+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

“Hearing Required” in my ATIP Report

Watu

Full Member
Jul 9, 2015
25
1
I received the ATIP report in the first week of July 2015, and here is the summary

Application Received → Sept. 2013
Start Processing → Nov. 2013
File Transfer to Ottawa → Feb. 2014
Test → May 2014
RQ → May 2014 (This is a Pre-Test RQ and for some reason it was in the application file and CIC did not mail it to me. In the ATIP report it is mentioned that the RQ was initiated in Feb. 2014)
RQ Submittal → June 2014
File Transfer from Ottawa to St Clair → Oct 2014
Refer to 2nd Decision Maker → Mar. 2015
File Transfer from St. Clair to Montreal CEN for RQ Analysis (VPA/CEN ON) → April 2015 (Additional Note: RQ sent to Montreal CEN to be matched to file)
RQ Recvd and matched to file. PB by Montreal CEN → May 2015
File transfer from Montreal to Ottawa Local Office → June 2015

I have noted the following:-

- FOSS was renewed on Mar. 2015
- In the last ATIP Report which was ordered in Mar. 2013; the status for all the Hearing fields were “not required”, but in the current ATIP Report all those field turned to “Hearing Required” updated on May 2015. Even for the completed status for the “Testing” turned from “Completed” to “Hearing Required”
- Decision is still pending

I will appreciate your help to understand the status of my application, and if the hearing is required by CJ or an Officer.

I submitted my application with 1130 Days with no travel outside Canada
 

janoo

Hero Member
May 16, 2014
995
22
Did you pass the test ??? seem to me that hearing with the judge for
test ? any how if you have completed required number of days than there

will be no issue take all the papers with you when you receive notice for
hearing.. hope it will be not too long as the cases are completing within a
year from now onwards.
 

Watu

Full Member
Jul 9, 2015
25
1
janoo said:
Did you pass the test ??? seem to me that hearing with the judge for
test ? any how if you have completed required number of days than there

will be no issue take all the papers with you when you receive notice for
hearing.. hope it will be not too long as the cases are completing within a
year from now onwards.
Thank you for your reply. Yes I passed the test with 20/20 and was interviewed by a nice officer who introduced the hearing note as “Not Required” in May 2014 after the test. I have no problem with my English language. Then when my file was reviewed by Montreal CEN office; they changed the hearing from “Not Required” to “Hearing Required” under the activity 9 (Testing)
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
Watu said:
Any comments/ advices from senior members. I will appreciate your reply
Note: the other response you obtained was, well, not really responsive and you can mostly disregard that.

The simple response is obvious: you have a residency case.

Beyond that there are many unknowns, a lot of contingencies, and the whole panoply of residency case issues and complications.

Note, for example, I began a drafting a response days ago, but in trying to offer anything of import, the tendency was to get bogged down in a lot of complications, uncertainties, explanations for things still in transition, all rife with difficult what-ifs and if-this then-that or maybe-this observations.

Overall, again, the simple observation is that you have a residency case and that it is still a residency case after being referred back to the local office following a RQ review at CEN. Not a good sign but there are still too many uncertainties to rule out the possibility that the next step might be the oath.

I am not certain what follows will help that much. I offer it with the hope that some parts of it may help you clarify what you are up against and plan your way forward from here. It is not certain you are headed for a CJ hearing, but the prospect of that is significant enough to warrant getting prepared.

Thus, For What is Worth:

(Note: I have had trouble posting this; I will attempt to post my observations in two or three posts, rather than one, due to size . . . this is long.)
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
Watu said:
I received the ATIP report in the first week of July 2015, and here is the summary

Application Received ? Sept. 2013
Start Processing ? Nov. 2013
File Transfer to Ottawa ? Feb. 2014
Test ? May 2014
RQ ? May 2014 (This is a Pre-Test RQ and for some reason it was in the application file and CIC did not mail it to me. In the ATIP report it is mentioned that the RQ was initiated in Feb. 2014)
RQ Submittal ? June 2014
File Transfer from Ottawa to St Clair ? Oct 2014
Refer to 2nd Decision Maker ? Mar. 2015
File Transfer from St. Clair to Montreal CEN for RQ Analysis (VPA/CEN ON) ? April 2015 (Additional Note: RQ sent to Montreal CEN to be matched to file)
RQ Recvd and matched to file. PB by Montreal CEN ? May 2015
File transfer from Montreal to Ottawa Local Office ? June 2015

I have noted the following:-

- FOSS was renewed on Mar. 2015
- In the last ATIP Report which was ordered in Mar. 2013; the status for all the Hearing fields were “not required”, but in the current ATIP Report all those field turned to “Hearing Required” updated on May 2015. Even for the completed status for the “Testing” turned from “Completed” to “Hearing Required”
- Decision is still pending

I will appreciate your help to understand the status of my application, and if the hearing is required by CJ or an Officer.

