[SIZE=large]
Self-assessment as to strength of case:[/SIZE]
Why engage in a brutal self-assessment?
The best clue you have available, as to whether you are likely to be referred for a CJ hearing, is your own knowledge of all the facts in your case. But you are profoundly biased. Inherently. Unavoidably. That's how our brains work.
Only by engaging in a merciless examination of any potential flaws or weaknesses in your case can you really identify what the risks are, let alone how to prepare for a CJ hearing in a way which would maximize your chances for a favourable outcome.
For the vast majority of applicants there is little or no need to do this. Foremost, for the majority the facts and circumstances are very straight-forward, no questions, no CIC concerns, even if RQ'd the response to RQ readily resolved any concerns. They are fine. They are on track to be scheduled for the oath. No problem beyond knowing when . . . no question as to what the outcome will be.
Your case has been reviewed at CEN and after that review it is still designated "hearing required." As noted above, we do not know for sure what this means at this stage, but there is at least a significant prospect that you are indeed on a track destined for a referral to a Citizenship Judge, and if there is such a referral it will most likely be negative, with a CJ hearing in the forecast.
Again, the best clue you have available, as to whether you are likely to be referred for a CJ hearing, is your own knowledge of all the facts in your case, but you are profoundly biased. If you can overcome your natural biases, and objective weigh the evidence and the facts in your case, you should be able to discern what your risks are.
Background considerations:
Much of the preceding discussion above was a long way of saying it is not clear whether your case is actually on-track for a Citizenship Judge hearing or not. That's the critical thing to know. That's what makes a difference in what you do now and going forward. A big question for you is whether to just wait and see what happens next, or to begin preparing for an in-person hearing sooner rather than later.
Since you declared more than 1095 days actual presence, my understanding of the new process is that you cannot be denied citizenship without, at the least, being specifically notified of what particular problems CIC has identified relative to residency, or at the least an in-person hearing with a Citizenship Judge. The latter seems the most likely. Both are possible (and, to my view, that is how it should be . . . but how-it-should-be has not been a strong indicator of how CIC actually does things of late).
Technically both the Citizenship Officer and the CJ can make even a negative decision without a hearing, at least that is CIC's interpretation. Again, see
Program Deliver Instruction titled "Referring applications to a citizenship judge", and
PDI titled "Decision-making without the personal appearance of citizenship applicants".
But my sense is that given the declaration of presence greater than 1095 days, you cannot be denied unless there is at least an implicit finding your account lacks credibility. This, I think (again, so much is in transition it is difficult if not impossible to specifically
know), requires an in-person hearing, an opportunity for you to personally make your case and for the ultimate decision-maker to assess your credibility.
As already noted at length, with too much verbosity as is many will conclude, I have emphasized that it is very difficult to know, based on the ATIP report, whether your case is on track for a CJ hearing.
But you know the facts of your case. The real facts. You know what you submitted in the application. You know what you submitted in response to RQ. You know your history. You know where you were living, where you were present, where you were working . . . you know almost everything that CIC could possibly consider.
If you could put on a CIC Citizenship Officer's cap and see your case through that officer's eyes, approaching what the actual facts are (including what has been submitted) with the mindset of a bureaucrat who is a total stranger and who, at this stage probably is focused on particular issues or questions or concerns in the case identified and highlighted by the review at CEN, you could, yourself, probably know what the general odds are . . . odds of a hearing . . . odds of a denial.
This is not be easy to do. Indeed, it is incredibly difficult for us to conduct a truly objective self-assessment, let alone a brutal, merciless self-assessment. Our thinking naturally gravitates toward the evidence which supports our case.
Being brutally objective; conducting a merciless self-examination:
First, disregard all the factors which support your case. Set all the positives aside. Then focus intently on the minutiae, the details.
Declarations of travel/absences:
First, there is the residency declaration itself and its accuracy, including especially its completeness. And comparing the residency calculation submitted with the application with the accounting of travel/absences submitted in response to the RQ. The latter should have disclosed day-trips. The former, with the application, probably did not.
