was paid by direct deposit, identifiable employer cheque with T4s issued and NOAs available. Likewise your travel movement and really whatever the RQ trigger was.

In regards to the Mandamus I see where you are coming from but being informed there is a scheduled date is legally a step being taken...arguing about the value of the step being taken doesn't negate there has been action which is step 1 of a Mandamus argument/ application. Add to this that CIC can factor in background timelines into the notification and it gives them plenty of room to manoeuvre...the aces are pretty much in their hand until the day we move to a pre-application test process like most other major countries but hey CIC would lose a capacity controlling step!

 

[links18]

My bad...yeah CIT 520 aka RQ lite. The from date a to date b will indicate if this mirrors my logic for the 10-2013 or 09-2013 versions of the full RQ.

On balance:

1. since this CIT 520 appears to be issued to mostly post OB407 applicants
2. we are now mostly under a pre-test RQ regime
3. most applicants are aware of the futility of applying without 1095 days of physical presence
4. CBSA captures most entries

Its in my opinion indicative that the CO is generally ok with your application but there was an RQ trigger flag that has to be dealt with. Knowing your exact profile would add value to a response primarily if you were employed on a full time basis with a non mom and pops/relatively unknown set up for which remuneration was paid by direct deposit, identifiable employer cheque with T4s issued and NOAs available. Likewise your travel movement and really whatever the RQ trigger was.

CIT 520 seems to be mostly a post-test device so far. In the instance I am aware of, it was issued to an applicant whose application made it out of Sydney and to the test without triggering an RQ during the height of OB-407 days. Of course, it took said applicant 26 months to get a test date. You tell me if 26 months just to get the test is reasonable given that there were no flags or issues raised during that period at all. The only thing CIC did during this two plus year period was run a few background checks. Now CIC wants to review documents and even says a full RQ could be coming if they aren't sufficient. Sorry, they don't get a pass on letting the application sit for over two years, during which they did nothing more than run some checks that in themselves took days, weeks or at the most a couple of months to complete.