I submitted my application with 1130 Days with no travel outside Canada
[SIZE=large]Residency Case:[/SIZE]

The main thing you know: you have a residency case.

There are two types of residency cases for applications made before June 11, 2015 (well, three if you count cases designated (by CIC) as possible residency fraud cases).

The two types of residency cases are:

-- shortfall cases, cases in which the applicant declared less than 1095 days of physical presence

-- questioned residency cases, in which the applicant declared at least 1095 days physical presence but CIC has identified a reason to question this

You appear to have the latter.

There have been so many changes in the internal process at CIC, including processing RQ'd cases in particular, and CIC publicly discloses so little about its internal practices, even for those who have long been diligently following residency case processing, there is a lot currently unknown. In particular, the Citizenship Officer assessment stage and what leads to a referral to Citizenship Judges is very much behind the curtain at CIC.

Once an application is at the stage of actually being referred to a Citizenship Judge, which for practical purposes are only residency cases in which a Citizenship Officer has already decided to NOT approve a grant of citizenship based on residency, that process is better known, primarily through published decisions by the Federal Court. CIC also has included a specific Program Delivery Instruction for CJ referrals. See Program Deliver Instruction titled "Referring applications to a citizenship judge" (this is a link).

A key thing to be learned in the PDI in particular is that the only reasons for a referral to a Citizenship Judge now, for pre-June-11-applicants, are cases in which the Citizenship Officer is not satisfied that the applicant is a permanent resident (which appears to not be applicable to you) or not satisfied that the applicant met the residency requirement. (For this, see section titled "When to refer an application to a citizenship judge" in the Program Deliver Instruction titled "Referring applications to a citizenship judge".) This is also a fairly clear interpretation of the provisions of the SCCA which took effect August 1, 2014, but the PDI confirms this.

More simply, practically, this means: Citizenship Judge hearings are for residency cases.

Note: If you are very confident about the proof of residency you submitted in response to the RQ, there may be no reason to worry, to just wait to see what the next step is at CIC. If, however, you are actually destined for a hearing with a Citizenship Judge that is bad news, that probably (albeit not certainly) means that CIC has identified specific reasons to not accept your account of physical presence.

So I fully understand why you are anxious to know whether or not what is reflected in your ATIP response indicates there will be a CJ hearing. Unfortunately we do not know for sure (will explain why below), but that at least allows for the possibility that no, that rather a Citizenship Officer may still be doing the final CIC review and decision-making . . . and, again, if you are very confident about the proof of residency you submitted in response to the RQ, there may be no reason to worry, to just wait to see how this unfolds.

There is real reason to hope in this regard, again if you are confident about the strength of your case, since in the PAST the "hearing required" notation was more or less a default status for residency cases until the responsible Citizenship Officer made a final decision about whether or not to make a referral to a Citizenship Judge.

Make no mistake, however, if your case is on track to be referred to a CJ, your application is likely in trouble, CIC has already made a more or less negative assessment, and it would be a good idea to obtain the assistance of a reputable, competent lawyer experienced with grant citizenship cases.



Does "hearing required" notation in GCMS mean a Citizenship Judge referral?

These days I do not know, and have seen no reliable reports regarding what the "hearing required" notation in GCMS (your ATIP response is a query generated report from your GCMS records) means in particular. Moreover, it is not possible to glean all that much, from the ATIP report, about the status of your case vis-a-vis what will happen next or where this is headed.

As already noted, in the past "hearing required" was often more or less the default status of residency cases (of course that status continued for those who were actually, eventually, scheduled for a CJ hearing, but for many the next step was the oath despite the "hearing required" notation) . . . but a lot has changed. We just do not know, at least as yet, how those changes are reflected in things like the GCMS report provided in response to ATIP applications. Moreover, when it was the case that "hearing required" was often a sort of default status, it usually appeared following the issuance of RQ itself.

There are some obvious typos in your initial post, so the timeline relative to previous events (previous ATIP request and issuance of RQ) is unclear or at least uncertain to me. For example, the reference to the last ATIP request dated "Mar. 2013" is long before the listed date of the application "Application Received -- Sept. 2013". I nonetheless assume the last ATIP was before RQ and note that would be consistent with the earlier ATIP not including a "hearing required" designation given that RQ had not yet been issued.