Compare each and every date with all other information you have, the respective declarations (again, in the application and in the response to RQ),
looking for inconsistencies or incongruities. Focus on potential flaws or weaknesses, potential errors. Be meticulous.
Be prepared to explain and correct any and all omissions, inconsistencies, incongruities, or anything else which indicates a flaw or weakness in your case. Missing stamps? Undisclosed day-trips? Dig for problems. Dig hard for any potential problems. And be prepared to explain and/or correct any problems.
Employment or history of other activities:
Again, compare the history in your application with the history in the response to RQ, meticulously, looking for inconsistencies or incongruities, looking especially for
gaps. Any gap for a given month, or especially more, looms problematically.
Review the documentation you submitted in response to RQ relative to
every month and look for any month that the documentation might not encompass. This does not mean that there needs to be documentation specifically referencing each and every month, but that the documentation should at least fully cover ranges of months, and all together leave
NO gaps, no months not documented.
For example: if you reported being employed in Canada for 40 months during the relevant time period, be sure there is documentation in the response to the RQ which actually supports that for
all 40 months. If your documentation only supports 37 of the 40 months, that can be a problem . . . even though 37 months is enough to cover the three years required residency, what can loom larger is an absence of proof as to the other three months, which can damage the applicant's credibility.
Thus, any gap, any gap at all, get prepared to explain and/or correct.
Place of abode history:
This can loom huge. The address history needs to be more than just a residential address where the applicant received mail and was sometimes located. It needs to have been the actual place of abode.
Again, inconsistencies and incongruities need to be identified as best you can. Most importantly, though, any gaps need to be identified, including gaps in the supporting documentation. Here again, documentation showing where in Canada the applicant was living for 37 of the 40 months the applicant declared he or she was actually living in Canada
falls short and can be a significant problem.
Obviously, if the documentation directly supports a finding as to actual place of abode for only 35 months (less than 36 months, that is less than three years), that can loom as a huge problem.
A ton of evidence as to 35 months may fall short:
For the vast majority of applicants, CIC infers presence for in-between dates. For routinely processed applicants, this goes so far as to infer presence in Canada for all dates between a declared last-date-of-entry until the next-date-of-exit. For RQ'd applicants, the response to RQ should well document additional particular dates in Canada, so the range of inferred in-between dates is less, the evidence sufficient for CIC to infer, again, the applicant's presence in-between known dates in Canada. Documentation of place of abode and place of employment help considerably to bolster making such inferences.
For the applicant CIC apprehends compromised credibility . . . that is, for an applicant whose residency declaration is challenged by CIC . . . the inferences may go the other way: any gaps in proof can lead to the inference the applicant
may have been outside Canada during that time.
This leads to the
burden of proof, and that the burden of proof is on the applicant. Thus, any gap in the proof can lead to a negative outcome. CIC does not need to conclude the applicant was outside Canada in the questioned time period. All CIC has to do is conclude that the applicant has failed to prove presence in that time period.
Thus, solid, solid evidence of actual presence for 35 months can still fall short if CIC concludes the applicant's credibility is compromised and there is not sufficient proof for the remaining month.
The one month gap can loom way, way, way larger than all the other months combined.
Overall
The big key for a
residency case, particularly one in which the applicant has declared more than 1095 days actual physical presence, is
credibility.
If there is no reason for CIC to question your credibility, you probably have little or nothing to worry about, you probably will not actually be scheduled for a CJ hearing.
You should know if there is a reason for CIC to question your credibility, but again that probably demands looking past your perspective of the evidence, of the facts, and being brutally skeptical looking through the eyes of a total stranger bureaucrat.
If you can dig into the case with a profoundly negative eye and you still conclude you made a strong case in your response to RQ, relax, probably not much to worry about.
If, however, you dig into the case and you identify questions, even questions you feel you can easily answer, probably better to get prepared for a hearing, prepared to affirmatively submit more evidence and make a case. Best to have a lawyer's help in doing this and to be represented at the hearing.