However, I have not seen enough reports since August 1, 2014 (when the new decision-making procedure itself took effect, resulting in much more decision-making authority for Citizenship Officers) to discern whether the "hearing required" notation is still typical for RQ'd cases or only for RQ'd cases specifically identified, later in the internal processing within CIC, as residency cases.

It remains quite possible that the "hearing required" notation means little more than that the residency issue remains undetermined, that a Citizenship Officer has not reviewed the case toward making a final CIC decision. This is why I have said, above, if you are very confident about the strength of your response to the RQ, there may be no reason to worry much. Note, however, that is a huge if, a really huge IF.



Transfer from CEN to the local office:

What this means would probably tell the tale. In my following residency cases I have only seen a few, sporadic references to CEN referrals, and frankly they have been less than illuminating. It is readily apparent that the CEN office conducts some kind of centralized review of at least some RQ'd cases regarding residency. It is not clear, but it appears some RQ'd cases do not get referred to CEN. It is also apparent that some (emphasis on some with no insinuation as to what portion) RQ'd cases referred to CEN are reviewed and sent back to the local office and subsequently followed by scheduling of the oath.

And, obviously, some cases are on track for a CJ hearing with a substantial likelihood of a denial.

It must be emphasized that the reports leading to these observations are few and sporadic and not altogether clear . . . and of course all anecdotal reports in the forums inherently warrant a measure of skepticism as to their reliability.

The transfer from CEN to the local office just took place in June. It is next to impossible to discern from the ATIP response the results of the review of the RQ at CEN. That's one of the things that really matters. While "hearing required" seems scary (if indeed you are scheduled for a CJ hearing, that is bad news, probably very bad news), what really matters is whether your case is actually on a track headed for a CJ hearing, and at this stage that's just a guess.

Note: whether it was a pre-test RQ or otherwise is largely irrelevant at this stage.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
[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.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
I apologize for the typos. Having difficulty posting and impossible to do a preview. So I am leaving the typos as is. I think you can read past the typos and understand what I have posted . . . despite its verbosity (sorry, that's me . . . I do not have the time to write these things more succinctly . . . it takes longer to write short than to write long).

I should emphasize that I am no expert. I am not qualified to give personal advice. I am just someone who has spent the last several years following residency cases and am offering what observations and information I can.
 

Watu

Full Member
Jul 9, 2015
25
1
dpenabill said:
I apologize for the typos. Having difficulty posting and impossible to do a preview. So I am leaving the typos as is. I think you can read past the typos and understand what I have posted . . . despite its verbosity (sorry, that's me . . . I do not have the time to write these things more succinctly . . . it takes longer to write short than to write long).

I should emphasize that I am no expert. I am not qualified to give personal advice. I am just someone who has spent the last several years following residency cases and am offering what observations and information I can.
Thank you dpenabill for your detailed reply. It is amazing how you describe all the possibilities of the status for my file in a professional manner.

I would like to highlight the following points:-

- My last ATIP Report was ordered in Mar. 2015 and not Mar. 2013 as mentioned in my earlier post. Sorry for the typing mistake.
- In my RQ Answers to CIC; I submitted the entry stamp, copy of the air ticket when I landed in Canada and copy of the Boarding Pass. In addition to that; I submitted the exist stamp when I left on leave AFTER I submitted my citizenship application (One day after I submitted my application, days are 100% correct), copy of the air ticket when I left Canada for leave for 37 Days, and copy of the Boarding Pass. The number of days between the “in” and “out” stamps/ tickets/ boarding pass proof that I was in Canada more than 1095 Days without any travel outside Canada as per CBSA record. Therefore; I am not sure where the credibility issue would come from? Even though I belief that the credibility in the only answer (which I do not accept) for the reason why my citizenship application got into this complicated process. Other reasons would be “Unknow” reasons for myself if the case that I have an issue with credibility.
- My application is a family application. I submitted my kid schools reports, my school reports, my tax papers, house mortgage, insurance papers, bank statements and lots of additional documents which are inline with the RQ requirements.
- As per the ATIP report; the reason for the Pre-test RQ is code A2 - NCB in FOSS, Warning or Note(s) in GCMS, which is totally unknow for myself.
- I do not have any visa to enter USA, therefore I cannot enter/exit USA
- In the current ATIP Report, below are the details of the Hearing requirements:-
• Activities/ Activities 8 → Type: Hearing/ Status: In Process
• Activities/ Activities 8/ Subactivities 1 → Type: Record Hearing Results / Status: Not Started
• Activities/ Activities 8/ Subactivities 2 → Type: Schedule Hearing / Status: Not Started
• Activities/ Activities 9 → Testing/ Status: Hearing Required (it was “Passed” in Mar. 2015)
• Activities/ Activities 9/ Subactivities 1 → Type: Record Test Results / Status: Hearing Required (it was “Passed” in Mar. 2015)
I am not sure if the above will make any difference.

Thank you again for your answers, and appreciate your support
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
Note, again, given the extent of changes which have been ongoing now for more than three years, it is difficult to really know if "hearing required" status at this stage indicates you are on track for a CJ hearing. You could receive an invitation to take the oath any day . . . or you may indeed be on track for a CJ hearing. The difference is huge, obviously, but I do not know anyone who can positively say one way or the other at this point (least not anyone who will say . . . sure, there are some personnel at CIC who know).

What you know remains the same: you have a residency case and you remain at risk for being referred to a CJ for a hearing, and if that takes place the burden of proof is entirely on you, and it is quite likely that CIC's referral to the CJ will highlight, perhaps emphasize, why you should be denied.

Your correction of the date of the prior ATIP report appears to clarify that "hearing required" is not automatically the status of all RQ'd applications, as it appeared to be previously (at least going back to 2012 and 2013), which illuminates a couple of things.

One is general, and that is that as I warned in my previous posts, CIC's internal processes and practices continue to evolve, are still changing, and given the changes it is as difficult as ever to draw conclusions from notations in the GCMS records disclosed to applicants.

The other is more specific to you, and that is that the "hearing required" notation appears to now be made after some level of review of the RQ response and, thus, is not a good sign. Still too difficult to draw concrete conclusions from the designation "hearing required," so this does not necessarily signal bad news, but it is not good news.

Thus, again, what you know remains essentially the same: you have a residency case, the type of residency case in which CIC has questions/concerns, perhaps doubts, perhaps even outright suspicions, regarding your residency declaration.

It can be very difficult to specifically identify what those might be or how serious they are. I am a firm believer that almost all applicants in this situation could, as I noted before, figure out what underlies the problem by engaging in a brutally objective self-assessment. But of course not all will be able to identify the problem this way . . . depending, obviously, on just what that problem is, on what information is leading CIC to have such concerns.

The reason RQ was issued in the first place often, if not usually, if not nearly always, does NOT illuminate the nature of what continues to be problematic in a residency case after the RQ response has been reviewed. The reason for RQ is a mere trigger, initiating the elevated scrutiny. But sure, in a significant number of cases, the reason for RQ can be rooted in an issue which continues to be the cause of CIC's concerns or suspicions.

And perhaps it is the content of the Non-computer based (NCB) entry into your records that is problematic.

If somehow you could identify even the date of that entry, that might help you conduct your self-examination (your own forensic examination, so-to-say) in search of what is problematic, so you can be prepared to deal with the issue if and when you actually have a hearing.

I could start guessing about this or that . . . perhaps it was your return to Canada 38 days after mailing the application, with something in your documents to indicate you had been outside Canada for 37 days . . . which might have appeared to indicate (to CBSA upon arrival) you were outside Canada when CIC received your application. So perhaps the CBSA officer screening you upon your return made the NCB entry into your record.

But that would indeed be a lot of guessing and it could be totally off what the real issue is.

While I am sure many others probably do not see it this way, I tend to think a residency calculation which discloses NO travel tends to draw more scrutiny not less . . . and, frankly, if there is then travel immediately after applying, that could raise questions in particular. But your response to RQ should have readily resolved questions related to this.

In other words, it is very difficult to identify what is underlying CIC's concerns if the applicant cannot readily recognize a reason through a brutally objective self-assessment. A whole lot of guessing really does not help and can be too much a distraction.

After all, short of CIC identifying a specific misrepresentation, which would ordinarily trigger a possible residency fraud case not just a residency case, doubts about the applicant's credibility can be overcome by strong documentary proof of all the key elements: dates of travel, place of abode, place of employment, all covering the full time period declared to have been in Canada, bolstered by other proof of activity in Canada, like doctor's visits, involvement in community activities.

In other words, it may be better to focus on filling in every possible gap relative to proof of travel, place of abode, and employment, for all time periods in Canada, with as much objective documentation as possible. That is, to focus on proving your case.

While in the nature of other guessing, but an issue warranting some attention if it possibly applies, if CIC perceives the possibility the applicant has had any other Travel Document which could have been used to travel, and has not submitted any such TD to CIC for examination, that can cause (usually will cause) a serious concern about the applicant's credibility and more specifically the completeness of the declarations of travel. This may not be at all related to your case, but I bring it up because this issue (possibility of use of another TD) is among more common issues leading CIC to doubt the applicant.

For now: probably just waiting to see what happens next is all you can do, short of proactively hiring a lawyer to help. Probably a good idea to continue to dig through your papers to find additional documents which can bolster your case, perhaps obtain statements (sworn statements are better than letters, but even letters could help) specifically stating what that individual knows about you -- no generalizations . . . specific facts are best, even if, for example, it is the statement of a neighbour who states how he or she knows you, and states he saw you regularly coming and going from your home during such and such a period of time, the more specific the better . . . and even if it is just a six month period of time, that helps for that six months, and then you gather documentation for the other months . . . until you have objective evidence covering as many of the months as possible. Perhaps fill in any potential gaps with a specific itinerary of activities you did during that period of time (attended this or that social gathering, this or that public event, as many as possible identified specifically as to the date).

But you might be scheduled for the oath next month, no problem.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,252
3,018
By the way: please report how this goes for you . . . in whatever direction it goes. This is how those of us who follow the reports acquire contextual information which, in conjunction with authoritative and official sources of information, helps to illuminate what CIC is doing and what indicators signify about the status of particular applications . . . that is, your reports can be important to furthering our collective understanding about how things work and how others may better navigate the system.
 

Watu

Full Member
Jul 9, 2015
25
1
dpenabill said:
By the way: please report how this goes for you . . . in whatever direction it goes. This is how those of us who follow the reports acquire contextual information which, in conjunction with authoritative and official sources of information, helps to illuminate what CIC is doing and what indicators signify about the status of particular applications . . . that is, your reports can be important to furthering our collective understanding about how things work and how others may better navigate the system.

Many thanks for your reply and support. I will keep you informed about any new developments in my file. I think that I need to start talking with a lawyer about my case
 

Watu

Full Member
Jul 9, 2015
25
1
Here is the latest updates; I received my Entry/Exit CBSA record after I submitted an ATIP request, I found that there is only one entry log appears in the report, and the date of this entry log is after I submitted my citizenship application. This is incorrect and contradicts the reality, so I communicated with CBSA by email to know the reason of this error in my CBSA entry record. CBSA program staff did another search based on the submitted passport copies of myself, and additional travel records for myself were found and mailed to me, which matches with my own travel record and with the information declared by myself to CIC in the Canadian Citizenship Application Forms.

Upon checking the four different entry/exit tables provided by CBSA, I observe an obvious errors in reading my passport’s data through the transit points at Canadian Borders, and there is a clear defect in reading of the Machine Readable Zone (MRZ) in my passport by the passport reading machine at the border points/ Canadian International Airports, because of the different coding format of the Machine Readable Zone (MRZ) for my passport than other known passports. The data coding for line 1 of the Machine Readable Zone (MRZ) for my passport shows my mother’s name as my first name, and consequently my mother’s name appears as if it is my first name in the entry/exit tables provided by CBSA. This is the reason why CBSA find difficulties tracking my Entry/Exit records and consequently did not send me the complete Entry/Exit records at the first request without further research by the program staff, as my first name did not match with CBSA database.

I sent a letter to CIC Local Office and explain the above, attach all the received entry/exit tables provided by CBSA, attach the international coding standard for the data coding for line 1 of the Machine Readable Zone (MRZ), my passport data coding for line 1, my passport copies with stamps (for the third time) and asked them to consider CBSA amended entry/ exit data in the case that the discrepancies between the CBSA Entry/Exit Record and the declared “Absences from Canada” submitted by myself in the citizenship application is the reason for the delay in the approval of my citizenship application.

I did not receive any reply yet from CIC, and I belief that they will never reply the same!

Any other suggestion. I will appreciate your feedback on the above
 

Rita80

Member
May 30, 2015
14
0
If the number of days matches with the new rules, Apply for a new citizenship application, you can have 2 active applications, try to put as much as possible supporting documents in the new application, you may finish the new one and make the oath while the old one is still going on.
 

Watu

Full Member
Jul 9, 2015
25
1
Rita80 said:
If the number of days matches with the new rules, Apply for a new citizenship application, you can have 2 active applications, try to put as much as possible supporting documents in the new application, you may finish the new one and make the oath while the old one is still going on.
I do not think that this is true. I would not be able to submit a second application without a withdraw of the first one. I wil not withdraw the first application. It is a matter of principle. I stayed in Canada for more than 1095 days without any travel, and I deserve the citizenship as per the Canadian rules which encouraged me to immigrate to Canada on day one. If the government do not respect those rules, then I prefer to find another place to live where rules are respected.